Wednesday, 24 September 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Lloyd had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the passage of this Bill, the House condemns the Government for its disgraceful neglect of the nation's roads by- (1) being responsible for a dramatic fall in federal expenditure in real terms since 1983-84 from 2.12% of total budget outlays to 1.95% in 1984-85, and 1.78% in 1985-86 and an estimated 1.67% this financial year, as measured by the Australian Automobile Association; (2) retaining federal expenditure on roads at the same nominal level at $1245 million for the third year in succession; (3) creating the dismal record of being responsible for the only 2 years since 1976-77 of not increasing federal road expenditure in nominal terms; (4) reducing the allocation to roads while at the same time increasing fuel excise tax by over 300% in 3 years of Government; (5) artificially reducing the budget deficit by $24 million and depriving the Australian Land Transport Program (ALTP) of this much needed finance, which has already been collected and allocated from fuel excise tax, and (6) generally abusing the trust fund principle for the ALTP and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund to cover the reduction in the Government's budgetary commitment to roads'. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.01) —It is certainly a pleasure for me to continue the debate, having sat through the many excellent speeches of honourable members on this side of the House last evening, and several less spectacular speeches made by Opposition members, who made extensive use of misleading statistics and argued that inadequate funds are being provided for the national road construction program. I disagree totally with that argument. This Government can be proud of its record. It is spending $1,245m on the road construction program throughout Australia. More than $560m is being allocated this financial year to the national highways program, which I would argue is the Federal Go-vernment's prime responsibility in the road construction area. We are providing $422m to the State governments for the construction of major arterial roads, and $259m to local government for their local road construction programs. It is important to remember that in the last full year of the National and Liberal Parties period in government only $685m was allocated for the road construction program. Under this Labor Government we have seen the provision increased from $685m to $1,245m. That is an excellent result and the Minister at the table, the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), deserves most of the credit for that excellent increase. There has been an increase of over 82 per cent since 1981-82, the last full year when conservatives sat on the treasury benches. Even after allowing for inflation, it is a real increase of more than 24 per cent in the funding that this Government has committed to the road construction program. Yesterday evening, however, the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), described the Government's performance and the Minister's performance as dismal. It would be interesting to go through the Hansard volumes to read the comments made by the honourable member for Murray when he was a member of the Fraser-Howard Government. I bet that he did not criticise his Government when it spent only $600m in 1981-82; yet he now says that a budget which delivers $1,245m for the road construction program is dismal. I wonder what comments he made in 1981-82. The one great `quality' of the National Party is that it seems to suffer from selective mass amnesia whenever it wishes to forget about its poor performance when in government. The people of Australia are already seeing the results of the Government's massive injection of funds into road construction, especially into national highways. Massive funds are being spent on the Sydney-Newcastle freeway. I know that the Minister hopes that funding in that area will continue at a high rate. I recently had the pleasure of driving from Sydney to Albury. It is interesting to see the large number of projects on the Hume Highway, particularly south of Yass, which are currently nearing completion. Again, even though they happen to be in National Party electorates, it is good to see that this Government is spending a lot of money on the Hume Highway because it is very important that there be an excellent highway between Sydney and Melbourne, Australia's two largest urban centres. Mr Ronald Edwards —We recognise our national responsibilities. Mr LEE —As the honourable member suggests, we recognise our national responsibilities. If the national Government does not allocate funds for the Hume Highway, who will? That is why the national Government has to continue funding the Hume Highway programs. In my view the Government also has a responsibility to continue to provide large amounts of funding for the road works on the Bruce Highway as well as other projects of national importance. In my own local area on the central coast of New South Wales we already have, through this road construction program, a four-lane highway all the way from Ourimbah to the Catherine Hill Bay turn-off on the Sydney to Newcastle freeway. Several months ago we had the opening of the Sparkes Road interchange on the Wyong bypass, which meant that people such as myself, who live in Toukley, can now avoid using the rundown two-lane Pacific Highway. Work is also progressing on the extensions to the Pacific Highway as the Minister for Transport is allocating funds for construction of the extensions from Berowra to Pearce's Corner, which means that we will have a highway which bypasses a lot of the local and urban roads in that northern area of Sydney. That area is covered by safe Liberal electorates, so no one can argue that this Government is allocating funds only to Labor seats. This Government spends the funds where we think the roads need the most work, whether they be in Labor, Liberal or National party electorates. Work is also being undertaken on the extension to the Pacific Highway from Wallarah Creek to Cooranbong, which will open in not too many months ahead. We are very hopeful that the Mooney Mooney Bridge will be opened by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 14 December this year. That will mean that people travelling north of Sydney will no longer have to go through the horror stretch through Peats Ridge and Calga, which often, particularly in the school holiday period, results in many horrific deaths on the existing two-lane highway. The people on the central coast, who will save 15 to 20 minutes of their time when they travel to Sydney, will certainly welcome that improvement with open arms. The honourable members for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and Cowper (Mr Nehl) quoted very selective statistics when they suggested that this Government was using the petrol excise to slug motorists. I think the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) also used this trick when citing the level of Federal spending on roads as a percentage of excise receipts. I think that is an excellent example of Disraeli's dictum, which the honourable member for Cowper misquoted then corrected himself. The use of that example is quite selective and so seeks to mislead the Australian community, because there are two types of taxes on petroleum products. Sure, there is a petroleum excise but honourable members opposite forget to mention the crude oil levy. Members of the National-Liberal Party forget to mention that under this Budget there will be a 67 per cent decline in this Government's receipts from the crude oil levy. When we combine the figures for the crude oil levy with those of the petroleum excise-the two taxes on petrol-the Budget papers suggest that there will be an increase of less than one per cent in nominal terms in total receipts in taxes on petrol this financial year. Therefore in real terms there will be a decline. I think it is quite improper for members of the National Party to cite these misleading figures on petrol excise and totally ignore the 67 per cent decline in this Government's receipts from the crude oil levy. The truth is that we have divisions in the Opposition between the wets and the dries, between the dries and the New Right- Mr Gear —Between the squibs and the damps. Mr LEE —There are divisions between the squibs and the damps, as the honourable member for Canning suggests, and among the people inside the Parliament and those outside it such as the Andrew Hays and the Charles Copemans who seek to control the members of the Opposition in this Parliament like puppets on a string. Some people, such as the honourable members for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and Mackellar (Mr Carlton) have called for expenditure cuts and a lower deficit. I see the honourable member for Mackellar is at the table now; it is a pleasure to see him in the chamber. He opposes the increase in sales tax measures. I am disappointed that he will not be speaking in this debate because I would have liked to have heard his comments on whether he supported the National Party's calls for additional funding for road construction when, at the same time, he calls for less government spending and lower deficits. Does he have a split personality? Does he support an increase in funding for all of the Opposition's pet projects when we are debating such a project and whenever he is appearing at the National Press Club or speaking on the economy does the other side of his split personality call for less government spending? He really cannot have it both ways. I thought a comment by Max Walsh in the Fairfax publication the Sydney Morning Herald on Thursday, 31 July was quite appropriate. In referring to the Leader of the Opposition, Max Walsh stated: Howard is a politician promising salvation without pain, riches without effort, government without taxes, and industrial peace by crushing the unions. That really shows the fairyland honourable members opposite are living in. Mr McGauran —That is my type of politician. Mr LEE —It is good to see the honourable member for Gippsland admit that that is his type of politician. He his living in that fairyland where reality does not intrude on his dreams and visions. If ever we had the misfortune of seeing a conservative government returned to the Treasury benches-- Mr McGauran —An honest politician. Mr LEE —I will not go into honest John's record on a fistful of dollars and tax cuts. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will address the honourable member for Bennelong by either his electorate or his title. Mr LEE —I will not go into honest John's record on those things because that would be out of order. If ever we had the misfortune of the current Leader of the Opposition being elected as leader of this country, the question I would ask is: Will we go back to the bad old days of the last full year when he was Treasurer of this country? When he controlled the purse strings the Federal Government spent only a lousy $600m on road funding. Is that what we will go back to if the honourable member for Bennelong ends up as Prime Minister of this country? It is also very interesting to note that the amendment, which was moved by the honourable member for Murray, was seconded by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). As part of his amendment he called for additional funding for road grants. The honourable member for Deakin has undergone the conversion on the road to Damascus because an article in the Australian on 27 May last year-the honourable member for Deakin was then unencumbered by burdens as a conservative shadow Minister-reported his address to a meeting earlier addressed by the Leader of the Opposition. The headline in the Australian is `Liberals urged to aim for $6 bn government spending cut'. The article states: The Federal MP for Deakin, Mr Julian Beale, went further than Mr Howard, arguing that the next Liberal government should cut $3 billion from the deficit and take $3 billion from other programs in its first Budget. He nominated several areas where cuts could be made, although admitting that they would cause uproar . . . The article went on to nominate particular areas where cuts could be made. The honourable member for Deakin wanted local government grants to be cut out and, of particular interest in this debate, he wanted grants to States for building roads to go. The article continued: Each of these steps would save about $500 million, Mr Beale said. So the honourable member for Deakin, the man who seconded the amendment calling for an increase in spending on roads, in 1985 called for the elimination of all Federal Government funding for road construction programs. The question we should ask is: Is that still the official policy of the honourable member for Deakin? Does he want to cut out all Federal allocations for road spending because that would be a total disaster for this country? We would be unable to complete our commitments to the national highways program. Mr Duffy —Are you sure he said that? Mr LEE —I am positive. The article is in the Australian of 27 May 1985 and he called for the elimination of all Federal Government funding for road construction. The long term impact of such suggestions from the honourable member for Deakin is that we will have increases in the number of accidents on the roads and an increase in the number of Australians killed in road accidents. As I said earlier, this Government deserves full credit for its excellent spending record on road funding which was 82 per cent more than that of the last full year of the Fraser Government and a 24 per cent increase in real terms. That is a commitment which those on this side of the House will ensure continues for many years to come. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.15) —The debate on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill has been very wide ranging. Various figures have been quoted throughout the debate from both sides of the chamber. Whether they are correct or not I am not sure. I have figures of my own but I do not intend to use many of them today. The fact remains that Australia needs more money for roads-the highways, the main arterial roads and the ordinary council roads-because they are the life blood of Australia. Because of the large geographical area of Australia, we are dependent on roads. It is very important that all governments, State and Commonwealth, recognise their responsibilities so far as these projects are concerned. I know that over the last three-year period that the amount allocated for roads has been $1,245m. I know that the Opposition claims that the amount has not increased in real terms-I assume that is correct. I agree with the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), that since this Government came in, in 1983 there has been a substantial increase in the expenditure on roads, but that has been brought about by the Australian bicentennial road development funding which was an initiative created by the previous Government and is being funded by this Government. It has been a very important initiative because we have been able to tackle many of the problems relating to road development that we were unable to tackle previously. We have to appreciate in this debate that the Australian motorist today contributes enormously to Australia's revenue-well in excess of $5,500m a year. The extra rise in petrol of 3c a litre, brought in with this Budget, has added, according to the Australian Automobile Association, $56 for every motorist who travels approximately 16,000 kilometres a year in his own vehicle. So it has emerged that the motorist today, because of the petroleum and crude oil excise, is actually contributing an enormous amount to revenue which is being absorbed more and more into the general revenue. Rightly or wrongly this is so. Some motorists have to pay the tax that went up from 10 per cent to 30 per cent on what are termed the luxury vehicles. Fortunately, the average Australian motorists is accustomed to driving a luxury vehicle-one a little better than the average. It means that the motorists are being taxed more and more for the upkeep of our roads. The necessity for road use contributes enormously to the cost of production in Australia, whether it be on farms, or in industry. The cost of operating a business is high because we rely on wheels in Australia. As I said, our geographical size is a strain upon transport generally. We have to have safe roads; farmers have to take their produce to market; and tourism has to develop in Australia. Many things are dependent upon the road system. I know that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is most anxious to get as much money as he can to spend on these vital roads. I do not want to be parochial this morning, but I wish to say something about one or two of the major roads in my electorate of Lyne. They are well known to the Minister and I have written personally to him asking him whether he can use any influence to improve these vital roads such as the main road in the Hunter Valley. The Port Stephens Shire Council has written to me and one of the councillors and the shire engineer have spoken to me about a very vital road which serves the shire, the port of Newcastle and the district generally. I refer to main road 108, which is the road from the Williamtown school to road 518, which the Minister and I inspected a year or so ago. It is approximately only a mile long but it serves over 12,000 vehicles per day. There has been an increase in the number of vehicles over a very short period. In 1967, 2,150 vehicles a day travelled over the road. In 1981, there were 7,060 and in May 1986 there were 12,000. On one lane of the road the flow in one hour was 572 vehicles. This road is a link between Cabbage Tree Road, which is main road 302, and main road 518, which runs through Medowie to the Pacific Highway and is the major road to Newcastle via Stockton. To reconstruct the road, which is necessary because it is a very narrow bitumen road, will cost the Council approximately $1m. That would represent three years of the Council's main road allocation for road construction work generally within the shire. This road serves all the Tomaree Peninsula area, the Royal Australian Air Force base at Williamtown and the major Newcastle airport. It also carries vehicles, both small and large, into the port of Newcastle. This is a tremendously important road, not only for the Shire Council, the residents of the area and the Department of Defence, but also for large transports and the people of New South Wales who use the road. I ask the Minister whether he can do anything at all. Can he speak to the Department of Main Roads in New South Wales to see whether any special funds can be made available, particularly for main road 108-that small section that serves the Williamtown village area-which connects the other major roads in the area? The Minister knows that main road 518, which gives access to Medowie from the highway and to the RAAF base from Raymond Terrace and the northern part of the State, is principally a gravel road of over seven kilometres and is most inadequate to meet the general demands of that area of the State. I feel that I must raise the matter before the House during this important debate although I appreciate fully that it is a responsibility of the State. The Minister has pointed that out to me when I have written previously concerning the road, but if we could do anything from a Commonwealth point of view to alleviate a most unsatisfactory situation for the 2,000 people or more who work at the RAAF base and the general community it would be appreciated. I appreciate the fact that the Department of Defence cannot allocate funds for the road, so it falls back upon the Minister for Transport to do something about the matter. Therefore I appeal to the Minister. My concern about the Pacific Highway is that, particularly along the coast, it carries double the traffic of the New England Highway, which is a national highway. All that I am concerned about is that we get more money for the Pacific Highway. It needs a dual carriageway to cope with the traffic, because every day the population in the various seaside resorts and the major towns in the north of the State grows larger. It is essential that we improve the Pacific Highway. I am not condemning anybody. I believe that a reasonable amount of money is being spent on it now. The New South Wales Department of Main Roads is doing all it can, within its financial ability, to improve the highway. However, sections of the road are tremendously dangerous. The number of road deaths shows that certain sections are dangerous and that we have to do more work on the road. I am appealing to everybody. We want more funds to create a better Pacific Highway, to make it safer and to facilitate the carriage of its increasing traffic. I mention the main arterial roads, the trunk roads and the main roads, of not only my area, but elsewhere, which serve the rural communities, the villages and the farms. These major roads bring the produce to the factories and the railway terminals. They are the roads we have to improve. It is beyond the capabilities of local councils to do so. The roads that I spoke about such as the Williamtown road, and particularly the roads along the New South Wales coast, are the problem. There are nowhere near sufficient funds to enable authorities to cope with the strain and stress that these roads suffer. I can think of many such roads: The Forster to Bulahdelah road, the Dungog to Stroud road, the Taree to Gloucester road, the Burrell Creek Road and the road from Taree to Comboyne. These are all important roads which I do not have the time to speak about today. I would only be talking about a problem which every member of parliament could get up and talk about as affecting his or her electorate. The challenge which the Minister, the Government and the Parliament face is to have sufficient conscience to see that adequate funds are allocated for the vital communications of Australia. It is so pleasing to know, as the Minister has said, that we now have a national bitumen highway around Australia-for defence purposes, tourism and industry, and for the far western and central Australian areas where it is so important to be able to get stock, grain and other produce to market. Australia is growing up. As I said earlier, we are a very large continent. We must address ourselves to the very vital need to channel sufficient funds from the Commonwealth and the States to sensible programs. I agree entirely with the present system under which the States have responsibility. They are closer to the subject. They work closely with the councils and are able to say to the Commonwealth: `These are the problems we have'. I have asked the Minister today to say something to the New South Wales Minister for Roads and the Department of Main Roads that will enable sufficient funds to be channelled into that one important road which serves the Minister's electorate, the Hunter Valley area and the port of Newcastle-the Pacific Highway. It is a vital road through a vital area which is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.30) —In listening to the debate so far, I have been thinking about the impact that road building would have in Australia if we left it to the politicians. Most of us advance good ideas about where roads should be constructed, but the authorities that are doing the job professionally are doing a great job. They have been backed up to the hilt by the Hawke Labor Government. As far as some members of the Opposition are concerned, the debate so far has been typical of the hypocrisy and humbug that they produce in this chamber day after day. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the shadow Treasurer, is at the table. The greatest thing on his mind is not interest rates, economic growth or other important matters. The greatest thing on his mind is the $17,000 that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) claimed in travelling allowances last year. That puts this debate into focus. It is a very important debate. I am glad that we are debating something important rather than the trivial matters pursued by the Opposition day after day. The Opposition does not like the comparisons we constantly make about its appalling record. Let us consider that record. From 1974-75, the last full year of the Whitlam Government, to 1981-82, the last full year of the Fraser Government, funding actually fell by 25 per cent below that which the Fraser Government inherited. It does not have a good record in terms of road funding. The Opposition protests time after time, for example, that the Australian bicentennial road development program was all its idea and that we pinched it. The truth is that the Opposition's record was so poor that it had to do something. It had to come up with a Bicentenary gimmick to patch over its neglect on roads. The idea was to sell a new package for the Bicentenary, spend a large amount of money and put up the price of petrol by 2c per litre to cover its deficiencies during its term of office. The aim was, were it in government, to raise $2,500m over five years after which, if its past record can be believed, it would slip back into the same old ways. It must be remembered, in this context, that when we came to government in 1983 and inherited the $9.6 billion deficit from the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-when he was kicked out of office he left that bill behind for us to fix up, which we have-clearly something had to be done about winding back public expenditure. This Government kicked out all the election promises that were in the family Budget. However, there was a sitting duck in road funding. It would have been less painful to cut back on road funding because it does not affect people in the same way as other budgetary measures do. But to the credit of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), he stuck with it. He said that road funding was too important to cut, and the clear option in early 1983 to reduce the deficit by abolishing the ABRD program was never countenanced by this Government. Mr Duffy —He fought like a tiger. Mr GEAR —As the Minister for Communications says, he fought like a tiger. He is only a little bloke but he packs a big punch, certainly in the Ministry. Let us consider the absurd amendment moved by the Opposition. It simply testifies to the Government's excellent record. It confirms that the Government's record is better than the Opposition's. It confirms that the Government is being responsible in the economic management of this country. It is really nothing more than a register of the obvious pain that the Opposition is suffering. Most of it is a smokescreen for its own incompetence. Let us not forget-I am happy to remind the House-that when the Opposition was in government it trebled the price of petrol. The price went from 14c a litre to 43c-a 300 per cent increase. When the previous Government started to receive that huge inflow of money from the oil levy, from import parity pricing, one would have thought that, had it been a responsible government, it would have lowered taxes in another area-that it would have lowered income taxes, indirect taxes, and a number of other taxes. However, it did not do so. Anyone looking at the record of those days sees that all the then Government did was add that money on. It spent the money. As it rolled in, the previous Government spent and spent. Yet it talks about this Government being the high taxing government. When they had the chance to cut spending, they never did. Remember the so-called razor gang back in the good old days? Its members met, they were supposed to reach a $500m target and they never got anywhere. They never made any cuts and never took the hard decisions that this Government has taken in recent times. They quadrupled fuel-related taxes and they reduced funding by 25 per cent or $500m which represents a real cut of about 23 per cent. They should hang their heads in shame when they look at their record, yet they have the temerity to come in here and move an amendment criticising this Government for its record. It is like chalk and cheese. This Government has done more for road funding in the three years that it has been in office than they did in seven years. If the people of Australia were foolish enough to ever put them back in again, they would do the same again. The Opposition is now talking about cutting real spending. It promises that it will drop the tax rate, that there will be income splitting and all these great schemes which add up to $5,900m. On top of that, it promises a zero deficit, which is another $3,500m. Do honourable members really think that road funding will escape that? We are asking: Where is the money coming from in the first place? It would be a safe bet that road funding would be right in the firing line. Although they do not like it, let me repeat that since we have been in Government we have increased road funding by 82 per cent. That is a record to be proud of in our short term in office. But to compare this year and last year, payments for roads in 1986-87 have been held to $1,245m. That is the same figure in dollar terms, but of course it is a reduction in real terms. But this Government has shown some restraint. We have asked all sections of the economy, including students, pensioners, politicians here in this House and everybody in Australia to show some restraint, and it is only right that, in this portfolio, too, we should show some restraint. The Minister is to be congratulated on having held funding at this level. Local government has fared very well under this Budget, because of the importance that we put on local government. We recognise that that is the government closest to the people and that it deserves the support of this Government. If one looks at the allocation to local government in this year's Budget, one can see that it has not been cut in real terms. In funding for local roads, it has been allocated $258.7m this financial year, which is $5.1m more than it received in the last financial year-an increase of 2 per cent. Federal support for local roads also has to be seen as part of the total package for local government. I would like to turn now to my home State of Western Australia. I will not be parochial about my electorate, but I will point out to the House that since 1981-82-the last full year of the Fraser Government-Federal funding for Western Australian roads has increased from almost $84m to $154.3m in 1986-87. That is an increase of 84 per cent in money terms or 26.8 per cent in real terms. So in terms of looking after Western Australia, the Hawke Labor Government has put its money where its mouth is, and I have no doubt that the people of Western Australia are travelling on safer roads and that more Western Australians are travelling those roads today as a result of the injection of finance that we have put into those roads. In addition, the Commonwealth has accepted full financial responsibility for the Eyre Highway and the Great Northern Highway. That is a combined distance of 4,700 kilometres for which the Federal Government has picked up responsibility. That is only right because of the sheer size of Western Australia. It is one-third of all Australia and the State Government in Western Australia has a very hard task in looking after all the roads. As a representative of Western Australia, I am proud to say that the Minister for Transport has accepted that responsibility. We have also accepted responsibility for the major links between Perth and other Australian capital cities. As I pointed out, that is a great distance. The Commonwealth funds 22 per cent of Western Australia's rural arterial road networks. In comparison, only 4 per cent of New South Wales and Victorian roads are fully funded by the Commonwealth. So the figure is 22 per cent for Western Australia and 4 per cent for New South Wales and Victoria. Honourable members can see that we do take account of the physical size of Western Australia. I conclude by saying that this Government has nothing to be ashamed of about road funding. We can hold our heads high because we have done more in the three years since we have been in government than the Liberal-National parties ever did. This Government is dinkum about road building. The Minister is to be congratulated by the Australian people for his efforts in Cabinet and for the foresight he has shown in gaining funds for Australian roads. I am sure that we are all the better for it. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(10.41) —No more important issue could be debated in the Federal Parliament than that of road funding. It concerns every section of the community. It concerns the economic structure of the countryside. Likewise, I suppose, one must admit that it affects the economy of the cities as well. It relates directly to the standard of roads to enable transport to be efficient, to enable transport to move rapidly, and to enable transport to serve the needs of the nation. I am concerned that Government back benchers have attempted to denigrate the Opposition during this debate on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill in respect of its attitude, policy and its past record on roads. What has been said does not hold water. We must recognise that it was the Liberal-National Party Government that introduced the Australian bicentennial road development program. It was a National Party Minister who had the carriage of that legislation and who introduced the bicentennial road program. It still functions in the manner in which it was introduced. It has, of course, achieved a great deal to make possible the funding of roads. What has been denied by Government back benchers who have contributed to this debate is that the elevation of road funding has come about as a consequence of the bicentennial road funding program. I do not want to dwell on it, but I want to refer to the amendment that has been moved to the motion for the second reading of the Bill by the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), which condemns the Government for its neglect of the national road system. I say this only in rebuttal of what has been said during the debate. The dramatic fall in Federal expenditure in real terms since 1983-84 represents 2.12 per cent of total Budget outlays. In 1984-85 it represented 1.95 per cent; in 1985-86 the figure was 1.78 per cent; and for this financial year the figure is estimated to be 1.67 per cent. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), admitted, perhaps grudgingly, that the level of expenditure of Federal funding for roads has remained static at $1,245m for the third year in succession. As I said, I will not dwell on this aspect. But I think it is important to recognise that there has been a fairly bipartisan approach to the road needs of Australia. I recall that the present Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) was somewhat critical of the previous Government when he was the shadow Minister for Transport. But I commend him for the work he has done as Minister; he has not dismantled what was in place. He has used it as a basis to go forward and to enable road expenditure to be used to the best advantage. I believe that we must support him in this regard. One of my concerns-I am sure it is the concern of many members of this House-is where we go from here. I mention that local government is very worried about road funding. State governments also have a concern which is expressed very frequently, and I am sure that the expressions of concern in this place have not gone unnoticed. In New South Wales an inquiry into road funding is currently being conducted under the tag `Roads 2000'. I hope that that inquiry will be one of substance and that it will reveal what is happening in regard to road funding in that State. Superimposed over that inquiry are the important inquiries that the Minister for Transport has initiated. These are the Cameron inquiry into allocations for the States and the ongoing inquiry of the Bureau of Transport Economics into road funding needs. The documents before us, the statements and the explanatory notes, set out the proposed funding under this legislation. For national highways it is $585.1m: It is $248m for urban arterial roads, $169.1m for rural arterial roads, $264.1m for local roads, and $5.3m for research. The figures are then broken down into State allocations. The funding for national roads in New South Wales is set at $214.6m, $75.1m for urban arterial roads, $41.7m for rural arterials and $75.3m for local roads. These are important and significant statistics which should be matched with information on the total proposed expenditure on roads by the respective States. If we are to have an objective debate on road funding, we need figures at national, State and local levels that show what the total expenditure will be. There is so much confusion, unfortunately, that it is difficult for those who have a genuine interest in roads to understand the basis of funding. It is time that the details were more clearly understood and recognised. There is some confusion because of the continuance of the identification of roads under different category names by the Federal Government and the State governments. In New South Wales, for example, we still refer to roads as highways, trunk roads, main roads and local roads, but these categories are not referred to in Federal funding. Surely it would be appropriate for there to be some unification of the identification of road categories and agreement and understanding between the States and the Commonwealth about the various categories. The system is understood by the officials, the bureaucracy and those who work within the system, but it is not understood generally. My concern, and the concern of many of my colleagues in New South Wales, is that there should be more funding on the basis of road usage. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) referred to the statistics that apply to some roads, road traffic counts and their consequences, and the two inquiries to which I have referred have a great responsibility to take such statistics into account. Road traffic counts tell us what road needs are, but they must not cloud the issue when it comes to local roads, where vital communications can be influenced by the geography of the country and the difficulty of road construction, road maintenance, and so on. Many councils, certainly in northern New South Wales in the electorates of Page, Richmond, Cowper, Lyne and New England, find themselves unable to undertake new construction that exceeds one kilometre per year. Constructing only one kilometre per year is entirely inadequate. The cost ratio does not make it possible for new construction to be undertaken as it should be. There are maintenance difficulties. Shires such as Kyogle, Richmond River and Ballina and the councils in the Clarence Valley of Maclean, Ulmarra, Nymboida and Copmanhurst find the problem of road maintenance almost insurmountable. It would be unthinkable to terminate the extension of road construction under the local road program, and some recognition is required of how cost problems can be met with the funding from both the Federal Government and the State governments. That is why I believe we should have access to figures that tell us what funding overall is being allocated by Federal and State governments, together with local government, to cope with road needs. My colleagues who represent the electorates of Page, Richmond, Cowper and Lyne have expressed concern about the Pacific Highway for a long time, as I have done both in the House and outside. I wish to draw attention again to the difficulties of maintaining and improving the highway with the existing allocation of funds, which is currently about $20m a year. The Federal allocation for arterial roads is $41m. If that figure is taken, we might think that we are doing pretty well, but we do not have the details of what the State is allocating for rural arterial roads, which is the heading under which the highway is financed. The traffic count tells us that the funding of the Pacific Highway is falling behind dramatic-ally when it is compared with that of other highways such as the national highway and the Hume Highway. The results of comparisons are staggering. Although comparisons are all very well, we must address the reality of what can be done. I have been approached by the councils which have the carriage of some responsibility for the Pacific Highway in the electorate of Page. I refer to the Ulmara and Maclean shire councils, which have requested an increase in the allocation of funding for the road because of the tragically high rate of fatalities upon it, the frequency of accidents and the difficulty in upgrading dangerous sections. I appeal to the Minister to give special consideration to my plea in the light of road usage statistics that apply to the Pacific Highway. It is a matter of money rather than giving the highway a tag. It is a matter also of construction needs, and the honourable member for Lyne has said that a dual highway is required. I believe that we should identify the sections that are unsatisfactory. The work that has been done under the bicentennial funding, certainly on the section that runs from Coffs Harbour to Grafton over what is known as the Dirty Creek Range, shows that excellent results can be achieved. Slow though the program of construction may have been on other sections, the result has been exceedingly impressive. There is now a four-lane passing section north of the Clarence River, and that is an example of what can be done if the necessary funds are provided. Long sections of the Pacific Highway between the areas under the responsibility of the honourable members for Lyne and for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), whose electorate is further north, traverse forest country where it would be appropriate for plans to be set in motion for a duplication of the highway. Land can be acquired through forest areas at very low cost and that is the appropriate area in which to consider a substantial upgrading of the highway. The other difficult sections that I referred to earlier need to be approached on another basis. There can be difficulty in road widening because of property and terrain considerations, and in those instances an entirely different approach is needed. However, a dual road through sections of the low-value land which traverse forest country would be an appropriate way of substantially upgrading the Pacific Highway at a lower cost than is possible for the sections that pass through towns, villages and long stretches of terrain where it would be difficult to widen the highway. I conclude by saying that there is no more important debate than this so far as the community is concerned. I hope that the Minister, through the medium of the inquiries that have been established, will find it possible to come up with proposals to assist further the road needs of each State and local government area in Australia. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.56) —No one knows better than I, as representative of the large rural electorate of Gippsland, the disastrous state of Australia's road system. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), who is at present in the chamber, has visited parts of Gippsland over the years to view at first hand the very serious state of many of its roads. He has personally observed the particular problems caused by Gippsland's unique topography and demography. South Gippsland shires particularly, including the shires of Buln Buln, Warragul, Korumburra, Woorayl, South Gippsland, Alberton and Narracan, must battle the twin problems of heavy rainfall and the Strzelecki ranges. In addition, South Gippsland's roads are battered by a seemingly endless stream of milk tankers and timber jinkers. A shortage of cheap or easily accessible gravel is another difficulty which adds to the cost for the responsible council. Due to the conditions in South Gippsland funding for the resealing and maintenance components of a council's particular budget far outweighs that for the construction or reconstruction components. It has now reached the stage where one shire in particular, and perhaps even more, spends almost all of its road funding budget on maintenance alone. This allows councils few opportunities for the construction of new roads. This is an example of the very serious state of South Gippsland's roads. There are similar problems in East Gippsland with mountainous terrain, heavy haulage vehicles and expensive road material. Naturally there is not the same problem of high rainfall, although the Shire of Orbost frequently suffers damage from the flooding of the Snowy River, but the shires of Omeo, Tambo, Bairnsdale, Avon, Maffra and Rosedale must maintain and construct long stretches of roads with minimal funding. The Minister must understand that East Gippsland is a large tract of land with a sparse population grouped in relatively remote communities. This means that whilst many roads have little usage, the responsibilities of East Gippsland councils are no less serious. These shires, irrespective of distance, must provide a road network which, first, its rate payers demand and, secondly, industry, including the timber, tourist and agricultural industries, so obviously depend on. The town of Bairnsdale and the city of Sale also have special difficulties as they are the commercial and shopping centres for their regions. It is no exaggeration to say that the situation in Gippsland is now critical. Gippsland shires, not to put too fine a point on it, are losing the battle. Whilst councils try desperately to maintain the road systems within their respective municipalities, we have the sideshow of a bitter and public dispute between the Federal Minister for Transport and his State counterpart. On 19 June of this year the State Minister for Transport, the Hon. Tom Roper, wrote to all councils throughout Victoria. The letter stated: The road construction Authority was on target . . . until I received a most unwelcome letter from the Federal Minister, Mr Peter Morris, last Thursday. I have now been advised by the Commonwealth Minister for Transport that the Commonwealth Government intends to severely reduce its proposed allocation to road funds to Victoria in 1986/87. The Victorian Minister for Transport then went on to detail how this reduction would occur. He calculates a loss of some $40m from the Federal funding allocation to Victoria. In a continuation of the dispute between the two Ministers, that has been apparent for some two years now, the Federal Minister for Transport responded to that letter by again writing to all Victorian councils in a letter dated 1 August 1986. In referring to the letter of the Victorian Minister for Transport, the Federal Minister said that the State Minister asserts that there: . . . would be a total cut of over $40 million in the last two years. This is not the case. As I announced on 12 June 1986, the Federal Government has allocated $254.1 million for Victoria's roads in 1986-87. Despite Mr Roper's claims, this amount is an increase over the two previous years as shown in my attached letter to the RACV. The Federal Minister for Transport went on in that letter to make further disparaging remarks, albeit in a subtle way, about his State counterpart. I, together with the councils within my electorate, am tired of this continual bickering between the two Ministers, so much so that the use of statistics has been elevated to an art form. It has reached a stage where we really do not know with certainty whether Victoria's road funding has been reduced. I should say that one or other of the Ministers is perpetrating a deliberate untruth upon the Victorian councils. I should like to know whether this Federal Minister, in his summing up, is prepared to say that his State counterpart is careless, if not deliberately so, with his use of the truth. The facts can be very succinctly summarised. With complete disregard for the protestations of the State and Federal Ministers for Transport, this financial year expenditure by the Federal Government for road funding will be $1,245m. This is the same amount for the third year in succession. Even the Federal Government acknowledges that $74m has been cut in nominal terms from road funding this financial year. After allowing for inflation the reduction in real terms is at least $150m. This does not take into account that construction costs in the road industry have risen proportionately more than the rise in the consumer price index. But in being generous to the Government and in taking the CPI measurement honourable members must agree that the reduction in real terms is at least $150m. This comes at a time when the Federal Government, after its three and a half years in office, has increased the fuel excise by 400 per cent to over 24c a litre. As a proportion of total Commonwealth Budget outlays road funding has fallen from the high point of 2.12 per cent in 1983-84 to 1.67 per cent this financial year. There can be no argument with those figures. They are drawn from the Budget Papers and are not denied by the Federal Minister for Transport. I have received recently, as well as at other times while I have been the Federal member for Gippsland, correspondence from the Road Funding Committee, a body representing all of the shires in the Road Construction Authority, Traralgon Division. It has stated that the allocation to Victoria in 1985-86 was a total of $254m. In 1986-87 the amount will be the same. On an indexed allocation based on 8 per cent inflation, being the consumer price index measure, that figure represents a loss of $40m. In other words, the shires within my electorate accept the calculation of the Victorian Minister for Transport. When one has regard to the reduction in real terms of funding conceded by the Federal Minister for Transport that calculation must be regarded as accurate. I continually receive correspondence from all shires in my electorate and from the umbrella organisation of the Road Funding Committee. I have received continual representations from the Shire of Buln Buln. The Shire of Buln Buln is well known to the Minister for Transport and he has had a number of dealings with Mr Garry Surman, the Shire Engineer of that council. In recent correspondence the shire has expressed its concern as to the use of the Australian bicentennial road development programs formula for the distribution of funding. It has expressed concern that the Traralgon RCA Division is seriously disadvantaged in comparison with other divisions throughout Victoria. I have a table prepared by Mr Surman which gives that comparison and I shall pass it to the Minister for his consideration. The council asks: How is the distribution of Australian bicentennial road development funds calculated and how can action be taken to ensure that future ABRD funds are allocated to the Traralgon division municipalities to compensate for the obvious inadequacies in the distribution formula. As the Minister is aware, the formula for distributing local road funds under the ABRD program was approved some years ago by the then Federal Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), on the recommendation of the Victorian Government. We assume that this followed consultation and agreement with local government representative bodies. The formula requires 65 per cent of Victoria's ABRD local fund allocations over the life of the program to be allocated directly to councils with up to 25 per cent being available for distribution by the RCA for bridge and roadworks on a needs basis. The remaining 10 per cent is to be allocated for tourist and forest roads by the RCA. The special problems that I have outlined to the House today have been referred to the Minister on countless occasions but they remain unsolved. When will the Federal Government, firstly, increase the size of the cake and, secondly, ensure that the slicing up of the cake is fair and equitable and that large areas of Victoria and other parts of Australia, particularly the area of Gippsland, do not continue to be disadvantaged? The Federal Minister for Transport has a stock reply to every representation we make. He will determine the size of the cake but the distribution of the cake remains a matter for State governments. When a State Minister for Transport is calling the Federal Minister for Transport a liar it is time that the Federal Minister intervened; it is time that the Federal Minister properly looked at the process under which his State colleague-in whom he can have no confidence or trust-has been distributing Federal funds. In the short time available to honourable members to speak on this legislation it is not possible to canvass all of the road difficulties in our electorates. As a general statement I can say with certainty that the infrastructure of Australia's roads is deteriorating. We spend considerably more on the supporting parent's benefit than we do on road funding, even though the bulk of that supporting parent's benefit can be recovered because it is directed towards single mothers with a number of children or towards deserted wives with absconding husbands absolved from any responsibilities. So we have our priorities all twisted around. Until the Government gives road funding the priority it so obviously needs and is prepared to direct wasteful social security payments to road funding-it does not need to increase the size of overall government expenditure-we will continue to run down the most basic and fundamentally important infrastructure in this country. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(11.10) —I thank all honourable members who have participated in the debate. It has been a wide-ranging one and contributions from some speakers have been more constructive than those from others. However, the fact that 16 members viewed road funding as being important is, I think, a credit to the House and it highlights the importance of the Government's contribution to improving our road system. We had the same tired old comment about this Government's record on road achievements from the Opposition spokesman on transport, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). He is so envious and I say to him: `Eat your heart out. You could have carried forward that level of improvement in your years in office'. The fact that today so much needs to be done to improve our road system around this country is testimony to the neglect of previous conservative governments since World War II. These problems did not occur just in the last three years. Aside from that, there is a degree of bipartisanship on some areas of interest in respect of roads. No government in history can match the neglect that the Fraser Government showed to the road system and no government in history can match the record road improvement achievements of this Government in a comparable period. There is a fundamental problem with the comments made by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackeller (Mr Carlton), are on record daily demanding that this Government reduce expenditure. I think the best contribution was made by the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) who, in his speech on the Budget the other night, said that this year's Budget is a window dressing Budget, a sort of Clayton's Budget, and what Australia needs is not high deficit budgets but balanced budgets with no deficits and that that can be done. Last night the same honourable member claimed that more money ought to be spent so the Opposition has a fundamental problem. In the morning it says `Spend less' and in the afternoon it says: `Spend more'. That is the Opposition's problem, not ours. We have to get on with the real business. In the debate that took place last evening and again this morning the claim was made that this Government, when it was in Opposition, opposed the Australian bicentennial road development legislation in 1982. That is a falsity and I refer to page 2328 of Hansard of 20 October 1982. My opening sentence was: The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. To claim that the then Opposition opposed this legislation is, as I have said, a falsehood. We will deal with what should happen post-1988 when we come to 1988 but at the same time a review is being done of road needs and road expenditure needs by the Bureau of Transport Economics which is due to report in August next year. Similarly, a review is being carried out by the Cameron Federal Road Funding Inquiry into the allocation of Federal road moneys between the States. That is an opportunity for all those who think their State is not getting a big enough share of the cake to put their case and most have already done that. The same applies to interest groups. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) complained about Federal road signs. He has forgotten, quite conveniently, the forest of signs of all sorts that were erected by his Government which claimed credit for works carried out throughout the Territory and funded by the Federal Government in his period as Chief Minister. That was a rather puerile contribution to make. In respect of the upgrading of the national highway system from the Alice to Darwin, I say again that the honourable member for the Northern Territory is the same honourable gentleman who, when Chief Minister, was absolutely opposed to upgrading that highway. He wanted a railway. His actual words were: `The road is adequate'. He said that in 1983. Last night he sought to castigate this Government and me personally for the rate at which road works are being carried out in the Territory. I just put on record that what is being done to improve the road from Alice to Darwin is being done over the top of his objections. When the honourable member for the Northern Territory said `trust me' he should have thought back to when he said `trust me' about Federal Hotels Ltd in respect of its casino operations in the Northern Territory. I have little regard for the comments he made about this Government and its achievements in improving the road system. However, I welcome his new-found interest in improving the roads in the Northern Territory. