Tuesday, 27 May 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I wish to advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements: The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will be overseas on Government business from 27 May until 16 June. During his absence the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) will very capably carry out the duties of the Minister for Communications. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Prime Minister: Will the tax cuts promised for 1 September go ahead on that date? Mr HAWKE —During my absence overseas and since my return I have had a number of interesting and friendly conversations with my good friend and colleague, the Treasurer. I am pleased to say that we are ad idem on everything except one thing; that was, that I did not believe him on one point: He had told me that the Opposition had got even worse during my absence. I did not believe that it was possible but now, in the light of this question, I believe that the Treasurer is right. The position is quite clear. The Government will take note of any suggestions that may arise on this matter. I can say-as I believe the Treasurer has made quite clear-that the tax cuts will be delivered in this calendar year. In the Cabinet the process of making what is the appropriate economic decision in terms of the interests of this country will be followed. Mr MOUNTFORD —Is the Attorney- General aware of the outrage of many Australians at the proposed screening of the film Hail Mary at the Sydney Film Festival? Given that the Government is justifiably concerned that the views and beliefs of different religious groups be respected and protected-I cite, for example, Article 9 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill-will the Attorney-General overrule the R rating of the Film Censorship Board and ban the film for the sake of the beliefs of many Christians who regard the film as blasphemous? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This film has a controversial history overseas and has been branded by some as blasphemous. It was registered by the Film Censorship Board for exhibition in Australia. That Board was of the unanimous decision that the film was neither indecent nor blasphemous but sought to give a biblical history of the Virgin Mary in a contemporary setting. The Board stated that it had classified the film as a R restricted film. I am aware that the Censor has said: The majority voted for a `R' classification as they were of the opinion that some aspects of the film could disturb and offend some sections of the community who hold strong religious beliefs about the sanctity of the Virgin Mary. It is very true that there would be a lot of concern, particularly in Christian circles and especially in Catholic circles, that this film appears to ridicule and somewhat denigrate the Virgin Mary. Of course, there is the difficulty of looking at it in terms of the Film Censorship Board's rights in this matter. The film has been registered and released from the control of Customs and I have no power in the matter. But I think the issue is probably best dealt with in the sense that those who want to see it will see it, and the majority who perhaps do not want to see it should avoid it. Mr ADERMANN —Is the Treasurer aware that taxation officials are advising ordained and practising clergy that only a part of the manse, rectory or presbytery associated with the church would be considered as being used for religious purposes under the fringe benefits tax and the other part-say, two-thirds-would be considered as being for private use and would thus attract fringe benefits tax on the full market value, payable by the church? Can the Treasurer give a categorical guarantee, preferably in writing, that this vicious fringe benefit tax will not apply to such residences associated with churches? Mr KEATING —There has always been an exemption in the tax law in respect of clerical institutions. We have attempted to reflect that in the fringe benefits tax. I am not aware of any advice which the Commissioner of Taxation or his officers may have given to clergy. But the intention of the Government's provision is that the clerical function and the costs which may be reflected in the provision of that task or function are not to be subject to the fringe benefits tax. As the honourable gentleman has raised the question, I will ask the Commissioner what advice he has in fact offered and see whether this reconciles with the Government's policy decision. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is addressed to the Special Minister for State. Does the Commonwealth Electoral Act prevent the operation of parties as a coalition in an election? Mr YOUNG —No, there is nothing in the Electoral Act, as it operates at the moment, which prevents parties from operating as a coalition in any Federal election. For example, honourable members would have all seen the Opposition parties on some occasions operating on a joint ticket for the purposes of contesting a Senate election. However, the reasons for the conservative parties not operating as a coalition, of course, can be found elsewhere. Honourable members would be aware, of course, that for some time the Leader of the Labor Party in Queensland, Mr Neville Warburton, has been pointing out the very poor performance of the Queensland economy. Not very many commentators took up what Mr Warburton told us. But now that the campaign is under way, we find that the Liberal Party in Queensland has published a little booklet, which I recommend to all honourable members, entitled `Queensland- Crisis Economy'. It is in graph form so that National Party people can understand it. The first page-I will point it in the direction of cockies' corner-is headed `Unemployment Rate'. It states: Queensland has the highest unemployment rate in mainland Australia. The next page is headed `Tertiary Education' and states: Queensland has the lowest number of tertiary education students per . . . population in Australia. The next graph has this caption: Queensland has had no increase in full time employment. The page headed `Juvenile Unemployment' reads: The only State in which juvenile unemployment has increased is Queensland. The page headed `New Housing Commencements' reads: Queensland is the only state which has experienced a % decrease in the number of new housing commencements. The next heading is `New Vehicle Registrations'-- Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I submit that the question related entirely to electoral administration within the portfolio of the Special Minister of State. I submit that under standing order 145 an answer shall be relevant to the question. I therefore ask you to rule on the relevance of the tables he is now referring to and ask him to come back to the question he was asked. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr YOUNG —The next graph is new vehicle registrations. Queensland has had the lowest increase in new vehicle registrations of any State in Australia. Bankruptcies: Queensland has experienced the greatest percentage increase in bankruptcies. Private capital investment: Queensland has had the second worst decrease in private capital investment of any State. Industrial disputes: Queensland has had the greatest number of days lost per thousand employees of any State. Average weekly earnings: Queensland is the only State which has experienced a decrease in average weekly earnings for males. And so it goes on. This little booklet, `Queensland-Crisis Economy', has on its back the words: `Presented by Bill Knox, the Leader of the Liberal Party'. He goes on to tell us, interestingly enough, that one of the things the Queensland Liberal Party is promising is an `immediate review of spiralling power charges' in Queensland. After the industrial dispute of 1985 Joh boasted about how he had overcome all the problems of power in that State, but that has not come to pass. Then Bill Knox promises-here is another one for Joh-that the Government will `cut through the masses of red tape strangling business' in Queensland. I must say to the honourable member for Ryan: Congratulations! It is really well done, and it will appeal to National Party members. They do not have to go into any detail. It is all there. As this Government has invested more in child care, and as we go around the centres, we see things like this booklet. This is the way things are presented to kids, so that they will understand it. I am sure that the honourable member for Ryan and his colleague Sir William Knox have done an excellent job in following up the comments made by the Leader of the Labor Party in Queensland: That it is about time Queenslanders changed the Government up there. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Vice-President of the Council of State from Poland, Mr Mlynczak. On behalf of the members of the House, I bid him a warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —Does the Prime Minister agree that Australia now experiences inflation more than twice the industrial world average, very high real interest rates, a parlous balance of payments situation which implies that in 1986 Australia will have the worst trade imbalance of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with the exception of Greece, and an unacceptably high level of unemployment? Does he also agree that these problems go to the national interest as well as raising legitimate issues of partisan political debate? In view of the national interest which is involved, will the Prime Minister ensure that the Treasurer, before the House adjourns for the winter recess, makes a full and comprehensive statement to Parliament about the current economic situation and how the Government proposes to address it, so that this Parliament can be as well informed of the Government's views on the economy as will be the privileged participants at the special economic summit to be held early in June? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This Government is not only prepared but proud to look at its economic record and performance. We will go into the question of comparisons, and not only with the rest of the world. Before I complete this answer, I might, for the edification of the honourable gentleman and those behind him, go into a brief comparison of the performance of this Government with that of the Government over which he presided as Treasurer for such a considerable period. It will be a matter of very considerable interest. In regard to the other parts of the honourable gentleman's question, we are able to look at a performance over the last three years which will stand comparison with that of any country in the world. It has been made clear in recent days by my friend and colleague the Treasurer that the performance of the Australian internal economy is running according to the strategy set out by the Government at the time of the last Budget and, indeed, in important respects, it is doing better. He has pointed out correctly that the external economy, over which this country has substantially no control, has improved upon this country-- Mr Tuckey —You can say that again. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor! Mr HAWKE —The Treasurer has rightly referred to honourable members opposite as dummies. I can understand why. They probably find it impossible to understand-- Mr Tuckey —He was talking about you. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I do not think it is necessary for me to again read to you your rulings on this. If the Prime Minister wants to call us dummies, we will run his life history. When does he want his life history done? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The power to admonish a member of this House is something which you hold by virtue of your office. If you seek to use that power, you should do so within the Standing Orders. I submit to you that the honourable member for O'Connor rose on a point of order, referring you and the House to a ruling that you made in relation to controlling both sides of the House. I suggest that the warning to the honourable member was not justified, and that you reconsider it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will not shout at the Chair as he did when he rose to take the microphone. On repeated occasions the honourable member for O'Connor has been warned by the Chair not to interject and not to shout at the Chair. The Chair will not tolerate that. There is no point of order. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —Before going to those other comparisons to which I referred, let me say this about that part of the question of the Leader of the Opposition which asked whether I would ensure that the Treasurer gave certain information and made certain expositions to this House: The experience on this side of the House has been that, when the Treasurer or anyone else on this side of the House with responsibility for or involvement in the economic area makes an exposition, it is basically a waste of time as far as those on the other side of the House are concerned. The characteristic of this Government since it has been in office which has been an important part of its outstanding success in economic management has been its preparedness to consult with those involved in the Australian economy-the trade union movement and the business sector. That is one of the reasons why our performances stands out in such stark contrast to that of our predecessors. Just let me briefly give an indication of how that performance of this Government compares with that of our predecessors. I shall just quickly go through the six indicators. Firstly, I refer to economic growth and the position with regard to movements in non-farm gross domestic product. In the Fraser years what was the annualised rate of economic growth? It was 2.6 per cent. What has it been under this Government? It has been 4.9 per cent. That is the comparison. I go to inflation. What was the average annual rate of inflation under the Fraser Government? It was 10.4 per cent. What has it been under us? We have had an average of 6.5 per cent. What happened to profit share? What was the average under honourable members opposite? It was 13.9 per cent. Under this Government it is 15.3 per cent. What was the position in regard to employment under the previous Government compared with this Government? In the Fraser years, there was an average annualised rate of growth in employment of 0.8 per cent. Under this Government, the rate has been 3.5 per cent. The actual number of jobs created in the seven years under the Fraser Government was 339,000. In three years under this Government 669,000 jobs have been created-almost double the number of jobs in three years under this Government compared with the seven years in office of honourable members opposite. What was the legacy with regard to unemployment? It was 10.2 per cent. Under this Government the rate is 7.9 per cent, despite a rise of two percentage points in the participation rate. Finally, with regard to industrial disputes, what was the record of the previous Government? The average number of days lost was 3.02 million days per annum. Under this Government to December 1985 1.4 million days were lost. This Government will not only compare itself and be compared favourably with other countries; most importantly, when it comes to decisions by the electors of this country, they will compare the performance of this Government with that of our predecessors, and the decision will be overwhelmingly that they do not want to return to the incompetence of honourable members opposite. Their incompetence is matched only by their lack of principles. Mr STAPLES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Is he aware of any recent new policy proposals in education? Mr DAWKINS —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question because it provides me with an opportunity to share with the House and the nation some new views about the way in which education policy should be pursued at the Commonwealth level. I preface my remarks by saying that just a couple of weeks ago the shadow Minister for Education said in a debate in this place that he was not able to give us the full details of the Opposition's alternative education policy, although he intended to be able to do so within the next couple of months. A document has come into the hands of my colleague the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, and the heading on it is `Coalition Education Policy-Draft, Schools'. If the Minister's informant is correct in his description of this document, apparently it purports to be the coalition's draft policy on schools. I cannot really believe that this policy is for real; but, just in case it is, let me share its contents with the House. First of all, it is an intensely ideological document replete with contradiction, confusion and, most importantly, a most callous disregard for fairness to all Australians and particularly all school children. It proposes to abolish all Commonwealth grants, both to State and non-government schools. That means a little under $700m a year will be taken from the state schools and some $800m a year from the non-government school sector. The Opposition proposes to replace this with education vouchers which have been discredited everywhere they have been attempted. These vouchers will carry the title of `education credits' and will be provided to each parent on the basis that each parent is prepared to authorise payment to the school of his or her choice. One can just imagine the complexity of this arrangement in which three million school children are enrolled in Australian schools and, in order to obtain entitlement to Commonwealth support, the parents of each of those children will have to make separate application for it. Even the Opposition is aware of the idiocy of this proposal, so it is prepared to arrange for bulk billing of education payments. Opposition members repudiate these arrangements in relation to medical assistance, but they are prepared to embrace them in order to make this nonsensical policy a little more administratively possible. Additionally, there will be a provision for extra education credits for those people who are described as being in `needy families'. According to this document, the optimal mechanism from the Commonwealth standpoint is to provide the extra education credits to needy families through taxation rebates, the exact level of the rebate being dependent on the principal breadwinner's net taxable income. It may come as some surprise to the Opposition to realise that the neediest families in Australia, the families of the neediest school children in this country, do not have a taxable income. They are so poor they do not have a taxable income. Therefore it is a total mystery how the children of beneficiaries, for example, and of those people with very low incomes will be supported under these arrangements. As well, there is no reference at all to the Commonwealth's providing any capital assistance because this whole policy is based on the idea that the Government should provide benefits to students. Therefore, whereas under our policy we are able to plan with government and non-government education systems to ensure that there is provision for educational facilities when they are required, under this process the planning would be totally chaotic because Commonwealth assistance would not arise until such time as the child was actually a student. As well as that, there would be the abolition of the disadvantaged schools program, the abolition of the country areas program-I do not know what the National Party thinks about that-and the abolition of the special schools programs for those people who have educational disabilities. This is a total repudiation of the Commonwealth's proper role in the area of education. What the Commonwealth ought to be about and what it has been about, not only under this Government but also under other governments, is to see the equal provision of educational facilities across the country. Far from the equal provision of educational facilities, what this policy will lead to is educational ghettoes on the one hand and islands of educational privilege on the other. There will be a choice, but it will be a choice for those who can afford to choose; there will be no choice for those who cannot. I imagine the reason this policy was not released a week or so ago when the Opposition went into the mad skirmish of releasing everything it could lay its hands on is that obviously this is the subject of an immensely dispiriting debate within the coalition, or at least within the Liberal Party. I hope that this is the policy that eventually emanates because not only will it ensure absolutely the re-election of this Government but also children throughout Australian schools will continue to have the high standard of education which has been made available under this Government. Mr Sinclair —I take a point of order. I ask the honourable gentleman to table the purported policy statement from which he read. Mr Leo McLeay —Haven't you read it? Mr Sinclair —No, I have not. Madam SPEAKER —Will the Minister table the document from which he was reading? Mr Dawkins —Yes, Madam Speaker. Mr SINCLAIR —Can the Minister for Defence advise the House whether it was rocketing officer resignations in the Defence Force, major changes in defence procurement such as the scrapping of Project Waler and the Australian designed A10B trainer aircraft, and the news that real growth in defence spending will be cut to 1.5 per cent next year, or whether it was only the implications of the Dibb report for defence force structure which were behind the concern at the Beazley-Dibb `Fortress Australia' defence strategy expressed recently by the United States Secretary of State, Mr Shultz, and the Defense Secretary, Mr Weinberger, and the United States Commander-in-Chief in the Pacific? Mr BEAZLEY —The right honourable gentleman has asked me a question which requires a 20-minute answer. I am not quite certain exactly where to begin. I think I will start with the last point and work my way through, making, of course, my usual comparisons with the performance, or the non-performance, of the right honourable gentleman and his predecessors opposite when they were in office in regard to defence policy and planning in this country. I will start with the last point because I am in fact grateful that he raised that with me. It gives me an opportunity, because I suspect I know the particular article from which he took that quote, to repudiate it line by line. Mr Sinclair —It was the Anne Summers article. Mr BEAZLEY —No, it is not. The quote on which the right honourable gentleman based his question, if he was talking about what are alleged to be the views of the Defense Secretary of the United States, was from an article by Peter Samuel. The first point I would make on that is that I have had over the last several weeks, I suppose both over dinner and in formal meetings, something like nine hours of discussion with Secretary for Defense Caspar Weinberger, and not in one minute of those nine hours of discussions did the Secretary of Defense express alarm, concern or whatever about the thrust of the defence policy of this Government. I have not had the opportunity to discuss these matters with Mr Shultz but some of my colleagues have, namely, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have checked with their offices and they have had not a word of complaint in that regard either. I am very glad to see that the right honourable gentleman is anxious that I should have an opportunity here to set the record straight on that matter. I take it a point further because not only have I had private discussions-I must say that I have had a very full range of discussions-on the Dibb report and its implications with Secretary of Defense Weinberger, both in this country and in the United States-but I can also draw attention to part of the public record of Secretary of Defense Weinberger on this matter when he was questioned at a Press conference in the course of his visit to Australia several weeks ago, after he had received from me a very full briefing on the content of the Dibb report. He said that obviously any country will wish to have as its priority the defence of its territory and its seaward approaches. That was a position that he expressed publicly at a Press conference. So the right honourable gentleman does not have to take my word for what transpired in conversation with Secretary Weinberger; he has a very clear position put forward by him in public in this country after receiving a very thorough briefing in that regard. There is a very clear understanding in the United States of the general thrust of Australian defence policy. The position is this: Because we have in office for the first time a government that is determined to take seriously our strategic environment and to address it directly and have that direction carried through to serious force structure planning, we have, of course, the possibility of some change in some areas. Obviously, when a process is gone into which looks at the structure of the Australian defence forces, weaknesses that have to be addressed will be identified. When I get the opportunity, as I will next week, to table the Dibb report, some of those weaknesses will be obvious and the requirement for those weaknesses to be addressed will also be obvious. I do not want to go over that territory now. Far from amounting to a defence cut, the performance of this Government over the last three years and the performance of this Government in the future as it moves to implement not absolutely all of the Dibb report-that has to be properly considered by government and a proper White Paper has to be prepared on it; it is basically a report basically to me and not yet a government document-but a substantial portion of it, will amount to a considerable change in the equipping of our defence forces and a considerable increase over that period in defence expenditure in this country. The right honourable gentleman's question then went to a number of decisions that we have taken to enable us to arrive at sensible decisions. Since we came to office we have taken decisions to proceed with the acquisition of a highly cap- able new submarine. We have taken decisions to proceed in one of the major areas of weaknesses which I can say is identified by the Dibb report and which we have moved to address by giving our Army decent air mobility for the first time. For years the Army was trotting around in Hueys, which in our northern environment can deploy people over an eight-mile distance. We have moved to acquire the Black Hawk helicopter, which will be capable of transporting our troops in an effective manner to make them effectively air mobile. We have taken decisions in that direction. We have taken decisions to acquire an extra couple of FFG7 frigates which will be not only highly competent around our coastline but also capable of escorting Australian convoys a considerable distance out into the oceans. We have equipped them with Sea Hawk helicopters-decisions which the former Government failed to take despite numerous opportunities presented to it over a large number of years-which will give them not only a very highly capable anti-submarine warfare helicopter but also one compatible with the United States helicopter systems on its frigates so that the opportunity will be available to a government, should it choose to exercise it in the future, to commit those frigates to a carrier battle group if the exigencies of the situation determine that it should. The right honourable member asked me a detailed question and he is going to get a detailed answer, and it is all going to be relevant. One of the projects the right honourable member happened to mention was Project Waler. The problem we had with Project Waler was that the right honourable member, or rather the Liberal Government-he was not in office all that long so I cannot attach all the blame to him-permitted that project to develop in a way where the specifications got quite out of hand for Australian circumstances. Mr Sinclair —Why didn't you change them? Mr BEAZLEY —I will get on to that. One of the assessments of what was required was the capacity for the vehicle to keep going for a period of one hour after a nuclear attack on the battlefield with a loss of half its crew. What sort of armoury does the right honourable member want to put on an armoured vehicle in Australia, to operate in northern Australian areas, that has a specification like that sitting in the middle of it? So we had that instance of the problems that were emerging with Waler. The sort of specifications that the Liberal Government put down for it had the thing armoured up to a position where most of the examples that were given to us were incapable of being carried in a C130 aircraft, a C130 aircraft being the sort of thing that would be necessary to deploy them, particularly in emergency situations, not only here but to islands around us, upholding some of our alliance responsibilities. So in relation to Waler we said: `Right, this has got out of hand, this is not what is required. You will do two things. The first is that you will go through the M113 upgrade process and look at that.' One of the things on which I was advised when I was in the United States of America was that the United States is now taking far more seriously its M113 upgrade program because it wants to keep more of them in service. Most of the countries with M113s are going through that program, including the Israelis, as well as a number of others who know a darned sight more about armoured warfare than we do and are taking seriously their upgrade programs on the M113. A team from the Army has gone around and done the necessary evaluations of those projects, and when it has come to conclusions we will be going through an upgrade program. But that will not be enough, because the M113 craft is not, in my view, sufficient to be able to give our rapid deployment forces in particular all the degree of mobility they need in the north. So I have asked the Chief of the General Staff to do another thing, and that is to go through some of the light armoured fighting vehicles that are available. Honourable members interjecting- Mr BEAZLEY —No doubt honourable members will have a few more questions later in the week. I was referring to some of the light armoured-type vehicles that are now becoming available elsewhere and around the globe, one of which I had an opportunity to see when I was overseas recently. It is produced by Mowag and is a wheeled vehicle which has a consider- able range-the sorts of ranges we would be looking at. I cite it only as an example. It also has the capacity to be deployed in C130 aircraft. The point is that we are looking at making a proper use of our current assets in a way that is not peculiar here but in a way in which the United States and a number of other countries are looking at them. We are also looking at another form of light armoured fighting vehicle that might be more effective for our circumstances. The problem with so many of the projects and so many of the directions on the path down which honourable members opposite sent us when they were in office was that they came up with solutions that were totally unsuitable for Australian circumstances, they were too costly, or something else was wrong with their management. Occasionally, therefore, we are required to make revisions of those projects. I will conclude on this note, because the end of the right honourable member's question requires me to talk about the claim that our policy is going to be Fortress Australia. Our policy will not and never will be Fortress Australia. Our policy will be the defence of Australia and defence self-reliance in relation to Australia's own definition of its strategic circumstances. We will not arrive at a conclusion which means that we are going to be incapable of conforming to our alliance obligations, and I put that broadly. The fact is that our force structure ought to address in the first instance-in the first instance, not the last instance-what is required for the effective defence of this country. This is the sort of advice that military advisers have given governments for years but which they have all ignored. It is not particularly peculiar. Most countries have managed to do that. It has taken us 80 years to get round to doing it. The fact that it does that in the first instance is one thing. In the second instance, there will, of course, from a force structure so defined be available to any government of the day the opportunity to draw down from it for other purposes. We have other purposes that go well outside our immediate area. They, of course, include our responsibilities in the south-west Pacific. They include our responsibilities in South East Asia under things like the five-power defence arrangement, none of which we intend to walk away from. I conclude in gratitude to the right honourable member for giving me an opportunity to answer comprehensively and totally relevantly the farrago of nonsense that he managed to present at the box. Mr JACOBI —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Is he aware of the public call by the Queensland Premier urging and inciting employers to break the fringe benefits tax law when it comes into force? I ask him whether he recalls statements made by the Queensland Government delegation at the Adelaide meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1983 where, inter alia, Mr Greenwood is on record as stating the following: The Crown is an important part of our Parliamentary system which underpins the democratic nature of that system. One of those pieces of underpinning is the ability of the Crown to prevent blatantly illegal acts. Further, that it has always been open to the Governor to dismiss officers and prevent a breach of the law. Will the Minister take action through the proper channels to remind the Queensland Premier that no one is above the law and that, if the view expressed by his own delegation is correct, he runs the grave risk of being dismissed from office? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would be quite happy to remind the Premier of Queensland that he should be dismissed from office. If one looks at the remarks made by the honourable gentleman who asked this question and relates them to the delegate from Queensland who spoke in that way in 1983, it would be an appropriate case to apply to the Premier of Queensland. Of course, he was talking about some other matter, I think related to New South Wales at that time, but the issue is, of course, whether people such as Premiers should urge people not to obey the law. The answer, of course, is no. There is also an issue that might be brought home to the Premier of Queensland: He is the beneficiary of Federal laws that relate to revenue collection. He comes along here to Premiers Conferences and shares in the reimbursement formula from which that revenue is gained. More importantly, though, I think it is a very bad precedent to have Premiers, irrespective of where they come from, suggesting that people can disobey the law. There are two aspects of that matter: First, the Federal law that relates to taxation revenue, of course, imposes penalties which would be applied to anybody who broke that law. Further, there is the additional factor for anybody who wants to incite people to commit an offence. Of course, this could apply not so much in respect of taxation revenue but in respect of complying with tax returns. If such an offence were committed and there is an incitement to do so, that, of course, is a breach of the Crimes Act which renders the honourable gentleman liable to prosecution under that Act. I am sure that the Premier just wanted to attract a bit of publicity, but from the point of view of trying to occupy a position of statesmanship in the Australian community he might at least pay recognition to the fact that laws are made for everybody, and that he is not above the law. Mr HALVERSON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that if a small business owner makes any major improvements to his business premises that person will be subject to a capital gains tax on the increase in value of that property attributable to those improvements? How is it proposed to determine the increase in value of the business premises when they may be sold many years later? Finally, will not this new tax simply restrict people in expanding their businesses? Mr KEATING —I have made the point often in this Parliament that the absence of capital gains taxation in this country has meant that many people in Australia, quite unfairly, have been able to take their income as capital rather than as income, that while the taxpayers of this country, particularly pay as you earn taxpayers, have been asked to pay their full share of tax on their income other people have been able to diminish their income by choosing to take their income in the form of capital gains. In recognising the difficulty of some transition from the capital gains taxation we had under section 26(a)-now section 25A-of the Income Tax Assessment Act to some position of a more general capital gains tax, the Government was mindful of the need for a smooth transition to such a change. That is why we exempted all assets owned or held at 19 September 1985. Therefore, any assets the small business community held at that time are totally exempt from capital gains tax. In respect of the position outlined by the honourable member, any capital gain on a substantial improvement of a property beyond that date, of course, would be capital gains taxed at the point of sale, but it is taxed only on the real gain with inflation washed from the equation. It would be taxed on the real gain on the basis that people, now aware of the fact that the tax started on 19 September 1985, would keep details of the costs of those additions or constructions so that in the event of their sale a calculation could be made. However, I noticed that in the honourable member's question he omitted to mention the fact that there will be a reduction from 60 per cent to 49 per cent in the marginal rate of tax for small business people-- Opposition members-When? Mr KEATING —On 1 July 1987. Also, the honourable member omitted to mention that if they are incorporated they will no longer pay the double taxation on dividends; in other words, they will be able to distribute from their businesses to themselves dividend income without that attracting personal rates of tax at 60 per cent on top of the company rate already paid. Of course, that represents a dramatic advance in the prospect of the taxation regime for small business. Also the honourable member omitted to mention in his question that the climate of demand and the increase in profitability of small business, occasioned by this Government's policies over the last three years, far transcends any impact of a capital gains tax in that respect and that with the introduction of a capital gains tax we, as a capital scarce country, might for the first time be placing capital in the most productive areas of the economy instead of in the non-productive areas of the economy-seeking to invest productive and scarce capital in places which are more dynamic to the economy and which are better for employment generation instead of chasing a quick quid. I suggest that when the honourable member takes up the cudgels against small business people he ask a few of them whether they are better off than they were in 1982-83. The answer will be: `Yes'. I suggest that he ask whether their level of profitability is higher than they had in 1982-83. The answer will be: `Yes'. I suggest that he ask whether there is more demand in the economy and brighter business prospects. The answer will be: `Yes'. I suggest that he ask whether the tax regime that will apply from the implementation of the Government's tax reform will be fairer and better. The answer will be: `Yes'. I suggest that he ask whether on balance they would prefer to have this Government in office or the Opposition. The answer will be for this Government every time. Madam SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to section 17 of the Ombudsman Act, Special Report No. 2 of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Special Report concerns the Ombudsman's investigation of the Industrial Sugar Mills case involving the Department of Defence. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of Special Report No. 2 of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Foreign Investment Review Board report for 1984-85. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present a report on the national survey of language learning in Australian schools conducted in the final school term of 1983 by the Commonwealth Department of Education. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present a document relating to the provision of financial assistance to New South Wales for the country towns water supply improvement program under the Federal water assistance program. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `The existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr McArthur,Ms Mayer,Mr Reith,Mr Shipton and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House of Representatives their concern at any change to the Australian Flag without first holding a Referendum to assess the opinion of the citizens of Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that no changes be made to the Australian Flag without reference to the citizens of Australia in the form of a Referendum. by Dr Harry Edwards. 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 suggest that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by Mr Beale,Mr Blunt,Mr Halverson,Mr Hunt,Mr Reith and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Halverson and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Grace,Mr Simmons and Mr Spender. 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. By achieving for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national Summit for Survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted domestic sewage-sludge and organic garbage with mineral-rich gravel dust, a by-product from rock quarries and mines, into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in revitalising impoverished soils. 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hurford and Mr Spender. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Conquest and Mr Hodges. 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association and Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. The Sex Discrimination Act, passed by Parliament in 1984, will automatically make unenforceable from 1st August, 1986 the weight lifting limits applicable to women employees and contained in State laws, regulations and awards. 2. These weight lifting limits have applied throughout Australia for many years and have acted to prevent many injuries at the workplace, thereby avoiding much suffering and loss of working time. 3. The removal of this protective legislation will increase the rate of injury among women employees and lead to greater workers' compensation costs for employers. 4. The weight lifting limits do not in any way hamper the achievement of equality and equal opportunity in employment for women employees in the workforce. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to enable the weight lifting limits for women employees to continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hurford and Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Ms Jakobsen and Mr Scott. 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 are opposed to the imposition of a Capital Gains Tax. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to all returned service personnel. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that all changes to benefits for veterans, and conditions of service for military personnel, as announced in the May Economic Statement, be withdrawn as to allow sufficient time for sensible community debate before any veteran or service person can be unfairly disadvantaged. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Bill of Rights is not supported by the people of Australia, and calls on the Government to: Delay proclamation of the Bill until all matters of contention are settled by national referenda, and that: (1) Matters of States rights, property rights, rights of the newborn, the right not to belong to unions, among other issues, have not been submitted to the people of Australia to decide, and that: (2) No Australian Bill of Rights should depend on any foreign convention for its basis in Australian law. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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 Chynoweth. 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 petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos including pornographic and violent material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are concerned at the proposed changes to Family Allowances and the Spouse Rebate. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to protect the family unit by indexing Family Allowances, increasing the Spouse Rebate and introduce income splitting for taxation purposes for the single income family. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cross. 