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) referred to the 1984-85 annual report of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund. He claimed that there was a timetable set for the completion of the Goulburn by-pass section of the Sydney to Melbourne highway. There is a list of objectives in the annual report, and that is one of the objectives, but at no stage has the Federal Government set down a timetable for the completion of that project. The objective remains but no completion date is set. The record is that in 1975 there were discussions between Department of Transport officers, council officers and New South Wales Department of Main Roads officers. The preference then put was for the upgrading of the existing road through Goulburn, the construction of a rail overbridge on the northern approach to the town and major maintenance of the existing concrete pavement. That work was carried out. We met that undertaking. Currently, the Department of Main Roads is investigating alternatives to bypass Goulburn. We have to follow a public participation process and consider and recommend the final choice of alignment, we then have to consider and approve, where appropriate, the final design after specifications have been prepared. The bypass will follow in future road programs. In the meantime the four-lane objective, in respect of the national highway link south of Sydney, has been met. The other matter raised by the honourable member was the allegation that in some way I had diverted funds from the Sydney-Albury-Melbourne sections of the national highway to the Sydney-Brisbane section; more to the area north of Sydney. That, again, is a falsehood. Every member of this chamber-particularly members of the National Party of Australia-who goes out on the national highways can see the work that has been carried forward. They know only too well that if this Government and if I, as Minister, administered the allocation of Federal road funds on a politically partisan basis the work being done in their electorates would not be carried forward. They can see that the work is being done on a needs basis. Heaven help us if we got to the stage that Queensland has reached where funds are spent on a political partisan basis in so many cases. So, what the honourable member has claimed is a falsehood. I do not propose to give any other consideration to the comment he made. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) made his usual speech-I could almost make it for him now-about petrol prices. Mr Goodluck —It was a beauty. Mr PETER MORRIS —Well, there is a sort of monotony about it. So many of us on this side could deputise for him. In his period in government he was one of those who supported the trebling of petrol prices, the quadrupling of fuel-related taxes, and the slashing of Federal road expenditure of more than half a billion dollars. It was not a bad speech but I ask him, please, to try to be a little more original. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) made a thoughtful contribution, as he usually does. He recognises, along with so many other members of the House, the importance of our road system, and he recognises the need to try to ensure that the worst locations are attended to first. The road he referred to is a State arterial road; it is a State responsibility. I do not have any power of initiating priorities or projects on which Federal moneys can be spent by the State, but I give him the assurance that if that project is put forward by the New South Wales Minister for Roads it will get my very prompt consideration. I recognise the positive way in which he put forward the case of main road 108. Similarly, the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) indicated bipartisan support for the priority of road expenditure. Both honourable members referred to the Pacific Highway which, as we all know, is a State arterial road; it is the responsibility of the State. Considerable work has been carried out on that highway since 1982-83. Some $42m has been spent by this Government on those projects. The proposal the honourable member for Page puts forward is a wise one; attention should be given to the worst locations first. Again, when those projects are put forward by the State government they will get our prompt consideration. Honourable members on this side of the House also drew attention to the level of road expenditure overall and to the allocations between States. The allocations between States, as I said earlier, is a matter for consideration by the Cameron inquiry which is due to report at the end of October. The interesting thing, as honourable members would recognise, is that of the States four are clamouring for a larger share of the cake but no State is offering to take a smaller share. So Roy Cameron has that job along with his colleagues of coming forward with a set of recommendations on how we can better allocate the Federal cake in respect of road expenditure. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) raised the question of the distribution of moneys for local roads from Federal Government between councils. The formula we inherited from the former Government was in place for the Australian bicentennial road development program and for the old Roads Grants Act. One of the problems of the councils in Victoria has been to determine what amount of money they receive comes from the Federal Government and what amount comes from the State Government. The system of the classification of roads in Victoria causes greater confusion because the classifications do not coincide with the Federal classification. Mr Lloyd —I hope they take your advice on that particular matter. Mr PETER MORRIS —The proposal was put forward for a new formula of distribution of Federal-local roads money in Victoria. I have had some reservations about that and I have asked each council in Victoria to let me have its views on the proposed formula put forward by the Victorian Minister for Transport. Those responses are coming forward. In the meantime, I have asked the State Ministers, as a matter of urgency, to pay each of the councils half of their financial year's allocation that would be available to them under the existing system. In respect of the claims made by the Victorian Minister for Transport, no amount of creative accounting will alter the fact that we have maintained Victoria's cash payments this year-1986-87-at $253.9m, the same amount as in 1985-86. One can juggle with the road construction price index, and with the consumer price index. In fact the road construction price index is running at a lower level than the CPI, contrary to the performance in earlier years. No amount of creative accounting or juggling of figures will change the unalterable fact that Victoria is some 84 per cent better off in money from the Federal Government for roads than it was in 1981-82. Let me sum up. The amendment that has been moved by the Opposition ignores the fact that in recent years the lower level of Federal road expenditure, expressed as a proportion of gross domestic product, occurred in 1981-82. The figure was 1.66 per cent. That is the figure the Opposition neglected to mention when it quoted the figures prepared by the Australian Auto- mobile Association. The lowest proportion of gross domestic product of outlays was under the life of the Fraser Government in 1981-82. The second part of the amendment seems to criticise this Government for retaining Federal road expenditure at the same level. In other words it concurs with the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the shadow Treasurer that road expenditure should be further cut. The rest of the amendment does not justify further elaboration. Obviously, we will be rejecting the amendment. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) wants real expenditure cuts-he wants a nil deficit. I will have to remind him of that when he next makes representations to me for more money to be spent on the Pacific Highway. When each member of the Opposition asks for more money I will remind them of their policy that there should be less expenditure, not more expenditure. This Government more than any other government has given priority to improving the road network. Building and maintaining that road network is a partnership; it does not begin and end here. It involves Federal Government, State governments and local governments. I will say this to the chamber: The more that State governments seek to conceal the record effort being made by this Government in improving the roads system, the more they weaken their case for a share of Federal moneys for roads. Only a few days ago the Queensland Minister for Roads attacked this Government for its record effort on improving the roads system in Queensland. Let Opposition members from Queensland who are members of the National Party of Australia consider what the national highway to Cairns would be like were it not for the efforts of this Government over the last three years. Everybody in Queensland knows that the improvement to the national highways in Queensland-Brisbane to Cairns, Brisbane through Mount Isa to Darwin and Brisbane to Sydney via Warwick-is the result of the priorities accorded roads by this Government. Whatever else is lacking in Queensland is as a result of the miserable effort by the Queensland Government in respect of improving the roads systems there. Roads and transport are the very foundation upon which this economy is built. This Government is proud of its achievement in respect of roads. In no comparable period of our nation's history have the road achievements of this Government been approached by other governments, let alone equalled. It is a proud record. We stand by it. We reject the amendment and we commend the Bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lloyd's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kent, L. Beddall, D. P Keogh, L. J. Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C. Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E. Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J. Charlesworth, R. I. Martin, S. P. Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Slipper, P. N. Drummond, P. H. Smith, W. Edwards, Harry Spender, J. M. Everingham, P. A. E. Sullivan, K. J. Fife, W. C. Tuckey, C. W. Fischer, Tim Watson, D. J. H. Fisher, Peter Webster, A. P. Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hodges, J. C. Free, R. V. Halverson, R. G. Staples, P. R. Shipton, R. F. Kelly, R. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Griffiths, A. G. Cameron, IanDawkins, J. S. Shack, P. D. Humphreys, B. C. Katter, R. C. Cleeland, P. R. Goodluck, B. J. Hayden, W. G. Peacock, A. S. Jacobi, R. Hunt, R. J. D. Punch, G. F. Coleman, W. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(12.35) —It is more than 2 1/2 years since Medicare was introduced and there is absolutely no doubt now that our worst fears have been proven correct. Medicare is a disaster. Health-wise it is a disaster because more and more Australians are being forced to wait in long queues for much-needed hospital attention. Only those who can afford to pay this Government's outrageously high level of taxes plus the Medicare levy and take out private hospital insurance can guarantee themselves a hospital bed when they need it. Pensioners, the unemployed and low income earners have been consigned under Medicare to second class treatment in what, under Labor, has degenerated into a second class public hospital system. Financially, Medicare is a disaster. Instead of controlling health costs, Medicare has underwritten an explosion in costs while at the same time the services provided have deteriorated. Medical costs will increase by 40 per cent in the first three years of Medicare. Consistent with Labour's socialist philosophy and its hatred of doctors and the private health delivery system, the 1986-87 Budget and the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 further push up the cost of private health insurance, putting it beyond the reach of even more ordinary Australians. The Government has done nothing to address the problems of the 100,000 Australians waiting for a public hospital bed. In fact, it has shown a cruel and callous disregard for the sick people of this nation by cutting funding for public hospitals. The Government has cut public hospital funding this year by 5 per cent in real terms. This cut in funding in the face of increased operating costs and new nurse wage determinations is a scandal. At the same time as more and more people are forced to seek a way out of the public hospital queues by paying for a private hospital bed, Labor has decided to withdraw the private hospital bed day subsidy. This makes it more expensive for people to use the private hospital system by forcing up the price of a private hospital stay. The increase in private hospital charges will force more people on to the public hospital queues. But in the face of this increased demand the Government has cut public hospital funding. So public hospitals will have to battle increased costs and increased demand with less funding as a result of this Government's Budget. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) stands condemned for his contemptuous disregard for the health and welfare of the people of this nation. Blinded by his socialist commitment to a nationalised health system, the Minister has allowed the delivery of health services to fall into such a disastrous state that no longer can the aged or poor be assured of a hospital bed when they need it. The 1986 health budget graphically illustrates what is wrong with the Medicare program. It does nothing to address the imbalance of demand for hospital beds when there are long queues for public beds and empty private beds. In fact, it exacerbates the problem. It further attacks the private health care delivery system by forcing up costs. It does nothing to attack the underlying causes of the Medicare health cost explosion. In fact, it promotes a continuation of the blow-out. It does nothing to provide incentives to contain health costs. It does nothing to pick up overseas initiatives which have led to substantial cost containment. It does nothing to promote better health. Not only has this Government broken all records for increasing government expenditure in this area, but also the rate of growth in expenditure in certain areas continues at an alarming and uncontrollable rate. Even with significant cuts in benefits in the areas of medical services and pharmaceutical benefits, utilisation of these services is still projected to increase at an alarming rate. The real disaster of this Bill is that whilst the Government's health program is absorbing more and more of the tax dollar, the standard and quality of service being provided are getting worse. The rapid growth in public hospital queues is proof of that. There are two basic reasons why we are today paying more for health services and getting less. On the one hand, the Government is using its budgetary powers to limit the availability of hospital services and people's access to them. On the other hand, the Government is incapable of doing anything to stop the incredible demand for the services which it has created through its open-ended commitment to so-called `free' medical services. The Minister has stated that the country has too many hospital beds, and he is clearly using this Budget to do something about that. Despite longer queues, in the last two years Government funding for hospital services, both public and private, has increased by only 2 1/4 per cent, while the inflation rate for the two years is expected to be 16 per cent. This is extraordinary when one considers the increases in the cost of the provision of hospital services due to increases in nursing salaries and the impact of the devaluation of the Australian dollar on the cost of drugs and medical supplies. As a result of this funding policy, the public hospital system stumbles from crisis to crisis, unable to staff or maintain existing bed complements, and unable to deal with the lengthening queues of patients trying to gain access to their services. Let me consider what has happened in only one State, Victoria, under Medicare: 1,500 public hospital beds have been shut; public hospital waiting lists have rocketed by 228 per cent; 130,000 sick Victorians have been forced on to waiting lists in the last year alone; and thousands of sick people are forced to wait for more than 12 months for admission. While the Minister is cutting public hospital funding he fails, however, to address the demand for medical services which his Medicare policies have created. During the last two years, when Budget expenditures for hospital services were increased by only 2.25 per cent, the allocations for the cost of the provision of medical services under Medicare increased by 26 per cent. The demand for medical services under Medicare continues to grow without check, and apart from postponing doctors' fee increases, the Minister has taken no action in this Budget to contain this continuing blow-out. What is worse, he refuses to acknowledge that his bulk billing system, by providing a so-called `free' service, encourages Australians to go to the doctor more often. Further, it is clear that his great Health Insurance Commission computer system is not stopping the unethical doctor from over-servicing. The measures introduced in this Bill totally fail to address the fundamental flaws in Medicare. I turn now to the detail of the Bill. I deal with the private hospital bed day subsidy. One of the major features of this Bill is the elimination of the $140m bed-day subsidy for private hospitals. This subsidy was continued under Medicare in recognition of the fact that individuals and families who maintained private health insurance at their own expense and used private hospitals or private beds in public hospitals saved the Government significant expenditures for public hospitals under Medicare and, at the same time, increased the revenue-generating capacity of the public hospitals. What is the impact of the elimination of the private hospital subsidy on government expenditures? For each patient who joins a public hospital queue and finally gains access to a bed-if he is lucky-in a public hospital, there is a massive financial cost for the Government of some $280 a day. If that patient was admitted to a private hospital, a day of care would have cost the Government between $20 and $40, depending on the categorisation of the hospital. So instead of getting a bed-day for $40, the Government prefers to pay $280. It is no wonder that the country is in trouble when the Government claims that this move will make Medicare self-financing. What is the impact on people seeking a hospital bed? The Government's action will force the private hospitals to increase their fees. Pensioners and others who cannot get into a public hospital because of the queues are finding, more and more, that, in desperation, they have to seek a private hospital bed. Families are having to find money to pay for their pensioner parent's treatment. Those people will now face a significant extra bed-day cost of between $20 and $40. So the most severe impact of this measure will not be on the financially well off in our society, but rather those most in need in our community-those whom one would have expected a Labor government to care for; but not this Labor Government. What is the effect on the privately insured? The health funds will obviously be called upon to meet the increased charges and that will inevitably lead to an increase in the premium rate. Estimates from the funds of the impact of the elimination of the subsidy vary between a $1 and a $2 increase per week in contributions. So the privately insured will have to pay between $50 and $100 a year more. Yet the Government also requires them to pay the Medicare levy which gives them entitlement to a free public hospital bed which they do not use. They are already paying twice, and now they will pay more for private insurance and also an increased levy. The Victorian Bush Nursing Association has informed me that the elimination of the private hospital subsidy threatens the viability of some 25 of its bush nursing hospitals in Victoria. The closure of these Victorian country hospitals is in areas where the Medicare card is worthless because there is no public hospital-with or without a queue. The Government's elimination of this benefit is yet another blow for country people and will have disastrous consequences, especially for Victorian country people. The burden on the health funds is further increased by the reduction of the Commonwealth contribution to the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Fund. The fund has been reduced in the last four Budgets under this Government, from $100m to $1m. It is irresponsible of the Government to encourage people to give up their private cover and it is irresponsible of the Government to try the private sector's financial patience by the elimination of the subsidy at a time when its own capacity to accept the ultimate consequence of its action-that is, the provision of care for all through the public hospital system-is clearly lacking. In eliminating the private hospital subsidy, the Government no longer has reason to strictly regulate the private hospital sector as it has done in the past. The Government acknowledges that there is a need for deregulation but, instead of persisting with that deregulation itself, it is apparently going to hand over the controls to the States. The Minister for Health claims that this is deregulation. I ask him to explain, when he responds in this debate, just how deregulation of the private hospital sector will take place. If the States step in with strict controls over the number of beds and some form of categorisation of hospitals, this will be no deregulation at all. In fact the New South Wales Labor State Government has a disastrous record of preventing the expansion of the private sector. The result has been that New South Wales has a much lower number of private beds than, for example, South Australia, with the consequence that the public hospital crisis is probably worse now in New South Wales than in any other State. I repeat: What does the Minister mean when he says that there will be a deregulation of the controls on the private hospital sector? Finally, the Minister in his second reading speech said: . . . the Commonwealth will consider assisting certain private charitable, religious and community hospitals which historically have cared for needy uninsured patients and whose viability has been reliant on that subsidy. The Australian Catholic Health Care Association and the Victorian Bush Nursing Association have contacted me, and no doubt the Government, seeking information about this proposal. None has been forthcoming and this second reading speech provides little enlightenment. Again, I would ask the Minister in his response to this debate to outline who is going to be funded, to what extent they will be funded, and for how long. Will it be for this year only, or is it to be an ongoing program? Is it just a sop to overcome the perceived political problems in marginal electorates such as Bendigo and Ballarat where the impact of the changes will be significant? I now turn to the increase in the maximum medical benefit gap. Clause 5 of this Bill amends the National Health Insurance Act to increase the maximum gap between the scheduled medical fee and the medical benefit payable for any given occasion of service from $10 to $20. Prior to this change, the patient liability was limited to the 15 per cent patient responsibility up to a schedule fee of $67. Effective with this change, the patient will be liable for 15 per cent fees up to a schedule fee of $133. This increase is designed to save $18m for the Medicare program by shifting responsibility for payment of an additional $10 from the Government to the patient. Under Medicare, the patient has no alternative but to assume responsibility for this gap between the schedule fee and the Medicare benefit payable. There is a basic inconsistency in a Government policy which continues to allow private hospital cover, including gap insurance for doctor's fees, incurred in connection with a hospital stay but makes insurance for the gap for all other medical fees illegal. The Minister has claimed in the past that if gap insurance for medical services was permitted, it would lead to `open slather', over utilisation of medical services, and a shift in the out of pocket payment from the difference between the Medicare benefit and the schedule fee, to a payment for charges in addition to the schedule fee. But this Government must also realise that it cannot continue to increase the out of pocket expenses to the patient whilst continuing to deny the patient the right to order his financial affairs as he sees fit. This Bill adds $160m additional costs to the patients' out of pocket health bill in the coming year. The increase in the Medicare levy adds another $185m out of pocket expenses. The Government has not shown a great deal of concern for the out of pocket expenses of the taxpayers so far. This Bill introduces significant changes to the pharmaceutical benefit scheme, and unlike the changes to the Medicare program, these changes will actually move toward targeting available assistance to those in most need-that is, the high volume users of prescription drugs. The administration of Pharmpay has been a disaster and there has been unnecessary duplication involved in the processing and payment of claims under the pharmaceutical benefit scheme. In addition, I do not believe that it has been cost effective for the Government to be providing a $1 or $2 subsidy for prescriptions. After the Government put up the general contribution rate to $5, and whilst the average cost of prescriptions was around $7.50, the cost of providing that $2.50 benefit was, in my view, not justifiable. I visited British Columbia to study its pharmaceutical benefits scheme and I was impressed with the safety net idea. I subsequently followed up my discussions with the Pharmacy Guild and, when I addressed the Pharmacy Guild annual general meeting last year, outlined my view that we would in government implement a similar scheme in Australia. I am glad that the Government has seen fit to pick up this proposal of mine as I believe that it is a more appropriate way to direct the available resources to those most in need. The scheme, which involves people paying up to $10 for their initial 25 prescriptions, and then receiving prescriptions free, will assist the chronically ill and other high prescription drug users. The Government's program could be subject to possible abuse and the Opposition will be closely monitoring the way in which the Government implements the scheme and administers it. Among the other changes made to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme introduced by the Government is an increase in the amount payable by the unemployed and other concessional beneficiaries from $2 to $2.50. This increase in the payment for the unemployed breaches yet another Labor Government promise. Let me remind the Minister of his words before the 1983 election: In justice and in equity the unemployed at least should be included in the first tier, not the second tier, of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme-that is, they should be provided with free pharmaceuticals as are all other social security beneficiaries subject, of course, to income tests, rather than being required to pay the $2 concessional contribution rate per item. That was a clear indication from the Minister that he was going to change the scheme and remove the then $2 payment for the unemployed. This Minister, like so many of his colleagues, does not keep his word. It is yet another broken promise. The expediency and hypocrisy of this Labor Government are on the record, clear for all to see. In 1982, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) opposed an increase in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme contribution rate from $3.20 to $4. In three years he has raised it from $4 to $10. One just cannot believe a thing this Government promises. I turn to prostheses as a benefit for day surgery. This Bill introduces the provision that health benefits funds must pay a benefit for prostheses in connection with services provided at day hospital facilities. The coverage of services in a day facility was introduced as a benefit in the Health Legislation Amendment Act 1985. It was done to encourage the establishment of free-standing day care facilities and day care services in existing hospitals. At that time, it was recognised that the introduction of surgical day centres had been a significant element in the successful reduction of hospital costs in the United States. During last year in the United States, 20 per cent of the surgical procedures performed were performed in day surgi-centres. Until last year, the concept of day surgery in Australia had been largely discouraged because there were no incentives for people to have surgery performed on an out-patient basis. The changes introduced last year which provided for benefit coverage of day surgery omitted the provision of prostheses as a covered benefit, and this omission is rectified in the current Bill. However, the general introduction of day surgery has not met with a great deal of success, and I doubt whether the inclusion of prostheses will promote the concept further. There is no financial incentive for the patient to elect to receive surgery on the same-day basis. It will cost neither more nor less for the patient in either reduced Medicare levy or reduced private health insurance premiums. There is little incentive for the doctor to perform surgery on a day basis, since the same Medicare benefit will apply, disregarding the fee for a hospital visit, and there is an incentive for the hospital to admit the patient overnight for surgery, since the hospital is paid on the basis of days spent in the hospital. The incentives provided under Medicare are wrong, and with a government monopoly payer they are unlikely ever to be right. I turn now to the isolated patients travel and assistance accommodation scheme. Effective from 1 January 1987, the Federal IPTAAS scheme is to be abolished under this bill and the Government says it will provide funds for the States to administer the program. We have been made aware of some dissatisfaction with the Commonwealth's administration of this important benefit for rural Australians. We appreciate that the States may be able better to administer the program. Nevertheless, it is important that when a change occurs in such an important program as this that the program continues to serve those for whom it was originally designed. We will pay close attention to the transition to State administration for continuity and comprehensiveness of cover. In addition, we would urge the States to co-operate in providing access to high-cost surgery at specialist centres around Australia rather than every State trying to provide its own facility at much greater cost to the community. As a Budget Bill, we will not be opposing this legislation, but I move a second reading amendment in the following terms: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) condemns the Government for its latest attack on the private sector by increasing the cost of private hospital insurance, putting it beyond the reach of many ordinary Australians thereby condemning them to long public hospital queues when they need hospital care; (2) condemns the Government for its total failure to address the mounting public hospital crisis and the growing number of people on queues for public hospital beds; (3) notes that under Medicare there are long queues for public hospital beds while there are empty private hospital beds; (4) expresses its grave concern for the people reliant on private hospital care such as is provided by the Victorian Bush Nursing Association, and (5) calls on the Government to make fundamental changes to Medicare to allow people the choice of Medicare cover or private medical and hospital cover, thereby restoring the balance of demand for hospital beds'. Mr Tuckey —I second the amendment. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.03) —I think we should make it clear at the outset that the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has misrepresented the effect of Medicare on the Australian community and the motives of the Government with Medicare. I would remind him that this Government was handed a health system high in cost which was not covering two million Australians. There were two million Australians without cover who were forced to pay their full bills. Certainly, it may have included people like myself, who had opted out of the private health fund system, but it also included a lot of people who could not afford to take out subscriptions to health funds. These were the people whom the Opposition, when in Government, was trying to force into higher insurance. The bottom three-quarters-a very significant number of Australian income earners-were paying more than they are paying now, and most of them were waiting longer for health fund refunds than they would be now. Under the present Government's Medicare system, health insurance is now cheaper for most Australians, by the time we take into account inflation, and 90 per cent of Australian people are satisfied with Medicare, a significant difference from the four or five health schemes promoted and introduced by the previous Government. The waiting period is far short, and total health care costs for an efficient, thorough, extensive system are 20 per cent less expensive than in the United States. I would like to refer briefly to a couple of other matters raised by the honourable member for Barker. Pharmpay was one. I acknowledge that there has been a backlog, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria. But I make it clear the Government is providing 100 per cent of the estimated cost of prescriptions. This does not mean that there are not problems. I am pleased that the Government is discussing this matter with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, and I am confident that this will lead to a satisfactory resolution. The honourable member for Barker also attacked the abolition of the government subsidy for private hospital patients. It should be said that this will not mean a loss of revenue for private hospitals, because basic table fund benefits will be increased by the amount of the subsidy. Hospitals will actually save in administrative costs by removal of the Commonwealth from the claims and payment processes. Private patients will not suffer greatly, either. I have found that one large fund intends to raise contributions by about 50c per week per family. The honourable member for Barker cannot claim that private hospitals have suffered under Medicare. I think that that is what he was claiming today. Private hospitals have the same level of usage now as they had when Medicare was first introduced. Another point made by the honourable member concerned the change in the maximum Medicare gap to $20-the first increase since 1978. The increase is less than the inflation rate and will affect only those medical services costing more than $67. I refer briefly to the changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The range of persons entitled to free pharmaceutical benefits has broadened. Pensioners and veterans still receive their listed medication free. Concessional beneficiaries will pay $2.50 for the first 25 prescriptions in a year-or 14 months for the first period-and thereafter their prescriptions will be free. The individual or family will not be charged for more than 25 prescriptions a year. All other patients-individuals and families throughout Australia-similarly, will be entitled to free medication after the first 25 prescriptions. The maximum charge for a listed item will be $10 and may be as low as $5, depending on the price of the item. No pharmaceutical benefit will cost general patients-an individual or family-more than $10, and may well average $7.30, until 25 prescription items have been dispensed, after which time the items will be free. I will detail some information concerning the charges. General patients will pay a charge of $10 for items which have a Commonwealth price of over $10. Discounting by pharmacists will not be permitted, except in the case of existing friendly society concessions for members which existed to prior 24 April 1964. The charge for a general patient for items with a Commonwealth price of up to $10 will be no more than the agreed price, and discounting will be permitted. The agreed price is the Commonwealth price plus 54c. But if the resultant price is below $5, the agreed price will be $5. If the resultant price is over $10, the agreed price will be $10. Agreed prices are $5 and $10, and the intermediate amounts are all discountable. A book entitled the `Schedule of Maximum Patient Payments' will be issued to pharmacists. It shows the agreed price. The 54c component of that agreed price is adjusted to take account of the consumer price index three times a year, at which time new additions of yellow and buff coloured books will be issued. As I said, the buff coloured book contains the price schedule for maximum patient payments. Patients can ask the pharmacist to show it to them. 55 I would like to provide further details on the safety net proposal. This safety net-free prescriptions after 25 paid prescriptions-applies in each calendar year. But the first so-called calendar year is actually 14 months, commencing on 1 November 1986. As I said, the family pays for the first 25 prescription items only, at general or concessional rates. Items recorded on the prescription record form may be kept at the pharmacy, if the patient agrees. Only PBS, or pharmaceutical benefit items, may be recorded on the prescription record form. Of course, the prescriptions so recorded must comply with the requirements of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. They must show, for instance, specified purpose, where it is required, or authority, where it is required, and they must be for the maximum pharmaceutical benefits scheme quantity, except where PBS prices for lesser quantities equal or exceed $10. A number of pharmaceutical benefit items can be bought over the counter and they do not count towards the safety net. Patients can have forms at any number of pharmacies and combine them when the number of forms totals 25 in order to receive an entitlement card. Mr Hodges —That will be a disaster. Mr SNOW —I point out to my former pharmaceutical colleague that the Pharmacy Guild was fully consulted on this matter and fully agreed with the resultant system. The patient completes an application form and presents it, together with prescription record forms, at any pharmacy. The pharmacist issues the pharmaceutical benefits entitlement card, which is then valid for the rest of the year. The pharmacist will receive a fee of $3.50 per card. The $3.50 is indexed three times a year when, as I said, new editions of the yellow and buff coloured books are issued. I also mention changes which will benefit diabetics. Testing equipment for diabetics has been delisted. Funds will be given to societies or groups, which will be able to buy material at wholesale price or less. In this regard we are honouring a promise that we made to diabetics when we were in opposition. They will be able to obtain testing equipment, syringes and needles from their associations at very low cost. Mr Brumby —An excellent scheme. Mr SNOW —As the honourable member for Bendigo says, it is an excellent scheme, and one which will be widely accepted by the many diabetics in Australia. Another advance in the Bill concerns the distribution of a publication of `Therapeutic goods in Australia' to pharmacists and medical practitioners. This provision will update the knowledge of these people in regard to all health therapeutic goods programs; for example, recent information on pharmaceuticals, vaccine safety, the testing of goods and drug reactions. I would not like to conclude without mentioning a matter which I raised during the adjournment debate a week or two ago. It concerns the gross misrepresentation by Opposition spokespersons of the elimination of certain items from the pensioner benefits scheme. These items were removed on the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee-a committee of doctors and a pharmacist who advise doctors on items which ought to be included in the scheme. I point out to honourable members that many items were removed from the scheme. In fact, in the past two or three months over 100 items have been added to the scheme, including some worth $40 or $50 for the treatment of stomach ulcers and other complaints. Most of the items removed can be purchased at a reasonable price over the counter in pharmacies. One particular item was grossly misrepresented in my electorate by Senator Michael Baume, who claimed that removal of a glycerol trianitrate patch was doing much harm. The Government is discussing with the manufacturer, I believe, the possibility of having a higher strength form of that item, which would be more effective, available on the scheme in the next couple of months. The Bill is a welcome result of full consultation between pharmacists and the Government at back-bench and ministerial level. It is a welcome result also of full consultation with those in health organisations such as the diabetics' organisation. It is a welcome recognition by all sides that there was a need for rigorous scrutiny of expenditure, and of the need also to give consideration to those most in need. I am pleased to support the Bill. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(12.16) —My contribution in this debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) will be oriented basically to changes to the Commonwealth's bed-day subsidy for private hospitals and to changes to the pharmaceutical benefits system. A desirable feature of the removal of the bed-day subsidy is that the Commonwealth controls over the approval and categorisation of new hospitals will be removed. Private health insurance funds, however, will be required to meet the extra costs that will come with the withdrawal of the subsidy. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said: . . . it is not expected to significantly impact on contribution rates. He added that the increases will vary from fund to fund and State to State and as `most funds have accumulated significant levels of reserves, increases should be moderate'. The Minister is saying that reserves are healthy and can be used to create a cushioning effect so as to achieve moderate increases in contribution rates. He is really saying: `I am endeavouring to minimise political fallout as a result of that decision'. It all depends on one's definition of `moderate' and on what reserves each fund has. It is obvious that the Minister is using Medibank Private as his benchmark, and the annual report of Medibank Private of 30 June 1985 showed that there were about six months of reserves. I would suggest that reserves had been much reduced by 30 June of this year. The Minister may be able to tell us, although the report is not available, exactly what the reserves are. Reduced reserves-this is important-will mean that yields from investments by the funds will also be reduced. Therefore, the funds' reserves will be eroded more rapidly. Page 44 of Medibank Private's report reveals that it had an income of $21.5m from investments and a surplus for the year of $43.8m. It has accumulated reserves of about $131m, which means that it has about six months of reserves. The funds are required to keep a minimum of two months reserves. That applies to Medibank private and all private health insurance funds. I want to examine the effect of some of the increased charges on the funds. Private hospital charges will increase by about $9 a day, and with more than four million bed days the result is an additional $36m or more. The abolition of the bed-day subsidy means that about $140m will have to be picked up by the private health funds. Public hospital charges will increase in most States and I understand that an additional $20m will be picked up by the funds. Payouts to veterans and dependants who are insured will mean an additional $7m or more. Prosthesis costs, previously paid by public hospitals, will be about $7m. Medical gap payments in hospitals will amount to about $18m. If these figures are added and account is taken of the alterations that have been made by the Federal Government and State governments, the result is an additional cost of about $80m in this year, and one that will be in excess of $200m in a full year. Those sums are not inconsiderable. When we consider what the Government is doing with veterans and their widows and dependants, it should be ashamed of itself. We see in the Bill an erosion of the benefits that are paid to them. Most of the veterans and war widows who have private health insurance have made these arrangements to supplement the services that are available to them already. We see now that the funds will be responsible, where a veteran is privately insured, for picking up the tab. I am led to believe that the reserves of all funds, including Medibank Private, were $572m as at March 1986. The funds have some fat, but this will be seriously eroded by the alterations that have been made by this Government and State governments. Patient contributions must be increased for a family, and I believe that they could be in the range of $1.10 or $1.20 a week, on the low side, and perhaps as high as $2 weekly on the high side. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have a table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table reads as follows- PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS-PRIVATE HOSPITALS BED SUBSIDY State Membership of Funds Subsidy days Subsidy dollars % % % NSW... 38 29 27 VIC... 29 29 29 QLD... 11 21 22 SA... 10 10 11 WA... 9 8 8 TAS... 3 3 3 DATE: 30/6/86 Mr HODGES —The purpose of the incorporation of the table is to point out the disadvantaged position of Queensland as a result of the abolition of the bed-day subsidy by this Government. Queensland will be affected more severely than any other State. Of the $140m in subsidy that will be lost, Queensland, with 11 per cent of the private health fund membership, will lose 22 per cent of the subsidy dollars, or about $30m. This is brought about because Queensland has a larger percentage and usage of private hospital beds. This will hit hard the Queensland private health funds and, no doubt, cause contributions to rise more in Queensland than in other States. I want to make one or two more comments about Medibank Private and its relationship with Medicare. Victorians had a raw deal in 1983-84 with the transference of $22m from that fund to other Medibank Private funds throughout Australia, and I think that Victorian members should be made aware of that. The Government required Medibank Private to repay $10m of the $21m advanced, and it was only after the efforts of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who raised this issue with the Health Insurance Commission and highlighted the fact that the money had been transferred-$22.3m of it coming out of the Victorian fund-that at least $10m was paid back to the Government. The changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme will cause the general patient contribution to increase from $5 to $10 per item and the concessional patient charge to rise from $2 to $2.50 per item. No individual or family, including concession card holders, will have to pay for more than 25 prescription items in any calendar year. The Minister said in his second reading speech that pensioners holding pensioner health benefit cards, their dependants, sickness beneficiaries and so on would not be charged for pharmaceutical benefits, but that is really a misleading statement. It applies to the items that are left on the list, but he has told us in the past few weeks: `I am going to have deleted 45 items from the list'. Almost all the preparations were available over the counter to pensioners and concession card holders, but it is necessary now for them to go and pay for these items. In a letter submitted by the Minister to the Canberra Times, and printed on 1 August this year, he said: This means that pensioners can buy these various drugs without first having to visit a doctor. What he was saying to these pensioners was: `Go and buy these drugs over the counters of pharmacies and supermarkets. We do not want you going to your doctors and having them prescribed'. This is purely a cost cutting exercise. I know it, the Minister knows it and the pensioners of this nation know it. On that subject, I received a letter today from the Minister as a result of an approach I made to him about the deletion of these drugs from the list. I submit to this House that he has mislead this Parliament. He has mislead the people of Australia by hiding behind the so-called recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. This is a very serious matter and I think the Minister ought to make a full statement on it. If he wished, as a cost cutting exercise, to delete these items-I accept that he has the right to do that-why did he not make those cuts instead of taking the cowardly way out and hiding behind the recommendations of the PBAC? Personally, I believe the PBAC has compromised itself. I would not want to be a member of that committee and have to put out reasons that it did for the removal of these drugs. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) would know, if he looked at the list, what a disaster it is. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Petrie to withdraw the remark in which he referred to the Minister as misleading the House. He might rephrase that remark. Mr HODGES —Mr Deputy Speaker, in my view the Minister, in what he has done and the way he has gone about making this announcement, has been less than truthful. As I have said, if he wanted to reduce the number of items on the list-I understand that his Department submitted the names of many drugs to the PBAC for deletion and that, having been given its riding instructions, it had to make some deletions-in my view he ought to have made the deletions himself. Anybody, including the honourable member for Prospect, who is a medico, would know that the reasons for the removal do not hold any water. Anybody who knows anything about pharmacology would realise that those statements are not valid. Let us look at a few matters relevant to the prescription record form and the debacle which we are going to experience in this nation in the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. It is true that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia was consulted on this matter. But I suggest to the House that, in spite of that co-operation, the Pharmacy Guild had a gun at its head. This was a confidence trick by the Minister and his Department. Both the Minister and the Government have bullied the Pharmacy Guild. The Government tabled an Industries Assistance Commission report which contained a number of options, and as a result the Pharmacy Guild has come into line with a scheme which I am sure it will regret having been part of as the months and years pass. Who but this bungling Minister, this bungling Hawke socialist Government, and the bungling Health Department might I add, could have thought out or got trapped into such a complex system? We now have four types of pharmaceutical benefits prescription other than private and repatriation prescriptions. We had three types-pensioner benefits prescriptions, concessional benefits prescriptions and general benefits prescriptions, and we now have legislation to create, with a great fanfare, entitlement card prescriptions. Let me examine the entitlement card prescription. Before a patient gets this prescription he must have a prescription record form-or two, three, 22 or even 200 if he wants; we can just imagine what a mess that is going to create-on which the chemist records his general benefit prescriptions, until the patient has an aggregate of 25 items in any calendar year. Then, and only then, does the chemist issue the patient with an entitlement card. Once in possession of an entitlement card he can then obtain all of his prescriptions at no charge for the rest of the calendar year. Let me examine this prescription record form. I have one here. It is just typical of the bureaucratic nonsense that would come out of the Health Department. Most people go to at least four or five different chemists in a year. They can carry the record form from pharmacy to pharmacy or get a new one when and whenever they like. No doubt a lot of patients will either lose or inadvertently destroy them, and so the story will go on. It will be a nightmare for chemists with patients chasing lost forms and requiring old entries from lost record forms to be placed on new record forms. Some patients will ask chemists to keep the forms filed and others will take them home with them. How many forms are likely to be issued in any one calendar year? That could be anyone's guess. Australia has a population of 15.8 million people, about 2.1 million of whom are entitled to some form of pension benefit. That leaves a balance of some 13.7 million people. The number of eligible units is difficult to estimate in terms of individuals and families, but I would say there would be between five million and six million units-let us say conservatively five million. If each unit on average uses three of these record forms we will have 15 million of them floating around the nation. If they use four, there will be 20 million of them. The Minister should not laugh, because that is exactly what is going to happen. Let us discuss some of the loopholes in this system. There are a number of them. Patients, once they have the entitlement card, will stockpile drugs which they know they will use in the following year. Why would they not? At $7 or $8 a time there is a reasonable saving to be made. Patients will pay nothing for the twenty sixth or subsequent prescription items which they receive in a calendar year. For example, if after nine or 10 months the 25 items are reached, what a time that would be to stockpile. It would be a simple and profitable business to build up prescriptions from doctors as that would cost the patients nothing. They will get the drugs from the chemists and have them on hand for the next six or 12 months. There are great savings to be made. Let us not assume that they will not be able to get them from doctors, because they will. The honourable member for Prospect knows just as well as I do that the patients will be able to obtain adequate numbers of prescriptions from their doctors. This could create storage and dating problems. All preparations have to be dated and a number of them have special storage conditions. What will happen to the insulin user-the diabetic-if he does not store the stockpiled insulin correctly or if he uses insulin that is out of date? That may well happen. Non-dependent members of a family, that is, individuals, will get prescriptions written in the name of a member of a dependent family. This will quickly boost the family's tally to 25 items and then all the members will be able to get further items at no cost for the remainder of the calendar year. This will happen. I suggest that the Minister will not be able to stop it from happening, although I know there are penalties for it in the legislation. These are the common, everyday problems that will arise. I assure honourable members that this sort of thing has happened in the past and it will continue to happen in a big way, particularly when there are considerable savings to be made by the individual if he or she wishes to indulge in the benefits gained by using the loop- holes that will be present. Whilst the system will provide some relief to chronic sufferers who require lots of medication, in many respects there are so many problems with its introduction that it will end up being a disaster. Let me repeat: This bungling Minister and his Department and the bungling Government could not, in my view, have come up with a more stupid system than this one. I return to the matter of the 45 drugs, to be deleted from the pharmaceutical benefits list, because I think this is a disgrace. The Minister submitted to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee a lengthy list of drugs he wanted deleted. He says they were deleted on health grounds. Sure, some doctors are abusing the system and some patients are taking too much medication. However, let me assure the Minister that he will never stop that. But to direct, as the Minister has done, the PBAC to be involved in deletions and to give such spurious reasons for them is, I think, a scandal of the worst kind. These items are widely accepted and widely prescribed both in this country and all over the world. I am led to believe that they will be available on the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits list almost in their entirety. They can be purchased at will. They have been prescribed by thousands of doctors in millions of prescriptions. That is how dangerous they are to the public's health. We will see other prescription items substituted which will be far more potent and have far greater side effects. The Minister should tell the little old pensioner lady that she cannot have her paracetamol or aspirin for her minor complaint. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(12.36) —I support the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) and raise three particular issues that have come up during the debate. The first is the private hospital subsidy, the second is the general discussion which has occurred in relation to a comparison of Medicare with the Opposition's policy, or what we might call a policy, for health care in Australia and, finally, the question of waiting lists which was raised by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). I will begin with the private hospital subsidy because that has been a subject of some community discussion and of some debate in my electorate most notably immediately after the Federal Budget was delivered when the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker, visited my electorate and, with his Liberal candidate colleague, suggested that bush nursing hospitals throughout my electorate and Mount Alvernia, the Catholic hospital, would probably be forced to close as a result of this decision, I want to make what ought to be a self-evident point to anyone with any iota of intelligence that this whole exercise is revenue neutral. There are certainly savings of $143m per year to the Government as a result of this decision but there is no direct loss at all, in any shape or form, to revenue per bed, per day, for any private hospital which operates in Australia. For instance, claims which have been made by the shadow Minister that hospitals such as Mount Alvernia in Bendigo are set to lose $850,000 per year in income are simply ludicrous. That hospital will not lose a single cent as a result of this decision. Claims that Charlton Bush Nursing Hospital, which the shadow Minister visited, will lose upwards of $100,000 a year as a result of the termination of this subsidy are also totally wrong and totally ludicrous. The whole exercise is revenue neutral. The $20, $30 or $40 per day, which was previously paid to private hospitals via that subsidy, will still be paid in the future but it will be paid by the private health funds rather than by the Commonwealth Government. Mr Porter —What about the uninsured who use the hospitals? Mr BRUMBY —In terms of the uninsured, the shadow Minister would also be aware I am sure from this legislation and from statements that have been made by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) that special provisions have been made to ensure that the important work which is undertaken particularly by charitable hospitals such as Mount Alvernia in treating uninsured and needy patients will be able to be continued in the future. Whichever way one looks at the matter, there will be no change to the amount of revenue received by hospitals for the treatment of insured or uninsured patients, short stay or long stay patients. As the Minister indicated only last week in the Parliament, Australia's largest private health fund has indicated that, as a result of this decision, it is expected that private hospital insurance rates per family, per week will rise by no more than 50c. To suggest that an increase of 50c per week-$25 per year-will cause a stampede of people from the public sector to the private sector is simply ludicrous. I also make the point that I find it remarkable that on every occasion, whether we are debating health legislation, the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill or the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill which was debated last night, the Government has reduced its Budget outlays to bring about a lower government Budget deficit, the Opposition has opposed, on the floor of this House, those measures which we wished to take. It begs the question where the Opposition might find the $6 billion or $7 billion worth of cuts that it will need to finance its spending programs. I turn to two other points I want to raise, the first of which is waiting lists. Let me make it very clear that there is nothing new at all in the issue of waiting lists in public hospitals around Australia. The various States and Territories in Australia have had waiting lists for the last four decades. We have had them under Liberal governments and we have had them under Labor governments. I refer the shadow Minister for Health to Victoria prior to the election of the Cain Government. Let us go back to 1978-79 when waiting lists were excessive and when it was a political issue. For the honourable member's edification I will quote the then Liberal Minister for Health who, when asked about the deplorable lack of proper hospital facilities and the excessive waiting lists, replied: If we had no waiting list there would be a glut of hospital beds and people would be paying $140 to $150 a day. There is no issue in waiting lists and that was said by a previous State Liberal Minister for Health. So the fact is that waiting lists have existed. It is no secret that when John Gorton, a previous Liberal Prime Minister, set up a major inquiry into the health system and health insurance system in this country in the late 1960s he did it because he was concerned that under Liberal governments around Australia there were waiting lists of more than 15 months for varicose veins operations and more than two years for tonsillectomies. Those were the waiting lists that occurred under a Liberal government and a Liberal policy. So there is nothing new. Why do we have waiting lists? Perhaps it is important that the Opposition understands why we have them. Is Medicare a factor? That is an important question. No State government Liberal or Labor anywhere in Australia has said that Medicare is the major factor behind hospital waiting lists. If Medicare were responsible for waiting lists we would have seen a dramatic shift away from the private hospital sector to the public hospital sector but that simply has not occurred. Indeed the private hospital sector is in a relatively healthy state. Bed numbers have grown at 3.4 per cent annually since the introduction of Medicare; bed utilisation has grown by almost two percentage points and large corporate chains are now being formed to operate groups of hospitals. I am sure the Parliament is aware that only a matter of weeks ago a private hospital was sold in Sydney for a price of more than $150,000 per bed. So to say that Medicare is responsible for waiting lists when there has been no shift away from private hospitals, when utilisation and bed capacity rates have increased and when private bed rates are fetching prices of $150,000 is absolute arrant nonsense. There is a combination of supply and, to a lesser extent, demand factors which have led to a modest increase in waiting lists throughout Australia. One of the factors that has contributed to that is the previous policies of the Fraser Government which, in successive years, cut back funding in real terms to the States for public hospitals. As a consequence, there have been facilities and equipment shortages but, more importantly, the States were forced to cut back savagely on nurse training programs. There has also been a change in the attitude of nurses in the last decade. Nurses have become a little sick and tired of being considered second class employees. They have become more vocal in their demands for better working conditions and as a consequence strains have been imposed on the supply side of the industry. We have seen shortages of some specialists and that is a matter of major concern particularly in areas such as orthopaedic surgery and ophthalmology and this situation has been tackled by the Government. On the demand side we have seen an increased demand from patients for operations which have been made available through increased technology such as prosthesis-artificial joints, knees, hips and so on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with Sessional Order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HUNT —Does the Treasurer agree with the Minister for Finance that the Labor Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, is a sucker in protecting people he calls `tax dodgers' for having protested against the fringe benefits tax? Will the Treasurer mend the fringe benefits tax as requested by the Western Australian Premier to relieve the unfair burden being imposed on farmers, small business and the mining industry? Mr KEATING —I do not know whether he is a sucker. He has beaten the tripe out of the Liberal and National parties on a couple of occasions. He could beat those opposite with one hand behind his back. They should not champion his cause, he does not need them. Let me make it clear about fringe benefits taxation. The Government is not going to alter the fringe benefits tax, despite whatever the Western Australian Premier might believe to be a legitimate view. The fact is that we are not going to change the tax. I am always amused by questions on fringe benefits taxation from the Opposition when it has a policy of taxing free benefits itself. On a number of occasions I have referred to the language of the members of the Opposition who talk about the Hawke Government's fringe benefits tax or Keating's fringe benefits tax. They always say that they will remove it. But the play on words is that it will have a fringe benefits tax of its own, not ours. This was made quite clear when the Leader of the Opposition said on the Carleton-Walsh Report on 30 July that it would deal with it in another fashion, and when the shadow Treasurer said that he would go back to the old law which imposed a tax on the employee for a benefit received. The Opposition would go back to a fringe benefits tax. It is worth reminding the House of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say in 1980 about this. He said: Fairness demands that employees who are paid solely in cash-and most Australians are-should not be asked to pay more tax and thus effectively subsidise those whose income is obtained partly in cash and partly in the form of valuable benefits of other kinds. There is the statement of principle, but of course now that he has seen the crack of light with the economic difficulties facing Australia principles are thrown overboard. The so-called new John Howard is outlining his opportunist position to the electorate about how he would in some way not have a fringe benefits tax. He would tax fringe benefits tax on the old basis which would mean that every employer would need to compute a fringe benefits tax liability for every employee every week. It is not the case with our fringe benefits tax. So we are seeing the Opposition, as it has always done as a party, trying to entrench in the system these areas of abuse which laid there for years and years. The one attempt to change it by the Leader of the Opposition was in the Bowen basin and that was rebuffed. He then gave up because his Party had no interest in it. It is back at the old stance of asking for these privileges to remain in the tax system for the benefit of taxpayers who have not been paying their fair share of tax. The Government is not changing the fringe benefits tax. It is a fair, decent and equitable tax. When Australians get their large tax cuts on 1 December this year and 1 July 1987 they will know what a lie the Opposition has been putting across about how this is all take when in fact it is all give on the Government's part. It is all going back in tax cuts which will take the Leader of the Opposition's rate of 60 per cent down to 49 per cent on 1 July 1987, and the 48 per cent and 46 per cent rates to 40 per cent and other rates below that. In fact, three times as much as the fringe benefits tax and the other tax measures raise will be handed back in tax cuts within the next 12 months. That ought to be well understood by the Australian people when weighing this empty rhetoric which the Opposition traffics in. Mr BALDWIN —Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been drawn to the reported statement by Rear-Admiral David Martin, Flag Officer, Naval Support Command, that nuclear weapons would inevitably be in Sydney Harbour next week during the Royal Australian Navy's seventy-fifth birthday celebrations? Can the Minister advise whether this information is accurate and, if so, does this signal any change in the United States doctrine of neither confirming or denying the presence of nuclear weapons on board its warships? Mr BEAZLEY —I am aware of the statement attributed to Rear-Admiral Martin. Subsequently, the Rear-Admiral has released a Press statement through the Department of Defence in which he says that what he intended to say and what he thought he had said was that it was not inevitable that some of the ships would be carrying nuclear weapons. Indeed, it is not inevitable that the ships would be carrying nuclear weapons. The vast bulk of the ammunition of the Pacific fleet of the United States is conventional, and that includes the vast bulk of warheads on the Tomahawk missiles. The strategy of the Pacific fleet is very much founded on the view that it would wish to be in a position to fight sustained conventional warfare, not nuclear warfare. Admirals are not very keen on nuclear war for very understandable reasons. So, as Rear-Admiral Martin meant to say, it is not inevitable that ships coming into that harbour would be carrying nuclear weapons. As I said, he has corrected his statement. Our position is that we respect the American position that it wishes to neither confirm nor deny what weapons are on board its warships. That remains the case with the ships that are visiting Sydney Harbour; there is no change in that position. There is no change in United States doctrine. I accept completely Rear-Admiral Martin's assurance to me that he had said something on that program that he had not thought he had said or intended to say. He assures me that when he is asked to make public comment on this issue he frequently has used the words `not inevitable' that some of the ships visiting would be carrying nuclear weapons. So the story that has got out is opposite to both the comment he would normally make and to what we would say as a government. There has been no change in the American position on this matter, and there is no change in our attitude to the American position on this matter. As I said, I accept Rear-Admiral Martin's withdrawal and correction of that mistaken statement. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the Treasurer's conflicting statements over recent days and ask him to confirm whether his Government, through the Reserve Bank of Australia, is or is not actively targeting the value of the Australian dollar at present. If it is not, on what basis did Senator Button make his statement last Monday to a group of manufacturers that `the dollar will remain very close to its current levels'? In view of the Prime Minister's own embarrassing statement in January this year that the appropriate value of the dollar was of the order of US72c to US75c, does the Prime Minister consider it appropriate for one of his most senior Ministers to be expressing publicly his views about the likely value of the Australian dollar? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question in which he referred to comments that were reported in the Age newspaper a few days ago. The Treasurer responded completely, and I would have thought conclusively, on the matter. Mr Howard —What about Button? Mr HAWKE —Just bide your time. I remind the Leader of the Opposition of what the Treasurer had to say as reported in the Age: `I think also that they believe that the Government and the Reserve Bank think that Australia will be no more competitive with the exchange rate not sufficiently supported and that Australia can broadly maintain its competitiveness even with an exchange rate higher than its current value. I think the market has probably assumed therefore that there is probably a floor under the Australian dollar and . . . it is not an assumption I would disabuse them of. This of course reflects judgments about monetary policy, the attendant interest rates and the history of the bank's own market interventions over the last month or two.' The Treasurer, who has the responsibility of making statements in regard to the policy of the Government in the exchange rate area, has made it quite clear what he intended to convey there. As he said in his answer in this House, he was commenting on market judgments and he was not confirming or denying those judgments. Senator Button is the Leader of the Government in the Senate and he obviously has a larger area of opportunity for comments upon the economy in that capacity. I think that at all times Senator Button has sought to convey, as he certainly intends, that the policies of the Government enshrined both in the Budget and around the Budget are those which are most appropriate to the interests of this country. The tragic feature about the commentary in this country at present is that, while the Government is enjoying the substantial confidence of those who are making informed judgments about Australia, as is evident from all the quotes that the Treasurer made at the time of the judgment by Moody's Investor Services Inc.-one of the features of Moody's judgment about Australia was the confidence Moody's had in the intelligent guidance of the Australian ship of state, as it put it, as distinct from those judgments that have been made about economic management in this country-Australians are witnessing the pathetic spectacle of an Opposition which is trying to wish and talk the Australian economy down. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I direct a question to the Minister for Housing and Construction. It concerns today's speculation about housing interest rates. Is the Minister aware of any pressure from the Housing Industry Association and the savings banks to increase the 13 1/2 per cent interest rate ceiling on pre-2 April savings bank loans? Is the Government's housing package firmly in place. Mr WEST —I thank the honourable member for his question. As I said yesterday, it is perfectly obvious to me that we will wait a very long time before the Opposition shows any interest whatsoever in this vitally important industry to the Australian economy. I have seen some media reports today on the matter that the honourable member for Stirling raised. I would like to say to the House that, if there is any pressure from either the savings banks or the Housing Industry Association, that pressure is entirely misplaced. The package of 2 April is firmly in place. The letter of intent has been signed by both the Government and all of the savings banks involved. In the June quarter we paid $58m to subsidise the savings banks' interest rates and I understand that the second instalment of $36m is about to be paid. It is true that the Housing Industry Association has sought a meeting with me to discuss a wide variety of matters before the Australian Housing Council meeting next Friday week. I have acceded to that meeting, but I have made it perfectly plain to the Housing Industry Association it is the Government's position that there will be no increase to the pre-2 April housing loan rate of 13 1/2 per cent. It is my firm belief also that there ought to be no increase to the new rate of 15 1/2 per cent. I informed the House the other day that, as a result of the Government's policies, savings banks lending is currently running in excess of $7,000m per year. During the months of July and August, savings banks deposit growth was quite strong. For the year ended July, there was a rate of increase of 11 per cent. In the three months to July, as I said the other day, approvals had increased by 5 per cent. This is the basis for my saying to the House that the outlook in the immediate future for the housing industry is moderately encouraging. I would like to conclude on this note: I have noticed that the Opposition spokesman has raised in the media the aspect of the number of housing starts in the housing industry. If the Opposition spokesman wants to talk about numbers, let us just have a look at what the record of the former Government was. We reached a nadir back in 1982-83, the last year of the previous Government, of 105,000 housing starts. Within two years we had kicked up those starts to 153,000, which was almost an all-time record. I have been informed by the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry over the last several days that the number of commencements for 1985-86 was slightly higher than predicted, despite the slump, at 136,000. It is true that during the June quarter the number of commencements had slumped to an annual rate of 117,000. It is true also that in June it was said that we should get 130,000 starts in 1986-87 as a result of our measures. It is true also that in the last couple of days the Council has slightly revised that figure down to 125,000 housing starts. But before honourable members on the Opposition benches make any comments, they should take heed of this fact: The Council also said, and I am informed likewise by my Department, that the 5,000 reduction was almost entirely due to a revision of the figures in Queensland. It is well known that in the State of Queensland we have the worst economic performance by any State government in Australia. It is no accident that the IPC comes to me and says: `We are very sorry that there is a slight decline in the predictions for 1986-87 as a result of a downturn in the projections for Queensland'. That is the position. I stand by what I said on the numbers. The future for commencements will depend very much on the future level of interest rates, but it is moderately encouraging. The economic advice to me, with which I concur, is simply that with the Budget policies, together with the firming of the Australian dollar and the stabilisation of interest rates which has occurred over the last few weeks, we should see a moderate downward trend in interest rates over the rest of this year which could be reflected in housing interest rates in 1987. Mr BLUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer the Minister to the fact that charges against Peter Sawyer, author of the book Dole Bludging: A Taxpayers' Guide, and a former employee of the Department of Social Security, have been dismissed by a magistrate, who described Sawyer as a crusader for reform. Is the Minister prepared to admit that the charges against Mr Sawyer were a politically motivated attempt to smother public discussion of the inadequacies of the Government's measures to combat social security fraud and overpayment? In view of the public interest in this case and the costs inflicted on Mr Sawyer by this vendetta, will the Minister be recommending an ex gratia payment as compensation? Mr HOWE —The decision to prosecute Peter Sawyer was certainly not my decision but was a decision by the relevant authorities. I am aware that the court exercised its prerogative to dismiss the charges under a section of the Crimes Act. I have no wish to comment on the court decision. I am aware that Mr Sawyer received $2,500 from Trans Media Promotions Pty Ltd, the company which produces Willesee, while he was in receipt of unemployment benefits. I think the activities of Peter Sawyer certainly caused the Department of Social Security considerable concern and I believe certainly justified those activities being drawn to the attention of the prosecutor's office. Mr Sawyer never took the opportunity while he was an officer of the Department of Social Security to indicate the range of concerns that were in his published book. He claims that he made many suggestions through the appropriate systems in the Department. In fact, he made very few suggestions. The assumption underlying his publication is that the Department of Social Security must assume that anyone who approaches the Department is, prima facie, a cheat. I do not believe that one can run a social security system on that assumption. The overwhelming majority of people who deal with the Department of Social Security are honest people who present their circumstances as they are. It is true to say that in the short run if people misrepresent their circumstances to the Department of Social Security, as Peter Sawyer did-no doubt that was the reason why he pleaded guilty-it is possible to get away with it. However, in the long run, the systems in the Department are adequate to ensure that in the vast majority of cases people who misrepresent their circumstances are caught up with. In this Budget we have taken a number of steps to tighten the social security system. In the past year we have taken many steps-more than have been taken, probably, at any time in the last decade-to tighten the administration. However, I believe that it is important that, while we manage the Department of Social Security in a very firm way and while we introduce these reforms which are designed to prevent fraud and overpayments within the social security system, we do not allow ourselves to be swept up in the emotionalism that often characterises the Australian media, particularly at times of economic downturn when increases are occurring in certain categories of beneficiaries. With respect to Mr Sawyer, all I can do is note the court's decision. Nothing that he has proposed, either while he was an officer of the Department or subsequently, will go without proper testing and investigation. When sensible suggestions are made by him, or by anyone in the Department or outside it, they will be very carefully considered by the Government and, where appropriate, implemented. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. It concerns security surrounding the submarine project. I ask the Minister: Has his attention been drawn to reports that the security of the submarine project has been compromised? If so, can he provide the House with any information on the matter? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I have seen reports to that effect. Practically all of them emanate in one way or another from a disgruntled journalist in Sweden. I intend to say a bit more about that later. These reports have been surfacing from time to time. They have all been effectively repudiated by either the Swedish authorities or the dockyard. One of the allegations is that Soviet agents have been allowed by Sweden to see the project definition study documents. The authority for that information was quoted as being a report by a Mr Rolf Jonsson, the head of security in the Swedish Defence Department workshop near Stockholm. Mr Rolf Jonsson disclaimed all those statements. That allegation has been effectively repudiated by him. No such report existed. There have been further reports that at different points of time the security of the Stirling engine system being developed by Sweden has been compromised. Those allegations have all been effectively repudiated by the Swedish authorities. Most recently-today-a claim has been made that a Czech spy, arrested by Swedish authorities, is in some way or other associated with the developments at the dockyard. The police authorities in Sweden have ascertained that there are no connections between the Kockums shipbuilding yard and the man who was arrested in Landskrona suspected of espionage. The same applies to the Czech diplomats who were expelled from Sweden some time ago. A statement was made by the Swedish police authorities repudiating that assertion. As I say, the accusations stem from essentially one source-a journalist resident in Sweden who some honourable members claim is a credible witness but who has highly suspect motives in this regard as his correspondence with Swedish authorities eminently demonstrates. However, before I get on to that matter I want to make one or two points about the Swedish position. Sweden takes its security extremely seriously. It does so for a very sensible, commercial reason as well as for defence reasons. The Swedish are substantially dependent for the profitability of their industry on being able to sell their arms overseas. They adopt a very sensible attitude when it comes to security, because they have a very substantial economic as well as defence motive for doing so. Mr Aldred —They don't. Read Swedish newspapers. Security in Sweden is a joke. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Bruce consider his position and cease interjecting. Mr Aldred —Why don't you try to tell the truth. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will cease interjecting. Mr BEAZLEY —I am invited by the honourable member for Bruce, among others, to say whether I rely on other sources of information in this regard from the Swedish authorities. He posits the Opposition's sources of information as being in some way more substantial. Normally, I would ignore this, as I have done for a substantial period, because it is the sort of nonsense that goes on in regard to these sorts of bids, except that I notice-- Mr Aldred —You have been hanging on to this for six months. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I am giving the honourable member for Bruce a fair warning. He will cease interjecting. I suggest that he consider his position. Mr BEAZLEY —I notice that recently it was suggested in a Press article that the journalist in question is to be invited out here by the Liberal Party. I intend to table correspondence between this journalist and the Swedish authorities. However, I will cite one example of it to give an indication of precisely why this journalist considers himself obliged to enter into discussions or dispute with the Swedish Government in the way in which he does. One telex out of many will suffice: To whom it may concern On receipt of yet another harassing letter from the Swedish Tax Department, I have made the following reply to Mr Hans Wemar. Please note I have every intention of screwing Sweden as much as possible, as and when possible, and that continued pro-Commie harassment by Swedish authorities will only result in increased efforts by me to embarrass your nation at every turn. If further information be required please contact Mr Gosta Grassman, Director of the Foreign Press Division at the Swedish Ministry of Foreign (Love) Affairs . . . Just how many times do I have to repeat to get through your imbecilic tiny Swedish mind that I have absolutely no intention of paying taxes to your [expletive] government. Resultantly you can get [expletive] too [expletive]. While your pro-Moscow undemocratic Government continues giving most-favoured-status to communist foreign correspondents in Sweden, I maintain I should be afforded the same privilege as a correspondent of free world newspapers. That your communist [expletive] government is so taken up with [expletive] with Moscow that all we from the west can see-- Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I ask the Minister for his authority. I have a few facts on the Prime Minister here when he was in Japan that are equally worth while as that piece of paper. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has no point of order. Mr BEAZLEY —This sort of garbage goes on in letter after letter. Most of us in this House know what to do when we get this sort of garbage. Mr Aldred —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I point out that the Swedish Government has mounted the same program of vilification against the police, who have also pursued the allegations. They are the same about everyone who has pursued the allegations. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. Mr BEAZLEY —I now table this material so that honourable members opposite can read it. When we receive that sort of nonsense in our offices, we know exactly what to do with it. We dismiss it. It is not only we who dismiss it; others who have examined such material have dismissed it also. It was dismissed by the Royal Australian Navy. It has been dismissed because, tied into the statement that the gentleman intended to come here as a representative of the Liberal Party was the suggestion that he would also represent Vickers. That has been repudiated to me by Vickers representatives in Australia. Nobody accepts the word of this person except, obviously, honourable gentlemen opposite. The reason we do not accept the word of that gentleman is evident from any reasonable reading of his correspondence. Mr IAN ROBINSON —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Australian-made campaign and the launching, on 31 August last by the Prime Minister, of a specially designed green and gold logo which is to be the centrepiece of the campaign. I ask the Prime Minister: Did the Government provide any financial backing for the campaign? Further, will he seek to have the Advance Australia Foundation moderate the minimum licence fee of $200 for small businesses and cottage industries to participate, and also the fee on annual budgeted gross income which is inhibiting small business from participating in that all important campaign? Mr HAWKE —Some financial assistance was provided to the Advance Australia Foundation. There had been such assistance previously. That stopped when the Foundation indicated that it wished to be of assistance to and involved in the Australian-made campaign. It seemed to the Government that it was appropriately placed to do so. A small amount of financial assistance-as I recall, it was a quarter of a million dollars-was made available to it. All I can say is that in the discussions that I have had with the Advance Australia Foundation and its Chairman and Executive Director, Mr Norman Spencer, I have not had any indications that the small charges to which the honourable member referred have acted as an inhibition in the way he indicated. In the light of the honourable member's question, I am more than happy to take the matter up with Mr Spencer and to see whether the Foundation's experience suggests that there is such an inhibition and, if so, whether there is some way in which it can be modified. Mr SNOW —I ask the Prime Minister: How does the Government evaluate current developments in arms control and disarmament between the super-powers? Mr HAWKE —As I said recently in an address at the University of New England, I believe that there are now historic opportunities for the restoration of stability and a realistic understanding between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on nuclear weapons. Of course, I do not discount, nor should anyone else, the potential difficulties in the negotiations, nor the emergence of other possible difficulties such as the Daniloff case. I suggest, nevertheless, that there are now greater grounds for optimism than there have been for some considerable period. I am glad to see that the Opposition shadow spokesman for foreign affairs is indicating a similar assessment. I am encouraged, as I trust all honourable members are, by the tone and the substance of President Reagan's remarks to the United Nations on Monday on the range of arms control issues under negotiation in Geneva. I think that it is fair to say, as we should in these circumstances, that there are also some positive signs of a serious approach to those negotiations being taken by the Soviet side. I am sure that all honourable members will join me in welcoming the adoption by the Stockholm conference on disarmament in Europe of a package of measures providing for advance notice of certain military activities in Europe. This latest agreement is the first major step in East-West arms control negotiations since the signing of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II Treaty in 1979. We hope that the Stockholm conference will provide the impetus for more far-reaching arms control achievements. In particular, the on-site verification provisions in the agreement are, I believe, a very important precedent. I think that the House will be aware that this Government has consistently maintained that, given the absolutely catastrophic potential of war in the nuclear age, the nuclear weapon states themselves do not have an exclusive right to determine international security and arms control issues. Our regular consultations with the nuclear weapon states, particularly the super-powers, on these issues, and our active promotion in international forums of the need for balanced and verifiable reductions in the level of arms reflect the high and continuing priority that this Government attaches to effective arms control and disarmament measures. Our alliance relationship with the United States gives us access to the highest levels of the Administration. Mr Hodgman —Used to. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, the honourable member says: `Used to'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will continue and ignore the interjection. Mr HAWKE —No; I am indebted to the honourable member, as even he may understand from what I am about to say. On 22 September-I would think that even the interjector would acknowledge that that was in relatively recent times-the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his counterparts from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries and Japan met in New York with President Reagan and Secretary of State George Shultz to discuss recent significant developments in United States-Soviet relations. Regarding the interjection, may I note, with some degree of pride, that this is the first occasion on which Australia has been invited to join with the NATO plus Japan negotiations and discussions with the United States. So, far from the inane interjection that Australia used to have a relationship, the fact is that in this last week, for the first time, Australia has been invited to join the NATO plus Japan discussions with the United States. The absurdity and the tragedy of honourable members opposite is that their interjections reveal that they do not want to really believe, as was indicated by the interjection, that there is some progress between the United States and the Soviet Union. I pay full tribute to the shadow spokesman for foreign affairs who obviously has a more mature, responsible and reasonable attitude in this matter. How honourable members opposite can take some vested interest in seeking to see some advantage in a continuation of the tension and refuse to welcome evidence of the fact that the two nuclear super-powers are coming together in some way, relieving the tension to some extent, absolutely beggars description. I repeat: Not only is that a despicable attitude but also members of the Opposition are mistaken when they seem to imply that Australia is now placed in some lesser position in terms of opportunity for consultation when the truth is that for the first time Australia has been invited into these NATO plus Japan negotiations. I am pleased to say that Mr Hayden will also be meeting later this week with the Soviet Foreign Minister for bilateral discussions on a range of issues, including arms control. I conclude by observing that at the Australian Parliamentary Disarmament Forum to be held in Canberra on Friday to mark the International Year of Peace, all members of the Australian Parliament will be able to discuss security and arms control issues directly with representatives of the five nuclear weapon states. I hope that as many honourable members as possible, right across this House, will take advantage of that-I know that there are members of the Opposition who will do so-because it does provide a very sensible and constructive way in which members of this House can involve themselves in these processes. Mr SMITH —My question is to the Minister for Defence. Does he support the `Australian made' campaign launched by the Prime Minister on 31 August at a cost of $2m? If so, why was the contract for the biggest peacetime aerospace order for a replacement Royal Australian Air Force air trainer awarded to a 100 per cent owned Swiss company, Pilatus, and to a 70 per cent owned English company, Hawker de Havilland, at a total cost of $230m, or $3.3m per plane, when a wholly Australian consortium tendered with a similar proposal at $604,000 per plane, saving $180m to the taxpayer, it being also the preferred option of the RAAF? Finally, I ask the Minister: Does he support self-reliance in defence equipment procurement where possible, and how does he justify this blatantly hypocritical decision? Mr BEAZLEY —This invites me to give an incredibly long answer, but I will resist the temptation to do so. My only surprise at receiving this question is that it is about six months late in this House, if it was going to be raised. But since it has been raised, let me point out one or two things to the honourable gentleman. We are concerned about cost overruns in relation to the A10 trainer. In terms of local production here in this country, the amount of production as a percentage of the project that would have been achieved under the PC9 was only marginally less than would have been achieved if we had proceeded with the A10. But we have got some substantial possibilities out of the PC9-potentially at least-in the export area, which we will be addressing. The PC9, because of its substantially greater capability-this process is currently being reviewed by the Air Force-on some Air Force estimates offers us up to $20m a year in savings on training. Therefore, it would very quickly pay for itself-an opportunity that was not offered by the less capable aircraft in that regard. It was a cheaper aircraft; its costs were more likely to be known, to the extent that it was already flying and operating. Therefore, it came in at many millions of dollars under the price offered for the A10. There was a raft of reasons, all of which seemed to us to be pretty sensible. In addition to that, there is the opportunity as a result of those agreements, which is currently being considered by the Government Aircraft Factories and Hawkers' to go into joint production development with Pilatus on a utility transport. Those discussions are proceeding. They have not yet arrived at any conclusion, but it would of course be of substantial benefit to our aerospace industry if it were able to go through. There we have it. There was a vast array of reasons as to why we went down that course. The Australian position is substantially protected by the decisions that we took in terms of making sure that we spend the defence Budget effectively, which is an increasingly important issue these days. The prospective savings on training are very substantial indeed. With all of those factors taken into account, we believe that we took the most sensible course in that regard. Mr GEAR —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen reports that the fringe benefits tax could have been administered adequately under section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act? Could the Treasurer indicate the impact of such a policy on ordinary taxpayers? Mr KEATING —The provisions which have existed in section 26 (e) of the tax law, which could have been applied by the former Government had it chosen to do so in respect of fringe benefits, would have placed an enormous administrative burden on Australian business and on employers. The simple fact is that, under section 26 (e), an employer would need to compute and withhold the fringe benefits tax, assess the value to each and every employee and pay it every week to the tax office for each and every employee. However, under the fringe benefits tax, the tax is levied on a quarterly basis across the company. It is not broken down on an assessment of each individual employee's value. Therefore, just as a business now is forced to compute and withhold pay as you earn tax, a business would be forced to compute and withhold tax under section 26 (e) for fringe benefits in the hands of an individual, but assess the value to each individual and remit it each week. The burden would be absolutely enormous, and that is why the Government tackled this issue. If the Commonwealth was ever to touch the fringe benefits taxation, the way to do it was to compute it on a company basis and pay it quarterly, which would diminish the administrative burden under the old law. Of course, the Opposition is saying that it would go back to the old law. The shadow Treasurer, in a release of 27 August at the National Press Club, said: Then we'd be back with the old law which in fact imposed a tax on the employee for a benefit received. In other words, the Opposition would have a fringe benefits tax. It would have it under the old law. It would force employers to compute the value of the benefit to each and every employee each week and remit it each week. Mr N.A. Brown —Not true. Mr KEATING —It is entirely true. It is a matter of law and of fact, not argument. Apparently Opposition members think that under a Howard fringe benefits tax there would be no basis for substantiation under the old law. Of course, there would be a basis of substantiation for mileage, private and public miles and other benefits. Of course, there would be the basis of substantiation under any fringe benefits tax under the old law. So we have this major campaign of deception that the Opposition would not have the Hawke Government's fringe benefits tax, but it would add-- Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Treasurer is purporting to give an interpretation of the law. On the clear basis of what he said last night, he does not understand the law. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order, and he should cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —Under a Howard fringe benefits tax under the old law, there would be substantiation-as there has to be now-of the basis of private and business uses of these benefits. There must be a basis of substantiation. There could be no tax without it, but you would be in there, assessing the value to each employee, withholding it and remitting it each week. So why do not Opposition members come clean and own up to the fact that, under a fringe benefits tax as the shadow Treasurer would have it, there would be a much greater burden on business-a much greater administrative burden than is the case with the fringe benefits tax-which is of course unworkable. That is why fringe benefits were never tackled. There was no heart in the coalition government to do anything about it; this Government has brought in the fringe benefits tax on a workable, consistent basis which taxes fringe benefits on a group basis and is remitted quarterly. That is a far more administratively sensible solution than anything which could have existed under the old law. Let us do away with this furphy about a tax under the old law. Let us do away with this furphy of how the coalition is not going to have the Hawke fringe benefits tax, or the Keating fringe benefits tax, but that it will do it another way under the old law. Let us be clear about that. It means a massive administrative impost on Australian business. The Opposition believes that Australian business does not understand. It would understand very clearly if the Opposition ever tried to implement such a scheme. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, I present the annual report on the operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 for the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 19 (2) of the Governor-General Act 1974, I present the annual report of the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General for 1985-86. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Statistics Advisory Council for 1985-86. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report prepared by an Australian Atomic Energy Commission task force, dated 19 September 1986, on the Chernobyl nuclear accident and its consequences. Limited copies of this report are available from the Bills and Papers Office. Additional stocks will be available shortly. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to sub-section 215 (5) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, I present the annual report of the Veterans' Review Board for 1985-86. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BRUMBY —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr BRUMBY —Yesterday, during the debate on the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) stated that I had said in the debate that the legislation before the House was essentially insignificant and was therefore unimportant in terms of the Government's Budget strategy. I did not say that in any contribution that I made to the Bill. In fact, the Hansard shows that I said that this was a crucial Bill and a crucial part of the Government's overall Budget strategy. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER — Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) during Question Time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During the course of Question Time the Treasurer got very excited about the fact that every time I repeat the Opposition's commitment to abolish the fringe benefits tax, I always say the `Hawke fringe benefits tax'. He sees some significance in it. The reason I say the `Hawke fringe benefits tax' is that I want every Australian to know who brought it in. That is the reason that I say it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman might say where he was misrepresented. Mr HOWARD —I want to make it perfectly clear that we will abolish the fringe benefits tax, and it will not be replaced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition makes a personal explanation only by leave. Mr HOWARD —Mr Deputy Speaker, if I were not interrupted I would be able to complete my personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am interrupting the honourable gentleman to ask him to show where he was misrepresented without arguing the point. Mr HOWARD —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was making the point that the reason why I refer to the tax by name is that I want people to know who is responsible for it, and I make it perfectly clear-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman must say where he was misrepresented. Mr HOWARD —I have been misrepresented to the extent that the Treasurer has claimed that, because I have referred to the tax as the `Hawke fringe benefits tax', I am implying that this fringe benefits tax will be replaced by some other fringe benefits tax. That is a complete parliamentary lie by the Treasurer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman-- Mr HOWARD —He is very good at telling not only parliamentary lies but also allowance lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. Mr HOWARD —I have not finished my personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman has run out of indulgence. Mr Howard —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Treasurer falsely claimed that we were going to replace-- Mr Holding —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. It is simply this: To attribute to any member the suggestion that he has told a parliamentary lie is unparliamentary and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr Howard —The expression `parliamentary lie' was first used in this Parliament by none other than the present Treasurer in 1982 to refer to the then Prime Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman makes personal explanations with the indulgence of the Chair. I think he has made the point where he said he was misrepresented. Mr Howard —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I put it to you that if the Treasurer is allowed to get away-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Howard —If he is allowed to get away with the proposition-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Howard —I would like to conclude on this note-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is your point of order? Mr Howard —In my statement of 29 May in which I committed the-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition said he wanted to raise a point of order. What is his point of order? Mr Howard —My point of order is that the Treasurer has been misleading the House, as he has misled the Remuneration Tribunal-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order and the honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Farrer. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not accept that, with great respect. Can I put to you the point of order that there has been a deliberate campaign-at long last he has been flushed out-by the Treasurer-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. Mr Howard —On what basis are you asking me to sit down? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable gentleman resumes his seat, I will tell him. Mr Howard —Yes, I am very happy to do that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —First off, the honourable gentleman said that he wished to make a personal explanation. Personal explanations are made with the indulgence of the Chair, as the honourable gentleman well knows. Personal explanations are not to be used as a mechanism to introduce argument. A member is allowed to say where he was misrepresented and by whom. The honourable gentleman went further than that and introduced considerable argument. The honourable gentleman then stood up and attempted to take a point of order. He was asked by the Chair to come to his point of order. Instead, he attempted to introduce further argument which related to the alleged personal explanation that he was making earlier. The honourable gentleman knows that that is out of order. I call the honourable member for Farrer. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TIM FISCHER —Yes, on two counts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TIM FISCHER —I refer to a front page article in today's Canberra Times in relation to the Australian War Memorial and a leaked staff bulletin, a document which, at the best of times, could hardly be regarded as highly confidential. The first misrepresentation relates to the handwriting on the document. I want to make it quite clear that I have examined the handwriting and I wish to advise the House that the handwritten words `reverse leak' and `with compliments, Tim Fischer' are in my own writing, as I understand that handwriting experts have been called in over this matter. So there is certainly nothing to hide in that regard. Secondly, the top half of the front page of the staff bulletin involved, the media release and the copy of the invitation extended by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) to a function at the War Memorial were released to the Press Gallery boxes by my office on 22 May and, in due course, naturally enough, found their way to the Minister's office. At no stage since October, when I originally raised concerns over the Australian War Memorial, have I done other than to highlight legitimate concerns, because the Australian War Memorial, I believe, should never become a political play thing or a political football. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I take it that the honourable gentleman wants to make a personal explanation? Mr KEATING —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr KEATING —During Question Time I made it clear that the Opposition intended to have a fringe benefits tax of its own variety and relied upon the transcript of the Carleton-Walsh Report of 30 July 1986. Let me quote what the Leader of the Opposition said: I said when I made the announcement about the fringe benefits tax-- Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: You should either apply the rules equally or not at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Leader of the National Party of Australia would allow me to hear the point being made by the Treasurer, I might be able to find out what is going on. But the Leader of the National Party spent the last few minutes bellowing so I could not hear what the Treasurer was saying. I understand the Treasurer wants to make a personal explanation and he is going to point out to the House precisely where he was misrepresented. I call the Treasurer. Members on my left might allow me to hear the Treasurer so that I can adjudicate. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that I fallaciously misquoted him and his intention in respect of fringe benefits. That being so, I shall give the quotation. This is a transcript of the honourable member's words on the Carleton-Walsh Report: I said when I made the announcement about the fringe benefits tax what we were going to do was get rid of Mr Hawke's fringe benefit tax . . . abuses in the area, and there were some, are some and would be some in the future, and they would be dealt with in another fashion. Then the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), said: Then we would be back to the old law which in fact imposed a tax on the employee. It has been made quite clear in both instances that the Opposition would, if in government, have a fringe benefits tax under section 26 (e). Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member, as I understand it, claims to have been misrepresented. Mr HOWARD —The point that I make-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask members on both sides of the House, both left and right, to be quiet. Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer continues to mislead the House. The commitment of the coalition to get rid of abuses-he of all members ought to know something about abuses after what has been revealed about him over the last couple of days-does not, in any sense, shape or form, equal a commitment to introduce an alternative fringe benefits tax, and it is a parliamentary lie of the Treasurer to say so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Keating —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: First of all, Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the expression `lie' be withdrawn. Mr HOWARD —That is the expression that the honourable member used against me from a cowardly distance when I was over in Canada. The honourable member was such a courageous parliamentary performer that he was prepared to use language like that then. I do not intend to withdraw-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer has drawn the attention of the Chair to the fact that he has asked for the expression `lie' to be withdrawn. The Leader of the Opposition is aware that a member cannot make allegations against another member and impute motive. It has always been accepted here by previous Speakers that terms such as `liar' are required to be withdrawn. The Leader of the Opposition has attempted to say that that term has been used before and thus that might make it acceptable. That is not a defence. I think that the honourable member would assist the House and himself by withdrawing. Mr HOWARD —I make the point, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I used the expression very deliberately. Mr Chynoweth —Sit down! You are wasting the time of the House. Mr HOWARD —I am quite prepared to go on, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the honourable member really thinks that an irrelevancy such as he will keep me quiet, he has another think coming. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is about to withdraw. Mr HOWARD —I say quite deliberately and calculatedly, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I used the expression deliberately. I used the expression in the qualified sense of a parliamentary lie. I would remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that on two previous occasions-and I put it to you that precedent is relevant-the present Prime Minister of this country was allowed to get away with calling the former Prime Minister of this country a liar, without any kind of let, hindrance or discipline, and the Treasurer-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is really debating the point again. Mr HOWARD —You are asking me to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am asking the honourable member to withdraw. Unless he does, I think that the Chair will be placed in the invidious position of having to deal with him. I would encourage the honourable member to withdraw on the basis that he should be aware-the Chair is particularly aware of this-that the fact that something has been said in the past may not necessarily make it right. There is the chance for a member at the time to take a point on it. Maybe the Chair should have intervened at that time. I am not aware of the circumstances at that time. I am aware of the circumstances now, however, and my opinion is that to say that a member is a parliamentary liar is no different from saying that someone is this sort of liar or that sort. The Chair has always required that statements that impute motive should be withdrawn. I would call upon the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark and allow us to continue with our business. Mr HOWARD —Can I put it to you on indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes. Mr HOWARD —I put it to you on indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you are dealing here with a situation in which I have been asked to withdraw a remark about somebody who has freely used far more pejorative expressions about me and about other members of the Opposition during the time that he has occupied his present position. If you force me to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would only be on the basis of acting out of deference to you. But I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we on this side of the House are becoming increasingly concerned about the double standards that are being applied on occasions by the Chair; we really are. We are heartily fed up with it. May I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it would be appropriate to require me to withdraw this on one condition? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is fast running out of indulgence. Mr HOWARD —I am not prepared to withdraw it on the unqualified basis that you ask of me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the use of the term `parliamentary lie', if it gives offence to the Treasurer-does it give offence to the Treasurer? Mr Keating —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It gives offence to the Chair. Mr HOWARD —I thought that the whole basis of withdrawing-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is required only to deal with the Chair. As the Chair, I am asking the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw-- Mr HOWARD —If it gives offence to the delicate disposition of the Treasurer-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am asking the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. The honourable member knows that the Standing Orders do not allow qualified withdrawals. I do not want to be in the position of putting out a leader of a party, but if necessary I will. Will the Leader of the Opposition withdraw the allegation that he made against the Treasurer? Mr HOWARD —Do you really think that it is conducive to the good order of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have a situation where I can be required, out of deference to you-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not out of deference to me. Mr HOWARD —It is out of deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker-to withdraw a remark when there remains on the record-the passage has just been handed to me through my staff-a remark that was made by the present Treasurer in the absence of the person against whom the remark was directed. He is very brave! I was 4,000 or 5,000 miles away. The honourable member said: `What a despicable parliamentary lie that is'. He is also led by a man who called the former Prime Minister a liar and was allowed to get away with it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOWARD —Quite frankly, I think that that kind of double standard-- Mr Keating —On the same point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think that I might deal with this matter before we proceed to points of order. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw-- Mr Keating —I was going to help the Leader of the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am asking the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. The Treasurer was on a point of order. Mr Keating —Yes. Perhaps I may make this point, Mr Deputy Speaker: If the Leader of the Opposition is so small as not to wish to withdraw, I do not require him to do so. But let me make the point-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Keating —No, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I wish to make it clear that I have been further misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We might deal with this matter first. There is no point of order. In the main, it is for the Chair to decide whether matters are unparliamentary. My best advice to the Leader of the Opposition is that he should withdraw, and I call upon him to do so. Will the honourable member withdraw? In the absence of a withdrawal by the honourable member, I have no option but to name him. I name the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Young —Mr-- Mr Sinclair —I move dissent from your ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I move-- Mr Sinclair —I am sorry; I moved dissent from the ruling. Mr YOUNG —The right honourable member does not have the call. I have the call. Mr Sinclair —I have the call if I am moving dissent from the ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have called the Leader of the House. Mr Sinclair —I moved dissent from your ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have not made any ruling. I have named the-- Mr Sinclair —You have, Mr Deputy Speaker; you have named the Leader of the Opposition. I move: That the Deputy Speaker's ruling be dissented from. This is a circumstance in which you have no choice, Mr Deputy Speaker, but to accept that a ruling has been made by the Chair. If not, there can be no motion from the Leader of the House to be considered. I move dissent from your ruling and suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that motion should have precedence over any subsequent motion that might be moved by the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG —Just wait a moment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have called the Leader of the House. I will hear him. Mr YOUNG —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I suggest to you that in circumstances where you have made a ruling the requirements of our Standing Orders are that it is only after debate on that ruling that dissent from it can be moved. Your ruling is that the Leader of the Opposition should be named, and as a result that the motion from the Leader of the House should be considered. There is a procedure within our Standing Orders that requires a certain sequence of events. It is possible only for the motion of dissent from your ruling, that the Leader of the Opposition be named, to be moved immediately after your ruling. Your ruling is that the Leader of the Opposition be named. It would seem quite appropriate that, in a climate where, for reasons that have been identified by the Leader of the Opposition, he has great concern with the decision you are taking, you would accept that that is in fact the ruling. The basis of what you have done is that, after consideration of a number of interventions by the Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer, you have come to a position where you have made a judgment. That judgment is the ruling of the Chair and the only time at which dissent can be taken is immediately after that has been raised. For that reason I suggest to you that I should be given priority and that the dissent motion should now be considered. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will give the honourable member my judgment on his point of order. Standing order 304 provides that: If the offence has been committed in the House, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment, or debate being allowed, The question is that the honourable member concerned be suspended from the service of the House. I have named the Leader of the Opposition for infringing standing order 303. Mr Sinclair —I move dissent from the second ruling that you have just made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have called the Leader of the House. Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am moving dissent from the ruling you made on my motion-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —And I have found that there is no point of order. Mr Sinclair —I am moving dissent from that subsequent ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have ruled that there is no point of order. Mr Sinclair —I am moving dissent from that ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the Leader of the National Party will sit down for a moment he might hear what I have to say. I have ruled that there is no point of order and the Leader of the National Party is moving dissent from that ruling. However, the Leader of the House already had the call. He was interrupted by the Leader of the National Party, and I now again call the Leader of the House so that he can complete-- Mr YOUNG —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I cannot quite understand how, my having the call and having moved a motion of dissent, you can interrupt that by somehow or other-- Mr YOUNG —You have not got the call. Mr Sinclair —I have got the call and I have moved a motion of dissent. I would suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that having accepted that motion, it is the motion before the Chair, and there is no basis upon which you could interrupt that other than on a point of order. The motion before the Chair is my motion of dissent and it is on that basis that you have to give me the call. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The right honourable member does not have the call. I call the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG —Mr Deputy Speaker, a very harsh decision has been made from the Chair, and that is the naming of the Leader of the Opposition. It has been the practice of this House-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, once again I move dissent from that ruling. I do not believe you have the capacity to call the Leader of the House at this time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Well, I have, and the House is in the hands of the Chair. Mr Sinclair —Well, I move dissent from that ruling. I move dissent from the fact that you have called the Leader of the House. This is an absolute abuse of the Standing Orders of this chamber and you know it. There is no basis upon which you can call him. You did not call the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG —I move: That the Leader of the Opposition be suspended from the services of the House. Question put. The bells being rung- Mr Coleman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer you to standing order 100, which states: If any objection is taken to any ruling of the Speaker, such objection must be taken at once, and a motion of dissent, to be submitted in writing, moved, which, if seconded, shall be proposed to the House, and debate thereon shall proceed forthwith. That is precisely what was in motion. Will you respond to my point of order? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. In division- Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, in order to prove the conspiracy that we believe is going on, I ask that the notes you and the Leader of the House have passed between each other be tabled. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes ... 66 Noes ... 60 Majority ... 6 AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jones, Barry Beazley, K. C. Keating, P. 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, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E Maher, M. J. Charlesworth, R. I. Martin, S. P. Chynoweth. R. L. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, Allan Dubois, S. G. Morris, Peter Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller) Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. NOES Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, Ian Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall Steele Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is therefore suspended from the service of the House for a period of 24 hours. The honourable member for Bennelong thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the National Party of Australia from moving forthwith: That the Deputy Speaker no longer enjoys the confidence of the House. Mr Young-We have no objection to granting leave and debating the issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr N.A. Brown-I second the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative, with an absolute majority. Want of Confidence Motion Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.24) —I move: That the Deputy Speaker no longer enjoys the confidence of the House. Over the last little while there have been a series of escalating events that have led us to be concerned that you certainly, the incumbents of the chair and sadly others who are in a similar position of supposedly sitting in dispassionate judgment upon us, are no longer doing so on a basis of considering equitably the case submitted by either side of the Parliament. This afternoon we had an instance when the nature of the activities in this House has led us to the point where we feel it necessary to do as I have done and that is to move that you no longer have the confidence of this House. The reason I moved this motion is based on a succession of events. The circumstances this afternoon are no less than disgraceful. Over a period there have been inferences, innuendoes and abuse by members of the Government, placed on successive members of this side of the House, all of which have been allowed to go without any action being taken whatsoever. Only the other day the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) rose to respond to a very serious proposition advanced by the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), and the Minister launched into a string of invectives. He called the shadow Minister everything that his mind could permit. What happened? Very belatedly there was intervention from the Chair. Instead of there being, as there should have been, a proper intervention at the beginning of the Minister's statement, the Minister was allowed to continue almost unarrested. However, this is not the first occasion on which this has happened, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to see you raising your eyebrows and smiling at those in the Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, if that is the way you are going to behave there is no basis by which any honourable member on this side of the House can have any faith in you whatsoever. Earlier there were occasions when you, as chairman of a parliamentary committee, came into this House and, without any authority of that committee, had given, to people outside the committee, the contents of its report. The Privileges Committee should have been required to consider whether you had breached parliamentary privilege. There is no need for you to place a supercilious grin on your face. These are matters of profound seriousness. You are entrusted with the custody of this chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are expected to behave in a manner in which you do not curry favour with those with whom you might have a political association. If you sit up there and try to pretend that this does not matter, let me tell you that the people of Australia know that it does. Your behaviour and the behaviour of those who sit in the chair are quite fundamental to the maintenance of the stature of this Parliament. If you behave as you did this afternoon and as you did on another occasion you can expect no respect from any member on this side of the chamber. We do not give you that respect if you do not earn it. Your behaviour this afternoon has given us no basis to believe that you, in a dispassionate expression of what should be the responsibilities of your post, know that you are supposed not to give undue priority to members of the Government. You are supposed to exercise appropriate dispassionate judgment. In the first instance we should look at the person who really generated the concern of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) this afternoon. Over the last three days the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been under constant attack. We all know that his behaviour in this place has left a great deal to be desired. We are disappointed. In a moment I shall read to honourable members a succession of allegations that will show that he is trying to claim that the law applies differently to the Leader of the Opposition than it does to members of the Government. More importantly, we know that the person who has been launching the string of invectives over time has used quite different standards in his own personal behaviour. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know the Treasurer's personal behaviour. He talks about the rorts of tax abusers, but he is the biggest of them all. We know, if the National Times story is to be believed, that not only does he have no place of residence in Sydney that is currently habitable but also he stays with Warren Anderson, a well-known property developer and a personal associate of the Treasurer. We know he claims a tax free travelling allowance because he has no current principal place of residence. Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I can appreciate that, under the circumstances, you may be a little tolerant. But the question the House is considering at the present time is whether or not you continue to enjoy the confidence of the House. Certain implied accusations are being made by the Leader of the National Party against the Treasurer. If the right honourable gentleman wishes to make accusations of that kind they should be made by way of a substantive motion at an appropriate time. This is not such a time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The Chair is in a difficult position in that the Leader of the National Party has moved a motion of no confidence in me. I do not wish to intervene in that debate but it has crossed my mind that the right honourable gentleman might deal with me and then, if he wishes to move a substantive motion against any other member, he may do that as well. It might be best for the House that he keep his comments relevant to the motion before the Chair which is that the House has no confidence in the Chair. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Deputy Speaker, the reason for the motion is that double standards have been applied in the exercise of your judgment as Deputy Speaker. They have certainly been applied in terms of the phrases and expressions used by the Treasurer. What I am doing is identifying the fact-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the right honourable gentleman address his remarks to me so I can actually hear what he is saying? It is difficult for the Chair to catch a member's eye if the member has his back to the Chair. I am sure the right honourable gentleman is aware that the Standing Orders provide that a member shall address his remarks to the Chair. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Deputy Speaker, I trust you will be consistent in that ruling too. For weeks we have been trying to persuade members of the Government when answering questions to address the Chair. Instead, they consistently look around at their own members-they do not get support anywhere else. We find it difficult to hear them. I hope that you exercise that same judgment on other occasions. The point I was seeking to make to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, was that this matter has arisen this afternoon because the Leader of the Opposition used an expression far milder and less inclined to vilify the individual than many of those used by the Treasurer himself. It is essential that we look at the circumstances of this afternoon if we are to consider adequately the reason you no longer have the confidence of this House. The first and most essential point is that the person who has been more guilty than any other in this chamber, consistently over a long time, of personal abuse of others is the Treasurer. He has used it selectively against individuals. He has used it collectively against every member on this side of the House. Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order will be quite apparent. The Leader of the National Party is quite clearly using the motion that he has moved as a vehicle for an attack on the Treasurer. A man so lacking in integrity as the Leader of the National Party should move a substantive motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I draw the attention of the right honourable gentleman once again to the fact that it might be helpful if he dealt with his motion regarding me. Mr SINCLAIR —The basis of this motion is that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are not exercising dispassionate judgment in the function of your office. In order to demonstrate that it is necessary to contrast the behaviour and the approach of the Chair towards the honourable member for Blaxland with the behaviour that has been shown by yourself this afternoon in exercising selective judgment against my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, I think it is necessary that you consider the language that has been used over time by the Treasurer. There are so many instances to which we can look and wonder what the devil he is talking about, yet it has gone without remark from the Chair. First, in terms of-- Mr Robert Brown —On a point of order: I appeal to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to instruct this creature not to use this motion as a vehicle to attack the Treasurer. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Charlton will resume his seat. I suggest to all honourable members that they listen to the debate. It does not help the Chair if people intervene from both sides. Let us hear the debate and decide upon it. Mr SINCLAIR —I repeat the point that our concern is that you should treat both sides of this Parliament with equal regard. It is our concern that the remarks that are being made on our side of the House are being identified and in this instance have led to the Leader of the Opposition being put out of the House. On other occasions-not one occasion but many-we have had illustrations of statements by members of this Government, particularly by the Treasurer, which have been allowed to go without any restraint whatsoever. It is that which concerns us. First, I refer to those remarks made by the Treasurer. I have spoken a moment ago about those made by the Minister for Social Security. One can look back to 1984 and see remarks by the Treasurer such as `the lurk merchants', the `rip-off merchants', and `shysters'. One would think he was talking about himself and his travel allowance. We hear remarks such as `this sleazy proposal'. We hear comments such as `slimy, mealy-mouthed charges' on 8 March 1984 and recorded at page 753 of Hansard. I am interested to see that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) is here, I thought he would have been concerned about the English language; probably many of these remarks would have been more appropriate if they had been made about him. I continue: The Treasurer on page 39 of Volume I on 28 February 1984-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable gentleman shall not reflect on other members while making his point. I would appreciate it if the right honourable gentleman would address his remarks to me. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Deputy Speaker, the point of my comments is that these remarks were made by the Treasurer. They are within the parliamentary context according to rulings given by the Chair and if the honourable gentleman objects to them I find it interesting. That is exactly the basis why the remarks should not have been made-- Mr Cohen —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask him to withdraw. Mr SINCLAIR —What remarks? That these remarks might have been appropriate to the Minister? They are remarks within the parliamentary parlance. Does the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment think that if they were applied to him that he would be offended? Is that the point? Mr Cohen —Absolutely. Mr SINCLAIR —That is just the point I was making. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has exactly illustrated the point. So we have remarks by the Treasurer, and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment says he is offended by them, yet we on this side of the House are expected to take them for granted. And what do you do, Mr Deputy Speaker? You sit up there. Those remarks come from the other side of the House and it does not matter. Let me go on. On page 39 of Hansard on 28 February 1984 we can see that there is no limit to how far the Treasurer will stoop. I do not know whether the honourable gentleman is as sensitive as he was a moment ago. We see remarks such as, `no gutter too low to slide into', `no sewer too murky for him to lose himself in.' On 6 December 1983 at page 3278 of Hansard: `he lied his way out of that too'. On 7 December 1983 at page 3360 we see the remark `champion liar of 1983'. Mr Deputy Speaker, you should take particular account of those remarks. There has been a succession of occasions when the Treasurer has used those words. On 30 November 1983 at page 3053 he claimed an honourable member to be a liar. I could go on; there are about five pages of such remarks. We should understand that the result of this is that unfortunately the Treasurer seems to believe that it does not matter what he says, but if the Leader of the Opposition seeks properly to try to assert his concern about misrepresentations-for they were-by the Treasurer who we all know through the last week has done anything but uphold the high standard that should be set by a Treasurer of this country, we are in a position where we feel you have discriminated against us. The consequence of your action today, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that selective judgment is being used against members of the Opposition. We are concerned that over a little period there has been this selective judgment not only in debates as we have heard today but also during Question Time. Perhaps there is no better illustration than today. I am in a difficult position because you in fact were not presiding over Question Time, Mr Deputy Speaker. The reality is that there needs to be an understanding by whoever is in the chair-whether it is you, whether it is Madam Speaker or her deputies-that it is essential that either side of the chamber be given a fair go. There has been in Question Time and in the allocation of time an attempt by the Government to ensure that members of the Opposition are denied any opportunity to present the same number of questions as they have in past years. The figures show that not only has the number of questions being answered declined, but also the length of answers given by Ministers to questions from the Government has increased. The reality is that the Government is no longer treating Question Time as it should be. One need only recognise that even the Procedure Committee consideration at the moment has gone to the heart of the fact that there needs to be an adequate time in this Parliament, with its expanded numbers, for questions to be properly put to the Government and for them to be answered. It is essential that whoever occupies the chair exercises his or her judgment dispassionately. Unfortunately, over the last little while that seems not to be so. We have found that not only have personal attacks gone without comment from the Chair, but also those occupying the chair, particularly you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have ignored those remarks made from the Government benches and picked on those made from this side. The Leader of the Opposition in particular is a person who, together with the Prime Minister, traditionally has been allowed far more flexibility than anybody else in the House. Yet this afternoon you have taken action against him which you have not taken against the Treasurer. I mention to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it does not seem to matter what mealy-mouthed expressions the Treasurer uses-that is okay. It does not matter what expressions the Minister for Social Security uses-that is okay. It does not matter what remarks are made by members of the Government about members of the Opposition. They pass without reproach. The reality is that it is essential for the restoration of the dignity of this place for honourable members, like the honourable member who is trying to intervene-I do not even know whether he belongs to the House, we have seen so little of him-to be able to present an image which earns respect from the community, and that ultimately rests on you. We do not believe you have exercised your judgment as you should this afternoon. We are concerned that both the Government and the Opposition should have a fair chance for their arguments to be heard. Indeed, I draw your attention to the circumstances just before I moved this motion. It is my understanding that while the Leader of the House (Mr Young) had risen, in fact you had not called him. I did not hear you call him. As I remarked to you at the time, the only circumstance where a motion of dissent from the Speaker's ruling can be heard is immediately after a ruling has been given. I rose to do that and my colleague the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) referred to standing order No. 100. The reality is that that motion needs to be considered immediately after a ruling has been given. You, on a number of occasions, refused to give me the call in order that I could do so and instead preferred that the Leader of the House should be able to move for the suspension of the Leader of the Opposition. There is a real necessity for the standards of this place to be lifted: The standards of dress and the standards of your control of the place, the degree to which in your interventions it is absolutely necessary that you treat people from either side of the House dispassionately. It is our concern that you have not done that in this instance and that you have exercised a judgment against the Leader of the Opposition which is totally against the practice that has been applied to the Treasurer. It is on that basis that I believe you no longer should enjoy the confidence of the House. The role that you exercise is one that I think must really be looked at in relation to what you have permitted. If I might just quote from a series of remarks made by the Treasurer, perhaps it will best illustrate the total inequity of the expulsion of the Leader of the Opposition today. These remarks were all made by the Treasurer in this place: `Those dummies and nitwits'; `those dim-witted members of the Opposition'; `they are jokes, absolute jokes'; `those dummies opposite should just shut up'; `some of the mugs on the other side'; `do not be so damn stupid'; `the clowns opposite'; `the honourable members opposite want to be sleaze bags'; `damn them for the cheats they are'; `you ought to be bloody well ashamed of yourselves'; `you are frauds'; and `you people are beneath contempt'. Government members interjecting- Mr SINCLAIR —There exactly is the point. You have done nothing to stop these people on the other side of the House, and I suggest to you that it is that behaviour that justifies absolutely our belief and our concern on this side of the House that you have no reason any longer to occupy the position of Deputy Speaker and the House no longer has reason to be confident in you. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.44) —I second the motion and commence by saying that it gives no pleasure to any member of any parliament in the Westminster system to have to move this motion. If you could refrain from smirking just for once, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will advance the argument. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I ask the honourable member to-- Mr N.A. Brown —I will not withdraw that, Mr Deputy Speaker-certainly not. You refuse to take these issues seriously. You are not dispassionate. You are not independent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member-- Mr N.A. Brown —We have no respect for your occupation of your position whatsoever and I shall continue-I will not withdraw that remark. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat for one moment. Mr N.A. Brown —Certainly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It does not help the Chair if honourable members make assertions about what I am doing while I am sitting here. It does not help the debate. It puts me in a position where I do not want to call you or your colleagues to order to withdraw points you make about me when you are moving a motion of no confidence in me, but it might help if you took the proposition you are putting forward a little bit more seriously and did not make allusions as to whether I was smirking or not. I assure the honourable gentleman that I was not smirking; I was attempting to listen to him. I call the honourable gentleman. Mr N.A. Brown —I have a few other things to say and so that I can say them I withdraw that remark, Mr Deputy Speaker. I now go on to say that one of the concerns we have about your occupying the position of Deputy Speaker of this House is that you do not seem to occupy the position with the independence that that position has always required. In support of that proposition we say the following: We are very concerned with the different attitude you seem to take when matters arise in this House, depending on whether the person involved is from the Government side or the Opposition side. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) drew your attention to the fact and asked you to rule on a matter with respect to the passing of notes, continuous back chatting and exchanging going on between the Leader of the House (Mr Young), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and yourself while this very matter was under debate. Not only did you not rule on that point of order, as you should have at the time-I presume that at some stage you will-but also we make the point for the purposes of the present debate that, when you are in the chair, you are supposed to be independent. For the time you are in the chair you lose your capacity as a member of the Government side of this House. Our matter of regret and of very great complaint is that you do not seem to appreciate that; you do not seem, with respect, to appreciate the fact that you are supposed to be independent. That comes in the case of rulings from the Chair when you are there; it comes, with respect, in the case of attitudes expressed while you are in the chair; and for a combination of all those circumstances we no longer have any satisfaction, in view of the conduct you have demonstrated, that we can have confidence in your occupation of the chair. It should be understood from the very beginning that what has led to this situation is the following: The Treasurer indicated that he was exceptionally sensitive about some banter and backchat that went on here, which was really no more serious than a lot of the backchat that takes place from time to time, and he asked for a statement to be withdrawn. The statement was that something he had said was `a parliamentary lie'. He insisted upon a withdrawal and called upon you for your support to require that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) withdraw that remark. Our complaint is simply this: For month after month we have sat here listening to this torrent of abuse coming from the Treasurer, remarks far more serious and far more significant than that, remarks far more abusive, remarks far more offensive and remarks far more tasteless, time after time and day after day, and when we have asked for them to be withdrawn on many occasions they have not been withdrawn. Furthermore, one would have thought that an independent occupant of the chair would take the matter into his own hands and tell the Government members that this was not a series of remarks which the Chair was going to put up with. But instead of that we have had to tolerate, month after month, this torrent of invective and this torrent of abuse from the Treasurer and from some of his colleagues. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) gave some examples of the sorts of things that we have had to put up with. Because of the seriousness of this matter it is well to remember the sorts of things that have been said by the Treasurer, who is now so sensitive that he insists upon the Leader of the Opposition withdrawing the statement `a parliamentary lie'. These are some of the things that the Treasurer, it should be remembered, has said. From a very early stage he took a particular dislike to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). He has described him as `this loopy crim from O'Connor', `you stupid foul-mouthed grub', `you piece of criminal garbage'. This is the sort of thing we have had to put up with, but now you align yourself with the Treasurer, who is so sensitive that he cannot stand someone saying that he contributed a parliamentary lie to the debate-a harmless remark which the Treasurer was quite incapable of withstanding. But the Treasurer has gone on. He has referred, presumably to all honourable members on this side of the House, as `the animals on the other side'. This is the sort of thing, Mr Deputy Speaker, which apparently, because of the position you are maintaining here today, you support-that the Treasurer can refer to honourable members on this side of the House as `the animals on the other side' and get away with it. The Treasurer says `up gets the lunatic with a proposition like that' and goes on about the honourable member for O'Connor as a member with `a criminal intellect', a member `who is a criminal in my view'. These are the things which the Treasurer is allowed to get away with in this House, indulging his invective and hatred of members on this side of the House. We have reached the point where we will not tolerate this kind of conduct any longer. We will not tolerate a situation in which you occupy the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and allow remarks of this sort to be made. These contributions of invective and hatred from the Treasurer go on for page after page. Any honourable member who wants to read them is more than welcome to do so. No fair-minded person who reads this collection of hatred and invective could come to any other conclusion than that the Treasurer is particularly sensitive if he wants remarks about him withdrawn. Mr Duncan —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I suggest that, as the honourable member has this prepared and contrived document, he should incorporate it in Hansard so that we can all have a proper look at it. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may be aware of the guidelines which provide that written material is not usually allowed to be incorporated in Hansard. If the honourable member seeks leave to table the document, leave may be given to table it by the other side. However, I doubt whether a written document can be incorporated. Mr N.A. Brown —I have been challenged by a Government member to have this material put before honourable members. I have asked for leave, and I assume that leave has been granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted to table the document? Leave is granted to table the document. Government members-Incorporate it! Mr N.A. Brown —And to incorporate it in Hansard-I should think. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Speaker and successive Speakers have provided guidelines to the effect that documents can be incorporated in Hansard only if they are incapable of being spoken. That relates to tables, and so on. I am quite willing to allow the document to be incorporated in Hansard if it meets the Speaker's guidelines. Mr N.A. Brown —That is a reasonable ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point that we make about the lexicon of invective and hatred which has poured out of the Treasurer month after month is that this is the sort of stuff we have had to take from him. This is the sort of thing he does, sitting there with a smirk on his face, helping himself to travelling allowances he is not entitled to, running into thousands of dollars, holding himself out as a great moral purist. This is the sort of thing we are expected to take. He is so sensitive that when the Leader of the Opposition says `parliamentary lie' he insists on having it withdrawn. Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The motion before the House is a vote of no confidence in the Deputy Speaker. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to attack the Treasurer he should do so by means of a substantive motion, and get back to-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is relevance in what the honourable member says. The Chair is in the impossible position of considering a motion moved against himself. It is difficult to call honourable members to order on relevance. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is making a point in regard to my position, and I am happy to continue to hear him. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, it would have been much wiser to have had the Speaker in the chair while this matter was being debated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —My understanding of the procedures of this House is that it is not necessary. Mr N.A. Brown —It may not be necessary, but it avoids your being in that invidious position. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am quite willing to sit here and listen to what honourable members have to say about my stewardship. Mr N.A. Brown —We make the point that, for all of these reasons, the catalogue of invective that we have had from the Treasurer month after month is in stark contrast to what Opposition members have said. Yet when it was said of him that he contributed a `parliamentary lie' to a debate, so sensitive was he that he insisted on it being withdrawn. Mr Chynoweth —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The honourable member is completely wrong. The Treasurer did not want the remark withdrawn; the Chair wanted it withdrawn. The honourable member should get his facts right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not satisfied that you have conducted your office with the independence and dispassionate judgment that is required of persons who occupy the chair. We are not satisfied that you have been dispassionate in decisions you have made in your general conduct of the chair. We are not satisfied that at any stage you have conducted yourself in accordance with the high traditions of the office. We think it is absolutely absurd that the Treasurer should have put us into this position today. There is a direct causal connection between his position and what we are now forced to do, both to maintain our rights and entitlements and to maintain the traditions of this House and the independence of the Chair. For all of those reasons, Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion that we do not have confidence in your occupation of the chair. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.56) —Both the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), have failed in any way to substantiate a case of no confidence in your stewardship, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is ironic that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should ask you to leave the chair during the debate on this motion when he went through a whole range of incidents which he said occurred in the House without justifying in any way that you were in the chair when those events occurred. So, he may well have been asking that no one take the chair while he moved his motion, so broad was it in its accusations. The events of today and events like this which have occurred in the Parliament previously are very simple. The Speaker, or whoever represents the Speaker in the chair, has the task of seeing that order is kept in the House and that the language used is kept within parliamentary terms. But that is not the end of the road. On some occasions, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you well know, the Speaker and/or his or her representative may allow a term to be used when someone is speaking which another member in the House objects to and wants withdrawn-a term which the Speaker does not object to. It is then incumbent upon the honourable member who has used the term to withdraw it. On this occasion, it was not the Treasurer (Mr Keating) who asked that the term be withdrawn by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). It was the Chair, acting in his capacity as the Deputy Speaker at the time, who asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the term. Irrespective of what attitude the Treasurer may have taken and what he asked for, the mould was already cast when you asked the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Deputy Speaker, to withdraw the term because you thought, in your stewardship of the Parliament, that the term was unparliamentary. There has been some argument, as there always is when a Leader of the Opposition gets himself into this position. The Chair traditionally has shown great patience. Although we all say that we are equals in the House, the Chair has always shown great patience and latitude to the Leader of the Opposition. Today, as has been shown, is the first time since the late Sir Robert Menzies was kicked out in June 1949 that a Leader of the Opposition has been suspended from his duty in the House. It is not the first time subsequently that a Leader of the Opposition has been named. In 1984, the then Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), was named, but there were negotiations between him and the Chair and he was not suspended from the House. So it has not happened since the time of Menzies in 1949 until today with the suspension of the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that nobody wanted to see the Leader of the Opposition suspended from the House. Mr Beale —Why did you move it? Mr YOUNG —I moved it because it was the only option allowed to me while the Manager of Opposition Business, the Leader of the National Party, was shouting at Mr Deputy Speaker and not allowing me, as the Leader of the House, to try to negotiate some settlement between the Leader of the Opposition and the Chair, which is what has happened on every single occasion these events have come to pass. I can understand the Opposition's frustrations, inabilities and ineptitudes in dealing with the Parliament and other matters. What the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have done today is to stand up and say they want to talk about the Treasurer's travelling allowances, fringe benefits, or a million and one other things. If the Opposition wants to debate these matters, there are ways and means of bringing debates on. But it cannot get rid of its frustrations by abusing the Chair. That does not succeed. The Chair has a very difficult task, particularly in this Parliament, because we now have 148 members. The Chair has a much harder task in this Parliament than was previously the case. The Leader of the National Party said that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were not being fair because the other day the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) used some names when he was talking about an Opposition shadow spokesman and nothing was done. If my memory serves me correctly, on Monday this week the Minister for Social Security was asked to withdraw and complied. He withdrew the terms that he had used. Even if the Chair does not require a member of this House to withdraw a term that has been used, the honourable member who objects to a term can rise and ask that the term be withdrawn. The Chair will insist that a term be withdrawn if another member finds it personally objectionable. The same thing applies to all the other quotations that two Opposition speakers have used. If someone is upset, in the heat of debate, with what the Treasurer has said about him, he asks for it to be withdrawn. As to all the quotations from over 3 1/2 years which the Opposition has used, we were not told on how many occasions the Treasurer had withdrawn those remarks on the insistence of the Chair, or how many times the Chair, completely unrequested, had told the Treasurer that those remarks had to be withdrawn. The parliaments do not change very much. The number of members suspended has been pretty much the same every year, whether Billy Snedden or someone else has been Speaker. When I said to Billy Snedden one day that I did not particularly like his stewardship because I had not taken part in his election as Speaker, he made me apologise, withdraw and go down on my knees and beg so that I could stay in the House. I did not think that it was terribly objectionable. It was certainly true. I was not in the Liberal Party room when Billy Snedden was elected as Speaker. The bloke who put him up, John McLeay, was then sent off as consul to Los Angeles. He did not stay for his stewardship either. This is such a childish, infantile move on behalf of the Opposition. It has shown its frustration all week with its inability to come to grips with the fact that it is in opposition. It is a hardy annual of frustrated oppositions to know how to use the tactics of the House so they can get on top of the issues. The issue that provoked today's outburst was that in Question Time the Treasurer outlined to the Parliament, and to anybody else interested in listening or in reading the Hansard, occasions when the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the shadow Treasurer, had talked about the use of the law to have a fringe benefits tax under a coalition government. It might not be the Keating fringe benefits tax, but there would be a fringe benefits tax. That is in black and white. It has been quoted. The Leader of the Opposition made a personal explanation that not everything was true, that it was not quite the way the Treasurer put it, or that there was different priority. It seems to me that such matters can come out in the thrust of a debate in the House if the Opposition wants to bring forward a matter of public importance, or whatever, to raise them. It should not denigrate the Parliament and express its frustration by trying to move a no-confidence motion in the Chair. It has done worse than that. It did not just isolate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the incident today. It does not think it is fair that it has been in opposition for 3 1/2 years and that Speakers have been elected from this side of the House. Members of the Opposition are saying that the answers that Ministers give to questions are too long. They have moved a motion of no confidence in the Deputy Speaker because, they say, Ministers go on for too long with their answers. Under the Standing Orders, the Deputy Speaker has no control over the answers given by Ministers. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, have been in the chair for only a short time. I do not know whether you have ever been in the chair in Question Time. So the Opposition has moved a motion of no confidence in a person who has never reigned over that period of the Parliament. Members of the Opposition talk about the Treasurer and who might be his personal friends, and make personal attacks. It seems to me that, on occasions, with people such as Anthony, Nixon and the present Leader of the National Party, we took a fair bit of abuse. The late Rex Connor, Jim Cairns, Clyde Cameron and Tom Uren took a fair bit of abuse. I did not notice the Speaker of the day saying: `Tut, tut, boys. Do not say those things. What you are saying is not very nice'. If members of the Opposition find themselves incompetent or unable to come to grips with the responsibilities placed on them as parliamentarians, they should go back to their Party room and have a good talk about it. They should not try to use the tactics of moving a motion of no confidence in the Deputy Speaker because they are frustrated. Had I been given an opportunity this afternoon, instead of the Leader of the National Party yelling and screaming at the Chair, we might have been able to settle this matter without the Leader of the Opposition being suspended from the House, as has been the case since 1949 when Leaders of the Opposition have found themselves in those circumstances. That has happened continuously in this Parliament. It was only because of the Opposition's tactics today that we did not succeed. As Leader of the House, I am not very happy at having to move for the suspension of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think that he is a person who unnecessarily disrupts the Parliament. But he is like everybody else. If the Chair says that something must be withdrawn, it must be withdrawn. If the Opposition wants to write different rules, if it says that the Ministers and honourable members opposite it do not have to comply with the orders of the Speaker, why do we not change the Standing Orders so that we can all abuse the Chair? No one will have any respect for that office, except the back benchers. There will be a new law for them. They will have to respect the Chair, but the rest of us will not. Perhaps the Opposition wishes to pick out those who should be able to abuse the Chair and the Standing Orders, but, if we want to run the Parliament and constructively use the Parliament for the purposes for which this institution was established, we must have respect for the Chair. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It does not matter which party is in government or who is selected by the various parties to sit in the chair; this Parliament cannot function unless there is due respect accorded to the Chair. The Opposition has been upset today and is angry about the events. It can say what it likes. We were in opposition for 7 1/2 years between 1975 and 1983 when the Speaker was from the Liberal Party. It will be a long time before we go back to that side of the House. I can tell honourable members opposite this: It is absolutely essential-they must comply with it-to respect the Chair so that that person can run this institution. If honourable members are blatantly out of order it will show up in the Parliament itself. It will not affect just one side of the Parliament; the Parliament itself will lose confidence in the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or their representative. Today has been an absolute sham. Nothing has shown up more the ineptitude of the Opposition in trying to meet all the problems that it cannot confront in debate by moving a no-confidence motion in the Deputy Speaker over a whole series of events over which he had no control and in which he had no involvement at all. The Opposition has tried, with a no-confidence motion in the Deputy Speaker, which is totally unfair to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to substantiate a motion against the Treasurer. They should get the Treasurer on his feet and see how they go with him. The trouble is that they have already made the decision that he is too good for them. They have made a decision in their Party room not to ask him questions and not to debate with him, so they used a motion of no confidence in the Deputy Speaker to try to get at the Treasurer. It is a pretty weak effort. I suggest that they go back into their Party room and get hold of someone like Clarrie Millar, who knows a little about the proceedings of this House-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister must refer to the honourable member for Wide Bay by his title. Mr YOUNG —I hope that the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) stays here, because I read in the paper today that Joh is after his seat. But we need him here. We need him particularly next Tuesday to go into their Party room and give them a bit of instruction on decent behaviour in the Parliament. Their motion today is totally out of order. There is no reason and no substantiation in the allegations which have been made against the Deputy Speaker in this House. He has carried out his job, in the very short period that he has been there, very fairly. This Parliament has been conducted properly, and we are not going to have a bar of living with the frustrations of the Opposition's inability to come to grips with the major issues by supporting a motion of no confidence in the Chair. I move: That the question be now put. Question put: The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. 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, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E Maher, M. J. Charlesworth, R. I. Martin, S. P. Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N.(Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. 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, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J. Charlesworth, R. I. Martin, S. P. Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. M. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Jenkins, H. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the House. 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 assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office Agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Blunt,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Carlton,Mr Cobb,Mr Conquest,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fife,Mr Free,Mr Hawker,Mr Hicks,Mr Hunt,Mr Kent,Mr Nehl,Mr Ruddock,Mr Sharp,Mrs Sullivan,Mr Tickner and Mr Young. 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Ms McHugh 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 showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker,Mr Kent and Mr Young. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That families have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of their net disposable income through: failure to index family allowances-resulting in a 50% loss in their real value since 1976; abolition of family allowances for dependants who have turned 18-even those still at school; failure to increase the spouse rebate since 1982; discriminatory taxation system-which penalises single income families. Recognising the cost benefit to taxpayers when the intact family unit itself delivers essential care to the extended family. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take immediate action to: restore the lost value of family allowances and to index them to cover future price rises; introduce optional income-splitting for taxation purposes; retain the spouse rebate. 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 assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That taxpayers with dependent children have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of recognition provided in the taxation system for the costs of maintaining a family, in particular: the failure to index family allowances which has resulted in an erosion of more than 50% in their real value since May 1976; the abolition of family allowances for dependents who have turned 18, even those still at school; the abolition of concessional tax rebates for education and other expenses. That this erosion in horizontal tax equity has placed an intolerable financial burden on many larger families, particularly those on middle incomes who fail to qualify for means-tested benefits such as TEAS but whose living standards are now well below average due to heavy expenses on necessities such as education, housing, food and clothing. Your petitioners humbly pray that: family allowances be restored to the 1976 value (in real terms), and indexed according to the CPI; the dependent spouse rebate to be retained; the Federal Government take urgent measures to restore equitable provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jenkins,Mr Kent and Mr Saunderson. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December, 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer and Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker. 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject any move to cut funding to Australia-wide English as a Second Language programs in schools. We request that the Australian government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986-87 budget. by Mr Ruddock and Mr Tickner. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: 1. The Australian Government exert pressure on Moscow to- (a) Allow the International Atomic Energy Commission full expert investigation of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and its human consequences; (b) Allow Australian Ukrainians to send medical aid to family and friends in Soviet Ukraine; and, (c) Allow free communication between Australian and Soviet Ukrainians. 2. The Australian Government- (a) Launch a public appeal to help Chernobyl victims; (b) Support the removal of Russian nuclear weapons out of Ukraine; (c) Support the decolonization of the USSR so that captive nations like Ukraine and the Baltic states are not exploited for Soviet Russian nuclear purposes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned citizens of the Illawarra Region condemn the decision to close the Wollongong office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. And that we respectfully request that this decision be reversed immediately. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners have grave concern about recent changes in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966 which deny basic rights which have been a cornerstone of the English and Australian law for over seven hundred years. We are speaking of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right of an individual to defend himself against his accusers. This concern has come to light during recent extradition proceedings against Mssrs Hempel and Etheredge in Western Australia. We are concerned that because judicial protection of these basic rights has been excluded from the Act, refugees, migrants, Australian overseas travellers, and visitors are at risk when they have been to (or come from) countries where the norms and practices of human rights and civil liberties are below traditionally accepted Australian standards. We the undersigned petitioners, therefore urge the government to re-examine the Extradition (Foreign States) Act (as amended in 1985), and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Campbell. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That an additional tax on gold production would drastically effect the gold mining industry and impoverish the communities and infrastructure dependent on its existence and continuing development. 2. That any additional taxation raised with such a tax would not compensate for the loss to Australia of export earnings, employment opportunities, infrastructure development and the multiplier effect of the gold mining industry in all these areas, on the general community. And we your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Campbell. 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: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. 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. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to air ship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government of Australia to intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka: to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; to offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programmes, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation to any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; as a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament House. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners humbly pray that you 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 Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 Maranoa electorate respectfully showeth that: The current Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. 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 every pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully shows that the lack of a medicare office in Lalor/Thomastown is seriously inconveniencing the residents of the Shire of Whittlesea. Your petitioners therefore request that a medicare office be established in Lalor/Thomastown as soon as possible. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jenkins. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; that the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; that the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; that the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: `That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the closure of the Wollongong area office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. 2. That the impact of the closure of the office in Wollongong will be particularly felt by by the non-english speaking migrants and community at large from Shoalhaven to Hellensburgh and as far as Wingecarribee and Wollondilly. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that the area office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Wollongong is kept operational and full staffed. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners wish that all medicines prescribed by a registered Medical Practitioner be made available free of charge by the Government to all pensioners for the following reasons: 1. The enormous cost of some drugs, including pain relieving ones, not at present on the ``free list''. 2. That certain drugs essential for the permanently disabled, such as epileptics, are at present being charged for and therefore present a great financial burden to the pensioner. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will consider our wishes. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia of Albanian back ground respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the use of the ``Special Broadcasting Service'' and the taxpayers funds for nationalist political purposes. We are deeply concerned that the existing Albanian program on Radio 3 EA Melbourne is not meeting the needs of the community. It is being used against its interests, as well as the interests of the broader Australian society. We respectfully believe that such use of public facilities undermines Australian principles of multi-culturalism and has a damaging effect on community relations. Your petitioners, therefore, strongly urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure that the present announcers of the Albanian program are removed and replaced with community representatives. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Speaker and Honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Government has imposed the Fringe Benefits Tax, such a tax will increase inflationary pressures, lead to a net loss in employment, and will add significant cost and time burdens to business in this country and is in every sense an inequitable taxation measure. The following people in the State of Tasmania therefore urge the Federal Parliament to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: (a) The film ``Hail Mary' (i.e. ``Je Vous salue Marie'') has been registered by the Film Censorship Board for public exhibition with a Restricted Classification; and is due to be screened in the forthcoming Sydney Film Festival; (b) The film is a blasphemous and pornographic attack on Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph and the Archangel Gabriel, as such it is extremely offensive to the undersigned. (c) The film therefore breaches regulation 13 (1) of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives call upon the Attorney-General, as the Minister responsible, to prevent the exhibition of the film in Australia. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Nehl. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject the Federal government cuts to Australia-wide English as Second Language programs and the axing of Multicultural Educational Program and we request the restoration of funding to these programs. by Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactors immediately and permanently, and that no new nuclear reactors be built within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We your petitioners, humbly showeth: That the wildlife species, in this case-the Kangaroo, have a right to exist and flourish independently of human needs. For this reason alone we should not regard the kangaroo as a human resource nor contemplate commercial exploitation simply because more offspring are born each generation than can hope to survive. Permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective legislation is completely ineffective and inadequate due to the widespread nature of the industry. All Australians have a responsibility to our already declining wildlife. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: (1) Ban the exports of products made from kangaroos. (2) Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. 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 Cadman 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: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. 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 humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government 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 Blunt. To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament. We, the undersigned citizens and electors of Queensland do humbly pray that the Queensland members of the House of Representatives will: (i) Oppose the introduction of the $250 Tertiary Administration Fees that were announced in the Federal Budget on Tuesday 19th August 1986. (ii) Vote against any legislation that would attempt to establish this fee, given that it is setting a precedent for further increases in fees. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Victoria 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. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Cowper Electorate, respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor government's productivity superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian atomic energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to ease domestic cost pressures on farmers. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the business of the day be called on. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! Honourable members have just been participating in a debate in which some have said that they thought that the House was not being conducted in a proper fashion. I hope that they will hold to their own words and heed the Chair when it is about to put a motion to the House. Mr Spender interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will know enough not to interject while the Chair is on its feet. The honourable member, who interjects frequently, might not do so while the Chair is speaking to the House. Question put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Baldwin, P. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, 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, John Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lee, M.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Martin, S. P.Chynoweth. R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, J. D. M. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N.(Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N.Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W.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.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Mr Deputy Speaker, late last night at the very close of the House, in the final stages of the adjournment debate, while you were in the chair, the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) used words of description that I object to and I would like them withdrawn. Mr Chynoweth —It's too late. Mr CADMAN —This is the first chance I have had to check it as the House got up then. I was on my feet when Mr Deputy Speaker left the chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -I hope the honourable member is not inferring that I left the chair deliberately. I am at a difficulty in knowing whether it is the earliest convenience for the honourable member to raise this. It probably is. I therefore ask the honourable member for Chisholm to withdraw the remarks as the honourable member for Mitchell finds them offensive. Ms Mayer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw anything that the honourable member finds offensive. Debate resumed. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(4.43) —I have only a couple of minutes remaining in which to make my remarks on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. Before the debate was adjourned earlier I was going to make some comparisons between the Government's Medicare policy and the Opposition's policy on health care. I am sure that we all remember the changes that occurred under the Fraser Government's health care policies. I recall that we had five changes in seven years and that not one of them worked. Every year people used to say `I can feel another health scheme coming on', because that is what happened every year under the Fraser Government. The Liberal Party and National Parties are now proposing that if they were re-elected to government there would be further changes to health policy. They are basically saying that they would allow the opting out of Medicare arrangements for those who can afford private cover and that they would abolish bulk billing-for those who really need it. I want to make two brief points about that. Basic private hospital insurance already costs $7 a week or $350 a year. There is no doubt that that amount would double if the Opposition removed the $1 billion Medicare subsidy which is paid to the States to compensate for the specific impact of Medicare on public hospital revenue. Under the Opposition's policy, as the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) remarks, private cover alone, just for hospital care, would cost $14 a week or in the vicinity of $700 a year. But what is more remarkable is that, additional to that, the Liberal spokesman for health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has stated on a number of occasions that private medical insurance would cost at least as much as hospital insurance. So the Liberal Party is proposing private health insurance premiums of at least $25 a week for family cover. I think that is totally outrageous because if we do our arithmetic correctly and multiply 52 weeks in a year, by $25 we see that it would cost the average family about $1,300 a year. Frankly, the average family in Australia-70 per cent of them earn less than average weekly earnings-simply could not afford, in its wildest dreams, to pay $1,300 a year for private medical insurance yet that is the Opposition's policy. If such a family dropped out it would be left with nothing. Under the old Fraser policy literally millions of people in Australia were denied any semblance of health cover. That was a social and economic disgrace and it would recur if the Opposition were ever re-elected to office. The final point I want to make concerns bulk billing. The Opposition has also claimed that the abolition of direct bulk billing would somehow end overservicing. No political party has advocated the abolition of direct billing for pensioners and other welfare beneficiaries, because this group is responsible for about 70 per cent of all the direct billed services. The case against direct billing, when we really think it through, comes down to the remaining 30 per cent of services which are direct billed to the general public. Seventy per cent are basically pensioners and welfare beneficiaries and 30 per cent are members of the general public. In turn, that 30 per cent represents only 10 per cent of all the medical costs and services in Australia, and in money terms it amounts to $266m. No one in Australia, not a soul, is suggesting that all of those services are unnecessary. If we said that one out of every 10 of those services was unnecessary we would get a total saving in a year of $28m. When we compare that to the administrative efficiencies and the cost savings that have been brought about through having a single Medicare cover, we are comparing $28m to the many tens of millions of dollars that have been saved through the more efficient Medicare mechanism. I oppose the amendment. I fully support the Bill before the House. I find it astonishing that the Opposition in its amendment should condemn the Government for what it says is its latest attack on the private sector, which will increase the cost of private hospital insurance. The fact is that if we resorted to the policy proposed by the Opposition health insurance premiums would cost about $1,300 per annum. I think that is an outrageous proposition. When the next election comes around, in about 18 months time, we will be prepared to campaign as heavily as honourable members opposite like on this issue. They will not win a vote after telling people that their policies will cost them $1,300 a year in hospital or medical insurance. Mr Porter —Then what are you worried about? Mr BRUMBY —I am not worried about a thing. We stand fully behind this legislation and Medicare, which has done such a fine job for people throughout Australia. (Quorum formed) Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Let me make one brief observation about remarks being made while people are entering and leaving the chamber. First, they are quite disorderly and, secondly, there is some doubt as to whether any protection would be given to honourable members uttering them. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(4.52) —The House is debating the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) which is a very extensive piece of legislation. The debate thus far has covered only a fraction of its content. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who has attempted, once again in this House, to present a case on behalf of the Government, has failed lamentably. He suggested that the amendments will in no way jeopardise the standard of service, in no way undermine the private hospital sector or the benefits that patients by and large currently receive for medical or hospital treatment. Of course this is farcical because we now know the effect of Medicare on the broad spectrum of health services in this country. We know of the waiting lists and the disaster in New South Wales. If the position is better in Victoria, good luck to the honourable member for Bendigo. Certainly in New South Wales the current health position as far as hospitals are concerned is chaotic. I have cases in my office of people who are waiting for treatment. They have waited for months and months but there is no sign of a possibility that they will get to the right point in the queue where they will receive quite important treatment. Their condition is such that they are seriously affected simply as a consequence of the worry of not being able to get into a hospital for treatment. I am sure the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) is well aware of this situation and I am sure that many who have a consciousness of the health problem in Australia, and particularly in New South Wales, want to see a remedy to many of these problems. It is to be hoped that some of the announcements by the New South Wales Government in its Budget last night will be a serious attempt to overcome the problems. However, the whole system is beset by the imposition of the present Medicare scheme, a scheme which has unfortunately turned out to be a monster. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has been doing nothing else but defend it since he introduced it. I am afraid he has been defending it without getting very much joy out of it. He pretends to enjoy it; he makes very frequent statements. His answers to questions in this House over the last 18 months have shown conclusively that he is on a loser with the whole proposition. No doubt when he replies to this debate we will again hear-I do not think this is putting it too drastically-viciousness when he refers quite unfairly to the doctors of this country as he has time and time again. He has made them the chopping block for the things that have gone wrong with the Medicare scheme. The shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), has been doing a magnificent job in this country trying to sort out the mess created by the present Minister for Health. What do we find in this legislation? We find a further move towards holding the cutting back of the private sector in favour of the public sector. Yet, if one looks at the cost structure of the private hospital system, the services provided, and the way in which services are rendered to patients, there is no doubt that there is a very great need for an expansion of the private hospital system. But no, that does not suit the philosophy of this Government. It wants to expand the public hospital system despite the difficulties that are so obvious-the high cost escalation and the very great difficulties that the major hospitals of the metropolitan areas, certainly in Sydney, have experienced. Anyone who has had any reason to visit or, unfortunately, to be a patient or to have relatives who are patients in the large hospitals, such as the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, would have seen day after day the dilemma that the administration of such hospitals face. They face that dilemma because of the policies of the New South Wales State Labor Government and because of the difficulties that have been created, most of which have been premised on the same philosophy that this legislation creates for the health services of this country. It is a philosophy that takes us down the track into the kinds of difficulties we found under the last Labor government, difficulties which had to be remedied by the Fraser-Anthony Government. I think the honourable member for Bendigo said: `The premise of the previous Government was that the public could feel another health scheme coming on'. The honourable member can use that analogy if he wants to but the truth of the matter is that to remedy the mess, the Fraser-Anthony Government constantly had to make changes to try to get some sense into the restoration of the whole system. I have no doubt that we will go through all that again simply because such a mess has been created. I say to the honourable member for Bendigo that by and large at the present time it is not a matter of the public feeling another health scheme coming on. It feels very severely the one that is in place now because of its shortcomings. It feels it severely because of the difficulties it has created and it certainly feels it severely because of the cost escalation that has occurred under the Medicare scheme as we have it today. Why is the cost escalation that the Minister is now introducing in this legislation necessary? It is simply because costs have got out of hand. Mr Conquest —And there was never going to be more than a one per cent levy, either. Mr IAN ROBINSON —That was a promise that was not kept. Having broken that promise, we now have something even worse and that is the Minister's assertion that this 25 per cent increase in the contribution to Medicare will solve the financial problems of the system. He knows that it will not; he knows that Medicare is in dire trouble financially, that it is a debacle in every possible direction. It is in that respect that the shadow Minister has done such a marvellous job, despite the difficulties that anyone outside the system has in making assessments and judgments and being constructive about it. He has really made the public and the nation aware of the real dilemma we face. I mentioned that many matters were covered in this legislation that have not been the subject of debate. Fortunately, the pharmaceutical side of this debate was covered by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) who has a full knowledge of these matters. His time ran out just as he was making the point that some of the changes that have been brought on may have been justified, but I have never seen anything as clumsy as the statements issued by the Minister. They were callous and without explanation. Let us take pensioners as an example who felt a dependency on the aspirin-based prescriptions that have been part of their life for a long time. These are elderly people who do not understand the real import of pharmacy technology, if I can use that word. Why would it have been difficult for the Minister to issue a statement that said fairly clearly that there are alternatives that the medical profession can give to them? He could have advised the medical profession at the same time. But not on your life; out came a very curt response which said `you have been lead up the garden path. Long term use of some of these medications can become dangerous'. The Government scared elderly people instead of using easy terminology and putting it in a way that gives confidence to those who need some real assistance not only from the government, but also from their doctor, their pharmacist and, of course, from their family, they are left in obscurity because of poor public relations. But, that is part of the system of Medicare; people are told where they are up to, short, sharp and curtly and without any finesse whatsoever. We find exactly the same thing happening in respect of other propositions under this legislation. The proposition to hand over to the States the isolated patients' travel assistance is, at this stage, virtually a mystery to those who are dependent upon travel assistance from isolated locations to get to specialist treatment. The announcement and this legislation tells us that this scheme will terminate at the end of December next, that the States will introduce a scheme. But the announcement says: `We do not know how it will operate. It is not yet known on what basis the new scheme will function. We are putting in, from the Commonwealth to the States through taxed reimbursement, 26 per cent more than was expended on the scheme in the past financial year'. If ever the use of money was used merely to cast off a responsibility it can be seen in this Parliament. Twenty-six per cent more money is to be dished out to the States but nothing at all is said about what the arrangements will be. `Leave it to the individual States', the Government says. I am a States righter. I believe that the States should shoulder responsibility for administration. But what happens when we have a scheme that has guidelines and a process of operation, one that has settled down and is satisfactory, and when the Government says: `Right, that is the end of that. The individual States from here on will exercise the administration'? Just imagine the changes, the abruptness, and the worry for people in ill-health. there is no finesse in saying what will happen and how it will happen. The necessary information for the confidence of those independent people should be maintained. Why could not the alternative scheme be worked out before this announcement, before this legislation? That would be too hard, would it not? When we see the composition of the present State governments and this Federal Government we know why they were not prepared to take the task on and to work out a new scheme before announcing the termination of the old, to work out an alternative scheme with Commonwealth financial assistance. What it means is quite obvious. This Government is withdrawing financial support and making the excuse that it will hand over funds to the States, but to hell with how the thing will function and operate from there on. That, I believe, is a very poor way for any government to act in a matter so important to isolated patients throughout Australia. I will not give examples in the limited time available to me but this is a callous way of acting. It is an action that the Minister could, surely at this eleventh hour, reverse to the point of saying: `We will get the States together. We will get some agreement as to how the alternative scheme will work. We will ask the States to administer it'-the excuse he has given is that it is too administratively difficult-`for at least the first 12 months. We will have some oversighting, some participation in working out the scheme and in deciding who will get the benefits. We will find out what this will really mean to those who have become dependent on it'. When I said `dependent' I was not suggesting that people are using the scheme. There is no way that they can do that under the provisions of the existing scheme. The scheme is there for people with genuine need. It is there to help those in dire trouble. Let us look at what has happened to transport costs in the last three or four years. Air fares and rail fares have increased. People who live in distant parts of Australia need to get proper specialist treatment. Without this assistance they will face real problems. If they are pensioners in particular they are facing a cost which they will not be able to meet unless there is a smooth transition between this scheme and the alternative scheme that is being proposed. I would not trust any undertaking that the thing will be in place by 1 January unless there is co-ordination by the Federal Government. There is no suggestion that that is likely to occur at all. Dr Klugman —You are just a centralist. Mr IAN ROBINSON —The honourable member says that I am just a centralist. The honourable member for Prospect knows very well that many of us support State rights and are not centralists, but we are looking at something now that is merely an excuse for the Government to withdraw a responsibility that it has. I would not trust the New South Wales Government in this matter one little bit. We have seen what it did to school transport. We have seen what it has done in so many other directions. It all hinges on the fact that if one lives in a distant location that is just too bad and the Government does not want to help. If that is going to happen to people who need assistance for travel for specialist treatment, of course it is a very serious matter. I will attempt to cover not more than one or two other matters briefly. I refer to other propositions in this legislation which withdraw some of the benefits for treatment, not only under the pharmaceutical aspect, but also in terms of what can be done through the private hospital sector, as I mentioned earlier. If we are to see a contraction of private hospital services one of two things will happen: Either the public service will be overloaded or the costs will increase astronomically and people will be on the end of a queue for an even longer time. I believe that the legislation before the house merely opens up a Pandora's box of the great dilemma with the health services of this country. No matter what excuses the Minister advances, the advent of Medicare is still a very unfortunate trend. It is one that has disadvantaged the ordinary person who needs medical, hospital and pharmaceutical assistance. It is a tragedy that the cost elements of this have now escalated in the way that they have. I hope that the House will take some heed of the amendment moved by the shadow Minister for Health because of the importance of what is outlined in that amendment. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(5.10) —It had been my intention to speak at some length in reply to honourable members opposite who have participated in the debate, but only two significant items arose in the debate. One was the disagreement by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) with the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), who claimed credit for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme changes. The honourable members for Petrie strongly disagreed with the changes. It is rare that I agree with the honourable member for Barker but I certainly support him on this occasion. The changes are exceptionally rational-for changes coming from any government, I suppose. The changes in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme have been due for a long time. I have just written down some examples of what has happened with ordinary patients-people not covered as pensioners or by special benefits-who have to pay. Currently they pay $5 for items such as 250-milligram capsules of penicillin, for which the Commonwealth pays only $4.90 to the chemist. That is not so bad because at least there is no second transaction involved, but for sulpha tablets such as Gantrisin the payment to the chemist is $5.14. The chemist collects $5 from the patient and then has to submit a prescription and account to the Department of Health for the 14c. The same occurs with the vast majority of the 2,000 items on the pharmaceutical free list. There is just no point in subsidising the ordinary person for an occasional prescription for an acute illness, whether for themselves or for their children. It has just built up a huge bureaucracy and to my mind it is completely pointless. The people we do have to help are pensioners who are means tested quite severely and people who may have a greater income but who have chronic conditions themselves or have one or more people in the family with significant chronic conditions. I suggest to the Opposition Whip that if he is about to call a quorum it is a bit pointless because I am not going to take anything like 20 minutes, but if he wants to give me an audience I certainly think that some of the things I would like to say deserve a better audience. (Quorum formed) I think it is important that the House occasionally have some fairly rational debate on the question of health schemes. I do not want to go too far on the question of changes to the pharmaceutical benefits schedule but I congratulate the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) on bringing them in. Like the honourable member for Barker, I can claim that I have advocated changes for a long, long time. They are rational changes and they help those people who need the help. To some extent they will get rid of some of the bureaucracy involved. Obviously there are going to be problems with the decision as to when 25 prescriptions have been filled by any one family and there will be complaints from the Opposition, as predicted by the honourable member for Petrie. I want to deal with a couple of other items that have been raised by the Opposition in the debate. First is one that Medicare gets the blame for-waiting times. The question of waiting times has never been an exceptionally important one. Waiting times apply in nearly all cases, to elective surgery. In fact a large number of children may be listed for elective surgery-for instance, tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. However, by the time a bed becomes available, well over half of them no longer require the surgery. I think that is proof that they never required the surgery in the first place. I think the same applies to a certain proportion of women approaching menopause who are listed for hysterectomies. They may have been bleeding excessively or irregularly or they may have had pre-menstrual pain, pain in general or dispareunia. If they are lucky enough to be public patients they may never have the hysterectomy because the rationale for the operation disappears. Mr Bilney —They could go to a community women's health centre. Dr KLUGMAN —Yes. That may well be one of the things that we ought to encourage doctors to say, but some of the feminists get very hostile if it is suggested that they are being conned by their medical practitioners. There is a demand for a lot of surgery now in elderly people. Whilst surgeons used to try to avoid surgery in elderly people unless it was absolutely necessary, restorative surgery or replacement surgery has become extremely popular, especially with the orthopaedic surgeons, who offer hip, knee or ankle replacements or, I am sure, other joint replacements. I do not know what the official figures are for the satisfactory outcome of those types of surgery. I suppose I am prejudiced because the people I see or hear about are the ones for whom it was not extremely successful or successful at all. Maybe such operations can be justified in a large proportion of cases, but I have some doubts about that. Paragraph (3) of the amendment proposed by the Opposition reads: notes that under Medicare there are long queues for public hospital beds while there are empty private hospital beds: There have always been empty private hospital beds. Private hospitals consider that they can show a profit if they have something like a 63 or 64 per cent occupancy rate. They exceed that at certain times of the year. But at other times of the year, around Christmas and during school holidays, neither the surgeons nor the patients are particularly keen to have elective surgery take place. The surgery is probably not all that necessary anyway and the hospitals are fairly empty and run at a loss. There have always been so-called queues for public hospital treatment. I think the situation has been slightly worse lately in some hospitals, to some extent because of an alleged shortage of nurses, in the Sydney metropolitan area at least. Some hospitals have been unable to open all the beds or have had to close wards because there has been a shortage of nurses. It is a problem which may or may not be satisfactorily solved by the very significant increases in salaries for nursing staff which are beginning to filter through the arbitration system and other agreements which were entered into earlier this year. Anybody who considers that any country can afford the ultimate in medical systems where everybody gets all the medical care, whether paid for directly or otherwise, which can be offered by certain medical practitioners or the medical profession as a whole, is deluding himself. It is impossible. In the 17 July edition of the New England Medical Journal this year Dr Lister wrote about the differences between the British and United States health care systems. He said that in the free enterprise United States system-which is not really true-some 11 per cent of gross national product was spent on health care and that under the British system it is about 6.2 per cent. There are some important points to be made. One is that what is spent on health care does not seem to make any difference to life expectancy, infant mortality or any of the other things we look at. Whether one spends 6 per cent or 11 per cent of gross domestic product on health care, the outcomes seem to be similar. Dr Lister makes the point about Britain-but it also applies in the United States-that the attitude of the British Government towards health care expenditure is ambivalent, that it acknowledges the right of citizens to have access to good medical care but that it recognises that the demands are infinite whereas the resources are finite, regardless of whether the care is funded privately, through health insurance, or from public funds. That is an important point to remember. It always strikes me as being quite silly that we make this a big political issue. I am prepared to accept that the Australian Labor Party is as much at fault on this question as the Liberal Party. We have claimed that we can solve the problem. The Opposition blames Medicare for everything. We used to blame other things. The problem is just not soluble, and it is going to get worse because more people are living to an old age. Life expectancy rates are rising. Whenever I was hard up for something to say to people who were prepared to listen to me on medical topics, I used to talk about the fact that, from the age of two or three years, life expectancy in Australia and in comparable countries did not increase between 1924 and 1976. Yet in 1924 none of the drugs or surgery that were being used in 1976 were available and there were no antibiotics. Yet we had no increase in life expectancy for about 50 years, which to me was extremely surprising. However, in the last few years life expectancy has increased very significantly. In Australia, in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in Europe-it does not matter which health system a country has-life expectancy has increased by about four to five years. When one approaches the time when one worries about such things as whether one is going to take the pension or a lump sum benefit, one realises suddenly that even if one retires, say, at the age of 64-and if there is nothing specifically wrong with one; if one is the average sort of person-the life expectancy in Australia is still about another 17 years. In other words, when one is 64 one can expect to live to the age of about 80. This is going to cost a hell of a lot of money, and not only in pensions. Medical costs, hospital costs, pharmaceutical costs and nursing home costs all increase very significantly as people get older. Obviously, there will not be one solution to the problem. There will be compromises. In a country such as ours compromises have to be made in deciding on expenditure on different kinds of items, such as how much money is to be spent on health, education and infrastructure. About 10 years ago, or possibly less, I visited East Germany for a very short time. East Germany is not one of my favourite countries. However, ignoring the other features of the country, I was introduced to members of the health committee of the parliament, which parliament met on four days of the year. They were terribly proud of their health system and very pleased with everything. But I wanted to get down to tin-tacks and I asked them how decisions were made by the Government in the German Democratic Republic as to what proportion of the budget went to health, defence or education. They looked blank. I asked what kinds of pressures were exerted and what kinds of arguments were used. They gave the obvious answer that they just came to the `correct decision'. They did not seem to have any doubts about whether there was a correct decision. I put it to honourable members that this is not possible. When we are talking about health care it is silly to argue that a particular form of payment will make any very great difference. As far as we are concerned, the important thing is that nobody fails to get health care because they do not have the money to pay for it. At the same time we must realise that greater and greater amounts will be expected by the health professionals in general and by the population at large, who will all be clamouring for all kinds of improvements to their skeletons and joints as they get older. A large number of people will soon be in that age group and they will all want to get into hospitals to get, for example, hip replacements. I suggest to the Minister for health and to officers of the Department-they are the people who, hopefully, think about these things-that it is a difficult problem to solve and that we ought to be thinking intelligently about what proportion of gross national product we are prepared to spend on health care, especially on expensive items. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(5.29) —I have been a member of the Parliament for not quite as long as the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), but over the years I have always listened with a great deal of interest to his contributions. On the occasions when I have had the opportunity of following him in debate, I have always been generous about his contribution. I have a great deal of personal pleasure in expressing my admiration for the approach that he adopted on a non-party basis. He has had a great deal of experience as a private medical practitioner. His closing remarks deserve comment. What he said is true. Unfortunately, in the majority of cases, the greatest need for health care will come in the latter years of our lives. Quite fittingly and properly, he drew the House's attention to the fact that we need long term planning in this area. His contribution drew to the attention of the Government and the people of Australia the fact that we should closely examine what is more than a trend but a fact. It deserves words of congratulation. I do that in a spirit of generosity. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). I do so because I believe that it is a responsible amendment. Quite precisely, it expresses what the Opposition's policy will be when it is returned to the treasury bench. Everyone knows that that will be at the next election. I can readily understand the nervous nellies on the other side of the House, given recent polls which show that they are not only on the way out but are well out. I draw the Parliament's attention to the Opposition's amendment, which indicates that the Government's health policy has led to a clogging up of the public system of health whilst there are vacancies in the private system, as well as denying freedom of choice to a huge number of people by compelling them to belong to Medicare. Notwithstanding the Government's promises, it has increased the Medicare contribution. At the same time, as this legislation quite clearly defines, it expects people to pay a greater contribution to medical and hospital benefits funds because of the changing emphasis of deregulation of private hospitals. All honourable members have their views cushioned by their immediate surroundings. I come from a provincial city in Queensland which, whilst it is not in an isolated locale, suffers some problems of distance from a major metropolitan centre in some of the specialist services. Mr Conquest —It is a long way from Bun- daberg. Mr McVEIGH —My colleague the honourable member for Hinkler has the same problems. The comments which I shall make later about the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme are relative to his area as they are relative to the area of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and certain areas of Tasmania. The matter of principle is one about which all Australians must worry. Unfortunately for Australians there is a long litany of manoeuvres wherein the Government has said one thing and, notwithstanding any assurances given, has done another. I am not doubting for one minute that when it gave the assurances it really believed that it would honour them. This Government once again has made promises which it has not delivered. Unfortunately, the youth of Australia, after years of formation and of basic character modification, listen to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or one of his Ministers saying, quite unequivocally, that the Government will maintain the policies on which it was elected. Let us cast our minds back to 13 November 1984. The scene is an orchestrated one. Honourable members may recall that the Prime Minister could easily have got a ticket as a member of Actors Equity as he strutted the stage of the Sydney Opera House. He did not try to talk with the Australian people; he lectured them about what his second Labor government would do if the people would have confidence in him and re-elect him. He deserves the ratings that he is getting in the Press now. This Bill is an indication that one cannot trust him. I quote his words on Medicare. I can understand that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) must feel a little ashamed of his Prime Minister for saying these things and asking him to go round Australia repeating the promises. I know that he must be upset and that he feels let down. On 13 November 1984, at the Sydney Opera House, the Prime Minister said: . . . and now I give you this undertaking-that for the term of our next government the Medicare levy will not be increased. Mr Porter —You cannot trust him. Mr McVEIGH —As the shadow Minister says, one cannot trust him. It would be great to be Max Gillies. His program is made for him. Every time he goes on television he just has to look like the Prime Minister and mimic his words to get the message across. The situation is unfortunate, as I have said, for the young people of Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, you must be concerned about this also. What a mockery the Bill makes of that promise. In less than two years we are faced with an increase in the Medicare levy. We do not have just a capital gains tax but higher fuel prices. All those promises have been broken. The Minister in his second reading speech said: Honourable members are aware of the difficult economic circumstances which necessitated a rigorous scrutiny of all areas of government expenditure. Government members accept no blame. They have no compunction about saying that they are bad economic managers. They seek to blame the rest of the world. They say nothing about Budget deficits, pulling the wool over Australians' eyes and having no cut in government expenditure but a massive increase in the government take. Government members are not prepared to come to grips with monitoring fiscal and wages policy. They are frightened even to touch it. Because of the lack of muscle and intestinal fortitude on the part of those who sit opposite, people are making their own decisions. Those decisions are coming from fair dinkum Australian workers. Last night I was contacted by a huge employer of labour in my electorate. He said that earlier that day he had called all his men together and showed them the books. He said: `Unless we do something, this business will close down and 305 people will be out of work. Do you have any suggestions?' I am delighted that the unanimous consent of those men was given. Of course, there were no highly paid union leaders there. They said: `We are prepared to work 44 hours a week with no extra pay for the extra hours worked.' Mr Braithwaite —A commonsense approach. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Dawson says, it is a commonsense approach. Members of the Government get bogged down in a whole heap of union rules and jargon which has the end result of losing jobs and pricing people out of positions. That is the problem with the Government's economic decisions. Why was the Minister not honest enough to comment on those points of view in his second reading speech? At least then we would have had an acknowledgment that those opposite are bad economic managers. The rest of Australia, particularly the private sector, will have to pay for the Government's inability to manage its affairs. Of course, we are going to witness a backing out of the long-promised tax cuts, which have been delayed already. I am offering the suggesting that they do not even look to be a certainty for December, because how can we believe the Government? I say to the Minister that his sense of loyalty to the Australian public is about as strong as the loyalty of himself and his comrades to their Labor Party policies. I will enumerate them: Aboriginal land rights, uranium mining-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I realise that this Bill has fairly wide ramifications, but I do not think they are that wide. I would ask the honourable member for Groom to come back to the contents of the Bill. Mr McVEIGH —I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I just quote the second reading speech: Honourable members are aware of the difficult economic circumstances which necessitated a rigorous scrutiny of all areas of government expenditure. I am just making the people aware of what I believe are the pseudo-economic circumstances brought on by the inability of the Government. It is quite fitting and appropriate in a piece of legislation like this to comment on the Minister's utterings. That is the long-established practice of this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We are dealing with the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, and I would ask the honourable member for Groom to speak to that Bill. Mr McVEIGH —I am aware of the Government's continuing process of undermining the intelligence of members of the Australian public and treating them with such contempt and disrespect, such as saying that it will not increase the Medicare levy and then it does so. But there are many such instances: The reintroduction of tertiary fees, the elimination of the- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Groom cannot obey the ruling of the Chair, I will ask him to resume his seat. Mr McVEIGH —I am talking about the elimination of the private hospital bed day subsidy. I presume that that is in order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Quite in order. Mr McVEIGH —Good. The Government is reneging on that assurance, just as it is reneging on all the other assurances it gave when Medicare was introduced. In effect, those patients who prefer private hospital care will now be faced with increased insurance premiums as well as higher Medicare contributions. They will be paying more for exactly the same as they are getting now. Unfortunately, no State will be hurt more than Queensland, because among the fairly rugged individuals up there-men and women of great intelligence, which is indicated by the Government that they have had for many years-there are more private patients in private hospital beds than in any other State in the nation. As a result of this action, it is anticipated, as the amendment moved by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) shows, that more private patients will be dropping out of private cover and seeking public hospital care. Of course, this will create greater pressure on the public hospital system, as the member for Prospect said, which is currently on the critically ill list and possibly close to death by strangulation. The private sector has once again been singled out and replaced with the more costly and less efficient public system of operation. This decision will make it more difficult to provide care in the regional areas of this country, because the two systems of public and private health care will no longer be as complementary. The Minister in his second reading speech said: The appropriate role for the Commonwealth is to develop national health policy objectives-- I hope the Minister takes on board the contribution of the honourable member for Prospect- not the detailed administration of controls that the States should be administering. While this is an admirable stand, certain problems arise in the interim period of phasing out Commonwealth controls and implementing State government administration. This concern is particularly felt in the approval and categorisation of private hospitals, especially those which provide care for the uninsured. These, of course, are the charitable, religious and community hospitals which have a tradition of caring for these needy people. Concern has been expressed to me about the lack of policy by the Government for the terminally ill and chronically ill who all too often become patients of these hospitals. I advise the Minister that out there a lot of people who administer these hospitals are worried, because they cannot get a definite commitment or real information from the Department of Health as to what the rules and regulations are going to be. One hospital that comes to mind is the Mount Olivet Hospital in Brisbane, which has been funded by private people and the Roman Catholic Church-- Mr Hodges —A good hospital, too. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) says, it is a good hospital. They are concerned because an enormous number of their patients have been looked after by charitable means, and they simply want to know what will be the arrangements and when will they be made known. I ask the Minister to treat these types of hospitals with compassion on the one hand and consideration on the other. We cannot allow them to be left in this land of limbo. After 35 days, the patients about who I am speaking are incorporated into nursing home arrangements by the hospital, if they are insured, or shifted to charitable hospitals if the are uninsured. The main problem with this arrangement, as I understand it, is that no grant provision has been mentioned to cover the cost of maintaining these people during the interim period from 1 October to 1 July 1987. We are all aware that Queensland is a vast, decentralised State with many far-flung towns and centres. The tyranny of distance brings with it many problems for those unfortunate enough to reside in isolated areas which are far from the services provided in a major metropolitan area. Last year alone in Queensland, there were some 36,000 private patients claims for refunds under the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme. It is an excellent scheme, but it is better to administer it under the State Government, which is aware of the difficulties and knows the procedures of the hospitals and the professional services that are available. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) introduced that legislation. We can only expect that the States will develop more flexible arrangements for the chronically ill or patients who face recurring visits to the hospitals outside their regional area. I trust that the Commonwealth will honour its undertaking to provide substantial funding through special revenue assistance grants to the States and not eventually shift the financial burden of this program on to the States in the future. One other change which concerns me and discriminates against people living outside major centres is the arrangement, as I understand it, made with the Diabetes Foundation to provide diabetics with their essential supplies. Country people do not always have access to these specialist services and must, therefore, depend on the nearest pharmacist for their insulin, syringes and needles. Common sense dictates that pharmacists in such isolated areas will still be in a position to dispense these supplies when required by their customers. I hope that this type of arrangement of providing various foundations for the chronically ill with grants will not spill over into other areas which require specialised pharmaceutical drugs, because our chemists provide a valuable service to our communities. Let us make sure that, if there are to be special grants, the pharmacists are in a position to provide exactly the same goods and services at the same cost for the people who live in country areas. The Government has made some radical decisions in this year's expenditure on Medicare; unfortunately, most of them place a greater burden on families. No one will be able to escape the increased costs of health care, and many will opt out of private cover, placing greater strains on an already collapsing public system. I appeal to the Minister to consider the position of war widows under the arrangements which he has made. I cannot understand how a Government could have such little sensitivity to those people as to transfer them from the Department of Veterans' Affairs to the Department of Social Security. There are two disadvantages: Firstly, they will be unable to receive all the drugs that are available under the repatriation system in the social security system; and, secondly, if they are covered by private insurance, this Government is going to seek to recover the insurance amounts from them. This will lead eventually to higher premiums for them. I ask the Minister to show at least some sensitivity to those people. The bottom line of any health plan is to begin to educate the public to take more responsibility for the maintenance of their own health and well-being. The trend towards medical self-care in Australia should be encouraged by doctors. This would result in doctors having more time to deal with serious medical problems because the onus is on the patients to treat their own minor illnesses. It is all part of the re-education process-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT —(Bonython-Minister for Health) (5.50)-I thank all honourable members who have participated in this debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. I will try to comment briefly on their contributions, particularly those that were critical. The most interesting thing, of course, about the contribution of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), was that we heard the same old cliches again. It is one of the reasons why he is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the health debate in this country. But his contribution contained two new features. One was a novel definition of broken election promises. Apparently, anything said by shadow Ministers in the House now becomes election promises. He quoted two remarks that I had made in this House. Somehow they have now been turned into election promises. Neither remark was ever an election promise. But we are now busily working through the shadow Minister's statements over the last 18 months to determine his election promises. The second novel feature of his otherwise cliche-ridden speech was that he laid claim to the parenthood of the new pharmaceutical benefits scheme. People may judge the validity of that claim. But it was interesting that one of his colleagues, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), disagreed entirely with the new pharmaceutical benefits scheme. He poured great scorn upon it. But I will leave the so-called parent of the scheme and his back bench colleague to resolve that contradiction. The honourable member for Barker is, of course, now notorious for throwing figures around that he does not understand. I will not refer to all of those fictitious contributions. But I point out one thing: The moneys paid by this Government to the States for hospitals are indexed under basic agreements and therefore at least maintain their real value. For instance, the identified health grant, which is the chief source of hospital funding from the Commonwealth, had a 2 per cent real increase in this financial year. The other major hospital grant, the Medicare grant, is an indexed compensation grant. It is indexed under an agreement with the States. It is true that there are occasionally one-off payments for particular things that happen each year. Adjustments are made in that way. If one studied the figures and had some understanding of them, one would not make some of the statements that the honourable member makes. But if he examines the figures properly he will see that these are indexed arrangements; that is, they retain their real value year by year. Indeed, one might point out that under this Government the money given to the States for their hospital systems has doubled in the nearly four years that we have been in power. Waiting lists are, of course, a favourite topic. Indeed, they have almost become the only topic left to the honourable member for Barker. I will make three points about his argument: First, it reveals double standards; secondly, the logic of it is flawed; and, thirdly, it is based on a most imperfect analysis. Let us take the case of double standards. The Opposition, of course, has no concerns, no worries, about the two million Australians who did not have medical and hospital cover prior to the introduction of Medicare. The Opposition does not worry about their illnesses and their problems. That is the first point I make. I also make the point that it is now becoming quite clear that the chief reason for the increase in medical benefit costs in this country is primarily the fact that those people who previously did not have cover are at last entering the system. That is the chief reason for the growth in medical benefit costs which, of course, appears to be plateauing, as one would expect, as those two million people move into the system over time. The flawed logic of the honourable member's case in relation to waiting lists is that there has been no shift from private hospitals to public hospitals. Occupancy rates in private hospitals across this country are now much as they were before the introduction of Medicare. Many of the people who used private hospitals have not suddenly flooded into the public hospital system. The problems in the public hospital system, as those who have bothered to study it will know-as the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) pointed out; but, of course, these things are never taken account of by the honourable member for Barker because they require some thought-are, first, that the shortage of nurses in particular and other staff problems have occasioned difficulties in the public hospital system and, secondly, that there has been a major revolution in technological provision in medicine in this country. This means, of course, that there is a much greater demand for services in our hospital system than there was in the past. I will give the House a few figures which are taken from the medical benefits provisions. These figures deal with private patients in both public and private hospitals. In regard to general surgery, in the last five years, from 1981-82 to 1985-86, procedures have increased by 77 per cent. In eye surgery, the increase has been 99 per cent in five years; in thoracic surgery there has been a 45 per cent increase. In regard to particular services, lens extraction has increased by 320 per cent in five years; hip replacements by 30 per cent; open heart surgery by 41 per cent; and pacemaker operations by 51 per cent. All I am pointing out is that there has been a major revolution in the demand for services that hospitals can provide. Of course, as a result of those technological changes, the hospital systems are under pressure. But one must study those problems and those difficulties if one wants to find answers. We are now told that some great problem will befall the private hospitals as a result of the decisions we have made. It is true that, as a result of the decision we have made in relation to the subsidy given to private hospitals, there will be some increase in contribution rates of the private health funds. The figures have been most exaggerated, particularly in this debate. At least the honourable member for Petrie had the honesty to point out that the private health funds have some fat-and, by jove, it is considerable fat. In March this year they had $570m in reserve, which represents their contributors' money. Of course, we expect them to use that money to soften any increases. I believe that, with those reserves to back them up, the increases that flow from this decision will be marginal and will have very little if any impact on those who maintain private insurance. Of course, it has been said that the private hospitals were supposed to meet a terrible fate under Medicare. All the evidence available around the country is that the private hospital system is thriving. One need look only at the efforts to float private hospital companies and how quickly they are subscribed. Recently in Sydney a private hospital was being sold at a price of $150,000 per bed. The private hospital system is viable and can certainly accommodate the changes that have been made. The honourable member for Barker asked me about deregulation. The Commonwealth is deregulating its control over private hospitals. This certainly means that the State governments which have responsibilities for both the private and public systems will make the decisions about the necessary regulation that they require in order to maintain a balanced development of their public and private hospital systems. That is a decision for the States to make. We have honoured our commitment to begin, and hopefully complete by early next year, the deregulation of the private hospital system. The honourable member for Barker asked me about special grants to private hospitals. We have set down two conditions. Those private hospitals which have had in the past a substantial proportion of pensioner and non-privately insured patients-that is, those which have an historic record of having played a real charitable role, and which in order to maintain that role would not be viable-have been asked to apply to the Commonwealth Government, giving indications of their historic services in these areas. They cannot suddenly become charitable hospitals, but those which have that record will present that information in relation to their viability to the Government, and the Government will provide specific purpose grants for those private hospitals. I turn briefly to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I am glad that on the whole the Pharmacy Guild of Australia has been very supportive of the scheme we have introduced. It is not a question of is being browbeaten, as someone suggested. It has been fully consulted. Indeed, in many ways the principles of the scheme stem from the proposals of the Pharmacy Guild. In many ways it played a major role in designing the scheme, which I acknowledged in my second reading speech. The honourable member for Petrie, who should know better, sought to cast enormous doubts about the administrative problems of the scheme. He referred to hordes of entitlement forms floating around the country like confetti. I point out in regard to his figures that nearly 50 per cent of the population did not even get a pharmaceutical benefit last year. So one can immediately begin by dividing his figures by half. Most of his claims were exaggerated rhetoric, although I will say that we will need to watch ways in which the scheme might possibly be abused. Any scheme which is designed to bring benefits, as this scheme is, to the chronically ill, will need to be watched in order that neither the patients themselves nor the professionals involved with them do not abuse the scheme. I thank honourable members on both sides of the House, most of whom have praised the rationality and sense of the scheme. The accusation has been made that I misled the House about the deletion of 46 items. The 46 items, out of a total of about 2,000, were deleted on health grounds on the basis of recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. It is true that I requested the PBAC, on health grounds, to consider these items. The trust that has developed between this Government, at least, and the PBAC leads the Committee to have complete confidence that if there were not health grounds to justify the delistings, the Government would not delist. Mr Hodges —You told it what you wanted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I warn the honourable member for Petrie. Dr BLEWETT —This Government has a record of accepting the health recommendations of the PBAC in delisting and in putting new drugs on the list. That is why a form of trust has developed between the Government and the PBAC. Both the PBAC and the Government share the belief that if we are to keep a large free drug list-over 2,000 formulations currently-the list must consist of essential drugs. It would be irresponsible of me as a Minister and irresponsible of the PBAC if I and it were not continually vigilant in ensuring that the drugs on the list are essential formulations and not drugs required for trivial or minor illnesses. I do not have to argue in my own defence. I shall quote a letter from the Medical Journal of Australia of 7 March 1981, in which it was written: Each of the items was removed from the schedule of benefits on the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. This committee was established under the National Health Act to advise the Minister for Health on pharmaceutical benefit matters. The PBAC includes in its nine members seven doctors actively involved in medical practice. That was the previous Minister for Health, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who was justifying a series of deletions made on health grounds on the recommendations of the PBAC. The honourable member went on to say: I feel sure that most doctors would appreciate the need for the pharmaceutical benefits list to be reviewed regularly to reflect changes in authoritative medical opinion. This applies, of course, to additions as well as deletions from the list. Mr Hurford —Who said that? Dr BLEWETT —That was said by the honourable member for Warringah when he was Minister for Health, and I am prepared to echo and to abide by his words. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Barker has indicated to me that before I put the question on the amendment he wishes to make a personal explanation to the House as he claims to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Mr PORTER(Barker) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall make two points. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), in his desperation to save his political skin, wrongly suggested that I had said two things. First, he indicated that I had said during my visit to his electorate that all bush nursing hospitals and other private hospitals in his electorate would be closed. Of course, that is quite wrong. The concern of the bush nursing hospitals and private hospitals in the honourable member's area is that as a result of the removal of the private hospital subsidy, more people will be forced to give up their private health insurance. If they do that, more of the patients in the bush nursing hospitals and private hospitals, being uninsured, will not be able to pay for the hospital cover that is provided in those areas. In many instances there is no other hospital in the area; there are no public hospitals. I did not say that all hospitals would be closed. Certainly the Bush Nursing Association has indicated that it believes that about 25 of its hospitals are at risk. Secondly, the honourable member claimed that I had indicated that private medical cover under the coalition's proposal would cost $700. That is totally untrue. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Porter's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. 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. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 2-by leave-taken together. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.13) —In speaking for the Opposition I congratulate the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is at the table, because in the last couple of years he has established an acceptance in this country of some of the more radical approaches that he has brought to the health system. But I also say that the Minister's time is up because the Australian population is beginning to understand that his socialistic approach to health care is undermining the quality and the availability of health care in this nation. I suggest that the Minister may well have got his same degree- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am speaking to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). That title gives me as wide a range to speak as I would have during the second reading debate. The CHAIRMAN —No, it does not. The honourable member gets to speak to the second reading during the second reading debate. In the debate on these clauses he can speak on the short title and the date the Bill will commence. I draw the honourable member's attention to that and ask him to remain relevant. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I want to talk about what is going to happen in this country on 1 November and about the way the quality of health care available to the Australian population is going to go down hill. I was about to compare the Minister with Dr Jones of Jonestown who, like a strange Pied Piper, got so many people to swallow cyanide believing it was good for them. This Minister has endeavoured, over the last two or three years, to bring respectability-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I have pointed out to the honourable member that he can talk in the debate on these clauses about the title of the Bill and the date on which the Bill will commence. He will probably be out of order if he starts to say what he thinks may happen when the Bill commences. Mr DONALD CAMERON —After 1 November the Government is going to claw back-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member cannot say what he believes will happen. The honourable member knows that the Standing Orders provide that he shall talk to the clauses. Clause 1 refers to the short title and clause 2 covers the commencement. Mr DONALD CAMERON —On 1 November the Bill will take effect. As a result of that members of the health funds in Australia will lose at least a $140m bed subsidy. On 1 November we will see-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member is getting a bit past the ambit of the clauses. With the consent of his colleague he may be willing to take the Bill as a whole. He can then have a wider ranging debate. Is it the wish of the Committee to take the Bill as a whole? There being no objection, leave is granted. The Bill. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I thank honourable members. That gives me a wider range. On 1 November-I am now allowed to refer to the date-the Australian public is going to be ripped-off once again by a Government which has spent three years assuring people that everything it does is good for them. The Minister is walking out of the chamber. I suggest that he come back to the table. He is not going to like some of the medicine that I going to hand out to him, despite the medicine he has been pouring down the throats of the Australian population. I think it is dastardly that this Government has the audacity to reach out and impose a $140m penalty on those people who have taken out membership of the private health funds. Earlier today in this Parliament the Minister said that the private health funds have $570m in reserve. As far as the Government is concerned they are fair game. I well remember that when health funds were low on reserves some of them went to the wall. I remember the Hibernians and the Foresters. Their members were left with medical bills. Those health funds were unable to meet them because their reserves had run down. Dr Blewett —Not under Medicare. Mr DONALD CAMERON —But it happened. The Minister has this flippant attitude to health funds that hold funds. He has the view that they can have only a bit of money, otherwise it has to be distributed to the poor. That is the approach he takes. What he does not recognise and accept is that the money he is distributing across the nation belongs to the people who have contributed to the funds in the past. We have also seen what happened to Medibank Private. Quite frankly, the way it used to run its books showed that it was a better juggler than those people who invented the bottom of the harbour tax avoidance schemes. It was the greatest fiddler of the lot. If Medibank Private had not been allowed to get away with some of that fiddling three or four States of this country would not be down the drain because it was bankrupt. Whilst it has picked up a lot in the last two or three years the reality is that the Minister says that the private health funds have $570m, that that represents about four months reserves, so that is fair game. I think that the act the Minister perpetrated on private hospitals in withdrawing their subsidy was, in itself, a disgrace. The way the Minister has sneakily and in a very-I will not say slimy-underhand way transferred the entire nation's responsibility for its war veterans on to the members of private health funds is not only selective but also downright dishonest. The Chairman-Order! The honourable member cannot impute that what the Minister was doing was dishonest. The honourable member will withdraw before recommencing his speech. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I withdraw. What the Government did was downright dishonest. I predict that this is just a further step along the road of trying to destroy the principle of repatriation entitlements in this country. In 1985 we had the Veterans' Entitlement Bill. The Government tried to pluck it like a chook to reduce it to a no-cost benefit but it got beaten in the Senate. Admittedly, the Australian Democrats, the Nationals and the Liberals joined together and blocked it. The Government is now saying to veterans: `If you go to a repatriation hospital for treatment and you happen to belong to a health fund we are not going to pick up the bill. We want you to declare it and we will recover that money from the health fund'. Yet those veterans have taken out that additional entitlement as a protection, an insurance, and as something that is supplementary to the care that is available to them. I ask the Minister for Health to clarify whether this legislation will give veterans a choice of doctors. Answer me. The Chairman-Order! The honourable member-- Mr DONALD CAMERON —He ignored me. I am asking the Minister whether or not private health funds will have to pay for the medical treatment of veterans and whether this means that under the repatriation system veterans will be entitled to a choice of doctor. I again ask the Minister to answer but he refuses. The Chairman-Order! I think the honourable member for Moreton is aware that if he encourages the Minister to answer his question he will be closing the debate. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I just want him to interject. Just one word would have been enough. Some $9m to $10m has gone out of the holdings of the private health funds and all of that money held by private health funds belongs to their members. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) mentioned in his speech this morning the way Medibank Private filched $21m out of the pockets of Victorians when it was doing a soft shoe shuffle and trying to save itself from bankruptcy. It ripped out $21m from Victoria claiming that Medibank Private belonged to all of Australia, when, in fact, the Health Insurance Act required Medibank Private, like all health organisations to be registered in each State. The Minister stood by while $21m was allowed to be stolen-I use that word very carefully; I know what I am saying-from the pockets of those people in Victoria who belonged to Medibank Private. Because of the great propaganda machine the Minister had wound up at the time, the media really were not interested. If the Liberals had done something like that it would have been headlines. But socialists can get away with this in the so-called name of equity. Double standards exist in so many places in this country. These are just some of the observations I want to make. I congratulate the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), without any equivocation or reservation and the honourable member for Petrie who, as a former pharmacist, has done so much in the last few days to alert this Parliament and the people as to exactly the sleight-of-hand that is going on in relation to medication and the way the Government is doing another fiddle on prescriptions. It is proposing that elderly people pay far more than they have ever had to pay for prescriptions. I conclude by making an observation. The golden cow that the Government has been milking will run dry. What the Government has done in recent times is try to put more and more on to the shoulders of those people who have opted for additional health care by virtue of belonging to a private health fund. That, as we all understand, has been to guarantee a choice of doctor in the event of their being taken to hospital and needing specialist attention. The Government is getting to the stage where a lot of its own supporters-Labor voters-who have regarded as precious their right of choice-- Mr Porter —Labor Ministers. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Did not the Minister's daughter come to Canberra for an operation? I do not like getting personal on these matters but everyone in the Hawke Ministry seems to come to Canberra for something or other. Mr Porter —They all go-- The Chairman-The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Mr Porter —I was just helping. The Chairman-The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Mr DONALD CAMERON —He has helped me a bit. The Minister is putting access to private health cover further and further away from the pocket of the average person. I really believe that this is part of a socialist plot to destroy the private sector forever so that everybody in Australia is dependent on a Government-provided scheme, so that the doctors all end up on a Government salary and there is no private enterprise. This is the long term plan of philosophically based and directed Minister Blewett. The only thing that will save health in this country is the next election when the Minister will be back on the back bench on this side shaking his head wondering where and why it all fell apart. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(6.27) —I again want to take up with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) the new system of prescriptions that he has created and the system covered in the legislation for the deletion of items from the pharmaceutical benefits list. I have received a letter dated 22 September from the Minister for Health and it appears from reading this letter that every time he says something or puts pen to paper, or those who prepare his correspondence put pen to paper, he puts his foot a little further into it. I suggest that he look very carefully at any letters he signs in relation to this matter. Let me quote a couple of paragraphs in this letter. They state: Some of the items to be deleted have been shown to be ineffective, lack efficacy, are little used or have been superceded by better alternatives. Many of the items, however, are being deleted because their main use is in the treatment or relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses. These medicines are readily available without prescription from pharmacies (and in some cases also from food stores). Furthermore, these medicines are often only required in small amounts as a few days' treatment is all that is required. I suggest that the Minister talk to some of the 2.1 million pensioners in this country who were entitled, or are presently entitled to these drugs to be prescribed without charge but who, after 1 November, will not be entitled to them without charge and ask them whether their rheumatism, their arthritis, their osteo-arthritis, their allergies or their hay fever conditions are minor because in future those people will have to pay for the items if they require them for treatment. The letter goes on: I realise that for some of the deleted medicines, most affected will be pensioner and concessional groups. Nevertheless, I have accepted the PBACs recommendations, made on medical grounds, believing, in addition, that in the current economic climate, the community as a whole can ill-afford the situation where large quantities of these medicines are dispensed on medical prescriptions when they are readily available over the counter in smaller quantities at relatively little cost. The point I make is that it is a cost cutting exercise. It is nothing more, nothing less. The Minister admits to that in the letter when he says that pensioner and concessional groups will be affected. In that particular paragraph he admits that in the light of the current economic climate savings will be made. I cannot understand why the Minister does not believe that he has the right to delete items. The Minister says he does not have that right but I believe that he does. In any case he has brought about what he wanted to do through giving riding instructions to the PBAC. I for one would not want my signature put to those reasons for the removal of those drugs if I was a member of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The Minister ought to get a new letter writer or somebody from the Department who knows a little about pharmacology. Mr McVeigh —Will you go and give him a hand? Mr HODGES —I will go and give him a hand, as the honourable member for Groom is suggesting. Dr Blewett —The scheme would collapse. Mr HODGES —The Minister ought to get a better understanding of what he is writing about because, frankly, he does not have much of an idea. I quote further from the letter: In relation to the removal of mild analgesics (eg. low dose aspirin), where these are being used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases, or severe pain, several alternatives remain listed. Aspirin mixture and aspirin plus codeine phosphate mixtures may be prescribed extemporaneously for short term pain relief. Other extemporaneous formulations may be prescribed in place of the ready-made cough mixtures which are being deleted. I say to the Minister that it has been known for decades that aspirin and aspirin and codeine mixtures start deteriorating from the very minute that they are prepared. If one leaves aspirin, or aspirin and codeine mixture, over several days the efficacy of that mixture is reduced dramatically, and after a week or 10 days there is very little aspirin which is acetylsalicylic acid left in the mixture. It is salicylic acid which is more of an irritant to the gastrointestinal tract and acetic acid. There is a complete breakdown of acetylsalicylic acid. The Minister is suggesting in this letter that doctors ought to be prescribing aspirin and aspirin and codeine mixtures. I suggested to him earlier, and I repeat, that he ought to get a little more technical advice before he puts his signature to letters such as this. I return to the Minister's suggestion in the letter for rheumatic sufferers that alternative preparations are available. Yes, there are, and some of the brand names of those alternative preparations and the most commonly used ones are Brufen, Indocid and Voltaren. In the main those preparations are more expensive and are certainly more toxic than the preparations he has now de-listed from the pharmaceutical benefits list. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) will know well as a medico that the prescribing of such preparations as paracetamol, paracetamol and codeine, aspirin in the form of plain aspirin, soluble aspirin, or aspirin and codeine are far more desirable in terms of their effectiveness and their safety than the prescribing of such preparations as Brufen, Indocid or Voltaren. The Minister and the Department, in deleting these products from the list, are now forcing the medical profession into finding drugs that are far more toxic, with far greater side effects than these very effective simple preparations that are being prescribed widely in this country and are available world wide over the counter. If they are all that harmful to health why are they not completely banned from sale? They are readily available and widely prescribed. The basic reason for the deletion of these 45 items is the fact that $30m is involved. Okay, that is a decision the Government wants to take. If it wants to take it, it can. Seven million prescriptions are involved. By jove, many doctors have been doing the wrong thing in this country for a long time. I am sure that a tremendous number of people have suffered as a result of these drugs being used for such minor matters. I will quote further from the letter. It states: The PBAC has recommended the deletion of all oral antihistamines (with the exception of methdilazine and cyproheptadine for use for the prevention of migraine and promethazine theoclate for nausea and vomiting) from the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits believing that these preparations are most often used for relatively minor complaints such as allergic rhinitis, mild urticaria and nasal symptoms of colds and influenza. Again, I point out to the House and to the Minister that he is giving those reasons for removal. He should tell that story to the thousands of general practitioners and specialists around this country who are using these drugs quite freely. These drugs are freely available over the counter. This is quite a scandalous state of affairs. I said earlier in the debate last Thursday that the Minister is hiding behind the PBAC. I believe that that is unsatisfactory. I suggest to him in future that if he does not believe that the legislation allows him to delete items he makes sure that the legislation is amended so that he can delete items, and when he wants to delete them, he deletes them on the advice of his Department for cost cutting purposes. But for heavens sake he should not put up the weak excuse that he is deleting them on the recommendations of the PBAC. As I said earlier, I would not want my signature on any recommendation in this document. The document states: The items above are submitted to the Committee by the Department. There is a further line which reads: The following items were also recommended for deletion at the same meeting. It is quite obvious that the first 45 items were deleted from the list as a result of the list produced by the Department to the PBAC. The Minister even admitted that during his speech. The PBAC on its own findings then deleted a further six items from the list that came out in June this year. I suggest to the Minister that in future he should do his own dirty work and not have it done by the PBAC. The Chairman-Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(6.39) —I will speak briefly on a few clauses, the first being clause 4 (3) (a). I ask the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to consider altering that clause because sometimes, especially in the Aboriginal community, there could very well be sufferers from deformities or abnormalities. For lots of reasons such people may not have had the opportunity of getting to hospital where these operations can be performed. There could be a handicapped child or there could be a student who is dependent on his or her parents. I say that because paragraph (b) refers to `a condition determined by the Minister'. That could very well be where medical science reveals that because the person may be over 22 it is no longer available. I ask the Minister to consider those matters. The next clause that causes me some difficulty is clause 9 which deals with the secrecy provisions of the legislation. I believe that it is fairly common knowledge that most people are rather sensitive about anyone inquiring into or revealing information about their own health. That usually is a very highly confidential matter between the doctor, the hospital, and the patient. Notwithstanding that the idea and emphasis behind the clause is to make the secrecy provisions more stringent, I would like included in that some reference to prior consultation with the patient. After all, it is the patient's health, the patient's business and the patient's sensitivity. I can readily understand why this type of information may be required by outside people or bodies, but I hope that the Minister can assure the House that he is quite relaxed that the changes do preserve the secrecy provisions because, to me, that is a very important section. The next clause I would like to talk about is clause 14. That clause relates to what we might term the establishment of day surgeries or surgi-centres, as they are known in my own State of Queensland. I note that the Minister said that there are now five such facilities in Australia and that this Bill extends benefits for certain things to be supplied in such approved free-standing day surgery facilities. My understanding is that these surgeries are being established because there is a desire in the community not to go into hospital but to have certain types of operations performed in surgi-centres. I also understand that at least some of the States are not in a position to register these surgi-centres because their respective Acts would require amendment. There is a certain sensitivity in certain States to having their respective Acts amended because that could be construed, probably quite rightly and correctly, by the Press and by the public at large as a backdoor method of funding what I might call fertility clinics. I wonder whether the Minister can consult with his State counterparts to see whether there is any way that the surgi-centres can be registered without changing the State Acts and whether he can guarantee that operations described as abortions will not be performed at these surgi-centres. It is a very important issue because quite obviously modern medicine moves ahead and these establishments are required accordingly. I can understand why the Minister is not terribly keen about the principles involved. He might understand the work that is done in these surgi-centres, but he might not be very keen about the philosophy behind them because they are private enterprises. Honourable members on that side of the chamber seem to become very nervous when one talks about private enterprise. I hope the bureaucracy and the red tape can be limited and that these bona fide surgi-centres can provide a much needed facility for the community, can be operated by private enterprise and can be licensed, as it were, by the Minister after consultation with the States so that people who attend them to have legitimate surgery carried out are not disadvantaged when they go to their hospital or medical benefit fund and seek the appropriate refund. I note that the Minister said that there are now five such facilities in Australia. When he is replying to these comments I hope that he will offer his comments on those matters that I have raised and indicate when and in which States those facilities are established. Next I want to talk to clause 25. There seems to be some sort of confusion there because we find that the Minister will be able to cancel the approval of a hospital. From my reading of the Bill and from listening to the various speeches that have been made on the legislation, I understood that these matters of approval and licensing were going to be handed back to the States. I thought there was general agreement by all speakers that this was desirable-agreement by those people who believe in not centralising all power in Canberra and who believe in giving the States their true and proper responsibilities without interference. But as a layman reading this legislation I find that the Minister has the right to cancel the approval of a hospital. Maybe it is an interim measure, but if the Minister can clarify quite clearly, accurately and precisely what this clause means, that would assist me because I have some difficulty in understanding how the Government is going to hand back power to the States but on the other hand retain in the legislation the power to cancel the approval of a hospital. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.45) —I forgot to mention one thing that distresses me greatly when I was on my feet earlier. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised in 1984 that the Government would not increase the Medibank levy, and that was a solemn promise to the nation; but in the 1983 election campaign the Prime Minister also promised that the Government would not withdraw the tax deductibility component of people's contributions to health funds. The Government has managed to push up the cost of health care in this country, probably at a greater rate than health care has gone up in any other country in the world in recent history. Minister, you have transferred the cost directly on to the taxpayer by virtue of Medicare, the levy and the supplement that must be put on it and now there are also these impositions by way of the contributions people have to make to belong to private health funds if they want freedom of selection of doctors in a private hospital or in a non-Government-provided health bed. I believe that you have got away with far more than you have been entitled to. You have been screwing the population from one side of Australia to the other. The worst that has happened so far is that a lot of people are simply falling out of private hospital cover-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I take it that the honourable member is referring to Government members in a collective sense. He prefaced his remarks by saying `Minister'. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The Government. I really believe that we are becoming extremely sensitive around here. I am not reflecting on the Chair. Mr McVeigh —I would not make a reflection on the Chair. Mr DONALD CAMERON —No way. The Government has managed to increase the size of the health care bill to a level at which it has never been in this nation's history and at which individual Australians are carrying a greater personal burden than they have ever been expected to carry. When the term of the Minister comes to an end and historians in the very near future look back at his reign as Minister for Health, I think he will be credited with having bumped up the cost of health care faster than any other individual in this nation's history. It is all very well for him to come in here and say that under the previous Government the health care system did not give cover to everybody. I agree with him on that particular point. The one criticism that is legitimately directed at the previous Government's system was that we had free health cover to a certain level of income but then, as with the precipice over which the Minister is pushing everybody in this country, the level is just cut off. There should have been a greater shading in the provision. The Minister has no right to try to say that the Government's system is better because, in terms of value to the nation and the quality of health care offered, he has really blown things apart. It is going to be very difficult for future governments to rein it back and to reinstate the quality of health care that existed in this country prior to his administration. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(6.50) —There were just a couple of points that were raised in that debate. In relation to the point raised by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) I will simply read from my letter to the Chairman of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Firstly, I ask that at your June meeting you review some benefit items with a view to determining, on health grounds, whether their listing is justified. The Department will be preparing a submission to the Committee on this subject, which will include a list of items for review. Therefore, I think that most of his remarks were really an insult to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. I accept that any delisting of drugs for health reasons will produce savings to the Government. In answer to the questions asked by the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), who at least sought to make his speech relevant to the Committee debate, the age rule about dental surgery has always been there. We have tried to make the surgery more flexible but we have not changed the rule. It is a rule which has been in the legislation for some years. We have tried to make the general principle more flexible, but have not changed the age limit. The secrecy provision requirement is a direct response to a request from the Senate. We believe that we have met that request, which is to limit more effectively any information which is passed on from either the Department of Health or the Health Insurance Commission. Day clinics, where there is not State legislation, require Commonwealth approval in order for benefits to be paid. So until State legislation is introduced, we are providing the protection that is wanted. Once the State legislation is in place, the States will be given the task of approving the benefits. In regard to the question of approval for private hospitals, that part of the Bill relates to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The Commonwealth is responsible for administering the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. That approval relates to private hospitals which are operating under pharmacy provisions in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(6.52) —I wish to make sure that I am exactly correct about the surgi-centres. There is no legislation for them in Queensland at present. If my local people desire approval so that their patients can get the benefit refund, in effect the Commonwealth can give them interim approval. Have I correctly interpreted what the Minister has said? Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(6.53) —As always, this Government would be guided by the States. For instance, New South Wales does not yet have legislation in place so the New South Wales Minister advises me on any centre which comes up for approval. Similarly, that would happen in Queensland. Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask that the Minister table the letter from which he read. Dr BLEWETT —I am happy to do so. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett)-by leave-read a third time. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act 1985 so as to authorise payments in 1986-87 arising out of decisions, taken at the 13 June 1986 Loan Council meeting, which fall outside the provisions of the Financial Agreement Act 1928. Specifically, this Bill seeks to authorise: First, the payment of general purpose capital grants to the States in 1986-87; secondly, the prepayment of capital grants during the first six months of 1987-88 pending passage of similar legislation in that year; and, thirdly, the alteration of the amounts that may be nominated by the States and the Northern Territory from their approved borrowing programs for the purposes of public housing in 1986-87. Capital Grants to States Since 1970-71 a portion of the State governments' borrowing programs have been provided by the Commonwealth as interest-free capital grants. The grants were introduced to help States finance works, such as schools and other capital works, from which debt charges are not normally recovered. The effect of these grants, therefore, is to relieve the States of those debt charges, that is, interest payments and sinking fund contributions, which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the overall financial positions of the States. In addition, there are no conditions attaching to the manner in which the grants are applied by the States. In the 10 years prior to 1985-86, the grants represented one-third of the State governments' borrowing programs. In that year the portion of the programs provided as a capital grant was temporarily increased by 7 per cent to approximately 35.7 per cent, with the loan portion being reduced by an equivalent amount. This arrangement is to be continued in 1986-87. As the Loan Council agreed to limit the total State Governments' Loan Council program to $1,204m in 1986-87, 23 per cent less than for 1985-86, the total amount of capital grants to be provided for 1986-87 is $429m. Public Housing Nominations The arrangements whereby the States and the Northern Territory are able to nominate part of their approved borrowing programs for public housing were introduced in 1982-83. The arrangements have contributed considerably to the financing of public housing in the States and the encouragement of the States to increase their own housing expenditure. As a condition of the payment of these funds, a State or the Northern Territory must be able to meet its matching requirements for the purposes of the Housing Assistance Act 1984. Subject to that, the nominated funds will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory at the loan terms and conditions set out in the Commonwealth-State housing agreement, and hence will bear interest at the highly favourable rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum and will be repayable over 53 years. In the Commonwealth Government's housing assistance package which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) announced on 2 April 1986, the Government indicated that it was prepared to allow the States and the Northern Territory to nominate up to 60 per cent of the loan portion of their programs for public housing. At the Loan Council meeting on 13 June 1986 it was also agreed that Western Australia and South Australia, which nominated the whole of the loan portion of their programs in previous years, could again nominate the whole of the loan portion for public housing in 1986-87. This Bill seeks to give effect to those decisions. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 15 April 1986 I, as Acting Treasurer, announced the Government's decision to phase out the operations of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia. The principal objective of the Bill is to facilitate the winding up of the RCD and to abolish the Department once its operations have ceased. The RCD was originally established in 1925 to meet the seasonal funding requirements of primary produce authorities and co-operatives. RCD funds have been made available at market related interest rates in recent years and, with the deregulation of financial markets, this has resulted in a much reduced role for the RCD with the great majority of seasonal funding requirements being fulfilled through commercial sources. The decision to wind down the activities of the Rural Credits Department stems from the recommendations of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and the review group on the Australian financial system. Both committees considered that in view of the developments which have taken place in financial markets since the Department was first established it was no longer necessary, or desirable, for the RBA to continue to be involved in providing seasonal advances. Both groups noted, however, that termination of the RCD should be preceded by an appropriate transitional period to enable RCD customers to arrange alternative sources of finance. (Quorum formed) In line with this recommendation, the Government, in phasing out the operations of the RCD, has implemented transitional arrangements to allow those remaining authorities and co-operatives which utilise RCD advances to have access to the facility for the duration of one full commodity season following the announcement of the Government's decision. Clause 11 of the Bill, which provides for the winding up of the Rural Credits Department, would restrict the Reserve Bank from making an advance or discounting a Bill after 30 June 1988, or such later date as is determined by the Treasurer. This is to allow sufficient time for remaining customers to exercise their final drawing rights. As at 30 June 1986, the capital and reserves of the RCD stood at $140m. Clause 11 of the Bill provides that, as the activities of the RCD are wound down, the capital and reserves of the RCD which are surplus to its operational requirements can be distributed to either the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund or Consolidated Revenue, as determined by the Treasurer following consultations with the Board of the Reserve Bank. When the activities of the RCD have ceased and its capital and reserves have been distributed, the Department may be abolished on a day fixed by proclamation. I would also note that, under existing legislation, half of the profits of the RCD have been applied to rural research. Funds available for this purpose from the RCD should be increased by approximately 9 per cent to $3m in 1986-87 through the normal transfer of profits earned by the RCD in 1985-86. Consideration will be given to supplementing funds available for rural research in future years as the activities of the RCD are phased out. The Bill contains other consequential amendments to the Reserve Bank Act 1959 in relation to termination of the RCD as well as the repeal of certain sections of the Banking Act 1959 which deal with the statistical returns to be provided by the RCD to the Reserve Bank. In commending the Bill to the House, I present an explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(7.