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 our 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 reaffirm our 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 reaffirm our 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 Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to returned Service personnel and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not proceed with its intention to further means test veterans' disability pensions in order to achieve their desired cuts in Government spending. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory; That until the Government's decision on the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government; Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. 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 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 United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Matcham be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels. Many of us are pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Offices are about 5 kms away with no convenient public transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that The House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Matcham Post Office. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Leader and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been a clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with mismanagement of the Otway forests in Victoria, and we pray that: The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant public expressions of concern, e.g. petitions by some action, e.g. referendums or Committees of Inquiry. by Mr Mildren. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Right Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian crosses, represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This 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 of South Africa (ANC) and of the South West African People's Organisation of Namibia (SWAPO) 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 Australian Government provision of: 1. Official recognition of the 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 ANC and SWAPO to promote the anti-Apartheid cause in Australia; 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 Scott. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the President and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W., or any site within Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights or within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Free and Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's refusal to pass onto motorists, farmers and small businessmen, and the community as a whole, the full effect of the drop in world oil prices will decrease Australia's competitiveness as a trading nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Act immediately to adhere to the oil world parity pricing policy, and give the full flow-on of the drop in world oil prices to the Australian public and the business sector. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, 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 the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales asks that the Bill of Rights legislation be thrown out. The Bill does not strengthen our rights and endangers some of them. Your petitioners therefore request that the Bill of Rights legislation be withdrawn. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Cowper Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the President and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. That consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. That unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e. set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Gellibrand respectfully showeth: That the proposed building by the Department of Defence on vacant land on Fort Gellibrand Reserve in Williamstown will- 1. diminish the recreational environment of the area 2. severely affect residents views of the sea by building on previously unoccupied land. 3. lower local residents property values. 4. bring about an increase in costs in providing services without any increase in revenue to local council. 5. cause an unnecessary increase in public expenditure as more than adequate space is available in existing buildings to house Service personnel. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that no building takes place before proper consultation with the residents affected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Willis. Petitions received. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent need for the Prime Minister to address the serious economic problems that face the nation. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.58) —Any hope that this Parliament and, through it, the Australian public may have entertained this morning, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) returned from overseas, that the elected leader of this country would address his mind to the serious economic problems it faces was blown completely out of the window by his performance at Question Time today. The Prime Minister may have enjoyed himself at Question Time. He may have thought he was smart. He may have guffawed. He may have looked around to the acolytes who sit behind him. But in terms of discharging his obligations to the Australian public, in terms of telling his Treasurer (Mr Keating) to tell the public the state of the economy, and in terms of matching his obligations as the elected leader of this country, he was a total, abysmal failure at Question Time today. As the realisation spreads through the Australian community that we have a national crisis but that we have a Prime Minister who will not address that crisis and who continues to see it purely in terms of partisan political advantage, I say to the Prime Minister and to the acolytes who sit behind him that he will pay a political penalty because the members of the Australian public have a far greater concern and reverence for the national interest than the Prime Minister gives them credit for. It is an insult to the concern that the Australian public holds for our national interest that the Prime Minister is not prepared to treat the current economic situation in the serious light that it deserves. To start off with, I say on behalf of the Opposition that we very greatly regret, we condemn and we deplore the fact that the Prime Minister will not facilitate a full parliamentary debate on the Australian economy. We condemn the Prime Minister for keeping the Australian public in the dark about the true state of the Australian economy. It is simply not good enough for the Treasurer to sound the alarm bells, to say that we are on the verge of becoming a banana republic and that unless there are policy changes we are virtually done for and to engage in a long distance and petulant battle with the Prime Minister over control of economic policy and for the Prime Minister to carry on as though nothing is the matter and there is absolutely nothing to worry about. I remind the House that it was the Treasurer who sounded the alarm bells. It was the Treasurer who said on a radio program that everything was going down the drain. It was the Treasurer who repudiated all of the previous statements that he had made about the economy. It was the Treasurer who pushed the panic button and said: `We had better have a conference, er, I mean a meeting, er, I mean a summit, er, I mean a get-together, er, I mean some kind of talk about the problems that we have'. It is the Government that created the situation. Having created it, what does the Prime Minister do? He plays the Australian public for mugs. He said: `I have allowed my Treasurer to create this atmosphere of crisis. I have allowed him to cut the value of the dollar. I have allowed him to disturb the confidence of international investors in Australia, but do you think I am going to come clean? Do you think I am going to tell the Parliament, the elected representatives of the public, what the problem is? Not on your life! I am going to clown my way through Question Time, I am going to carry on as though nothing is the matter, and I am going to pretend I am a marvellous Prime Minister'. I do not think the Australian public will cop that. The Australian public is worried about the state of our economy. Members of the public have been told by the Treasurer that we are going down the gurgler and they want from their Prime Minister an addressing of the serious issues that our Australian economy faces, because it is they who sounded the alarm and they who pushed the panic button. I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it was the Treasurer who opened up this enormous gap between what he has been saying for the last three years and what he has been saying over the last couple of days. After all, it was the Treasurer who ran around the countryside saying that we had the greatest economy in the world. It was the Treasurer who ran around the countryside saying that we had an incredible growth rate. It was the Treasurer who ran around saying that the J-curve would work. It was the Treasurer who threatened to make me eat my words when, month after month, I said that the J-curve was not working and when, month after month, I said that the balance of payments was dragging the Australian dollar down and that, unless something were done about it and unless there were a change of policy, the situation would get worse. After all, it was the Treasurer who ran around telling us how good the economy was, and it is now the Treasurer who has sounded the alarm bell and has said that everything is so absolutely dreadful. It is the Treasurer who, over the last couple of weeks, has acted as though this country has been gripped by an economic crisis. I think deep down he is worried about the Australian economy. He is worried that we are in danger of becoming a banana republic. He is worried that we have a balance of payments crisis and that he does not really have a solution to it. The Treasurer is worried that the present rigidity of wages policy will not be sufficient to cure Australia's balance of payments problems. We are saying, above all, to the Prime Minister that he should fulfil the duties of his high office and that he should instruct the Treasurer to give to this Parliament a full and serious statement about the state of our economy. It is all very well for each of us on both sides of the House to score our petty debating points. We can each fling back at one another statements that were made in the past. We can all make fancy comparisons of statistics, but when the crunch really comes, what the Australian public wants from the Treasurer now is an honest, open statement of what the situation really is and an honest open statement of what he intends to do about it. It is the Treasurer who carries the responsibility for having misled the Australian public so grievously for the past three years. It is the Treasurer who has told us how well we have been performing and, if he is now being praised by some for being honest and frank, he is all the more deserving of censure for having been so lacking in frankness and so dishonest over the past three years. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot preen himself and parade himself around the country saying `I am putting electoral advantage behind me; I am being honest and frank; and I am taking the Australian public into my confidence' and yet escape responsibility for the way he has deceived and misled the public so persistently over the past three years. I do not think the Australian public is unmindful of that or of the paradox that, at the very time the Treasurer is talking about this country becoming a banana republic, about the need for this country to trade in order to survive, and about the need for Australian business to become more competitive, he is in the process of imposing upon the Australian business community one of the nastiest, most discriminatory taxes, namely, the fringe benefits tax, that any government has conceived. It absolutely defies explanation that, at a time when our corporate tax rate is higher than those of our trading partners, we intend to make it higher and for good measure we intend to add a capital gains tax. As if that is not enough, we intend to put a punitive fringe benefits tax on top of that. The Treasurer can carry on for all he is worth about the profit share. I remind him now, as I have in the past, that what really matters about business investment in this country is not the profit share, it is the after tax rate of return on invested funds. The after tax rate of return on invested funds in Australia is absolutely lousy and the Treasurer will make it far worse by his taxation decisions. These taxation decisions will make the Australian business sector even more uncompetitive. The Opposition has constantly warned the Government about all these problems. We have not just come along in the wake of the crisis of confidence that the Treasurer created two weeks ago and off the top of our heads dreamt up some alternative policy. For more than a year now I have, month after month, warned about our parlous balance of payments situation, as has the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) for the past seven months. Every month we have said that the position is getting worse and that it will not get any better. Every month the Treasurer has said: `I will make you eat your words about the J-curve'. Who is eating his words about the J-curve now? It is certainly not anyone on this side of the House. Month after month we have told the Treasurer that the renegotiated accord-that document that he had wrung out of him on 5 September 1985-was not an appropriate instrument for the Australian economy. Month after month he debunked it and month after month the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said that the accord had reduced inflation and brought unparalleled industrial peace and unparalleled economic growth. However, now the sad realisation is that the accord is not working. In the words of the Treasurer before he received a phone call from Beijing, `Everything will be on the table at this special summit on 5 June'. Who warned him that everything should be on the table? We did. We did not invent it out of thin air. We warned the Government last year that the renegotiated accord would not be adequate to deal with the depreciation crisis that was overtaking the Australian economy. The first question asked of the Prime Minister after the 1984 election was about the depreciation of the Australian dollar. Way back on 25 February 1985 I asked the Prime Minister to give an assurance that the Government would fully discount for the price effects of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. He did not give me a straight answer then and for 15 long months we have been denied a straight answer from the Prime Minister on that simple question. We were denied a straight answer again today. The reality is that this Government has lived lies and myths about the state of the Australian economy over the past three years. Now those myths have come back to haunt it. The Government first of all lived the great inheritance myth. Do honourable members remember it-the myth that all of the Government's problems were inherited? It inherited, so it claimed, a Budget deficit of $9.6 billion. This is one of the great hoaxes and great lies of Australian politics, because in reality the man who now occupies the position of Treasurer of this country has, on the three occasions that he has brought down a Budget, presided over Budget deficits far larger than any in Budgets brought down in the seven years of the Fraser Government. He is the biggest taxing, biggest spending, biggest deficit-producing Treasurer that this country has seen in peace time. The inheritance myth knows no bounds. In the last couple of weeks a variation of this myth has been invented; that is, that the balance of payments problem arose when we were in government. This is despite the fact that the average balance of payments as a percentage of gross domestic product when we were in government was 3.7 per cent-it is now 6.2 per cent. Somehow or other the Treasurer extrapolates and says that it is all our fault. Myth No. 3 is that the accord has reduced inflation. I would hate to see it increase it-that is all I can say. We are told that the accord has reduced inflation, when we are suffering the worst inflation rate of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries since 1961. That this character and his Prime Minister have the nerve to tell us that the accord has reduced Australia's inflation rate absolutely defies description. The United States of America, Japan and West Germany this year face the prospect of a zero inflation rate. Against that, the Treasurer of Australia has given us an inflation rate of 9.2 per cent. He ought to hang his head in total shame at that kind of performance, yet he still gets up and persists with this mythology that somehow or other this accord has produced lower inflation. This is almost as phoney as the claim that the accord has abolished unemployment. The Treasurer runs around talking about unemployment. Does he realise the level of youth unemployment now is higher than it was under the Fraser Government? Does he realise that the level of youth unemployment in Australia has gone up since Priority One: Young Australia was introduced? Does he realise that unemployment now is higher than it was for all but five of the 86 months that the Fraser Government was in office? Does he realise that in some towns of Australia the level of youth unemployment is 30 per cent? Does he realise the revulsion that many younger people in the community feel for the self-indulgent propaganda of his Prime Minister? Does he realise the hostility of the young towards the phoniness and bunkum of Priority One and the drug offensive? I think in his heart he really does realise these things. These are but four of the myths that the Government has perpetuated. These are but four examples of the way in which this Treasurer and his Prime Minister have deceived the Australian community over the last three years. The Treasurer may get some marks from some people for now being frank, but every time he gets one of those marks he ought to lose 10 for the way in which he has misled us over the last three years. His Prime Minister deserves the greatest possible condemnation from this Parliament for having treated us as a rubber stamp and, through that, showing contempt for the Australian community, and for having totally failed to match the nation's need for political leadership at a time of economic crisis. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland)(3.14) —This has been just a repeat of the shabby, hollow speeches we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in recent weeks. We are again back to cheap debating points. There is no attempt to address the fundamental and real problems. These sorts of performances in the House of Representatives do not cut any ice with any serious person in the economy or the media. Let me begin with the first point that I picked up when I came into the chamber; that is, that the Government had gone around for three years making false claims about economic growth and improvements in the Australian economy, that such claims were entire fabrication. It is simply a matter of record-it is a matter of fact-that the Australian economy has grown, on average, at a rate in excess of 5 per cent for three years. As I indicated in the House just a few days ago, when we look at the Treasury `Round-up of Economic Statistics' for the half year finished Christmas and when we look at non-farm gross domestic product we see that the rate of growth is 7.7 per cent. I ask honourable members opposite to name me one country comparable with Australia which, in the half year to Christmas 1985, had non-farm growth at 7.7 per cent. They cannot. They cannot name any countries which have had a growth at 5 per cent plus for three successive years. In other words, it just confirms what the Government has been saying for three years-that the Australian economy is infinitely stronger, better, more malleable and deeper than it has been for many years. But that, of course, makes no commentary on the decline in our external conditions. That is the cheapness of the points made by the Leader of the Opposition. We have an entirely strong domestic economy and a weak external economy and the weakness and the slide in export prices and the deterioration in that external economy are now so marked that they are impacting upon the domestic economy and the domestic economy must now respond to other internal adjustments to that decline. There is no mixing of words here; there is no mixing of concepts. There has been no misleading and no untruths. Everything that the Government has said about the strength of the domestic economy has been entirely true. It is a matter of record. Honourable members opposite should just read the record of the Australian Statistician rather than laugh. That record might indicate to them that their line of argument has no basis to it. At the same time they should peruse the decline in our export prices. I made the point here a couple of days ago that this year and last year oil just topped wool. In terms of its national export earnings it has gone from $260m a month to under $50m. In other words, that is equivalent to taking the wool industry right out of the Australian balance of payments picture within a couple of months. At the same time we have seen massive declines in the prices of other commodities. We have seen coal down 25 per cent on 1981-82. We have seen wheat down 29 per cent on 1980-81. We have seen wool down 21 per cent on 1981-82, iron ore down 20 per cent, alumina down 27 per cent between December 1983 and early 1986, aluminium down 34 per cent, beef down 24 per cent, barley down 52 per cent and sugar down 51 per cent, and all simultaneously. In the face of that massive decline what do honourable members opposite think we are going to say? Of course, with the speed of that decline the Government must acknowledge the difficulty of the problem. I have made it clear before that, if we had had the same export prices and the same terms of trade at Christmas 1985 as we had at Christmas 1984, the current account deficit would be $4 billion better off. So instead of looking at $13 billion we would be looking at $9 billion, and if we were looking at $9 billion we would not be having this debate. It is entirely a consequence of the decline in export prices. Indeed, this very day the index of export prices has been published by the Australian Statistician and shows that, despite a 30 per cent depreciation in the Australian dollar, which should have lifted Australian dollar export earnings by 30 per cent, they have gone up by 0.4 per cent. In other words, without the depreciation the prices would not have risen by 0.4 per cent but they would have fallen by nearly 30 per cent. The exchange rate and the depreciation are saving the farming and mining sectors from a total collapse. In the face of this massive decline this Government's policy has given a depreciation of the Australian dollar which has underpinned at least the viability of these industries at this very parlous time. Honourable members opposite make these cheap, stupid points about how there is strength in the domestic economy and that the Government is saying that the accord and its policies have given strength to the domestic economy. Honourable members opposite try then to say that any mention of a weakness in the domestic economy means that we have been misleading the public. What a baseless, hopeless point that is. In other words they are not even prepared to acknowledge the strength of the data which comes out in the Statistician's numbers. I am sure that they will not make the claim that the Statistician cooks the books, that the figures are phoney, or that they cannot believe them. Of course they cannot make that claim. The Government has been entirely consistent; the Australian economy has outperformed all expectations in all areas-employment, growth, profitability and investment, but we do have this decline in the terms of trade. This decline in the terms of trade is indeed a major problem for us, and that is the problem the Government has been facing. The Leader of the Opposition in his Press Club speech of two weeks ago made this contribution: The massive devaluation of the Australian dollar over the last 18 months symbolises the policy failures of the Hawke Government. It never dawned on him that the Australian dollar might have been overvalued under his regime. It never dawned on him that export prices had fallen. It never dawned on him that if we did not reduce the value of the dollar our competitive position would be put in jeopardy forever. He went on: Not only has the dollar been devalued but the Hawke Government has devalued the lifestyles of many Australians. God help us! I made the point the other day that the further the member for Bennelong, the former Treasurer, gets from a Treasury minute the more mute he becomes in terms of his understanding of simple economic fundamentals and arguments. That is the fact of the matter. Here we have this insane statement from the leader of a major party saying that the massive devaluation represents a policy failure. It represents a massive internal correction in this country which was long overdue. The previous Government never had an incomes policy and it wilfully overvalued the exchange rate and wiped out hundreds of thousands of Australian farmers as well as thousands of Australian jobs. It did not have an incomes policy and it thought it would run an anti-inflation policy by keeping a downward pressure on local prices, by keeping the exchange rate overvalued. The honourable member opposite bragged about it as a strategy in the Budget documents in the years when he was Treasurer, and I have tabled those in the House on a number of occasions. The honourable member should not try to deny it. The fact is that this was the policy he employed. Of course, without the float of the exchange rate, which took the courage of this Government, and the subsequent decline, there is no way that that change in our competitive position can occur. Then we hear from the supposed free marketeers, the people who say that the market will produce the solution; that I will eat my words on the J-curve. In other words, we will have a 30 to 50 per cent price change on the Australian dollar but it will make no difference to imports or exports. If that is what the Leader of the Opposition truly believes he ought to give the game up. How does he think he could run a market economy if he has no faith in a 30 to 50 per cent price shift in commodities changing the pattern of things. The fact that while the dollar is being asked to accommodate this change in the balance of payments in our competitive position there has been a massive slide in export prices has not entered his mind. Apparently the honourable member has closed his mind to that and is not prepared to address that point. If the honourable member wishes to perpetuate the view that he does not have any faith in the market system and that the depreciation and the J-curve will have no effect, he can put it by all means, but he will be judged by people in the market-place on those views. The other point concerns the inflation rate. The success of the accord brought the inflation rate for Australia for the year to March 1985 to 5 per cent. It has risen with the depreciation because the consumer price index measures the surge in import prices coming off the depreciation. As they are washed out of the system by the discounting arrangements the Government has put in place, inflation will track back to the 5 per cent whence it came. That is a point the honourable member knows, but every time he makes that cheap debating point in the House, and every time I rebut it in the same terms. His most outrageous point was even to refer to the question of unemployment. To have the Leader of the Opposition, who sent our unemployment rate from 6 per cent to 10 per cent in one year, talk about the problems of unemployment, when this Government has created 11 per cent employment growth in three and a quarter years, is laughable. I have made clear before that if we had the same participation rate today as we had in March 1983 the level of registered unemployment would be 5.2 per cent. That is the measure of the Government's success. The fact that it has accommodated 200,000 people who were not registered as unemployed, particularly married women re-entering the work force with a higher participation rate, and the fact that we now have a more fully employed economy employing 11 per cent, or 700,000 more people since March 1983 is a point not lost on the Leader of the Opposition. But he keeps pointing to the registered level of unemployment as if that were the only level that mattered, ignoring the 11 per cent employment growth. This is stupid and dishonest from a party which when in government referred to the unemployed as dole bludgers and tried to heap the blame on them, as though they were to blame for people being driven into unemployment. Now the honourable member gets up and sheds crocodile tears about how this Government has not been able to reduce the unemployment rate to under 8 per cent, ignoring the fact that we have taken a massive increase in school leavers, a massive increase in the participation rate, and put 700,000 people back in work. How many times do I have to come here and debate these points? Does the honourable member ever learn anything? Every day the same thing is on. The fact of the matter is that the underlying problem of Australia's external position is that, while in government, the coalition Government wilfully wiped out the Australian secondary structure. First, there was Jack McEwen with the tariff wall, which led Australian business into a position of uncompetitiveness where it was relying upon tariffs until finally imports wiped them out when those opposite overvalued the exchange rate in the years 1982, 1981, 1980 and a little before that. It is a consequence of these misplaced policies of the National Party in the first instance, in the 1960s and 1970s, and then the lack of any comprehension by the Fraser Government of the need to maintain a decent manufacturing and import competing structure-taking the last gasp of the lucky country syndrome that we only need to dig up another mound of rocks and sell them to somebody, or that we only need to sell wheat or a bit of wool and the world will fall over itself to buy it, that that alone is all that we need to do, and that we can become an agrarian economy with no balanced secondary structure-that we have now been put in a position where we cannot afford to pay for our imports with our traditional exports. We are sucking in too many imports because our import competing industries were decimated under the policies of the coalition Government. However, the honourable member gets up here-Simon Pure-as though it had nothing to do with him. Apart from a period of three years, coalition governments had been running this country for 30 years. These supposed men of business, these people who know and understand how to manage things, have wiped out secondary industry and the import competing sector. They could not manage a tart shop. The fact of the matter is that what we are seeing now is our import competing sector decimated, Australia unable to pay for its imports with a given level of exports and our standard of living being maintained by continued resort to funding current account deficits. That is the true position. We reject absolutely the notion that this Government has been in any way culpable in respect of the decline in Australia's external fortunes. We reject any notion that the Government has been culpable in not addressing the fundamental economic policy questions in the first instance. At the first sign that the terms of trade decline has been as marked as it has, the Government has sought to accommodate that decline quickly. It accommodated a decline in the Australian dollar by entering into discounting arrangements with the Australian Council of Trade Unions last September. In doing that we have laid the foundations, and are laying the foundations, for a fundamental rebalancing of the Australian economy back to the type of sophisticated developed economy it once was, instead of the agrarian economy people opposite have made it by relying simply on agriculture and unprocessed minerals while forgetting the need for technology, research and development, our service sector, service industries and a better import competing performance. That is the price that Australia has paid for a long period of coalition government. Australian business understands that and that is why it is supporting the Government in trying to see the Australian economy rebuilt and rebalanced. Our policies will do this, and there is no way that the public will once again countenance resort to the kinds of policies which those opposite had over a period of 30 years. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia (3.29) —Australians listening to the Parliament today, thinking that there might well be some opportunity for an explanation by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about where we are going, must be sadly disappointed. We know that while the Prime Minister is overseas about the only flag he waves is a white one. Indeed, he seems to have replaced a previous Prime Minister as Tiberius on the telephone. He constantly seems to interfere in a way that disadvantages the Australian community. Significantly, what we are talking about today is the only chance we are going to have, seemingly, to talk about the fundamental crisis that faces the Australian people. The Treasurer has just given us two answers. Firstly, he said that everything is inherited. Secondly, he said that if it is not inherited it is caused by somebody else overseas. I think it is worth while looking at the substance of that argument, because behind it all lies something. The people who are listening should know that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have so little interest in the management of the economy that they are prepared neither to present a statement to this House nor to remain in the House to discuss this matter. They are quite prepared to come in here and trot out that same tired rhetoric. Sure, we have had a number of matters of public importance concerning this subject. This subject happens to be fundamental to where Australia is going. Yesterday at Question Time we were told that the only statement the Treasurer would make would be in the Budget Papers presented in mid-August, but we all know that he is going to have this summit-er, not a summit, er, a meeting, er, not a special; what is it?-this Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes meeting. He is going to have a special meeting. Presumably, if the rhetoric of this place is any example, he will have no answers to present at that meeting. What I want to do in the very brief time given to me-accepting that the Treasurer has not presented an answer-is, firstly, to rebut his reasons for the state we are in and then to put a few questions to the Government. Unless we get answers to those questions we can forget about that special meeting-that summit, or whatever it is going to be-of ACPI, because the Government has no solutions. If the answers given at Question Time and if the response given by the Treasurer successively in a number of probing debates on matters of public importance which we have raised because we want to get answers from the Government, we want to find out where it is going, are any indication, frankly, the Government is lost indeed. Having rung that Lutine bell, the Treasurer has been searching for a disaster ever since. Let us look at the two answers he has given. Let us look at the international impact. We know that that is the genesis of the banana republic concept. We know that it was because the Treasurer suddenly realised that there is some relationship between the external balance of payments and the internal economy that he made that banana republic statement. One of the things he has done is to say that it is really all the fault of the commodity prices. I think that we need to know that the Treasurer actually presented a paper to the Caucus last week. In that Caucus paper he said-he repeated this to us today-that one of the reasons the terms of trade have moved significantly against us is that commodity prices have fallen. Let us look at some of the commodities that he mentioned. The Treasurer said that in the case of coal the price, measured in United States dollars, had fallen 25 per cent between 1981-82 and March 1986. What he did not say was that during that time the value of the Australian dollar, as measured against the United States dollar, had fallen 33 per cent and that, in reality, in relative terms the price of coal had gone up by 10 per cent over that period. A similar situation applies to wheat. The Treasurer said that the price of wheat had fallen by 29 per cent in that same period. During that time the Australian dollar fell in value by 38 per cent, so in Australian dollar terms the price of wheat here rose by 10 per cent. The Treasurer said that the price of wool fell by 21 per cent between 1981-82 and 1986. During that time the Australian dollar, valued against the United States dollar, fell by 33 per cent. That means that in Australian dollar prices the price of wool had gone up by 10 per cent. The point of all that argument is that the Treasurer does not understand the relativity of the value of the Australian dollar against the United States dollar and does not understand the implications of changing commodity prices. There is no basis by which the fault can be placed alone on access to markets, on the United States Farm Bill, or on the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community. The point of the whole of our overseas balance of payments problem is that costs are rising disproportionately in Australia, our performance is declining internationally, and any comparison between Australia and any other country cannot be looked at only in terms of market access or in terms of relative prices. Let us look at the other answer-the answer that it has all been inherited. Let us look at inflation, which currently is running at 9.2 per cent. That is almost triple the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. It is four times the figure in the United States. It is eight times the figure in Japan. The Treasurer today was talking about unemployment. He can take no pride in the fact that, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said a moment ago, unemployment is sticking at 8 per cent. In many parts of Australia the youth jobless rate is over 30 per cent; across all of Australia, it is 20 per cent. It is higher than it was at the start of the Priority One: Young Australia campaign. Let us look at the current account deficit. Again, that has not been inherited, as the shadow Treasurer so effectively stated in the House the other day. A deficit of $14 billion is now expected for this financial year. That deficit is up 40 per cent on the deficit for 1984-85. It is almost twice the level of the deficit for 1983-84. It amounts to 6 per cent of the gross domestic product. Only Greece is worse amongst the OECD countries. Let us look at our international debt, which is expected to total $80 billion by the end of the 1985-86 financial year. It is expected to total $100 billion by the end of 1986-87. Let us look at living standards. A study by the Murdoch University shows that, in the 12 months to November this year, a household on $300 a week faces a drop of 2.4 per cent in living standards. Of course, if, as we have just learnt today, the tax cuts are not to be passed on on 1 September as the Prime Minister promised, those living standards will drop even further. What we need to understand is that the whole of the problem at the moment is neither inherited nor a product of what is happening outside this country. The real reason is, undoubtedly, the circumstances that have been generated by the prices and incomes accord. Indeed, there is little doubt that some sectors of the community are far worse off than they have ever been. Let us look at the rural outlook. The average income per farm this year is forecast to be $6,700. That average is bettered only by the average income per farmer of only $3,800. The real net value of rural production is expected to fall by 20 to 25 per cent this year, to the second lowest level in 30 years, yet the Government is going to add a Prices Justification Tribunal burden that will represent another 5 per cent increase in farm costs. In the mining sector, another one of those export industries that the Treasurer pretends to be concerned about, there has been an 11 per cent fall in exploration spending and domestic costs have increased by 26 per cent. In view of that there is no earthly chance of our overcoming those external problems to which the Treasurer has made passing reference. Of course, significantly behind it all are the costs under which we all operate in this country. We need to understand that Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that roughly 50 per cent of Australians today are working for the Government; one home in four relies on a government pension or benefit and one in three wage earners is a public servant. As the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd said in March: Sooner or later, one way or another, Australia must come to a position where its current spending is more closely aligned to its income. It is in that climate that on successive occasions we have raised basically the same questions as we raised today. We ask: Where is the Government going; what is it doing and what scenario can it lay down in order to resolve the problems of the Australian community? They are serious problems. The people who are listening to the debate on the radio today and the people who come into Parliament House are not happy about where we are going. The back benchers of the Australian Labor Party-who so notably do not come into the House during debate on these matters of public importance-surely are not really sanguine about the state of unemployment in the community, about the way in which inflation has affected them, about the effect of interest rates on home owners, or about small business in the community. Look at the revolt of the small business community against the fringe benefits tax. There are many people in the community who have solutions. Professor Jim Perkins, in charge of the economics department of Melbourne University, offered the Government three suggestions: Implement its tax cuts, implement expenditure cuts and introduce a wages pause. What we want to know is what the Government is going to do about inflation. We want to know what the Government is going to do about unemployment-Priority One is not an answer. We want to know what the Government is going to do about the current account deficit. We want to know what the Government is going to do about tax cuts and when it is going to do it. We want to know why the Government will not eliminate the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the negative gearing tax. What is it going to do about drugs? I refer to the farcical drug program that our drugs task force has highlighted as being little more than sound and fury. What is the Government going to do about the hospital queues? What is the Government going to do about the average living standards of the average Australian? It is not sufficient for the Treasurer to come into this House and give us inadequate answers with the same hackneyed rhetoric. What we want is a full and detailed exposition of the economic program that this Government intends to lay before the ACPI and the Australian community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(3.40) —It is rare enough that one hears, even from the Opposition, such a dollop of windy rhetoric as one has just heard from the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). It was rhetoric that contained no policy prescription of any kind. It contained no serious analysis of any kind of the economic difficulties that face this country. All in all, it was a convincing demonstration that the coalition has nothing to contribute except constant knocking, constant negativism, and constant pointing to problems rather than to solutions. All in all, it was a very good demonstration why the Opposition has not been trusted anywhere near government for the last three years, for the last two elections, and a very good demonstration why it will not be trusted anywhere near government for a long time to come. Really, that is the point of this false and spurious matter of public importance that has been brought forward today. It demonstrates the frustration of the Opposition that it has not been responsible for the successes of this Government in bringing about a recovery, in sustaining that recovery and in presiding over a recovery that will go on into the future. What the Opposition also wants the public to forget is its own appalling record when it was in government. It is very interesting to see the way in which the matter of public importance is worded: The urgent need for the Prime Minister to address the serious economic problems that face the nation. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) presides over a Ministry whose members have many talents. It is a much more talented Ministry than we have seen in this country for many a long year. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is dealing with the problems extremely well in carrying out his own portfolio responsibilities. It is only, perhaps, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) who would dream of appealing to his Prime Minister to get him out of problems. That was the way in which the Government operated in those days, when more rubbery Budgets were brought down than would go into the annual production of Spalding's tennis balls. But this Government, as a body, as a group, and as a Cabinet, is addressing those problems, and addressing them very well, in marked contrast to the performance of its predecessors. I would like to compare some of the indicators of the health of the economy under the previous Government with those that exist now. The first and most important is economic growth. Over the period the Hawke Government has been in office there has been a remarkable and unprecedented recovery in the Australian economy. We have witnessed three years of 5 per cent real economic growth in this country. That compares with an average of about half that figure-2 1/2 per cent-which was brought about by our predecessors. But it is worse than that, because in the last year of the Fraser Government we all remember that it actually managed the achievement of bringing about negative domestic economic growth. Leaving aside the external account, it managed actually to have the Australian economy going backwards. That is something of an achievement. It managed also in that year to do away with the jobs of 250,000 Australians. It is no wonder that it would like us to forget about its record and that it would rather debate some spurious problems to which it now points. The profit share of businesses in Australia has reached a figure of over 15 per cent under this Government. That is a very important point. It would not have been achieved without a genuine working together by all elements which are engaged in production in this country. Profit share is important because profits are invested. Profits go back into businesses to create jobs. I would like to refer straight away to the creation of jobs, because this Government promised that it would create over half a million jobs in its first three years in office. People said: `It sounds like a nice promise, but we are not really clear that you can do it'. Nevertheless, we were trusted with that task and we have achieved it. Indeed, the figure for the creation of jobs in our three years in office is about 670,000. I compare that with the figure that the Fraser Government managed to achieve over seven years, that is, 339,000-about half the figure in twice the time. The inflation record was mentioned by the right honourable member for New England. He was a member of a government which presided over an inflation rate which, more often than not, was in double digits, in the 10 per cent range. It has been a painful process to wring that inflation out of the economy, but we have succeeded and we will continue to succeed. It is, of course, the case that the effects of devaluation have led to a one-off price effect. But that is now beginning to wash out of the Australian economy. We have also managed to negotiate a trade-off with the trade unions, such that not all of that price effect goes into wages and therefore contributes to a continuing inflationary spiral. I have no doubt whatever that under the policies of the coalition, if it were ever to be in government, any devaluation induced price increase would feed straight into wages and, moreover, would lead to an inflation regime which would kill the domestic economy in this country. That domestic economy is, as I have pointed out, extremely healthy and will continue to be so. This debate should focus on the external account. It is perfectly true that the external account is in difficulties at present. But there are reasons for that. They are reasons which are, by and large, beyond the control of the Australian Government. They are things that we cannot affect. I refer to commodity prices. The right honourable member for New England tried to make some argument which I thought demonstrated a total lack of grasp of what exchange rates are all about. It is no wonder that he was part of a government which presided over a seriously overvalued exchange rate which meant that many of our industries were uncompetitive. This included members of that industry which he, as a member of the National Party of Australia, is supposed to represent in this place. I sometimes wonder whom he is representing. But the farmers were-there is no other word for it-screwed by the kind of overvalued exchange rate regime which he maintained. They should benefit from the 30 per cent devaluation that we have put into place. He attempted to compare the devaluation of the Australian dollar against the United States dollar. We do not trade just with the United States. We also trade with other economies. The devaluation in respect of the Japanese economy, for example-one of our major trading partners, particularly for commodities-has been of the order of 50 per cent. With that kind of a stimulus, it must be said that a number of industries in the export competing or import replacement sectors in Australia should benefit vastly. I believe the effects of that are beginning to show up and will show up in the future. It is very important to realise that part of the reason for increased exports has been a price effect, but much of the composition of Australia's increased imports has been in the form of capital goods or of intermediate goods. Those goods will, in time, be put into production and will produce the kind of goods that we can sell overseas. I want to mention other sectoral policies that we have put in place to enhance the competitiveness of our export and import competing sectors. I mention three: Firstly, the research and development tax write-off-which I notice that nobody on the other side has mentioned-of 150 per cent enables companies to write off, for taxation purposes, 150 per cent of their expenditure on research and development of new products which can be used for manufacturing and for exporting. Secondly, because of our policies on tourism, we have become a very much more favoured tourist destination as a result of the excellent promotions by Paul Hogan and others of the virtues of coming to this country. That directly earns foreign exchange and is already producing some excellent effects. Thirdly, since the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is in the chamber, I mention that it is the case too, that we, as distinct from our predecessors, are building large defence procurement items such as submarines, which will inject nearly $3 billion of savings which would otherwise have been spent overseas. In all of these ways the Australian Government is now addressing the genuine problems that we face, but they are ways which will lead to solutions rather than the spurious, rhetorical, negative, knocking and pointing to problems which we have seen from the Opposition today. I have the greatest confidence that our success in mastering those problems will match the successes to which I have already pointed in the bringing about of a domestic recovery and a sustaining of that recovery. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time for the discussion has expired. Bill presented by Mr Scholes, and read a first time. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Terri- tories and Acting Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(3.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) The Government strongly opposes the dumping at sea of radioactive waste and other radioactive matter. The purpose of the present Bill is to give effect to this policy by amending the existing legislation which controls dumping in Australian waters and by Australian citizens. The principal Act to be amended is the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. The Act provides for protection of the environment by regulating the dumping into the sea and the incineration at sea of wastes and other matter. It was supported on both sides of the Parliament and received royal assent in 1981. The present Government brought the Sea Dumping Act into effect in March 1984. In August 1985 Australia ratified the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, which is commonly referred to as the London Dumping Convention. As a contracting party to the Convention, Australia subsequently co-sponsored a resolution adopted at the ninth consultative meeting, held in September last year, which provides for an indefinite suspension of the dumping of radioactive wastes at sea pending further studies and assessments. Several other international conventions are also relevant. In conformity with the Government's policy of vigorous opposition to the dumping of radioactive waste at sea, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) signed the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone-SPNFZ-Treaty on behalf of Australia on 6 August 1985. When it comes into effect, the Treaty will, amongst other things, prohibit the dumping of radioactive waste at sea within the Treaty area, including the territorial sea of contracting parties. Parties to the SPNFZ Treaty will be required to prevent the dumping of radioactive matter in their territorial seas and not to assist or encourage the dumping of radioactive matter at sea anywhere within the Treaty area. Another international agreement, the Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region-SPREP-is at an advanced stage of drafting. This Convention would, amongst other things, regulate the dumping of wastes at sea and preclude the sea dumping of radioactive matter anywhere in a defined South Pacific region. The SPNFZ Treaty places a legal obligation on its parties to work towards agreement upon a SPREP Convention which will ban the sea dumping of radioactive materials. The present Bill will amend the principal Act to enable Australia to give effect to prospective obligations under both the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and the SPREP Convention. As it presently stands, the sea dumping Act prohibits the dumping of high level radioactive waste and other high level radioactive matter at sea, but, paralleling the London Dumping Convention, it allows dumping under permit of other radioactive wastes and materials. I should add that no such permits have been sought under the provisions of the Act. I turn now to the substance of the amending Bill. The purpose of the Government is to prohibit the dumping at sea of radioactive waste. As honourable members may know, all substances are to some extent radioactive, although for most their activity is negligible. It is thus necessary to make a definition which will clearly distinguish the radioactive substances whose dumping is to be prohibited under the Act from all other substances. This is to be done by establishing a threshold radioactivity level of 35 becquerels per gram, which is just marginally above the natural level of activity of the common element potassium. The unit of measurement of radioactivity, the becquerel, relates to the rate of radioactive decay of a substance. One becquerel represents one spontaneous disintegration of the nucleus of an atom per second. So that honourable members may be assured that the proposed 35 becquerels per gram threshold limit is very low, I can advise that the activity of ordinary granite may range up to 15 becquerels per gram or more, Australian beach sands, which are mined for their mineral content, may have an activity of about 30 bequerels per gram, whilst potassium chloride, a common constituent of fertilisers, has an activity of about 18 becquerels per gram. For comparison, the uranium yellowcake produced from uranium mines has an activity of about 22,000 becquerels per gram. There should be no environmental effects attributable to the trivial radioactivity of dumped materials which are below the specified threshold level of activity. This definition is, in the view of the Government, fully consistent with the draft definition adopted for the purposes of the SPREP Convention. The Act does not apply in relation to a vessel, aircraft or platform belonging to one of the defence forces, reflecting a similar exemption in the London Dumping Convention. However, it will continue to be the practice that the defence forces will observe the requirements of the Act, as amended. I have initiated an exchange of letters with the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to this effect. Another proposed amendment to the Act clarifies that disposal of material into the seabed, or subsoil beneath the sea, by the dropping of containers designed to penetrate into the soft sediments of the sea floor, amounts to disposal at sea. The technical possibility of such a method of disposing of radioactive wastes has been raised overseas. Consistent with the Government's view on the respective roles of Commonwealth and State authorities in off-shore areas, the present Act provides a mechanism for disapplying its provisions to the extent that equivalent State legislation applies in relation to the coastal waters of a State. Coastal waters are essentially the territorial sea within the three-mile limit. This mechanism is to remain, but it will not apply to the sections of the Act which prohibit the dumping, loading for dumping or incineration at sea of radioactive materials. Having given thought to the prospective implementation of complementary Commonwealth and State legislation to control sea dumping, the Commonwealth Government has concluded that there will need to be some kind of memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and individual States to ensure that administration is made as simple and efficient as possible for permit applicants and the administering authorities. The Commonwealth must also be satisfied that the obligations it has under the London Dumping Convention, and those it will assume under the SPNFZ Treaty and the SPREP Convention, will be fully met. Accordingly the wording of the relevant section of the present Act is to be amended to provide a discretion in its disapplication in favour of equivalent State legislation. The Commonwealth's intention is to exercise that discretion in favour of suitable State legislation provided that an appropriate memorandum of understanding on administrative procedures is also entered into with the State concerned. Finally, a minor amendment to the Act will ensure that, where State legislation does apply, it will not be necessary for the Commonwealth to issue a permit for the loading of waste in addition to the permit for dumping of that waste in coastal waters issued under State legislation. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.02) —I move: That in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: Migration Amendment Bill 1986; Copyright Amendment Bill 1986; Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; Income Tax (Securities and Agreements) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1986; Taxation Laws Amendment (Foreign Tax Credits) Bill 1986; Taxation Boards of Review (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Bill 1986; Income Tax Assessment (Capital Gains) Bill 1986; and Income Tax (Rates) Amendment (Capital Gains) Bill 1986. As far as possible, I have been advising the Opposition of the need to deal with these matters within the remaining period that the House will sit, which is another seven days. We have had a very long session of parliament-one of the longest autumn sessions that I can recall for probably many years. We have a unique situation in Australia in that, when the program is set for the Parliament to meet, by and large we have to abide by it because under the system in Australia Ministers must be present in the Parliament every day, as against the situation in parliaments overseas, particularly in the House of Commons where business can be conducted without the presence of Ministers and there may be longer time for debates. Unfortunately, in these circumstances, the period for which the Parliament will sit having been set, I have tried to be as generous as possible in the allotment of time. I have had discussions. I know that the Opposition may not be altogether happy with the amount of time available for debate on matters that come before the House from time to time, but the Government must stick to the program it has set itself. In any session of Parliament it is not possible, not only for this Government but for any previous government in charge of business, to allow the Parliament to go on as if there were nothing else for Ministers to deal with. The week after the House is to get up we will have the Premiers Conference, which will take up a good deal of the time of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other Ministers who are concerned with the business that will go before such a meeting. Of course, there is the preparation for the Budget in which all Ministers will be involved in the period between the autumn and Budget sessions. To the extent that I have been able to meet the wishes of the Opposition, we have set the program which I will read out later. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.05) —The Opposition rejects this motion. The Government has not been able to get its act together. It has now spent nine months trying to get six of these Bills before the Parliament. There is absolutely no basis on which any reasonable discussion can take place under a guillotine that requires the debate to be concluded by a certain time. I have not seen the exact hours allotted, they have not yet been distributed, but a guillotine is to apply to six taxation measures, the Migration Amendment Bill and the Copyright Amendment Bill. I presume that the debate on all these measures, plus whatever items might be introduced into the House in the meantime, is required to be concluded before the House rises on Thursday night. The Minister at the table, the Leader of the House (Mr Young), says that the House of Commons carries on debates on its legislation without Ministers. The way we are going here, the Ministers might as well not worry about the Parliament at all. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) came into the House today and said: `Never mind having a discussion on the economy. It does not matter. I have to talk to the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes. I have to run off to a study to try to find somebody to talk to'. The Treasurer is quite incapable of explaining any directions. He talked on the telephone to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in Beijing and he could not be bothered to tell the members of the Australian public just what solutions he can find to what is an increasingly serious financial position facing us all and where and how he can find them. I think we would be far better off if the Minister at the table and the rest of the Ministers forgot about coming in here. We might learn something. Perhaps somewhere in the ranks of the Australian Labor Party there are some who know what they are at and where they are going. Looking at the tax measures in particular, we realise at the moment how bereft of common sense are not only the Ministers but also, I am afraid, all the members of the Labor Party, for it concerns me that these measures that are about to be guillotined not only embrace significant extensions to the tax law but involve, as in the case of the fringe benefits tax, a very odious and very difficult additional administrative burden for those who are involved in trying to meet its requirements. Yet we are not being given the courtesy that is required in matters of such tremendous importance, sensitivity and significance to the whole community. Nine months ago, on 19 September, the Treasurer came into this Parliament and told us that some of these tax measures would be introduced. Since then we have had discussion after discussion. He has met a group over the dining table, and the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) somewhere else, and we have been told that there will be changes. The only courtesy the Government paid us today with regard to changes in the tax package was that the Prime Minister deigned to tell us that the tax cuts will be introduced some time in this calendar year. The Prime Minister has made a promise-not that his promises count for a great deal. Mr Carlton —It's probably the Chinese calendar anyway. Mr SINCLAIR —The honourable member is probably right. These days, the Prime Minister's promises are much discounted. He said not so very long ago that there would be no capital gains tax. The capital gains tax measure is one of the measures being guillotined. The Prime Minister promised that there would be tax cuts on 1 September. Today he told us that they will be introduced in this calendar year. In matters that are fundamentally important, in circumstances where unemployment is involved and where the average citizen is worried about his standard of living and where the tax revolt is growing at a phenomenal rate because of the inadequacy of the Government, it is not sufficient that guillotine motions be moved that will totally inhibit debate. From the point of view of honourable members on this side of the House, we are not prepared to have tax laws restricted in this way in their presentation to the Parliament, nor do we believe that the Migration Amendment Bill and the Copyright Amendment Bill should be included in the guillotine motion. Another thing that the people of Australia need to know is that the whole basis of this restraint flows from the fact that the Senate introduced a regulation to try to make the Government meet its obligations. On successive occasions, the Leader of the House has said: `Really the Senate was very nasty to us. It required that we introduce all our legislation by the end of May'. How terrible that is! After all, we resumed for the Budget sittings in September, and the Leader of the House has just said that this session is one of the longest autumn sessions ever. What has the Government been up to? What is up with Office of the Parliamentary Counsel? What is up with the Ministers? Can they not get their act together? Should it take all that length of time to get these measures drafted, finalised and settled in whatever form they will be introduced into the House? The only reason we have this guillotine motion is that the Senate said that it will not receive any legislation after 30 May. That is just not good enough. The Government still has not got it right. We are quite prepared to give it an extension of time. The sensible thing for the Government to do would be to withdraw the tax package in its entirety. Dr Theophanous —What an outrageous suggestion. Mr SINCLAIR —If it did that, there would be no need for the guillotine. Let us look at the logic of the whole deal. It is not a matter of giving the Government more time to think about it; it is not a matter of giving the Government more time to talk to a few of its irrelevant back benchers like the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous); it is not a matter of the Government's considering whether it needs to make further amendments; it is a matter of dropping the package altogether. Let me put to the Parliament the words of Professor Jim Perkins who is head of the Economics Department at Melbourne University-I am not too sure whether that is the former university of the honourable member for Calwell. This morning Professor Perkins said that what the country needed was the Government to deliver the tax cuts, cut expenditure and drop the tax package. I think there is considerable merit in those suggestions and I commend them. I think it is essential that the tax cuts are delivered. At the moment every Australian is paying through the nose for this lousy Government. This country has more people running around in the bureaucracy than it needs. We know their numbers are exploding and we know that they are administratively incompetent. We also know that they are bureaucratically unable to get their act together sufficiently well to get legislation into the House on time. If the Government is worried about its program, I suggest that the Leader of the House should withdraw the tax legislation and we would all be a lot better off. If that were done, a lot of Australians would be dealt with a lot more equitably. The Opposition intends to oppose the guillotine. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, 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. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S. Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R. Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. .K. Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Cohen, B. Smith, W. Humphreys, B. C. Cobb, M. R. Duffy, M. J. White, P. N. D. Campbell, G. Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, 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. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S. Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R. Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Cohen, B. Smith, W. Humphreys, B. C. Cobb, M. R. Duffy, M. G. White, P. N. D. Campbell, G. Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Declaration of Urgency Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: Migration Amendment Bill 1986, Copyright Amendment Bill 1986, Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, Income Tax (Securities and Agreements) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1986, Taxation Laws Amendment (Foreign Tax Credits) Bill 1986, Taxation Boards of Review (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Bill 1986, Income Tax Assessment (Capital Gains) Bill 1986 and Income Tax (Rates) Amendment (Capital Gains) Bill 1986. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — The question is: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. Question resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.26) —I move: That the time allocated in connection with the Bills be as follows: (1) Migration Amendment Bill 1986; (a) For the second reading, until 8.40 p.m. this day. (b) For the Committee stage, until 8.50 p.m. this day. (c) For the remaining stages, until 8.55 p.m. this day. (2) Copyright Amendment Bill 1986; For the remaining stages, until 10.10 p.m. this day. (3) Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; For the remaining stages, until 6.40 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 May. (4) Income Tax (Securities and Agreements) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1986; For the remaining stages, until 6.50 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 May. (5) Taxation Laws Amendment (Foreign Tax Credits) Bill 1986; For the remaining stages, until 7.00 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 May. (6) Taxation Boards of Review (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Bill 1986; For the remaining stages, until 7.10 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 May. (7) Income Tax Assessment (Capital Gains) Bill 1986; For the remaining stages, until 9.40 p.m. on Thursday, 29 May. (8) Income Tax (Rates) Amendment (Capital Gains) Bill 1986; For the remaining stages, until 9.50 p.m. on Thursday, 29 May. I would like to make just a couple of points in relation to this matter. It is true, as the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) has reminded us, that the Senate has imposed a deadline on legislation passed by the House of Representatives-that is Thursday night-so a further discipline has been placed on the House of Representatives by the Senate in getting legislation to the Senate. We have set aside all day Thursday for the major debate that will take place on capital gains tax. I would estimate that somewhere between 22 and 26 speakers will be able to take part in that debate. I doubt very much whether a twenty-seventh speaker would have much to add to what will be said by those 26 speakers. I think that is sufficient time for the debate. Judging from the way in which debates have been handled in this House over the 12 years I have been here, I think the Government is being very generous. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.28) —The most important legislation to be brought before the Parliament this session is to be guillotined through the House. The Leader of the House (Mr Young) has tried to tell us that the legislation should be dealt with in this way. We have seen as many as 20 speakers make contributions on irrelevant Bills that we have dealt with earlier this year. We have spent half of the session dealing with social engineering legislation. When it comes down to the things that the Australian people are most concerned about the Government imposes the guillotine. More importantly, as I reminded the House the other day, these Bills are not Johnny-come-lately Bills. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) laid down a statement on this tax legislation on 19 September 1985. We have had all those months to consider it, but the Government could not get its act together. The Government did not first know about it on 19 September. It first knew about it on 3 February 1985 when Bill Kelty made his speech to the Socialist Forum. I mentioned this to the House the other day. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 4 February reported what he said: He also foreshadowed-- this is Mr Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions- a push by the ACTU for a government crackdown on perks-such as company cars, expense accounts and education fees enjoyed by executives-and an expansion of the taxation `pot' into currently non-taxable areas. We know what that is-that is this capital gains tax that is the subject of some of the legislation mentioned in the motion. The Government got its instructions on this matter six months before its National Taxation Summit. What a joke that was. That was just a fraud perpetrated on the Australian people. The Government knew what the outcome was going to be. It could have started writing the legislation right then. We are told that all of the tax measures that the Government wants to guillotine are aimed at reducing the amount of taxation that people pay, but listen to what the National Australia Bank monthly summary for November 1985 told us. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I think the honourable member for O'Connor might address himself to the guillotine motion and not to the substance of the Bills that the Minister is suggesting should be under guillotine. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, the facts of life are that I am complaining about the very short period this Parliament is going to have to review and consider this legislation which will have a massive effect on the Australian people. I point out again that we should have the time in that debate to acquaint Australians with the fact that the National Australia Bank told us in its November summary that we will pay one per cent more of average weekly earnings in tax after the Government's tax cuts have been introduced. This means that a taxpayer on average weekly earnings in June 1985, and paying 22.4 per cent of salary in tax will actually pay 23.4 per cent in tax when the new tax scales come into effect. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member might get back to the matter under discussion. Mr TUCKEY —These are the problems that will confront us with this shocking timetable that the Government, because of its incompetence, is putting on us. It is absolute incompetence. At the very worst, this Government has known since 19 September that it was going to introduce this legislation and it has done nothing about it until the very last moment, when it can rush it through this Parliament and treat Australians and their properly elected representatives like rubbish. That is the way this Government is treating the Australian people in these matters. It knows very well that that is what it is doing. The Government did not want to bring in this legislation early. It wanted to bring in this legislation and ambush the Australian people so that it could get the legislation out of the road without too much debate. But the Australian people are pretty well awake to this Government, as we have seen from all the advertisements in the newspapers about the fringe benefits tax. That is the problem. This Government wants to start remembering that, when it came into office, the total tax take in this country was $44,000m. It is now $64,000m. This Government has put it up 50 per cent in three years. Now it wants some more and it will not give us the proper time to debate the legislation. What we are on about is this Government ambushing the Australian people with this legislation when we have spent months carrying on with bits and pieces of legislation. The Whips have been ringing around looking for a few more speakers on irrelevant matters such as social engineering and all those things that the Government has been getting on to. That is the story we are confronted with. Of course, we have every right to complain, as we are so bitterly. Fancy that! This Government has imposed an extra $20 billion in tax in three years-a 50 per cent increase. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member might come back to the motion. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is important to make this point because six of the eight Bills deal with taxation. Taxation is important, yet the Government sees fit to bring all this legislation under the guillotine after giving us unlimited time on affirmative action and all the other Bills that may be of some interest to some people but do not hit their hip pocket and do not hit the standard of living of families as these Bills will. As I have said, the National Australia Bank has told us that this Government is not putting taxes down; it is putting taxes up. We find that today with the Government's deal with the Australian Democrats. What has the Government done there? The poor old taxpayer has the odds of nothing to $500m because this Government has put the tax cuts back for three months. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(4.33) —This motion to limit the time of debate for a number of significant measures, including the taxation measures, is outrageous. It is a sign of an incompetent government that cannot manage its own affairs and run the country. We have a government in crisis and a nation in crisis at present with the brief but frank admission of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that we are heading towards a banana republic. Here we have a limitation on the time for debating several Bills, including the fringe benefits and capital gains tax legislation, which are matters of importance to millions of Australians. This Parliament is being treated in a shoddy, shabby way. We are not being allowed to debate the measures in full. Government and Opposition back benchers are being denied this opportunity. The Government will have a back bench revolt on its hands because constituents want to consult with members of parliament. Members want to study the legislation, they want to point out anomalies and errors and bring them to the attention of the House. That opportunity will be denied members on both sides because the Government is cutting debate and limiting discussion. One outrageous thing that this Government is doing in cutting and limiting the time for debate on these measures is not allowing time for an economic debate on the state of the nation. The Treasurer has refused two requests by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to have a major debate-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will come back to the matter under discussion. Mr SHIPTON —I am talking about a debate in this House-a debate on providing solutions to the severe problems facing this country. We know about the problems; we need solutions. We have a government that is leaderless, we have a government that is out of control, and we want a debate. We want to hear from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about solutions to the grave economic problems facing Australia-solutions that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) spoke about a few minutes ago, solutions to questions such as where the Government will cut expenditure and when it will cut taxes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Higgins might address the matter before the Chair, which is a limitation of debate. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am talking about the outrageous activities of this incompetent Government in coming into this House at this time, at the end of a session, to cut debate and to limit discussion on these major taxation Bills. We have been waiting for months for the Bills. We have had government by decree because the announcement of the taxation legislation was made on 19 September last. We got the fringe benefits legislation only in the last fortnight and we got the capital gains tax legislation only this week. This is very complicated, massive legislation which will have enormous effects on the nation, yet the debate on that legislation is to be limited because this Parliament does not matter to this Government. Parliament is not relevant to this Government. This Government is a dictatorship. It has ignored its own back bench and it is ignoring the rights of private members to debate issues. I think it is outrageous behaviour and it ought to be condemned. As I have said, these measures were only recently introduced. We need time. Constituents are on to us. Accountants, lawyers and people who want to plan their affairs want to make a contribution. These people are talking to honourable members opposite as well. This is very complicated legislation which will change the very nature of the taxation system of this country. It is a fundamental change which will impose an incredible and enormous burden on the business sector, reducing the ability of the business sector to create wealth, investment and jobs. That is what this legislation is about and this Government is cutting the debate. There is no incentive left in this nation at all; yet this Government comes into the House today with a motion to limit and cut debate on this legislation. At the same time, the Government will not have a debate about the economic problems facing this country. This Government will not give us any solutions. It is a leaderless government. We have a nation in crisis and a government in crisis and this Government ought to be condemned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.37) —in reply-It will come as a shock to many people to know that, according to the Opposition, we are in the land of crises. I do not think we are, either in policy or in the conduct of this Parliament. I think the conduct of this Parliament parallels our policy. We are doing very well with both. I do not know why the Fraser Government did not have long parliamentary sessions like we have had in this autumn session. Members of the Fraser Government are the people who would not front up to their Parliament. They are the people who would not have the debates and they are the people who guillotined 11 Bills in five minutes. We are giving honourable members opposite 2 1/2 days in which to debate this legislation. Why are honourable members opposite screaming that they do not have enough time? They will be put on the speakers list. We cannot have idiots on the speakers list when important legislation is coming before the Parliament. We will have at least 13 speakers from the Opposition who will be able to speak on Thursday. Do honourable members opposite think people all around Australia will be sitting by their radios saying: `I wonder who the fourteenth speaker for the Liberal Party is? He must have something new to tell us'? It will all be wrapped up by the Opposition's shadow Minister. If honourable members opposite do not have anything more to say than they have been saying since September last year we should not be putting the debate on at all. They have nothing at all to say. We do not know where they stand. They are forever grizzling about the fringe benefits tax. Everywhere we go in Australia members of the Liberal Party and the National Party are grizzling about the fringe benefits tax but they will not tell us what they are going to do about the fringe benefits if they ever get back into government. Apparently the fringe benefits tax will stay under a coalition government because honourable members opposite will not tell us that they are going to repeal it. They will not tell us what they are going to do with the lump sum superannuation measure. Is that going to be repealed? Will they pay all that money back? They will not tell us that. What will happen to the assets test? They will not tell us about the assets test. They are like a great big blancmange. It depends where you put your finger to see the pressures go up. We do not know what members of the Liberal and National Parties are up to. We could have commenced this debate 40 minutes ago but they want to spend the time denying their colleagues the opportunity to speak on these Bills. I have discovered that, each time I move such a motion, they use the same ploy. I am just waking up to the fact that they are trying to stop their speakers from speaking on these Bills. It took me a while to wake up to this but this is exactly what they are doing. They are embarrassed by what some of their shadow Ministers are saying because they are being exposed outside as a bunch of phoneys. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) told us what he would like to do and spoke about the need for debate. In an interview reported in the Western Australian newspapers the honourable member for O'Connor is quoted as saying that he wants to be Prime Minister. Could you imagine? Talk about George Orwell. He does not want to be Prime Minister until after he has kicked out Neil Brown and he wants to be Minister for Industrial Relations. He would do something for industrial relation in this country! Talk about strikes. There would be no one at work in Australia if the honourable member for O'Connor were Minister for Industrial Relations-and that would only be his springboard to becoming Prime Minister of Australia. We would take to the boats then. The boat people would not be the Vietnamese, they would be 15 1/2 million Australians. We have been the most generous, most considerate government in the presentation of legislation that this Parliament has ever seen. We are giving honourable members ample opportunity to debate the matter on Thursday. We will listen to 13 Opposition speakers and all Australia is going to know where the Opposition stands on the matter of the capital gains tax. At least we will know where honourable members opposite stand on one issue. On the rest of it, we will have to wait for the second episode when we come back for the Budget session. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J. Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdward, 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. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. (teller)Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Jacobi, R. West, S. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C. Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele Webster, A. P. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Cohen, B. Smith, W. Humphreys, B. C. Cobb, M. R. Duffy, M. J. Hodgman, W. M. Campbell, G. Peacock, A. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fourth report for 1986 of the Committee, relating to the construction of the new Resource Management Centre, St Leonards, New South Wales, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —The recommendations and conclusion of the Committee's report are as follows: First, there is a need for operational and support space to be provided at the proposed Telecom Australia Resource Management Centre, St Leonards, to cater for projected growth. Secondly, the extent of the proposed work is justified and will satisfy Telecom Australia's operational support space requirements at this site until 1995. Thirdly, the number of parking spaces to be provided when the new buildings are completed will comply with local government and staff requirements. Fourthly, the estimated cost of the proposed buildings is $86m at February 1986 prices. Fifthly, the Committee recommends construction of the work in this reference. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 246th report of the Committee, relating to Finance minute on report 213-Income maintenance programs, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The Committee's report 213, tabled on 16 November 1983, examined the administration of income maintenance programs. The report considered a range of programs having relevance to income maintenance. The types of programs included income replacement programs, for example, unemployment benefits; income supplement programs, for example, tertiary allowances; and programs subsidising expenditure by individuals, for example, free medical services. In summary, income maintenance programs were defined as those programs transferring cash to individuals or organisations for the purpose of social welfare. The departments' submissions covered a broad spectrum of programs. Replies on a total of 127 programs were received from 10 departments. In its analysis of material contained in submissions the Committee concentrated on patterns of administrative practice rather than the detail of individual programs. The Committee was concerned to identify whether departments pay adequate and joint attention to the way in which they acquire mandate, exercise management control and evaluate results. The Committee believed that by improving administrative practices the results of the programs themselves could be enhanced. The Committee made a number of general findings on aspects of administration which it considered would go some way towards addressing the pressing issues facing policy formulators and administrators. This report, the 246th from the Committee, sets out the response to its findings in report 213 and its comments on that response. While the Committee is satisfied that there have been improvements in the manner in which some programs are administered, it does not accept the arguments put forward in several responses, particularly as regards the need for legislative backing for programs and proper evaluation of program performance. One of the most important innovations affecting the administration of social welfare programs postdates the Committee's report. The financial management improvement program-FMIP-was initiated by the Department of Finance and the Public Service Board in mid-1983. The program is designed to direct closer attention to some of the issues raised by the Committee, including the clarity of administrative objectives for programs and the evaluation of practices and programs. The Committee notes that, of the 10 departments which responded to its questionnaire, the departments of Defence, Health and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are involved in the pilot program for FMIP and have begun to apply its objectives to their respective operations. The Committee notes that FMIP is designed to complement the range of government financial reforms, including the consolidation of appropriations, the integration of financial and staffing decision making and program budgeting. Departments should not rely solely on these reforms, which are intended to be introduced progressively and to improve financial management systematically. I turn now to some of the Committee's perceived shortcomings in the response. On the basis of the Committee's inquiry, the Committee suggested that, in addition to the then proposed ministerial review of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, there should be a joint management review conducted by the Public Service Board and Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to consider priorities, efficiency and effectiveness. The Committee rejects the response tendered by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The unqualified confidence claimed by the Department in its administrative ability is clouded by the Public Service Board's agreement to a `reorganisation of the Department's structure which represents a significant strengthening of its management capability'. One of the recurrent themes in the Committee's report was the necessity to have objectives for programs clearly specified and to have administrative practices formulated on this basis consistent with one another. The Committee suggested that there be an external review mechanism, such as a task force, to consider current operations and fundamental innovations. The Committee accepts that the budgetary reforms announced in April 1984, including program budgeting and improvement in public sector financial management, may be of assistance in clarifying organisational and evaluation processes. The Committee is also pleased to note that there have been specific, external reviews of programs, including reviews of the repatriation system and the income security review. The Committee acknowledges the need for administration to be able to respond flexibly to a range of circumstances. For this reason, a balance must be struck with broad legislation supported by more detailed administrative instructions to permit managers to exercise the necessary discretion to respond flexibly and swiftly within the law to a variety of circumstances. In this report the Committee reiterates its view that the formulation of program legislation is a valuable exercise and suggests that those administering authorities which do not already have such legislation in place should give the matter further attention. The Committee rejects the responses from the Departments of Health, Aboriginal Affairs and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that their need for flexibility militates against the use of legislation. The broad or `umbrella' legislation which the Committee proposed would permit flexibility while at the same time fostering careful articulation of objectives and improved administration. The Committee is less than understanding of the inaccuracies in responses tendered; for example, that the establishment of the Surveillance and Investigation Division within the Department of Health is a measure to enhance monitoring and evaluation. However, this Division was transferred to the Health Insurance Commission in May 1985, some five months before the Finance minute was presented to the Committee. In addition, the response by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in relation to its recommendations for legislation for labour market programs is not accurate. The Kirby report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, to which the Department referred, made no recommendations concerning legislation for labour market programs, although one recommendation suggested legislation and a sunset clause for the proposed council for employment and training. It is the Committee's opinion that the Department takes an unreasonably general interpretation of the Kirby report on this matter in an attempt to suggest a favourable outcome. While the Committee accepts that possible reforms to correct anomalies and deficiencies in programs would require government involvement, it does not consider that it in any way diminishes the need to have such matters drawn to its Minister's or the Parliament's attention. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-The income maintenance programs report, which is in fact the Department of Finance's response to the 213th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, is a very significant document for a number of reasons. It was the last report that I had initiated during my period as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee back in 1982. It was one of the first reports which we tabled as a discussion paper on subjects that we believed required in-depth consideration of matters of a wider nature than just the affairs of one department or one aspect of public administration. We chose the subject of income maintenance because, as came out very clearly in the report, the impact of the income maintenance programs is not just enormous in terms of its share of total budgetary appropriations. Equally significant is its share of the administrative costs of no fewer than 10 different departments. The House may be interested to note that I use these figures on the basis of their being contained in this report. The Department of Social Security spent 94.4 per cent of its budget on direct expenditure for income maintenance, the then Department of the Capital Territory spent 3.3 per cent, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 44.5 per cent, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs 31.7 per cent, the Department of Health 86.9 per cent, the Department of Veterans' Affairs 94.8 per cent, the Department of Defence 4.2 per cent, the Department of Administrative Services 0.9 per cent, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations 47.6 per cent and the Department of Education 7.6 per cent. I should add that these figures relate to the budgetary period 1981-82, which was when this investigation was carried out, but I suspect that a comparison of those figures with the current budgetary situation would not demonstrate any great difference. The significance of this report rests on the fact that the Public Accounts Committee at that time believed, and it has been emphasised in the evidence now brought forward, that the time has obviously come when, if governments are serious about controlling the level of overall budgetary expenditure and therefore being in a position to control the constant increases in taxes-a subject of very great concern to the electorate at this time-it is time that they faced the fact that they can achieve little by looking at individual program expenditure patterns on a department by department basis unless they are also prepared to look laterally right across the spectrum of governmental activities to see where the program duplications take place. As I said, on the basis of the analysis and the figures I have just quoted, it is more than obvious that one cannot justify a situation in which no fewer than 10 different departments have programs involved in the broad area of income maintenance and income support. Obviously the time has come when there must be a reallocation of responsibilities across the spectrum, with the objective of reducing administrative costs, because each of those programs has its own administrative element and so forth, they have established their own internal priorities within departments and they have established a substantial capacity on an annual basis to fight for a continuation of at least the same level of budgetary appropriations as they received in the previous year. The implications of all this are that, within the context of the interdepartmental wranglings which take place in the Budgetary context, it is extremely difficult for a government effectively to control more than 10 per cent of its entire budgetary appropriation in any financial year most is of an incremental nature. The only way it can overcome this is to have the courage to identify the areas of expenditure which can be rationalised more effectively than we have in the case of income maintenance expenditure which is part of the budgetary appropriation of no fewer than 10 different departments. The Government has, over the last three years, introduced a number of significant changes in terms of financial management. This was referred to by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) in introducing the report today. He referred specifically to the financial management improvement program. Much has been said about this program. It was noted in the statement that three departments of those under investigation by the PAC are introducing the program. However, I think that the House should be aware that such improvement programs will have a limited benefit if, as I said earlier, they are going to be related exclusively to programs within individual departments. The finance management improvement program, or the FMIP as it is called, in fact has three clear objectives: Firstly, it emphasises the importance of a corporate and performance oriented approach to resource management; secondly, it emphasises the need to develop, where practicable, indicators of program performance based on defined target levels of achievement; thirdly, it emphasises the control of the resources used and monitoring the outcomes against program objectives and targets. However, although FMIP should lead to a more precise definition of objectives and performance management through program budgeting, I believe that the philosophy behind those reforms remains flawed. That is because they involve an analysis of existing programs only and do not require any general lateral examination of their inter-relationships with other programs, often in different departments, but more or less directed at meeting the same social objectives. Until this is achieved, until objectives for policy are clearly identified, until areas of duplication and waste are removed, effective, worthwhile and sustainable cost savings will remain minimal for any government. Certainly the present Government, which has now had over three years to put in place these administrative reforms and financial reforms, has failed to see the need for clear policy directions and objectives. I wonder, for example, how in the context of this particular report one can seriously justify in excess of 127 income maintenance programs. I ask honourable members to note that was for the financial year 1981-82; I suspect that there are far more today. These programs are spread over 10 departments. They range from housing assistance, on the one hand, to the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme within the Department of Defence on the other hand. That scheme distorts the defence budget by over 4 per cent. It is clear that a program such as that belongs in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and not in the Department of Defence. The same analysis must be made of each of those 10 departments in a serious attempt to rationalise those responsibilities which, at the moment, are spread in such an extraordinarily ad hoc manner, which merely demonstrates the fact that programs have a tendency, under our governmental system, to have an annual accretion unless there is a serious, determined and disciplined attempt by the government of the day to determine the directions and objectives of policy, not only on an individual program basis but also in terms of their cumulative effect on the subject area on which they are meant to have an overall impact. It was noted by the honourable member for Calwell in his statement-I would like to emphasise a few of the points in this particular context-that while the FMIP is, as I said, a step in the right direction it will not succeed unless a more determined approach is taken to correlate programs in a range of departments and to overcome inconsistencies, especially the application of resources for the achievement of those objectives. One of the initiatives announced in the original report of the Committee was that legislation setting clear objectives for the range of major programs should be passed through the Parliament. That is the second step that has to be taken after correlating the existing range of programs on a department and objective basis. That having been achieved, legislation should set the objectives for the programs and specify what the goals ought to be. That is something that we have been lax in doing for far too long in Australia-certainly in this Parliament. Governments have had an unwillingness to face the fact that the electorate has a right to know what the program goals are and what is expected to be achieved through expenditure. Having reached that situation, a government is then in a position to discipline more effectively the application of resources to objectives and to determine over any given period to what extent it has been successful or the extent to which it has failed. Management by objectives needs to be just as much a reality in the public sector as it is in the private sector. However, it can be achieved only when we have a clear set of program objectives for each of the policy areas in terms of the objectives set through government policy. I commend this report to the House. It has emphasised a number of very important shortcomings of public administration. I certainly hope that all departments and all Ministers will take the time to read the report carefully. Mr PORTER(Barker) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave of the House to present a corrigendum to the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card and to make a short statement. Leave granted. Mr PORTER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I present the corrigendum to the Committee's report. The report of the Joint Committee on an Australia Card was tabled in this place on 8 May this year. Due to the extensive nature of the inquiry and the great pressure on the Committee to finalise the report for presentation to Parliament on that date, some errors were contained in it. For the benefit of honourable members, I seek to correct these errors, before publication of the report, through the tabling of this corrigendum. I thank the House. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.10) —We continue the debate on the Migration Amendment Bill 1986. This Bill is a direct consequence of provisions in the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill which passed through the House of Representatives earlier this session and which is currently awaiting debate in the Senate. The Migration Amendment Bill relates to clause 4 of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. The changes to the Australian Citizenship Act provide for the Government to define more carefully exactly who is an Australian citizen. Clause 4 of the amending Bill changes section 10 of the Act. These changes, which have been passed by the House of Representatives, remove the right of automatic citizenship for children born in Australia whose parents are prohibited non-citizens, temporary entrants or visitors. Those changes, having been approved in this place, put an obligation on us to determine what status under migration laws should be given to the children. They cannot be citizens any more, so what should they be? They are infants who are dependent on their parents, especially their mothers. Those children have been born here of parents who are prohibited non-citizens, temporary entrants or visitors. Before the changes these children would have been Australian citizens because of the fact that they were born in Australia. The House is considering the consequential amendments to the Migration Act and these amendments confer the immigration status of the parents on the children. However, if the immigration status of the parent is different, the status of the parent which is the more favourable will be given to the child. That would be the status of the parent with the longer period left to remain in Australia. So if the parents are not citizens or residents of Australia, the child born here is given the better status of either parent. If the parents have the same status, the child takes the status of both. During the debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, the Opposition gave its support to the proposed change to the Australian Citizenship Act. Moreover, it has accepted that an amendment to the Migration Act is necessary to carry through the intent of the citizenship changes. Nevertheless, it must be understood that the changes to our citizenship law are significant and most important. Since the introduction of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill there has been considerable public debate and confusion over the proposed changes. It is most likely that this concern would have been diminished, had the Government adopted the range of consultations with the community that the Opposition requested. One significant concern which has been raised is that a right which has always been considered fundamental is being removed and that its removal is inconsistent with a society which displays affection for those who acquire citizenship. It is also essential that, in making such a major change, we protect the fundamental rights of children. The fundamental right of citizenship in Australia has previously been based on the common law principle of jus soli, which means the attribution of nationality on the basis of place of birth, irrespective of parentage or race. The principle of jus soli, contrasts with another principle which is commonly used, that of jus sanguinis, which states that a person's citizenship is determined by the citizenship of the parents-a principle previously not applied in Australia. From now on, for children born here of prohibited non-citizens, temporary entrants and visitors, citizenship will be based on the principle of blood ties-that is, citizenship as determined by the citizenship of the parents. In addition, children who would otherwise become stateless are protected and they will acquire Australian citizenship. The legal principle of citizenship by place of birth is not being entirely abandoned by these changes. It is, however, being restricted. The tradition of citizenship by birthplace is incorporated in the citizenship laws of the United States of America, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, New Zealand and Fiji. However, it is interesting to note that the United Kingdom, which gave Australia its common law tradition, has recently revoked the right of jus soli for the children of illegal immigrants. The procedure as it stood was open to exploitation by those seeking to achieve residency. What are the factors that need to be considered from our national point of view? There is the traditional principle developed in the United Kingdom and Europe that most people who move from one country to another move for reasons of permanent settlement. In today's world, in which easy and fast international travel is commonplace, the mere presence in a country of a person does not necessarily denote any degree of permanency. In recognition of this fact, the United Kingdom has removed birthright citizenship. Few countries in the world now confer automatic citizenship on birth. One of the principal reasons for the changes to the citizenship law was the problem which arose when prohibited non-citizens abused our citizenship law in order to obtain permanent residency in Australia, based on the citizenship of their child. It has been taken to the Human Rights Commission in the cases of Yilmaz and Yuen. It has been the subject of litigation in the High Court of Australia in the Kioa case. A report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure in November last year confirmed that parents who were illegal immigrants would attempt to acquire residential status and resist deportation on the basis that their child was an Australian citizen, needing their constant attention. The abuse of the system is a clear example of the way in which people who have no real claim to stay in Australia permanently are able to receive considerable benefits ahead of those seeking immigration through the proper channels. Illegal immigrants can use and have used the birth of a child in Australia to justify claims for residential status, and increasingly have used litigation or complaints to the Human Rights Commission to advance their claims. Often the cost of the litigation has been borne by the Australian taxpayers through legal aid. The number of people attempting to use the citizenship of a child as a basis for claims to change status is increasing dramatically. In 1982-83 the number of temporary residents seeking change of status based on the Australian citizenship of their child was 5,025. This compares with 7,422 in 1983-84-a 48 per cent increase within one year. The difficulties caused for Australia through the grant of automatic citizenship of children can be many. Those with no link to Australia have had access to health, welfare and education for their children at the expense of our taxpayers. A child born in Australia could return at any time and take advantage of benefits provided by long term residents. The Opposition has accepted the Government's reasons for more carefully defining the concept of citizenship and we acknowledge that it is the Government's right to do so. The Human Rights Commission examined the changes that the Government has put forward and indicated that there was no contravention or conflict with existing international covenants or conventions, provided that children who would otherwise become stateless are protected. Consideration of such a citizenship change was undertaken by the National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, presented in a report to the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). In those discussions it became clear that if citizenship were to be denied to children of prohibited non-citizens, some type of compensation for that child would be necessary and desirable. There is no doubt that the changes remove a tradition and a basic right of citizenship. That is something that should not be done lightly. The Government appears to be taking this step to deny citizenship to children so that it can take action against parents who may become illegal immigrants. Such a process has little to recommend it. Australia is one of the few remaining countries that accept large scale immigration, and people coming here are of great value. We need citizens. The Government failed to consult with anyone on the changes it made to the Australian Citizenship Act. The Migration Act amendments, which are interlocked with those of the Australian Citizenship Act, were not even available at the time that the changes to citizenship were being made. The changes to the Citizenship Act were made too fast and too carelessly. The Government's objective in removing the abuse of citizenship could have been achieved in one of two ways. The first approach could have been to restrict citizenship-and that has been done. The second could have been to change the Migration Act to prevent any claim by the parents or the child to permanent residency. This latter approach was not available to the Government due to the impending human rights legislation. That legislation, currently before the Senate-we do not know whether we shall ever see it pass the Senate-will have the effect of once more causing many individual claims of residency by parents based on the citizenship and the need of the child. We in the Opposition have decided that the complete removal of traditional rights cannot be supported. So whilst the Opposition accepts that the Government's approach of denial of citizenship solves a particular problem, we shall be moving an amendment in Committee on this Bill. In essence, our amendment will allow compensation for the removal of automatic citizenship rights-a procedure to permit those born in Australia of non-citizens or non-residents to take up permanent residency between the ages of 18 and 40 years. Where such a person applies between the ages of 18 and 40, that person would be subject only to character and security checks and minimum health checks and would not otherwise be required to meet all the normal immigration criteria. There would, of course, be provision for those people to become Australian citizens in due course. The approach we propose is the only sound decision that allows an element of retention of recognition of the place of one's birth and prevents the abuse of our national rights at the same time. At the age of 18, persons born in Australia of non-citizens or non-residents will have a right to return to the place of their birth and join the Australian community. The conditions of entry would be light and not obstructive. A young adult would, by our amendment, be given a chance to make a decision, almost an automatic decision, to join us here. The cut-off age of 40 years, whilst arbitrary, allows that person to migrate, probably with his or her family, and make a substantial contribution to our nation before reaching retiring age. Much of the Government's messy approach could have been sorted out if time had been given for consultation. Fortunately, the Opposition is absolutely confident that it has found a reasonable and sensible answer for the Government's incompetence. I should say here that this reasonable answer is one that we would wish the Government to observe when it seeks to obstruct the House by ramming through legislation-eight Bills in a few hours today-such as the fiasco with the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains taxes. The Government has adopted this approach almost as a matter of form. We have a remote and isolated Treasurer bringing these matters into the House. I regret to say that if more consultation and greater time and care had been taken by the Government in these considerable changes to citizenship, the results would have been far more satisfactory. A mere change to the citizenship law and the Migration Act alone will not stop the tide of illegal immigrants. It requires concerted administrative action with clear directives from the Government. But illegal immigration is not the only area of considerable concern. This Government has administered its immigration policy by its immigration trilogy: Lack of consistency, lack of clarity and lack of consultation. The Government's incompetence in the area of the administration of illegal immigration was most dramatically demonstrated last year at a Senate Estimates committee. Representatives of the Department admitted that their figure of 50,000 illegal immigrants in Australia was at best an unsubstantiated estimate. I currently see figures of some 70,000 illegal immigrants. Former Ministers say that they do not know what the level is. So we really do not know how many people have come into Australia as illegal immigrants, but one could guess that it is perhaps somewhere between 50,000 and 70,000. On the other hand, the Department has been working on the assumption that this increase of illegal immigrants has been perhaps 6,000 to 10,000 a year. It is not generally known-the Senate Estimates committee disclosed this-that in a trial period of checking people in and out of Australia, after a six-months delay the trial disclosed that there could be 15,000 to 16,000 illegal immigrants coming to Australia each year. That is a far higher figure than the figure generally quoted, and it is one that should cause some concern. The procedures for dealing with illegal immigrants, for keeping data and information, and for taking preventative measures to control the flow of illegal immigrants have been left in an incomplete and incoherent fashion. Maybe we are waiting for the Australia Card to turn up. I do not know whether the Australia Card will turn up, so we need to address these matters. The Minister can roam the world, but why does he not apply some of his time to straightening out some of the problems here at home? I should like him to do that. He is a nice man. Mrs Sullivan —Where is he? He is never here during such debates. Mr CADMAN —We would like him to do that. We would like him to apply himself to some of the matters before us connected with immigration. In the 12 months to March 1986, there was a 77 per cent increase in the number of decisions not finalised by the immigration review panels. The number of decisions not finalised by the review process is increasing. The number of requests for review is also growing. In the period October to December 1985, 865 requests for review were received-that is, requests for a change of status for people here in Australia or people overseas who have been denied access, but mainly those in Australia. In the period January to March 1986, the number had increased by 67 per cent to 1,422. The review of a single case takes at least one year. At the rate the process is falling behind, it will soon take two years for a review. The backlog of cases being considered at overseas missions is increasing. Pretoria has a wait list of one year; so do Lebanon, India and the Philippines. Potential migrants whom the Government claims it is so eager to have come to Australia are frustrated by inordinate delays in gaining their approvals, but if people come here and illegally try to stay on, limitless opportunities appear to be available to them to be given assistance and for them to delay departure. The review processes for change of status alone will give most of those who want to beat the system one year and, with other processes of representation, two to three years here. So we are approaching the matter in the wrong way. It needs application, and it needs the Minister's attention. Within a short time, I believe that a stay of five years in Australia is not inconceivable for any visitor. This process increases security risks, and the slack administration results in the payout of unemployment benefits and of health and legal costs for those abusing the system, which costs appear to be given the stamp of approval by the Government. The Minister's attitude to his job is benign, complacent and apathetic. He likes the Treasury part of it. I should like him to apply himself just as enthusiastically to the immigration part of it. Why should well-intentioned, worthy migrants put up with discouraging bureaucratic delays and procrastination whilst, on the other hand, visitors who want to beat the system are given increasing satisfaction? I acknowledge the words of the Minister on 10 April this year when he said of the Government: It wants a better society for all Australians and sees immigration, properly controlled, as a powerful weapon in achieving that objective. But immigration is not properly controlled, and it is depressing that the inadequacies of the Minister's administration lead to strong disagreement with the Government's delivery of its stated objectives. I shall give the House a few examples. There are still 60 to 70 cases outstanding since January for a change of status from the Lebanese community, many of which are worthy cases. This group was targeted for special and urgent attention by the Government. No action is discernible. The skilled and business immigration program and employer nomination schemes have also been part of the immigration program. In 1984-85 the Government set a target of 4,000 business migrants, but managed to achieve only 1,417. The target for the present year was raised to 4,500, but the actual yield is expected to be about the same as last year and will not be much more than 1,500. Is this failure to achieve target levels brought about because people are unwilling to come to Australia-people who have the skills, knowledge and investment ability that we so urgently and desperately require? No, it is not. The failure has been brought about because of the bungling political processes that have been displayed. I quote from the Age of 15 April 1986: The Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, Mr Brian Powell, said that bureaucratic delays of 8-12 months were frustrating prospective business migrants. It was not the policy but the bureaucratic processing of applicants that was causing problems. Further to this, the Executive Director of the Victorian Employers Federation, Mr Ian Spicer, said: . . . Australia had failed to attract the full quota of business migrants because of a lack of active recruitment and promotion overseas. Delays in processing and clearing applications have led many applicants to change their minds about coming to Australia. Many have gone to other countries which compete with us to attract skilled migrants. Australia needs more skilled immigration. It needs a flexible and market-orientated system but, above all, it needs effective, efficient and expeditious processing of applications. Severe labour shortages are to be found in many areas, particularly in data processing, accountancy, financial expertise, in the metal and electrical trades and the nursing profession. I shall just take the nursing profession. The administration of the overseas nurse recruitment program is one of the greatest examples of maladministration. It proves that the Minister really cannot deal effectively and quickly with a shortage of skilled migrants. The process of overseas nurse recruitment began in about March 1985. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs then said in the House: In other words there is a need and we can respond to it. Some States need these nurses. That is an understatement. Fourteen months later there is still a need and there has been very little response. In December last year I pointed out that the problem was not that nurses were unavailable nor that hospitals were unwilling to employ them, but that the applications for approval were being processed at a very slow rate. In December, a survey of Sydney hospitals indicated that at almost all of them no nurses had arrived even though the specific processing of applications had begun in late July. Hospitals in New South Wales are seeking a total of 630 nurses. In December, although some interviews had taken place, only about 40 nurses had entered Australia. As a further indictment of the way the Medicare hospital system mess operates, many of those 40 have left the public hospitals to work for private hospitals. The Minister's response was: The fact is that occupational migrants such as nurses receive processing priority . . . Employer nominees in London, a key post for nurses, are processed in 11 1/2 weeks. The situation now is little better. The 630 nurses required from overseas are for major hospitals including Westmead, Sydney, Camperdown children's hospital, Royal North Shore, Prince Henry and Prince of Wales. At the end of March, one hospital with 100 approvals for nurses had received no nurses. Another with 65 approvals had received only five. At the end of March one hospital with 20 approvals had not seen any nurses arrive. In May one arrived. The next is due at the of July. After that date, it is anyone's guess as to whether there will be any more. This is an urgent program, yet it has taken one year to get just a few nurses. It has taken one year not to come near the target, but to get just a few nurses. It is not all the fault of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. There have been delays in processing of nurses in London. There have been delays in the accreditation system. There have been delays in the way in which the Department has dealt with each application. It is clear that the Government has no control over this program. It needs a proper team to clear the way through all the administrative difficulties that have been encountered. Even in the Minister's favourite activity-Treasury matters-he has not been able to carry out his cost cutting, as announced in last year's mini-Budget. In May last year the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that surplus migrant centres would be sold, saving $16.6m. Twelve months later, not one of them has been sold. The Minister has failed to deliver the goods. He issues nice-sounding policies, mostly in Press releases, but he does not follow them up; and that is the point I am making to the House today. The administrative processes which need to be followed through must be dependent on carefully thought out and detailed policies, not on Press releases. That is the way to go to get the results that the Minister is seeking. Can anyone imagine that this innocuous man, with good personal attitudes, could be worse in his administration than Stewie West? I did not think that would have been possible, but it has turned out that way. The action of the Minister is almost perverting our system of immigration and not achieving the objectives that the Minister personally wants. It is time that he did something about it. Those who should be given incentives to come to Australia are being neglected, and those who should not come seem to be encouraged. The Opposition has expressed its strong views on a program balanced between economically sound migrants and family reunion migrants. We want to see an increase in immigration, supported by domestic policies of smaller government and employment training opportunities for our young people. Compassionate and humanitarian attitudes play a considerable part in the administration of immigration and ethnic affairs. The purpose of the amendment the Opposition proposes to move to this Bill is to give an opportunity to children who have been born in Australia. I call on the Government and its members to respond favourably to our proposals. If the Government accepts our amendment not only will it achieve its objective; it will do so with far greater equity than was intended in its legislative approach. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(5.37) —I support the Migration Amendment Bill 1986. This Bill is complementary to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1986, and it is intended to come into operation on the day on which the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act comes into operation. The Bill takes cognisance of developments and concerns which have arisen in respect of the operation of both the Australian Citizenship Act and the Migration Act. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) used a number of arguments which are supportive of the main thrust of the Government's argument in this Bill, but one has some doubts about the value of the amendment which, presumably, he will move in the Committee stages. Apparently, the purpose of the amendment is: . . . a child born in Australia and a non-citizen at the relevant time . . . between that person's eighteenth and fortieth birthdays, at the request of that person be granted an entry permit, and such a permit may be granted subject to conditions. The argument I raise with respect to the amendment is: Why stop at age 40? Does it not discriminate against those over the age of 40 who find themselves in that position? The argument used by the honourable member for Mitchell was that at 40 people would be able to give something to this country, and in giving something they could then live the rest of their lives here. I argue that a person of 50 or of 60 can still give to the country. I am in my fifties and I certainly feel that I have a lot to contribute to this country. Looking at the other end of the age factor, another point I make is that we have to realise that some countries have national service commitments for young persons between, say, 18 and 25 or 30. This amendment could lead to a migration of eligible persons to Australia for the sheer purpose of trying to evade their obligations and responsibilities in their own countries. Although the amendment has some desirable features, I think it is sadly lacking and I certainly would not support it. Another point made by the honourable member for Mitchell in the course of his speech was that the Government had failed to consult. This argument has been taken up by the International Commission of Jurists on a number of occasions. The Commission has made a number of points. It has suggested that there has been little consultation, as the honourable member for Mitchell has said, and that there has been no public debate or Press publicity. What the Commission fails to realise is that the previous Liberal Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee)-he was a very good Minister-tabled in the House on 6 May 1982 a statement which contained a review of the Australian Citizenship Act. Among its proposals was one which suggested that a child born in this country of a temporary resident or an illegal immigrant should automatically lose Australian citizenship if he or she left Australia before attaining the age of five years and did not resume residence in the five years immediately following departure, provided that the parent did not become an Australian citizen or a permanent resident in the meantime. It was also suggested by the then Minister that no child should cease to be an Australian citizen if that would render that child a stateless person. Whilst we have not picked up the five-year part of that proposal, we certainly have carried through the thrust of it. I think it should be recognised that that thrust has been carried through. The second point that has been argued by the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists is that this is somehow a denial of human rights. That is really a nonsense. (Quorum formed) Again we have witnessed this terrible situation in which, although hardly anyone is present on the Opposition benches, a quorum is called by an Opposition member. However, I welcome the calling of quorums because at least I know that I have a ready audience which is prepared to listen to my speech. Before I was interrupted by the call for a quorum, I was saying that the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists has raised a number of objections to the Migration Amendment Bill. One of the objections that it raised was that the amendment we are putting forward in this Bill is a denial of human rights. I said that this was a nonsense, and I repeat that. The right that is being curtailed is not a fundamental human right, but a legal right which is given by virtue of the Australian Citizenship Act. This Government takes the view that citizenship should derive not from the location of birth but through the child's parents. If one were to accept the Opposition's proposition that place of birth is the determinant factor, one would be forced to accept that birth overseas to Australian citizen parents should not entitle a child to Australian citizenship. Such a proposition is contrary to the existing provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act which automatically confers citizenship upon the registration of children born overseas to Australian citizen parents. In supporting this Bill, and despite the snide comments of the honourable member for Mitchell, I would like to pay a sincere tribute to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). He has shown himself to be a most discerning, compassionate and courageous Minister and one who carries out the duties of his portfolio with great gusto. Immigration has been one of the success stories of post-war Australia. No other country, with the exception perhaps of Canada, has been so successful in absorbing so many migrants from diverse ethnic backgrounds and with such diverse skills. The immigration program has added to both our economic growth and our population growth, as well as giving us a richer and more varied lifestyle. Credit must be given to governments from both sides of the House for the initiatives which they and their Ministers have shown in the post-war period. It is clear that Australia needs more migrants to maintain its economic development and to stimulate population growth. It must be remembered that about one-half of the post-World War II population growth has been the direct result of immigration. Moreover, immigration has had a significant indirect stimulus through natural increase, as the majority of female new settlers who arrived in the past 40 years were in or had yet to reach child-bearing age. Yes, both sides of the House can be proud of our immigration record; but this is not to say that as a nation we can afford to rest on our laurels. In fact, as the Minister has indicated on a number of occasions, there is a need to increase the flow of migrants to this country in order to avoid Australia becoming an aging country. Obviously the aging of Australia's population has significant welfare, taxation, labour market and economic consequences-none of them good or desirable for this country's future. Whilst the `lucky country' label can be criticised, there is no doubt that, to those overseas who wish to enter Australia as migrants, it remains a `lucky country'. Whilst we want more migrants to help build a better Australia, we want an orderly processing of those wishing to come here. We do not want queue jumpers. All members of this House are patently aware that the imbalance between those granted migrant entry status and those seeking to come to Australia has created tensions-tensions for those seeking entry and for their relatives who are sponsoring them. I am sure that my office is no busier than any other member's office in trying to resolve some of the problems relating to sponsorship. I would like to pay a tribute to my staff, who bear the brunt of requests from those sponsoring prospective migrants and respond positively to the requests for help. At the same time I would like to place on record my appreciation of the work of the parliamentary liaison staff of the Perth office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for their sympathetic handling of the many cases my office refers to them. They work under tremendous pressure and try their very best for the cases referred to them. The Bill before the House contains amendments which are consequential to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act which was passed by the House on 13 March 1986. That Act proposed that children born in Australia to visitors, temporary residents and illegal immigrants would no longer automatically acquire citizenship by birth, unless they would otherwise be stateless. This Bill will have the effect of conferring upon those children the same immigration status as their parents. If their parents immigrant status differs, the children would be given the status of the parent with the longer non-expired period of permitted stay in Australia. It should be noted at the outset that this amendment is substantially different from the proposal of the previous Government. In 1982 the honourable member for Goldstein, then the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, recommended that the child of a temporary resident or prohibited immigrant should automatically lose citizenship if that child departed Australia before five years of age. I have already discussed that. (Quorum formed) Once again, we have had the hollow sham of the Opposition's calling for a quorum on a debate of vital importance to this nation when only three members of the Opposition were in the chamber. I do not mind having quorums called upon me, but I think it is a shame that people outside are denied the opportunity to hear what we want to say. It is honourable members opposite who argue that they do not have enough time to debate the issues before this Parliament. They are the cause of this, not us. I was saying that we looked at the amendment that was proposed by the previous Government, but the amendment did not overcome the problem of queue jumping. A married couple could come to Australia on a temporary entry visa, have a child within the visa period and, after the birth of the child, still have five years in which to obtain Australian citizenship for themselves without-and this is the important point-even having applied overseas to migrate to Australia. The parents would use the fact that the child was a citizen as a lever to prevent their having to leave Australia. When I migrated to this country in 1960 from the United Kingdom I had to satisfy the migrant authorities that I was a fit and proper person to enter this country. Who could have thought at the time that I had a streak of insanity which later prompted me to seek, and obtain, election to this House? Again, it must be emphasised that if a child is born to one parent who is an Australian citizen or permanent resident, that child will, under the amendment, automatically acquire Australian citizenship by birth. The amendment provides that if the child is stateless it will acquire Australian citizenship which accords with the wishes of the Human Rights Commission. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(5.57) —I will say just a few words in response to some of the matters that were referred to by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard). I point out to those few Government members still present that if they think so little of Question Time that they are prepared to put up with the performance we had today of only eight questions being answered in three-quarters of an hour and Ministers using Question Time to make statements, they must expect to pay more attention to the House at other times during the day. The spectacle that we saw today of the guillotine and limits on debate is a fair indication of what this Government thinks about Parliament. Every time that Government members come in moaning and groaning because they are required to meet the constitutional requirement in relation to quorums in this House they drive home just how little regard for Parliament this Government has. We are debating the Migration Amendment Bill 1986. My own views on the topic before us, to some extent at least, could be categorised as sentimental, but I hope that in using that term no one would be led to suggest that those views are therefore illogical. We are debating a decision by the Government to remove a right to citizenship that has been enjoyed for a long time; that is, the right of those who are born in this country to citizenship regardless of the status of their parents. I think that we ought to bear in mind when we in this Parliament debate a major change to citizenship rights of this nature that the majority of Australian citizens at present are citizens by birth or by virtue of changes to the law during the lifetime of their ancestors. There are many Australians today whose ancestors were in this country before Australia was a Federation, for example-prior to a great train of changes in Australian citizenship law. They are, therefore, citizens by birth. I am an Australian citizen not because I was born to parents who were Australian citizens-although they were-but because I was born in this country. That is a right that millions of Australians enjoy. This law will change the right to citizenship from those born in this country to those who are born to citizens. The Opposition has put forward a very moderate amendment which received some criticism from the honourable member for Moore. Nevertheless, I did not get the feeling during the honourable member's speech that he was inherently hostile to the amendment. I shall return to the amendment in a little more detail very shortly. Since we are not going to have an effective Committee debate I am sure that there will be some reference throughout this debate to the amendment to be moved in the Committee stage. One of the distressing things about being involved in matters to do with immigration, citizenship and so on-I am sure that the honourable member for Moore and many other Government members will have experienced this-is an attitude of a number of those who have come to this country under our immigration laws, that the last one aboard pulls up the ladder. Provided they are here, they are rather more punitive or restrictive in their attitudes towards subsequent immigration policies. One of the distressing features of debates on to the Fraser Government's pioneering policies of the 1970s on Indo-Chinese refugees was that the most vigorous objections raised to the admission of these refugees came from people who were themselves migrants, who had had the privilege of applying under previous laws and coming to Australia in an orderly fashion-although, in fact, many of them came here as refugees from other wars-and who took a view which was not at all welcoming to this new group of refugees. However, it is a feature that is not unique to Australia. It is a feature that one encounters in all countries that have an immigration intake. There is concern to ensure their personal security on the part of some who come to those countries under immigrations laws but who would deny to others a right which they themselves have enjoyed. I find that a very difficult attitude to deal with, and it is not one to which I can give a lot of time. I imagine that that influences my concern at the moment that those who enjoy Australian citizenship by birth can so easily deny that right to others in the future. It is worth reiterating that a right has been removed by this decision of the Government. The International Commission of Jurists has written at length, as far as I am aware, to all members on this subject. It has pointed out that there has been a removal of a right that others have had. The Opposition, through its amendment will seek to restore that right, admittedly in a limited but, nevertheless, a reasonable and a controlled way. It needs to be borne in mind, because it is lost sight of sometimes in immigration debates, that we do not have an overpopulation problem in this country. Far from it. What we have is an illegal migrant problem. I have a great deal of respect for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for its professionalism and its motivation in those areas with which it deals. However, I think, there is, nevertheless, the understandable tendency that is demonstrated in many areas of the bureaucracy that, when we have a problem that we can never solve-we will never solve the illegal migrant problem; we can diminish it, but we cannot solve it-we should change the rules. The illegal migrant problem will not change in nature at all as a result of this legislation. Nobody will be deterred from being an illegal migrant by this change. People may be deterred from trying to use the legal device of appeals to the Human Rights Commission, all of which have been unsuccessful in the past, and nobody could have any reasonable expectation of success in the future if he or she went down that path. But this Bill will not deter illegal migrants. What it will do is bring about some hardship. I make it very clear that I do not support citizenship by birth as a means for illegal migrants to acquire resident status. There is a very recent, very celebrated case in the State of Queensland of a particular family which has three generations in Australia, nearly all of whom are illegal migrants. I have encountered cases myself where people who are under the threat of deportation have presented themselves with their children to my office and have claimed as part of their case for staying in Australia, although they are here illegally at present, that they have children who were born here and/or have lived here for several years. I have had put to me impassioned pleas from teachers of these children on the grounds that the children have been reared essentially in Australia and that there would be great disadvantage to them in returning to their home country. I recognise that and I sympathise very much with the children. However, I feel more anger with the parents for having done that than I do with the law or with those who would seek to have those illegal migrants removed from this country. I cite the case of such a family that has been receiving some celebrity status in the Queensland newspapers-I am not sure whether it has appeared in other Australian newspapers-within the last month. They are very decent, respectable people who are leading apparently very decent and law abiding lives but they broke the immigration law and they knew it. It has certainly been my experience in similar cases when people have presented themselves to me in an attempt to stave off deportation that it is very clear when examining the actions of those illegal immigrants that, from the time they arrived in Australia, they meant to break the law. They came to Australia meaning to be permanent residents and knowingly did not tell the truth when they applied for a visitor's visa of whatever sort. That is not a very good start to citizenship, in my opinion. But having said all that, I am mindful of the fact that a significant number of children are deported from this country each year because their parents are illegal immigrants who were born here and have lived here long enough to have a substantial experience of Australia. These children have had enough influence in their lives, by virtue of having lived their early years in Australia, to have a cultural background and a conditioning which may mean that they would want to return to this country and be part of it. Therefore, the amendment that the Opposition will move, which will allow these children between the ages of 18 and 40 to seek entry, I believe, is a reasonable one. It is also reasonable for the sentimental reasons, as I loosely term them, that I canvassed earlier. It is a great privilege to be born in this country and thereby get Australian citizenship. It is a privilege that I enjoy and it is a privilege that millions of Australians enjoy. It is a great privilege to be born in a country like Australia and to thereby have citizenship and enjoy the benefits of citizenship. I am mindful of that privilege and, therefore, anxious that I should not, by my actions, deny that privilege to others who similarly, by the sheer accident of whatever it is that determines to what parents they are born and in what country they are born, should also have that privilege or access to it. The Opposition will propose that certain restrictions be placed on that right of entry. They are perfectly reasonable, basic restrictions, related to health and security and also an intention to reside-not just an exercising of an option of citizenship for the sake of exercising it without any intention of a commitment to the country, but an intention to reside. The knowledge that one has that right through one's life up to the age of 18, I believe, would be influential on a number of life decisions that young people make and very influential on life decisions that are made after attaining the age of adulthood, which by our standards is 18 years. I would like to see us extend that opportunity to those children. I do not anticipate that the numbers, would be large but the principle is large and it is one that I stand by. Even whilst I say that I do not anticipate the numbers would be large, I do admit that our amendment could mean that the numbers might increase in future. However, even at that point I think there are some administrative possibilities that could be entered into. For example, I understand that a visitor's visa is normally for a period of three months. If a women who is six months pregnant decides that she wants to go tripping around Australia as a tourist it may be that some discretion could be applied to limit the length of the visa, or else we should make it very clear that we will not set up maternity hospitals for those who want to do something to ensure the future of their offspring, particularly if they come from a country whose future is not assured. As I said earlier, we do not have an over-population problem even so, and if all those who could travel here in those circumstances and have children had them, I do not see that that would make any substantial difference to the future population mix of this country. As I said, our amendment would restore a right under particular circumstances. Before closing I wish to refer briefly yet again to an administrative detail, which has been referred to in earlier debates on the subject and to which the Minister has chosen not to reply. I interpolate, and I do this quite deliberately: I note for the record that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) is not in the House. I note that because I want to say that I am sure there is an excellent reason for the Minister not being in the House at the moment. However, in an earlier debate on this subject in this session when he was not in the House, he came in and told us he had been briefed by those who had listened to the debate on his behalf. However, the Minister had been misbriefed-to the extent that he had been quite incompletely briefed. In the course of his contribution to the debate on that Bill, when he made reference to certain documents he did so in ignorance of the fact that they had been canvassed and in some ignorance of the detail of some of the arguments that had been canvassed. I say all of that to place this on the record quite carefully: I hope that those who have been entrusted with briefing the Minister on this debate when he returns to reply are a little more careful than they were for the debate that took place on 13 March 1986 in this chamber. I want to refer briefly to, and raise again, this matter in the hope that the Minister might see fit on this occasion to indulge the members of this House with some information that has been sought in this context. The removal of the right of citizenship by birth has very particular administrative implications. It also has real life implications for every Australian citizen, and I refer to the status of Australian birth certificates in the future. At present I understand there is an arrangement whereby the offspring of diplomats and consular officials who are born here have some particular arrangement with their birth certificates to indicate that they do not have citizenship rights because they were born here. However, traditionally, the presentation of an Australian birth certificate has been proof of citizenship. In the debate on 13 March 1986 reference was made to the fact that these changes to the Citizenship and Migration Acts will mean that Australian birth certificates no longer have that validity. That is important to all Australians, because birth certificates are used for a variety of reasons. In that debate the Minister said this: Often my Department is required to check the status of the parents of persons born in Australia. Some expansion of these difficulties will arise from the further reduction in the reliability of a birth certificate as evidence of an Australian citizenship in such fields as passport issue. Consultations have already been arranged with the States with a view to ascertaining whether a means exists by which a birth certificate of a person who is not a citizen would be distinguishable. We will be reporting later on these consultations to anybody who is in touch with us on this matter. I hope the Minister understands that by virtue of speeches made in this House he can conclude that I consider myself to have been in touch with him on the subject. I have not received any evidence, nor has this House, of what progress has been made on that subject. Further in debate, I said: I simply suggest that it might have been better to wait until those bureaucratic difficulties-mentioned in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure report to which I referred this afternoon-were further down the track. In reply, the Minister said: I have not resiled from the fact that it will be far better administered when we have entered into successful negotiations with the States so that the birth certificates themselves will show whether people are born of Australian citizenship, and, in time, that will be done . . . These have been addressed in the administrative arrangements that we are putting in place. Even if those administrative arrangements are not complete I think we are entitled to know, in the context of these debates and the debate that will take place in the Senate later this week or next week on the subject, what stage has been reached and what is proposed. It is not reasonable to ask us to move on such profound matters as this, in relation to which there is no immediate urgency in terms of having to be completed this parliamentary session, without informing us and the Australian public just what is planned for the future in that very basic area of Australian life. I join my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) in suggesting to the House that the amendment that will be moved in Committee is reasonable and one that would be accepted as being reasonable by the Australian public, and I hope the House will see fit to accept it. Mr KENT(Hotham)(6.17) —I am greatly impressed with the words of the speaker who preceded me, the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), especially with her compassion for children born here to illegal migrants and the problems that causes to those children, and the stand the honourable member takes on that matter. I am somewhat less impressed with the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who used the debate to be somewhat partisan, and, of course, I detected much more hysteria in his speech about illegal migrants-illegal migrants using the dole, illegal migrants cheating social security, and so on. He accused the Minister of being somewhat lenient in relation to these things. As a matter of fact, I say that the Minister is too stern. Regarding the dole and illegal migration, I do not think we should be so hysterical about it. We have received here hundreds of thousands of good migrants and good settlers, including Poles, Dutch people, Italians, Greeks, Vietnamese, Turks and Yugo- slavs. The shadow Minister did not find it necessary to mention their contribution to this country. He dwelt on a few hundred or a few thousand illegal migrants-which is a product of the process of migration itself. I do not say that I approve of it, but I would take a somewhat more lenient look at those unfortunate people who found themselves in a situation where they managed to get in here. Some people call them queue jumpers, but I do not know whether some of them had any queue to jump. Some people came here from countries or cities from which we never took migrants; we just did not let them in. We closed ourselves off, and I mention Hong Kong, for instance. We race around, raid the Chinese cafes and deport a couple of illegals, forgetting that most illegal migrants are overstayed visitors from Britain, but raids are not made in relation to them. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would probably have noted by now that I do not often rise to take- (Quorum formed) I expected that. This is an important debate and that is why members opposite call quorums. As I was saying, honourable members opposite are calling quorums to interrupt this debate because Opposition members think that a debate on immigration is not important-they do not want to acknowledge the contributions of hundreds of thousands of good migrants to this country. That is why the Opposition will not get the migrant vote in a fit; no migrant will vote for Opposition members because they think that migrants are not human, or are somewhat less than human. I assure honourable members opposite that migrants are very good human beings and very good citizens of this country. I was saying, before I was so rudely interrupted, that the shadow Minister was somewhat partisan in this debate. I try to be as bipartisan as I can, as honourable members will see from what follows and from what I have to say. I do not often take part in immigration debates in this House, even though I am eminently qualified to do so as I am a migrant myself. However, the reason I am neglecting this field is that I represent a predominantly Anglo-Celtic electorate and I give preference to my colleagues who represent electorates more heavily populated with migrants. My last contribution to a debate on immigration, if I recall rightly, was in the form of a few words and a memorable leap over the bench in front of me when members of the Opposition indulged themselves in the racist comments which prompted my intervention. As a matter of fact, I am proud of my action because it did more than many speeches to turn the debate against the disgusting racist sentiments which conservative members opposite wanted to legitimise by voicing them in this chamber. However, today I would like to contribute in a more measured and thoughtful way to the debate on the Migration Amendment Bill 1986 which is before this House. The Bill itself is only a small consequential amendment to our Migration Act, though immigration itself is a major issue as far as Australia is concerned. Since time immemorial women and men have migrated in search of sustenance. When we debate immigration in Australia we tend to forget this fact. We tend to forget that the first migrants to this country were the ancestors of Aborigines who came here some 50,000 years ago. They inhabited and owned this land until the arrival of the first Europeans less than 200 years ago. This second wave of migrants, consisting of whites, disposessed the Aborigines of their land, consistent with the characteristic greed of white people, and claimed the whole continent for themselves. This characteristic greed is evident even today when big rural and mining interests are resisting attempts to restore the right of the Aborigines to at least a small part of their land. I hope that wisdom will prevail in this matter, and that Australians of today will correct the injustices of the past and grant land rights to our Aboriginal people. As I said before, women and men have migrated in search of sustenance since time immemorial. However, the problems of immigration started when people settled somewhere and decided to prevent others from settling in the same place. The history of our immigration laws and practices is a long history of restrictions which served to regulate the influx of people according to the wishes, or the perceived wishes, of those who had already settled here. The amendment to the Migration Act which is before the House today is but a small part of the long string of restrictions governing our immigration policies; and, by the way, there is nothing to be proud of as far as our immigration policies and practices were concerned in the past or, for that matter, even today. Let us look at them in a bipartisan way. The platform of my Party, the Australian Labor Party, of 1905, stated that the `aim of our immigration policy is to maintain racial purity'. In the next couple of decades that statement changed to a `mixture of 60 per cent British and 40 per cent non-British', as though laying down the rule for what percentage would be allowed for the mongrelisation of the Anglo-Celtic race. Later, in more `enlightened' times, we switched to the `White Australia' policy, until the late 1960s when, after a decade of struggle by people like myself, our Party managed to remove any racist expression from our platform. Mr Uren —J. F. Cairns, Gough Whitlam, Bill Hayden and Tom Uren. Mr KENT —They were all good people so far as that was concerned; without them we would not have achieved the policies that we have today. Notwithstanding that, even today our immigration practices favour heavily people of Anglo-Celtic or West European origin. While the platforms of both major parties are today purged or any racist expression, our selection methods and immigration practices ensure an easier entry to Anglo-Celtics and Western Europeans, be they from South Africa, Europe or North America, than to the rest of the human race. (Quorum formed) Mr Deputy Speaker, this would be a good time to suspend the sitting as members opposite are trying to interrupt me by calling quorums. I will continue after dinner. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr KENT —Madam Speaker, before the-- Mr Halverson —Madam Speaker-- Mr KENT —Madam Speaker, they are going to call another quorum because they are not interested in this debate. That is the trouble. Mr Halverson —Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) Mr KENT —The honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) called a quorum because he is not interested in a debate on immigration. That is why the Opposition will not get any votes from migrants. Migrants, such as myself and others on this side of the House, feel that honourable member opposite do not support the hundreds of thousands of hard-working Australians who came here to help to build this country. The shadow Minister used the debate for partisan purposes. He attacked-- Mr Hand —Who is he? Mr KENT —I do not know his name. He is the honourable member for Cadman or something. He is a miserable bastard. I say that in endearment. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr KENT —I withdraw the word `miserable', Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —You will withdraw the comment. Mr KENT —Madam Speaker, I used it as a word of endearment. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will not argue with the Chair; he will withdraw the comment. Mr KENT —Certainly, Madam Speaker, I withdraw, but I did not mean it in an offensive way. I used the word as an endearment. All that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) tried to say about immigration, in an attack on our Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), was that somehow the business people who come to this country, who bring in $500,000, have to wait a year before they can come in. So what? I am more interested in people who have brothers and sisters here. I came here sponsored by my brother. I made as good a migrant as my brother and the rest of the community here. Our first interest is to see the reunion of families. That is what the Minister aims to do. I do not want to be partisan in this debate. I pay tribute to previous immigration Ministers. I pay tribute to the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) and the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) who, although he is on the opposite side of the chamber, when his party was in government administered immigration policy with great feeling and humanity, as does our Minister today. Whenever I have a difficult problem I go to my Minister. He may be speaking tough; he may sound tough as far as immigration is concerned-after all, he has to regulate an influx. Each year one million people inquire about coming to Australia. He has not got an easy job, but when I have a case based on human grounds he comes to my help. He has an understanding for and feeling about migrants-as, I think, do all of us on this side of the House. We are not calling quorums. We are not stopping the debate. So far the Opposition has called five quorums and wasted half an hour of our time in this debate. This is a very important debate. To honourable members opposite immigration is not important, because they do not get one vote in a migrant area. I am sorry for honourable members opposite, but that is how it is. Mr Hodges —I used to look after you. Mr KENT —A former immigration Minister is interjecting. He would not know what immigration was. Honourable members on his side are calling quorums. He does not want to listen to us in this debate on immigration. In the last couple of minutes left to me I want to say quite firmly that, while I have been somewhat critical of our immigration policies and practices, our post-war migrant settlement program is the most successful in the world. There is no comparable country, with the possible exception of Canada, where so many migrants of such diverse ethnic backgrounds have so successfully settled and are so well integrated into the community. I have no doubt that the greatest contributory factors to this were the commendable tolerance of the Australian people and our policy of multiculturalism. I wish here to pay a tribute to the late Arthur Calwell, who engineered our post-war immigration program. I myself am a product of this program. I was privileged to know Mr Calwell personally and I regard him as a great Australian. I am sure that one day history will acknowledge him as our greatest patriot and a great son of this nation. It was his vision of building the Australian nation that brought my family and me here. I am proud to have been able to contribute to the building of this country and the nation of which Arthur Calwell dreamed. The fact that I, a post-war migrant from a non-English-speaking background, was elected to the national Parliament testifies clearly to how successful Arthur Calwell's immigration program was. The fact that I am discussing here today the amendment to our Migration Act testifies also to the great tolerance of Australians-more tolerance and understanding than the Blaineys, Dr Birrells and Bruce Ruxtons of this world would credit this nation with. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(8.09) —I did not think I would see the day when the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) would make such uncharitable comments about me. I distinctly recall assisting the honourable member on numerous occasions when he had problems with immigration cases. Indeed, I recall even going to his electorate on one occasion. I am sorry that he has adopted such an uncharitable stance towards me. In general terms, I support the Migration Amendment Bill 1986. In my view Australian citizenship should be obtained only by one of two methods: Either by choice or by birth. If Australian citizenship is obtained by birth it is my firm view it ought to apply to people born of Australian citizens or persons who have residency rights. That applies to people either here in Australia or overseas. The second method by which people obtain Australian citizenship is if we, as a nation, accept them as migrants. After a qualifying period, as it now stands, of two years-it used to be three years-they can apply to become citizens and, in general terms, would be accepted. If birth on our soil is a qualification for citizenship, children born to temporary entry permit holders, that is people who are here legally as visitors, or children born to illegal immigrants-there are a number of those born each year in this country and while there are illegal immigrants there always will be-have a right to citizenship. In my view children born on our soil under those circumstances do not really have any rights to citizenship of this nation. We will see deliberate visits by mothers-indeed, this has happened in the past and is happening now-who come to this country quite legally on temporary entry permits. Once on our soil, after a period of three or six months, they give birth to children and those children, of course, can claim Australian citizenship. Temporary entry permits are granted for three or six months. Often they are extended. So it is quite a simple matter for a mother to come to Australia, have a child and that child can then claim citizenship of this country. Various figures are cited regarding illegal immigrants. I know it is always difficult for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to make an accurate assessment of the numbers of illegal immigrants. I know that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, has on numerous occasions spoken about this very vexed question of illegal immigrants in this country. Australia is a desirable nation in which to live, at least in the eyes of a great portion of the world's population. People come to the nation as temporary entry permit holders and illegally overstay their permits. They come, of course, from all over the world. Sometimes the worst offenders are from the United Kingdom, some of the Pacific island countries and some of the Asian countries. There is probably not one country in the world which is exempt from temporary entry permit holders who overstay their permits. Our annual migrant intake has varied over the years. It peaked in the late 1960s at 170,000 or 180,000. The present Government, of course, has considerably reduced the number, although I am pleased to note that the Minister has announced an increase in the number of migrants expected next year. But at the moment the figure is approaching 100,000 annually. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hotham, mentioned, we have about one million inquiries annually from people around the world. So Australia is considered to be a desirable place in which to live. I make the point that it is cheap for a number of people from many parts of the world to come to Australia to give birth to children, particularly when one of the options that are open to their offspring is to claim Australian citizenship. When one considers that our education system is of world standard, it is a simple matter for a mother to come to this country, give birth to a child and for that child to then come back to this country to complete his primary, secondary and, indeed, tertiary education, all at taxpayers' expense, by claiming Australian citizenship. So in general terms I support the amendment, which provides that people ought not have an automatic right to citizenship just because they happen to be born on our soil unless, as I say, those children are born to legal residents or Australian citizens. The next matter I wish to raise concerns an article in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of Thursday, 1 May. This article deeply distresses me. It is headed `Plans afoot in Queensland to provide refuge for illegal immigrants'. The article states: Efforts are under way to establish sanctuaries in Queensland for illegal immigrants. A Brisbane solicitor- and can honourable members imagine a trained legal practitioner being involved in this operation; is it any wonder that he did not wish to be identified?- said the scheme would involve hiding people in safe houses throughout the State. Illegal immigrants offered sanctuary would be those whom organisers considered to have been disadvantaged by tough immigration laws. I know that this would cause the Minister and his officers a great deal of concern. I take a very dim view of people setting themselves above the law. Let me repeat the words contained in the article-I know it is a newspaper article, but it is obviously a fairly accurate article: . . . whom organisers considered to have been disadvantaged by tough immigration laws. There are people in the city of Brisbane-and no doubt in other parts of this nation-who are prepared to offer sanctuary to illegal immigrants. The article continues: At the top of the sanctuary list would be those seeking to escape political persecution in their own countries. . . . The solicitor said the movement intended to give sanctuary and protection to genuine political refugees and others it believed should be allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons. This group-or these groups, if they exist in other parts of the nation-is setting itself up as judge and jury. It is setting itself up as the protector of illegal immigrants. It is openly encouraging people to break the law. It is bypassing the legal processes, the appeal processes, that are in existence in this country. The Minister would not doubt agree that sometimes, in the administration of the Migration Act, far too many avenues of appeal exist for people who claim some right to permanent residency in this country. This is a highly emotional issue because people are involved. People are the most important resource that we have-far more important a resource than the products we produce or the minerals we mine. We are talking about people and that subject, of course, always raises emotions. We have a well developed migration system. We have a mechanism to handle refugees and persons who are not classified as refugees under the United Nations Charter. We have a special humanitarian program that takes those people into consideration. I believe these matters are very sensitively and compassionately handled by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. With regard to refugees, I believe that, internationally, we have a record that is second to none. We have taken, per head of population in this country, more refugees than any other country in the world. When one looks at the major recipient countries of refugees around the world, we are at the top of countries such as the United States of America, Canada, France, the United Kingdom and so on. So there are plenty of avenues available for people who feel they have some claim to residency rights in this country. There are severe penalties for persons who are found harbouring illegal immigrants-or prohibited non-citizens, as we seem to be calling them more and more these days. I turn to section 30 (2) of the Migration Act 1958. It is worth placing on the record what that section states: (2) A person shall not- (a) aid or incite a person to enter or remain in Australia in circumstances in which he would become a prohibited immigrant; (aa) aid or incite a person who is a prohibited immigrant to remain in Australia; or (b) knowingly harbour a prohibited immigrant or a deportee. Penalty: $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months. That is the sort of section of the Act that these people ought to be looking at if they are hell-bent on harbouring illegal immigrants. We have enough problems now in controlling illegal immigrants in this country, and I am sure the Minister would bear me out in that statement. I turn to the mechanisms within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for handling refugees and persons to be considered under the humanitarian program. Under the Migration Division of the Department, there is a Refugees and Humanitarian Branch. That Branch develops and administers policies and procedures for the admission of persons in refugee situations from designated source countries and of persons in special humanitarian program situations. The Branch liaises with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other international and community organisations, and represents Australia at international conferences and other forums relating to refugee matters. It reviews and determines individual applications for refugee status or consideration under that special humanitarian program I mentioned. It has a determination of refugee status section. That section operates what is termed a DORS committee. The committee consists of representatives of the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet-four votes in all. The applications of persons who wish to be allowed to stay in this country are put before this committee. There is an observer/adviser from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, but that observer/adviser has no voting rights. The matter is dealt with very seriously, and each application is considered on its merits. If a person who has been refused entry to this country under that program feels badly done by, then, in addition to the consideration by that DORS committee, there is an immigration review panel. Following that if there is still a rejection, the aggrieved person has recourse to the Federal courts of appeal. He can appeal to the Human Rights Commission, to the Ombudsman, and finally, of course, to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I want finally to outlaw the dangerous trend whereby the Department is being depicted as an uncaring and discriminatory body. Some sections of the Press have been less than helpful of recent times in encouraging public sympathy for some people who appear to want to remain in Australia when many of the mechanisms I have mentioned have been tried or bypassed. I now raise a matter concerning a prominent Australian businessman, Mr Robert Holmes a Court, and I hope that the Minister will comment on this issue. I am guided by two very similar articles, one in the Australian Financial Review of 22 May, and another in the Sydney Morning Herald of the same date. Both articles refer to the fact that Mr Robert Holmes a Court had contacted the Minister when the Minister was in Asia recently in an endeavour to obtain citizenship quickly by having the Minister exercise his discretion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that the Bill before the House is about children taking on the citizenship of their parents, rather than anything relating to Mr Robert Holmes a Court, or others. I hope that the honourable member will make his remarks relevant to the Bill. Mr HODGES —Mr Deputy Speaker, the matter I am referring to concerns citizenship, which is tied in with the Migration Amendment Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —They are amendments relating to children. Mr HODGES —It all concerns citizens of this country, Mr Deputy Speaker, and if one is born here, under the Act, one first has to be considered as a child, but subsequent to that-and the Migration Act itself-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is like saying that the argument is as long as a piece of string. Mr HODGES —This is a fairly wide-ranging debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Previous speakers have been given the latitude of speaking generally on the Migration Act, so I hope I may have your indulgence in that respect. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member has made such a persuasive argument that he has convinced me. Mr HODGES —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have no argument with Mr Robert Holmes a Court. I have never met him. However, I believe that some explanation should be forthcoming from the Minister, because this involved a quickie approval. According to the articles, the Minister sought approval from the Attorney-General's Department, and the Minister refused to exercise his power. The Minister can answer that if the report is incorrect. What concerns me, however, is that the report goes on to say that the gentleman concerned had an expedited application that took little more than a week. I know that it takes anything from two or three months to six months for the average applicant to receive Australian citizenship. All sorts of checks have to take place and most people go through public ceremonies, which are conducted, in the main, by mayors of cities or chairmen of shires. There are about 950 of those, and they do a fine job throughout the nation in conducting citizenship ceremonies. I have one specific case in my electorate of a person of long standing high regard and high integrity who has applied for Australian citizenship and who would like that citizenship fairly quickly. I do not wish to enter into the reasons for Mr Robert Holmes a Court wanting quick citizenship. That is not the point of my raising this matter now. However, Mr Holmes a Court having been granted quick citizenship, the Minister ought to make a brief explanation as to why that occurred. The final matter I raise on the Migration Act concerns recent suggestions that Japanese tourists ought to be allowed into this country without temporary entry permits-that is, without the normal application to be granted a visitor's visa. I am strongly opposed to the suggestion that the provision for the application for and the granting of a temporary entry permit be dropped. I am in favour of the facilitation of the tourism industry. With our massive balance of payments problem-putting it in the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of recent days, as we are slipping towards being a banana republic-we want all the dollars we can get coming into the country. So I would be the last person to suggest that we ought not to facilitate the tourism industry, particularly in attracting dollars from Japan. However, I am opposed to the abolition of temporary entry permits. I pose the question: If we are to abolish them for the Japanese, why not have them abolished for people from other parts of the world? That is saying nothing against the Japanese in particular, because most of them are very fine people, from a thriving nation, and many of them will bring a lot of prosperity to this country with their tourist dollars. We ought to streamline the operation and to facilitate a quick provision of temporary entry permits for these persons if it is a problem for people coming from Japan or from any other part of the world. As I said, we need the tourist dollars. I would be the last person to put any obstacle in the way of any decent person wanting to come to Australia and to spend dollars, thus helping Australia's economy. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(8.27) —Tonight we are dealing with amendments to the Migration Act. The amendments in the Migration Amendment Bill are consequent upon the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, which went through this House recently. The Migration Amendment Bill is a rather simple piece of legislation, but, as the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) said, it is very emotive. The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, which was passed by this House on 13 March, proposed amongst other things that children born in Australia to visitors, temporary residents and illegal immigrants would no longer automatically acquire citizenship by birth, unless they would otherwise be stateless. I am thankful to the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), who pointed out to me the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, which has covered this whole issue and which drew attention to the fact that children born here to persons with diplomatic immunity or to consular officials do not automatically acquire Australian citizenship. Very few countries automatically confer citizenship on an infant born in those countries. Those countries are Australia, at present-this is a proposal to remove that right-New Zealand, United States of America, Argentina, Fiji, Brazil, and Canada. Other countries do not confer automatic citizenship, particularly Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, West Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Singapore, Sweden and Turkey. I make that point because some correspondence has been sent to members of parliament by the International Commission of Jurists objecting to this amendment to our legislation. As honourable members know, for many years this matter has been raised with all Ministers, the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Commission. There have been a number of instances of deportation orders being made against people who have become illegal immigrants by overstaying their visitors visas and whose children, having been born here, automatically become Australian citizens. The inference was that there was discrimination against those Australian citizens because their parents had to go and, therefore, the little children had to go with them. This is a highly charged issue because we are dealing with very small children-with babies and infants. From time to time all members of this House see in their offices people who may be illegal immigrants, visitors who have overstayed or temporary residents whose visitors visas have expired and who want to stay in Australia. I feel sorry for them and I am sure that other members do, because we just cannot help them. We have to tell them that they have to return and that we can do very little for them. Perhaps we can write a letter to the Minister, pointing out some reason or some humanitarian grounds on which they should be given the right to remain in Australia. People have a fear of exploitation. They fear that they may be blackmailed or put into a difficult pos- ition where they are paid underaward wages if they get a job, and that is a problem. Australia is very lucky. We have no common land border with any other country, unlike the United States of America where at any time there are five million illegal Mexican immigrants. The Americans have a very great problem in this regard. We are very fortunate that our only problem stems from people who arrive essentially as tourists and visitors and who overstay their visas. I am informed that these people come from all countries. I do not believe the honourable member for Petrie who said that women come to Australia to have babies so that they can acquire some kind of back door entry. I do not believe that. (Quorum formed) I thank honourable members for forming the quorum and for providing me with an audience, because this is a very important piece of legislation. It is a sensitive piece of legislation because it proposes to take away citizenship from little babies-innocent children. Nevertheless, this legislation has been brought about by the actions of unscrupulous people who use these infants as an excuse for legitimate queue jumping ahead of people who are trying to bring their relatives here. Every honourable member sees in his or her office people who want to bring members of their families to Australia. I refer to Sri Lankans, people from Vietnam, people from Italy, Greece, Egypt-every country. Mr Kent —Yugoslavia. Mr MAHER —From Yugoslavia. They want to bring their families here, as do people from Malta. There are a million inquiries every year. One million people around the world make inquiries about coming to Australia. When I was in Ireland at Christmas it was not possible to get into the chancellery of the Australian Embassy in Dublin because so many young people were trying to make inquiries about migrating or about working holiday visas. In Britain unemployment stands at 14 per cent and in Ireland it is 18 per cent. Young people with skills, engineers-those sorts of people-want to come to Australia on work visas. Some families want to migrate here. This is what we want. Mr Blanchard —They know it is a good Government. Mr MAHER —They know it is a good country, a country with a rule of law and a country with peace and stability and great economic growth. But we cannot take one million people a year. We are taking 100,000 a year, mainly under the family reunion category. The people who want to bring their families here come to see members of parliament all the time to try to expedite the whole process. They are very worried. Many people do not qualify under the family reunion category because they are nephews, nieces or cousins of a resident. They have to apply under the special humanitarian category or under the refugee status category. People are distressed about the conditions faced by their relatives in other countries. People from Sri Lanka come to see me. They tell me some of the problems in that country. People from Vietnam tell me about their aged parents. It breaks one's heart to hear some of the problems and worries and the terribly tragic situations that those people bring to the attention of members of parliament. It is particularly sad for people who perhaps have left behind in a country their parents, with a sister who is disabled or just one child. Those people do not qualify to migrate to Australia and probably will never qualify to migrate to this nation unless some humanitarian gesture is made, although from time to time Ministers do allow entry to families who have disabled children. Those are the sorts of matters that I wanted to touch on tonight because, as I said earlier, it is an important and emotive debate. Mr Lindsay —It is a very positive Bill. Mr MAHER —It is a positive Bill. I think it will prevent the exploitation of babies and their being used as a lever to allow whole families to settle here by jumping the queue and going ahead of all the people who have waited and gone through the rigmarole of interviews, assessment, medical examinations and police clearances. I make only one suggestion to the Minister-that the results of the assessments that we all know have to be made overseas in countries such as the United Kingdom, in the countries of Europe, Hong Kong and in Damascus and elsewhere be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. There should be a more formalised structure with regard to the assessments. People say to me: `It does not seem fair'. They infer that perhaps something untoward is happening and that perhaps money has changed hands. I ask them whether they are inferring that there was bribery, but they never say so. To follow my suggestion would put the assessment of the points system for migrants on a higher plane. Most people must obtain 60 points. People who come to a job but are not eligible under the family reunion category need 70 points. I feel that, if the names and addresses of all applicants were published in the Gazette and if the results of the assessments were published, the system would be seen to be even fairer than it is. I congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) on making a workable system and on trying humanely to perform this enormous task of sifting through all of these representations. No one in this House makes more representations on migration to the Minister than I do. I am delighted to be able to help so many of my constituents. I always get a very sympathetic hearing from the Minister. In all circumstances he has helped me and has always been very ready to listen to any problems. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has to handle one million inquiries, and that is no joke. It is a very big job in any country in the world to try to resolve the demands for family reunion. I say this because we all come from immigrants, people who came to this country-some earlier than others. Those people who came early came without any visas, health checks or police checks. They arrived here before the First World War and they just came. Even after the First World War, people came here easily-they came to jobs or they switched over from working holidays. They-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The time allotted for the second reading of this Bill has now expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.42) —I move: Clause 3, page 2, at the end of proposed section 6aaa add the following sub-section: `` `(2) A person, who was a child born in Australia and a non-citizen at the relevant time for the purposes of sub-section (1) shall, between that person's eighteenth and fortieth birthdays, at the request of that person be granted an entry permit, and such a permit may be granted subject to conditions.' ''. This amendment deals with the situation of children under the Migration Act. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) intimated the very emotional situation of small children born in Australia of parents who have arrived here and who seek to stay, using their children as an opportunity for obtaining permanent residency. The Opposition cannot accept the Government's proposition that those children are to be denied all rights. The current trend internationally is to move away from legislation which uses children to redress the acts of their parents. We should follow that. The Opposition amendment gives those children an opportunity but does not attempt to assist the parents. The amendment is sensible and sound. Infant children are not to blame for the circumstances in which they find themselves; therefore, the Government should consider this amendment very carefully, with commonsense and a sense of compassion. The Government will achieve its objective by our amendment, which is carefully drafted, because it will deny the opportunity for illegal immigrants. However, the Opposition intends to maintain, both in this place and in the Senate, its attitude towards the rights of children and the fundamental rights that have been part of our citizenship legislation. I will cease speaking at this point because I know that there is a guillotine on this debate and my colleague, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), deserves some time to comment on this matter. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(8.44) —The Government will reject this amendment. All the speakers from the Opposition benches have recognised that there is a fundamental problem here. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) does not in any way really deal with the issue. This amendment does not come to grips with the question. There are two points of view on this question: Either one says the children will be given the right of citizenship or one does not. Admittedly, it is a very difficult moral issue. The fact is, however, that it has been exploited over and over again and all the Opposition speakers have referred to the fact that the provision has been exploited by people-not just by women, as was intimated by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), but also very often by men who have put women into that situation where they have encouraged them to have children so that that couple can get around the immigration laws. The provision suggested by the shadow Minister does not cover the problem in any way. In fact, it could lead to a new set of problems arising 18 years after the birth of a child. It could be that 18 years later a person appears on the scene and says: `I want to claim my Australian citizenship'. The authorities might well say: `Who are you?' The intending immigrant could then say: `Well, 18 years ago my parents tried to get into Australia. They had me in Australia and then they were asked to leave. Now, suddenly, I am here on the scene and I am asking for my Australian citizenship'. This person may have no connection whatsoever with this country. Of course that person is entitled to apply under the normal rules, but this amendment says that virtually automatic entry would be granted to that person. Mr Ruddock —On a point of order, Mr Mountford: The guillotine is not my motion, but I must point out that the time has passed for this discussion. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —The time has not passed for the discussion at all. It is due to finish at 8.50 p.m. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I have finished my comments, Mr Mountford. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.46) —I apologise, Mr Deputy Chairman; I misread the time allotted to the remaining stages. I apologise also to the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) for interrupting him in that way. I wish to speak on this matter because I have some strong feelings about it. I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to speak on the citizenship Bill when this matter was discussed previously. I would have given vent to my concern about this aspect at that time. It should be understood that I accept, first and foremost, the principle that Australia should have the authority and the courage to determine justly who will be its immigrants and who is entitled to settle here. I do not think that anyone in this House would want to question that the Migration Act, as amended by the previous Government, sets out the procedures to be followed in relation to dealing with illegal immigrants. Nevertheless there have been provisions under those amendments for special circumstances to be taken into account where these are regarded as being of a humanitarian character. The question of whether a child was born in Australia may be one of those factors and this has been called into question by some people who have wanted to make out special circumstances. I accept that the fact that a child has been born to people who are here illegally should not be a basis upon which those people, who have committed an illegal act, should be able to stay in Australia. Nevertheless, I think that a child who has been born here has some rights which should be given special recognition. In New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Fiji and Canada this has been and remains the case. If this Bill is passed in this form we in Australia will be depriving children who are born here of non-citizens or non-residents of the right to remain as Australians. Further, we are depriving them of the right to come back to Australia at a later date unless they satisfy the ordinary immigration requirements. The amendment, as proposed, tries to come up with a form of compromise and to give those children the same sort of rights that are given to women who have left Australia, married American servicemen and been widowed in America. We have conceded that they have a special attachment to Australia and, when they have wanted to come back to the place they see as home, we have given them a special basis upon which they can return to this country-and quite properly so. I do not see it as being at all inappropriate that children who are born here should have a special right between the ages of 18 and 40 years which will enable them to come back to Australia. I say that as one who is married to a girl who was born of Australian parents living in the United Kingdom and who regards as a special factor the fact that she was born in the United Kingdom. The possibility of being able to return there at some point was important to her emotionally and I can understand that. I understand the special emotional feeling that people would have and the ties that they would feel with Australia if they were born here. Mr Hurford —But the United Kingdom does not give her that right. Mr RUDDOCK —I understand that, but I also understand the emotional tie that she feels with the United Kingdom and that is the point that I am making. I believe that it is important that people who are born here should have that opportunity to return. I emphasise that. I believe this amendment is a suitable compromise by which we can meet those sorts of demands which I think are reasonable and still strengthen the provisions that we have for dealing with illegal immigrants. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(8.49) —in reply-Unfortunately I have only a minute in which to reply to the debate, but the amendment, as the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) says, cannot be accepted because it negates the whole purpose of the Migration Amendment Bill. The Bill is consequential on the Bill which the Opposition supported recently and which brought about changes to the Australian Citizenship Act. Of course, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) made a big point about countries which are still giving citizenship to children who fortuitously are born in those countries, in spite of their parents having been visitors or illegals. Let me just go through a list, which is much larger than his list, of nations that do not allow citizenship. Great Britain is one of them. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The time allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Cadman's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Hurford, C. J. Uren, T. Jacobi, R. West, S. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Jones, Barry Smith, W. Cohen, B. Cobb, M. R. Humphreys, B. C. White, P. N. D. Duffy, M. G. Shack, P. D. Campbell, G. Hunt, R. J. D. Darling, E. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. Adoption of Report and Third Reading Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is: That the report be adopted and that the Bill be now read a third time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 21 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.00) —The Copyright Amendment Bill 1986 is a most important piece of legislation. Its importance is evidenced by the time this Government has taken to get it together and by the care that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) took in presenting it to this House. We are given from 9 o'clock until 10.10 this evening, or one hour and ten minutes, to debate this piece of legislation, which is a travesty of the parliamentary process, as I believe the Attorney-General would admit. Mr Hand —Get on with the debate and stop talking about it. Mr SPENDER —The garrulous member of the Left hand is interjecting again. Let me now turn to the main purposes of this Bill and put the Opposition's position on this Bill as succinctly as I may, allowing for the fact that we are dealing with a complex, technical and important piece of legislation. The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Copyright Act to take account of the malign growth in piracy of audio-visual materials and to deal with certain other matters, certain other areas in copyright law which require amendment and which need to be changed. As to piracy of both works and audio-visual materials, the Bill makes specific provision in prosecution and civil proceedings for proof by affidavit of the subsistence and ownership of copyright, introduces in prosecutions a more objective test of the defendant's knowledge that the copies dealt with were infringing copies, creates new offences and substantially increases and provides additional penalties. In other areas the Bill will deal with such matters as expressly extending the Bill to satellite broadcasting, permitting fair dealing in audio-visual materials for the purposes of criticism or reviews and reporting news, extending to audio-visual materials certain of the existing free, compulsory licences to copy works for library and archival purposes, creating two new statutory licences subject to equitable remuneration for the benefit of the handicapped and effecting other miscellaneous and drafting amendments. The Opposition supports the Bill. We have some criticisms to make but we support the amendments. I shall limit my comments on the specific matters in the Bill, in the main, to questions relating to audio-visual piracy. But let me say something about the background of copyright. While copyright is now the subject of highly technical and complex laws, the underlying concept is essentially simple. The right to own and control the use of the product of one's mind and the origins and development of the law of copyright go back to a revolutionary invention-the invention of the printing press, which, if I recall correctly, was invented by William Caxton in England in the middle of the fifteenth century and by Gutenberg in Germany at approximately the same time. This invention was the catalyst for the development of copyright law and it may be described as the intellectual equivalent to the splitting of the atom. Before that invention all copies were made by longhand. After that invention the world of knowledge was opened up in a way which beforehand had not been dreamt of. Following the invention of the printing press in England special charters and statutes were introduced covering literary works. The Copyright Act of 1709 gave statutory protection to authors of books. The Engraving Copyright Act of 1734 gave legislative protection in the realm of artistic copyright to engravings. Moving to Australia, we had a Copyright Act of 1905 and other imperial legislation. When the Copyright Act of 1912 was presented to this House by the then Attorney-General, William Morris Hughes, he said that it would extend copyright to cover `the making of records, perforated rolls, cinematograph films, and other contrivances by means of which literary, dramatic or musical works may be mechanically performed or delivered'-all, as the Attorney-General pointed out, necessarily quite new. These changes over the century reflect two factors: The moral and social judgments of what is right and fair, specifically to the owners of copyright, and the state of science and technology and developments in science and technology which overcome the existing laws and make necessary new laws. The clear lesson is that copyright is an area where governments must be especially sensitive to ensure that the law keeps pace with technological and scientific change. The impact of technological and scientific change is highlighted in Australia by the remarkable growth and overseas by an equally remarkable growth, in the audio-visual media and the application of that media, particularly the video recorder, in the home, in industry and in commerce. Industry sources estimate that, in 1983, 11 per cent of Australian households which had televisions also had video recorders. By 1985 the figure had grown to around 50 per cent and in some regional cities and country towns it was as high as 80 per cent. The same sources estimate that in 1985 there were approximately two and a half million owners of televisions who also owned video recorders, that in 1983 wholesale sales of video cassettes for the Australian market amounted to approximately $30m but that by the end of 1985 wholesale sales of video cassettes for the Australian market were in excess of $100m per annum, and that at the end of 1985 approximately 30,000 of a potential 100,000 hotel and motel rooms in Australia were linked to videos to provide in-house movies. The most arresting evidence of the video explosion is to be found in evidence of the eye; in the proliferation of specialist and mixed video outlets which dot the country, including those that deal, none too demurely, in hard core pornography. The plain failure of the law to keep pace with change is testified to by the wide growth of video piracy, the chilling evidence of the virtually costless spread of organised crime in this area. We are not talking about a backyard industry conducted by small time crooks. We are talking about a business which requires high grade organisational and managerial skills, extensive distribution systems and the use of highly sophisticated and expensive laser copying technology which can produce copies indistinguishable, except to the specialist, from the authorised copy. Some of the inadequacies of the present law which are addressed in the Bill-again using video piracy as an example-are these: First, problems of proof of copyright ownership because of evidentiary difficulties have been addressed and a method involving the use of affidavit evidence has been adopted. We will see whether that method proves successful in cutting down on time and unnecessary cost. We certainly hope so. Second, difficulties in establishing in prosecutions that a defendant knew he had in his possession an infringing copy has also been addressed. This problem is addressed in the Bill by providing that it is sufficient to prove that the defendant ought reasonably to have known that the copy was an infringing copy; hence the circumstances under which a defendant acquired the copy would become directly relevant. For example, if he acquired the infringing copy at levels which were greatly under ordinary commercial prices I should have thought that the inference was that he ought reasonably to have known that the copy was an infringing copy. Third, the ridiculously inadequate penalties which presently exist whereby the payment of an occasional fine could be considered by a business that dealt in pirated copies as little more than a derisory licence fee for carrying on a highly profitable business has also been addressed. Incidentally, a licence fee is payable presently only by the very few who are successfully prosecuted under the law as it now stands. As the Attorney-General has pointed out in his second reading speech, overall the new rates will be up to 33 times higher than those introduced in 1981. The increase in the rates of penalties is illustrated by the fact that it will be possible to charge a corporation in a Federal court with a single offence, with an appropriate number of infringing copies involved, and obtain a maximum penalty of $250,000. I think most of us who have any experience in combating organised crime conducted by businessmen and businesswomen would understand that one of the important sources of attack, an essential aim in the war against organised crime, is to make the business unprofitable. Next, penalties are to be structured to reflect the status of the defendant as a natural person or body corporate and to take account of prior convictions. That also is sensible. In the past, low priority has been given to law enforcement in this area, and that evidences typically the gap between the Government's rhetoric about dealing with organised crime and the actual results-a gap which is so great that we must hope that as well as addressing the needed changes in this area of the law the Government will also address the need to make far more efficient and far more forbidding the prosecution of offences against the Copyright Act where the offences concern piracy of audio-visual material. Last of the matters the Government has addressed in the video piracy area and to which I wish to refer, ambiguities and penalty provisions have also been addressed. The losses to the community from the present state of affairs-a state of affairs that has existed for some time-are all too obvious. Organised crime has been able to establish yet another bridgehead in our society. Profits have been diverted from honest business into the hands of criminals, and because of the very high profits involved another resource for corruption has developed and, incidentally, tax revenue has suffered. While welcoming and supporting the Bill so far as it goes, the Opposition can only compare the haste and zeal with which reform has been pursued by this Government with the habits of an aestivating snail. An internal review committee within the Attorney-General's Department, on whose work this Bill is largely based, was established as long ago as 1981. The Copyright Law Review Committee was established by Attorney-General Evans in September 1983. It has yet to produce a final report. I do not wish to be critical of the judge who has the chairmanship of that Committee, but I ask why we have had to wait so long for a final report. It has been almost three years-that is the gestation period of four pregnancies. I should have thought it would be adequate for the purposes of a final report on the issues before that committee. Dealing with the Government's record of haste and zeal, it is clear, from even the limited material circulated to the Opposition-and again using video piracy as an example-that the Government has never lacked co-operation from the industry. Industry councils representing major distributors with 80 per cent of the Australian market have been in existence for consultations for some years. For some five years the industry has been telling the Government about the problems and their serious impact on the industry, the need for urgent solutions, and the means available to solve those problems. Nine months ago, in August 1985, a senior officer of the Attorney-General's Department said, with reference to matters comprised in this Bill: While I regret that I cannot be more specific as to these proposals, it will be appreciated that this is inevitable when the present stage is reached and it becomes a matter for ministerial and Government decision. The only inference one can draw from that statement is that in August 1985 the work of that official had been done and that it was up to the Government to act. It took the Government nine months to bring this Bill into the House. Most ironically, while the Attorney- General claims in his second reading speech that he has had extensive consultations with industry, yesterday my office and the Attorney-General's office were both contacted by the Australasian Performing Right Association, which told my office that the Association's first knowledge of the Bill was its receipt of the Bill in the post that day and that members of the Association had been in frantic discussion with officers of the Attorney-General's Department all afternoon in an endeavour to clarify what they saw as defects in the drafting of the satellite broadcast provisions of the Bill. That does not seem to say a great deal for consultation. In this Bill there are major questions which have not been addressed and which the Attorney-General, fairly enough, referred to in his second reading speech. First, there is the need for increased access for educational institutions to audio-visual material, especially programs from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service in which those organisations have copyright. Of course, there are many programs on the ABC and the SBS which are owned by others, but equally there are many programs in which those organisations have copyright. It is notorious that copies are made of some ABC programs in particular and used for education purposes. It is only right that those two institutions, which are owned by the Government and supported by Australians, should do all in their power to facilitate the use in educational institutions of educational programs in which they have copyright. This would not seem to be a difficult task. It would be easy enough for it to be done in cases where copyright is owned by the ABC or the SBS. For example, a statement could appear on the screen after the title was announced to the effect that recording was permitted for teaching purposes. Such a statement would seem a clear and simple enough way of indicating what the position was and to facilitate the legitimate and legal use of such programs for teaching purposes. Another major issue that has not been addressed in the Bill is that of home taping, and the Attorney-General has pointed out that this is an important issue, as most certainly it is. The Attorney-General also pointed out that other countries have looked at this issue and have dealt with it. In West Germany, France, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Sweden and even Hungary there is a levy on blank tapes. In an April 1986 White Paper, the United Kingdom Government announced an intention to introduce a levy on blank audio tapes in return for unrestricted home taping. The Attorney-General has assured us that his Department is continuing to examine the matter-to quote the Attorney-General, `in the light of international developments'-a clear admission that the Government lacks the confidence or competence to make up its own mind. I see no reason why we should trail behind the rest of the world, why we should always ask ourselves: `What are they doing elsewhere?' Why should we always wait for the rest of the world to make up its mind before we decide to move? For this matter to be under, as it were, active consideration after all these years reminds one that the time- honoured excuse of governments, including this Government, to defer action is to say that we are going to look at things in the light of all the developments taking place and that the matter will be kept under active consideration, as opposed, no doubt, to passive consideration. The third problem which has not been addressed and to which, again, the Attorney-General very fairly refers, is that of parallel importing. This means importation for commercial purposes of legitimate copies of, for example, books or records by someone other than the Australian `territory exclusive licensee'. In these cases the copyright owner or exclusive licensee may take legal action against those who import, sell or deal in parallel imports. This is so even though in the case of parallel imports the copyright owner would have received royalty payments from sources in the territory from which the copies are imported. This important issue is to await a final report of the Copyright Committee. Let us hope that that report comes out quickly and that we get a quick response from the Government to the Committee's recommendations, because, clearly, parallel importing is an important matter that needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible. Lastly, there are concerns, in my view, about the effectiveness of the present profit stripping remedies that may be available to those who suffer from infringement of copyright. It would seem to be only right that the widest possible remedies should be available to those whose property has been stolen from them so that they can trace the profits through as far as may be necessary to get from the hands of those who profit, all profits that have been illegally made. I conclude by once again saying that the Opposition supports the Bill. We hope that the matters which we have raised and to which, as I have said, the Attorney-General has referred will be speedily addressed by the Government. We hope that, in particular, the question of adequate remedies in infringement cases will be addressed. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(9.21) —As my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has indicated, the Opposition supports the main thrust of this legislation, albeit keeping open the option of criticising some aspects of the legislation. It would be very surprising indeed were it not to adopt that view. I believe that this legislation has the support of most members of the House and demonstrably the reason it has that support is that it is, by and large, non-controversial; it is based on common sense and essentially is a clear response to emerging problems in a most important area of our economy. The honourable member for North Sydney quite rightly described what we are talking about. I cannot quite recall his exact terminology, but he said something to the effect that it was recognition of intellectual contribution. That was the essence of what he said, and that is certainly the case. In terms of Australia's future economic role, not only in this region but throughout the world, it is absolutely crucial that we concentrate on the improvement and enhancement of our intellectual property contribution. That seems to me and to many other commentators-for example, my colleague the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) who has spent a decade or so commenting upon the need for Australia to improve its intellectual contribution-to be perhaps the major component of the future welfare of this country. The anti-piracy provisions of the legislation were adverted to in some detail by the shadow Attorney-General and were also adverted to by my colleague the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) when bringing this Bill before the House initially. What I will do is make a couple of comments in that context. I recently had occasion to discuss with an organisation in the United Kingdom the implications of copyright piracy throughout the world, particularly in the context that the honourable member for North Sydney indicated; that is, in the context of large scale, internationally-based organised crime. Whilst it may surprise many people, nevertheless the increase in involvement in organised crime in this area has to be seen to be believed. The United Kingdom, for example, largely as a result of organised crime involvement, suffers very greatly from infringement of copyright throughout the world. It is worth noting that the United Kingdom rock music industry comprises some 25 per cent of the world market; that is, a relatively small country by world standards sells one in four records throughout the world. However, one can consider countries like Indonesia, and I almost hesitate to say this in the current climate. In Indonesia some 600,000 records were sold, as near as can be established, two years ago that had been derived from United Kingdom copyright. They were songs by United Kingdom rock bands, and so on. Not one of these records gave any degree of recognition of intellectual ownership to the bands in the United Kingdom. Of course, there is a correlation between the extent of piracy and the state of development of particular countries. There is no doubt-and I think that most people understand this-that in a developing or underdeveloped country one is not likely to be able to police these provisions; nor, in a very real sense, should one necessarily seek to do so, given the rather dire economic circumstances of people in those countries and taking into account the very real contribution that music, videos, and so on make to sometimes quite difficult lifestyles. Nevertheless, there are a number of other countries in the Asian region-for example, Taiwan and Singapore-which, mainly on the basis of self-interest, have sought to have reciprocal arrangements with a number of countries to acknowledge the importance of the intellectual property deriving from other countries that they are using. (Quorum formed). It is an indication of the intellectual barrenness of the Opposition, while talking about intellectual property, that on a Bill about which there is substantial agreement in this House the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) sits in the House calling quorums and interrupting the committee duties of members of this Parliament from both sides merely as an attempt to disrupt the procedures of this House. The Opposition ought to be condemned for so doing. Mr Andrew —I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to standing order 45 under which the Government has an obligation to maintain a quorum in the House. I resent the suggestion that I have acted improperly in requiring the Government to maintain what is a requirement under Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The point is taken. Mr GRIFFITHS —The electors of the division of Wakefield ought to understand what is transpiring here. It is normal, in debate on non-controversial issues, for the Parliament not always to comprise a quorum. That allows honourable members to attend to the many and varied duties that they are called upon to discharge other than being seated in this chamber. It is common for this Opposition to disrupt proceedings by calling for quorums. I hope that the electors of Wakefield take into account the attitude of their Federal representative in this context. Going back to the concept of intellectual property, something that is manifestly not represented in very great numbers on the Opposition benches, it is important to note, as I indicated, that countries such as Taiwan and Singapore have what can only be described as a vested interest in accommodating other countries in terms of reciprocal arrangements on copyright. The reason that this is so probably is a lesson for Australia; that is, that to a very large extent they have already acknowledged the very important role of intellectual property in the future economic and other well-being of those respective countries. As I indicated earlier, our colleague the Minister for Science for many years has argued that the Australian nation will be best served by concentrating on the enhancement of intellectual property, as opposed to basic manufacturing, the export of commodities and so on. That is a view which I think has now come to have reasonably bipartisan support in this House. I was also indicating, before I was so rudely interrupted, the experience of United Kingdom rock groups throughout the world. In terms of the number of records sold throughout the world those groups comprise some 25 per cent of the international market, which is quite significant, of course, for a country of that size. I am told that in the vicinity of 600,000 units-that is, records or videos-were sold some two years ago in Indonesia under copyright provisions that normally would provide royalties to artists in the UK. Unfortunately, not one of those units contracted the royalty because they were all subject to video and record piracy. I think that gives an indication of the dimensions of the problems that are involved. Certainly Australian rock groups and Australian performers are not immune. In fact, if we look at the experience of groups such as Men at Work we will find that they have suffered very significantly indeed because of this problem, not only throughout Indonesia and the rest of Asia but also elsewhere. I might also say that they have suffered significantly in Australia itself. I think some of the background material indicates that some 10 or 20 per cent of the Australian market is pirated material. Given the immense size of the Australian market, that should give some indication of the amount of material currently being subjected to piracy. That leads me back to the point that was raised by the honourable member for North Sydney; that is, that there is demonstrably a significantly organised crime component in terms of the international dimensions of this problem. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that international organised crime is now very heavily involved in these areas. I had the opportunity to discuss these issues with officers of Scotland Yard when I was in the United Kingdom. I was very surprised indeed to learn of the extent of the problem. There have been a number of developments in Australia that are germane to this debate. For example, I refer to the massive increase in the number of home videos and the relative ease of applying new technologies to video piracy. The honourable member for North Sydney talked about our dragging our feet, or words to that effect, in terms of the application of a levy on blank tapes. I refer to a small component incremental to the cost of tapes that would be used to provide a royalty that would otherwise be lost in the event of individuals using blank tapes simply to pirate material. There is no doubt that in homes throughout Australia, particularly with young people, this is a common practice. While I would not like to see my children put behind bars for such a heinous crime, I have no doubt that they have abused my video recorder by running through the odd edition of Countdown or whatever. However, it is a very serious problem in terms of the amounts of money involved. Certainly, this Government has taken steps to investigate the matter. Currently, one of the committees with which I am involved is investigating the issue of an incremental component on the sale of blank tapes. I have no doubt that in due course such a component will come to pass. In terms of the legislation before us, I think, given the nature of the penalties involved, it is worth making one point: Currently, the Bill does not provide for these penalties to apply to people who are taping in the home. That is fair and reasonable. I do not think that we ought to be contemplating vesting in young teenagers the possibility of being sued for crimes of this nature when it is quite a common occurrence, not only here but also overseas, for young children to tape various programs. There are some other components of the Bill, such as increased access by handicapped persons to taped material. We have also discussed the levy on blank tapes. It is worthy of note that, whilst the honourable member for North Sydney indicated a range of European countries in which there is a levy on blank tapes, it is in the country which probably, in a sense, is the home of videos, rock groups and so on, the United States of America, that the House of Representatives and Senate currently are considering such a levy. They have not made any decisions in relation to it. Like the Opposition, I have a view that this is commonsense legislation. I noted that the Opposition did not have any substantive complaints about it. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr JULL(Fadden)(9.38) —The Copyright Act of 1912 covered a multitude of sins. I suppose, in many respects, it served Australia very well for a great period. The tremendous expansion in technology in the last decade really has brought home to us, I think, what can happen when we allow this technology to get out of control. I join the previous members who have spoken in this debate tonight in saying that certainly the Opposition does not object to this Copyright Amendment Bill; in fact, we welcome it as a major step in trying to sort out some of the very real problems that have struck the industry. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), who has just spoken, mentioned, for example, the tremendous expansion of the home videotape recorder in recent years. It is a fact of life now that around Australia there are two and a half million videotape recorders in private use in homes. That is one of the highest percentages of home videotape recorder penetrations in the world. There is no doubt that in the last few years we have seen a tremendous demand for all types of video material. I suppose, as a consequence of that, it was only logical that we should see some of the lesser elements of our society getting in to make a quick buck in pirating video material. To a very great extent the debate tonight has centred on the videotape material that has been pirated. We have heard-I think the figures are perfectly right-that up to 20 per cent of that material is coming from sources which have been pirating this legitimate material. I suppose most of us would be more than aware of the international implications in this regard. For example, in my home city of Brisbane it was interesting to see that within two days of the box office hit ET first being shown there were videotape copies circulating quite freely there. Initial investigations into that situation indicated that those copies had already come through from Great Britain. That is an indication of just how speedily this international network can operate. I suppose that that is the type of thing that we are looking at stamping out through the penalties imposed in this legislation tonight. But it goes deeper than that. I believe that in Australia we have traditionally been a net importer of this type of material. We are now on the verge of a tremendous explosion in our entertainment industries. Certainly in years to come we will be exporting more and more of our own material. I am sure that all members of this House want to make sure that that export material is covered. I hope that this legislation will go part of the way towards making sure that we do have that protection for our home sources. The use of blank tapes has also been mentioned tonight. I join the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) in urging the Government to make a decision as soon as it possibly can, because there is no doubt that the amount of home pirating that goes on is tremendous. I think we could hazard a guess at just how much is involved in home copying and how much that might mean in terms of loss of revenue to the producers of so much of that material. This legislation also covers the area of audiotapes. Although it has not been mentioned during the debate tonight, the levy should also apply to audiotapes. I am sure we are all aware of the amount of home copying that goes on and the amount of imported pirated material that comes from some of the South East Asian nations. I know many people would be aware that quite often it is possible, if one goes to some of these places, to buy tapes of the latest recordings, be they recordings of symphony orchestras or British rock groups, for about $1 a copy. Indeed, some of that material is now coming into Australia and is in general circulation. For all of those reasons this legislation is more than welcome. This technology that has taken off in recent years has not yet stopped. I think that it behoves all of us to make sure that we keep an eye on the future development of technology because, as we see a greater use of television systems, as we see a greater use of laser delivery systems, especially in the entertainment area, we will be required more and more, I think, to keep this Copyright Act under review to make sure that the originators and the owners of that copyright are not taken to the cleaners and there is some preservation of the legitimacy of these producers. One can almost hazard a guess at what stage we might be in five to 10 years time in terms of the delivery of that home videotape material. Certainly, the world is shrinking in terms of the delivery of entertainment. Australia will certainly be at the forefront in the taking of this technology, as we have seen with our experiences of the last 10 years or so. One aspect that I was pleased to see in this legislation which has not really been mentioned to any great extent tonight is the fact that certain copyright provisions will be made for some of the disadvantaged people in our community, especially the handicapped. I was pleased to see that in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) he made particular reference to some of the radio stations which are using some of that material and the fact that we will have some concessions in that area. I am involved with a radio station in Brisbane, 4RPH-Radio for the Print Handicapped-which I believe is doing a tremendous job in bringing entertainment, information and education to the people of Brisbane. I know of the very real difficulties that that organisation has had in terms of the whole area of copyright and of being able to maintain the fees involved in that copyright in order to deliver those programs to the people who listen to that station. Some of the copyright problems that the station has are very complicated. I suppose they come to light in the examples that are given in this legislation. One of the areas with which it is particularly concerned is the old transcription radio programs. I must pay tribute to the Australian Archives for the assistance it has given this station in the provision of some of those programs. Every so often something goes wrong and those programs are taken away from 4RPH, so that it does not have access to some of the regular series that it plays. I suppose one of the best examples, although it might seem rather incongruous in terms of the education material that is provided through that radio station, is old episodes of programs such as Dad and Dave and Yes What. Those programs have tremendous appeal, especially to those people who do not have access to television sets. That is one example that keeps being put to me of the sorts of copyright restrictions and problems that are applied to that station by some of the owners of the previous copyright. I hope that in this legislation there will be some provision to help it overcome those situations. I am sure too that a number of members in the House tonight would have been interested to hear what the honourable member for North Sydney said in regard to the Australasian Performing Right Association. I would have hoped that the Government and the Attorney-General's Department had had some discussions with that group, because it is one of the oldest established copyright organisations in this country. It is not always easy for those people who control copyright to get a balance in the situation. I remember a few years ago when I was approached by a primary school which was putting on a concert of Christmas carols. All was well and good until somebody from the Australasian Performing Right Association in Brisbane told the school that it owed to the tune of $400 for the copyright fees involved in using some of those Christmas carols. What was worse, I was also approached by a local branch of the Salvation Army on the same issue. This was a very real problem. I contacted the Australasian Performing Right Association in Sydney and it called off the dogs, but I think there is definitely a real problem in that area. Many of the people who control copyright, especially some of the older copyright material in Australia, frankly need some very real guidelines as to which way they can go. One would certainly hope that the material that is being raised in this legislation would help to overcome that problem. The legislation is welcome. I hope that the Government will proceed very quickly to look at the situation of blank tapes. I hope too that the tremendous sum that can be involved in fines to be imposed on corporations which might engage in pirating will start hitting home. I agree with the honourable member for North Sydney that we also hope that it will become a much greater priority of the law enforcement agencies of this country to start prosecuting some of these people who may be involved in this illegal copying. We have all probably heard stories of some of the organisations which allegedly exist up and down the coast of Australia and which are involved in the very big production of this illegal material. All of us, I feel sure, who have heard of this have been surprised that there has not been greater action from the law enforcement people. I suppose it goes back to the initial Copyright Act of 1912 when legislation was in existence but perhaps did not mean all that much. But now that we do have some teeth in our legislation, I trust that the law enforcement agencies will start going after those people who are a very real threat, not only to the holders of copyright, be they in Australia or overseas, but also to the very existence of the people who create so much of this entertainment that is enjoyed, appreciated and educates us all. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(9.48) —Copyright, in anybody's terms-for a legal person or a lay person-is an extremely complex and technical area of the law. Whether we are dealing with literary matters, audio-visual works or music, the question of copyright involves a very complex interplay of many competing forces. Not the least of those forces is, of course, the fundamental issue of, on the one hand, the ownership of intellectual property and, on the other, the relationship of that property to society as a whole. Of course, it is fairly obvious that in most countries which have legal systems and social systems which are similar to our own copyright laws do exist and have existed for many years to provide some legal protection to the owners of intellectual property. The point needs to be made, though, that in other countries-I think Cuba is one example-intellectual property, like all property, is viewed as being owned by the state. Therefore, in a country of that type, copyright laws simply do not exist because that intellectual property is the property of the state. The Copyright Amendment Bill which is before the House proposes a number of changes to the Copyright Act 1968. I think in general terms it is fair to say that the amendments proposed in the area of piracy bring penalties up to date-penalties which in many ways were not substantial enough to represent the current extent of piracy in that industry. The amendments also reflect changes that have occurred because of technological advances in the industry, and, in general terms, they make the Act more effective and much fairer in its application. In specific terms, the amendments contained in the Bill fall into two broad areas. There is, firstly, the question of piracy. That relates particularly to the audio-visual area. The explanatory memorandum points out a number of provisions in that respect, and I have mentioned that one of the major provisions is to increase and bring up to date the penalties for breaches of copyright to be imposed upon people who duplicate and then, on a commercial basis, distribute copied material. Other amendments relate to making technical amendments on the question of satellite broadcasts and to the question of fair dealing. In a matter which has been discussed by previous speakers, they make a number of changes and very positive initiatives in the relationship between copyright and intellectually handicapped persons. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out in his second reading speech, from the implementation of these measures there may well be a favourable impact on government revenues, because as the strengthened anti-piracy provisions take effect that should encourage sales in legitimate audio-visual products. It is worth repeating the point made by the Attorney-General regarding anti-piracy provisions. A lot of evidence would suggest that piracy, particularly of video material, represents as much as 10 to 20 per cent of the Australian market. One of the measures taken in the Bill to attempt to reduce the level of piracy is fairly substantial and in many ways overdue, that is, increases in penalties for copyright offences. I mention some of those penalties and compare them with some of the penalties under the 1968 Act. For instance, a natural person convicted of a section 132 offence on a subject matter other than film faced under the 1968 Act a penalty of $10 per article. Under this legislation the penalty will be increased to $500 per article. For a body corporate, the original penalty in 1968 was $10 as well. Under this Bill that has been increased to $2,500 per article. So there are very steep increases in penalties under this legislation to restrict piracy in the audio-visual area. These are good, sound measures, and they are certainly welcomed by the industry. I have mentioned the aspect of the legislation that deals with copyright in its relationship to uses of material by the intellectually handicapped. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation has been concerned for many years with the issue of access by handicapped persons to copyright material. The new provisions regarding institutions which assist the intellectually handicapped are consistent with UNESCO's concern, which the Australian Government fully shares. Clause 6 inserts new section 47a, which establishes a new statutory licence that will enable radio stations catering for print handicapped persons to broadcast literary and dramatic works. That is an improvement on the present situation. It will assist those radio stations which are operating to provide in a more open way print broadcasting for intellectually handicapped people, particularly, obviously, for blind people. Even in my own electorate, public radio station 3CCC, a very effective and well supported station, has a regular segment dealing with handicapped people, in which newspaper reports and so on are read over the airwaves. The other aspect of the Bill dealing with the intellectually handicapped is clause 26. That inserts a new section into the Act and establishes the new statutory licence for institutions assisting intellectually handicapped persons. It will allow institutions catering for the intellectually handicapped to reproduce and adapt specified published copyright material for the limited sole purpose of use in providing assistance to the intellectually handicapped. That is a valuable initiative. It is spelt out very clearly in the Bill. It will be of benefit to handicapped people. I conclude by commenting briefly on other matters referred to in the Minister's second reading speech. Whilst this Bill contains some very good initiatives, there are a number of other matters which, as the Attorney-General pointed out, are still the subject of consideration and review by the Government. They relate to issues such as home taping, the use of copyright material by educational institutions, and the question of what is known as performance in public. Those issues are complex. The Government is still considering them. (Quorum formed) That is about the third quorum the Opposition has called this evening. It always disturbs me that there are so few Opposition members present in the House to hear about the matters which I should have thought were fairly significant to the public. One of the matters to which I was referring was the initiative that has been taken by the Attorney-General to provide, in effect, increased access to copyright material for intellectually handicapped persons. Under this legislation, that will be so for radio stations which provide assistance to the print handicapped, particularly the blind. I mentioned that in my electorate there was one of those public radio stations, 3CCC, which broadcasts a regular program for sight impaired people throughout the electorate. I also mentioned the provision relating to the reproduction of material in institutions assisting handicapped people. I had got to the point of saying that there are still three issues which are the subject of further discussions by this Government. Those relate to the fundamental questions of home taping, of the relationship of copyright to educational institutions and of public performance. Home taping is perhaps the most important of those issues, because there is no doubt that over recent years, with the dramatic increase in Australia in the number of households which own video recorders, home taping has become a very serious and growing problem for law, for the Attorney-General, and with regard to the question of copyright in general. The Attorney-General foreshadowed in his second reading speech two possible alternatives for dealing with the question of home taping. The first alternative was to put a levy on blank videotapes. The other alternative to provide some copyright protection would be to apply a rental right to tapes which are used and which have recorded information on them. Many countries in the world impose a levy on blank videotapes. The Attorney-General indicated some examples, West Germany, France, Austria, Portugal, Hungary, Finland and so on. At the moment both the United Kingdom and the United States of America have legislation before them dealing with this question. I reiterate that the whole concept of copyright is extremely challenging. As the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) pointed out in his contribution to this debate, the issue of copyright is directly related to intellectual property. He made the point that, in a broader sense, that could be considered a crucial issue in terms of Australia's economic performance. He made that point because for many decades we in Australia have tended to rely simply on the belief that, by growing things or digging things out of the ground, we would be able to improve our standard of living. We have certainly placed too little emphasis on intellectual matters and on developing technological expertise. It goes without saying that it simply would not be necessary for the Government to be taking action on many of the measures contained in the legislation before the House tonight were it not for the massive increase in technological information that has occurred throughout the world over the past few decades. Just to illustrate that point, I make reference to the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who said in a recent speech that, according to the 1981 census in Australia, 41 per cent of our labour force was employed in what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defines as information-based employment. In percentage terms, that is 241 per cent more than are employed in manufacturing. That figure for information-based employment will certainly be much higher in the census which is to be conducted on 30 June 1986. I have made that point because, as I have said, much of this legislation deals particularly with piracy and home taping which would not be a problem were it not for the massive growth in information technology which has occurred in our society over many decades and which has been extremely rapid over the last few years. The legislation before the House tonight is good legislation. It is well supported by the industry. It is fair legislation in that it represents a fair balance between the interests of copyright and intellectual property on the one hand and the interests of society on the other. I look forward to an early review by the Attorney and his Department on the fundamental questions that I mentioned earlier such as home taping and educational institutions. I have pleasure in supporting this Bill. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.04) —Because of the unfortunate manner in which the Government ruthlessly used its numbers to bring on a guillotine, which means that the debate on the Copyright Amendment Bill will conclude in five minutes, I have had to truncate and reduce the very thought-provoking speech which I had prepared on this matter. Therefore, I will confine myself to raising, mentioning and reinforcing some of the matters mentioned earlier in this House by my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Among other things this Bill deals with video piracy, and the Opposition generally supports its broad thrust. It certainly redresses some problems such as the problem of proof of copyright ownership because of evidentiary difficulties and difficulties in establishing in a prosecution that a defendant knew that he had in his possession an infringing copy. That problem is redressed in the Bill by providing that it will be sufficient to prove that a defendant ought reasonably to know that a copy was an infringing copy-the old reasonable man test. Henceforth the manner of acquisition will now become directly relevant. The situation with regard to the woefully low penalties which previously applied and which meant that video pirates were able to pay their occasional fines as a minor cost of business has been redressed. In fact, we are very pleased to see these higher, more sensible and more relevant penalties being introduced. While we support the thrust of the Bill, there are some matters which it does not address. The point about the Government's delay in certain areas should be reinforced and stressed for the people of Australia to note. An internal review committee within the Attorney-General's Department on whose work this Bill is largely based was established five years ago in 1981. The Copyright Law Review Committee was established by the previous Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, in 1983-almost three years ago. This Committee has not yet produced a final report. The industry wanted something done. Something needed to be done; yet the Government has still been dilatory in bringing in legislation. Industry councils representing major distributors with 80 per cent of the Australian market have been in existence for some years for the purpose of consultation. For five years the industry has been telling the Government of its problem and what needs to be done. Another question which is not addressed is the need for increased access by educational institutions to audio-visual material, especially programs from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. It is only right that government instrumentalities which are supported and propped up by Australians should do all in their power to facilitate the use of programs for teaching purposes. Home taping has not been addressed. Parallel importing is also a problem which, for the time being, the Government has thrown into the too-hard basket. What we need to look at is the importance of ensuring that penalties reflect the nature of the crime. While some good steps have been taken, it is essential that the Government should monitor the effectiveness of the new penalties. This is a complicated area where the law is constantly threatened by technological advancement. Thus, the legislation of yesteryear has given way to that of today. In the fullness of time, the Copyright Amendment Bill 1986 will be superseded by future enactments designed to meet the needs of tomorrow. It is incumbent upon the government of the day to watch closely the changing circumstances to ensure that from time to time the law meets the needs of society. The National Party of Australia and the rest of the Opposition support this legislation, with the proviso that we would like to see the Government attend urgently to the outstanding matters highlighted by us, which need to be addressed promptly if this legislation is to be fully effective. I regret that my speech has to be cut short. This is an important Bill. It is a sad day for Australia when the Government insists upon gagging debate and preventing Opposition members and, indeed, members from its side of the House from expressing views on legislation which affects so seriously and in such an important manner the people of Australia. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.09) —in reply-In the 60 seconds left for me to reply, I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Copyright Amendment Bill. I want to mention briefly a couple of matters. It has been suggested that some delay has been caused by the Review Committee. I do not think that is accurate because the committee of review never had to deal with the question of piracy. It is well recognised that that has been a recent development because of the improvement in technology. There is also some misunderstanding with regard to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service being able to make programs available free of charge. That is a problem because they would have a difficulty in having to comply with copyright. I think that honourable members have addressed themselves to the matters quite effectively. Perhaps we could have bought this Bill in last year, but there was some misunderstanding about the penalties. Some people thought that the penalties were not severe enough, but we think that they are quite up to world standards. On that basis we had to adjourn the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.12) —I refer to the matter of Mr Holmes a Court's statutory declarations made to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, which I raised with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) at Question Time yesterday. I raise it again, because I keenly support the Liberal Party's Federal platform on justice and law reform, which states: Everyone, including governments and their agencies, should be equally subject to the Law. Because of the obvious power this gentleman has and uses, it is important, for the integrity of the Tribunal and, in a wider sense, the public support of the judicial system generally, that the law be seen to be applied equitably. Apparently Mr Holmes a Court's ownership of radio and television increased in 1983 and it seems that from 1983 until 12 May 1986 he was not covered by the transitional provisions inserted in the Broadcasting and Television Act in 1981. Because he was not an Australian citizen, he is likely to have contravened sections 90g and 92d. The several penalties in those sections distil to this point: A court of summary jurisdiction may impose on a natural person a fine not exceeding $1,000. Because making a false statutory declaration is specifically stated in the Act to be non-compliance, it appears that Mr Holmes a Court offended under sections 90j (7f), in relation to radio, and 92f (7f), in relation to television, which provide a penalty for each day of compliance failure. Upon conviction, the offence incurs a daily penalty of $1,000. Incidentally, a defence is available to Mr Holmes a Court under section 92q, which reads: It is a defence to a prosecution for a contravention of section 90c, 90f, 90j, 90ja, 92, 92c, 92f, 92faa or 92fab if the defendant satisfies the Court that: (a) the contravention arose by reason of circumstances beyond his control or through inadvertence, and (b) as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the contravention, he took all reasonable steps with a view to causing the contravention to cease. Further offences, however, may have been committed under sections 90m (c), 92h (c), 90p and 92ja. If a person were found guilty, the penalties could be conceivably $1,000 per day. It is a long way from 1983 to 1986. If it is 1,100 days, the fine could be around $1m. The heavier penalty of licence revocation would probably be considered upon such convictions. Renewal of a licence could be withheld under section 86 (11b) (c) (iii), which states: The Tribunal is satisfied that a condition of the licence has not been complied with; Interestingly, this would not depend on a conviction. Also, the Tribunal's manual itself emphasises the importance of trustworthiness, and clearly states: Without the quality of trustworthiness a person cannot be a fit and proper person to hold a license. It is not for me, or anyone else, to find Mr Holmes a Court guilty outside of the proper processes of law. However, a number of matters of serious note are known. Mr Holmes a Court signed statutory declarations back in time, to swear that he was an Australian citizen. His possession of radio and television licences depended on those declarations. Despite those statements, he became an Australian citizen in the last several weeks, by jumping a queue of thousands and in a ceremony, especially arranged so that his licences would not be at risk, during his renewal application which carries a 31 May deadline. The issue is simple. It is the responsibility of the Attorney-General to initiate any prosecution. It is therefore his responsibility to find out whether a prosecution is necessary. If he will not investigate Mr Holmes a Court, Australians will know that to be rich and powerful is to be able to ignore the law with impunity. The Attorney-General may not like the duty which lies before him. However, if it is good enough for Joe Blow from anywhere around Australia to toe the line and obey the law, it is good enough for Australia's richest man. If the Attorney-General will not take it up, he cannot blame people for believing that the Government protects its great and powerful friends. More particularly, the presentation of statutory declarations as a point of reliance by the Broadcasting Tribunal to award licences worth hundreds of millions of dollars will be a sick joke at the expense of the Australian people. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.16) —Increased housing loans by most local banks are a very welcome change over the past couple of weeks. Four things have happened following the Federal Government's deal with the banks: First, home loans are ahead of the $6 billion target and could go as high as $7 billion. The banks are now more generous and more competitive. Second, bank interest rates are actually lower, because most loans previously involved two tiers of funding-part at 13.5 per cent and a larger amount at 18 to 21 per cent. The present rate of 15.5 per cent is lower than many people were paying. I point out that building society rates are the prerogative of the States and Territories. Third, those who had already borrowed at 13.5 per cent prior to the introduction of the scheme are able to hold that rate. Fourth, the housing industry is starting to resurge and, instead of the decline in housing industry jobs that we had before, we are now seeing the beginning of a pick-up. The Government-banks agreement in which each put in part of the multi-million package has already returned a dividend to the taxpayer because it has stopped the unemployment trend in the building industry. Unemployment means more payouts in benefits, which mean a heavier burden on the taxpayer. More homes mean more jobs in the building industry, which mean less of a burden for the taxpayer. Of course, more homes for people who need them is another very important aspect of Government policy. I congratulate the Hawke team because in only a little over 2 1/2 years the first home owners scheme has provided for nearly 1,200 new homes in Eden-Monaro. Figures have been released which show that since October 1983 there have been 1,393 applications, of which 1,191 have been approved. The first home owners scheme has been a great success in Eden-Monaro. We now have nearly 1,200 families who have a home of their own as a direct result of the scheme. I look forward to a further improvement in housing in Eden-Monaro as a result of the public housing policy of the Government. Many young families find that the initial capital needed to finance their first home is simply beyond them. Those of us with a vote in the Parliament need to make it clear that we must help more families into their first home and have more homes available for rental. I am pleased to see that the Government has responded. The Government has also responded in the construction area in Eden-Monaro-not only in housing but also in many other spheres of activity. In Cooma and the Snowy Mountains support for the ski tube, the Snowy Mountains Authority and its new building has brought new jobs to the region. Long overdue roadworks between Canberra and Braidwood and Canberra and the Victorian border south of Bombala have also proceeded, and I am pleased to say that the Federal Government has rejected calls from the Opposition for the sale of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. I notice that the Opposition's housing and construction policy again contains a proposal to sell the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. Let us make no mistake: If that happens the Corporation will move from Cooma. The Government has also refilled Queanbeyan office space-space that was emptied over seven years by the previous Government. One must add to that the enormous development and construction works in Cooma, Queanbeyan and Canberra. All this means more jobs in the region, more spending, more business for small business and the better services and facilities which result. Today in Eden-Monaro, I attended the opening of a water scheme by the New South Wales Department of Public Works, which of course has some Federal funding. It is very evident that the co-operation between the New South Wales Government, the Federal Government and local councils in the region has improved jobs, housing and business viability in Eden-Monaro. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.21) —Several weeks ago the Industries Assistance Commission released a draft report on certain petroleum products. Included in the IAC's report is the proposal that natural gas, currently free of excise and sales tax, be levied at the rate of 20 per cent. The IAC also recommended that all existing petroleum taxes, most of which are set at a specific rate, should be replaced by a 20 per cent sales tax. Regardless of their doubtful efficacy, and should they be adopted, these proposals come at a very inopportune time for many of those who will be affected. I cite the case put by Alcoa of Australia Ltd, a major producer of bauxite, alumina and aluminium ingots, which mines around 17,000,000 tonnes of bauxite to supply three refineries in Western Australia. These refineries have a total capacity of 4.7 million tonnes per annum or around an impressive 15 per cent of the Western world's total capacity. It is worth noting that Alcoa of Australia is the world's largest alumina producer and that 85 per cent of the alumina it produces is exported. The company's current work force is over 5,000 and it makes an important contribution, not simply to our export dollars in the aggregate, but also to communities and regional economies in Western Australia and, Madam Speaker, in your State of Victoria. Alcoa is currently facing difficult trading conditions. There exists fierce competition in international markets which are themselves oversupplied. Added to this are the high cost structures here in Australia, including costs associated with domestic protection. The result of these factors is a first quarter 1986 profit of less than $1m. If this recommended impost had been in place, that miniscule result in terms of return on shareholders' funds and capital invested would have been a loss of in excess of $11m for the same quarter. Many people will know that energy costs account for around 50 per cent of alumina and aluminium smelting costs. Against the background, the impact of the IAC's proposals would cost Alcoa an extra $50m a year. Such a massive addition to Alcoa's cost structure would significantly inhibit its trading competitiveness and might risk the continued viability of its refineries in Western Australia, if not the viability of all three, certainly one or more of them. The IAC draft paper suggests significant energy cost increases at a most inappropriate time. Against this, international competitors are now experiencing major reductions in energy costs. Most of the competitors use mainly oil or gas as their primary energy source and their energy cost structures are currently up to 50 per cent less than their 1985 costs. This is what Alcoa is competing against. As Alcoa noted in its submission to the IAC, its trading environment is essentially a commodity market where pricing is determined by supply and demand balances. In an over-supplied capital intensive industry, pricing tends to be determined by the marginal cost of supply, and we all know the contribution that some of the less developed countries make to that in their pursuit of foreign currency. In this situation, cost competitiveness is crucial to retaining an economically viable market share for Alcoa. The Industries Assistance Commission's proposals-including increased taxes on fuel, oil and distillate, the removal of existing rebates for off-road use of distillate for mining as well as subjecting natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas to taxes on petroleum products-come at a difficult and unpropitious time. They ignore the equity argument and the propriety of the imposition of a new tax of this sort levied at the suggested or recommended rate of 20 per cent. I recommend to the House, and in particular to the Government, that those proposals should be considered in the light of all the available evidence and all of the implications that they may have for employment, for our export earnings potential, for our ability to maintain our balance of payments position and eventually to improve it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(10.26) —The majority of Australians last night went to bed and slept soundly quite secure and warm in their homes and in their lives in general. Of course, we are all well aware of the homelessness, despair and poverty of the hundreds of millions of people in Africa, Asia and South America. We see it on our television screens day by day. But we assume that Australians live quite comfortably. In fact, the reality is very far from that fantasy. Last night 40,000 Australians slept out of doors without their own shelter or in refuges. These people are without the security of shelter for tonight or tomorrow night. In Victoria about 40 per cent of those people were estimated to be under 25 years of age. At least another 60,000 Australians today live on the verge of homelessness and are totally dependent on community and government resources to live. Between two and three million Australians in this lucky country live well below the poverty line after they have paid for their accommodation. We all know about the extreme poverty in the Third World. Plenty of appeals have been conducted to help the starving people in other parts of the world, but at times that only helps us to overlook the extreme poverty of millions of people in Australia. Poverty is poverty wherever it is. In Australia there are 800,000 children in poverty. Poverty means going to school without one's breakfast. Poverty means mum and dad, if one is lucky enough to have two parents, living in a station wagon and leaving their children for a while with an auntie they have never known before. Poverty is going to bed without one's dinner or asking a friend at school day after day for some of his lunch. Poverty is not watching television when the food ads come on. Poverty is watching the ads on television for new cars, clothes and middle class suburban gardens and never having experienced those things. Poverty is embarrassment at the supermarket when the store staff treat a person like dirt because he brings in a food voucher. That is the real day to day, year to year, life after life world for one in five Australians-the two to three million Australians who live at the bottom of the well of Australian society. One per cent of Australians, 150,000 people, own 22 per cent of Australia's total wealth. Five per cent of Australians own 45 per cent. The top 10 per cent own 59 per cent of Australia's wealth. The top 50 per cent of Australians-the top 7 1/2 million-own 92 per cent of Australia's total wealth. The bottom 7 1/2 million own the other 8 per cent. The position is not getting any better. In 1968, for every $1,000 that was earned by the lowest 10 per cent of income earners, the top 10 per cent of income earners earned $10,000. In 1982, for every $1,000 the bottom 10 per cent-the lowest income group-earned the top 10 per cent took away $56,000. To give honourable members an idea of the extent of poverty in Australia, if all of the people in poverty in Australia joined hands the line would stretch right across the diagonal of this continent, 3,000 kilometres, from Sydney to Perth. The people who own the equivalent of the wealth of those two to three million people would be able to stand in a line about five kilometres long. That illustrates the disparity of wealth distribution in this country. I would like to give the House an idea of what it is like to live in poverty. A single mother with two children, on a widow's pension and living in private rental accommodation, would have the following daily food allowance: Cornflakes 23c, milk 67c, bread $1.07c, butter 42c, three eggs 48c, three apples 90c, a can of baked beans 54c; making a total expenditure for that day of $4.31. The weekly allowance would include a bit of protein in the form of a chicken, some potatoes and a lettuce, and this would come to another $7. A person in that situation could afford to spend less than $40 a week on food. Compare that with what it costs most Australians who go out to a restaurant. They would easily put down $40 for a three-course meal and not think too much about it. But a person in poverty has to live on $40 a week, week after week, year after year. Some of the poorest people in this country are Aborigines. The 1981 census showed that their average income is $6,000 while it is $12,000 for other Australians. The Aboriginal infant mortality rate is 26 per cent compared with 10 per cent for other Australians and the incidence of trachoma is 69 per cent compared with 9.5 per cent for the total population. If we want to do something for the Bicentenary let us make a real effort to ensure that trachoma, one of the most horrific diseases that could befall people, is eradicated. Let us start a program of eradication in this country. Poverty is real and alive in this country; it is real and alive all over the world. The money required to provide adequate food, water, education, health and housing-simple needs for everyone in the world-has been estimated at $17 billion a year. That is a lot of money but in two weeks that is what governments spend on arms. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.31) —Recently, over 750 letters from parishioners of the Holy Spirit Church at Strathpine were delivered to my office protesting strongly that the film Hail Mary is to be screened next month. I wish to incorporate the text of the letters in Hansard and I seek the leave of the House for this purpose. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair will have to have a look at the material. If it does not fall within the guidelines it cannot be incorporated. Mr SLIPPER —Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the contents of the letters. A person in Surry Hills, New South Wales, has also written to me and I quote from his letter: . . . I have been elected to write to all Parliamentarians seeking your help to stop this film which is offensive to all Catholics throughout Australia-and indeed would be offensive to other Christians who believe in the Bible. This film contains blasphemous, indecent or obscene matter, the exhibition of which is undesirable in the public interest . . . I quote further from the letter: . . . Hundreds of letters of protest have been sent to the Chief Censor. We have in our possession thousands of signatures protesting against the film in that it is a blasphemy and an attack on the beliefs of Christians and all that they hold sacred and dear. . . This film has been banned in other countries and we ask for your urgent help to have it banned in Australia. In the light of the obvious community outrage throughout Australia at the registration and release of this disgusting film I was saddened by the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) in Parliament today when he advised the House that the film had been registered by the Film Censorship Board for exhibition in Australia. It is disturbing to note the Attorney-General's comment that members of the Board were of the unanimous decision that the film was neither indecent nor blasphemous, but sought to give a biblical history of the Virgin Mary in a contemporary setting. It is quite beyond me how any decent and reasonable person could suggest that the film's vulgar language and indecent scenes involving the actress playing the role of Mary could be `a biblical history of the Virgin Mary in a contemporary setting'. The Attorney conceded that there would be a lot of concern, particularly in Christian circles and especially in Catholic circles, that this film, in his words, `appears to ridicule and somewhat denigrate the Virgin Mary'. The Attorney-General stated that the film had been registered and released from the control of the Australian Customs Service and that he had no power in the matter. I find his last word on the matter a very disappointing and a totally inadequate response. His concluding words were: But I think the issue is probably best dealt with in the sense that those who want to see it will see it, and the majority who perhaps do not want to see it should avoid it. I ask the Attorney: What about the young impressionable children who may somehow be exposed to this blasphemous, indecent and obscene film? It is obvious that viewing this material would have an adverse effect on them. The Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations are there for a purpose. In this case there is obviously no excuse for the Board's having registered the film. It stands condemned for having failed to ensure that Australia joined other countries in imposing a ban. Mr Tim Fischer —This is a serious matter. Mr SLIPPER —It is a serious matter, as the honourable member for Farrer quite correctly points out to the House. There will be an enormous public outcry on this issue. Protests in my electorate are reaching epic proportions and I fully expect to be approached by hundreds more people over the next few weeks. This film presents the Holy Family in a most offensive manner. The language used and the interpretation of the roles of the major characters are totally unacceptable and obnoxious. The film openly denigrates, demeans and insults the religious beliefs of all Christians. It is obvious that if the Attorney-General does not have power in the matter he should take firm, immediate and decisive steps to sack Mrs Strickland and her current Board, people who are obviously unfit to hold office, and to replace them with persons of moral fibre and principle who are capable of discharging the Board's responsibilities in a manner acceptable to all decent Australians. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I inform the honourable member for Fisher that the letter he sought to incorporate in Hansard does not fall within the guidelines. They relate to a table that an honourable member is unable to read into Hansard. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.35) —Earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit Japan for a period of 10 days as a guest of the Japanese Government, under what has become a regular Japanese-Australian exchange program. I was accompanied by my colleagues Mr John Gayler, the honourable member for Leichhardt, and Senator Dominic Foreman, the leader of the delegation. It was the first time any members of our delegation had visited Japan and each of us found the visit extremely educational and enjoyable. We were most impressed by many aspects of our visit and by the tremendous courtesy and goodwill that was extended to us as representatives of the Australian Parliament. Although Japan's total land area is less than 0.3 per cent of the total in the world, it has a population of some 120 million people, ranking it sixth behind China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, India, the United States of America and Indonesia. The Japanese speak one single language and their level of literacy is extremely high in comparison to most Western countries, including our own. Their system of government follows the Westminster system, with two popularly elected houses in their parliament or Diet. The Prime Minister is elected by a vote of the lower House and Cabinet is responsible to the Diet. The conservative Liberal-Democratic Party has dominated Japanese politics since the occupation and in my view, on the assessment we made during our visit, is likely to remain the Government in the foreseeable future. The itinerary for our visit was a busy one, involving many meetings with government officials as well as visits to important Japanese shrines and traditional arts. I had the pleasure of holding discussions with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Parliamentary Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, representatives of the Socialist Party of Japan and of the Liberal-Democratic Party of Japan, senior officers of the National Police Agency, the Japanese Confederation of Labour, the Mayor of Hiroshima City, and senior officers of the Ministries of Health and Welfare, Home Affairs, and Trade and Industry and of the National Tax Administration Agency. Other highlights of our itinerary included visits to Hiroshima City and the peace museum and park, the Mazda motor corporation, the Kabuki Theatre, traditional crafts in Kyoto, the Emperor's Palace in Tokyo, the NTT communications centre and a number of shrines in Kamakura and Nara. Our trip on the Hikari super express bullet train, which travels at more than 200 kilometres per hour, was most memorable. As most honourable members will be aware, Japan is Australia's largest trading partner. Our two countries have enjoyed a long period of rapid trade expansion, to the extent where our exports to Japan now exceed $7 billion per annum and our imports from Japan about $6 billion. Japan is our primary market for coal, iron ore, wool, aluminium, bulk wood, crustaceans and molluscs, and is a major market for beef and veal, sugar and wheat. During the time of our visit in Japan, which was in January, the major political and economic talking point was the issue of what the Japanese described as trade friction. The term basically describes the large balance of trade surplus of Japan and the pressure from her major trading partners, particularly the United States of America, for Japan to allow more American imports into the Japanese domestic market. The strong appreciation of the Japanese yen against the United States dollar over the past 12 months or more reflects the relative trading performance of each country and in time should diminish the extent of trade friction. In terms of how Australia's exports are placed in an extremely competitive Japanese market, it means that we must continue to improve our international competitiveness and meet deliveries on time and at cost. In this respect we were pleased to be able to inform Japanese representatives of the Ministry of Trade and Industry that under the Hawke Government industrial disputes had fallen to their lowest level for 19 years, and real labour unit costs had been dramatically reduced. The potential to expand Japanese tourism to Australia is significant and new trading opportunities are evident in the areas of horticulture, some manufactures and fresh fruit and vegetables. Whether or not Australia grasps these opportunities depends very much on our ability to produce quality products and to deliver on time and at cost. There are many characteristics of Japanese society which impressed me. On a personal level I found the Japanese to be a friendly and courteous people who are hard working and pay great attention to detail. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.40) —I recently submitted to the coalition's Waste Watch Committee, which has as its motto `Cut waste to cut taxes', copies of various documents extracted under the Freedom of Information Act on the establishment of the Australian Constitutional Commission. I say extracted because I first applied for the documents on 15 January 1986. I received the first set of documents after I lodged an appeal against the refusal of the Attorney-General's Department to give me any documents whatsoever, and the latest documents were provided only last Friday. More documents are due this coming Friday, and my appeal has been set down for 11 June. I am not going to say any more about that tonight because that appeal is pending. However, the extreme reluctance of the Department to provide documents reveals the Government's real attitude to the freedom of information legislation and raises some questions as to what it has to hide. Unfortunately, a five-minute adjournment speech will not give me enough time to deal with all the excesses of the establishment of the Commission. However, I think honourable members will be surprised by the magnitude of the waste. I say that it is a waste of public funds because everyone knows that constitutional reform is a difficult process, mainly because the Australian public is sensible enough to be wary of change for change's sake, which of course is one of the Labor Party's favourite themes. I was interested to note that some of the members, in accepting the invitation to put their hands into the public purse, raised the futility of the exercise. A senior lecturer in law at the Australian National University, Mr Lindell, said: The experience of the past shows the immense difficulties in the way of achieving constitutional reform. Professor Coper of the University of New South Wales said: . . . the record of constitutional change in Australia has been pretty dismal . . . Whilst it is a waste of money, Labor's plans for constitutional change need to be monitored closely, otherwise we will have a repeat of 1984, when it kept the Bill of Rights in the bottom drawer and secret during the 1984 election. The documents extracted from the Constitutional Commission reveal that, firstly, the total expenditure on this wasteful exercise will exceed $4.5m. Secondly, Mr Gough Whitlam and the Chairman, Sir Maurice Byers, on top of their Commonwealth superannuation, will receive $324 and $750 respectively per day. Sir Maurice is not only getting $750 per sitting day but he has also negotiated free first class air fares and accommodation for his wife. Thirdly, $30,000 will be provided for air fares for Mr Whitlam to travel backwards and forwards between Paris and Australia-$30,000 for five trips. Fourthly, the six commissioners between them will receive an estimated $440,000 for their public service. All I can say is that the founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they saw these blokes with their hands in the till. Fifthly, the members of the advisory committees will receive an estimated $329,280. That is their public spirit for you. Sixthly, the members of the Commission and the advisory committees will obviously be doing some travelling. In 1985-86 it will be $202,040 worth; in 1986-87 it will be $493,820 worth; and in 1987-88 it will be $292,760 worth-totalling $988,620 in estimated travelling expenses. Further, as one would expect, the accommodation for the Commission will be nothing but the best. There will be a mere $242,000 annual payout for rental. There are many other documents and I hope to have an opportunity at some other time to raise further matters. However, I note that Mr Ian Cunliffe has been appointed as Secretary to the Commission, with an increase in salary from about $40,000 to about $60,000 a year. Mr Cunliffe had a meteoric rise in the Public Service following his public statement last year which favoured the free supply of heroin to drug addicts. All I can say is that I hope his judgment on the matter of drugs is not reflected in his contribution to constitutional reform. There is no demand for a new Constitution, and there is certainly no way that the Australian public will approve of any new Constitution prepared by the Constitutional Commission. The whole exercise is just a sop to a few reformists who are trying to maintain their rage, and it has ended up as a basis for a few cosy political appointments. These figures give a glimpse of the exorbitant nature of Labor's plans for reform. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.45) —I want to draw the attention of the House to a particularly sensitive and compassionate editorial in today's Canberra Times, in which a great distinction is drawn between the compassionate concern of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world who ran recently to gain funds for people in the famine stricken areas of northern Africa and the attitude of President Mengistu of Ethiopia. I would like to join the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in his high praise of the many thousands of Australians who took part in the Sport Aid `Run for Life' last weekend. Praise is especially warranted for the organisers in my own electorate of Ballarat and throughout Australia and elsewhere throughout the world, and particularly for Mr Bob Geldorf who has been the driving force. There is a tremendous reservoir of real human concern and care evident throughout the world for those who live in the daily tragedy of hunger, malnutrition, disease, death and hollow tomorrows. A belief is being expressed that we can, as individuals and as communities, make an honest contribution to a situation which we can hardly contemplate, even in small measure. It is even harder to contemplate the extraordinary and deliberate crudity of the Ethiopian Government's recently expressed intention not just to train 10,000 guerrillas in Ethiopia to fight thousands of kilometres away in South Africa and Namibia but also to provide them with foodstuffs. Participants in the `Run for Life' must expect that their grand efforts and the funds gathered through them will not find their way into the food rations of those guerrillas. It is for people like those in Ethiopia who are stranded in famine that the runners ran. The runners are being asked, in effect, by President Mengistu to run a little further because his priorities are in the violent resolution of South Africa's woes, not in the crushing need of his people to eat. It is an obscenity no one in this House I am sure would seek to defend-I hope. I recognise that South Africa's problems are becoming increasingly intractable. I can well understand how Africa's black leaders may feel that the only way to extinguish the suffering of apartheid is to fight it. But I cannot condemn too harshly the vile racist policies of the South African Government. I cannot accept on any terms the decision of a man who has put a costly military solution to a foreign problem well before the human cost of hunger, who has chosen the path of national bankruptcy rather than the path of common decency in the face of desperation engendered by famine. I hope that this decision receives an unstinting condemnation the world over, especially from the nations of Africa which, while they may support the cause of South Africa's blacks, must also accept that the extension and prolongation of hunger and the loss of life that goes with it cannot be passed over. The `Run for Life' was worthwhile. The cynicism of the Ethiopian Government does not detract from the value of Sport Aid or other campaigns or programs which enable people to express a common humanity, to make a personal commitment to others in great distress. We must hold out against cynicism. I again applaud all those who took to the streets last weekend. I hope that the collective applause, rather than the collective shout of anger will shame President Mengistu into revising his priorities. He has chosen the wrong time to commit funds to the training of guerrillas. The funds should be spent to feed his people even if all he can offer them is gruel-better gruel than guerrillas. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.50) —The release of the coalition industrial relations policy has been well received in all quarters because of its emphasis on producing a more flexible wage system. This innovative policy has particular reference to the cause of creating more job opportunities for young people. In Australia we have a quite disastrous unemployment problem with our young people. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force statistics for March 1986 there are 234,000 in the 15 to 24 age group seeking full time employment. This group constitutes 46.3 per cent of the total unemployed. In Victoria there are 44,600 in the same group looking for full time jobs, which is 46 per cent of the total unemployed in Victoria. The Hawke Government, together with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, has callously rejected any suggestion that the current high levels of youth unemployment are in any way resultant from inflexible youth wages or a narrowing of the differential between youth and adult wages. This is despite definite international opinion, such as an article titled `Job Growth, Flexibility and Security', which appeared in the September 1985 edition of the OECD Observer which stated: As last year's employment outlook showed, the level of youth wages relative to those of other competing groups of workers does matter. Increases in relative youth wages for other than market reasons and downward rigidity in youth wages relative to those of adults have resulted in job losses for young people in some member countries. Within the Australian community also there is an increasing awareness that a principal cause of unemployment-not only of young people-is the ill effects of labour market regulation. Similarly, there is a growing body of opinion calling on the Government to explicitly address the linkage between wage flexibility and unemployment. In a comparison of Japanese and Australian labour markets conducted by Mr Alan Henderson, author of the study `Japanese and Australian Labour Markets: A Comparison of their Institutions, Structures and Performance', it was found that: The Australian wage system, by contrast, is highly regulated, centralised, unresponsive to trends in profitability and characterised by a rigid wage structure. A comparison of the two systems identifies this inflexibility as a key factor in the deterioration of the Australian labour market's capacity to generate opportunities for job seekers. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has often been criticised for maintaining unemployment at higher levels than would otherwise occur. One of the system's most notable critics, the former Secretary to the Treasury, John Stone, provided a lucid analysis of the way in which young people have been priced out of the labour market in his critical paper `The scandal of youth unemployment'. The Editor of the Australian Financial Review, Mr P. McGuinness, sternly echoed John Stone's sentiments in a chapter of his forthcoming book when he wrote: . . . the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission . . . has blithely interfered in the labour market, the industrial structure, the profitability of industry, the structure of occupations, and relative wages without any consideration of the effects of its action. The Arbitration Commission must take responsibility as a major short-term cause of unemployment in Australia. One of the real tragedies of Australia's high unemployment rate, especially among our young, is that there are in fact many and varied profitable opportunities for employing people in what would be new jobs by providing new services and training opportunities in our community, but within a more flexible wages framework. Unfortunately, the current rigid regulatory approach to determining wages and other conditions takes no account of the circumstances of individual companies, and by doing that Australia is locked into particular sets of products and particular forms of protection, with certain classes of workers, such as young people, locked out of jobs. Earlier this year the influential Committee for Development of Youth Employment, whose prominent members include Western Mining Corporation's Hugh Morgan, the Chief Commissioner of Police, Mr Miller, and the Director of the Employers Federation , Ian Spicer, called for an urgent inquiry to examine the links between existing youth wage structures and youth unemployment. Based on submissions by various groups to a range of conference and forums organised by the Committee, it released a report which warned that this country would face an ever-increasing number of disillusioned, cynical and disadvantaged young people unless urgent action was taken. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Hughes. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.54) —I wish it were always so easy to get the call, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is the lucky last. Mr TICKNER —I have very great pleasure tonight in raising a matter of important local concern to me, and to my constituents in the Federal electorate of Hughes. We often have the opportunity in the National Parliament to participate in debates about important national issues. However, I also think it is important that we strike a balance and are able to raise local issues in the Parliament on appropriate occasions. I have a role model for my work as a Federal member of Parliament. There has been, first of all in the New South Wales Parliament, and subsequently in the Federal Parliament, one member who has almost become an institution in his own lifetime and that is, of course, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). One of the things I strive to do in my work as the member for Hughes is to be the Michael Maher of the south, the Michael Maher of southern Sydney. Tonight I would like to refer to the very important initiative taken by St Patrick's College Junior Cricket Club which I think provides an example for all of Australia of parent participation in junior sport. When it comes to talking about matters sporting I can claim some expertise in limited areas. However, I am not a cricketer. The closest the Tickner family ever came to being cricketers was in, I think, the 1920s when, in a small town called Tallong in the Federal electorate of Gilmore there were so many Tickners that they almost made up a cricket team in their own right. Be that as it may, I was recently invited to attend the closing session of the St Patrick's Junior Cricket Club Coaching School in Sutherland. What I found on that occasion was truly a model for junior sport and parent participation for Australia. The way that the club involved parents in the work of the school began in 1984 when the Chairman of the Club, Mr Rowney, assembled a number of dads who, in their younger years, had played grade cricket. He suggested to them that since children's sport had passed from the schools to Saturday mornings many parents and coaches seemed more intent on winning premierships than on teaching young players the skills of various games. He found considerable support for that among the dads. As a result a decision was made to form immediately a coaching school which would operate every Thursday evening and roster each boy for individual tuition in small groups. Clearly, the result of that initiative has been an outstanding success. The boys have been wildly enthusiastic about the coaching school and the involvement of fathers in the school. To my knowledge this is the first time that a voluntary coaching school has operated in a junior cricket club in Australia and I hope that the initiative taken by that junior club will pervade other cricketing clubs and other junior sporting bodies and encourage them to do the same. I would like to add a number of comments. Firstly, it seems that one of the tragedies of modern society, despite the fact that in Western democracies we live in very affluent situations and surroundings, is that so much of family life and family involvement has broken down, to an extent at least that is partly attributable, in my belief, to the role of television. It is very easy for people to switch off participation in life and switch on the television. I think that the initiative taken by the St Patrick's Junior Cricket Club in involving families and, in this particular case, fathers in junior sport is one that builds the local community and gives great strength and support to the children. I pay a particular tribute to the coaching panel, which includes Mr Bub Duff, Mr Brian Quinn, Mr Bruce Graham, Mr Kevin Holley, Mr Karl Van Dort, Mr Michael King and Mr Arthur Ellis and also a tribute to the executive of the cricket club which made this initiative possible. Finally, I pay tribute to and thank the New South Wales Cricket Association which graciously allowed the Sheffield Shield to be present on the occasion of the closure of this cricketing school. It is probably the closest I will ever come to any recognition in the world of cricket. I am grateful for the involvement that I have had with the club. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(10.59) —When I entered the chamber tonight the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) was using his contribution in this adjournment debate to continue a vendetta against a prominent and, I believe from all evidence, a very valuable Australian, namely, Mr Robert Holmes a Court. I came in at the end of the honourable member's contribution but I assume that he would have let me know if he intended to make any reference to the citizenship granted to Mr Holmes a Court. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr HURFORD —Madam Speaker, I require that the debate be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr HURFORD —Thank you, Madam Speaker. However, the honourable member for Boothby in Question Time yesterday made some imputations-it seemed to me adverse ones-in his question addressed to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the effect that citizenship had been granted to Mr Holmes a Court in a way that was not normal. Indeed, in another debate earlier tonight the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) gave the impression that he too thought that something questionable had eventuated in this matter of granting citizenship to Mr Holmes a Court. I want to set down the facts. Let me state unequivocally that Mr Holmes a Court has been entitled to citizenship for many years-at least 20 years and possibly 30 years-and there has been no questionable granting of citizenship to him whatsoever. Like many others of United Kingdom citizenship, Mr Holmes a Court thought, so he has stated, that he automatically had Australian citizenship because of his long years in this country, because he was married to an Australian, because he was the father of five or six-I have forgotten how many-Australians and so on. He had to learn the hard way, as many others of United Kingdom background have had to learn, that this was not so, that he was obliged to apply for Australian citizenship. That he has now done. Whether or not Mr Holmes a Court was a citizen of this country became an issue before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Therefore, he had reason for the matter to be determined as soon as possible. He was given the same courtesies and the same attention as are given to every other person whose cases are brought to my attention or to the attention of my Department. Any person who has a particular reason for needing an early determination of citizenship is given the same attention. Honourable members know that I have been a member of this Parliament for 17 years. In many other fora, when I say that, of course the cry goes out: `Too long'. However, I have had a fair amount of experience. I remember as a backbencher on many occasions going to the then Minister for Immigration and getting special fast track attention for my constituents. I repeat: Mr Holmes a Court was given exactly the same courtesies and attention as I and my Department would give to anyone else who has had a particular need such as his. It is not something new. Madam Speaker, you yourself would know that on a number of occasions in the course of our electoral work we have had brought to our attention people who need a passport quickly to leave the country, perhaps because of a bereavement overseas. These are the sorts of occasions on which we need to act quickly, and we do. People not only are given this immediate attention but, of course, are also given a citizenship ceremony by the regional director of my Department in the particular capital city or by some nominee of that director. I have no bad conscience whatsoever in regard to my Department's helping to respond to the requirements of an agency such as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, which needed to have this matter looked at immediately. Of course, the honourable member for Petrie said in the course of his remarks that he had a constituent waiting for attention. I say to him that if that person needs a fast track, let him get in touch with me immediately so that I can see that that person is given the same treatment as so many others are given. When I came into the chamber the honourable member for Boothby, as part of that vendetta to which I have referred, was alleging that an affidavit had been lodged with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and that that may not have been accurate. I believe that he cast aspersions on the Attorney-General at that time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. As no other Minister is rising, the Minister may continue for a further five minutes. Mr HURFORD —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for this opportunity to answer on behalf of the Government. I have now dealt with the matter of citizenship, but other matters were raised by the honourable member for Boothby. They relate to an affidavit before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I wonder whether the honourable member for Boothby had the courtesy to bring this to the attention of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), or indeed at this time the Acting Minister for Communications (Mr Barry Jones) in the absence of the Minister overseas, so that he could have responded to what was said by the honourable member. I do not believe that that has happened. But I can anticipate the attitude of both the Minister for Communications and the Acting Minister for Communications to the allegations made or aspersions cast by the honourable member for Boothby. It goes along these lines: We have complete confidence in the integrity of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It received an explanation from Mr Holmes a Court on this matter and it accepted that explanation from him. In my view it is time that the honourable member for Boothby acted objectively towards Mr Holmes a Court and quit this vendetta. He is entitled to want the present board of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd to continue if he so desires. He is entitled to make his arguments in favour of that happening. However, our system allows takeovers to take place so long as they are within the rules of the National Companies and Securities Commission. As I see it, Mr Holmes a Court is doing nothing more than using his rights within the present laws of this country. I hope that in future the honourable member for Boothby will get away from these personal attacks in this place on people who are not in a position to answer them, that he will face the issue, whether it be control of BHP or whatever, and that he will give a person such as Mr Holmes a Court a fair go. Madam SPEAKER —As no other Minister has risen, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.07 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Mildren to move- That this House- (1) recognises the possible dangers to Australia's potato growing industry through the continued importation of potatoes from New Zealand where the diseases Black Wort and Golden Cyst Nematode are endemic, and (2) calls upon the Government to impose a total ban on the importation of potatoes from New Zealand. Mr Mildren to move- That this House- (1) re-inforces the Government's determination to continue the policy of supporting through unemployment benefits those Australians who are unable to find jobs, and (2) condemns those in the Opposition who would impose conditions of eligibility for unemployment benefits that are tantamount to civilian conscription for this group of disadvantaged Australians. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 27 May 1986: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1986-No. 5-Retail census 1985-86. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order-1986-M29/86-Cancellation of Order No. M4/83 Export of Chilled Beef and Chilled Veal to USA and Canada. Customs Act-Notice-1986-No. 4. Excise Act-Notice-1986-No. 5. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2751) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) What constitutes an Australian based operator in the context of the international air freight charter policy. (2) Is an Australian based operator required to (a) own an Australian registered freight aircraft, (b) own any aircraft or (c) be an Australian company. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) For the purpose of the preference provisions of the international freight charter policy an Australian operator must satisfy the following requirements: have an aircraft with appropriate freight capacity endorsed on an Australian air service licence be operated by Australian air crew have the approval of the Foreign Investment Review Board where this is a requirement. (2) (a) No. (b) No. (c) No, be a person, organisation or enterprise with its principal place of business in Australia which has the approval of the Foreign Investment Review Board where this is a requirement. (Question No. 3287) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: Is it a fact the Government figures for the 12 months to November 1985 indicate that Brisbane recorded the lowest annual increase in cost of materials used in house building of all the State capital cities. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is a fact that the Australian Bureau of Statistics Series `Price Index of Materials Used in House Building' for November 1985 indicated that Brisbane recorded the lowest increase in materials prices for the six State capital cities between November 1984 and November 1985. Brisbane materials prices increased by 5.5 per cent over this period compared with 8.5 per cent in Adelaide, 8.4 per cent in Sydney, 7.9 per cent in Hobart, 7.7 per cent in Melbourne and 7.1 per cent in Perth. (Question No. 3292) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) Does the Minister's Department or the Tertiary Education Commission monitor expenditure incurred by universities for administration, including legal expenses; if so, are comparisons made between universities. (2) Do any comparisons suggest that legal expenses incurred by the University of Sydney are significantly different from those incurred by other universities. (3) Has the Minister or the Tertiary Education Commission been furnished with particulars of the costs of litigation involving Dr Jerzy Trau and the University of Sydney; if so, what was the cost to the university of initiating proceedings and appeals against Dr Trau since he was dismissed by the University in January 1980. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The States Grants legislation requires institutions to provide the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) with statements by qualified auditors certifying that Commonwealth grants have been expended in accordance with the provisions of the legislation. In addition, institutions are required to provide an annual statistical return to the CTEC which includes details on expenditure patterns across the range of activities undertaken by them. The information sought from institutions is of a summary nature. It includes details of administrative expenses incurred by institutions but not of individual items of expenditure such as legal expenses. In preparing its advice to the Government on levels of funding for individual institutions the CTEC does take account of broad expenditure patterns developed on a national basis. (2) The CTEC does not collect data on legal expenses as an individual item of expenditure and therefore it is not possible to make comparisons across institutions. (3) No. (Question No. 3360) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to the answer to questions Nos 3216 to 3243, what (a) was the stated purpose of each overseas trip made by employees of the Minister's Department and of all statutory authorities that report to the Minister in 1984-85, (b) was the classification or job description of each officer making each trip, (c) was the duration of each trip, (d) were the countries visited during each trip and (e) was the estimated cost of each trip, with the air fare component identified separately. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Name (a) Purpose of Trip (b) Classification or job description (c) Duration of trip (d) Countries visited (e) Cost of trip ($) (airfare separate) Mr C. Perkins Accompany Minister Secretary-DAA 22.4-10.5.85 USA, Canada 18,164.86 (15,858.70) Mr C. Perkins Accompany Minister Secretary-DAA 27.7-18.8.84 Italy, Switzerland, Germany, England, USA 17,107.24 (13,102.00) Mr C. Perkins Accompany Minister to ratify Torres Strait Island Treaty Secretary-DAA 15.2-17.2.85 Papua New Guinea 428.66 (no airfares) Mr C. Perkins Attend Music Festival and Waitangi Awards Secretary-DAA 19.1-22.1.85 New Zealand 1,563.90 (1,136.40) Mr E. Willmott Examination of Canadian Broadcasting Deputy Secretary 6.7-26.7.84 USA, Canada 8,487.17 (4,444.20) Mr D. O'Rourke Conference-Council of Social Welfare SES 1.8-25.8.84 USA, Canada 13,276.13 (9,785.20) Mr G. Brownbill Accompany Minister to ratify Torres Strait Island Treaty SES 15.2-17.2.85 Papua New Guinea 371.09 (no airfares) Mr G. Menham Examination of Canadian Broadcasting SES 6.7-26.7.84 USA, Canada 7,900.32 (4,388.60) Ms P. Turner Conference-Maori Women's Welfare League SES 11.5-18.5.85 New Zealand 1,636.61 (1,010.80) Mr W. Gray Accompany Minister SES 22.4-11.5.85 USA, Canada 9,954.92 (8,588.40) Mr G. Bissaker UNESCO Meeting on Aboriginal Folklore CA. C11 14.1-18.1.85 France 813.53 (382.00) Mr G. Neate Indigenous Peoples Conference on Law CA. C9 27.6-10.8.84 England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Greece 7,352.73 (4,381.00) Mr V. Copley WCIP Conference CA. C8 18.9-15.10.84 USA, Panama 6,036.14 (4,655.20) Mr J. Croft Expo '85 Tour of Japan CA. C8 11.6-25.6.85 Japan 3,965.11 (872.20) Mr T. Kapeen Conference-Council of Social Welfare CA. C7 1.8-25.8.84 USA, Canada 7,113.48 (4,493.60) Mr M. Tripp Conference-Maori Women's Welfare League CA. C5 11.5-18.5.85 New Zealand 1,554.07 (986.50) Mr R. Winroe South Pacific Festival of Arts General Manager ADC 27.6-16.7.85 Tahiti 7,199.00 (3,186.00) Mr E. Geia South Pacific Festival of Arts Commissioner ADC 27.6-16.7.85 Tahiti 7,009.00 (3,186.00) Ms A. Featherstone Legal Conference Assistant Manager ADC 2.9-9.9.84 Vienna 1,154.85 (no airfare) Ms L. O'Donoghue WCIP Conference Chairman AHL 20.9-3.10.84 Panama 9,515.13 (7,443.00) Mr N. G. Perkins Conference-Indigenous Peoples Administrators General Manager AHL 2.9-13.9.84 USA 8,148.25 (5,719.00) Mr R. Calma Conference-Maori Women's Welfare League Employee 11.5-18.5.85 New Zealand 2,041.47 (1,466.67) (Question No. 3663) Mr White asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) What sum (a) has been spent and (b) will be spent in support of the America's Cup. (2) What items are being funded. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Commonwealth funds specifically identified as America's Cup allocations are as follows: (a) $23m by 30 June 1986; (b) $30m. (2) The Commonwealth Government has drawn a clear distinction between the conduct of the America's Cup defence series-a matter for the Royal Perth Yacht Club-and the consequences for the local community arising from the staging of a major international sporting event. The Government has recognised that the defence will place severe and unequal demands on community facilities and services in Perth, and particularly in the Fremantle area. The Government is concerned that the pressures arising from a record number of challenge syndicates and a large volume of visitors do not result in an intolerable burden for the local community. The Commonwealth therefore decided to allocate to Western Australia a total of $30m for use over three years (1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87) in support of community and service projects sponsored by State and local government authorities. These projects will not only increase the capacity of these authorities to meet the demands to be made on their facilities and services during the Cup defence but also provide facilities that will be of continuing community benefit well beyond the Cup defence itself. The major project activities to which the Commonwealth's funds are being applied are: Total cost (est.) Common- wealth contri- bution $m $m Public housing... 23.5 6.2 Public transport... 4.9 1.4 Traffic facilities... 9.0 4.7 Community and civic facilities and national estate... 14.9 8.3 Maritime safety... 6.4 2.7 Foreshore improvements and conservation... 4.2 1.3 Emergency services... 1.9 0.5 Tourism, hospitality publicity and information... 3.2 1.2 Australia II acquisition... 2.0 2.0 Committed in principle (a)... 4.8 1.7 74.8 (b)...30.0 (a) Project details yet to be confirmed by Western Australia. (b) Does not include capital and operational expenditures being fully funded from State sources. In addition, as part of their normal activities, a number of Commonwealth Departments and agencies are assisting with arrangements related to the Cup defence. (Question No. 3787) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 April 1986: Is he able to say whether there are any natural foods which are not exposed to low level radiation whilst growing. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No, all natural foods will be exposed to low level radiation during the growing period. This exposure will be due to external radiation from cosmic rays, the radioactive content of the environment and the application of any fertilisers based on phosphate rock. (Question No. 3801) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 April 1986: What are the requirements for the designation of an aircraft as a `freighter' when it is operated by an Australian freight organisation and is on the Australian aircraft register. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The term `freighter' is not defined in the context of the Air Navigation Act, Regulations and Orders. There are therefore no airworthiness or other requirements specified for `freighters' as such. However, any aircraft which is to be used for the carriage of cargo, either totally or in conjunction with passengers, is required to meet operational and airworthiness standards appropriate to the class of operations being undertaken.