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes amendments of a safeguarding nature that are made necessary by a decision of the Full Court of the Queensland Supreme Court in an action by a Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to recover an unpaid taxation debt. The court, by majority, held that the time limits specified in the Queensland Limitations of Actions Act 1974 for the commencement of proceedings to recover a debt applied, by virtue of section 64 of the Commonwealth Judiciary Act 1903, to proceedings to recover taxation debts to the Commonwealth. The decision, contrary to decisions previously taken by Supreme Courts in Western Australia and New South Wales, is contrary to the long held view that taxation debts could, by virtue of the crown prerogative, be recovered at any time. The Commissioner of Taxation has applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Queensland Supreme Court. The effect of the Queensland decision, unless reversed by the High Court, is that, in that State, the commencement of an action for the recovery of tax is subject to a six-year limitation period and the commencement of an action to recover additional tax for late payment is subject to a two-year limitation period. This decision has extremely serious revenue implications both for this year's Budget and for future Budgets. Unless prompt legislative action is taken, the recovery of many millions of dollars of outstanding tax, mainly from tax avoiders, will at best be delayed for several months and, at worst, prevented altogether. If the rationale for the decision were to apply Australia-wide, revenue of the order of $200m would be placed in jeopardy in 1986-87. A further $700m would be at risk in later years. This particular revenue loss simply cannot be countenanced. Not to act without delay to protect the revenue would be irresponsible. (Quorum formed) The vast majority of the $900m is owed by tax avoidance participants of the 1970s and early 1980s. Over the past five to 10 years, they have resorted to every means available to frustrate the considerable efforts of the Commissioner of Taxation to resolve disputes as to liability and to secure the payment of outstanding tax and penalties. To delay the action now proposed would reward these tax avoiders for the frustration they have caused and would be completely out of step with this Government's commitment to ensure that such people do not escape their financial obligations to all Australians. The amendment proposed by this Bill is fair and sensible. It will mean that, where liability for a taxation debt is, or has been, disputed, the period during which an action for the recovery of the debt may be commenced will correspondingly be extended by the time taken to resolve the dispute. In a case where there is no dispute, the time limits specified in any applicable State or Territory limitation law will apply according to that law. The proposed amendment will, however, apply only if State or Territory limitation laws are ultimately held by the High Court to apply to the recovery of Commonwealth taxation debts. A further measure contained in the Bill will treat penalty taxes for late lodgment of tax returns, making of false or misleading statements or participation in tax avoidance schemes as ordinary debts for limitation law purposes. This will mean that these penalty taxes will be subject to the generally longer limitation period that applies to the recovery of ordinary debts, rather than the shorter period that applies to the recovery of penalties. The amendments will apply to actions for the recovery of taxation debts whether incurred before or after the Bill becomes law. In this respect, the Bill is, if the Queensland Supreme Court is correct in its decision, technically retrospective in application. But-I emphasise this-it does not retrospectively impose any new or increased tax liability or make unlawful any conduct. The Bill does no more than any responsible Government, faced with a revenue loss of $900m, would be compelled to do in the face of a decision such as that taken by the Queensland Supreme Court. The proposed amendments will not, however, apply to proceedings for the recovery of a tax debt where a court has, on or before today, given a decision in such proceedings based on the application of a limitation law. In other words, it will not apply to several cases recently decided by the Queensland Supreme Court, nor to one case presently subject to an appeal by the taxpayer to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. An explanatory memorandum which gives more details of the measures contained in the Bill is being circulated for the information of honourable members, and I present it to the House. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(7.12) —I rise to make reference to the seriousness of the continuing drought in the Richmond River and Clarence River valleys in northern New South Wales. For a long time, a very serious drought has existed in southern Queensland in the Beaudesert and west of the Gold Coast areas. There now appears to be a weather pattern which has resulted in the lowest rainfalls on record in many areas of this zone of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. In fact, in the Kyogle area of northern New South Wales, rainfall records show that the lowest recordings since 1915 have occurred in the last six months. That will give some indication of the prolonged nature of the dry conditions. The reason for raising this matter-I am pleased to see the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in the House-is to bring to notice the difficulties confronting stock owners in one of the most important breeding and producing areas in Australia. The sale yard at Casino in northern New South Wales is one of the most important in the national cattle scene, and I think ranks second to Townsville in Queensland as a provincial cattle-selling centre. It is a very great tragedy that, in the last five weeks, there has been the forced sale of some 35,000 head of cattle, and it is estimated by the Department of Agriculture in the area that stock losses are now running at about 250 head a week. During a visit that I made to the area in the last fortnight, I was appalled at the conditions I observed in Kyogle, Woodenbong and what is known as the west of the range area near Casino-the locations of Mallanganee, Tabulam and Bonalbo. All of this sets a great problem for stock owners, because, in the instance of forced sales, they have to hold their capital in the hope that they can restock at a later time. They do not have the advantages of funding, as was possible before changes were made to the depositing of reserves of cash for emergency purposes, as existed in earlier days. What concerns me is that this great hardship facing stock owners occasions them very high expenditure to maintain their breeding herds. Of course, they also face the problem that, no matter what they do, there will be serious disruption in the weaner trade next year and a serious shortage of cattle both for northern New South Wales and for the southern markets. I am not suggesting any lack of action on the part of the Department of Agriculture in New South Wales or, for that matter, any breach of the standing arrangement for financial assistance to meet hardship. In fact, I believe that the provisions of freight assistance are operating effectively within the pasture protection boards concerned and, as New South Wales has not reached the stage of expenditure that would enable it to call on natural disaster assistance, there is no proposition that I can put in that regard. I do want to say, however, that I know that the Minister for Primary Industry has a deep interest in these matters and, should there be any technical assistance or special advice in such matters as the possibility of the use of bagasse from cane growing areas of Queensland and northern New South Wales being used to assist stock owners to maintain their herds, I hope that this can be provided. I understand that the molasses board, in which the Minister for Primary Industry does have an interest, is doing what it can to make available supplies of molasses for stock owners as a means of special support to meet the crisis that exists. Mr Milton —It is a sticky problem. Mr IAN ROBINSON —Yes, it is a sticky problem. But it is even stickier for those who are looking at the problem of starving cattle and experiencing the situation in which cattle are dying. I am sure that people would appreciate that the honourable member's observation was intended to be a serious one. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(7.17) —Far be it from me-- Mr McGauran —How dare you show your face again in this chamber. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will not cast reflections upon members of the House. Mr LEO McLEAY —Far be it from me to chance my arm with your ire, but what I say tonight may offend you because of your great support for Australian rules. I want to draw to the attention of the House this evening the fact that the greatest grand final will be played in Sydney next weekend. I am sure all honourable members would agree with me-particularly my colleagues the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), even the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who is an ex-New South Welshman, the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler)-that rugby league is, indeed, the greatest game of all. Mr Kerin —Parramatta! Mr LEO McLEAY —The Minister for Primary Industry no doubt also accepts that rugby league is the greatest game of all. Next Sunday two of the greatest teams in the rugby league competition in Australia will be playing in the grand final in Sydney-the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and Parramatta. I know that the Minister at the table is a little bit biased in his support for Parramatta as, indeed, is my good friend the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), but I think that we will see next Sunday Canterbury-Bankstown thrash Parramatta again, and that will be a very well earned victory for Canterbury-Bankstown. Canterbury-Bankstown is a great team. It has been in five out of the last seven grand finals, and this is the Bulldogs' third consecutive grand final. In 1979 they lost to St George; in 1980 they beat Easts; in 1983 they lost to Parramatta in the finals; in 1984 they beat Parramatta; in 1985 they beat St George; and in 1986 I can confidently predict that Canterbury will beat Parramatta again. Canterbury-Bankstown is a team of people who have, in the main, come up through the junior competition in the district. Canterbury-Bankstown has been captained for the last three years by a true champion and one of the all-time great rugby league players, Steve Mortimer. No one would deny that Steve Mortimer is the outstanding rugby league footballer in Australia at present. But Canterbury also has a number of other outstanding players-Terry Lamb, the five-eighth; Paul Langmack, an up and coming young forward; Steve Folkes, who is a true club man who received his just reward, playing for Australia this year. These players have done a great job in getting Canterbury into the position to beat Parramatta next weekend. It is interesting to note that in that team taking the field for Canterbury on Sunday there will be five players who represented Australia-Peter Tunks, Steve Folkes, Steve Mortimer, Terry Lamb and Phil Sigsworth. It is a great combination and a team that will get Canterbury over the top on Sunday. Mr Martin —What about Parramatta? Mr LEO McLEAY —Some honourable members are interjecting: `What about Parramatta?' I think it is a shame that Parramatta is going to lose on Sunday. Parramatta has put up a good defence this year. I must say that Parramatta is a very generous team. Some months ago I went to see Canterbury play at Parramatta oval, which is a great venue and a venue that members of the Parramatta team should be proud of. They should thank the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and the former Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Neville Wran, for getting it started. I was not able to be allocated a seat. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism was kind enough to take me to sit in the Parramatta box. I did think it was a little off to be barracking for Canterbury while sitting in the Parramatta box. Parramatta will do its best, but it will not be able to make it. I think it is worth while to look at the people who are behind Canterbury. The coach, Warren Ryan, has coached the team for the past three years and this year is hoping for his third successive premiership. Peter Moore is the chief executive of the football club and the club's off the field general. He is in his seventeenth year with the Canterbury club. He was a very good local player, a man who played for the juniors in the district and had a promising rugby league career until he met with a motor vehicle accident. Barry Nelson, the President of the Canterbury club, a former Canterbury player and New South Wales representative, is now doing a great job to foster young people in the club and in the game. I think the House can confidently look forward to a victory by Canterbury-Bankstown after a hard fought match against Parramatta next weekend. I am sure that the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism will recognise that their team put up a good try and will shout me a beer when Parliament resumes. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.22) —The proposal by the Hawke socialist Government to tax the States on the value of fringe benefits to State employees must not be allowed to go unchallenged. Premier Robin Gray is on record as saying that he will not become a tax gatherer for the Federal Government even if it means an outright refusal to pay. If necessary, he will take the issue to the High Court of Australia. It is most appropriate that this constitutional challenge should originate from Tasmania, which was the respondent in the first case in the High Court of Australia, following Federation, in which the power of the State and the Federal Government, as sovereign authorities, to tax one another was challenged. The case was D'Emden v. Pedder, 1 CLR 91. The facts were simple. The Tasmanian Stamp Duty Act required a twopenny stamp to be placed on certain receipts. D'Emden, the Deputy Post Master General of Tasmania, gave an unstamped receipt in Tasmania for his official salary. He was charged with the offence of giving a receipt which was not duly stamped, and fined one shilling with costs. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Tasmania and lost. He then appealed to the High Court of Australia. The unanimous judgment of the High Court of Australia upheld his appeal. After stating that the Commonwealth and the States were each sovereign States within the ambit of their authority, subject only to the restrictions imposed by the imperial connection and the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or necessarily implied, the High Court of Australia held: When a State attempts to give its legislative or executive authority an operation which, if valid, would fetter, control or interfere with, the free exercise of the legislative or executive power of the Commonwealth, the attempt, unless expressly authorised by the Constitution, is to that extent invalid and inoperative. And this appears to be the true test to be applied in determining the validity of state laws and their applicability to federal transactions. The decision in D'Emden v. Pedder was not that the Tasmanian Stamp Duty Act was invalid, but that it should be construed as not applying to a receipt given by a Commonwealth officer for his official salary. This interpretative device has since 1901 been applied time and time again, so that a statute has been held not to be invalid, but to be not applicable to particular circumstances. In the Railway Servants case in 1906 the principle was applied in favour of the State. It was held that the provisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, which purported to confer upon the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration power to make awards which would determine conditions of employment upon State railways, were inapplicable because the railways were State instrumentalities. The argument of the High Court was again the necessity for freedom from control and interference by one sovereign body with another acting within the ambit of its authority. There was thus established, in the first decade of federation, a doctrine of mutual non-interference between the Commonwealth and States, with the same principle being applied to both. This principle of mutual non-interference has since been discussed, affirmed, distinguished and analysed in many cases before the High Court of Australia, but it has never been held to have been wrongly decided. Premier Robin Gray was on firm ground when he said that he would not become a tax gatherer for the Commonwealth. Section 114 of the Constitution provides: A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth . . . impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State. There would seem to be a very strong case that a Federal tax on the use of a State government car or on the use of State government house occupied by a policeman, a doctor or a teacher is a tax on State government property and therefore unconstitutional. Premier Gray has good grounds for telling the Hawke socialist Government that he will not accept Commonwealth interference with the executive authority of Tasmania, acting within its constitutional jurisdiction, and that he will not be a tax gatherer for the Federal fringe benefits tax. I still await a reply to my letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) delivered on 16 September. The plain fact is that this law is not only a bad law, but prima facie it is unconstitutional. I suggest that the Prime Minister of Australia is duty bound to reply to the matters I raised in my letter and to reply to the authorities to which I referred in my letter. History is being made in this Parliament right now. We have a law which is unjust, a law which is vague, uncertain, contradictory, and, I now predict, will be held to be unconstitutional in relation to its implications for the States. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(7.23) —I rise in this House tonight to display proudly my No. 2 membership of the Chelsea Football Club, premiers last Sunday afternoon in the Mornington Peninsula League. The No. 1 member is the State member for Carrum, the Minister for Education in the Victorian Government, Ian Cathie. I proudly accept the No. 2 membership of the Chelsea Football Club. The Chelsea football team became premiers in the Mornington Pensinsula League last Sunday with an eight-goal win over Seaford in what was its first premiership win since 1968. The team has had its ups and downs over the years. What makes this a meritorious win is that the group of people who have banded together so loyally for so long at Chelsea have received their reward. All the players under captain and coach Gerry Lynn, President Tommy Williams, who is not only a character but is held in extremely high esteem by everyone at Chelsea, Secretary Mick Trotter, and Ray Stuart were part of the administration that has put Chelsea on the map over the last few years, culminating in the marvellous victory last Sunday. I will name some of the other people. Frank Parsons has been with the club for many years and has spent years working for Chelsea. I had the privilege of sitting on the coach's bench with Noel Hopgood, the coach off the field, when Gerry Lynn, captain and coach, was on the field. Noel was shouting instructions throughout the grand final. I congratulate him and everyone at the club on such a great victory. As I said, it is the club's first victory since 1968. It is good to see the workers have such a great victory because it is a working man's club. Chelsea is an area with great community spirit. It has banded together through many ups and downs. The club has gone from strength to strength. Everyone in the community and club, from Tommy Williams and Mick Trotter down through the committee and all its supporters, should be proud of the club's achievements this year. I am proud to hold the No. 2 membership ticket and to be able to rise in the chamber this evening and inform the people of Australia of an achievement that is worthy of note. I am pleased to be able to do that in the national Parliament. I congratulate all the clubs in the Mornington Peninsula League and in the Nepean League, which have participated so well throughout the year and have had various successes. I congratulate Seaford on getting to the grand final. It was the premier team last year but this year it was unable to carry it off back to back. I conclude by congratulating the Chelsea Football Club and everyone connected with it, and the community. I am sure that the win will give a great lift to the club and the entire Chelsea community. As I have said, I am proud to be able to rise in this Parliament and give it the recognition that it deserves. Madam SPEAKER —It is obviously the end of the football season. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(7.31) —A number of honourable members will have noticed that in the last few days the members of a top level mission of the Australian Council of Trade Unions have returned from what is euphemistically described as a study tour of western Europe. No one would deny that it was a wonderful tour. These distinguished gentlemen went to the United Kingdom-to London; to Norway-a pleasant time of year to be in such a pretty country; to West Germany and to Austria. We have heard, to our never-ending boredom, that they went to Sweden as well. It is important to note that they went at this time of year, when Europe is still warm and the leaves have not yet fallen from the trees. If they had gone during the Australian summer holiday, it would have been too cold for them. The distinguished people who went on the tour include Bill Kelty, the ACTU Secretary, John MacBean, Martin Ferguson, Terry Johnson, Tom McDonald, Laurie Carmichael, Greg Sword, Colin Cooper and somebody called Cassandra Parkinson. I suspect that the name Cassandra is somewhat significant. As an Opposition member, I should like to welcome the group back from its study tour of Europe on behalf of the Opposition, and on behalf also of the long-suffering Australian taxpayers. It is important that those long-suffering people understand that this study tour-it is only a euphemism to call it that-cost them about $80,000. The Government paid for five-ninths of the tour and the arrangement was that the ACTU would pay for the remaining four-ninths. I object that $80,000 was wasted on funding five-ninths of the tour, but who could object to the ACTU funding the other four-ninths? Of course, none of us would object to it paying for its own tours. However, as it turned out the ACTU did not pay for the trip. It was an ACTU freebie that was paid for, in effect, by the consumers who use Qantas Airways Ltd. In other words, it was paid for, again, by ordinary Australians. It came as some shock to me that the trip was paid for by Qantas, and I endeavoured to find out why Qantas gave free tickets to the ACTU. I came up with a simple answer. The executive director of the Trade Development Council of the Department of Trade, a man called Ted Wilshire, telephoned officers of Qantas and urged them to provide free tickets. That is not altogether surprising because Ted Wilshire is a former research officer of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. It is rather ironical that the unions should get such a freebie, paid for by consumers of Qantas services, ordinary Australians, when the top 20 unions in Australia have assets of $118m. There is more to the story than that. There is more than the waste of taxpayers' and consumers' money. By demanding that Qantas should provide tickets, there is a contravention of Government policy. Government members interjecting- Mr DOWNER —I would have thought that the range of exhausted volcanoes on the Government benches would be interested in their own Government's policy being contravened. Some time ago-back in July-I wrote to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). I asked him whether he could provide some assistance for one of my constituents who wanted to go to Chicago to attend a conference of teachers of deaf children. The Minister replied and stated in his letter that it `would not be appropriate for him to intervene on the question of Qantas providing travel assistance'. He went on to say: . . . requests for special fares or travel assistance are matters for the airlines to assess on the basis of their commercial judgment. It is an interesting comment and is not one with which I necessarily disagree. I am sorry that Mr Kerry White from the Mount Barker Catholic school was not able to pursue his project of teaching deaf children. It is pretty outrageous, is it not-I know everybody in the House will agree with me-that the Government set one standard for that teacher and another standard for four members of the ACTU? A Government officer lobbied Qantas on that occasion to provide the free tickets, yet the Government would not do the same thing for a teacher of deaf children. I think Australians deserve to be told that story. Their money has been wasted on this absurd junket. More than that, government policy has been shown to be the contradictory and hypocritical sham that it obviously is. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(7.36) —The answer to the problem concerning deaf people which was mentioned by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), is simple, and that is to take out a mortgage against his family property-to borrow against that. I am sure we in this chamber could easily provide arrangements for that. I want to talk tonight about Radio Australia and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. They are matters of concern to the community in general, and I think they are matters to which we ought to address ourselves here. In Western Australia a State Liberal member of parliament has urged that Radio Australia be closed down and that that money be used to fund the ABC. In a sense there is a degree of myopia in that view. There is a failure to understand the role that Radio Australia has played for a long time in advancing the interests of Australia, particularly with respect to its regional area. We have a very great responsibility regionally. I believe the view is shared by the Opposition and the Government that we have a commitment, particularly to the region to our near north. It is interesting to observe, for example, that recently Radio Australia commenced a service for English language in China. Such was the success of that service that, after running that program for a short time, Radio Australia received more than a million letters in relation to it. If we look at China as being one of the very important trading partners for Australia, it does not take much imagination to recognise the amount of trade that would be generated by a successful English language program and a successful interchange between Australia and China. That story, incidentally, can be repeated, whether one talks about Indonesia or other countries. Might I acknowledge a letter in the paper from the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), which I thought was very sensible, about our regional responsibilities. I would like to pay tribute to the honourable member for taking what I regard as an appropriate regional role in relation to that. I think we need to emphasise to people in the Australian community that Radio Australia performs that service. It is also important to get on the record the fact that in this financial year Radio Australia will attract a budget of $11.12m and the ABC domestic services will have a budget of $352.4m. We are talking about $11m of a total appropriation of $363m-a very small amount of money. I think it shows a short-sightedness to talk about scrapping Radio Australia. I go back to that figure. We are talking about a very small amount of funds, but it is an extraordinarily effective radio service that meets its market. I believe we ought to be pushing for considerable support for Radio Australia. It is a matter of concern to me that Radio Australia is very effective in reaching remote communities in Australia. This weekend many people in remote areas will be listening to two very important sporting events-the Victorian Football League grand final on Saturday and the rugby league grand final on Sunday-on Radio Australia. It is important that we recognise that Radio Australia provides that service to remote areas which are completely underserviced by existing communications services. I now turn to domestic services within Western Australia. There is considerable concern, I believe, in relation to two aspects. One is the Country Hour and the other is what are referred to as the `6WF night programs'. I am pleased to observe that, following consultation with the ABC, the Country Hour service is to remain in place, not only in Western Australia but in all other States. The country people of Australia are among the most underserviced in terms of communication. They deserve to have a program that meets their needs. The Country Hour program will remain in place. I think that is very important. The 6WF night programs in relation to Western Australia are a vital part of that station's output. They are very cost effective. They meet their audience's needs very efficiently and in fact have a 17 per cent rating for the country and western program on Tuesday nights and a 10.8 per cent rating for the folk program on Thursday nights. I believe they are both very important programs. There are other programs on other nights which are clearly meeting their market. I would like in this House to record what I believe is an important vote of support for the ABC in Western Australia in terms of meeting its needs, because I believe it is cost effective. We as a Government ought to be looking to provide that support. I conclude by saying that I am pleased to support the services provided by Radio Australia and to support the ABC's domestic services in Western Australia. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(7.41) —There is no doubt in my mind that small business will play a significant role in Australia's economic future, yet we have a government which has been less than equitable in its overall attitude to and treatment of small business. There are a number of areas of vital concern which need to be addressed by this Government. The majority of the taxation reforms it has made are seen by the small business community as being retrograde, cost ineffective, negative for growth, investment and employment and inconsistent with the principles enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The capital gains tax was adequately catered for in section 25a and section 26aaa of the Act. So long as an adjustment was made for inflation, capital losses were offset against gains and reinvestment and rollovers were exempted. Even to contemplate taxing goodwill is a failure to understand what small business is all about. It is certainly not a capital gain but an intangible asset created by risk taking, by long and arduous proprietorial effort and by the practice of special skills. Goodwill is an essential element of all small business reinvestment and growth. In 1983 the Prime Minister promised to relieve the inequity of provisional tax for small businessmen by introducing forward spread payments, not earlier payments. The fringe benefits tax is a nightmare, administratively complex, unjust and directed towards the provider of the benefit for purely political reasons. The non-deductibility of entertainment expenses, which denies any claim whatsoever, fails to appreciate that there is an element of entertainment expenses which is validly incurred in generating assessable income. Such expenses, fully vouched, should be deductible. For those in small business who are seen by the Australian Taxation Office as being wholesale merchants, there is a requirement to remit sales tax within 21 days. Currently, business people are forced to pay sales tax before they themselves are paid. The Prime Minister also promised to extend this time in 1983. On the other side of the coin, however, the Government often fails to meet its financial obligations to suppliers of goods and services, particularly small suppliers, within a reasonably acceptable timeframe. It is hypocritical that on the one hand the Government can insist on a small businessman paying the sales tax within 21 days while on the other hand it can drag the chain in paying its own accounts. I suppose small business can consider these outstanding accounts as compulsory loans to the Government. This Government possibly did not predict the complicated nature of the fringe benefits tax. The uncertainty that it has generated as to what is a fringe benefit is an uncertainty which the architect of the legislation manifestly demonstrates. I pointed out a few examples earlier this week in regard to car parking spaces and the fact that employers are going to be called upon to spy on employees or set in force measures by which they can make sure that people are not taking advantage of any directions that have been given to them. I refer to another matter which I think is rather strange, and that concerns, of all things, the accommodation provided by funeral directors. According to a ruling by the Australian Taxation Office, if a funeral director supplies accommodation for the caretaker of a funeral parlour, in the words of the Taxation Office, within or nearby the particular parlour, that situation is considered to be adverse. Because it is adverse the value of the accommodation may be discounted by some 40 per cent in regard to the market rental value in that area. The situation of a matron of a hospital or a caretaker on a property who is on 24-hour call is considered onerous and those people do not attract the 40 per cent discount or, indeed, any discount in regard to the market rental value of the accommodation. Which is the worst place to stay? I am sure that the person in the adverse situation will not be called out by the people whom he is looking after, but the matron of a hospital, who is in an onerous situation, could be. I suggest that, because the person in the adverse situation is in a less onerous position in regard to accommodation, the Government should ensure that people employed on 24-hour call receive the same discount as given in respect of the accommodation of the caretaker of a funeral parlour. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(7.45) —In my speech on the Budget, I indicated that, at the earliest opportunity, I would bring before the House examples of individual difficulties of two of my constituents who are faced with a lowering of their living standards as a result of cuts in the social wage. As I mentioned in that speech, I am concerned that the Government has not kept its bargain with the union movement in relation to the prices and incomes accord. Mr Alan Ashmore of Selby told me how concerned he is at the depreciation in his living standards. His letter to me stated: I have been concerned for some time at the serious erosion of my disposable income and so decided to do a costing exercise to see how large the loss was in real terms. In arriving at my calculations I looked at the following: 1. My work income (base salary less tax) for the period 6/83 to 6/86. 2. The loss in real terms of our Family Allowance. 3. The defacto tax increase caused by the cancellation of the Concessional Rebate. 4. Increased medical costs that resulted from a decision in early 1984 for the DVA to cease paying for some medical costs associated with my war accepted disabilities and for which I have raised with you before. I note that my gross income over the three years has risen by 15.5%, tax has increased 33.7% and net pay by a mere 10.6%. This compares to a cumulative increase in inflation over the same period of 20.86%. The total loss covering the four items listed above, in real terms over this three year period is $50.04 per week or $2609 CASH PER YEAR. I am sure you will agree this is a substantial reduction in my disposable income. In relation to just my work income, the reduction over the last three years on a real cash basis is 10.26%. I note in that three year period we have seen the country come out of a deep recession and now we are heading for at best a squeeze. * * * * I am happy to accept a 10% reduction in my living standards if I can see it being used to say restructure the economy and so place this country in a better position for the 1990's and beyond as it will be our children who will benefit, but we have nothing to show for this reduction . . . while my income (gross) of $505 may be above the average weekly wage it is significantly below a recent report I saw listing the income per household. This means the single income earner is being absolutely screwed and this is likely to worsen with the budget next week. Mr Ashmore, I should admit, also made some rather critical remarks about the Government. I apologise for not including his comments in my speech but I think that he would agree that some of his comments were rather savage. Mr Ashmore has supplied figures that support his comments and, of course, as he suspected, the Budget caused his overall position to worsen. He ended his letter by commenting: Please find attached detailed calculations to back up my claim of a loss in real terms over the last three years of $2,609 cash per year. I would now like to deal with the case of Mrs Eunice Loftus of Upper Ferntree Gully. Mrs Loftus lost her husband 19 months ago. He was an Australian, a post-superannuitant and in receipt of a disability pension from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. With his demise, Mrs Loftus was left to run her home on a superannuation pension of $3,970 and a part-pension of $3,766 per annum for the year ended 30 June 1986. She received also a small Department of Veterans' Affairs widows payment of $3 a week. Mrs Loftus did not have to pay tax at the end of the last financial year 1984-85 but, at the end of the financial year 1985-86, she was faced with a bill of $560.40. As she has only $524.81 in her savings account she just does not have the money to pay the bill. As it is, she receives no fringe benefits and is not eligible for a health card. She lives by herself and manages to pay all her household running costs by cash and she has no accumulated bills. Mrs Loftus has a son who is separated from his wife and he is supporting their two children and is just not in a financial position to help his mother. So this is the problem. I think it might be possible to reach an accommodation with the Australian Taxation Office so that Mrs Loftus does not continue to be under such severe financial stress. I hope that her desperate position can be accommodated in this way. I think it is important to bring these cases to the attention of the Government as they represent many hundreds of people in my electorate who need to be reassured that the present policy of the Government will restore their living standards. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(7.51) —At the moment a campaign is being conducted by the National Heart Foundation of Australia. It is at Parliament House doing a heart disease risk evaluation service. Politicians are very maligned people. Everybody runs us down; everybody criticises us and sometimes I think we are the most unpopular people in the world. But when we have our hearts tested we get a few surprises. When we are given the results we are told that our condition is sometimes due to the job we have, to our involvements, and to the fact that we are always talking to people. Everybody tells us all their problems and worries, et cetera, and that may be a contributing factor. Next week in Tasmania-I suppose this applies all over Australia-is Stroke Awareness Week. I have been absolutely astounded at the number of young people with whom I have been confronted and who have had a stroke at a very early age. It is not just a degenerative ailment of elderly people; it sometimes affects very young people. They have a stroke; they are afflicted and, of course, their lives are affected as a result. I have also been astounded at the lack of facilities that are available. We as a parliament need to become more aware of these problems and should start to get more involved. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and I are on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety. We have often talked about the large number of road deaths each year in Australia and the many thousands of young, middle-aged and elderly people who are injured in car accidents. Sometimes they have brain damage and the thought often comes to my mind: What happens to them? In the Royal Hobart Hospital are five young people with whom I have been directly involved. Strangely enough, I know three of their parents quite well. Those five young people were in different accidents and they all have brain damage. They are practically vegetables, if I may use that term. Of course they have assistance. They are kept alive virtually by their parents who go to the hospital every day and keep hoping that something will happen to them but, of course, it will not. However, the parents are there, the children show recognition. At the moment there is a lot of talk about ways of improving their lot. But the question often comes to mind: What happens to all the victims of road accidents when they are set in one corner and there is nobody to look after them? They are neglected and are dependent on the State. I think we need to become more involved with this matter. Next week is Stroke Awareness Week and I hope that I will be able to say a few things and that other members of parliament will get involved. Those five people are all under the age of 21 years and all have brain damage because of accidents. One poor girl was kicked by a horse. Their parents go into the hospital every day and one wonders what must run through their minds. Most of us have healthy children but when one sees such people one's heart goes out to them. The worry is what happens after the parents pass away and the children are still left in that same brain damaged situation. We need to become more involved with this matter. It is very easy in this political life to go with the nice things; it is very easy sometimes to get on the popular topics; it is very easy to be impressed by some of the trendy groups that seem to be able to research our minds and direct our attention to their causes. But other groups which may be a bit obscure need our help and attention and I believe that as politicians we should get more involved. We should sometimes go into hospitals and find out just what makes them tick. My attention has been drawn to this matter only because of what has happened to three children of friends of mine who were involved in motor vehicle accidents and, as a result, suffered brain damage. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(7.55) —Yesterday the acting shadow Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Teague, issued a Press release criticising the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, His Excellency Gough Whitlam, for his contribution to an advertisement regarding the UNESCO peace essay award. This competition, organised by the National Commission for UNESCO, invites young Australians to participate in this peace essay award entitled `Educating for Peace' with a trip to Paris as one of the prizes. Targeted at Australia's youth-the 13-to-18-year olds-the aim of the award is to encourage this country's young people to give more than a fleeting thought to the attainment of peace in this International Year of Peace, a year that has been so dramatically milestoned internationally and locally with positive and identifiable crusades, such as the many international Live Aid projects, in that direction and marred by numerous others. The advertisement to encourage young people to enter the competition has been running on national and commercial radio throughout Australia without complaint since 12 August 1986. It lasts one minute and Mr Whitlam uses the phrase `If you want to see London or Paris before some violent fool blows them up'. I would have thought that that was a reasonable statement. However, the acting shadow Minister thinks that this type of advertisement is socially irresponsible because it arouses fear and apprehension among young people. What does the acting shadow Minister think is the most overriding concern of the young? It is nuclear holocaust. Rather than inflaming and disturbing the young, as the acting shadow Minister says, it encouraged the young to think about peace, the major issue of our time. The award is thoroughly consistent with UNESCO's charter, which is to contribute to peace and security in the world by promoting collaboration amongst nations through education, science, culture and communication. In doing so it will further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world without distinction of race, sex, language or religion by the charter of the United Nations. By encouraging the youth in our community to marshall their thoughts, opinions and observations and put them on paper, it will help educate Australia's next generation to be more thoughtful and appreciative of a world at peace. The project will similarly educate older segments of our society. Older people will be caught up in the young people's enthusiasm and work on the project. There is nothing in the topic or its promotion which scares young people. Indeed, the whole purpose of the competition is to draw out the idealism of the young. The present 13-to-18 year olds have not been personally involved in war, nor are they complacent about peace. This competition gives young people an opportunity to write for peace and perhaps, in a small way, prove that the pen is mightier than the sword. I commend this competition to the young people of Australia. The closing date is the end of this month. I congratulate His Excellency, the Australian Ambassador to UNESCO, on making the effort and encouraging young people to participate in this competition. Quite frankly, I thought it was appalling that the acting shadow Minister for Education and Youth Affairs put out a scurrilous Press release criticising His Excellency for his encouraging young people to think about peace. Surely, peace is an issue that we all should be thinking about in this country. The young are interested in peace. They are vitally concerned about the future of the world and about the prospect of war. I think that by writing about it, by thinking about it, they will be making their contribution to ensure that we do have a peaceful world. As I said before, they will be proving that the pen in many cases is indeed mightier than the sword. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Peter Morris —I require the debate to be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may be continued until 8.10 p.m. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(8.00) —Earlier this evening the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) referred to travel arrangements granted to a Trade Development Council delegation by Qantas Airways Ltd. On the same subject, he asked me a question on 22 September 1986. At that time I told him that I was not aware of the details but that I would make inquiries and provide an answer at a later date. Again he has raised the matter and at this stage I simply want to respond to the rather sarcastic references made by the honourable member and to the quite dishonest and arrogant manner in which he presented the little information he has, which I understand he has gleaned from a National Times on Sunday article on 24 August 1986. He claimed that the request for the travel was made by Mr Ted Wilshire, the Executive Director of the Trade Development Council secretariat. My understanding is that the request came from the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It was an arrangement put to the airline by the ACTU in association with the information it would be gathering and discussions it may hold with the airline on the delegation's return. It was a perfectly normal arrangement. The airline, in the proper exercise of its commercial judgment, agreed to that request. The honourable member has sought to suggest that he made representations to me back in July on behalf of a teacher of deaf children for free travel by Qantas and that I replied to him that such a matter was not an appropriate matter for intervention by the Government, that it was a matter, again, for the airline to exercise its commercial judgment. That is the standard practice throughout the industry with all the airlines, but is particularly the practice of this Government in respect of a public enterprise such as Qantas Airways Ltd. When the ACTU put a similar request to Qantas the honourable member represented that as being a demand by this Government. That is a straight falsehood. It was no more a demand by this Government than were his representations to me. He sought to represent that when he made representations to me on behalf of a constituent to intervene in the operations of Qantas that is a representation or a request; but when any other organisation makes direct representation to Qantas-even though it may have been associated in some way with government, as was the Trade Development Council-then that is a demand by the Government on the airline. It is patently untrue and it indicates the arrogance and the dishonesty of his presentation. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister must not claim the honourable member to be dishonest. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I ask that those words be withdrawn. I ask the Minister whether he advised the honourable member that he would be making these charges against him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw the word `dishonest'. Mr PETER MORRIS —I withdraw the word, but my reference was to the dishonesty of the representation. My remarks did not refer or relate to the honourable member. I withdraw any- how. Clearly, those comments could have been presented in a much more forthright manner and in a factual manner. That was not the case on this occasion. Mr Spender —But you had an opportunity at Question Time. Mr PETER MORRIS —If the honourable member wishes to speak he can speak tomorrow. The honourable member did not advise me that he was going to raise it tonight. He said he might raise it last night. I am in order. Mr Downer —I didn't get up on the adjournment last night. Mr PETER MORRIS —I cannot help that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentlemen will stop talking to each other across the table and heed the Chair. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member is seeking to make the point that when he makes representations for intervention with a public enterprise on behalf of a constituent, that is a representation, but that if somebody else makes a representation, such as the individuals concerned, that in some way is presented to this Parliament, and to you, Madam Speaker, as a demand by the Government. That is patently untrue. I find it very interesting. If the honourable member had read the article he would have seen that the delegation was involved in gathering information. I would have thought that, given the commitment of this nation to improving productivity, its efficiency, its reliability in industry, that would be a worthy objective. Quite clearly, the Opposition does not share that objective and the honourable member does not share that objective. This is an excellent example of double standards by the honourable member because on numerous occasions he has been very critical of the performance of public enterprises. This Government has given those public enterprises-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 8.05 p.m., as no other Minister has risen, the Minister may continue. Mr PETER MORRIS —Thank you, Madam Speaker. This Government has given its public enterprises freedom, greater independence and responsibility to perform in a commercial manner. That is exactly what they are doing. What the honourable member has sought is some sort of benefit for an organisation which, in the course of its commercial judgment, has said: `This is not appropriate'. It is solely a matter for the enterprise. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot, on the one hand, say that these enterprises should operate in a commercial manner and, on the other hand, complain when they do so operate and that does not suit his particular constituents. I recall a similar occasion some time ago when the same honourable member sought my intervention in the operations of the Australian National Railways Commission in South Australia, again to suit his constituency. If honourable members read his remarks about the operations of Australian National, and if they look at the Opposition's policy, they will find that there is a vast gulf between them. Again, it is a matter of double standards. He cannot, on the one hand, ask for freedom, responsibility and efficiency in public enterprises and, on the other hand, expect that members of parliament, when it so suits their ilk, can make representations on behalf of their constituents and electorates for intervention in the commercial operation of and the exercise of commercial judgment by those public enterprises. Under this Government, the enterprises have a responsibility to carry forward their operations in the manner laid down. I found it particularly interesting that the honourable member, in a very sarcastic fashion, referred to the places that the delegation was apparently to visit. He said how lovely it would be in Sweden, Austria, West Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom and what a delightful time of year it would be to visit those places. Given the industrial composition of those countries, the industries located in them and the construction of their economies, I consider them appropriate places in which to gather information. I simply conclude by saying that the honourable member may care to check the itineraries of his parliamentary colleagues during the parliamentary recess and see just how many of them also found those locations to be appropriate for the gathering of information in the furtherance of their parliamentary duties. House adjourned at 8.07 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 24 September 1986: Fisheries Act-Notice-No. 171. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2526) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does his Department, or any statutory authority responsible to him, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953 of the Act; if so, what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does his Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by his Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. (6) Did he announce, on 11 July 1985, that the Tau Community Association would receive a grant of $82,200 under the New Institutes for Handicapped Persons program. (7) Did his Department's search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission disclose a failure at the date of the grant, or earlier, to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance. (8) What action was taken to ensure compliance with the law before progressing the grant. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The Department normally establishes the bona fides of an applicant organisation through examination of the organisation's constitution or Memorandum and Articles of Association and a request is made to lodge a copy of the certificate of incorporation. Grants are not processed until these documents have been examined. (4) and (5) Failure to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance is a matter for the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (6) The Acting Minister for Community Services announced on 11 July 1985 a grant of $82,200 to the Tau Community Association Inc. under the Handicapped Persons Welfare Program for a sheltered employment service. (7) No. The Tau Community Association provided a copy of its certificate of incorporation in February 1984 when the funding application was lodged. (8) Not applicable. (Question No. 2536) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Petitions which relate to matters within my portfolio are referred to me for information. They are then referred to my Department for consideration of any relevant policy issues. (Question No. 3827) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: When may I expect an answer to my question No. 2431 placed on notice on 15 November 1985. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The answer to question 2431 appeared in Hansard dated 17 September 1986 on page 888. (Question No. 3881) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the increasing costs being faced by families and governments alike in the provision of child day care facilities. (2) Will the Minister investigate the advantages of extending the present Government assistance to those families who use privately owned child care centres in view of the claims that this extension would (a) significantly cut the capital costs of building new community child care centres, (b) remove the problem where families must travel past private centres to community centres in order to be eligible for Government assistance and (c) immediately provide thousands of new places due to the present unused capacity of many of the privately owned centres. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) No. The Government has looked at the possibility of extending Government assistance to those families using privately-owned child care centres and rejected the idea. The Government has a commitment to quality child care. It is our view that the Government's quality objectives will be more successfully met by non-profit child care organisations. (Question No. 4326) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: How many people lost fringe benefits as a result of movements in exchange rates in each of the last 12 months. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information sought by the honourable member is not available. (Question No. 4354) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What areas of what divisions are having an electoral roll review in 1986-87 and when will each review occur. (2) What is the 1986-87 Budget allocation for these reviews. (3) How much has been spent so far. (4) Will the Budget allocation be fully spent; if not, why not. (5) What parts of the Electoral Division of Richmond roll have been reviewed since the last election. (6) When were they reviewed. (7) Has the CES been asked to respond to the advertisement in the Daily News of 23 July 1986 for persons to assist in the electoral roll review by supplying names of suitable applicants. (8) If so, how many (a) applied and (b) were employed. (9) If not, why not. (10) How many positions were available. (11) Have they all been filled. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Electoral Commissioner has advised that a complete review of all divisions in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory will be undertaken in 1986-87. A full review of Western Australian divisions was completed in December 1985. For this reason, a review of divisions in that State will not be necessary during 1986-87, although it is expected that a review to be conducted during 1987-88 will commence in June 1987. In the Australian Capital Territory, reviews of all of the Division of Canberra and 90 per cent of the Division of Fraser were completed prior to 30 June 1986. The remaining 10 per cent of Fraser was reviewed by the end of August 1986. The proposed dates for reviews during the 1986-87 financial year are as follows: State Starting date Finishing date NSW... September 1986 February 1987 November 1986 April 1987 Vic.... September 1986 February 1987 December 1986 May 1987 Qld... February 1987 April 1987 WA... June 1987 Late 1987 SA... February 1987 May 1987 Tas.... September 1986 February 1987 December 1986 May 1987 NT... August 1986 March 1987 November 1986 May 1987 ACT... March 1986 August 1986 (2) The 1986-87 Budget allocation for habitation reviews, Australia-wide, is $3,718,000. (3) As of 9 September 1986, $30,198 had been spent. (4) Yes. (5) As of 29 August 1986, nil. (6) Not applicable. (7) As normal procedure, the Australian Electoral Commission's New South Wales Head Office in Sydney wrote to the State Director of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on 17 July 1986 advising of the pending Electoral Roll Review and of the placement of advertisements in particular newspapers. The letter also offered him the opportunity to inform his CES Offices of the arrangements outlined above, so that the employment opportunities presented could be brought to the attention of potentially suitable applicants. (8) (a) and (b) 158 applicants were received in Richmond. It is not possible to determine how many of these may have emanated from CES contact. There were no formal referrals from CES. (9) Not applicable. (10) 8 positions were available in Richmond. (11) Yes. (Question No. 4397) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Did the NZ Government set up a committee to report on technical aspects of food irradiation facilities. (2) Did this committee report in June 1985. (3) Did the report say that any commercial food irradiation program must be supported by a research and development program aimed at obtaining data, under NZ conditions, on the suitability of the process for NZ commodities and that 2 or more years may be required to obtain some of the data. (4) When did his Department obtain a copy of the report. (5) Was a copy of the report distributed to all National Health and Medical Research Council Committee members (including Council members) for their consideration of food irradiation during 1985 and 1986; if so, when. (6) If not, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In March 1985 New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) officials met to discuss the current and likely future situation of food irradiation in New Zealand. The officials requested a small working party of three DSIR scientists to provide information on the technical aspects of food irradiation facilities. (2) The Science Information Publishing Centre of the DSIR, in June 1985 published the report of the working party which is entitled `Technical aspects of food irradiation facilities'. This report is intended to be a resource document, providing information for future decisions on such facilities. It is not a New Zealand Government position on food irradiation. New Zealand has adopted the Codex Alimentarius Commission General Standard for Irradiated Foods which permits the irradiation of any food up to an overall average dose limit of 10 kilograys. (3) Yes. (4) 4 September 1986. (5) No. (6) See reply to (4). (Question No. 4411) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is he aware of a report on the ABC-TV News of 8 June 1986 which announced that the Peace Bus operated by the People for Nuclear Disarmament organisation will be conducting a tour costing $60,000 which will culminate in a demonstration against allied naval vessels visiting Sydney in October 1986. (2) What financial assistance is being given to the Peace Bus under the auspices of the International Year of Peace program. (3) Did the People for Nuclear Disarmament organisation include participation in the proposed demonstration in their application for financial assistance. (4) Does he consider the use of the Peace Bus in such a demonstration compatible with the guidelines for funding under the International Year of Peace program. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) I have approved three grants to the Peace Bus project under the auspices of the International Year of Peace (IYP) program: $10,000 as recommended by the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament, $7,000 as recommended by the South Australian IYP Committee and $5,000 as recommended by the New South Wales IYP Committee. (3) No. (4) The grants received from the Federal Government for the Peace Bus project amount to less than one half of the total project budget of $56,000 quoted by People for Nuclear Disarmament. These grants were made specifically to support education and information activities by the Peace Bus on its national tour as described in the application form. In my view, and those of the three committees concerned, these activities are quite compatible with the guidelines for IYP grants. (Question No. 4469) Mr Andrew asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: When may I expect an answer to my Question No. 4208 placed on notice on 4 June 1986. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: An answer to Question No. 4208 was provided on 16 September 1986 (Hansard, page 657). (Question No. 4476) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) As a consequence of a countervailing duty investigation, was there an agreement between Australia and France in July 1984 for a minimum price for French brandy exports to Australia. (2) If so, (a) was the agreed price expressed in francs, (b) did France request that the price be expressed in francs. (c) what was the price and (d) what was the price expressed in Australian dollars (i) in July 1984, (ii) in January 1985 and (iii) now. (3) What were the rates at (a) 1 July 1984 and (b) 20 August 1986 of (i) customs duty on imports of French brandy into (A) NZ and, (B) Australia, (ii) customs duty on brandy imported into Australia from NZ and (iii) excise duty on Australian brandy. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Following countervailing duty investigations in France, an agreement between Australia and a number of French exporters was reached in July 1984 relating to a minimum export price for French brandy exports to Australia. (2) (a) and (b) the agreed minimum price was expressed in French francs at the request of the French exporters. (c) the minimum agreed export price was 18.90 French francs per litre of alcohol. (d) In Australian dollar terms, this price represented approximately $2.60 in July 1984; $2.40 in January 1985 and $4.30 in August 1986. (3) (i) (A) The rate of New Zealand Customs duty payable on French brandy of less than 80 per cent by volume of alcohol imported into New Zealand is understood to be $NZ16.88 per litre of alcohol at 1 July 1984, and $NZ20.11 per litre of alcohol as at 20 August 1986. (B) The rate of Australian Customs duty on French brandy of less than 57 per cent by volume of alcohol imported into Australia was $18.57 per litre of alcohol as at 1 July 1984 and $21.27 per litre of alcohol as at 20 August 1986. The rate for other French brandy was $17.57 per litre of alcohol as at 1 July 1984 and $20.27 per litre of alcohol as at 20 August 1986. (ii) The rate of Australian Customs duty for brandy imported into Australia from New Zealand which is eligible for New Zealand preferential tariff treatment was $17.37 per litre of alcohol as at 1 July 1984 and $20.07 per litre of alcohol as at 20 August 1986. For brandy imported into Australia from New Zealand for which preferential tariff treatment is not claimed the rates applicable are as per my answer to question 3 (i) (B). (iii) The excise duty on Australian brandy was $17.37 per litre of alcohol on 1 July 1984 and $20.07 per litre of alcohol on 20 August 1986. (Question No. 3325) Mr Duncan asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: (1) Was Mrs Andrea Patricia Smith charged with supplying heroin by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on 23 December 1984. (2) Did she confess to supplying the heroin when interviewed by police. (3) Is it a fact that she was (a) 8 1/2 months pregnant and (b) withdrawing from heroin or methadone at the time the police interviewed her. (4) Was it critical for Mrs Smith to obtain a daily methadone dose at hospital; if so, were the interviewing officers aware of this need. (5) Is it accepted practice in the AFP to interrogate addicted suspects during periods of withdrawal; if so, does he endorse the practice (a) in general and (b) when the suspect is 8 1/2 months pregnant. (6) Is it a fact that Mrs Smith had (a) sought legal advice at the time of the interview and (b) been discouraged from obtaining legal advice by Senior Constable Rodney Peter West. (7) Is it accepted practice in the AFP to discourage suspects from seeking legal advice once such an intention or request has been made; if so, does he endorse the practice. (8) Is it a fact that Mr Justice Gallop of the ACT Supreme Court ruled Mrs Smith's confession inadmissible because it may have been obtained under duress. (9) Is it a fact that, as Mr Justice Gallop delivered his reasons for disallowing Mrs Smith's confession, Senior Constable West walked out of court. (10) Has any disciplinary action been taken against Senior Constable West for (a) his interrogative practices or (b) his courtroom demeanour; if not, why not. (11) What steps has he taken to ensure the legal propriety of investigative practices by the AFP. Mr Young —I am advised by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) that the answers to parts (1) to (10) of the honourable member's question are as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) (a) AFP members were aware that Mrs Smith was at an advanced stage of pregnancy at the time she was interviewed. (b) AFP members did not detect that Mrs Smith was in withdrawal from heroin or methadone at the time she was interviewed. (4) Interviewing members had no cause to believe Mrs Smith required a daily methadone dose. (5) (a) and (b) If an addicted suspect shows signs of withdrawal or indeed of ill-health, he or she is examined by a Commonwealth Medical Practitioner who advises investigating members if the suspect is fit for interview. Provided the addicted suspect understands the text of the interview he/she is processed in the same way as any other suspect. Further, if a suspect is in good health, pregnancy would not be a bar to her being interviewed. (6) (a) No. (b) No. (7) No. (8) Yes. (9) Yes. Senior Constable West was aware there was another vital witness for the Crown who had not been called to give evidence and left the Court to locate that witness. (10) (a) and (b) No disciplinary action has been taken against Senior Constable West, nor is such action warranted or justified. The matter was thoroughly examined by Detective Superintendent L. E. Potter, Commander, Criminal Investigation Branch shortly after the Court hearing as a result of media publicity about the Judge's decision to rule Mrs Smith's confession inadmissible. Advice had also been sought and received from the AFP Internal Investigation Division (IID) that the article did not constitute a complaint against Senior Constable West that would warrant investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Complaints (AFP) Act 1981. Further, Mrs Smith has not lodged a complaint against the Senior Constable notwithstanding she has had ample time to do so had she felt aggrieved. In respect of Senior Constable West's courtroom demeanour, the investigating officer, Detective Superintendent Potter, found that the action taken by West in leaving the Court to locate a witness was reasonable. With regard to (11) and those parts of (5) and (7) where the honourable member sought my views on AFP practices, I am advised that the circumstances of this matter were thoroughly examined by Detective Superintendent L. E. Potter and as a result no changes to AFP investigative practices are warranted. I would not, of course, endorse any practice which denied suspects their proper rights or amounted to duress. (Question No. 3712) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the report by Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey to the NSW Water Resources Commission on waterlogging and land salinisation in irrigated areas of NSW and its recommendation that consideration be given to setting up a combined research committee with the Victorian authorities on the problem of shallow water-tables. (2) Will the Minister approach the NSW authorities to support joint research action and ensure that such research is conducted at a basin level involving all relevant authorities. (3) Will the Government provide support on a basin-wide basis for (a) an education, publicity and community involvement program as suggested in the report and (b) State Agriculture Departments to improve their advice and assistance programs along the lines recommended in the report; if so, what are the details of the support. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) At its first meeting held in Sydney on 27 August 1986, the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council discussed the findings of a number of working groups which addressed issues associated with reducing salinity problems in the Basin including waterlogging and land salinisation. Council agreed, inter alia, to establish a Working Group to determine and advise on priorities for and co-ordination of land and water research across the Basin. The working group will comprise researchers from relevant agencies in each of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Commonwealth. (3) (a) The first Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting also agreed to establish a Community Advisory Committee for the Basin. The Committee will develop and present to Council community perceptions and views on matters referred to it by the Council or raised by the community. (b) Council also agreed that a workshop, to be hosted by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, will be convened to review mechanisms to increase the managerial skills of farmers and their advisers in adopting improved water and land management practices across the Basin. The Commonwealth is, of course, continuing to provide assistance to the States under the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program to improve irrigated crop management advisory services. (Question No. 3886) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) What percentage increase in the cost of labour has occurred during each year since 1975-76. (2) What were average weekly earnings on (a) 11 November 1975, (b) 5 March 1983 and (c) 1 January 1986. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following table sets out percentage increases in the cost of labour since 1975: Year Total hourly labour cost (1) Unit labour cost Nominal (2) Real (3) (percentage change on a year earlier) 1975-76... 17.6 13.5 -2.6 1976-77... 14.8 11.0 -0.2 1977-78... 10.6 9.3 0.9 1978-79... 7.6 3.3 -3.3 1979-80... 10.1 9.1 -0.6 1980-81... 13.2 11.5 0.8 1981-82... 15.2 14.2 2.3 1982-83... 15.0 11.0 0.2 1983-84... 3.8 2.0 -5.2 1984-85... 6.6 5.3 -1.2 1985-86... 6.5 5.9 -1.1 Footnotes: (1) Non-farm wages, salaries and supplements plus payroll tax per hour worked by non-farm wage and salary earners. (2) Ratio of non-farm wages, salaries and supplements plus payroll tax per hour worked by non-farm wage and salary earners to gross non-farm product at average 1979-80 prices per hour worked by all persons employed in the non-farm sector. (3) Ratio of non-farm wages, salaries and supplements plus payroll tax, deflated by the implicit price deflator for gross non-farm product per hour worked by non-farm wage and salary earners to gross non-farm product at average 1979-80 prices per hour worked by all persons employed in the non-farm sector. (2) (a) The Bureau of Statistics does not provide earnings figures for specific dates; however in the December Quarter 1975 Average Weekly Earnings were $157.30. This estimate is derived from the former payroll tax based series on a so-called `male units' basis and has been adjusted so that it is comparable with later earnings estimates derived from the ABS employer-based earnings survey. Earnings data on a persons basis has only become available with the introduction of the ABS employer-based earnings survey, which occurred in the September Quarter of 1981. (b) In the March Quarter of 1983 `Average Weekly Earnings' for all persons was $295.40; for males, it was $341.50. (c) In the December Quarter of 1985 `Average Weekly Earnings' was $355.60 for all persons; for males, it was $413.90. (Question Nos 4363-4390) Mr Hawker asked all Ministers, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: Further to the answer by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer to questions Nos 4225-4252, is the Minister now able to say how many additional staff members the Minister's Department will need to administer the fringe benefits tax as it applies to the Department? Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question on behalf of the Ministers: There was no increase in staffing in the 1986-87 Budget for the administration of fringe benefits tax. It was decided in the 1986-87 Budget to hold average staffing levels to 0.3% above the average level in 1985-86, which will involve, from June 1986 to June 1987, a reduction of approximately 2000 staff subject to staff-budget controls. Whilst staff resource requirements to administer the fringe benefits tax are generally assessed to be minimal, individual portfolios may need to rearrange priorities for staff to cope with any increased workload. (Question No. 4318) Mr O'Neil asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What is the position of the industrial dispute at Broken Hill and its potential impact on the Broken Hill Associated Smelters at Port Pirie. (2) What role does the Commonwealth have in helping to resolve this dispute. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 21 July 1986 the parties to the dispute agreed to an interim settlement which resulted in a return to work on 22 July 1986. The outstanding safety matters relevant to the dispute have been the subject of an investigation by a Technical Committee which, I understand, is to present its findings to the parties on 22 September 1986. Should the Technical Committee's findings be unacceptable to the parties the matter will be referred again to the New South Wales Industrial Commission. The Broken Hill Associated Smelters at Port Pirie is currently closed with the work-force on leave as stockpiles are being replenished. Some shifts are to be shortly recalled for maintenance work on the sinter plant which is expected to resume full production in mid September. The remainder of the work-force is expected to return by early October. (2) The protraction of this dispute has been regrettable and a source of concern to the Commonwealth Government and accordingly I have been kept closely advised of developments. In addition, on 30 May and 2 June 1986 the Minister for Resources and Energy and I met with the unions and the employers respectively, to be briefed on progress. The Commonwealth has been involved in other meetings with the parties, most recently on 24 July. The matter is principally one for the New South Wales Industrial Commission and the State Government; nevertheless, the Commonwealth Government remains amenable to assist in any appropriate way. (Question No. 4398) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Did the British Government set up an Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods in 1982 under the chairmanship of Sir Arnold Burgen, Master of Darwin College, University of Cambridge. (2) Did this Committee report in April 1986. (3) Did the British Minister for Health state in a press release that before any decision was taken as to whether or not the report's advice should be implemented, full consideration would be given to comments made by interested organisations and individuals. (4) Has this report been distributed for public comment in the UK. (5) When did his Department receive a copy of the Burgen Report. (6) Was a copy made available to all members of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) for consideration at their June 1986 meeting; if so, when. (7) If not, why not. (8) Was consideration given to following a similar procedure to the British investigation in Australia; if not, why not. (9) Does the Burgen Report state that under certain conditions irradiation can make food radioactive. (10) What safeguards are there in the NHMRC model regulations to ensure that food irradiated in Australia does not become radioactive. (11) Does the Burgen Report give examples of where irradiation of certain foods at levels below 10 kGy, the proposed permitted level in Australia, are unsafe. (12) Does the Burgen Report indicate that irradiation of vacuum packed fish and chicken could lead to an increase in the incidence of botulism. (13) Did both the Australian Federation of Consumers' Organisations and the Food Preservers' Union of Australia ask that irradiation of chicken be prohibited in Australia; if so, why was this request ignored and the irradiation of chicken permitted. (14) In view of the Burgen and the NZ reports, will he ask the NHMRC to withdraw the draft regulations on food irradiation until all of the implications of these reports, together with other information, can be publicly examined in Australia, and the results reported to him. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) Copies of the Report are available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office and booksellers in the UK at a cost of #4.50. (5) May 1986. (6) At the June 1986 meeting of the National Health and Medical Research Council Dr P. Livingstone, Chairman of the Public Health Committee in his report to the Council referred to the Burgen Report. A copy of the Report was sent to all members of the Council on 18 June 1986 for information. (7) See reply to (6). (8) No. Food irradiation has been under consideration for several years by the National Health and Medical Research Council. In September 1982 the then Public Health Advisory Committee of the Council agreed with the conclusions reached by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)/the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)/World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods (JECFI) that `the irradiation of any food commodity up to an overall average dose of 10 kilogray (kGy) presents no toxicological hazard'. This conclusion had been reached by JECFI after many years of research. The Burgen Committee has reviewed all relevant scientific data bearing on the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated food and has also agreed with the conclusion made by JECFI in 1980. Having agreed that food irradiated up to an overall average dose of 10 kGy was safe the subsidiary food committees of the NHMRC commenced development of a standard for the irradiation of food based on the international standard of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. As is usual in the formulation of any food standard in Australia the Public Health Committee and associated food committees of the NHMRC consulted with State health authorities, consumer groups and industry in the development of the model standard for the irradiation of food. This model standard was endorsed by the Council in June 1986 and has been recommended to State and Territory Governments. (9) The Burgen Report indicates that in the opinion of the UK National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) trivial amounts, from a health viewpoint, of secondary radioactivity may be induced in food by either photoneutrons or isomer activation. The NRPB developed a realistic case risk estimate of 0.001 microsievert (muSv) per year from consumption of irradiated food. The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends an annual maximum permissible dose limit of 5000 muSv for members of the public. Clearly the potential contribution from irradiated food to the public radiation burden of 2 x 10-5 percent is negligible. The Burgen Report concludes that `the practice of food irradiation is radiologically acceptable' and notes that- (a) `any activity induced would be short lived and would have mostly decayed in the delay between processing and consumption'; and (b) `the theoretical levels of induced activity in irradiated foods . . . . . are less than the natural activity levels reported in fish and shellfish'. (10) As indicated in reply to (9) this is not a problem. However the model food standards regulation requires that the overall average dose of ionising radiation absorbed by foods processed by irradiation shall in no case exceed 10 kGy and also specifies the ionising radiations which may be used for the irradiation of food. (11) No. The Burgen Report agrees with the conclusions of the 1980 JECFI, namely that `the irradiation of food up to an overall average dose of 10 kGy presents no toxicological hazard and introduces no special nutritional or microbiological problems'. (12) No. (13) Yes. The irradiation of chicken is permitted in the model food standards regulation for the reasons stated in (8). (14) No. However because food irradiation is seen to be of major interest to consumers and to allow wide discussion of the issue, I have contracted with the Australian Consumers Association to conduct a consumer inquiry to examine the impact of food irradiation on consumer health and the environment and on the cost to consumers. (Question No. 4399) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) With reference to his answer to part (7) of question No. 3813 (Hansard, 5 June 1986, page 4892) concerning the membership of the Working Party on Public Education on Food Irradiation, were (a) the Food Industry Council of Australia, (b) the Council of Australian Food Technology Associations, (c) the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO), (d) the Queensland Government, (e) the irradiation sterilisation industry and (f) the Australian Atomic Energy Commission asked to submit a panel of names from which the membership of the Working Party was selected. (2) Did AFCO (a) request that one of its nominees should be an expert in food irradiation and (b) submit the name of a person who had worked on food irradiation as part of a Ph.D. degree. (3) Who selected the members of the Working Party. (4) Why was AFCO's technical expert not selected. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (d) No. (e) No. (f) No. With respect to members representing organisations (a), (d), (e) and (f) specific nominations were made by the Public Health Committee of the NHMRC and endorsed by the Council, on the basis of their known expertise in relation to food irradiation or to the development of public information programs. In the case of (b) and (c) the organisations involved were given the opportunity to nominate their own representatives with relevant expertise. (2) (a) The Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO) submitted the names of three nominees and requested that two of these persons be its representatives on the working party. It stated that one of the nominees had considerable knowledge of the technology. (2) (b) One of the AFCO nominees has a Ph.D. (3) Membership of the Working Party was determined by the Public Health Committee of the NHMRC and endorsed by the Council. Where multiple nominees were submitted the selection was performed by the Chairman of the Working Party in consultation with the secretariat as is routine NHMRC procedure. (4) The task of the Working Party was to devise a national consumer information program, so those AFCO nominees with expertise in similar NHMRC programs or advertising were given highest priority by the Chairman of the Working Party. (Question No. 4446) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: Why does it take so much longer to table the reports of the Australian delegations to the International Labour Conference than to table the reports of the Australian delegations to the UNESCO General Conference. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian delegation to the annual International Labour Conference is tripartite, consisting of representatives of the Government, Employers (nominated by the Confederation of Australian Industry) and Workers (nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions). The tabling of the Australian delegation's report on the annual conference is possible only after contributions from all three elements of the delegation are received. (Question No. 3354) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to the answer to question 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 John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A. OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SPORT, RECREATION AND TOURISM Main purpose (a) Classification (b) Duration (c) Countries (d) Airfare (e) Other $ $ World Tourism Organization (WTO) and OECD SES Level 1 3 weeks UK, Spain, France 4,953 3,410 Recall to duty... Journalist 1 week Japan 440 300 Expo 85... SES Level 1 3 weeks Japan 5,476 -* Study for Expo 86... Class 8 18 days US, Canada 3,494 2,528 WTO Meeting and discussions with officials in other cities SES Level 1** 1 month US 11,288 6,226 Expo 86 Discussions... SES Level 1 18 days Canada 5,076 -* Liaison Visit... Journalist 1 week New Zealand 902 473 Post liaison visits... SES Level 1 20 days US, Mexico, Canada 5,085 3,700 Attend Expo 85. Lead Delegation to Bureau of International Expositions meeting. Discussions with sport and tourism officials. International Olympic Committee meeting Secretary** 25 days France, Japan, GDR, Netherlands, UK 15,000 7,250 Attend printing conferences and post liaison visits SES Level 3** 1 month Hong Kong, China, USA 12,802 7,290 * For the Department some travel has been assisted by sponsorship from outside organisations, e.g. Canadian Government and Expo 85. ** Also includes airfares for spouse in accordance with Public Service entitlements. B. OFFICE OF THE AUSTRALIAN SPORTS COMMISSION Main purpose (a) Classification (b) Duration (c) Countries (d) Airfare (e) Other $ $ Assist Minister at Olympics SES Level 1 3 weeks USA 5,700 5,600 Attend UNESCO Conference, Japan. Discussions with Chinese sports officials Class 11 3 weeks Japan, China 261 *...1,676 * Partly sponsored by UNESCO. C. AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION Main purpose (a) Classification (b) Duration (c) Countries (d) Airfare (e) Other $ $ Speaker at PATA Conference: Promotional Tour SES Level 5 12 days USA 4,968 2,637 Attend PATA Task Force and Board Meeting SES Level 5 5 days Malaysia, Singapore 2,036 1,284 Attend PATA Board of Directors Meeting SES Level 5 6 days USA 3,799 783 Attend Tourist Trade Fairs in Paris and Milan SES Level 5 17 days Europe, Japan 6,043 5,953 Guest Speaker TAAI Convention SES Level 5 4 days India 1,373 Nil Attend PATA Convention SES Level 5 5 days New Zealand 281 1,314 Budget Discussions SES Level 1 4 days New Zealand 556 368 Attend Regional ICR-North Asia review ATPPC Project, Japan SES Level 1 6 days Japan 2,656 2,236 Assist in Bid for DER Travel Academy SES Level 1 12 days Europe, Singapore 4,768 1,549 Visit ATC Offices to finalise Budget Allocations SES Level 1 18 days Japan, Europe, Singapore 7,219 2,898 Operations Planning Conference SES Level 1 3 days Singapore 2,036 712 Provide assistance to Chairman at Bahrain Travel Conference, ITB Berlin and Corroboree London SES Level 1 4 weeks Bahrain, Europe 4,742 3,112 Attend Matinz in Auckland PATA Research Meeting Clerical Admin. Class 8 11 days Japan, New Zealand 3,023 1,228 Attend Language Course Work in ATC Offices Clerical Admin. Class 8 7 weeks Europe 168 2,946 Attend PATA Communication Conference Clerical Admin. Class 10 8 days USA 3,041 1,871 Discussions re DER Activity and ABTA Bids Clerical Admin. Class 10 18 days Singapore, Europe 3,999 3,482 Lead Australian Contingent to Bahrain Travel Conference, ITB Berlin Clerical Admin. Class 10 4 weeks Bahrain, Europe 3,879 6,027 Conduct audit of ATC Office, Tokyo Clerical Admin. Class 6 10 days Japan 2,577 2,125 Conduct audits of ATC Offices in Europe and Los Angeles Clerical Admin. Class 6 5 weeks Singapore, Europe, USA 4,262 6,409 Attend PATA Annual Conference in Auckland Clerical Admin. Class 11 10 days New Zealand 281 473 Attend AASE Conference Clerical Admin. Class 10 11 days USA 3,280 1,489 Audit of ATC Office Auckland Clerical Admin. Class 10 4 days New Zealand 694 361 For the Australian Tourist Commission, some airfares cover travel from overseas offices to other overseas destinations and some travel has been at special concessional rates. (Question No. 4532) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Is a survey entitled ``A Fair Go For Women'' being undertaken; if so why. (2) Did any advertising agency advise or co-ordinate this survey; if so, which agency and how was it appointed. (3) Who designed the survey brochures. (4) What will the survey cost. (5) What proportion of the survey costs are due to agency fees. (6) How are the survey brochures being distributed. (7) Who is analysing the responses to the survey. (8) What will happen with the results and will he make them publicly available. Mr Dawkins —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) A survey to identify the needs, concerns and views of Australian women has been undertaken. The questionnaire was included in a pamphlet entitled ``A Fair Go For Women''. The survey is part of a broad consultation process on the draft National Agenda for Women, which I announced in Parliament on 28 November 1985. (2) No advertising agency has advised on or co-ordinated the survey. (3) The survey brochures were designed within the Office of the Status of Women. (4) Printing, translation into community languages and analysis of the survey forms is expected to cost $33,000. (5) Because an advertising agency has not been involved in the process, no costs for agency fees have been incurred. (6) The survey brochures have been widely distributed by the Office of the Status of Women to women's organisations throughout Australia, and to other groups of women or individuals on request. (7) The responses to the questionnaires are being analysed by the Office of the Status of Women with technical assistance from McNair Anderson Associates Pty Ltd. (8) The results of the analysis of returned questionnaires will be used in the preparation of a report on the consultation process, which has also included submissions, and reports of meetings and conferences. The Consultation Report will be publicly released. (Question No. 3090) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What funds were allocated to the (a) Home Nursing Subsidy, (b) Nursing Homes (Deficit Financing), (c) Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Grant, (d) Personal Care Subsidy and Hostel Care Subsidy, (e) Delivered Meals Subsidy, (f) Home Care for (i) Senior Citizens Centres, (ii) Home Care Services and (iii) Welfare Officers, (g) Supported Accommodation Assistance, (h) Home and Community Care, (j) Handicapped Persons Assistance, (k) Homeless Persons Assistance and (l) National Women's Emergency Services Program schemes in (i) 1982-83, (ii) 1983-84, (iii) 1984-85 and (iv) 1985-86. (2) What (a) amounts and (b) proportion of funds was specifically allocated in each year for projects to be undertaken in NSW. (3) How and by which body were the funds administered in each year for each scheme. (4) How and by which body were decisions made in each year on the detailed allocation of funds for projects under each scheme. (5) What specific projects were funded under each scheme in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (6) For each project in the Electoral Division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant, (b) which individual or group received the grant, (c) what was the amount of the grant and (d) what evaluation had been made to determine if the grant achieved the original objectives for which it was made. (7) What specific projects were denied funding under each scheme in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (8) For each project denied funding in the Electoral Division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant sought, (b) which individual or group applied for the grant, (c) what was the amount of grant sought and (d) what was the reason for refusing funding for the application. (9) How does funding for projects under these schemes in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond compare on a per capita basis with funding for projects under the schemes in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Wills, (b) Reid, (c) Parramatta, (d) Robertson, (e) Shortland, (f) Cunningham, (g) Werriwa and (h) Blaxland. (10) How and when were applications sought for grants under each scheme in each year. (11) Was any specific advertising undertaken to alert residents of the Electoral Division of Richmond to the existence of these schemes. (12) Will he ensure that in future comprehensive information concerning grant availability and eligibility under these schemes is drawn to the attention of local government bodies, community groups and residents in the Electoral Division of Richmond; if not, why not. (13) If so, (a) how and (b) When will the information be provided. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Q1. Commonwealth funds allocated to the programs listed, for the years 1982-83 to 1985-86 are shown at Table 1. Table 1 Commonwealth Funding Allocations: Program by financial year Program Financial year 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) (a) Home Nursing Subsidy... 19.88 22.80 27.05 34.38 (b) Nursing Homes (deficit funded)... 222.11 248.09 283.30 306.65 (c) Aged or Disabled Persons' Homes Act (1954)... 49.19 48.96 45.23 42.00 Aged or Disabled Persons' Hostels Act (1972)... 9.24 3.87 1.78 4.47 Total Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Grant... 58.43 52.83 47.01 46.47 (d) Personal Care Subsidy... 35.84 32.72 35.06 41.07 Hostel Care Subsidy (a)... - 7.22 19.77 16.54 Total... 35.84 39.94 54.83 57.61 (e) Delivered Meals Subsidy... 4.82 5.63 6.17 8.44 (f) Home Care (i) Senior Citizens' Centres... 6.92 3.88 5.22 5.98 (ii) Home Care Services... 17.70 24.88 34.89 41.54 (iii) Welfare Officers... 2.00 2.66 2.59 3.15 Total... 26.62 31.42 42.70 49.11 (g) Supported Accommodation Assistance (b)... - - 29.60 32.03 (h) Home and Community Care Program... (c) (c) 78.09 100.84 (j) Handicapped Person's Welfare Program... 71.21 76.97 92.89 104.50 (k) Homeless Person's Assistance Program... 5.32 8.75 7.16 4.36 (l) National Women's Emergency Services Program (d)... - 4.00 2.18 (e) (a) Hostel Care Subsidy introduced on 1 January 1984. Figure for 1983-84 includes only allocations made from 1.1.84 to 30.6.84. (b) Supported Accommodation Assistance Program introduced on 1 January 1985. Figure for 1984-85 includes only allocations made from 1.1.85 to 30.6.85. (c) Home and Community Care Program not in existence. (d) Women's Emergency Services Program (WESP) introduced on 1 January 1984. Figure for 1983-84 includes only allocations made from 1.1.84 to 30.6.84. (e) Not available. Q2. The (a) amount and (b) proportion of Commonwealth funds for the programs listed allocated to New South Wales for the financial years 1982-83 to 1985-86 are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Commonwealth Funding Allocations to New South Wales: Program by Financial Year Program Financial year 1982-83 Expenditure Proportion 1983-84 Expenditure Proportion 1984-85 Expenditure Proportion 1985-86 Expenditure Proportion ($m) (%) ($m) (%) ($m) (%) ($m) (%) (a) Home Nursing Subsidy... 4.32 21.7 4.89 21.5 5.70 21.1 7.26 21.1 (b) Nursing Homes (Deficit Funded)... 74.58 33.6 83.62 33.7 94.57 33.4 101.82 33.2 (c) Aged or Disabled Persons' Homes Act (1954)... 16.24 33.0 16.68 34.2 15.00 33.5 13.44 32.0 Aged or Disabled Persons' Hostels Act (1972)... 2.71 29.3 1.60 41.3 0.93 52.2 0.27 6.0 Total Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Grant... 18.95 32.4 18.28 34.6 15.93 33.9 13.71 29.5 (d) Personal Care Subsidy... 10.53 29.3 9.51 29.0 10.06 28.7 12.02 29.2 Hostel Care Subsidy (a)... (a) (a) 2.43 33.7 6.08 30.7 5.18 31.3 Total... 10.53 29.3 11.94 29.9 16.14 29.4 17.20 29.9 (e) Delivered Meals Subsidy... 1.38 28.7 1.63 29.0 1.72 27.9 2.41 28.6 (f) Home Care (i) Senior Citizens' Centres... 2.71 39.2 0.78 20.1 1.70 32.6 1.18 19.7 (ii) Home Care Services... 5.72 32.3 11.85 47.6 15.71 45.0 20.56 49.5 (iii) Welfare Officers... 0.55 27.7 0.90 33.9 0.77 29.8 0.87 27.6 Total... 8.98 33.7 13.53 43.1 18.18 42.3 19.48 39.7 (g) Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (b)... - - - - 9.61 32.5 10.72 33.5 (h) Home and Community Care Program... 14.70 28.6 20.06 33.5 25.60 33.7 32.45 32.2 (j) Handicapped Persons' Welfare Program... 22.13 31.1 24.06 31.3 27.35 29.5 33.81 32.0 (k) Homeless Persons' Assistance Program... 1.43 26.8 2.71 31.0 2.57 35.9 1.78 40.90 (l) National Women's Emergency Services Program (c)... - - 1.35 33.6 0.73 33.25 (d) (d) (a) Hostel Care Subsidy introduced on 1 January 1984. Figure for 1983-84 includes only allocations made from 1.1.84 to 30.6.84. (b) Supported Accommodation Assistance Program introduced on 1 January 1985. Figure for 1985-86 includes only allocations made from 1.1.85 to 30.6.85. (c) Women's Emergency Services Program introduced on 1 January 1984. Figure for 1983-84 includes only allocations made from 1.1.84 to 30.6.84. (d) Not available. Q3- (a) The Home Nursing Subsidy is paid by the Department of Community Services direct to community organisations operating the Home Nursing Service. (b) Deficit funding is an arrangement under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 by which the Commonwealth meets the approved budget deficits of nursing homes conducted by religious and charitable organisations and local government bodies. This function, currently administered by the Department of Community Services, was taken over from the Department of Health in December 1984. (c) Funds are granted by the Commonwealth, through the Department of Community Services, directly to eligible bodies such as religious, charitable and local government organisations. (d) Personal Care and Hostel Care Subsidies are paid by the Department of Community Services to hostels conducted by religious and charitable organisations and local government on a claims reimbursement basis. (e) The Commonwealth subsidy is paid by the Department of Community Services, direct to the community organisations administering the Service. (f) (i) The Commonwealth subsidy is paid by the Department of Community Services to the State Government, which, together with the State's matched share of funding, is then paid to the sponsoring body (usually local councils) on a claims reimbursement basis through the Home and Community Care Program. (ii) The Commonwealth subsidy is paid by the Department of Community Services to the State Government, which, together with the State's matched share of funding, is then paid to the two organisations which control Home Care Services in NSW. These are the Home Care Service of NSW and the Home Help Service of NSW. (iii) The Commonwealth subsidy is paid by the Department of Community Services to the State Government, which, together with the State's matched share of funding is then paid to the local council or community organisation which employs the welfare officer. (g) Supported Accommodation Assistance is a Commonwealth/State jointly funded program administered by the relevant State welfare or health departments. (h) Home and Community Care is an umbrella program including sub-programs (a), (e) and (f) (i), (ii) and (iii). (j) Funds are provided under the provisions of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act to voluntary, non-profit or local government bodies for prescribed services. This function, currently administered by the Department of Community Services was taken over from the Department of Social Security in December 1984. (k) The Homeless Person's Assistance Program is administered by the Department of Community Services. (l) The National Women's Emergency Services Program no longer exists as a separate program. It was incorporated into the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program effective from 1-1-85. Q4- (a) During the period 1982-83 to 1984-85 decisions on the level of funding provided to individual home nursing organisations were made by the State governments with matching moneys provided, on a dollar for dollar basis, by the Commonwealth. The introduction of the HACC Program in 1985-86 saw a change to these arrangements. Decisions on the level of funding are now made jointly by the Commonwealth and State and are based upon funding levels in respect of 1984-85 together with an allowance for indexation and such other growth as may be necessary. (b) See 3 (b). (c) See 3 (c). (d) See 3 (d). (e) as for (a). (f) (i) as for (a) (ii) as for (a) (iii) as for (a) (g) Funding allocations involve joint ministerial decision-making based on recommendations from State and Territory advisory committees. These committees are composed of representatives of relevant non-government organisations and of both levels of government. Committees review all applications in the light of program needs and priorities and in accordance with national guidelines. (h) Existing projects as for (a), (e) and (f) above. New projects as for (g) above. (j) Decisions on funding of new projects are at the discretion of the Minister for Community Services. Recurrent funding, following initial Ministerial approval, is administered by State offices operating under ministerial delegation. (k) Funding allocations are the subject of joint ministerial decision-making based on recommendations from advisory committees in each State and Territory on the basis of a prioritised list developed from studies of perceived need in the community. (l) This program was introduced to augment the existing State/Territory Women's Refuge Programs. Funds therefore were allocated to services already approved under the State/Territory programs. Allocations had to be in accordance with the national WESP guidelines. Q5 and Q6. Tables 3-7 show the specific projects funded under each Scheme in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond, the principal purpose of the grant, the individual/group receiving the grant, the amount of the grant and the Evaluation undertaken. This information is not available for (a) Home Nursing Subsidy, (e) Delivered Meals Subsidy, (f) Home Care, (i) Senior Citizens' Centres, (ii) Home Care Services and (iii) Welfare Officers, and (h) Home and Community Care Program. (a) not available see 3 (b). (b)- Table 3 DEFICIT FINANCED NURSING HOMES FUNDED IN THE ELECTORATE DIVISION OF RICHMOND (a) (b) (c) (d) Specific Project Principal Purpose of Grant Individual/Group Receiving Grant 1982-83 Amount of Grant 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Evaluation $ $ $ $ Maranoa, Lismore To meet the approved budget deficits of nursing homes conducted by religious and charitable organisations and local government bodies The Lismore Baptist Church 528,934 642,332 626,578 634,970 Under an agreement between the Commonwealth and the proprietor, the proprietor is required to provide to the Department a budget setting out the anticipated operating receipts for the forthcoming financial year. Financial assistance is then provided by way of monthly advances equal in total to the approved budget deficit. At the end of the financial year, the proprietor is required to submit an audited statement of operating receipts and payments. This statement is used as the basis for determining the final approved operating deficit to be funded by the Commonwealth. Total... 528,934 642,332 626,578 634,970 (c)- Table 4 AGED OR DISABLED PERSON'S HOMES/HOSTELS FUNDED IN THE ELECTORATE DIVISION OF RICHMOND (a) (b) (c) (d) Specific Project Principal Purpose of Grant Individual/Group Receiving Grant 1982-83 Amount of Grant 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Evaluation $ $ $ $ Coolamon Villa, Mullumbimby Legacy Lodge Hostel Capital grant for construction Capital grant for construction of 4 self-contained units Society of St Vincent de Paul Coolangatta, Tweed Heads Legacy Welfare Fund 233,800 48,400 356,540 * 1,029 * * * All grants approved are subject to an agreement signed by the recipient organisation. They are inspected on a regular basis to ensure compliance with the agreement. Total... 282,200 356,540 1,029 * * Project has not yet proceeded to final grant. (d)- Table 5 PERSONAL AND HOSTEL CARE SUBSIDIES TO NURSING HOSTELS IN THE ELECTORATE DIVISION OF RICHMOND (a) (b) (c) (d) Specific Project Principal Purpose of Grant Individual/Group Receiving Grant 1982-83 Amount of Grant 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Evaluation $ $ $ $ St Josephs Hostel, Tweed Heads Caroona Hostel, Goonellabah Aged Persons's Hostel, Byron Bay Through Personal Care and Hostel Care subsidies, financial assistance is provided to organisations to meet the cost of providing hostel care services to residents of aged or disabled persons hostels assessed as requiring such care Roman Catholic Church Diocese of Lismore Uniting Church in Australia Property Fund Australian Orthodox Home for the Aged Association 22,800 89,880 16,240 24,400 80,840 18,000 20,276 100,608 27,456 24,721 100,649 28,334 All Hostels receiving recurrent subsidies are inspected on a regular basis to ensure compliance with the agreement signed with the recipient organisation and Agreements are reviewed annually. Ozanam Villa, Lismore Society of St Vincent de Paul 46,080 44,400 55,240 61,539 Coolamon Villa, Mullumbimby Society of St Vincent de Paul . . . . 48,753 56,143 Maranoa, Lismore Lismore Baptist Church 18,280 19,080 27,304 22,508 St Mary's Presentation Convent, Lismore Congregation of Pres- entation Sisters 15,480 14,360 15,200 16,317 Greenhills Lodge Hostel, Mur- willumbah United Protestant Association of NSW 21,920 24,800 31,400 28,485 Total... 230,680 225,880 326,237 338,696 (g)- Table 6 SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FUNDED PROJECTS IN THE ELECTORATE DIVISION OF RICHMOND (a) (b) (c) (d) Specific Project Principal Purpose of Grant Individual/Group Receiving Grant 1982-83 Amount of Grant 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Evaluation $ $ $ $ Byron Bay Youth Refuge Lismore Youth Refuge Futcher House, Tweed Heads Lismore Women's Refuge (a) St Vincent de Paul, Cathcart St., Lismore (a) Byron Emergency Accommodation Project, Ewingsdale To provide a range of supported accommodation and related support services to assist men, women, young people and their dependants who are either permanently homeless, or temporarily homeless as a result of crisis, and who need such assistance to move towards independent living where possible and appropriate. Funds are provided for recurrent purposes, and capital non-housing items Not available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,691 24,665 . . . . 50,096 56,454 64,481 167,313 15,959 . . 86,830 90,154 127,183 178,934 26,696 20,965 The relevant administrations have certified that the funds provided have been used by their organisations for the purposes specified in the program guidelines (a) 1984-85 figures includes State funding for pre-SAAP period i.e. 1 July-31 December 1984 for the Lismore Women's Refuge and St Vincent de Paul, Lismore. (j)- Table 7 PROJECTS FUNDED UNDER HANDICAPPED PERSON'S WELFARE PROGRAM IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF RICHMOND (a) (b) (c) (d) Specific Project Principal Purpose of Grant Individual/Group Receiving Grant 1982-83 Amount of Grant 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Evaluation $ $ $ $ Training Centre, Murwillumbah Activity Therapy Centre, Lismore Residential, Goonellabah Tweed Valley Enterprises Sheltered Workshop, Murwillumbah The Handicapped Persons Welfare Program assists people with disabilities by providing both capital and recurrent subsidies to voluntary non-profit or local government bodies for prescribed services, such as training, activity therapy and sheltered employment Challenge Foundation of NSW Tweed Valley Enterprises * * * * * * * * * * * * 34,000 (a) * * * Funding decisions are made on the basis of need and the extent to which the objectives of the service focus upon developing and maintaining personal growth and maximising individual potential * Funding details not available due to time and resource cost involved in obtaining information. (a) approved grants for new services. (k) See (g). (l) See (g). (7) Answers to this question are not able to be provided due to the resource and time costs involved. (8) Answers to this question are not able to be provided due to the resource and time costs involved. (9) Answers to this question are not able to be provided due to the resource and time costs involved. Q10. (a) The Home Nursing Subsidy Scheme was one of four legislative programs incorporated into the HACC program during 1985-86. Eligible organisations were able, at any time, to submit applications for funding to the Department of Community Services. Organisations were approved for the purposes of conducting a home nursing scheme subject to two conditions (i) They were approved for that purpose by the relevant State Government and were in receipt of funding from that source and (ii) They were a non-profit organisation. With the introduction of the new Home and Community Care Act no new organisations can be approved under the Home Nursing Subsidy Scheme. However, organisations may be eligible under HACC and can approach the relevant State Government Department in order to determine the priorities for funding in their State. (b) Deficit-financed nursing homes submit a budget for approval annually and can seek variations to the budget on an ongoing basis. (c) Eligible organisations are able, at any time, to submit applications to the Department of Community Services for funding under the Aged or Disabled Person's Homes Act (1954). As the Aged or Disabled Person's Hostels Act (1972) expired in 1975, there can be no new applications under this Act. (d) Hostels submit claims on a 28 day payment cycle, setting out the numbers of residents receiving hostel or personal care. (e) Applications are solicited by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services under the HACC Program from organisations wishing to operate the service. Prior to 1 January 1986, applications were received by the State Headquarters of the Department of Social Security. (f) (i), (ii) and (iii) Since the introduction of the HACC Program, the Commonwealth Department of Community Services seeks applications through that program. Prior to this the administering State Department wrote to the Department of Social Security to request funding for new centres. (g) Question should be directed to the relevant State departments administering the program. (h) With the introduction of the Home and Community Care Program (HACC) on 1 January 1986, applications have been solicited by the administering State Department in each State through media advertising. Applications are sought annually. In addition, community consultative mechanisms are being developed for HACC involving service consumers, providers, and all levels of Government. (j) National press advertisements are placed annually in capital city dailies advising of the availability of funds or new services and inviting submissions from interested organisations. (k) Question should be directed to the relevant State departments. (l) Question should be referred to the relevant State departments. (11) Due to the cost factors, it is not the practice of the Department of Community Services to advertise in regional media. (12) Comprehensive information concerning availability of, and eligibility for funding under the various programs is freely available and is drawn to the attention of all interested bodies. (13) N/A. (Question No. 4552) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: What are the (a) salary range and (b) employment conditions of a regional manager of his Department. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The classification of a regional manager may be Clerical Administrative Class 7, Clerical Administrative Class 8 or Clerical Administrative Class 9, depending on the size of the regional office. The salary range for each of these classifications is as follows: Class 7: $29,260-$30,901 Class 8: $32,336-$33,605 Class 9: $35,040-$36,305 (b) The same conditions of employment apply to regional managers as apply to all other Clerical Administrative officers within the Australian Public Service.