Tuesday, 21 October 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I wish to advise the House, as a matter of courtesy, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) will be absent from Question Time today. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will respond to any questions relating to the portfolio of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will respond to any questions on defence matters. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer him to remarks made yesterday by Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon, former Vice-President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and at present a member of the Government's Economic Planning Advisory Council. He said: I'd put whatever money I own in fixed-term investments. If people can get 14 or 15 per cent from a fixed term investment, if you do your sums right, over the years that's much better than the average company can possibly do. Does the Treasurer agree with Mr Fitzgibbon's widely held assessment of Australia's investment climate that the after-tax real rate of return in Australia remains very low and insufficient relative to the return available on low risk financial assets to justify the decision to undertake productive investment projects? In view of Mr Fitzgibbon's assessment, does the Treasurer still stand by his prediction on Budget night that the Budget forecast for business fixed investment will be exceeded? Mr KEATING —I will make a couple of points. First, Mr Fitzgibbon is not a member of EPAC. The second thing is that if Mr Fitzgibbon were an investment whiz he probably would be worth a lot more than he is today. Mr Howard —Is he still a member of the Reserve Bank Board? Mr KEATING —Yes, he is a member of the Reserve Bank of Australia Board-a very valued and valuable member, I might add. There is a very great distinction, though, between being a member of the Reserve Bank and casting one's view about public policy and the application of public policy and providing investment advice to the rest of the nation. Let me make this position clear: I said yesterday that one really had to wonder how, with terms of trade far more advantageous than this Government has enjoyed, the former Government could have run Australia into the first negative growth in 30 years without an external depression in prices. This Government has had an enormous external depression in prices; yet, without any mining boom, we have had economic growth rates at about 14 to 15 per cent cumulative over three years. We have seen the profit share substantially restored from the appallingly low levels that the coalition ran it to in the 1970s, the consequence of which has seen buoyancy in the Australian stock exchanges for well over three years now-of course, in recent times the stock exchange index record was broken twice in a week-and the growth of profitability of many large corporations greatly exceeding that of the fixed rate market. I just do not think that many of our entrepreneurs would accept the view that they should not have been out there using the opportunities of this growth economy, that they should have been putting their money into fixed rate securities. Some people nevertheless may feel secure and comfortable with the fixed rate market. That is quite a reasonable judgment on their part. If the honourable gentleman's question is implying that three years of wage restraint, a greater adjustment in relative wages in this country than in any country we trade with, and a restoration of the profit share in some way reflect upon this Government's capacity to get the factor shares right when the Opposition ran Australian business and its profitability into the ground, one wonders how it can have so much hide to address such a question to this Government when its own performance-- Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr KEATING —Well, here is the world's champion giggler who ran Australian business into the ground. He presided over more bankruptcies than any Treasurer in history. He had the leaders of major business, who had voted Liberal all their lives and been supporters of the coalition, saying to any of us in the Australian Labor Party who would listen in 1982-83: `The quicker this mob goes the better we will have a chance of restoring our profits'. That record of decimating Australian business, wiping out manufacturing and squandering a mineral boom to give us negative growth for the first time in 30 years and to give us the greatest depression since the Great Depression, although terms of trade were massively more advantageous then than those we enjoy now, takes a special feat of incompetence. One has to rise to the level of a performing art in incompetence to produce negative growth after a mining boom with terms of trade so advantageous. How could the Opposition induce a domestic recession here with the advantageous terms of trade it had and a mining boom to boot? How could it ask us a question about its economic credentials after doubling the unemployment rate over 18 months, driving the inflation rate to double digits, smashing the profit share and giving us massive wage growth in a wages explosion in 1981? Yet the Opposition has some question about the fixed rate market and the level of profitability. I will let the stock market provide the Opposition with the answer. Ms MAYER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how the Australia Card fits in with the Government's ongoing program of tax reform? What will the chief benefits be to the Australian people of the Australia Card? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Chisholm for her question. There is no doubt that the Australia Card program is the most effective possible weapon against tax evasion and social security fraud. When fully operational the Australia Card is estimated to cost $55m a year but to generate total savings of $932m a year. In other words, in a full year of operation there will be a net saving from the Australia Card of $877m. That means-and I say this particularly to the honourable member-that by 1995-96 the Australia Card will have saved $4.7 billion which otherwise would have been lost in tax evasion and welfare fraud. Given those facts, there is absolutely no wonder that the concept of the Australia Card has very widespread community support, as is evidenced in the most recent polls. The tax file number concept as an alternative simply does not have anywhere near the same effectiveness as the Australia Card. That is more open to forgery and fraud. It would save only an estimated $276m a year, or less than one-third of the savings of the Australia Card, which would mean cumulatively that by 1995-96 a tax file system would have missed out on savings of the order of $3 billion compared to the Australia Card. Given the enormous and fairly constant noise that members of the Opposition make about welfare fraud, I suppose that we on this side of the House are entitled to look forward to their support for the introduction of the Australia Card. In that respect it is well to remember the comments that have been made by some people in the Opposition. I will refer briefly to some of them. On the Sunday program on 15 September last year the Leader of the Opposition, when asked about the Australia Card, said: . . . I think there is some merit in giving it favourable consideration. On 5 June last year the Deputy Leader of the National Party, who in these areas is pretty consistent with sensible and honest statements-I am sorry to embarrass him, but he is-also made supportive comments. On 8 June last year the honourable member for Richmond, now the shadow Social Security Minister, said-and it is very interesting-- Mr Brumby —He is still chasing his tail. Mr HAWKE —He will have to chase this statement pretty hard, too, unless he comes down on the right side. He said: . . . I think honest taxpayers are sick and tired of the restrictions which tax and social security fraud impose upon their own liberties. With the Government's White Paper on tax reform recommending the introduction of ID cards, there is now broad bipartisan support for this measure. He concluded: It should therefore be implemented. Full marks to the honourable member. We will watch very closely to see how he votes when the legislation comes before the House. The shadow Treasurer said on 3 December last year: Social security cheats are robbing not only the unfortunate taxpayers whose hard-earned money is being paid out to thieves, but also on genuine welfare beneficiaries who deserve every scrap of assistance they can get . . . It is time the Government demonstrated at least equal concern over the welfare cheats scandal to that shown over tax evasion and avoidance. That time has come with the introduction into the House tomorrow of the Australia Card Bill. That Bill contains the most comprehensive measures imaginable for the protection of civil liberties. In answer to the question and to members of this House I simply say that this Government is fully determined to protect the rights and privacy of Australians. But we are at least equally determined to crack down on tax evaders and welfare cheats. The Opposition will have the chance to do that when this legislation is introduced into this House. If it chooses not to support the Australia Card, two things will have been demonstrated: Firstly, the Opposition will continue in its role in the community as the friend of the tax cheats and avoiders and its blatant hypocrisy on social security fraud will have been fully revealed. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the secondary boycott provisions contained in sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act which have proved to be the most effective sanction against the predatory and destructive use of excessive union power. Will the Prime Minister give the Parliament a categorical assurance that the Government will take no action to abolish, water down or tamper in any way with those secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act? Mr HAWKE —Let me say two or three things which are relevant to the question quite properly asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Firstly, as is well known, the Government, through the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, is looking at the whole question of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Within that Act the Minister is considering the matter of sanctions. It would be premature for me to prejudge the recommendations that the Minister will bring to the Cabinet on this issue. It will not have escaped the notice of the Leader of the Opposition that my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has publicly commented on this question and has given an indication of the thinking that he will bring to the Government about the role of some form of sanctions within the conciliation and arbitration legislation. I repeat: `Within the conciliation and arbitration legislation'. When the Minister has brought forward those proposals, they will be considered by the Cabinet and will be fully explained to both this House and the people of Australia. Finally, I make a general observation about the question of industrial relations in this country. As my colleague the Treasurer said in answer to the first question, it ill becomes the people on the other side of the House to ask questions in this area, because it had a most pathetic record. The Opposition had seven and a half years in which it was open to it to use whatever provisions it sought to use, inside or outside the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to bring about an appropriate system of industrial relations. The facts are quite clear. Under this Government the monthly average of days lost due to industrial disputes since April 1983 is 116,000. That figure, which is the monthly average since April 1983, compares with a figure of 248,400 in the period of the conservative government. In other words, days lost in this country due to industrial disputes more than halved under this Government. This country had the opportunity of seeing the Opposition's program, its philosophy, and its ideology in operation for seven and a half years and it has had the opportunity of seeing this Government's policies in operation. The effects are dramatically clear: Fewer than half the number of industrial disputes. That is because we are much more likely to get the removal of the conditions which bring about industrial disputation if we follow a policy of consultation and co-operation, which is the hallmark of this Government, rather than the policy of confrontation which characterised the other mob. That is one of the reasons-and it coincides with what my colleague the Treasurer said-why the business community tried the mob opposite, saw it in operation for seven and a half years, and found it wanting. The business community listened to all the blustering and rhetoric about reducing industrial disputes. All the Opposition succeeded in doing was creating more than double the level of industrial disputes that have occurred under the policy and approach of this Government. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services and concerns the Australian made campaign. Is there scope for local councils to play a role in the development of the Australian made campaign? If so, what measures are being taken by the Minister to give effect to the campaign in the local government area? Mr UREN —I am aware of the role the honourable member has played in encouraging local government to support the campaign that was started by the Prime Minister. I have already written to every local government authority in Australia and to the Australian Council of Local Government Associations to alert them to the positive aspects for our balance of trade and particularly for employment if they support the Australian made campaign. I have sought their co-operation and their support. Local government has a significant role to play because the services it provides require the spending of something in the order of $4 billion yearly. In addition, the leaders of local government, particularly in rural and provincial areas, are opinion makers. I am quite sure that they can talk to local firms and to consumers generally in support of this campaign. Local government has played a major role in the economic recovery of this country, particularly since 1983, when our Government set out to revive the economy. We have created 650,000 jobs, and to a great extent local government has participated in that job creation with the support and co-operation of the Federal Government. I am quite sure that local government will play a major role in this program to support Australian made products. Mr REITH —I refer the Treasurer to the many small business proprietors, farmers and journalists, amongst others, who use a room in their homes at night and on weekends either to write up their books or otherwise attend to their business affairs. Is it intended that the capital gains tax will apply to the family home in those circumstances? Will the Treasurer request the Commissioner of Taxation to issue a ruling providing guidelines on how he will exercise the discretion given to him in calculating the tax in these circumstances? Mr KEATING —I think that is about the third time the honourable member has asked me that question. I will refer the question to the Commissioner, as he requests, but I should imagine that in making a judgment about that property one of the issues would be whether the people were claiming deductions-that is, using it as a business premise and stating that it was a business premise by claiming deductions for it. Obviously that would be material to some assessment that the Commissioner may make. Mr PRICE —Can the Special Minister of State advise the House whether gifts to political parties used for the funding of market research and opinion surveys are required to be disclosed? Mr YOUNG —Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr Spender —I raise a point of order. That question is seeking of the Special Minister of State an opinion as to the operation of a law. It clearly must be that and, therefore, is out of order. Mr YOUNG —The Australian Electoral Commission has given guidelines on it, which honourable members may not be aware of, Madam Speaker. I am going to make them aware. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr YOUNG —The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 allows gifts to parties which are made on the condition that they be used for a purpose other than a purpose related to an election, and which are so used, not to be disclosed. The Australian Electoral Commission has provided guidelines as to the purposes for which a gift designated for a non-Commonwealth election purpose might be put without making the gift disclosable. The Commission includes research, opinion polls and critical issue surveys as falling within non-election purposes, provided that the polls or surveys do not relate to the election. Clearly this is something of a grey area. Some would argue that research by a political party is inevitably related to the next election, otherwise why would it be done. This is a matter which the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform may well address. I think we saw a classic example of the grey area last Friday when we had the rather humiliating spectacle of the Director of the Liberal Party of Australia running around the Press gallery with the latest Liberal Party survey on the state of politics in Australia. The Director, Tony Eggleton, is quite a professional in these areas. He has been in that position for a long time and obviously the Liberal Party is very satisfied with his services. However, I understand that he gave us only half the results. I wondered why he did not give us the other half and then someone told me what the other half was. I might say to the honourable member for Denison, the honourable member for Farrer, the honourable member for Boothby and a couple of others that there is some good news for them because the survey found that there is very little recognition of the people who serve on the front bench. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has about as much recognition in Australian politics as the secretary of the Mongolian pigeon club, so he is not offering us any threat. It is also interesting to note in that survey that the leading figure in Liberal Party politics in this House, the honourable member for Bennelong, is not looked upon favourably as a future Prime Minister of this country. I do not know why the Director of the Liberal Party did not give us this news. I do not know why the Director of the Liberal Party did not inform us, when those people were polled, of the attitude of the people towards the honourable member for Bennelong and the honourable member for Kooyong. I do not know whether the honourable member for Kooyong is still taken into confidence around at Liberal Party headquarters, but he looks satisfied, does he not? He looks happy with developments. All I suggest is that, whilst the Joint Committee may look at this grey area, hopefully the next time the Director of the Liberal Party drops his notes around the Press gallery to give us all the doom and gloom-I do not suspect that is going to last for very long-he should tell us about the other half of the survey, just to drum up a bit of enthusiasm amongst the Liberal and National parties, because it was good news for them. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the report by the social security review unit located in the Department of Social Security entitled: `Income support for families with children'. Is it a fact that the report draws attention to the relative disadvantage of Australian families with dependent children? Is it also a fact that even if the second round of promised tax cuts goes ahead in July 1987 a family with dependent children on average annual earnings will face a marginal tax rate of 40 per cent and an average tax rate of 20.5 per cent, whilst the same family faced a marginal tax rate of 30 per cent and an average tax rate of 17 1/2 per cent when his Government came to power in March 1983 and that, furthermore, an additional tax cut of $15 a week would be required for that family to restore it to the position it enjoyed in March 1983? Mr HAWKE —The Government welcomes the release of the issues paper on family assistance by the social security review. I want to emphasise that the purpose of the paper is not to put forward any formal recommendations about family assistance; what it will do is form the basis of community consultations. For that reason it canvasses broad ranges of approach to family assistance with the purpose of generating very wide discussion on these issues in the community. The Government will consult with all interested groups and parties on the important issues raised in the paper and following those consultations the Government will then consider what is the appropriate course of action in the light of those consultations. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition attached to his question figures on average tax rates for representative people. These are the facts: Prior to the income tax cuts in November 1982 a person on average weekly earnings faced an average tax rate of 23.1 per cent. The tax cuts of 1982 reduced that rate to 20.9 per cent. Following the income tax cuts in November 1984 the average tax rate faced by a person on average weekly earnings fell to 19.9 per cent, and in December of this year further reductions in the marginal tax rates will reduce that average tax rate to 19.7 per cent. So, as I have said before, we have no reason to walk away from the discussion on the outcome of tax administration under this Government as compared with under our predecessor and, I repeat, in the period between now and the next election the Leader of the Opposition may rest assured that we will make the question of the levels of tax and the administration of tax a fundamental issue in the election campaign. Mr HAND —Has the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen comments by the Opposition that the Australian traineeship scheme is a failure and that the tax burden is discouraging both employers and young people from taking up traineeships? Can the Minister inform the House of the current progress in implementing the Australian traineeship scheme? Mr WILLIS —I can assure the House that the traineeship system is not a failure and indeed that it is now coming on stream quite strongly. I am aware of the Press statement issued by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the weekend regarding traineeships in which he alleged that they were a failure. I must say that even for him the statement contained an amazing amount of misinformation. Firstly, he said that the number of traineeships in place on 10 October was 2,449. This was almost 600 less than the actual number in place at that time-3,030. There are commitments by employers for 4,850 traineeships. So we can see that the actual figures are well in advance of those suggested by the honourable member. He also said that the alleged failure to develop traineeships in the private sector was particularly a factor. There are private sector commitments for almost 1,500 traineeships. Recruitments are now occurring in the private sector in the retail industry, the office-clerical area, the furniture removal area and the hospitality and tourism area. Today I attended a launching of traineeships in the food and beverage area in the Australian Capital Territory, most of which were in the private sector. However, two traineeships are to be under the auspices of the Joint House Department in this place. So honourable members will have a chance to observe traineeships in action. Since 10 October the number of traineeship commencements has increased by 130. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also alleged that the recent ruling of the Commissioner of Taxation would mean that the $1,000 Government grant to employers of trainees to offset on the job training costs would be taxed at full company tax rates. He is wrong in saying that. It is true that on the face of it the grants are assessable income, but tax is not paid unless the money is not spent for the purposes for which it is provided; that is, to cover the costs of training. Otherwise there is no tax. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also alleged that the off the job training grant for training institutions may also be taxed. If the money is paid to technical and further education colleges, which in most cases will be the off the job training institution, there is, of course, no tax because TAFE institutions are exempt anyway. If it is paid to an industry training centre it may be exempt if the centre is an exempt body under section 23 of the tax Act. If it is not an exempt body it is still not taxable if it is spent for the purpose for which it was provided; that is, to cover training costs. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also alleged that the living away from home allowances paid to trainees would be subject to fringe benefits tax. He is wrong again. There is no tax liability under the fringe benefits tax if the money is used for the purpose provided; that is, to offset accommodation costs. So the Press statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was, even for him, a remarkable document, full of misinformation. The amazing thing is that at the end of the statement he said that the Opposition supported traineeships. I can only say that it was an incredibly strange way of demonstrating that support. Mr McGAURAN —I refer the Minister for Territories to the occupation of the public area outside Parliament House by left wing demonstrators and remind him of the action taken by his Department in April 1985 against Vietnamese who were peacefully protesting in much the same area. I ask the Minister: In the light of the abuse and intimidation of members of parliament since the Prime Minister's statement yesterday in Question Time, why has he refused to take action? Will the Government now act to stop the use of public facilities such as electricity for as long as these left wing demonstrators deny the right of all Australians to use that area? Finally, is it a fact that the group `Women for Survival', responsible for much of the intimidation, has received a grant of $2,000 under the International Year of Peace program? Mr SCHOLES —I am not aware whether an IYP grant has been given to Women for Survival, but it is possible. There has been a fairly consistent practice over recent years of demonstrators being allowed to remain for reasonable periods outside Parliament House. Governments have not acted to remove demonstrators forcibly. The Vietnamese the honourable gentleman mentioned were in front of Parliament House for some two weeks, which is rather longer than the present occupants have been there. They left the site after negotiations with my Department and by agreement with my Department subject to our removing items and delivering them to an address provided by the Vietnamese. It was an amicable settlement and was carried out in a way which was agreed by all parties. Whilst we may not agree with some of the people who protest against the policies of our respective parties, the right to public demonstration exists and should be defended. Public space does not mean space reserved for members of parliament. If some members of parliament feel aggrieved, or if activities take place which are illegal, there are laws and the police are responsible for the administration of those laws. The powers in the Australian Capital Territory which are available to me would only allow me to remove tents and other structures. Mr Sinclair —Why don't you remove the tents then? Mr SCHOLES —They do not allow me to ban an individual on political grounds from occupying public space, be that individual the Leader of the National Party of Australia or a person who is diametrically opposed to him politically. If I may say so, I think there have been faults on both sides in this set of circumstances. I believe that the success or otherwise of a demonstration depends on how the demonstrators behave. Knowing the political perspectives of honourable members opposite, I suggest that they would feel that the purpose for which the demonstration has been mounted is not being well served by the reported behaviour of the demonstrators. Mr WRIGHT —Can the Minister for Trade inform the House of the effects on Australian exports and the Australian economy of the Queensland Government's rail freight tariff policy? Mr DAWKINS —I acknowledge the great contribution the honourable member and other members of the special Caucus committee on the coal industry have made to improve arrangements to facilitate the export of coal. As honourable members will know, coal and other minerals and refined metals account for about a quarter of our annual exports and Queensland supplies about a third of that quantity. Indeed, Australia is now the largest exporter of coal in the world. This Government has been trying to free up the arrangements so that the Australian coal industry has the maximum capacity to compete for new markets around the world. In regard to the mining industry and export industries as a whole, there is a case in some circumstances for governments to collect some of the rent involved in those operations, but there is not a case for the imposition of extortionate taxes, particularly at a time when world prices are declining. Over the last five years coal export prices have fallen by 30 per cent in United States dollar terms. The Queensland Government has imposed rail freight charges on the coal industry in Queensland at a rate which is totally out of line with what is being charged by the rest of the world. For instance, if one compares rail freight rates in Queensland with those in Canada-Canada is an important competitor of ours in the coal industry-one will find that Queensland rail freight rates are 4 1/2 times higher than those in Canada. This makes it more difficult for the coal industry in Queensland to compete with other coal suppliers around the world. If one also looks at the way in which these freight rates are charged, one will find that the charge that is made far exceeds the cost of providing the service. Indeed, it has been estimated that it would take only half the freight rate to cover the cost of freighting the coal from the mines to the port. The worst thing about this tax is that it is totally indiscriminate. It makes no distinction between low cost mines, of which there are many in Queensland, and high cost mines, of which there are few in Queensland. The Utah Development Co. estimates that, of the $130m in freight charges that it paid to transport coal from its central Queensland mines in the latter half of 1985, the actual cost of providing that freight service was only $40m. So, for one of the largest companies exporting coal from Queensland, over 70 per cent of the amount charged by the Queensland Government was profit to that Government. Such a rich source of revenue has rail freight revenue become for the Queensland Government that it now represents 15 per cent of the total amount of revenue collected by it. One would have thought that, at a time when we were trying to improve Australia's export performance, when the Commonwealth Government was doing all in its power to get fiscal policy right-- Mr Braithwaite —Get rid of the fringe benefits tax. Mr DAWKINS —Of course, the irrelevant shadow Minister makes a point about the fringe benefits tax. That does not discriminate between exporting and non-exporting companies, and nor should it. It is a question of quite proper tax policy, which is being introduced, to ensure that everybody who is remunerated in whatever form is taxed in the same way. One would have thought that a time when we were trying to increase our export revenue and a time when we were trying to give our exporters the greatest capacity to export was precisely the wrong time for Queensland to be exploiting some of our most successful exporters. Mr NEHL —Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a recent ruling by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in favour of a soldier settlement couple whose pension-- Mr Beddall —Whingeing about the assets test. Mr NEHL —The honourable member had better believe it; it is the assets test and there will be more of the same. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will just put his question before the House. Mr NEHL —I will, indeed, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —And not be carried away. Mr NEHL —Madam Speaker, I assure you that I will not be carried away. Mr Hawke —They're carried away. Mr NEHL —I suggest to the Prime Minister in passing, after his comments about being carried away, that he might carry away those feral women outside. I get back to my question. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a recent ruling by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in favour of a soldier settlement couple whose pension had been terminated after introduction of the assets test? Will the Prime Minister order a thorough review of the assets test in light of advice from the National Farmers Federation to its members that this case opens the way for a wholesale challenge to the assets test? Mr HAWKE —No, I will not, because the advice of the National Farmers Federation is wrong. Mr MAHER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What grounds exist for optimism concerning the course of economic activity? Mr HAWKE —I always believe in being prepared for questions, not only from the Opposition but also from the honourable member for Lowe. I guess I can start my answer to the honourable member's question by sharing a view that was expressed on 14 September by Mr Roger Knye, the man behind the Australian desk in the New York rating agency, Moody's Investor Services Inc., in which he said this: Moodys thinks the Budget was a brave one. In a rating review we take into account the wisdom or lack thereof of a country's economic managers. One of the positive features of the Australian scene is the intelligent guiding of the ship of state. I give that as the first reason why I believe that there is sound reason for optimism about the future of the Australian economy. We share the view of Moody's that the economy is in the very best of hands here in Australia, and that is reflected, firstly, in the endorsement of the basic economic strategy that was contained in the Budget. So the fiscal policy, the monetary policy and the emerging wages policy are those which are most likely to enable the Australian business sector to take advantage of the enormous increase in competitiveness that has been created by the devaluation of the recent period, which is of the order of about 35 per cent in trade weighted terms. That, while it has created its own set of problems, while it has meant that some $6 billion has been wiped off our national income, means that Australian manufacturers are able now to compete against imports. Whereas Australian operators were previously sourcing their supplies from overseas, there is now a much greater opportunity for Australian manufacturers to supply. Also, there is a significantly improved opportunity for Australian manufacturers to go into markets overseas which were previously not available to them. So if we look at all the important elements of economic policy, we believe that they are relevant to enabling Australia to take advantage of this current economic circumstance that has been imposed upon us from outside. Both I and the Treasurer have pointed out that it is likely that in the rest of 1986 there will still be some adverse figures coming out. The consumer price index for the September quarter will reflect the second devaluation that took place in June and July of this year of the order of 10 to 11 per cent. That, together with certain budgetary decisions, will, we believe, be reflected in a CPI of above average dimensions. In 1986 we will continue to see the flow through of those factors. But we can be certain, I say to the honourable member for Lowe, that as we go into 1987 we will see Australia on a downward inflationary path. Also, we believe that as we go out of 1986 we will have the worst of the balance of payment figures behind us. So all of those basic considerations-fiscal policy, monetary policy, wages policy and industry policy plus the capacity of Australian industry to take advantage of the competitive position with which we have been provided-give me every cause to believe that we should have optimism as we go into 1987. Let me say finally that the course of Australia's economic destiny is not entirely within our own hands in terms of the decisions and the commitment that we make in this country. We, of course, are therefore watching very closely the economic policy decisions of the United States of America, West Germany and Japan. One of the things that the Treasurer did, and I believe did very forcefully and very effectively on Australia's behalf on his recent visit overseas, was to put to the leaders of the United States, Japan and West Germany in particular the responsibility that they have not only for looking after their own economies but also for playing their part in ensuring that there is a buoyant world economic situation. If we have that in 1987 we are confident that Australia's internal economic policies will lead to growing economic output and employment in a situation of declining inflation. We believe that all of those factors create the environment for a gradual decline in interest rates. Mr BURR —Does the Prime Minister consider the provision of subsidised housing to workers in remote and isolated areas to be blatant and contrived tax avoidance? Is it valid for mining companies and farmers to claim that without subsidised housing they are unable to attract workers to man industries in remote and isolated areas? Can employers in remote and isolated areas be accused of engaging in contrived tax avoidance schemes if their only option is to offer subsidised housing or not have sufficient numbers of workers to man their industries? Will the Government re-think the appropriateness of the fringe benefits tax provisions relating to subsidised housing for people living in remote and isolated areas? Mr HAWKE —The honourable member does not seem to be embracing the advice of the honourable member for North Sydney who said that one should not seek advice on these sorts of matters from Ministers. Nevertheless, the Government has made it clear that it is reviewing the question of the impact of the fringe benefits tax. I emphasise to this House that it is doing that within the context of a continuing and unqualified commitment to the principles behind the fringe benefits tax. It is interesting to note that we now have a position where the whole organisation of the Liberal Party, the honourable member's Party, is in favour of the fringe benefits tax. We have had the famous Valder statement, the statement from the Federal President of the Liberal Party, where he said that we are implementing the Opposition's policy. The Federal Secretary of the Party, Mr Eggleton, on Friday, 17 October, said: We're defining the taxable fringe benefits, those that are really non cash remuneration, all of these incidental things that have created the terrible problems and anomalies of course should be eliminated. He was asked: Are you in favour of the fringe benefits tax in principle? He said: In principle . . . In other words we have the Federal President and the Federal Secretary of the Liberal Party in favour of the tax, and just about the only person in Australia who is now saying that he is against it lock, stock and barrel is the Leader of the Opposition in this place. The people of this country are entitled to ask: Where does the Liberal Party stand? Does it support its Federal President? Does it support its Federal Secretary? Does it support the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia-the rest of the Opposition who say they support the principle-or is the Opposition with this time-serving fellow who is temporarily occupying the position of the Leader of the Opposition, who says that he is against it lock, stock and barrel? This Government is in favour of the principle of the fringe benefits tax. It is going to bring about a situation where people who were deliberately avoiding their fair payment of taxes are going to be making their contribution. I assure the honourable member that in the review we are undertaking we will look at all the elements-we have had representations on this issue, including in some part from the mining industry, which has made detailed representations to us. I can assure the honourable member that those sorts of things will be taken into account. If there are some changes to be made so that we do not pick up, as I have put it, unintended consequences, they will be made. But they will be made within the framework of a conscientious and principled adherence to bringing into this country a tax which will ensure that those who should be paying their taxes but who were able to avoid it for the whole period the Opposition was in government, will be brought to book. Mr JOHN BROWN —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to answer a question that was asked of me yesterday. Yesterday the honourable member for Richmond during the debate on a matter of public importance referred to adatabank of names and addresses that was compiled as a result of the Government's Priority One campaign. The honourable member suggested that the Australian Labor Party might put these names and addresses to some sinister use. I responded to the honourable member by saying that as far as I knew those names had been destroyed. I am happy to report to the House that, having checked the matter, I find that the telemarketing firm of Camco Systems, having supplied the tape of names and addresses to the Division of Youth Affairs within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, had that tape destroyed and no record of those names and addresses was kept by the Prime Minister's Department. Mr Blunt —What about Camco? Mr JOHN BROWN —Camco destroyed the tape. Similarly, the names and addresses of those people who responded to the hot line on the drug campaign were also destroyed. Mr RUDDOCK —Madam Speaker, I have a question that I would like to address to you. You will recall that on 25 September 1986 this House carried a resolution known as the Baltic Resolution. By its terms you were requested to convey the terms and sentiments of the resolution to the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Can you inform the House as to the action you have taken to implement its decision and whether there has been any response? Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that a letter dated 25 September, containing the resolution agreed to by the House, was sent by airmail to His Excellency August Voss, Chairman of the Council of Nationalities, Grand Kremlin Palace. We have not had an answer. For the information of members of the House I table a copy of the letter. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CARLTON —I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr CARLTON —During Question Time, in answer to a question, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) quoted some remarks I had made about catching people indulging in tax fraud and social security fraud. He implied that I had supported the Australia Card concept. I have never done so. I refer honourable members to the grievance debate of 22 August 1985, Hansard, page 207, in which I made my views absolutely clear. My views have never changed. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and section 46 of the Water Pollution Ordinance 1984, I present the annual report on the operation of the Water Pollution Ordinance for 1984-85. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and section 47 of the Air Pollution Ordinance 1984, I present the annual report on the operation of the Air Pollution Ordinance for 1984-85. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and section 54 of the Bookmakers Ordinance 1985, I present the Australian Capital Territory Bookmakers Licensing Committee annual report for 1985-86, in which I am sure all honourable members are interested. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —On behalf of the Prime Minister and pursuant to sub-section 27 (3) of the Economic Planning Advisory Council Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Economic Planning Advisory Council for 1985-86. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 31 of the Steel Industry Authority Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Steel Industry Authority for 1985-86. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BLUNT —Yes, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during Question Time today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BLUNT —During Question Time today, in answer to a question, the Prime Minister selectively quoted from a Press statement issued by me on 8 June and created the impression that I favoured the introduction of the Australia Card proposal. Mr Hand —That is not a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Richmond is getting to where he was being misrepresented. Mr BLUNT —I wish to read briefly from the relevant Press statements to clarify my position. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think that the honourable member might succinctly come to where he was misrepresented. He cannot argue his point. Mr BLUNT —I simply wish to quote accurately from the Press releases. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. What was quoted from the Press release was in the Press release and therefore there is no need to make a personal explanation. Mr Beale —How do you know? Mr Hand —I read the idiot's Press releases; that is how. Mr Young —We read all his Press releases. We sit down here waiting for them to come in. Mr BLUNT —That is right. Honourable members learn a lot from them, do they not? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. As I understand it, the honourable member has said that a quotation was inaccurately made. He wants to correctly state what he said. It is then up to the House to see where we go from there. Mr BLUNT —The Prime Minister quoted from a Press release of 8 June and implied that I was talking about an ID card. I said: The introduction of an ID system should require people to quote the same identity number to both the Tax Office and the Social Security Department. The Prime Minister did not quote from my Press release of 13 October, which said that, like many Australians, I too had originally thought ID cards would limit social welfare fraud, but now I was far from convinced. I now share the same opinion as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). Neither he nor I support the ID card. Dr Blewett —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister quite clearly and honestly referred to the date of the honourable member's statement. The honourable member will get plenty of chances to disown his own statement in the next few weeks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr N.A. Brown —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr N.A. Brown —During Question Time the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) accused me of giving what I think he called misinformation about the failure of the Australian youth traineeship system. First, the Minister said that I had given some false figures on the number of traineeships which were in place. The figures I gave in my Press release were from the Minister's own Department. If he has a complaint about the figures it should be addressed to his Department and not to me. Secondly, the Minister accused me of giving a false representation of the incidence of the fringe benefits tax upon the payment of allowances under the traineeship scheme. Dr Theophanous —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Personal explanations are supposed to be for situations where an honourable member has been personally misrepresented. They are not occasions for an honourable member to debate a matter. If allowing this to happen is going to be the rule in this House, we could be here all day on personal explanations. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will get to the point of misrepresentation. Mr N.A. Brown —As I was saying, the Minister said that I had inaccurately represented the situation of the incidence of fringe benefits on the traineeship allowances. I refute that misrepresentation and simply quote from ruling No. IT 2364 from the Commissioner of Taxation. Mr Keogh —Where were you personally misrepresented? Mr N.A. Brown —I was personally misrepresented-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not reply to the interjection. He might tell me where he was misrepresented. Mr N.A. Brown —It is difficult when you will not bring Government members into line with their interjections, Mr Deputy Speaker The Taxation Commissioner's ruling is expressed in the following words: A living-away-from-home allowance received by a trainee is a fringe benefit under the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation. Lest there be any doubt about it, to save further time, I seek leave to table taxation ruling No. IT 2364 on the fringe benefits tax and on the other areas in which the allowance is subject to income tax. Leave granted. 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 Andrew,Mr Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Hodgman,Mr Jacobi,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton,Mr Smith,Mr Staples and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Blunt,Mr Cadman,Mr Coleman,Mr Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Gorman,Mr Hodgman,Mr Ruddock,Mr Tickner and Mr West. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Mr Langmore,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton,Mr Scott,Mr Staples and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal government departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. 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 the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 is having a detrimental effect on the car industry generally in South Australia, and more particularly, on employment in that industry. 2. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 contains many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting and its administrative implementation is an unwarranted burden on Australian business and the Australian taxpayer. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House repeal as a matter of utmost urgency this regressive legislation which imposes a disincentive to economic and employment growth, thereby jeopardising the well-being and living standards of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Fringe Benefits Tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The Fringe Benefits Tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it, and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned express our deepest concern over the government's discriminatory policies on overseas students which were contained in the 1986/87 Federal Budget. We register our strongest outrage and opposition to: 1. The introduction and subsequent increase of overseas students charge imposed on overseas students. 2. The proposed imposition of fees to secondary and TAFE overseas students. 3. The restrictive quota system on the tertiary institutions entry. 4. The heavy-handed deportation of overseas students who fail to pay their fees in time. The overseas students program is an important education program to promote international goodwill and peace, especially among nations of Asia and Pacific region. The above mentioned policies have adverse effects on the objectives of overseas students program. Your petitioners therefore urge that the overseas students policies in the 1986-87 Budget be immediately reviewed. by Mr Gorman,Ms McHugh and Mr Tickner. 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 Andrew and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. the retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. an increase of 3.7% in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5% of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5% of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. 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: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Mr Coleman and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully 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 Benefits Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Macphee and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: that we the 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. 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. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefires the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations; 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their remuneration packages; 3. The Bill places another impossible burden of paperwork on small business; 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees, who now constitute 32% of the workforce. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 Messrs 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 Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 Page electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bills of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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: 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforcable 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits 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 in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 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 3EA 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 petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: (a) Aboriginal and Islander languages, which numbered approximately 260 when Europeans first arrived, are even more seriously endangered-already 145 have become extinct. (b) English-speaking population expansion and English-speaking mass media expansion threatens the survival of the remaining languages of Australia. (c) Aboriginal languages reflect an ethos that is truly Australian and unless steps are taken to implement language maintenance, this ethos will be lost not only to Aborigines but to non-Aboriginal Australians, and to the world. We humbly pray the Government to: 1. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide $300,000 per annum for a guaranteed period of ten years to enable the Aboriginal community of Australia to establish a co-ordinating body to implement steps to prevent the extinction of the remaining languages, and to introduce programmes which will enable these languages to continue into the future for the sake of all Australians. This body will enable us to maximize existing financial, material, and human resources, and is the least expensive way of implementing urgently needed maintenance programmes. 2. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide finance for the establishment of Regional Language Centres-ten are urgently needed-cost $200,000 each. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purposes for our Nation. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. 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. The introduction of an administrative charge for annual enrolment will restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. Students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The introduction of an administrative charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education.'' Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge for higher education students not be introduced. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Martin. 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: By drastically cutting E.S.L. funding, you have disadvantaged thousands of Australian children. Not only will students with limited English face gross educational inequality, but the entire Australian community will feel the wider effect-through the resultant inability of some of its citizens to contribute effectively to Australian society. On behalf of the children who will be directly affected, and the Australian community generally, we call on you to restore full funding for the general support element of the Commonwealth E.S.L. program. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects, namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. 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 your Honourable House 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'' (FIERY) as a vital action to ignite global co-operation for Worldpeace. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of citizens of Australia shows that- Approximately 100,000 Australians live on the verge of homelessness, dependent on government resources to survive, or sleep out of doors or in refuges. Over 700,000 households, or in excess of 2 million Australians are living below the poverty line after paying their rent or mortgage costs. In addition, there are thousands of households with special needs, such as the disabled, who are not well catered for in the private sector but who nevertheless require suitable housing. Waiting lists for public housing have almost doubled in the past five years to 146,000 by June 1985. The list is expected to grow to some 250,000 by 1990. We therefore ask that the Australian Government, as a highest priority: undertake a campaign to bring the issue of poverty and, in particular, housing-related poverty, to the attention of the Australian public increase expenditure on public housing through the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, by at least 15% annually in real terms increase rent relief payments for those on low incomes in the private rental market use its influence with State and Territory governments to encourage them to increase their expenditures on public housing. by Mr Staples. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: Take the action necessary to create an Australian republic on or before 1st January 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 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 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 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: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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. To the Honourable the 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. 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 certain residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Government has increased wholesale sales tax another 10% under the 1986-87 Budget, resulting in a 20% Sales Tax on wine. This tax was introduced at a time of a record trade imbalance between our wine imports and exports and will further exacerbate that problem. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Government cancels the 20% Sales Tax before it causes a further contraction in our wine industry, with consequential loss of exports, and employment in the wine and tourism and retailing industries which are currently operating in Western Australia. by Mr Drummond. 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 taxation deductions; That the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the citizens of Goulburn Valley, electors of the Division of Murray respectfully showeth: That they request that SBS (channel 28) television be made available to the people of this electorate. Your petitioners humbly pray that you hear their voices and see their needs for the availability of having SBS (channel 28) present in their electorate. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell Uranium to France, against ALP policy. The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell Uranium to France. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully demands that the Federal Government take responsibility for existing and future funding of child care services and that such funding allocation be at such level to ensure the maintenance of quality child care. We further respectfully demand that proper planning of services occur and that the Federal Government enter into formalised agreements with State and Local Governments to achieve this result. by Mr Shipton. 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Sutherland Shire 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. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The damage and high costs inflicted on all Australians by the failure of the Hawke Government's economic policies. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.10) —Once again the Opposition raises in this House the question of the state of the Australian economy. It is a subject we have raised on numerous occasions-in Question Time, in matters of public importance and in various debates over the whole of the time we have been in opposition. We have consistently challenged the economic policies of the Government in this House and elsewhere. It has been claimed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and until recently repeated by the Press Gallery, that the Opposition had not challenged the Government on its economic policies. That is clearly incorrect; it has always been incorrect. The record is there to show it. Yet when the Opposition does raise in the Parliament a matter of supreme importance to every Australian, challenges the Treasurer and the Government on their economic policies, who does the Government put up to debate the matter against the Opposition? Is the Treasurer opposite me? Is the Treasurer here to defend his economic policies? No, he is not. Is it even the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the poor hapless Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), the Minister for signing farewell Bob tax reply letters? No, it is not. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) have been sent in here to defend the Government's economic policies. And they do not even agree with the Government's economic policies. The honourable member for Charlton, a member of the Centre Left faction of the Australian Labor Party, challenges the whole central thrust of the Treasurer's policies on trade and imports. He, as chairman of the economic committee of Caucus, has put out statement after statement criticising the Government's main economic proposals. He has put up alternative proposals. The person second in line to defend the Government on this matter is the honourable member for Calwell. If we could go any further left than the honourable member we would be off the planet. Mr Beale —No, he is off the planet. Mr CARLTON —Sometimes the economic policies of the honourable member for Calwell, as the honourable member for Deakin so correctly said, are off the planet. The honourable member for Calwell is on the record, representing the far Left of the Labor Party, putting up a totally different set of economic policies from that of the Government. What a miserable performance on the part of the Government to send a member of the Centre Left back bench and a member of the far Left back bench in here to defend the Government's economic policies. I know why they have been sent in here; it is because the Government's economic policies are indefensible. This Government has been in office now for three years and seven months. No longer should Ministers come into the House every Question Time and castigate the previous Government for all of Australia's economic ills. Yet, day after day, in a pathetic performance, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer come in here and tell us about the history of the recession of 1981-82. They do not even tell the history correctly. The Treasurer time and again tries to make the point that he has been bowled over by this extraordinary thing that has happened to him from overseas, a decline in the terms of trade. The Treasurer says that the previous Government did not suffer from a decline in the terms of trade. That may be so but the previous Government was hit by a very deep and broad world recession and by a disastrous drought that covered the whole of Australia for three seasons. Not only that, it was hit by industrial action by metal workers who, according to the Treasurer himself, had dead men around their necks in the metal industries. The Treasurer, who every day in the House blames the Fraser Government for the recession of 1981-82 and for the wage breakout of 1981-82, went to the Labor National Conference in Hobart and made it quite clear that what happened then on wages was due to industrial action by his mates in the metal trades unions. He said that the metal workers had dead men's jobs around their necks. Mr Howard —One hundred thousand. Mr CARLTON —One hundred thousand of them around their necks. He said that was the reason why the recession bit deeper into the Australian economy than it should have done. Let us nail this representation of the Treasurer once and for all. The Treasurer's job, on behalf of the Government, is to ensure that the Australian economy is sound, strong enough and flexible enough to deal with external shocks. Those shocks can include changes in the terms of trade, rising world oil prices, disastrous droughts and overseas depressions. A whole series of things can happen to the Australian economy but the stewardship of the Government is measured by the degree to which it arms Australia against such perils. It is against this bench-mark that we will judge the performance of this Government. Let us look at that performance. The Government came to office in 1983, giving everybody high hopes. It assembled everybody in this august chamber, the House of Representatives-representatives of people from all over Australia-and told them that they were going to do two things. It said that it would drive the Australian economy out of recession with high spending and high borrowing. That was an explicit policy. It is all there in the record of the National Economic Summit Conference. It also said that it would tie wages to inflation in line with its deal with the trade union movement. In putting up those two central elements of economic policy, the Government made two fundamental mistakes. From April 1983 the die was cast as to what would happen to Australia. Whether the Australian economy would be robust, flexible and able to deal with external shocks when they came along was, in effect, determined in April 1983. From then on we have had a whole series of differing statements from the Government about the state of the economy. It has been very difficult to follow in recent times exactly which phase we are in. We started out with the phase of extreme optimism and extreme arrogance. The world's best Treasurer-what a joke that is now-was able to drive the Australian economy faster than any other economy and build jobs at a faster rate than anybody else, walking along the tightrope. In the process he was gambling Australia's future on the world commodity markets. The high wire act on the part of the Treasurer-he took in quite a lot of simple minded observers-went on for a considerable time. Then things started to go wrong. Certainly, by the third quarter of last year it was very clear what was going wrong. It was clear that our inflation rate was leaping above that of our major trading partners. It was quite clear that our unemployment rate was not going to fall appreciably. It was clear that our wage costs had risen at four times the rate of those of our major trading partners. Even though real unit labour costs had fallen, our performance still compared badly with others. It became clear that our inflation rate was going to soar to four or five times that of the average rate of our trading partners. Did the Treasurer draw these disturbing facts to the attention of the Australian people? No, he did not. He kept them quiet. He kept up his arrogant and incorrect assessment of what was going on until 9 May this year, when he said to the Economic Planning Advisory Council that everything was okay. A few days later he suddenly discovered that with our bad terms of trade we were in a desperate situation and were moving towards the status of a banana republic. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. Now we have had another turn of events. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are saying that everything is all right and that everything will fall into place like the apples in a slot machine. The Treasurer, in his comments on the Australian economy, has been purely schizophrenic. One day everything is apples; the next day we are bananas. I do not know whether the Treasurer himself is apples or bananas from day to day. Certainly, the Prime Minister becomes increasingly shrill and increasingly determined to try to talk the economy up and to try to tell people that things are good. Are they good? Let us look at the report card for this Government. Let us look at each of the things that it has done and where it stands in relation to the score card after three years and seven months of stewardship. There should be no excuses. It has been in government long enough. It is all its own work. Where do we stand? The dollar, which was worth a dollar when the Fraser Government left office, is now worth 64c. A Hawke dollar is worth 64c; a Fraser dollar was worth a dollar. Our AAA international credit rating has gone. We have been downgraded and humiliated on international financial markets. Our rating is down to AA1-a humiliation which we have never suffered previously in our history. The Treasurer, who is absent from the chamber during this debate, is responsible. Our inflation rate is 8.4 per cent and rising. The inflation rate in Japan is less than zero. Our major trading partner and competitor, Japan-- Mr Beale —Trading competitor. Mr CARLTON —Japan, our trading competitor, has an inflation rate of less than zero. Our inflation rate of 8.4 per cent is about five times that of our trading partners. In fact, our inflation rate is now worse, in relation to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, than it has been since records were first kept by the OECD. So the score card for inflation stands at one out of 10. I mentioned labour costs earlier. Despite the fact that real unit labour costs have gone down, over the last three years labour costs, relatively, have gone up 4 per cent compared with a rise overseas of one per cent. So we are doing worse than those with whom we compete. What about unemployment? Unemployment, which did fall to 7.6 per cent in June, is now 8.4 per cent and rising. Youth unemployment is well over 20 per cent. One of the greatest disgraces of this Government is that youth unemployment is disgracefully high. It has not gone down; it is going up again. The Priority One: Young Australia program, designed to fool the kids, has been a total failure. Mr Hunt —What about our relative interest rates? Mr CARLTON —My friend the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir, asks me: What about interest rates? Before the last election in 1984, we were assured that interest rates would go down. Both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said: `Interest rates will fall in 1985'. What did they do? They started to rise as soon as the election was over. They rose throughout 1985. In November 1985 they rose to their highest real level since the Great Depression. The prime bank rate rose to 21 per cent, and it is still 19 per cent. How many farms and businesses will be able to sustain interest rates of 19 and 20 per cent? They have been sustaining them for nearly a year. How much longer will they have to struggle? Interest rates are another failure on the part of the Government. In regard to the balance of payments and our overseas debt, we all know that we have a debt of South American proportions and that 40c of every dollar we earn abroad goes to servicing our debts. We have debts of $100 billion, and $7 billion is spent on interest payments on the national budget, which is over double what it was when this Government came to office. This Government is a failure. This Treasurer is a failure. The Treasurer has failed to cut government spending, failed to cut taxes, failed to lower interest rates, failed to cut inflation, failed to cut the current account deficit, failed to reform the tax system, and failed even to fill in his correct address on his application for travelling allowance. He has added insult to the Australian people to his failure. This will stand against him forever. Certainly, the Government will soon be swept out of office. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(3.25) —The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) must do better. He will need to do better because John Hewson will be a member of this Parliament presumably after the next election, that is, if the electors in the seat which he is seeking to represent maintain their traditional voting habits, and because another member on the front bench, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), has made it perfectly clear that he aspires to the special responsibilities of shadow Treasurer. The honourable member for Mackellar will just have to lift his game. He will have to perform better and more effectively. I waited in vain to hear some supporting material to justify the matter of public importance that has been raised today by the honourable member for Mackellar, namely: The damage and high costs inflicted on all Australians by the failure of the Hawke Government's economic policies. I think we need to examine this matter. I was hoping that the honourable member for Mackellar would indicate to me where the damage and the high costs had been inflicted because I knew that, had he attempted to do that, it was very likely that I would have been able to counter what he said. If we are to look to see where there is any evidence of where the damage and the high costs of the Hawke Government's economic policies have occurred, we might look first of all at the 650,000 people who are in jobs now as a result, not of the failure of the Government's economic policies but of their outstanding, remarkable and creditable success. Six hundred and fifty thousand people who are in jobs today would not have been in jobs had it not been for the success of the Hawke Government's economic policies. The honourable member for Mackellar referred to the fact that some comments on economic policy had been made by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) and me. Indeed he is correct; those comments have been made. One of the great strengths of the Australian Labor Party as a party, as a government and when it was in opposition, is the fact that a variety of opinions can be expressed within the Party; and, of course, that has happened recently. There is a difference of emphasis as far as members of the Labor Party are concerned and we are not intimidated about expressing those differences. That is part of the strength of the Party and it is part of the strength of Labor in government. Dr Theophanous —Constructive proposals. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As the honourable member for Calwell says, all of those comments are made in a constructive and helpful way. The collective judgment and the collective opinion of all members of the Labor Party are reflected in the policies which are finally adopted. As I have said, what we need to do is examine whether those policies have been successful because the Opposition has claimed, here and elsewhere, that they have not been. I have already mentioned that 650,000 jobs have been created by this Government-a remarkable success. The year before the Hawke Government came to office the number of new housing commencements had dropped to about 100,000 when at least 135,000 were required every year. We immediately lifted that number. For two years we maintained the number of new housing commencements at 150,000. That means that there are now Australian families enjoying the security and comfort of a home that they would not have enjoyed, could not have enjoyed, had the previous Government stayed in office. This year, from an anticipated drop to 95,000 housing commencements, as a result of the change in the direction and the emphasis of monetary policy by this Government, the number this year will be another 135,000. I do not know whether Australian families now occupying homes which were not otherwise available to them are some of these people who the Opposition claims have suffered damage and high costs. I also look at taxpayers. Remember the Howard maximum marginal tax rate of 60c. We are going to haul that rate back to 49c. All the other marginal rates have come back as well. The tax free threshold has been lifted to help to take people out of those poverty traps. Let us ask the taxpayers of Australia whether they are some of the people upon whom damage and high costs have been inflicted by what the Opposition claims has been the failure of the Hawke Government's economic policies. Nothing is further from the truth. Australians right across this nation now rejoice at the great successes of this Government in terms of employment generation, home construction and tax reform. What about the unionists who, under the previous Government, suffered the insecurity of not knowing whether they would be in work the next day or the next week. We know as a result of the great successes of the Hawke Government that the incidence of industrial disputes was reduced to the lowest level for 20 years. All people in employment right across this Commonwealth know exactly that the greater security with which they have been provided has come about largely because of the policies of this Government. What about businesses? It has already been admitted by the honourable member for Mackellar that real unit labour costs have declined. The proportion of total national income that went to private business in Australia in the form of profits during the Opposition's period in government reached less than 12 per cent. It is generally accepted that a percentage of around 15 per cent is appropriate-15 per cent of total national income going to private industry in the form of profits to provide it with the capacity to undertake the investment this country needs. Of course, investment also fell apart under the previous Government. In one year there was a reduction of 15 per cent in gross private investment. In the following year there was a reduction of 7 per cent. That pattern continued under the previous Government. Under this Government, in the September quarter of last year the proportion of total national income going to private industry, private business, private companies and private businessmen, in order to provide them with the capacity to undertake the expansion this country needs, reached over 16 per cent and is still averaging something in excess of 14 per cent. So private business in Australia is being provided with the capacity to undertake the investment that is so necessary. One needs to examine the economy in its totality to see whether any damage and high costs have been inflicted on it. Real economic growth in Australia became negative in the last year the Opposition was in government. It was the first time in 50 years that the total production of goods and services in Australia actually fell. Dr Theophanous —Who was Treasurer? Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Calwell seeks my response. The Treasurer at that time was none other than the present Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). One of my very good colleagues, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), reminded me earlier, as a result of the reference to Moody's Investor Services Inc. made by the honourable member for Mackellar, of the fact that Moody's gave this Government a AAA rating for its performance as a government. What measure did Moody's provide for the Opposition for its performance as an opposition? How humiliating. I am not surprised that honourable members opposite refer to this as infrequently as they can. They received a ZZZ rating for their performance in opposition. Mr Gear —Non-performance. Mr ROBERT BROWN —For their non-performance. Moody's said that there was no doubt that at the next election the Hawke Government would have won the support and confidence of the Australian people to the extent that unquestionably it would be re-elected, as it should. In its last year of office, the former Government brought about a situation of negative growth. In our first two years in office we brought about an immediate reversal of that situation. We were able to achieve and maintain a real level of growth in non-farm product for those two years of between 4 and 5 per cent. This year as well we are going to maintain a rate of growth which would have been the envy of honourable members opposite when they were in government. If we are going to talk in terms of the appropriateness of policy responses, we should note that one of the fundamental elements of the Opposition's economic policy approach-this has been admitted by Mr Fraser, the former Prime Minister-was to fight inflation by maintaining an artificially high value for the Australian dollar. That is what it did. The price of imports was so low as a result of that overvalued Australian dollar that Australian manufacturers, Australian businesses and Australian workers simply could not compete. As a result of that, manufacturing industry in Australia was absolutely devastated. I think the Australian people need to keep this in mind when spurious criticisms are being made against the Hawke Government. In particular they need to keep in mind that in the last 16 years-everyone knows that for most of that time a Liberal-National Party coalition occupied the treasury bench-the total number of new jobs created was two million. However, in the manufacturing sector there was a loss of 200,000 jobs. What happened in the last year of office of the previous Government? As I have said before, Mr Deputy Speaker-and I give you and everyone else a promise that I will continue to repeat this-in the previous Government's last term of office the number of unemployed people in Australia increased by 250,000 in one year. In other words, every day for 365 days another 750 people-750 men and women, workers who needed to support their families and meet their financial commitments-became unemployed. The number of unemployed in Australia increased under their stewardship by 750 a day making a total over that 12 months of 250,000. Let me not diminish the economic difficulties that Australia faces. Of course they are there. One of the fundamental responsibilities of the Hawke Government is to ensure that we provide the fundamentals for this economy so that all that energy, initiative, courage, enterprise and drive in Australia, which individuals are prepared, willing and wanting to project into their activities, can be released and Australians right across the nation can benefit from it. We have to get those fundamentals in place. One of the things we have done to get those fundamentals in place was to float the Australian dollar, to make sure that its value would reflect accurately the value it should have. We have adjusted tax policy. We have brought back the level of inflation from 11 1/2 per cent to about 8 per cent. We have reduced the call that the deficit makes on national resources from something like $9.6 billion that it would have been had the previous Government stayed in office to about $3.5 billion this year. All these aggregates are being put into place. In all these areas of concern-in monetary policy, trade policy, industry policy, wage policy and industrial relations policy-the Hawke Government has measured up to its responsibilities. It has responded magnificently and increasingly, despite the marginal problems that continue to exist, the problems we will continue to haul out of the system, that great success will continue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.40) —I hope that not only the visitors within this Parliament have listened to this debate but also every Australian listening to the radio today will have heard the remarks which have just been made by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). If they have been listening to the parliamentary broadcasts over a number of years they might be forgiven for thinking that the honourable member was rehearsing his maiden speech, because his speech today was the same speech that I have heard on every occasion he has spoken on taxation matters. I think it is very important that the people of Australia be asked to participate in this debate, because the damage is being done out in the electorate. Somebody asked me once what qualifications the Government has to be the economic manager of this country when none of its members have had a real job. The only job that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had before he came to this House was the job of destroying the whole wages system, and even the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s, and now he calls us to account. We are calling him to account to the people of Australia. I think it is important that I first correct some of the misrepresentations that were made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Charlton. We have heard of this magnificent number of 650,000 more people in employment. All I can say to that is that there must be phantoms throughout the Australian Labor Party if there are 650,000 more people employed now than there were in 1983. Since 1983 over 100,000 people in the manufacturing and rural industries have been dismissed because those industries cannot cope with the economic policies of this Government. That is where employment counts most. Is it better to have somebody on a community employment program project or somebody working in an export industry, being productive and helping to obtain the balance of payments that we so desperately require? The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is shaking his head. The latest evidence comes out of the Economic Planning Advisory Council paper on the external balance and economic growth. This report is full of statements made by those people sitting securely at a desk who think they can run Australia from the board rooms or from the ministries. On page 47 of the report EPAC has come up with the suggestion that, if the Government sought to stabilise the external debt-that is the problem it was addressing-it would require a turnaround of the balance of trade in goods and services from the present deficit. I would like to outline to honourable members the trend of this balance of trade in goods and services for the three years that Labor has been in power. The deficit went from $2.7 billion to a record $7.2 billion in 1985-86 and, according to the figures issued last August, it is up another $1.581 billion. That is the deficit balance on goods and services achieved within the period of this Government, created under the economic policies that we have under review at the moment. Those economic policies have earned the condemnation of Moody's Investor Services Inc. Irrespective of what the honourable member for Charlton was trying to say, at the same time Moody's was downgrading Australia's security rating on the international market from AAA to AA1. What measure of concern was expressed by members of the Government to this act? None at all. At Question Time today the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) mentioned the situation in Queensland with freight. At no stage did he indicate that Queensland will cop the economic policies of this Government to the extent of $40m to $50m in fringe benefits tax alone, a cost which those competing in the international markets cannot bear. Why does the Government not come clean and tell the people about its economic policies, those policies that are crippling the most virtuous of those people out there whom we are trying to encourage to grow and to expand-those in the export industries? The sad fact is that the Government hates business, it hates profit, it hates expansion. It must hate Australia, because the only way in which Australia can get out of this economic malaise is by trading, as the report suggests. The Government has done everything possible to cripple the Australian economy further through the export industry. Let us look not only at the fringe benefits tax but also at other taxes. The foreign credits tax is going to come in next year as well as the substantiation provisions and the disallowance of negative gearing as far as interest is concerned-all of those will have a negative effect. Let us look also at this wonderful tax situation that the Labor Party has told us about today! Twenty years ago a person had to earn 14 times average weekly earnings to be placed in the top tax bracket. Today a person who earns just one and a half times average weekly earnings is likely to cop a tax rate of 61.25c in the dollar. Do not let us hold our breath about the promised top rate of 49c in the dollar. We have been holding our breath on that for months-- Mr Robert Brown —Years. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, we have been holding it for years and I think the rest of Australia might just as well do the same. That is the honest fact, those are the tax policies of this Government. Let us look not only at the balance of trade figures, which show a record deficit, but also at the Budgets. For the information of the honourable member for Charlton, who keeps claiming that the 1983 deficit figure was $9.5 billion, the last Howard Budget, that for 1983, showed a deficit of $4.4 billion, created mainly by the dreadful drought this country was experiencing, something which is never mentioned by honourable members opposite. That figure grew to $7.9 billion-it nearly doubled-in 1984. It was $6.7 billion in 1985 and $5.7 billion in 1986. For those honourable members who have any faith in the latest figure, it is $3.5 billion. Let us look at how that figure of $3.5 billion was arrived at. It was arrived at by deferring payments to the next year, by transferring costs to the private sector-particularly hospital benefits and education costs-and by raising taxes. Worst of all, Labor added to Australia's economic ills in order to gain about $1.4 billion in an attempt to balance the Budget last year. It picked up $1.4 billion on the sale of external assets in order to try to improve on its deficit. That was done as a result of the depreciating dollar. Let us look also at this devalued dollar that we and the manufacturing industries have been blamed for. Labor came to government in March 1983. When did the dollar start dropping against international currencies? It was in April 1984, over 12 months later. In April 1984 we could sell a dollar and get US92c. Today we can get about US63c and it has been below US60c. Against the Japanese yen the dollar slipped below 100, but it was up to 208 yen in May 1984. So this rubbish about floating the dollar and it sinking can be put squarely at the feet of Labor's economic policies. If anybody wants to know what the devaluing dollar means to us, I believe it means that we have corrupted Australia's economy, and world financial markets recognise that and are condemning us for it. The Prime Minister, who likes to come in here and claim the virtues of devaluation and tells the sugar farmers, the wheat farmers and others that the great virtue of devaluation is the competitive edge which it gives us, should never forget that the strength of our dollar is a sign of how other people see us and our economy. Let us look also at a series of figures relating to interest rates. The Government's policies should give people a level playing field, but let us look at the playing field that the Australian exporter plays on at the moment. Australia's short term interest rate is presently 16.9 per cent; for West Germany it is 4.6 per cent; for Japan it is 4.7 per cent; and for the United States of America it is 5.5 per cent. Our rate is sometimes three times-certainly at least double-the interest rates of those countries. That is what our exporters have to pay. A person trying to service a debt or trying to build a house in the suburbs cannot do so with those rates. Let us look at inflation. We talked about a drop in the inflation rate, but look at Australia's situation compared with what is happening in the rest of the world. In the current year Australia's inflation rate is 8.4 per cent and it will probably go to 9 per cent. It is minus 0.4 per cent in West Germany, minus 0.2 per cent in Japan and 1.6 per cent in the USA. How in the name of glory can an exporter in Australia, or somebody who wants growth, who wants to get a bit of expansion, cope in the face of those odds? Of course, he cannot. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(3.50) —I begin by saying something to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). It is the refuge of a scoundrel to resort to personal abuse rather than debate when one is trying to take up an argument. One-third of the honourable member's speech contained nothing more than personal abuse. His comments showed the behaviour of a scoundrel. If the honourable member for Mackellar believes that there is something unacceptable- Mr Blunt —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I take exception to the honourable member referring to my colleague as a scoundrel. I ask that he withdraw that. Dr THEOPHANOUS —On the point of order: The honourable member for Mackellar made some personal attacks on me during his comments. I did not take a point of order. I have the right to reply to those comments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —It probably would assist the debate if the honourable member withdrew the words. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I withdraw. I make this comment to the honourable member for Mackellar: The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and I are well known for our contributions to economic debate. A hell of a lot of people in universities are studying works by the honourable member for Charlton and me much more than anything by the honourable member for Mackellar. That is for sure. When the honourable member has some intellectual record on economic matters he can contribute in this House. As for comments by the honourable member about my being on the far Left, being off the planet and so forth, I just say that people such as the honourable member who are associated with the New Right and have nazis and extreme right-wingers in their Party ought not throw stones at other people. Mr Carlton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I take exception to the use of the term `nazis' in relation to members of my Party. Dr THEOPHANOUS —On the point of order: There is no question that there are people in the honourable member's Party who have been named as being associated with nazi activities. Neither the honourable member nor the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has done anything to get rid of those people from the Liberal Party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mackellar has taken exception to the allegation relating to his Party. Again, it might assist the debate if the honourable member for Calwell withdrew the remark and then we could proceed. Mr Robert Brown —On the point of order: The only point I want to make is that no reflection was cast on members of the Opposition. It is not appropriate for members of the Opposition to claim to defend members of their Party in the community. That is not the role of this place. The honourable member for Calwell referred to the undisputed fact that in the Liberal Party there are nazis. Mr Uren —Mr Deputy Speaker, I must take the House back to the original remarks by the honourable member for Mackellar to which the honourable member for Calwell is replying. The honourable member for Mackellar made the allegation that the honourable member for Calwell was so far left that he was off the planet. That is the comment to which the honourable member for Calwell is replying. It is a fact that there are nazis in the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Calwell is not making a personal reflection, whereas the honourable member for Mackellar did. Mr Blunt —Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I must take exception. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, the honourable member for Charlton and the honourable member for Calwell have asserted that there are members of both parties on this side of the House who are members of the Nazi Party. They should either name them or withdraw the remark without reservation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —In making that assertion, I do not think that the honourable member for Richmond was following the debate. The honourable member for Calwell, to my recollection, said that there were nazis in the parties opposite. He did not say that members of the Opposition were nazis. The Standing Orders cover fairly well the fact that it is wrong to make an allegation against a member of the House. Whether or not it is good, people outside the House are pretty fair game. The honourable member, to my understanding, does not seem to have transgressed the Standing Orders. However, it might help the debate if he withdrew. Mr Carlton —Mr Deputy Speaker, if it would help I would be perfectly happy to withdraw the remark I made about the honourable member being so far to the left that he is off the planet. I made the remark light-heartedly. I do not have any disrespect for the honourable member. Dr THEOPHANOUS —In that spirit I also withdraw the remarks. I hope that this House will be able to face up to the difficult problems before the nation in the spirit of debate about issues and not with the kind of personal abuse with which we began. Mr Braithwaite —You have just spent six minutes on that sort of abuse. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dawson will cease interjecting. I thought that we had just got this debate on to a proper plane. The honourable member is not helping. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I turn to the problems. What we heard from the honourable member for Mackellar was a series of negative comments, with not a single constructive proposal about what ought to be done. The Government has recognised that there are balance of payments problems, trade problems and a series of problems facing the economy, most of which have been created by external factors. That is the situation. What do we hear from honourable members opposite? Do we hear from the two Opposition speakers a single constructive proposal on what ought to be done or the kinds of policies that ought to be pursued? We do not hear that at all. We hear merely abuse and false representations of the situation. We hear an attempt to blame the Government for all the ills that have occurred. There is no attempt at all to accept responsibility in an honest way for the record of those opposite when they were in government. As the honourable member for Charlton has mentioned, the fundamental problems were created during the Fraser years when this nation had good terms of trade. It was able to sell its resources overseas at reasonable prices. Was the wealth that came into Australia as a consequence put into Australian manufacturing? Of course it was not. Was the wealth put into developing processing industries? Of course it was not. That resource wealth of this nation on which we were relying at that time was absolutely wasted. Instead, as the honourable member for Charlton has said, the worst situation for manufacturing industry was created. First, the Australian dollar was kept artificially high because of false pressures and complete misunderstanding of economic theory by the present Leader of the Opposition. Consequently, imports poured into Australia. They destroyed our manufacturing base. About 250,000 jobs were destroyed. I say to honourable members opposite that we can talk about this whole disgraceful record of when they were in government. Those opposite have learned nothing. They have no positive proposals. They only vague ideas which we can get from their Press statements and other statements is that they support the policies of the New Right, of neo-conservatism, of monetarism. Those policies brought this nation to its knees during the Fraser years. They have no answers to the problems. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 258th report of the Committee, relating to response to report 229-Reports of the Auditor-General-1981-82 and September 1982, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr CONQUEST —Report 258 contains the response to the 229th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in the form of a Department of Finance minute sent to the Committee by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). The 229th report examined the reports of the Auditor-General for 1981-82 and September 1982, and was tabled on 21 May 1985. The Committee's conclusions and recommendations concerned results of audits into matters affecting the then departments of Communications, Defence, Education and Youth Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Industry and Commerce, Primary Industry, Science and Technology, Social Security, Territories and Local Government, Treasury, and Veterans' Affairs. The most significant issues dealt with in report 258 are an inactive internal audit function of the Department of Communications, the issue of audit fees between the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Australian Audit Office, and telephone rental concessions. While the Committee is satisfied with the responses to report 229, it is noted that the Auditor-General has consistently monitored and reported upon recurring problems covered by this report. The Committee draws to the Auditor-General's attention the unresolved issues relating to internal audit and requests that in his next report to the Parliament he review the matter. The Committee will then reconsider the issue. I commend this report to honourable members. Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with orders of the day Nos 2 to 4. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(4.03) —For the next hour or so the House will be engaged in a cognate debate on the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Australian National University Amendment Bill, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill and the Maritime College Amendment Bill. The principal Bill amends the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act to require higher education institutions to impose the higher education administration charge announced in the Budget, to set this charge at $250 in the 1987 academic year, to provide for annual increases in the charge to be limited to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's index of general salaries, and to establish the mechanism by which, on the Minister's estimates of institutional enrolment, Commonwealth grants are reduced by 90 per cent of the estimated revenue from the charge. The legislation also lists certain categories of students such as pension beneficiaries and recipients of student benefits who either are exempt from the charge or will receive compensatory payments to offset the up-front charge. The three other Bills in respect of three specific institutions, the Australian National University, the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the Maritime College in Launceston, allow those institutions to charge the higher education fee. All of these Bills radically overturn the Government's prior approach to the financing of higher education. In fact, they turn the approach of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) on its head. I state that because these Bills introduce a tuition fee for higher education under the semantic camouflage of the term `a higher education administration charge'. Let us not mince words or, to use the favourite phrase of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), let us not insult the intelligence of the Australian people: This $250 charge is an up-front compulsory payment. It is a tuition fee in form; it is a tuition fee in application. It is a compulsory levy imposed as a condition of enrolling in a higher education course and nobody has been fooled by the phoney names and false justifications used by the Minister and the Government in their explanations and Press releases. We can call it anything we like-a higher education administration charge, an institutional donation, a student enrolment charge-but this $250 compulsory payment amounts to a tuition fee which must be paid when a student enrols for tuition. Even the Western Australian Labor Minister for Education has been honest enough to admit that in public. The imposition of the $250 tuition fee is interesting from several important aspects. First, it exposes the full hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party's political campaign against tuition fees going back many years. Secondly, it represents the final victory of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), whose fees proposal, having been pre-emptively defeated in Caucus at the instigation of the Minister for Education, surfaced again in the context of the Budget deliberations with the backing of the Expenditure Review Committee. In this regard, this charge exposes the full degree to which Senator Ryan has lost control of the Education portfolio. Her credibility has been severely damaged. Thirdly, its introduction is a case study in political deceit and misrepresentation. Fourthly, its existence and imposition are inequitable in the discriminatory application of the same $250 rate, irrespective of the work load or course load of any student in any academic year. Finally, and most distressingly, the ad hoc panic measure implied by the introduction of this tuition fee completely fails to address any of the critical strategic issues in higher education. It carries no strategic significance or vision. It is simply an unco-ordinated revenue measure, plucked out of the air by public servants under the reluctant direction of a discredited and defeated Minister. Only 10 days before the Budget was announced, the Minister for Education addressed a meeting at the Western Australian Institute of Technology in my home State, an institution which, prior to boundary changes, I represented. At this stage of Budget deliberations the Minister would have known of the $250 tuition fee. She would have known her Caucus victory was a pyrrhic one, that Senator Walsh had mustered the numbers in the Expenditure Review Committee to impose a tuition fee on students, and that the $250 figure had been plucked out of the air to meet the required spending cuts. She would have been fully aware of all of this, but that day, 10 days out from the so-called war-time Budget, she chose to stay in the bunker and transmit disinformation. I quote the Minister's words 10 days before the Budget was announced: We will not impose tuition fees. That was reported in the Australian newspaper on 9 August 1986. A member of her staff said that her comments were `unqualified in their scope'. One would have to say that the statement `we will not impose tuition fees' was as good as the Prime Minister's 1983 election statement that `we will not impose a capital gains tax'. Ten days after the statement by the Minister for Education the Budget knocked that unqualified assurance for six. This Minister for Education now has no credibility. Her promise at WAIT, 10 days before the fee was introduced, must be numbered amongst the most shamefaced examples of deceit ever practised in Australian politics. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! I point out to the honourable member for Tangney that he is going a little close to the line abusing a standing order which calls for personal reflections not to be made upon members in this House or in the other place. I ask him to take note of that. Mr SHACK —Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for your guidance. I will take note of it. I ask honourable members to imagine the situation, if they were the Minister for Education, standing before a group of students, knowing that a tertiary fee was to be introduced 10 days hence in the Budget, but saying: `No, tuition fees will not be introduced'. This fee turns Labor's historical assurances on their heads. Let us recall the statements of high principle and moral sanctitude from the Labor Party in 1981, when the Liberal-National Party Government sought to raise a paltry $8m-less than a tenth of the money to be raised by this fee-by introducing fees for second and higher degrees. What did Senator Ryan say then? In the Senate on 28 October 1981 she said that the Labor Party was totally opposed to tertiary tuition fees. She claimed that tuition fees at any set amount would result in a reduction of access to education. She said that they were the thin end of the wedge. She said that fees ignored the ability to pay. She said: The Labor Party is totally opposed to the decision . . . to impose tertiary fees. . . . We will be opposing generally, and specifically, all such measures. They are Senator Ryan's words in the Senate in October 1981. I am pleased also that shortly in this debate this matter will be debated by the honourable member for Fremantle, the Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs (Mr Dawkins), who is also the Minister representing the Minister for Education in this place. I remind the House of some of his statements, which have also been exposed by this $250 fee in the Budget. As the then Labor shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Fremantle, paced campuses from the University of Western Australia to the James Cook University as the white knight of free education. In the early 1980s he berated the proposed $8m revenue-raising measure of the then Government, promising students that Labor would never impose tuition fees. On 21 October 1981 he told this House: We are opposed to the re-establishment of the principle of tertiary tuition fees in general. One day later he strengthened that declaration by saying: The Opposition is opposed to the reintroduction of tertiary tuition fees in any form. The full significance of that phrase `in any form' cannot be overstated. Anybody who thought that Senator Walsh's premature defeat in Caucus in 1985 had destroyed his determination to reintroduce tuition fees was either a fool or mad. After all, within weeks of that Caucus decision, the Prime Minister argued that Caucus might change its mind, noting: The Caucus has been known to change its mind on some matters. They used to have a view on uranium once. He said that on the PM radio program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 16 May 1985. And well he might have used that example about uranium because we all know where Caucus stands on uranium today. The first whiff of this tuition fees reversal came in an article in the Bulletin magazine early in August, when the eminently well connected Richard Farmer wrote: Ryan was outmanoeuvred on this occasion. . . . She was excluded from the most of the deliberations of the Expenditure Review Committee and Finance Minister Senator Peter Walsh has apparently been able to go some way towards his goal of reintroducing the fees abolished by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1973. There can be no greater indication that the Minister for Education misled students at the Western Australian Institute of Technology in promising not to reintroduce tuition fees than the leaking of the imposition of the fee a week before the Budget by the former Labor Party campaign adviser, Richard Farmer. Either the Minister was less well informed than this journalist or she deliberately said no when she should have said yes. This compulsory fee will be paid by a greater proportion of the student population than that which paid full tuition fees prior to 1973. Even in 1972 and 1973, before those fees disappeared, nothing like 70 per cent of students paid a fee. Yet Senator Ryan's achievement, by the introduction of this fee, will be to ensure the highest proportion of fee-paying students for 40 years. The irrational manner in which this fee has been imposed deserves comment. It has been misrepresented to students and wildly misleading claims have been made in an attempt to portray the fee as a money spinner for institutions. From the students' perspective, this $250 fee is fatally flawed. It hits full time, part time and external students at the same rate. Let us be quite clear about it. It is a $250 up-front charge whether one is doing one unit externally or a full time course load. Any higher education administrator will openly tell honourable members of his fears that this fee will reverse the historic trend towards part time and external study-a trend consistent with wider moves towards flexibility and diversity in industry and labour markets generally. We need a situation where more and more of those in the work force undertake part time or external education to upgrade their skills. We do not need to impose a government measure such as this which will strike against that sort of student enrolment. Close to half the student population in higher education study is part time or external. If one looks at the college sector, it is closer to 55 per cent. There is little logic, apart from raising money, in levying the fee at the same rate for all categories of students. As I have said, it is likely to discourage a large proportion of part timers and an even larger number of external students. The consequences will be immense, both for the community at large, which has benefited from the involvement of students on conditions other than full time study, and for institutions such as the Deakin University or the University of New England, which rely heavily on external students for the bulk of their enrolments. A full time student in 1987 will be getting up to 10 times the education for the same $250 fee as a student enrolled in a single unit. In these circumstances, it is no wonder that some administrators are preparing themselves for massive cuts in external enrolments. Institutions, staff bodies, academic unions and student organisations have been united in criticising the absolute lack of logic inherent in this universal $250 fee. An even more disturbing realisation is that this $250 fee will have not only an adverse effect on access for under-represented groups such as women, but also a regressive influence on the advancement of relevant skill levels and educational levels through the involvement of part time and external students which, as I say for the third time in this debate, are going to be so vital for Australia's future economy. This Government has tried to cast this $250 fee as a payment for enrolment costs. For example, the Minister for Trade, as Acting Minister for Education, in a news release dated 26 August 1986 justified the $250 universal charge, irrespective of actual work load, on the following grounds: Part-time and external higher education students are required to pay the new administration charge at the same level as full-time students because their enrolments also generate administration costs. That is the case, but anybody involved in higher education administration knows and will tell one, and this Government if only it will listen, that enrolling a full time student in, for example, 10 units involves much more work than enrolling an external student in, say, one unit. The fact is that students are not only enrolled in an institution; they are enrolled in a faculty, a course and individual subjects, and tutorials where applicable. Therefore a full time student enrolling in 10 units generates at least 10 times the administrative costs of an external student enrolling in one unit. Secondly, if the Government were honest in recovering enrolment costs, as the Minister for Trade has stated, the fee would be linked to the genuine costs of enrolment-for example, the clerical and data processing staff involved in this procedure-and yet it is not. The fee is not linked to any genuine costs of enrolment; the fee is indexed to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's index of general salaries, the GSI. I have with me a list of the staff classifications included in the GSI. I ask honourable members present and those interested in this debate to consider the logic of this from the point of view of an external student who is living in Perth, for example, and who enrols in an eastern States campus. This happens and it happens often. The Government would have us believe that the student's fee is linked to enrolment-type staff wage movements. According to the document before me it is linked to an incredibly wide range of staff. An external student will have the $250 fee linked to the wage movements of such non-enrolment related staff as laboratory assistants, metal trades foremen, cleaners, gardeners and fitters and turners. An external student in Perth will be paying for the wage rises of a gardener on an eastern States campus. It is pretty hard to justify that as an enrolment related cost. But that is what this Government has tried to state. It is what the Government would have us believe. Let us now turn to the so-called exemptions from the charge, so-called because the administrative mechanisms are either underdeveloped or transparently nonsensical. The Government has not spelt out explicitly how the exemptions will work and it is possible that some institutions, due to the vague and unexplained exemption provisions, will actually suffer a reduction in overall funding during 1987. Secondly, the compensatory payments for some categories of students, such as Austudy and Abstudy recipients, are unspecified. These students face the $250 fee up front before they enrol in February next year. Many will not be able to afford the $250 fee at that stage. Many will apply for emergency loans, further stretching the inadequate resources of campus-based financial aid organisations. Yet it is not known now whether the students will be compensated in a lump sum payment or simply by an adjustment of about $10 a fortnight in their particular allowance. Two further points underline the stupidity of the administration of this $250 tuition fee. It is readily acknowledged that a large proportion of external students come from rural communities and that the $250 fee will adversely affect external enrolments. This will render either ineffective or wasteful the Government's $200,000 campaign to increase rural participation in higher education. This underlines again the lack of any coherent strategy and logic in the imposition of this $250 tuition fee. Secondly, over the last decade, the general salaries index has been the most rapidly increasing index of salaries compiled by CTEC. The GSI has risen much faster than genuine academic salaries indices, teaching or otherwise. The linking of the $250 fee to the GSI ensures that this fee will be at least $500 a year by the 1989 academic year. This accurate prediction assumes that the Government, having established the mechanism for recouping in part tuition fees, does not seek to inflate increases in fees to help cut outlays in future years. Is anybody seriously going to believe that the Minister for Finance will be satisfied with an indexed $250 student fee? More likely the Minister will push for fee increases, as indeed he successfully pushed for the introduction of this fee. We can expect fees to rise at Budget time much faster than the GSI index. The claims of the Minister for Education that this $250 fee is a money spinner for institutions is also flawed fundamentally. Firstly, any variation between the Minister's estimates of eligible students and actual students enrolling each year will be redressed only in the following academic year, leaving the institutions to carry the can for 12 months. This will particularly disadvantage those institutions with a high concentration of exempt students such as pensioners or overseas students. Secondly, the Minister has tried to portray the $250 a head bonus-the 10 per cent of the fee which is to be retained by the institution-as a real gain. This ignores the adverse financial implications of the changed schedule of advance payments to institutions which took effect from 1 July this year. Prior to 1 July 1986, institutions received their recurrent fund payments two months in advance, which allowed them to meet some of their costs and to reap interest at substantial short term rates on the money market. The change to the one-month advance payments system has terminated a source of relied upon finance to help those institutions to defray burgeoning costs. The interaction between this one month advance and the $250 fee exposes the nonsense of the Minister's claim of real gains for the institutions. The University of New South Wales has estimated that its loss as a result of the change from a two-month to the one-month advance funding is of the order of $700,000. The $25 a head bonus from the higher education fee, on 18,000 students, will net only $450,000, even if all students at the University of New South Wales are eligible, and they will not be. This leaves the institution-I cite just one example-something like $250,000, a quarter of a million dollars, worse off in absolute resources than in June 1986. This is the reality of higher education funding under this Government-a slick sleight-of-hand financial arrangement, superficially attractive but flawed on analysis. This measure will totally fail to compensate for the adverse effects of the shift from two-month to one-month advance payments. It will most likely cause a reduction in overall funds to higher education in 1987. Bound as we are to allow this Government to have its Budget passed unamended, we will not oppose this legislation. This Government is entitled to have it pass through the Parliament complete, no matter how unsavoury or illogical particular measures may be. It will stand the opprobrium or otherwise from the wider community in due course. But let me make it clear. The Opposition would not have imposed this flawed, discriminatory $250 fee. The Opposition would not have imposed a measure so destructive of the trend to more flexible study patterns, so short-sighted, hypocritical and lacking in logic. This measure will do nothing to solve the crisis of capacity and technology in higher education. That crisis is manifest in the 9,000 to 14,000 qualified students who are being locked out of our higher education system, in the increasing obsolescence of the majority of equipment in higher education and in the common cutbacks in essential education services such as library hours and tuition, as institutions are forced by the current financial squeeze to place restrictions on their activities. This Government is presiding over the demise of our higher education system. It is in total disarray, unable to meet either the demand for student places or the needs of industry for well-qualified graduates in state of the art technology. Labor's answer is to provide for only marginal increases in enrolment without funding additional student places at marginal cost. This only increases the burdens on other sections of higher education institutions-a zero sum game, the ultimate consequence of which is a reduced capacity to return a net educational benefit to the community at large. As I have said, we will not be opposing this measure. However, we will campaign against it vigorously. When it has passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the community, in not too short a time, will have its opportunity to pass a judgment not only on the introduction of this illogical measure but also on the fact that this Government is failing the nation's needs by not providing for a strong, vigorous and expanding higher education sector. Mr GEAR(Canning)(4.32) —Day after day we come into the House of Representatives and listen to speeches by members of the Opposition. The contribution by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) today was no different from those we hear every day. We listen in vain, day after day, for one word or sentence about what Opposition members would do if they were in government. One is increasingly drawn to the conclusion that they have no policies or that they are ashamed of them. They will not let their policies see the light of day. They will not open them up to scrutiny. We accept some of the criticisms Opposition members make. We do not always agree with them, but we agree that they can make them. But what sort of a position are Opposition members in? They will not even release their policies. They have no policies on wages, no tax policy, no education policy and no social security policy-no policies at all. All I say to Opposition members is that if they want to be dinkum, if they want to come into this place and debate education or anything else let us see their policies. Let them open them up to scrutiny-or are they too ashamed of them? We remember the bagging the Opposition got when it let out its policy on privatisation. Everyone started to see just what sort of a policy it was. Opposition members were shell-shocked, after opening up their privatisation policy to scrutiny, to see what the people of Australia thought of it. I know that the honourable member for Tangney would agree with me that the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia certainly took a battering on privatisation. So the Opposition has gone back into its shell. It will not release a policy. Can anyone blame it? After its last performance, its credibility on just about anything was shot to pieces. In talking about the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Australian National University Amendment Bill, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill and the Maritime College Amendment Bill, I refer once again to the credibility gap that exists on the Opposition benches with respect to the promises Opposition members make in the fiscal area. Mr Ronald Edwards —How much is the gap? Mr GEAR —The gap on the receipts side, taxation, is $5.9 billion. I will go through a few examples. The Opposition wants to institute income splitting. That will cost $2.7 billion. The Opposition proposes to abolish the fringe benefits tax. Everyone will go back to the restaurants, and the rich people will book up meals and let the taxpayer pay for them. The Opposition wants to abolish the capital gains tax and the tax on lump sum superannuation. All the measures the Government has introduced to knock out the rorts in the system the Opposition says it would remove. It will cost $5.9 billion. On the outlays side, it will repeal the assets test. As you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the assets test is one of the more successful measures taken by this Government to put some integrity into that area. The Opposition would have a wages freeze. It does not want anybody to get a wage increase. That will cost $400m. If one adds all that up it comes to about $6 1/2 billion. The Opposition is also on record as advocating a zero deficit. This year the deficit is $3.5 billion. If one adds the cost of all the Opposition's proposals, it comes to $10,000m. I said it last Friday and I will say it again: When the Opposition members come into this House and start criticising us or asking us questions about our policies, I will start asking them where the money is coming from. Where is it coming from? We are talking now about a student charge, which I will come back to. We can pick up a clue from an article I have with me. I cannot tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, where it came from. It is headed `Draft ``horror'' Budget would knock welfare'. But the Opposition's Budget would not only knock welfare. The article states: Draconian measures would have been introduced in last month's Budget if the New Right held the reins of government. An `alternative Budget' drawn up by a leading figure in the New Right contains Budget cuts totalling $7 billion. Some people may say: `So what?'. What influence does the New Right have on the Liberal Party? I would say to them: Go and have a look at the front page of the Australian on Monday and you will find a picture of the Leader of the Opposition with one of the New Right's bright lights, Mr Charles Copeman, the media guru who goes around this country showing us how he would run the country. People should make no mistake about it. When we talk about the New Right in this country, we should read `Liberal Party'. The New Right has taken over the Liberal Party. The picture of the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Charles Copeman at a Liberal Party fundraiser on the weekend shows the influence the New Right has on the Party. Let us go back to the draft horror Budget and consider a few on the measures in it that relate to education. The article states: Education-reintroduction of tertiary fees of $1,000 per year for most courses but higher for courses such as law and medicine . . . At least we have to give the Opposition praise for social progress. The courses which lead to high incomes should cost a bit more. The article states that student loans and scholarships to help students will be abolished. It continues: Grants for advanced education cut by 10 per cent . . . The cost of tertiary education is about $2.7 billion. Yet the Opposition will wipe off $270m straight away. The article states that technical and further education would be cut by the Opposition by 7 1/2 per cent. It states that the participation and equity program for disadvantaged groups would be terminated. Mr Ronald Edwards —How typical. Mr GEAR — Yes, how typical. Put the boot into the guys who cannot fight back. All this gives us an indication of where the Liberal Party stands. Further on-and this has an impact on education, too-the article states: One hundred and fifty per cent tax deduction for research and technology to be removed and all Commonwealth legal aid services abolished. One of the most progressive things we have done in this country has been to grant that taxation deduction. Anybody outside this country will tell us that not enough research and development is going on in this country. Yet the New Right, which controls the Liberal Party, would throw it out. There is no doubt at all that tertiary fees would be reintroduced under a coalition government. I refer to an interview with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on the John Laws program. Mr Laws asked a pertinent question: Would you increase tertiary fees? The Leader of the Opposition answered: Well, I certainly don't rule out the maintenance of what the government . . . I will be more explicit and say this. I have not criticised the government for bringing in the charge they did bring in. I will take honourable members back to what the honourable member for Tangney did. He spent 30 minutes doing nothing but criticising the measure. Yet his Leader does not criticise it. That shows the duplicity of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition continued: And I have said, and I will be saying it again today at Sydney University, that the days when people could look to government for more money to fund universities- let us remember the New Right- are gone. And what we have to do increasingly in this country is to get more private money into universities. And that applies whether you are talking of Alan Bond's exercise- I will come back to that later, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know it relates to your State of Queensland- or you are talking about perhaps allowing universities to bring in more students over and above the quota and charge them fees. Charge them fees! That is out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition speaking on the John Laws program, contradicting what the honourable member for Tangney said. Let us look at where fees are charged. I refer to an article in the Bulletin of 14 October, relating to the American experience. The article, which appears on page 67, has this headline: `Private university lessons from US experience'. The article reads: An American student's family, whether the student attends a public or private university, has to carry a much bigger share of the cost of the student's higher education than is the case in Australia. American students, particularly those who are more able or more ambitious, shop nationally for their college education. Living away from home is the norm. The overall cost to an American student's family of tuition fees, board and lodging, and books and equipment for a basic four-year degree can easily hit $A100,000 all up. Let us go back to the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition on the John Laws program. Let us look at the matter in terms of the current number of students, which is about 300,000. We heard the honourable member for Tangney say that we have to get more people into our institutions. What we are saying, then, is that every other student who enrols in our tertiary institutions will pay about $100,00, if the American experience of costs is about the same as ours. I would like to refer again to the proposed Bond University, because it is a proposal that attracts a lot of attention in the Liberal Party and also in the New Right. There is no doubt that higher education institutions, such as the Bond University, are not being founded because of a desire to lead in education. The reason that they are being established is to flog off real estate, and for no other reason. They are being founded in places such as the Gold Coast, where Mr Bond wants to flog off real estate. In order to flog off the real estate, he wants to establish a university there. Back in the good old days at least people were honest enough to start off by building a shopping centre and maybe a bit of industry. They would do it above board. But not Mr Bond. He has said to the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: `Listen, mate, I want to flog off a bit of your real estate. How about rushing through your Parliament a Bill to allow me to establish a university?'. Those who have listened to the Premier of Queensland will know that he is not a very well-educated man and he cannot speak very well. In Question Time yesterday we talked about the telephone interpreter service. One just about needs an interpreter service to understand what he is saying. But he will allow Mr Bond to flog off real estate in his State. He will provide a university and make all of the students pay full fees. But this proposal is occurring not only in Queensland. There is a proposal in Western Australia, at Yanchep Sun City, which is based on the same premise. Mr Ronald Edwards —That is right. Unloading real estate. Mr GEAR —Unloading real estate, as the honourable member for Stirling says. The impetus for higher education in the private sector is not based on educational needs; it is based on real estate needs, and it is wrong. Why should universities be used as the catalyst for development? Certainly, in this country we need a rational basis for the establishment of universities so that the students who attend the universities know that they are attending them because there is some reason for their existence other than to satisfy the needs of a land developer. To illustrate the point I have been making, I refer once again to an article in the Bulletin of 14 October 1986. Page 60 reads: What the Bond group had hit upon was not just a plan for a university but a marvellous means of developing a lot of land in a stagnant- I repeat, stagnant- Gold Coast real estate market. Instead of using a giant shopping centre complex- I referred to it earlier- as the core of the development scheme they would use a university. The scheme could be approached in much the same way as a shopping centre. What is the Opposition talking about? Is it talking about education in this country for the good of education, or is it talking about it so that Bondy can make a quid? It is not good enough. Mr Ronald Edwards —It cost Bondy $400,000, didn't it? Mr GEAR —As the honourable member for Stirling says, $400,000 would be a small downpayment for such a development. Mr Ronald Edwards —Key money. Mr GEAR —The honourable member for Stirling says `key money'. I think he is pretty close to the mark. Later, the article states: Bond's private university was conceived primarily as a means to develop a lot of land at a premium in a currently stagnant Gold Coast real estate market. I rest my case. If we are to have an education system in this country that means something, let us not allow the rip-off merchants, who want to make a quid on the real estate market, to develop universities. It is just not good enough. Yesterday, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) referred in the Senate to the fees debate as it applies to these private universities. The headline of an article in this morning's Age newspaper reads: `Big salaries at Bond's university mean big fees'. The article refers to the fact that Senator Ryan had told the Senate that courses at public universities cost between $7,000 and $18,000 a year. That is what it costs every year in Australia to put a student through university. Senator Ryan estimated that the cost of the Bond University courses would be more than $20,000 a year. The reason for that estimation is a statement which appears in the article: An advertisement calling for applicants to head the university, on Queensland's Gold Coast- in the middle of that stagnant real estate- appeared in Australian newspapers on Saturday. The job will also be advertised overseas. As well as the $150,000 salary, the job package includes a house and substantial expenses. The advertisement said candidates who wanted more money should not be deterred from applying. I can tell the House that the Government will recoup tax in regard to the substantial expenses and house. Mr Ronald Edwards —The fringe benefits tax. Mr GEAR —The fringe benefits tax. The Opposition said that the fringe benefits tax was one of the most terrible measures ever introduced. Yet Mr Bond is advertising for someone to head his real estate university and is offering substantial expenses and a house. If that is not fringe benefits, I do not know what is. It blows the Opposition's case right out of the water. Mr Miles —You want more tax. Mr GEAR —The honourable member opposite says that we want more tax. He is right. We want to collect tax from the people who have not been paying it. Do honourable members opposite know what we will do with it? We will give it back to the pay as you earn taxpayers who have been paying it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I ask the honourable member to come back to the point of the Bill. We are having a fairly wide-ranging debate. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out-and I am glad that the Opposition agrees with me-that the fringe benefits tax has not stopped Mr Bond from advertising fringe benefits in regard to his proposed university in Queensland. Where does the Opposition stand? Let us talk about something constructive. I refer to what this Government has done about education links with industry. We have done a few things that did not cost us a big quid. We have said that maybe there should be a closer liaison between universities and business. It is something that the Opposition never thought of, and it is working. I have some notes with me which refer to the fact that Australia is undergoing large-scale structural change, and it is the education and training system which will provide the economy with the skills it needs to facilitate this change and to generate growth and development. The Minister for Education recognises this, and this and has developed closer links between the education and business sectors. Education involvement with industry is not new. There is, for example, extensive industry representation on education bodies, and employers are represented on State bodies and the boards of individual institutions. Mr Ronald Edwards —Very progressive. Mr GEAR —That is right. The Standing Committee on Tertiary Education Industry Relationships has been established to identify areas in which the education sector may need to change to more adequately meet the needs of industry. That Committee, of which I am the Vice-Chairman, met with the vice-chancellors in Sydney recently. They spoke in glowing terms of what this Government has done to promote the links between industry and the universities. The message we got clearly from the vice-chancellors was this: Why was it not done a long time ago? The answer is simple. All it took was a government with a bit of initiative and a bit of foresight to be elected. This Government has followed that course. It will pay dividends in the future for the whole of Australia; not just the universities or the industry but every student who goes to a place of higher learning in this country will benefit from these changes. Following the release of the Committee's recent report on education we have reached agreement with the Business Council of Australia that a number of co-operative ventures should be undertaken between it and the Minister. I could go on; a lot more could be said but I will leave it to other speakers. I take up a few of the points raised by the honourable member for Tangney. He said that this charge was not an administrative charge, that it was a fee. He said that administering 10 units does not cost 10 times the cost of administering one unit. I say to him that the administration charge is set just like a business. It is averaged out over all students. We do not see people in business working out their overheads for each individual service. In the case of an electrician, who might wire up a whole house, a whole field of houses or just put in a powerpoint, we do not see him averaging out his overheads to charge the individual customer. There are examples, some of which were brought in by a Liberal government in Western Australia. The State Electricity Commission has a standard charge. It does not matter what one's bill is, everybody is hit by the same charge. The same applies to the licence for motor vehicle renewals. It is a standard charge and it does not matter whether one has a little car or a big car. The precedent is not new; it has been introduced by Liberal governments. I finish my speech this afternoon by saying that education is far too important in this country to be left to people such as Mr Bond who want to use universities to develop land in the middle of Queensland. He might get away with it there because Queensland has a Premier who does not know what two and two make, but here we do know. I agree with the Minister that all our resources should go into education that is planned on a proper, rational basis. The $250 charge will help us to do just that. This Government is to be congratulated for allowing an increase of 36,800 places since it has been elected to government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr SMITH(Bass)(4.53) —I am sure that listeners found listening to the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) entertaining, but it was interesting that, apart from about one minute of a 20-minute speech, he offered nothing at all to support the States Grant (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Australian National University Amendment Bill, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill, the Maritime College Amendment Bill, the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill and the Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill. It was more an exercise in bashing Bondy, which is quite surprising coming from a Western Australian. It was not so long ago that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and of course the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), who represents the seat of Fremantle, did everything they could to be seen with Mr Bond after he had won the America's Cup. It is almost a case of biting the hand that feeds you. Given that the honourable member did not enter into any meaningful debate, but rather offered an entertaining expose on issues other than the ones that are before the House, one is left with no grounds or need to contradict or criticise anything he said. If one looks at the list of those who will speak in this debate, it is noticeable that our side of the House has four members from Tasmania listed-myself representing Bass, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). The reason for that is the point made by the shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), about the effects this charge will have on part time and external students. In no State will that effect be felt more than in Tasmania, a State that is more decentralised than any other in its educational services and has more external and part time students than any other State in Australia. That is why so many Tasmanians want the opportunity to voice their criticisms of this group of measures. It is interesting that only three members from the Government side are speaking. That is a measure of the concern that is felt by back bench members of the Australian Labor Party and the difficulties they have faced in the Caucus in trying to put these measures to the public. They know that the young people in this community are particularly concerned about the imposition of these measures. One of the institutions in Tasmania about which I want to talk is the Australian Maritime College. The Australian Maritime College is a unique institution; it is the only one of its type in Australia. It currently has somewhere in the vicinity of 321 full time students but it also conducts many short courses and other courses for people from the Royal Australian Navy, from the Pacific islands and from different areas right around Australia. It is interesting to look at the second reading speech of the Minister for Trade, who represents the Minister for Education in this place, about the effects of the $250 fee. Figures are quoted at the end of the speech. The revenue collected by the college in 1987 is estimated to be $69,000, which will result in the recurrent grant for 1987 being reduced by $62,000. I think it is somewhat of a con to believe, as this Government is trying to tell us, that this fee will help defray the administration costs of institutions. It really is a con because what is happening is that one is taking with one hand and having it taken away from recurrent grants with the other. Maybe the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who is at the table, or whoever responds to this debate will explain how those figures got into the second reading speech. As I understand it, the triennium submission to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission quoted completely different figures. In fact, $94,750 will be collected, of which $85,275 will go to the Commonwealth. If one takes the 1986 figures, the amount collected was estimated at $80,250, of which $72,225 would go to the Government. Something is obviously wrong there. If those sorts of errors appear in what is one of the smallest budgets of an institution affected by this fee, one wonders what the effects might be on the estimation of the fees to be collected and the effects on recurrent grants of institutions right around the country. One of the issues that will be affected at the Maritime College is one I raised with the Minister as long ago as August 1985 and it runs in parallel with the new fee that has been introduced. I refer to the effect on the variation of tertiary education assistance scheme benefits from the May economic statement. It affects particularly single independent status students. As I have said, at the Maritime College most students come from interstate and some are foreign students. Let me give an interesting example of how this fee, in addition to the changes to TEAS, will affect students at this college and also the ability of the college to bring extra students to it. We heard a speech from the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) on how we must lift the educational standards of engineers and all the ratings, whatever they be, within the maritime industry, and here we have a national institution trying to do this. I take the example of a student who will be affected by enrolling in the first year of the bachelor of applied science fisheries technology course. He is single, 28 years age, and his home is located on Thursday Island, which is about as far away from Tasmania as one could get. He recently visited the office of the Registrar to say that, because of the high travel costs that would be incurred, he had doubts that he would be able to continue with his course unless a decision to amend the TEAS application is made. In addition, he will have another $250 to pay. So we might be losing a student from Thursday Island. It is those types of examples about which this Government has not thought in imposing these fees. I asked the Minister in August, and we have continued to ask the Minister, whether the Government would consider reviewing the single independent status as it applies to the Maritime College. It applies to about 50 students who come from far-flung areas of Australia. If we are to maintain and enhance the excellence of the academic achievements of those we wish to go into our maritime industry we ought to be looking a little more carefully at unique institutions such as this Maritime College and how such fees might impose upon them. Early this week or late last week the Minister for Transport brought down a report of the Maritime Industry Development Committee which recommended that all new entrants into the shipping industry undergo a common training course at the Australian Maritime College for a period of 19 weeks and that the college also offer an intensive 10-week retraining course for those already involved in the industry. I welcome that committee finding. I give credit to the Minister for the positive step he has taken. If it is instituted we will see an increase in the academic levels and training for our maritime industry people. I wonder how this fee will affect those who enrol in those courses, which will now be compulsory for entry into the maritime industry. Perhaps the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) ought to look at the matter together. On the very second page of the 1985 annual report of the Maritime College-I have it here-the Minister for Transport is pictured driving his new simulator at the college. He is quite happy to get the credit for being there when things are good. But the bottom line for any of these institutions is a continuous good solid flow of students. The imposition of the fee in the tertiary education assistance scheme area will mean that students will suffer and that courses will be made unattractive. This will do nothing to ensure the continuity of the success of the Maritime College. I would like also to turn to the Tasmanian State Institute of Technology which is based in Launceston. This institution has about 2,220 full time students. By 1991, on current projections, it is hoping to get the figure up to nearly 2,750. The interesting thing about that institution is that 54 per cent of its students are part time or external students. That is a particularly high percentage. It is estimated now by the college that the imposition of this $250 fee across the board, without any pro rata application at all, will see an immediate 20 per cent drop-off of part timers next year. That is a dramatic fall. One wonders what the reasons are behind the introduction of this fee. We heard earlier from the honourable member for Tangney that there is a shortfall of 9,000 to 14,000 full time places available in tertiary institutions around this nation. I recall some several months ago the vice-chancellors of this nation expressing extreme concern about this state of affairs. If one looks closely-I do not have time to canvass all the issues now-at the mechanisms behind the funding for equivalent full time students, EFTS, one can draw this conclusion if one wants to ascribe to conspiracy theories: Is not the aim of this $250 fee perhaps to force out part time and external students and therefore leave space, as it were, for full time students in existing institutions and thereby avoid the necessity of creating or establishing further tertiary institutions to take up the 9,000 to 14,000 young Australians who want to get a full time education? I leave that question to be answered by the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who is at the table, or the Minister who will respond to this debate. However, I think that this is a legitimate argument to be putting; it is one that requires an answer. I think it is incumbent on the Government to respond to questioning of the way that this fee has been put down without any regard being paid to the gap in terms of the 9,000 to 14,000 student places that are needed. There was a hue and cry in Tasmania when this fee was introduced and, of course, that reaction was heard by the Minister for Education. Tasmanian members of this place, such as I, responded to this fee, as did the Minister for Education in Tasmania, the Hon. Peter Rae, a man who is well known in this place because he served for many years in the other place as a senator. Peter Rae drew attention immediately to the absurdity of introducing a fee which has no pro rata application. It is a fee which is going to penalise part time and external students. As I have said, it will result in perhaps a 20 per cent reduction in the number of part time students attending the tertiary institution in Launceston. Peter Rae is not a person who comes to education without any experience. He took part in the education debates in the other chamber on many occasions and he also served for many years on the Australian National University Council. Perhaps the Federal Minister for Education ought to talk to a person such as Peter Rae who now has to administer State education areas, who knows the importance of trying to find money to fund educational facilities and who is used to trying to get funds out of the Commonwealth to fund institutional activities in a State where decentralisation is a fact of life. It is no wonder that he said: This fee directly attacks the attempts to decentralise Tasmanian tertiary education. As indeed it does. The reintroduction of across the board fees of $250 is a direct blow to any chances of significantly improving Australia's appalling low tertiary education retention rates. As I have said, there is no provision for the payment on a pro rata basis of the fee for part time students and this will hit Tasmanian tertiary education institutions, particularly the Tasmanian Institute of Technology, which have such a high proportion of part time students. I wonder why it is that the Minister did not consider this issue when the whole question of fees was being discussed. When one goes back to the announcement of the decision to impose a fee, it is interesting to see some of the responses that were made in the Tasmanian media. Perhaps the most succinct approach to this issue was contained in the editorial of the Launceston Examiner, which is acknowledged-I am not quoting from it just because it is a paper in my electorate-as a good balanced newspaper which looks at issues objectively. The editorial stated: . . . but its application to part-time and external studies students is ludicrous. One can but agree with that. The editorial pointed out another issue, and that was that the Centre for Continuing Education for Teachers in Tasmania, which has about 900 enrolments, will be particularly hard hit as most students take only one or two subjects a year. If there is anything we need in this country at a time when technology is changing so quickly, at a time when we are trying to enhance computer studies and so on-one only has to read the book of the Minister of Science (Mr Barry Jones) to appreciate the changes that are taking place-it is continuing education and those who must get continuing education more than any other are teachers. So one must wonder at the fact that the Centre for Continuing Education for Teachers is to be hit so adversely by this fee. It is something that requires a response from the Minister. The Federal Government argues that the $250 fee is an administrative fee and not a tuition fee. Quite frankly, that is just semantic nonsense. It does not mean anything. We know what it is-it is a fee which is going to affect very dramatically part time and external studies student enrolments. This fee will be imposed on the students at the Tasmanian State Institute of Technology at Launceston, 54 per cent of whom are part timers. There will be an automatic drop-off of 20 per cent in enrolments. This will happen in a State which has decentralised education arrangements under which many students undertake external studies. The fee is being imposed at a time when we need to be lifting the retention rates, as was so eloquently pointed out by the honourable member for Tangney. It is being imposed at a time when we need education and training if Australia is to improve its competitive position in this world. To see that happen and for the Government to rely on the sort of semantic nonsense that we have heard is really just beyond the pale. If anything, this unjust tax on part time and external students should be abolished straight away and at least consideration should be given to the introduction of a fee on a pro rata basis. Finally, it was interesting to hear the honourable member for Canning refer to his meeting with the vice-chancellors. I wonder what the vice-chancellors really did say to him and whether he gave a full report to this House of what they said to him. I have a letter from Professor Kevin Marjoribanks, the Acting Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide. It is interesting to note that not one Labor member from South Australia has been prepared to put his head up and speak on this very vital issue. The letter talks about the effects that the fee will have on the University of Adelaide. If talks about the possible budgetary effects of a loss of approximately $2m in income if the university declined to impose and collect the charge. That goes back to the point that I made about the direct effect on recurrent grants to institutions of the imposition of this fee. Interestingly, the Vice-Chancellor said: It was also suggested . . . that I should ensure that you are aware of the concerns expressed in the letter from the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee to the Minister for Education, Senator The Honourable Susan Ryan. I have, therefore, included the text of that letter which stated: The letter goes on-obviously I cannot quote it all-for two more pages. However, I would like to quote one or two points that were made. The vice-chancellors of all the universities in Australia said: . . . that the nature of the charge will impact adversely on the Government's program of participation and equity in education. The Government has actively encouraged, through its policies, the enrolment of geographically isolated and economically disadvantaged students, and women in higher education. These policies have been successful and many such people have enrolled particularly as part-time students. The Vice-Chancellors feel that it is inequitable that part-time students, including many that are enrolled externally, will be required to pay the same level of charges as full-time students. There we have it-some of the most learned men in this country are telling this Government that part time students and external students are being treated inequitably. This Minister and this Party sends into this place to speak on this vital debate three people of whom the public of Australia probably has never heard. It is an absolute disgrace. Let us see what else they said: On 26 August, Mr. John Dawkins- that is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs in this country, who looks about 65 years of age to me- . . . during your absence overseas, stated the administrative costs do not vary greatly between part-time and full-time students. Then the vice-chancellors said: A study undertaken within one university would seem to contradict this argument. So the Government has not even done its research properly. It does not even know the difference between the effects this fee will have on a part time student, an external student or a full time student. The final point I make is that there are obviously going to be vast administrative problems with the introduction of this fee. The vice-chancellors also said: . . . there will be problems in regard to the collection of the fee, particularly if there is a concerted campaign amongst students to boycott its payment. Universities will not be able to enrol students unless they pay the fee and if the boycott campaign is successful, enrolments in 1987 will be thrown into confusion. If the students of Australia campaign against paying this fee, I do not know what will happen, but if they do, come the commencement of the term in 1987, this Government, through the imposition of this fee, without thinking of the effects that it will have, might be faced with a rebellion by students. I do not know whether it is treasonable for a member of parliament to stand up in this place and urge students to rebel and not pay the fee, but I certainly know that it is incumbent upon a member of parliament to point out to this country that if fees such as these are introduced and if students, especially the part time and external students, are going to be hit with them, in my view when they go to enrol they would be justified in refusing to pay. If I have read the vice-chancellors' letter correctly, they are saying: `Really, we would quite welcome it because it might make the Government see sense'. I do not think the debate today will be the end of this matter. It might well be just the beginning. The beginning of 1987 might see the students of this country expressing their view in a way which will really sink home to the Government. There is one thing that this Government is sure of, that is, that it wants to be re-elected. It is going to do everything it can, as it did with the Priority One campaign, and spend as much money as it can trying to con the youth of Australia. But one cannot con sensible people, and it is about time this Government realised it. Debate interrupted. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do. I have in the last few minutes established that during Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) quite seriously misrepresented me in relation to the fringe benefits tax. Honourable members will recall that during an answer to a question on the fringe benefits tax the Prime Minister had this to say in criticising the Opposition's stance: In other words we have the Federal President and the Federal Secretary of the Liberal Party, in favour of the tax and just about the only person in Australia who is now saying that he is against it lock, stock and barrel is the Leader of the Opposition . . . The basis of his claim that I was alone-and that is the area of misrepresentation-was his allegation that the Federal Director of the Liberal Party, Mr Tony Eggleton, last Friday had said in answer to a question that he was in favour of the fringe benefits tax `in principle'. I can now inform the House that Mr Eggleton said no such thing- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOWARD —The words attributed were not the words of Mr Eggleton. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr HOWARD —They were the words of a secretary of an industry association and the Prime Minister has got it completely wrong. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr Keating —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was not himself misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is a correct point of order and it was one- Mr Keating —The second point, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the Leader of the Opposition has apparently decided upon a technique that, if he chooses to take a point of order on a question, the question and the answer are cut from the rebroadcast of the proceedings. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. Mr Howard —On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will be seated. He has already not attended to the Chair when I called him to order. Mr Howard —I am not taking a point of order. I take it that you are saying that I cannot take a point of order? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am not. I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to be childish. I am answering the last point of order. Mr Howard —I beg your pardon. That is not a correct way, even from your exalted position, to address me. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am answering the point of order put forward- Mr HOWARD —May I take a point of order? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am first answering the last point of order which the Leader of the Opposition made. I ask him to be dignified and listen to the Chair. The point which was brought forward regarding personal misrepresentation had been taken a little far by the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to other persons and the way in which they were misrepresented. He now has another point of order. I will take that point of order. Mr Howard —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order that your response to the Treasurer, to the effect that he had taken a correct point of order, suggested that I had not indicated where I had been misrepresented. I repeat: The basis of my claim that I was misrepresented was the statement of the Prime Minister that I was alone in opposing the fringe benefits tax lock, stock and barrel on the basis of what I have now established to be the erroneous and false claim of the Prime Minister that the Federal Director of the Liberal Party supported the fringe benefits tax. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —That is wrong and the Prime Minister ought to apologise to Mr Eggleton and to the Parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is again out of order. Mr Keating —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition is afforded the right to a personal explanation of where he has been personally misrepresented as is any other honourable member. My contention is that the Leader of the Opposition himself was not misrepresented. The fact that he believes Mr Eggleton may have been- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Keating —There is an additional point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I say to the House that we have dealt with this matter. There has been a personal explanation on this case- Mr Keating —I want to raise an additional- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order on this case. I call the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. Debate resumed. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(5.17) —I am not surprised that those here representing the Opposition in this debate on education are the very few people from the Opposition who can honestly oppose administrative charges by this Government on students. We have in this debate four Tasmanian members of parliament and the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), all rainforest wets. Mr Smith —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I find that term offensive. I thought it was a standing order of this place that honourable members are referred to by their seats. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —If the honourable member for Eden- Monaro made an offensive comment towards anyone in this House I request him to withdraw that. Mr SNOW —I am very happy to withdraw if the honourable members find it offensive. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr SNOW —I withdraw unequivocally, Madam Deputy Speaker. But I do make the point that there are dries and wets in the Opposition. Today in this debate we are hearing from the wets, other than of course, the Opposition spokesperson on education, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), who has kept quiet about his real beliefs about the real choice of educational options because he knows full well that he is not going to talk about those proposals until and unless-and I emphasise `unless', because I do not think it is going to happen-the Opposition comes into power and puts his educational options into effect. His proposals would soak up expertise and funds for education by private institutions. He would have students who do not now pay for their education paying for it through loans, and not just $250 a year. He would have them paying for the cost of their education after their graduation. As I said, the wets, whether they are Tasmanian or Queensland wets or bad weather socialists, will quite happily attack fees. How are those opposite going to cope with the majority of their associates and how are they going to resolve their problems with their own Party as it works out its deregulation and its dry policies on education, whereby people will have to pay for their education, either now or in the hereafter? The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) is associated with Budget decisions to increase funds for tertiary institutions by 2.6 per cent in real terms in 1987. There will be an administrative charge of $250 to help the budgets of institutions. This will apply to all students. But there are exemptions. Pensioners and beneficiaries eligible for allowances as full time students are among those exempted. Others will have their benefits increased by the value of the charge. In addition, needy students will be able to apply to institutions for assistance from the $11m scheme of low-cost loans and grants which was established last year. The increased charges also involve amendments to Acts relating to the Canberra College of Advanced Education, the Australian National University and the Australian Maritime College in Launceston, all of which serve the region of Eden-Monaro particularly well. The Canberra College of Advanced Education and the Australian National University, as well as being national educational institutions, provide in full for people in the region who want the type of training they offer, along with technical and further education institutions in Canberra, Queanbeyan, Goulburn, Cooma, Bega, Moruya and Milton. The Maritime College at Launceston also provides a very important service to this region, particularly to the fishing industry. Initiatives taken by these three institutions alone justify the 2.6 per cent real increase overall. An example of the way in which one institution has introduced efficient rationalisation is that the ANU improved automation in its library last year. For the first time it has brought its classification material together in one main building. The data base has been increased by approximately 610,000 records. The University is challenged by higher campus numbers and lower staff numbers. Although the ANU is faced with reducing some of its commitments to adult education, the Centre for Continuing Education-I compliment the Council of which I know the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) are members; they responded to requests that I made to continue funding-has played a very important role in the south-east region of New South Wales, particularly in Eden-Monaro, where it has played a full role in three search conferences, two of which were conducted on feral animal control and one concerned the future of Montague Island. The centre has resolved local conflicts and brought expertise in the management of conferences into effect. It has linked a very important educational institution with what is going on in the community. So, I compliment those honourable members on the way they represented community forces in ensuring the continuation of that program. The Maritime College in Launceston shows us how the good use of funding can provide equipment which benefits a range of seafaring and related industries. The college has developed a gas generator trainer, a simulator which models the operation of inert gas systems installed on modern tankers and which was ready for use in 1986. The equipment will be used extensively for teaching both on short courses for experienced seafarers and on full time engineering and nautical studies courses. As well, the college has given assistance to other countries. Mr J. Seaton, a senior lecturer at the Maritime College, made a five-week visit to Fiji to assist in the development of courses on refrigeration which were conducted by a local educational authority there. In the School of Fisheries in 1985 for the first time a Bachelor of Applied Science (Fisheries Technology) course was run, with 18 initial enrolments. These students were joined mid-year by eight students who received advanced standing after completing the first year of the Fisheries Technology Diploma course which the new degree course replaces. The college vessel, Bluefin, continued her program of training cruises for School of Fisheries students. In addition, in July she visited Jervis Bay-again in the New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory region-to take part in underwater filming of trawl gear-a program conducted by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture and the South Australian Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and funded by the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account, a Commonwealth-funded account known as FIRTA. The equipment acquired by the Maritime College School of Fisheries during 1985, mainly for the new seafood handling laboratory, and designed to Department of Primary Industry standards, will give students practical experience of the operations of a fish-handling establishment. It does what is very necessary today; it not only looks at primary industry but also tries to link it with manufacturing. A fish-filleting seminar was presented by the new School of Fisheries lecturers. The seminar was aimed at fisheries students, restaurateurs and marketing and training personnel in the fishing industry. The maritime library, run by the Maritime College, has played a great role in providing access not only to undergraduates but also to many other people in research and other areas. Among the specialist programs there is a resources centre in the college which has installed a ship-handling simulator which has proved its worth both in teaching and as a research and development tool. During the latter half of the year, presentations on the value of the simulator to port authorities were given to people from Western Australia and Queensland. Several improvements have been carried out to existing facilities at the centre. Space for the radar and navigation simulator was extended to allow for larger training groups. The software for the diesel engine simulator was extensively modified for better system performance and easier maintenance. The Canberra College of Advanced Education has also played an important role in the region. In April 1985 a highly successful research-based Master of Arts in Administration course was accredited. The panel for reaccreditation of the course work masters degree in public administration met in that year. In the School of Applied Science, the CCAE reached agreement that the college should commence a three-year program in general nursing, with an initial intake of 90 nurses in 1986. A program has been developed and submitted for accreditation and recruitment of staff and students has commenced. Again, that is a great boost not only for people in Canberra but also for people in areas such as Goulburn, Queanbeyan, Cooma and the south coast of New South Wales. The CCAE has a good record in educational studies. Of the full time students who graduated from the college in 1984, 67 per cent gained full time employment in 1985; 17 per cent were in part time employment and seeking full time positions; and a further 8 per cent were in part time employment and not seeking full time positions; one per cent were unavailable for employment; 5 per cent had returned to study; and 2 per cent were unemployed. That is not a bad record for an important educational institution in this region. In the School of Environmental Design, the CCAE has shown how it can relate to local community needs. In the architecture course the practice of running projects concerned with community needs is important. Projects include a residential complex for the elderly, a parish centre in Erindale and an environmental centre in Acton. Students from the architecture and landscape architecture courses worked together to complete an inter-disciplinary project for the West Circular Quay area of Sydney. The courses in building and quantity surveying had their first graduates in 1985. All graduates are in worth while employment, and it has been very good to see them promoted to senior positions. During the year a number of changes to the courses of study in the School of Information Sciences took place. The computer science undergraduate course has been proposed for accreditation, leading to the award of Bachelor of Applied Science in Computer Science. This course will serve to complement the undergraduate course in computing studies, which has been submitted for reaccreditation with the same basic structure but with a strengthening of the information systems emphasis. I repeat that in information science, particularly in computing studies, students from the Canberra College of Advanced Education have had some very great achievements in employment. That course has a very good reputation in industry. In the School of Liberal Studies, the Centre for Secretarial Communication and Systems held three residential courses on the development of managerial skills for the Department of Foreign Affairs, each having an enrolment of 14 students. The Centre for Sports Studies admitted the first students in the master's degree level course in sports studies. This course has three different strands: Sports science, sports administration and sports humanities. It also includes a substantial research thesis component. These three institutions, along with many others throughout Australia, have shown that the 2.6 per cent increase in funding by the Federal Government, tied up with the $250 administrative charge to students, with some very considerate and well thought out ways in which students in need can avoid those charges, will make a further contribution to education in Australia. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(5.32) —It is always a pleasure to participate in debates on education, particularly when one can claim to have some practical experience through having four of his five children graduate from colleges of advanced education and universities. Hopefully, next year our youngest son will be going to the University of Queensland to study agricultural science. Mr Shipton —Good luck to him in his exams. Mr McVEIGH —He is like his mother; so he will probably succeed very well. On too many occasions in this Parliament members who are obviously not fully aware of the practicalities of what happens in tertiary education advance narrow, insular views. They repeat in a meaningless way something that a Minister may have said to them or that their Party indicated to them would be politic. It has been very depressing to listen to the contributions in this debate from the Government, but one has one's batteries recharged and one's mind refreshed after listening to the contributions from this side of the House. I know only too well that those contributions have been based on practical experience gained from listening to their children, listening to other parents who have students at tertiary educational institutions, having discussions with people in the market place who have indicated to them where their priorities should be and what should be done in education to ensure that we are making as great an input as possible with modern technology, et cetera. Mr Cowan —It is a practical approach. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Lyne says, it is a practical approach. It is so different from the academic approach of those who sit on the Government benches. We on this side of the House believe in the value of education. I feel that people should be encouraged to go on to obtain higher skills and knowledge. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, share those views and, because I know of your wholehearted commitment in this area I exclude you from comments I have made about some of your colleagues. After all, it serves our country well to have a work force which is aware of the change in technological trends and developments, and one more readily adaptable to the demands of a dynamic economic environment. Unfortunately, we do not have that in Australia at present. Fortunately we have that environment in the State of Queensland. Mr Adermann —The economy is dynamic in Queensland. Mr McVEIGH —We do have dynamic growth in Queensland, but unfortunately it is not infectious for national economic activity. It is against that backdrop that I approach the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Australian National University Amendment Bill, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill and the Maritime College Amendment Bill and the introduction of tertiary fees, as previewed in the Budget Speech. No changing of the words can get away from the fact that the Hawke-Keating Labor Government has imposed a fee on tertiary education students. I was disappointed to hear this announcement because for so long, as far as the Press was concerned, and this was what appeared to be the truth, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) indicated that she was fighting tooth and nail to ward off the pressures to have the fee reimposed. However, the Expenditure Review Committee was too strong for her. In the Government's wisdom-thankfully for our side of the House, that will ensure that we are the government after the next election-it decided to tax the future leaders and business people of our country. Regardless of the title, a dollar is a dollar, no matter how it is spent or what the Minister places on it. A fee is a fee, whether it is called an administrative fee or a tertiary fee. People have to pay the fee no matter what it is called, and it comes out of the same pockets. We in the National and Liberal parties submit that it is a nonsense to impose this cost burden at all. The administrative problems of collecting this fee will fall on institutions, placing a greater strain on the bursars' offices. Likewise, the burden of pursuing a non-payer of a loan which is extended by the institution to cover this fee will also be the responsibility of the college or university. It goes without saying that the nightmare of trying to collect this money will end up costing more than the original sum and hence not be worth the effort. In the end, if a student drops out after a short time attending classes, his fee will not be refunded on a pro rata basis. This charge will fall on all students, whether they are part time, full time, or external studies students. One would surely assume that in a society based on justice part time and external studies students would not generate the same amount of paperwork as full time students, yet the cost to the students will be the same. Was this done to encourage more full time students or was it to discourage the part time and external studies students? Part time students fall into several categories, but basically they consist of two types: Those who are working and want to further extend their knowledge of their profession, and those who are in the process of retraining for another occupation. There are housewives preparing themselves for re-entry into the work force. There are people who cannot financially afford to attend a tertiary institution on a full time basis. In the end, the cost to these people will be greater because, being part time, it will take longer to complete the degree program. Only today, like you I presume, Mr Deputy Speaker, I received in the mail a letter from the Vice-Chancellor's Office of the University of Adelaide. The letter states: The Vice-Chancellors feel that it is inequitable that part-time students, including many that are enrolled externally, will be required to pay the same level of charge as full-time students. This will mean that part-time students will be paying $2,000 and more for a course for which a full-time student might only be paying a little over $750. Mr Adermann —Two thousand dollars? Mr McVEIGH —Yes, $2,000 for a part time student. This is the fellow who is out there in the work place. The honourable member for Fairfax made a very pertinent interjection. Such people want to upgrade their skills in their own time, not in the employer's time, doing a part time course. Yet they are discriminated against by having to pay $2,000 to complete the course, whereas a full time student has to pay $750. Mr Peter Fisher —A significant number are country students, too. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Mallee says, a significant number of these people are country students. Quite often they have to drive 100 miles or 150 kilometres a couple of times a week at their own expense and in addition they are going to be saddled with this fee. I do not understand why part time and external students should be discriminated against by this flat rate charge. Mr Adermann —That is a big penalty. Mr McVEIGH —It is just too much, because these people are not big income earners. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Would the honourable member please address the Chair. Mr McVEIGH —Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your advice and certainly I will follow that advice. I was just making the point that part time and external students are discriminated against by the flat rate charged. At this late stage I appeal to the Government to go away and sit down and quietly analyse its decision to introduce this fee. Maybe then it will see fit to follow the advice and suggestions of the Vice-Chancellor of the Adelaide University. Finally, I think it needs to be emphasised that students who are presently studying at universities enrolled on the basis that they would not have to pay an administration fee for the remaining years of their courses. Those who sit opposite might say that $500 over two years is not much for the second and third years of a course, but I just want to let them know that in many cases $500 is too much for students to pay. Mr McGauran —They might have to drop out. Mr McVEIGH —It could be, as the honour- able member for Gippsland so rightly and appropriately said, that they will be forced to drop out of their courses. I cannot understand this. Maybe we in the National Party, because of our extremely honest approach to politics, cannot really understand this. The two honourable members and the Minister in the other place who represent Canberra in the Parliament have stood up in the Parliament and said: `We are a party of principle'. I get a bit sick when I listen to that sort of stuff. They have said: `We believe that interest rates on housing in the Australian Capital Territory should remain at an all time low because an agreement was made and that agreement should stand the test of time'. They say this and they get great kudos in the electorate for doing so. If that is the principle, why do not Government members establish the same principle for people who have gone to universities on the understanding that no administrative fee would be charged? For students who have been there for one year the Government is proposing to impose the fee in the second and third years. If the Government is going to have cheap housing loans for those who live in the Australian Capital Territory because a contract was made, it seems to me to be quite logical, and certainly honest, to request the Government to make the same sort of rule for those who attend tertiary education institutions as far as the administration fee is concerned. In these days of job scarcity and students leaving school earlier, the under educated will not be as willing to place any strain on their employment situation in order to take up a study program if they have to pay an administration fee. They will cling to their hard-fought for jobs which, in the end, will leave them with limited skills and knowledge of the world around them. In case honourable members opposite question that, I indicate that in 1983 Australia sent our best young tradesmen to the International Skills Olympics in Austria. Sure, it was the first time we had competed, but it is distressing to note that we did very badly indeed. Korea topped the competition, winning 20 medals; Austria scored 19 medals; Taiwan won 15 medals; Japan won 13 medals; Germany won 12 medals; and Switzerland won 11 medals. Australia did not even win one medal. Australia was once a great country. In the words of Dorothea Mackellar, we love our sunburnt country. We won no medals at Austria. We need to upgrade our skills. Being beaten by Japan and Germany did not come as a surprise, but being beaten by Korea and Taiwan, countries normally seen by Australia as inferior, should be food for national thought. One of the reasons why we do not have the skills in a wide ranging area is the inflexibility imposed on companies by the multiplicity of trade classifications. I would hope that we can get away from some of those outdated work practices so that people will have more skills and opportunities to have meaningful work. We want people to upgrade their skills, to go to colleges of advanced education and to participate in TAFE courses. At present we are not internationally competitive and we need all the brains and imagination that this country can produce in order to bring around our economy. Mr Nehl —The future of Australia depends on it. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Cowper says, the future of Australia depends on our having an educated work force so that people can go out and compete. The honourable member for Cowper has fired my imagination a little because the point that he made deserves to be brought to the forefront of the attention of the Australian people. I say this: It is absolute nonsense to say: `Buy Australian'. On behalf of the people I represent, I say that the only allegiance I have got to buy Australian made is if the Australian made product is the best and the cheapest. That is my allegiance. All this other stuff is a heap of humbug, hypocrisy and absolute rot. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to get back to the subject of the debate. Mr McVEIGH —I am pointing out that we can produce the best for the cheapest only if we have educated people. The honourable member for Cowper directed me along that line because he supports the view that we need top quality people, well-educated people and people who can go out and have the skills that will allow us to become internationally competitive. Mr Cowan —People such as the honourable member for Cowper. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member for Cowper has made a distinguished contribution in this Parliament. This will not only bring in additional overseas revenue but also create additional demand for Australian products and assist our economy. I feel very deeply that the reintroduction of tertiary fees is a retrograde step for those interested in expanding their knowledge of the world and developing appropriate work skills. This country needs an educated work force capable of pre-empting the changes occurring in our economy and able to help all of us pull through the structural readjustments confronting our nation. Yet this Government has sought to penalise those who want to further their education skills-people on whom we will be most dependent in the future. This is a very sad and totally unnecessary move on the Government's behalf. It is just another broken promise and an alteration to Labor's policy and platform. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(5.48) —That was an extraordinary speech that we just listened to. I have never heard such hypocrisy in this place. Mr McVeigh —I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for Fraser used unparliamentary language by implying that the contribution of a fellow parliamentarian could be described as `hypocrisy'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —The honourable member for Groom has been in the House long enough to know that that is not a point of order. Mr LANGMORE —Several of the senior colleagues of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), have advocated tertiary fees. Mr Burr —I rise on a point of order. In respect of your earlier ruling, it has been the ruling of many Speakers since I have been in this House that the word `hypocrisy' is unparliamentary language. On that basis, I ask the honour- able member for Fraser to withdraw that reference. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member knows that there was a list of unparliamentary terms that is no longer in use. That word has been used quite frequently in recent years and I cannot uphold the objection to the use of that word. Mr LANGMORE —The term is accurately used in this case because several of the senior colleagues of the honourable member have publicly advocated the introduction of tertiary fees, and he knows it. The honourable member is simply indulging in posturing which he knows would be revealed were his Party ever to be in government. Mr McVeigh —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I say this in all seriousness and I excuse you if you did not hear the remark because I saw you having consultations with the Clerk: The honourable member for Fraser implied that I was posturing, that what I said I knew was not true. I believe that ill becomes him and it reflects very deeply on his character. If he treats honesty and integrity with that sort of off the cuff remark, in effect he is belittling himself and I am concerned that in doing that he belittles the Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As those words are offensive to the honourable member for Groom I ask the honourable member for Fraser to withdraw them. Mr LANGMORE —I withdraw with reluctance, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member knows that he must withdraw. Mr LANGMORE —I withdraw. I repeat that the facts of this situation are that some of the senior colleagues of the honourable member for Groom have publicly advocated the introduction of tertiary fees and that the honourable member appeared to be speaking against the principles of his Party and those of his coalition colleagues. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Australian National University Amendment Bill amend the Australian National University Act 1946 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967. They provide for the collection of a higher education administration charge of $250 by the university and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. This was announced in the 1986 Budget, as was the exemption of many categories of students from payment of such a charge because of their low incomes. These Bills have been introduced because the ANU and the CCAE are institutions which come under the Commonwealth Government whilst other universities and colleges in Australia come under the control of the State governments. These arrangements will lead to the collection of an estimated $1.6m by the university and $1.5m by the college, enabling a reduction in the recurrent grants of $1.4m to both of these institutions. There will be no extra cost in collecting the charge as the honourable member for Groom suggested, because universities and colleges already collect student and sports union membership charges and this charge can be collected at the same time. I deeply regret the decision to impose the charge and recognise that it will deter some who would otherwise do so from beginning a degree or diploma course. However, it must also be recognised that those who gain a degree or diploma have far better than average chances of finding employment and are likely to earn higher salaries than otherwise would have been possible. I would have wished that the imposition of such a charge had not been necessary but it is easy to understand why it has been done. This Budget has been, of necessity, a Budget of restraint and it is essential that the restraint be shared fairly and equitably. This Budget does this. The majority of university entrants will not be greatly disadvantaged by the charge and most of those who would suffer hardship will be exempted. Indeed, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) is to be wholeheartedly congratulated for her firm and principled opposition to the reintroduction of full cost recovery fees, which is what the Opposition would like. Such fees undoubtedly would have caused widespread hardship and abandonment of higher education, and would have necessitated the introduction of an unwieldy system of scholarships. These considerations, however, would not deter the Opposition from introducing tertiary fees. As I have already said, several senior coalition front benchers have advocated the introduction of tertiary fees so we know that they would introduce them if Australia should ever be unlucky enough to be governed by a Liberal-National Party coalition again. The introduction of fees at tertiary institutions must be opposed. They would increase inequality and discourage participation in higher education, particularly by mature-age students, women, migrants of non-English speaking backgrounds, those with no history of tertiary education in their families and those living a long distance from colleges and universities. The fact that the removal of university fees by the Whitlam Government did not lead to an immediate increase in participation in higher education by all these groups is no argument for the return of tertiary education fees. Other measures in addition to the abolition of fees are necessary to effect a change in the social composition of tertiary students, to make them more representative of Australians as a whole and thus transform Australian higher education into a more powerful instrument of individual opportunity for the disadvantaged-as well as for everyone else-and a developer of skills for the social and economic development of our country. As Dr Don Anderson of the Australian National University, who has done more research on this than anybody else in the country, has pointed out, the removal of university fees was a necessary but not a sufficient condition for creating a more egalitarian social mix in our universities and colleges. As a result of extensive analysis of data covering a period of 30 years he has come to the conclusion that `a substantial shift towards democratising higher education would require changes elsewhere in the system, not simply removal of the barriers at the point of entry'. One of the necessary elements of this change must be the creation of more places in a wide range of tertiary institutions for more students. Australia has a lower participation rate in tertiary and further education than some other comparable countries and many sectors of our economy face shortages of skilled personnel. It is therefore important to provide tertiary places for as many capable and motivated applicants as possible in order to develop the skill base, research capacity and management ability of Australians. This is essential if we are to expand and diversify the economy of this country. The Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education, both of which are located in my electorate, have played an outstanding role in education, training and research, not only for Canberra but for the nation as a whole. The college has trained many teachers and contributed towards the training of public servants and staff for the private sector in many fields, including computer programming, media work and office management. Recently nursing and a couple of fields of engineering have been added to the courses offered there. The ANU is a world class institution in many fields of study and research, including many of the social sciences and humanities and the physical, biological and medical sciences. Much brilliant research in the Asian and Pacific regions has been sponsored by the ANU. Mr McVeigh —Sit down. Bob wants to speak. Mr LANGMORE —It is quite clear that the Opposition is not in the least interested in this very important subject. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —The honourable member for Groom will cease his interjections. Mr LANGMORE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Increased funding for both the college and the university must have a high priority in an era when Australia is seeking to maximise self-reliant development and export growth. The introduction of the administrative charge will make little difference to the outstanding scholarship at both institutions. It will make a small contribution to increasing the number of tertiary places without significantly interfering with the capacity of people to attend. It is certainly not the thin end of the wedge of the introduction of tertiary fees. There is no way in which tertiary fees will be introduced. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Kerin) adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add, by way of clarification, to an answer I gave in the House during Question Time today. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HAWKE —During Question Time today I suggested that the Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia supported the principle of the fringe benefits tax. I was quoting from a transcript of a report from the 2CA midday news last Friday which contained extracts of an interview claimed by radio 2CA, a Macquarie Network station, to be with Mr Eggleton. It has since been ascertained that the remarks were mistakenly attributed to Mr Eggleton by radio 2CA. It was not my intention to misquote Mr Eggleton and I regret any embarrassment that he may have been caused this afternoon by that statement. Debate resumed. Mr MILES(Braddon)(6.01) —We are debating cognately the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Australian National University Amendment Bill, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill and the Maritime College Amendment Bill. I address my remarks particularly to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill. It is interesting to note that only three Government members have participated in this debate. The first, who spoke for 20 minutes, did not refer for almost 17 minutes to any of the cognate Bills under consideration. He talked about Alan Bond. He talked about several other matters such as industrial relations. He said that the Opposition had no policies. He spoke about private universities and about real estate. That illustrates the lack of concern for education of the Government members who have spoken on this set of Bills today. If this legislation is genuinely for the benefit of Australian young people, Government members could have given positive reasons why the Government has brought in this legislation. They were unable to do so. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill brings in a $250 `administration charge', to use the words of the Government. But as has already been stated quite clearly and categorically, it does not matter what the Government wants to call that charge; it is a tertiary fee. It is compulsory on enrolment. Students enrolling next year in our tertiary institutions will be forced, before they can take up any studies whatsoever, to pay a $250 administrative fee. A range of students are exempt. They include students being paid the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance, full fee paying overseas students, post-graduate award students and Abstudy students plus full time and part time student pensioners. A total of 114,000 people are exempt. That leaves something like 160,000 students who will have to pay these fees. The charge is indexed on an annual basis according to Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission processes for adjusting administrative salary costs. As our Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), noted, these costs do not necessarily relate to the administrative costs which this charge is supposed to cover. This Bill also provides for loans and grants to needy students. This measure indicates a U-turn by the Government in regard to tertiary fees. An article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald in November 1984 states: The Government has no intention of re-introducing the fees because the Labor Party's policy provides for free tertiary education. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) made that statement. This measure is another illustration of this Government telling the people one thing, going to an election, being voted into government and then doing a U-turn when in government. It was against tertiary fees but now it has introduced them. I turn to another statement which backs up the statement I have just quoted. On 21 March 1986 the Minister for Education put out a Press release which stated: The Minister for Education, Senator Susan Ryan, today closed the tertiary fees debate- which had been raging within the Australian Labor Party- by assuring students that the fees option will not be considered by the Hawke Government. That statement was made as late as March 1986. The honourable member for Tangney, who led this debate for the Opposition, stated that even up to 10 days before the Budget was brought down the Minister was saying that the Government would not impose tuition fees. The Government cannot go on making U-turns and maintain credibility with the Australian people. Most Australians now find the Government to be lacking in credibility. This measure is another instance of the Government promising something that it did not deliver. Once the Minister was defeated in Cabinet-the Budget had to be brought down-she wanted to place the guilt on students. It is interesting to note one of the Minister's Press releases when she was in China: If students don't pay- these institutions their $250- their own institutions will be out of pocket. And that is something students need to consider. In other words, instead of the Minister facing up to the fact that she was not able to get her way and facing the flak fairly and squarely with the students of Australia, she wanted to change the emphasis and place the guilt on the students. She said that if students did not pay their institutions were going to lose out; that it was their fault. Mr Hodgman —Blackmail. Mr MILES —It is blackmail. The Minister ought to be remonstrated with by her colleagues for making that type of insinuation about Australian students. She went on to say: If they don't pay, higher education will be $97m worse off; that is the amount we are taking off grants. The guilt ought to lie with the Minister and not with the students of Australia. Another point I want to raise in this debate is the inequity of applying the same fee to part time and full time students. This Government spends a lot of time talking about equity, but equity according to what rules? According to what standards? Why should we not have a sliding scale for part time students, who are doing less study than full time students? From the user's viewpoint, it is equity if students pay pro rata for the number of subjects they study. But the Minister refers only to administrative costs. She says-I do not agree with her on this-that because administration costs are about the same for part time and full time students, equity is imposing the same fee on everybody. The students do not accept that. Anybody who has any idea of logic will not accept it either. Quite plainly, as has been stated in this debate, it costs more to enrol a full time student than it does a part time student. There is inequity in that respect. It is interesting to note that, in a Press statement issued by the Minister, she states that education has a very important role in our national development and that this must be maintained. Certainly the Government, in imposing this fee, is not giving any real consideration to national development. The Minister states: The 1986-87 Budget will allow education to maintain its role of helping secure the long-term development of Australia . . . The imposition of a fee such as this will not help to encourage people to go to universities or other tertiary institutions. It certainly will not help people from outlying areas in Australia to get a tertiary education. Many young people who want to attend a tertiary institution do not have access at the gate at present, and this has made the situation more difficult. The focus we need in this nation is to encourage young people to go on with their education. This Government is not doing that. I have just received in the mail from the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations a briefing note on higher education, which states: Overall, education's share of total budget outlays has declined from 9.0% in 1976-77 under the former Liberal Government to only 7.0% for the coming year. So in actual fact it has declined quite dramatically. The Federation continues: Higher education has borne the brunt of these reductions falling from 4.6% of total outlays in 1976-77 to an estimated 3.5% in 1986-87. There is no way in which this Government can claim that it is maintaining educational standards and opportunity for young people when one looks at those figures. This is particularly sad when one realises that the Government is spending money on many other items which are not of as great significance to national development. The Federation gives an interesting example. It refers to the fact that the America's Cup 1987 defence received $17m in the last financial year, and the current Budget has added another $6.5m. I do not think that that is the right priority for Australia and many young people in Australia do not believe it is the right priority. The Government is prepared to spend $23.5m at this stage on a sporting event when young people are being asked to pay an extra $250 in fees. The Federation continues: So far its record has shown an inability to even maintain the funding status quo, let alone achieve the injection of funds required to bring these policies to fruition. When will the Government's action begin to match its words? The Opposition has often spoken on matters of importance and has used exactly the same words: How long will it be before the Australian people find this Government's actions matching its words? The other problem with the present tertiary education assistance scheme and education benefits is the proverty trap for middle income earners. I illustrate that point by saying that a family in receipt of $30,084 does not get any tertiary education assistance. This means that a family which has a weekly disposable income of approximately $405 gets no assistance to send any of its children to a tertiary institution. This causes considerable hardship for those families. The Government talks about equity. It says that those people are sufficiently well off to make their own way. But when it costs $4,500 to $5,000 to send a student to a tertiary institution, and the family is only earning approximately $30,000, it becomes well nigh impossible. I will give honourable members the particular example of a family of five in my electorate. The father and mother are well educated. The children are very able students. The father has an after-tax income of approximately $25,000. He has two children who, hopefully, will enter university within the next two years. He says that it will be impossible for him to send his two girls to a tertiary institution because of the poverty trap situation in which he finds himself. He is not eligible for any of the available assistance plans and he simple does not have an extra $10,000 in cash to ensure that his children can go to university. The $250 fee, which is on top of the other costs, is the last straw for him. In the final part of his letter to me he states: The stupidity of the whole thing is that if I put the first two kids on the dole for a couple of years and then they can go out and TEAS, then it will cost the Government thousands of dollars and it wouldn't really be a fair situation for the taxation system. In other words, if the children spend two years working, they can receive TEAS and everything will be fine. That is the situation that that family is facing. The Government has not faced up to its promises on this issue. Young people in Tasmania are very concerned about the implications next year for their tertiary studies. I ask the Government to reconsider the fee it has imposed and to try to remove the poverty traps particularly. I suggest that it should be able to find a way of increasing the upper limit of income at which the scheme cuts out. Maybe the level at which TEAS cuts out should be raised to about $50,000. That might make it possible for people who are in that category and who presently cannot afford to send their children to tertiary institutions to be able to do so. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(6.17) —I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Australian National University Amendment Bill, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill and the Maritime College Amendment Bill. The Bills are concerned essentially with the policy decisions that have been made by the Government in a budgetary context with regard to tertiary institutions. I am following the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), to whom I listened most attentively. There were a number of points in his contribution with which I could agree. However, I am disappointed that the opportunity has been taken by members of the Opposition, not just the honourable member for Braddon, to behave with a considerable degree of cynicism, I believe, in relation to this legislation and the general question of the availability, quality and funding of tertiary education in Australia. The request has been made by the honourable member for Braddon and others that this Government should reconsider the imposition of the proposed administration fee of $250. I understand the degree of concern in the community about the imposition of that fee. I do not think it would take very much understanding on the part of people to realise that it was not a decision which this Government, and the supporters of this Government, took with any degree of comfort or enjoyment. I think it has been spelled out very clearly that when the Opposition is returned to government, whenever that may be in the dim, distant future, there is an intention on its part to reintroduce tertiary fees-and not just a $250 a year administrative fee which will be imposed on those people who, by all reasonable measures, could reasonably be expected to be able to meet that fee. Looking at some of the costs involved in providing degrees to students, I think it is estimated, for example, that $100,000 of public sector funds goes to tertiary education institutions in order to provide each medical graduate with a degree. That is a very significant level of investment. It is inappropriate for members of the Opposition to adopt the position they have on this question and to suggest that the $250 a year fee should be withdrawn. All members and supporters of the Government would look forward with a great deal of enthusiasm to an occasion in the future when the $250 administrative fee is withdrawn. I remind members of the Opposition that tertiary tuition fees were removed by a Labor government. It is all very well for us to hear expressions of concern now about young people going to universities. Too often in the past young people from working class backgrounds, not just from deprived circumstances but from not particularly affluent circumstances, were denied the opportunity to go into the great centres of learning in Australia and other countries as well. It was the intention of Mr Whitlam, his Ministers and his Caucus, in removing tertiary tuition fees to throw open the doors of universities to the sons and daughters of the ordinary people of Australia. The unfortunate reality is that it did not work. However, an attempt was made. It is important to us now and in the future to examine more closely and to investigate the reasons why there is such a serious inequality between effective access to universities, effective access to colleges of advanced education and effective access to higher education generally between various levels of social advantage within the community. Before I became involved full time in politics I was involved full time, professionally and vocationally, as a teacher. I generally taught in areas which, to a very large extent, were socially deprived, socially disadvantaged. I taught in coal mining, lead mining and rural areas. I started teaching in 1956-30 years ago. Honourable members opposite may be surprised, they may not believe that I--(Quorum formed) I was drawing attention to the fact that, during my period of teaching experience, far too many of the young people who came to the high schools of New South Wales-and presumably the other States as well-because of varying forms of social disadvantage, were not able to proceed to universities, colleges and higher institutes of learning. One of the surprising things is the attitude that has generally been adopted by members of the Opposition. They tend to support the continuation of a situation where opportunities were not made available. I do not think it is very surprising at all that of, I think, four Rhodes scholars in this chamber three sit on the Government benches. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is a Rhodes scholar, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is a Rhodes scholar and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is a Rhodes scholar. Members have come to this place from various levels of responsibility in tertiary education. My good friend, comrade and colleague the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is one of the intellectual giants as far as Victoria and this Parliament are concerned. Earlier today we had the benefit of one of his contributions to enlightened economic thinking. We will hear plenty more of that as time proceeds. In the few remaining minutes that are available to me I draw some comparisons between the concern that has been expressed by members of the Opposition about the $250 administrative charge and what to me is the more important matter of concern in relation to the financial capacity of young people and older people to attend universities and colleges; that is, the availability of the tertiary education assistance scheme. People provide me with a fair amount of evidence to suggest that, because it is not possible for them to manipulate the detail of their adjusted family income-their children miss out on TEAS. They then draw my attention to people who occupy positions and earn incomes in various ways within the community that would indicate that their real income is probably significantly higher than their declared income. However, the higher income families find it possible to arrange their affairs in such a way as to make it appear that their adjusted family income is lower than it actually is and, as a result, their children get TEAS. I would like to see TEAS made more generally available to people, not just in terms of looking at the operation of the adjusted family income arrangement but also in terms of looking at how the independence of a student is identified, whether it is based on age or on some period of identified independence, such as the length of time he or she has been working. I think everyone is aware of the fact that the $250 fee was introduced with some very important exemptions. I know, and every honourable member knows, that there will be some students for whom the $250 a year fee will provide some degree of hardship. However, let me emphasise this fact: The degree of hardship that will be visited on those young people will be nothing like the degree of hardship that will be visited on young people generally throughout Australia who aspire to higher education as a result of the intention of the Opposition to introduce tertiary fees. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr BURR(Lyons)(8.00) —Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) in opening his address earlier in the debate accused my colleague the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) of hypocrisy. I was rather surprised and disappointed that the Deputy Speaker in the chair at the time did not require the honourable member for Fraser to withdraw that comment. It is my belief that the use of the word `hypocrisy' is unparliamentary. I do not know whether occupants of the chair have agreed on a new ruling in this respect. However, I was disappointed, first, in the honourable member for Fraser using that term and, secondly, that he was not required to withdraw it. I thought that the honourable member for Fraser made a very compelling speech in which he put the case against the introduction of tertiary fees in a very cogent fashion. I could well agree with much of what the honourable member for Fraser said. However, what I find rather disappointing and rather difficult to come to terms with is that, while the honourable member gave a most compelling speech against the introduction of tertiary fees, I understand he intends to vote in favour of the introduction of those fees. I contrast that approach by the honourable member for Fraser with his accusation of hypocrisy against the honourable member for Groom, which I believe was quite wrongly levelled. As honourable members who have spoken in this debate have said, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 is concerned with the introduction of a $250 fee per tertiary student. It is a new measure which is being undertaken by this Government. Indeed, tertiary fees have not been applied in this country for quite a number of years. They were not reintroduced by the Fraser Government. Mr John Brown —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I do not wish to be pedantic but I think the honourable member for Lyons might well refer to the imposition of these fees as an administration charge. This legislation does not involve the imposition of tertiary fees. Mr Porter —Come on! Mr John Brown —If I might pursue that point, the honourable member for Lyons has spoken about the honourable member for Fraser not being in favour of the introduction of tertiary fees. I think in all truth he was speaking about being in favour of the $250 administration charge, which is vastly different. Madam SPEAKER —I take the point of order. The matter before the chair is the introduction of administration fees. Mr BURR —I take your point, Madam Speaker. I will not refer to the $250 as tertiary fees in any further comments that I make about this matter. However, I am not too sure that the Government will be able to convince students right around this country what the terminology should be because the plain fact, as my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has said, is that students all around this country will have to fork out $250 each year. Whether one calls that tertiary fees, whether one calls it a blatant rip-off or whether one calls it administrative charges will not make one iota of difference to the students or the parents of the students who have to pay that $250. I think the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) was being very pedantic in the point of order that he took because in political terms and in terms of the students who have to pay that money the terminology really does not make any difference whatever. These students will still have to pay out $250 each year. I want to address my remarks to two matters. The first is the application of the $250-I believe we are now calling it a tuition fee-to the Maritime College in Tasmania. Mr Shack —It does not matter what you call it. Mr BURR —As my colleague says, it does not matter what we call it-it is $250 out of the pocket of every tertiary student in this country. I also want to address my remarks tonight to the application of this charge to country students and the effect that it will have on potential students from country areas. As we all know, students from country areas in particular are hard pressed at the moment. This imposition will make it even more difficult for country students to obtain tertiary training. First, I would like to address my remarks to the application of this imposition to students at the Maritime College in Launceston. As we all know, the college was an initiative of the Fraser Government. The college has been an extremely successful exercise because it has allowed the practitioners and potential practitioners in the maritime industries to be properly trained in the use of modern technology and modern techniques. The college is ensuring that Australian maritime and fishing industries progressively become as competent, efficient and competitive as industries in the rest of the world. That is a fine objective which I am sure is shared by all honourable members on both sides of this chamber. This charge will create difficulties for people who undertake short courses at the college. The full time courses are designed to take students through to the bachelor, diploma or certificate levels. However, the short courses are designed to give crew members and other people involved in the fishing and maritime industries added training, on other than a full time or long term basis, to improve the skills which they might be able to use in their industries. At the moment there are some 667 full time students at the Maritime College in Launceston. In addition, there are roughly 590 part time or short course students. These short course students are constantly coming in for courses of some weeks duration and then moving on and going back into their industry. They are then replaced by another group of short course students. I believe that these are the students who will be particularly hard hit by the imposition of this charge. Short course students will be paying the same charge of $250 that full time students pay for a full year's tuition. They will pay the same annual charge for a course at the college which may last for only 10, 12, 15 or 16 weeks. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) spoke earlier in support of this charge. However, I suggest that many of his constituents who are engaged in the fishing industry will be particularly hard hit. People who are engaged full time in the fishing industry or other maritime industries and who get particular value from these short courses will miss out the most because, I believe, the imposition of this charge will inhibit or prevent many of them from taking up the opportunity to train at the college. In the time left to me I would like to make some comments about the imposition of this charge on country students. As my colleague the honourable member for Denison has said, one of the big problems in country areas-I am sure that this is not confined to Tasmania-is that many people who want their children to have the opportunity to go on to tertiary education simply do not have the money to allow them to do so. They will not be able to afford it-it is as simple as that. They have a burning ambition to give their children this opportunity but they do not have the money to do so. This problem is becoming particularly acute because of the downturn in our rural industries. During my period in this Parliament I have been approached many times by constituents of mine who are concerned that students in country areas do not have sufficient opportunity to go on to tertiary level education. There is constant criticism about the adequacy of the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance, criticism that it does not allow parents to provide adequate accommodation and all the other requirements that students from country areas need in order to receive proper tertiary education. The imposition of this charge will inhibit or even prevent those parents who at the moment may be able to scrape together the money from putting their children into a tertiary education institution and keeping them there. I believe in many cases it will prevent them from being able to send their children from country areas to tertiary institutions. Only recently I received a letter from the St. Helens District High School Parents and Friends Association, which is in my electorate and which is very concerned about the problem of students going through high school being able to go on to a tertiary institution. Its particular complaint is that the level of TEAS or any other assistance provided by State or Federal governments simply does not allow parents to bridge the financial gap to allow their children to go on to a tertiary institution. The Association has made three suggestions as to how this might be overcome. Suggestion No. 1 states: Means testing all adult tertiary students on the basis of their own income . . . That is, that they be means tested on the basis of their own income and not necessarily on the basis of their parents' income, and I think that is a fine suggestion. The second suggestion states: Allowing tax concessions for parents' expenditure on text books, stationery, travel and accommodation expenses incurred in the course of their tertiary studies . . . The third suggestion states: The payment of a Federal non-repayable living away from home allowance for students forced to live away from home to pursue tertiary studies. They are sound and valid suggestions and I suggest that the Government take them on board because at the moment inadequate assistance is given to country students. The imposition of this further charge of $250 will make it even more difficult for students from country areas to participate in tertiary education and therefore to have the same level of opportunity that young people living in metropolitan areas enjoy. I understand that there are many people, even from the Government side, living in metropolitan areas who really do not understand the difficulties that country students face. I urge them to look more closely at the difficulties country students have and to be more compassionate in the provisions that are made for them in the future. For instance, I have been approached by the parents of students living on the west coast of Tasmania. In that isolated area it is almost impossible for students to receive adequate tertiary training, although their parents scrimp and save to give them the best possible educational opportunities. I think it is significant in this debate tonight that there is a high level of participation from the honourable members from Tasmania. We have already heard from the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). A little later on this evening we will be hearing from the honourable member for Denison, and I know that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) wished to participate in this debate but time is not going to allow him to do that. I am disappointed that we are not hearing more from honourable members from the mainland, particularly those from the Government side. I wish they had the same interest in education that the honourable members from Tasmania have. If we were able to get a more compassionate hearing from all those honourable members, particularly those on the Government side, who represent mainland States, I believe it may be possible for us to get a more sympathetic deal from the Federal Government. I personally am bitterly opposed to the reintroduction of these charges. I do not accept the views being put forward by the Government, particularly those put on a financial basis. The second reading speech on the Maritime College Amendment Bill 1986 states that these measures are intended to raise $69,000 from students attending the Maritime College, but at the same time the Government is going to offset payments to the Maritime College to the tune of $62,000. Mr Smith —For a miserable $69,000. Mr BURR —As my colleague from Bass says, for a miserable $69,000 the Government is going to act against students from all over Australia who are attending that very fine institution in Launceston. Mr Hodgman —Shame on the Government. Mr BURR —As my colleague from Denison says, shame on the Government for doing that. I believe very firmly that the Government should be doing everything it can to encourage more people to go on to higher levels of education and not discouraging them by the imposition of these measly and unwarranted charges. Mr Shack —Madam Speaker, in between speakers, as it were, I seek your indulgence to raise a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Go ahead. Mr Shack —During the speech by the honourable member for Lyons you ruled on a point of order raised by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism when you said that the honourable member should not talk about tertiary fees in the context of this debate about the higher education charge. I respectfully submit that your ruling strikes at the very heart of one of the main debating points that has been raised by the Opposition throughout this debate, and in fact throughout the speech I made earlier. That is, no matter what it is called-administration charge or whatever-it has nothing to do with the costs of enrolment and quite properly the Opposition is entitled to refer to it as a tuition or tertiary fee. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I take the point the honourable member makes. I was not in the chair for the earlier debate so I did not hear how far the debate ranged. I am under the impression that in the Bill this is referred to as an administration cost. Mr Porter —On a further point of order, Madam Speaker: What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that we are not permitted to use the words `tertiary fee'? Madam SPEAKER —I am suggesting that I was under the impression that it was referred to. Mr PORTER —May I just finish? Regardless of the technical definition of the term in the Bill, I would have thought the Opposition had the right to describe the matter as it sees fit. Madam SPEAKER —It obviously has, during the debate. During the earlier part of the debate I was not in the chair. The point of order is probably correct. I was not here to adjudicate at the time. If it was used earlier in the debate I presume it is-- Mr Porter —Whether it has been used or has not, I would have thought it was for the Opposition to decide the language with which it describes the fee. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I am calling the honourable member for Denison. Mr John Brown —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The reason I raised that point of order was simply because the honourable member for Lyons was alluding to the fact that the honourable member for Fraser was saying that he supported the imposition of-- Mr Porter —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will not interrupt. The Minister will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.17) —Education is a right, not a privilege. Last Friday in this House Her Majesty's loyal Opposition was obliged to expose the disgraceful behaviour of the Hawke socialist Government and its betrayal of the elderly, pensioners, beneficiaries, repatriation beneficiaries and widows. Tonight it is my sad duty to expose the disgraceful treatment by the Hawke socialist Government of the youth of Australia and particularly the students of Australia. It must be said that the Hawke socialist Government has shamefully betrayed the youth of Australia, and particularly the students. I have no hesitation in slamming the unprincipled decision of the Hawke socialist Government to impose a $250 tertiary fee from 1987 onwards. I want to draw to the attention of the Parliament and the people of Australia the fact that the coalition, that is, the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia, has made no-I repeat no-decision to reintroduce tertiary fees. That was not part of our policy and is not part of our policy now. The Australian Labor Party stands condemned on this issue. It has committed a massive and shameful about-face and no student in Australia will ever believe it again. It is clear that the Federal Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) suffered a major defeat in Cabinet. It is further clear, regrettably, that she no longer has proper ministerial authority over the direction of policy development in her vital portfolio of education. Mr Ruddock —She does not even sign letters to members. Mr HODGMAN —As the honourable member next to me comments, the Minister no longer even signs letters to members. During the past two years between 9,000 and 14,000 young people, and some old people, have been locked out of the higher education sector as the direct result of the appalling policies of the Hawke socialist Government. I predict that next year, 1987, over 20,000 young people will be locked out. A substantial part of this enormous increase will be directly due to the imposition of this iniquitous tertiary fee. It will savagely hit the poor, those from rural areas and those with large families. It is an absolute disgrace. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Education know that. Two years ago, in my home State of Tasmania, a motion was put at a meeting of the State Liberal Party Council urging the reintroduction of tertiary fees. It is a matter of historic record and confirmable by my Tasmanian colleagues who are present that I spoke against the reintroduction of tertiary fees. That is not surprising, because back in 1956 when I commenced my law degree at the University of Tasmania and tertiary fees then existed, I campaigned consistently, as a member of the Students Representative Council, as Vice-President of the Law Students Society and as Editor of Togatus, against tertiary fees. In 1956 the fee for a first year law student was #105. Whilst our family has been in Tasmania for a long time, we are not rich. Had I not won a Commonwealth scholarship, of which 100 were then issued in each of the six States, I doubt that I would have been able to go to university and undertake that degree. One of my best friends, who is a lifelong supporter of the Australian Labor Party, put himself through university without a scholarship. He attended university during the day and drove taxis and worked as a barman during the evening. He then proof read at the Hobart Mercury until 3 a.m., went back home, worked for a couple of hours and snatched about two hours sleep. He graduated in law with honours. I never again want to see people being denied access to tertiary education, where a premium is put on the right to tertiary education. In 1974, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the Federal Policy of our Party I opposed a proposal put forward as policy for the Liberal Party to bring in student loans. I will continue to oppose that proposal wherever it raises its head, because I defended young students who were bonded to the Tasmania Education Department and who were sued, pursued and threatened with imprisonment for breaking their bonds. I never again want to see that happen. It might surprise some people on the Government benches to hear that I feel so strongly on this issue that when the Fraser Government decided to introduce tertiary fees for overseas students-it is a matter of public record-I opposed that decision and I oppose it now. I spoke out against it in public and in this Parliament. I still believe that it is a short-sighted, mean and miserly policy to impose a fee on overseas students. As I said at the time: `Mark my words, this will be the thin end of the wedge'. The Minister for National Development in Singapore took his degree in architecture at the University of Sydney in 1953. He maintains that the degree system in this country which was available to him and his colleagues has done more to build bridges between Australia and its neighbours than has anything else. As a result of the pettiness of the decision, continued by this Government, many of the young people of Singapore, instead of coming to Australia, are going to other places, including the United Kingdom, to take their degrees. This Government is exposed as having betrayed the young people of Australia. It has betrayed its word. Right through the 1950s and 1960s in relation to the University of Tasmania, the State Branch of the Australian Labor Party, which was then in government, did not take a forefront role in the campaign. It was mainly, as a matter of interest, the Liberal members of the House of Assembly who did so. But, eventually, the compassionate and humane State Labor Government under Premier Cosgrove abolished tertiary fees at the University of Tasmania. I wonder how Sir Robert Cosgrove would feel today about what this shameless Government has done. I wonder how he would feel to hear read into Hansard statements which his Party made when in opposition and which now lie in tatters and shreds on the floor. I just remind the House and the people and students of Australia that on 28 October 1981 Senator Ryan said that the Labor Party was totally opposed to tertiary tuition fees. She claimed that tuition fees at any set amount would result in a reduction of access to education. She said that they were the thin end of the wedge and that fees ignored the ability to pay. She then went on: The Labor Party is totally opposed to the decision . . . to impose tertiary fees . . . we will be opposing generally, and specifically, all such measures. I was the Minister for the Capital Territory when Senator Ryan said that. I publicly agreed with her. Where do those promises lie now? The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins), now the Minister for Trade, was the shadow Minister. At least he spoke out frequently all around Australia, particularly in Western Australia. The Minister is in the chamber. On 21 October 1981 in this Parliament he said: We-- the Australian Labor Party-- are opposed to the re-establishment of the principle of tertiary tuition fees in general. The next day he went even further and said: The Opposition-- that is, the Labor Party, which was then in opposition-- is opposed to the reintroduction of tertiary fees in any form. Mr Burr —Who said that? Mr HODGMAN —That was said by the now Minister for Trade. I could quote Government members chapter and verse. How do honourable members think I feel, because in 1981 when the Minister said that I agreed with him. It has made me, and many others who believed him at the time, look very stupid. We may be prepared to forgive; but the students I have addressed at Melbourne University, the University of Tasmania, the Australian National University and, if I may put in a plug for myself, the students I will address at Flinders University next Tuesday, 28 October, will not forgive, will not forget and will never again believe one word that this Government says. Because of time restraints in this debate I must conclude quickly. Everything that the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) have said about Tasmania is correct. We will be hit harder than any other State because: First, we are the most decentralised; secondly, we have a higher proportion of large families; and, thirdly, we have a lower income base than any other State. This is yet another `hate Tasmania' measure which will hit Tasmania harder than any other State. I assure honourable members that the electors of our State have remembered everything that this rotten Government has done and also that as the days go by the appetite for the election grows keener and keener because, although we cannot win any more than five seats in the House of Representatives we can see the execution of a couple of Labor senators. The sooner the better. If I had had my way we would have had an election by now. The people of Tasmania have their knives sharpened. The honourable member for Fremantle, Senator Ryan and a few of their ilk would be well advised to keep out of Tasmania. They are not exactly welcome. Finally, I leave the House with this thought: How can we possibly believe that the amount will stick at $250? Would anybody believe that? What a joke-$250. Do honourable members think the Government has set this up for a miserable $250? Do honourable members believe that it will restrict the fee to the increase in salaries? Mr Shack —Ask the overseas students. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, ask the overseas students, as my colleague so wisely said. Listen to these words: Do honourable members think the Government will hold the fee to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission index of general salaries? What a lot of poppycock. This Government would rape its grandmother if it thought it could get a bit of extra money for it. If anybody thinks the Government will stick to $250, if anybody thinks that $250 is the end of the story, they are sadly mistaken. Because we are being curtailed in this debate, because day by day this place becomes more like Moscow and less like Canberra, I have to resume my seat, but I know that out there there are millions of Australians who know that what I have said, what our distinguished shadow Minister, the honourable member for Tangney, has said and what every member of the Opposition has said is right. We have spoken the truth. The Government is naked. It is exposed. It has betrayed once too often and it will pay an almighty price at the next Federal election. The sooner it comes the better. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(8.32) —in reply-I have had the delightful task of listening to the points which have been made during this debate and now have the task of responding to some of them. After listening to the last two speakers in this debate, the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), both of whom come from the Liberal Party of Australia, both of whom come from Tasmania, one would have thought that they were going to vote against this measure. Of course, we know that they will not vote against this measure. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am voting against it-just you watch. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr DAWKINS —In that case we will be looking forward to hearing a call for a division from the honourable member for Denison. The point is that the Liberal Party as a whole, far from having any basic disagreement with us on this policy, is committed to going very much further. It will go further in a highly inequitable way and in a way which will not advance opportunities for young Australians attending tertiary education institutions. During your absence, Mr Deputy Speaker, it was necessary for Madam Speaker to respond to a point of order as to whether this charge was appropriately called an administration charge or whether it should have been called a tertiary fee or a tertiary tuition fee. There is a very simple explanation for that, and that is that the universities and the colleges are totally funded by the Commonwealth Government for their capital expenditure and for their annual running costs, which, of course, are made up of a variety of components, one of which is the cost of administration. This includes the overheads of the purely administrative task of collecting the fees which are already imposed upon students for the purposes of running student facilities, of simply enrolling them and making sure that they are enrolled in the correct course and have a timetable to follow, and of organising the people who teach the courses-all those kinds of things. There is a clear administrative function for which the Commonwealth currently pays. We have said that we are not introducing a fee to cover the cost of the tuition of students in universities and colleges, but we do not think it is unreasonable at all to collect a small part of the cost of administering those courses. That is what this charge is all about. That is why it is described as an administration charge. It is not a charge related to tuition; it is a charge which is the same, regardless of the kind of course which students are enrolled in, regardless of the complexity of the course that is being taught; it is related to the pure administrative cost of actually organising the enrolments, organising the courses, providing the timetables and so on for students enrolled in those courses. A clear distinction can be made. The second point is that the honourable member for Denison, in his usual histrionic, inaccurate and quite besotted way, went on about people having to go back to driving taxis in order to go through university. That will probably always be the case, but it is much less likely to be the case under this Government than it was under our predecessors. We have done the decent thing in providing for living expenses and allowances for students attending universities and colleges, and we have massively upgraded the rates of payments to students enrolled in universities and colleges. Our assistance to students is not based on the same criteria as those which applied to the assistance that the honourable member for Denison crows about receiving when he got a Commonwealth scholarship; it is based on much fairer criteria-the needs of the particular students. Many more poor students are being assisted now with their living expenses whilst attending university and college than was ever the case under any of our predecessor governments. In the next couple of years we will see a further massive increase in the amount paid to those students who are eligible for student assistance under the Austudy arrangements. We will have the payments to students brought into line with those benefits paid to the unemployed; a policy prescription which has long been advocated by the Opposition spokesman for education, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). He and I see eye to eye precisely on that particular point. He was a little churlish in not commending us for taking that step when we announced it, but never mind, I know that essentially he agrees with what we have done. We have tried to remove the disincentive that existed previously for young people to remain in the education system because they could receive a higher amount if they were out of the education system and also out of the work force. Our fundamental objective is to see people successfully complete their education to the level they wish and to successfully make the transition to the work force. Of course, not everybody does that. We want to remove the incentive for people to bail out of the education system earlier because of the greater attraction of being out of the education system and also out of the work force and on the unemployment benefit. That has been a massive advance and it has been targeted largely to the poorest people in the community, those people who were eligible for the former tertiary education system scheme, now called Austudy. That is a means tested scheme, which means that we concentrate the assistance on the lower and lower-middle income families or on those independent people whose incomes from other sources are quite low. It is quite erroneous for the honourable member for Denison, or anyone else who wants to do so, to advance the argument that somehow the imposition of this charge will make it more difficult for poorer people-able nonetheless-to get to university or college. What has been overlooked in that argument is that anybody who is eligible for student assistance, even if it is the smallest amount of assistance, will not be required to pay this fee or charge. To put it another way, when they do pay the fee or charge they will be fully reimbursed for the cost of this administrative charge. Mr Shack —Will it be up front or over time? Mr DAWKINS —It will be at the same time that the charge is required to be paid. The other important point which is overlooked is that, under the circumstances confronting the Government and remembering that the Opposition has been amongst the chorus who have called on the Government to impose fiscal restraint in our expenditure, it has been very difficult to find the additional amounts of money necessary to provide for an expanding number of places in tertiary education. We recognise that it is important, in terms of providing educational opportunities for young people, to see that there is an expanding number of places throughout Australia. But, despite the efforts we have made over the last three years, which have gone some way to making up the deficit which was created during the years of our predecessors, it was not possible in the circumstances of this Budget to find all the funds that we would have liked to to provide additional places. Nevertheless, next year there will be 3,000 new places and one of the reasons that we are able to provide those new places is simply that we have required those who we believe can afford it to pay this small administration charge as a very small contribution to the cost of the administration of universities and colleges. When one looks at it in totality, one sees that this is a very fair arrangement. The poorest students and any student who is eligible for student assistance will not be required to pay this fee or charge. That applies whether they are on Austudy, the Aboriginal study arrangements or the other arrangements of support. Therefore, their access to the education system and to tertiary education will not be prejudiced as a result of the introduction of this fee or charge. What has to be recognised is that there is an enormous number of students-- Mr Ruddock —It is a fee now, is it? Mr Hodgman —You are admitting it is a fee? Mr DAWKINS —I have described at some length why it is an administration charge-because it relates to the cost of providing administrative services to the students. The point is that the majority of students at the moment-and I suspect it will remain so in the future-are in relatively comfortable circumstances. That is simply a result of the way in which our primary and secondary education system is worked. If one looks at the backgrounds of those students who successfully complete the secondary education system, one finds that it is biased substantially in favour of those people who come from higher income families. We have been dedicated to trying to change that, and we have substantially changed that so that now people have a much better opportunity, regardless of the circumstances of their parents, to satisfactorily and successfully complete secondary education. That is really the measure of the equality of access to tertiary education. Nevertheless, there are now and for the foreseeable future there will be a large number of people from comfortable circumstances who will, but for this small charge, receive their education at universities and colleges substantially free. We see no reason at all why people where, they have the capacity to pay, should not make a small contribution on behalf of their student offspring who are getting the very great advantage and benefit of a university or college education. Mr John Brown —It is one-thirtieth of the fee, isn't it? Mr DAWKINS —It is a tiny proportion-$250 compared with about $10,000, which is the cost of a place provided in tertiary education. When one takes into account the capital component as well as the recurrent cost, it is around $10,000, so one can see what a tiny contribution it is that those people who are being asked to pay will pay as a result of this measure. There is one other important provision, that is, we are not requiring the whole amount of the charge collected to be handed over to the Commonwealth. Indeed, the institutions can hang on to 10 per cent of it. That is going to give the institutions a small but significant amount of additional financial flexibility as a result of this particular measure. I think what we ought to be asking the Opposition, particularly the honourable member for Denison, is how he proposes that student assistance be increased and the number of places within universities and colleges be increased at the same time as he is calling for a reduction in taxation. Mr Hodgman —By cutting out tax rorts. Mr DAWKINS —Even when we try to cut out the tax rorts, all we have is a chorus, the most banal contribution to which comes from the honourable member for Denison, in opposition to that action. We have done a lot to cut out the tax rorts, but we do not get any support. In fact, I cannot think of one instance when we have moved to cut out tax rorts that we have had the support of the honourable member for Denison or, for that matter, of many of the other members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Denison can simply not have it both ways. One cannot create positions in universities by magic and one cannot provide additional assistance to students by magic. The money has to come from somewhere. I suspect that the honourable member for Denison has also called for a reduction in the size of the Budget deficit. We are confronted with the task of actually making the arithmetic add up. Mr Hodgman —Not for much longer. Mr DAWKINS —I can assure the honourable member that we will be here for a long, long time. The point is that, confronted with the circumstances which Australia is confronted with at the moment whereby the external situation has required us to impose even greater budgetary restraint than was the case even up to this Budget, we must recognise that for Australia to improve its position in the future will depend very much on our investment in the education system. What has happened is that there have been real increases in the expenditure that we have been committing to the area of education, whether government schools, non-government schools, universities or colleges, because we recognise the simple truth that if Australia is to have a more sophisticated, highly skilled and more appropriately trained work force for the future, we are just going to have to make that kind of investment in our education system. Against that background we hear this wailing and catcalling from the Opposition about this minuscule fee or charge of $250 to recoup a tiny amount of the administrative charge of running our great educational institutions-a charge which is not going to be charged against those students who qualify for student assistance. It is only those people who do not qualify, or whose families do not qualify on their behalf, for assistance under the tertiary student assistance arrangement who are being asked to make contributions to the total costs of running our great universities and colleges. I conclude with the point that just a little over a year ago, on 21 September 1985, the honourable member for Tangney, the shadow Minister for Education, contributed an article to the Australian, I think it was, the headline of which was `Fees! Yes, fees!'. I am not sure that the honourable member for Denison has read this but, if he has not, I will send him a copy because it contains a very interesting revelation about the views of the honourable member for Tangney on how to fund our tertiary education system. He proposes to go infinitely further than we have gone in this particular measure. He might describe us as wimps in relation to this particular measure because he wants much more substantial contributions from students to the cost of tertiary education. The honourable member for Denison is totally irresponsible in his suggestions about the imposition of this fee or charge in relation to students who come here from overseas under the assisted arrangements. We have a very proud record of providing places in our universities and colleges for students from developing countries. Those places are provided on the criterion of the needs of those students. It is not intended to impose this charge on them. However, we have done another thing. As far as other private overseas students are concerned, those who do not qualify under those other arrangements that I mentioned will be charged. As a result of our opening up of places to overseas students many hundreds, if not thousands, of students will come to our shores to receive their education here rather than go to Britain or America where they would be charged more than we are proposing under our private overseas students fully funded arrangements. We are in fact enriching and deepening the contact through education between Australia and the students, and indeed the peoples, of our region. It is a total distortion and fabrication-I would say a mischievous one-for the honourable member for Denison to say that we are doing anything else. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(8.51) —I move: Clause 3, page 3, at the end of the clause insert the following word and paragraph: ``; and (d) by adding at the end of the following sub-section: `(11) For the purposes of the definition of `relevant enrolment' in sub-section (1), where the enrolment of a person to undertake a course at a relevant institution entitles the person to undertake a part of that course in more than one year, the person shall be deemed to become enrolled to undertake that course in respect of each year in which the person undertakes a part of that course.'.''. The Bills in their present form require institutions to collect the administration charge in respect of each relevant enrolment in relation to each year. The enrolment procedures of some institutions require only a single enrolment on the part of some students-mainly graduate students-which permits the students to undertake courses for more than one year. It is necessary to clarify the position to ensure that students who formally enrol only once in a course that may extend over more than one calendar year pay the administration charge in respect of each year that they undertake the course. This ensures consistency of treatment of those students who may fall into this category with all other students in higher education courses. The proposed amendments to the Australian National University Amendment Bill, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill and the Maritime College Amendment Bill clarify the authority of the institutions to collect the administration charge by making payment a condition of enrolment. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(8.53) —The Opposition did not oppose the Bill and we do not oppose the amendment. We recognise that the Government's decisions are part of the Budget and we recognise that right of the Government to have its Budget passed without change and with its integrity intact. We point out, though, that the Australian public will have the opportunity to pass judgment on the Budget and specific Budget decisions, of which this is one, and we hope that they do not have long to wait before passing that judgment. The proposed amendments to the four Bills we debated cognately, which were introduced by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), ensure the legislation does what we all thought it would do. To that extent, if the Government now finds it necessary to clarify its original intentions we of course do not oppose the amendments. But it is interesting to note that the Minister, throughout his closing of the second reading debate, found it difficult to maintain the distinction between the words `charge' and `fee'. Time and again he lapsed into the use-the comfortable use, it seemed-of the word `fee'. As I pointed out earlier in the second reading debate and in responding to a point of order decision made by Madam Speaker, one of the thrusts of the Opposition's argument throughout this debate has been that this measure and the amendments which support it have more to do with raising revenue by way of a fee than they do by way of charging an amount appropriate to particular costs. This is a fee, and the amendments make it clear, in respect of a student's enrolment in each year of his course. We know from conversations outside this Parliament that this was a Budget decision made late in the day. The actual figure of $250 was simply plucked out of the air. There is very little logic underpinning the decision to charge the fee of $250 at that level and certainly very little logic to do with charging the $250 fee equally across the range of different classes and categories of students. If it were a charge to be properly levelled in respect of enrolment or administrative costs one would reasonably think that there would be a differential charge in respect of full time students, in respect of part time students, and certainly in respect of external students. The Minister, in his most recent remarks, was at pains to make the point that this charge, or fee, is all about administration costs. He said-I hope I quote him correctly-that it was `regardless of course'. That statement and the fact that the Government now sees fit to put beyond doubt its intentions by moving this amendment buttresses the argument we have been putting time and again on this legislation. This is all about raising money; it is all about imposing a fee on tertiary students irrespective of the administration or enrolment costs incurred by particular students. We all know-certainly the Minister would know-that there are different enrolment costs and administration costs in respect of full time students, part time students and external students. Indeed, there are different costs in respect of enrolment at different institutions and, further, at particular institutions enrolment can take place at the institutional level, the faculty level, the course level, and right down to the subject level. If the Government were serious in maintaining its fiction about this being a charge one would have thought that it would be a fair charge in respect of fair recoupment of costs for enrolment or administration of enrolment; but it is nothing to do with that. The important point for the Opposition and the point that I have labelled is simply this: The Government, despite its years of rhetoric in opposition, has imposed for the first time a tuition and a tertiary fee. However it variously tries to wriggle and squirm around the semantic use of words, there is no doubt about it: This is a tuition and tertiary fee. Students and institutions can have an expectation that this fee will rise with time, not just in direct proportion to the general salaries index but in respect of Budget decisions this Government may take for however long it is in office. We know increasingly that that will not be for many Budgets in the future. I conclude briefly by saying that the point the Opposition is making-reinforced by the fact that this Government has introduced this amendment so late in the day to ensure that its intention is carried through-is that this charge is not a fair charge in relation to varying administration or enrolment costs; it is in fact a revenue raising fee levied across the board on all students. That point is not diminished by recognising that there are some students who are exempt by virtue of their status under other funding arrangements or the like. This is a tuition fee, a tertiary fee. Let all of us remember that this Labor Government has introduced it. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.59) —I will be brief. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) was less than fair in his remarks. I have consistently opposed tertiary fees since 1956. If he had been in the chamber and heard my remarks he would have understood that I opposed such fees in 1956. I campaigned against them from 1956 until 1961. I opposed my Party when it was considering reintroducing such fees in 1974. I opposed student loans in 1974. I opposed the decision to impose fees on overseas students. I have spoken at the last two State councils and one Federal council of the Liberal Party opposing the reintroduction of student fees. I wish the Minister had been in the chamber to hear what I said. I join with the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) and I commend him. I say to the people of Australia, particularly to the parents of the 20,000 students who will be locked out of the higher education sector in 1987: Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we practise to deceive. This Government practised to deceive but it mucked it up. These amendments have been brought in to make sure that the Government gets its quarry. This gives me the chance to say-and I hope that the Minister does not drag me back from the Privileges Committee hearing by making a further unfair and unjustified attack on me-that this measure is the crowning indictment. Not only was the Government malevolent and deceitful; it was also incompetent. When I speak at Flinders University on 28 October, which is next Tuesday, and when I speak at all the other universities and colleges of advanced education between now and the next Federal election, I will point out that not only did the Government betray them but also it was so incompetent that it could not get it right. The Government is therefore condemned for what it has done. It will be ridiculed for its incompetence. RIP, Hawke socialist Government. This is one of the final nails in its electoral coffin. But, this nail will be hammered in not this time by the pensioners and the elderly but by the young people-fit, young, strong and virile. The hammer does not miss the nail with these young people. They will nail the lid down so tightly that the likes of the Minister for Trade, who is at the table, the Minister for Trade, Senator Ryan and the others will fade into history very quickly after the next Federal election-and it cannot come soon enough for me and the students of Australia. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.02) —There are two points of consistency I should make in relation to this matter. The Government might find an element of solace in the first point. It might like to consider the other when it is in opposition and legislation of a similar sort is being entertained. The first point of consistency is in relation to the imposition of an administration charge, as the Government calls the fee it is imposing, and the charges which are already made, which are supported by the student body and which have been imposed over a long period. As a member of the Council of the Australian National University I was interested to note that students have, of their own request, sought the imposition of charges for student unions, student representative associations, sports unions and the like and that for the Australian National University the amount involved approaches $190. Students who are heard to speak on these matters ought to have in mind the fact that, on the one hand, some of their organisations have advocated charges of this sort and, on the other hand, when the Government imposes an administration charge it is characterised as something different. That opposition in relation to the Australian National University led to one of the most unfortunate experiences we have seen at an Australian university since a former Prime Minister was imposed upon by students at some of our campuses. Malcolm Fraser took the view that he would never be put off going on to university campuses by the way in which students approached him. I think he was very right in relation to that. I simply record for my own part that I was very disappointed at the way in which the student body at the Australian National University responded to the visit of Prime Minister Hawke on the opening of the Crawford Building at the university. The events were most unseemly and most unnecessary. As a method of protesting they did not aid the student body in putting its point of view in any sense whatsoever. The second matter of consistency-as this is a Committee debate in which we are taking the Bill as a whole-involves a comparison between the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and two other Bills we were discussing cognately, the Australian National University Amendment Bill and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill. The technique the Government is using is to impose general requirements upon the States but, in relation to the university and college in Canberra, to impose the arrangements specifically in their enabling legislation. So there are amendments to the Australian National University Act. From the point of view of consistency, the Government, in using this route, provides a validation for legislation in the past presented by the Fraser Government and legislation in the future that will be put forward by a Liberal-National Party government to ensure that voluntarism operates in relation to the imposition of fees for student organisations. As this Government has seen fit to amend legislation to impose these fees or charges, equally a Liberal-National Party government, on the basis of consistency, has had its approach validated by the approach the Government has taken. Legislation to ensure that voluntarism applies on the campuses in the Australian Capital Territory will be proper and certainly will be very much an entitlement of a new government. In my view such a government will be able to require the support of the Opposition for such legislation. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(9.08) —I move: Clause 2, page 2, after proposed sub-section 29a (2), insert the following sub-sections: `` `(3) Where a person who is required to pay an amount of higher education administration charge in respect of the enrolment of the person to undertake a course of study or part of a course of study at the University in respect of a year fails to pay that amount to the University before the final payment day for that course or that part of that course in that year, the person shall, unless the Vice-Chancellor otherwise determines, cease to be enrolled to undertake that course or that part of that course during that year. `(4) For the purposes of this section, where the enrolment of a person to undertake a course of study at the University entitles the person to undertake a part of that course in more than one year, the person shall be deemed to become enrolled to undertake that course in respect of each year in which the person undertakes a part of that course. `(5) The reference in sub-section (3) to the final payment day for a course or a part of a course in a year is a reference to such day during that year as is determined by the Vice-Chancellor in relation to that course or that part of that course.'.''. This amendment is being moved for the reasons which I outlined earlier. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(9.11) —For the reasons I outlined earlier, I move: Clause 2, page 2, after proposed sub-section 25a (2), insert the following sub-sections: `` `(3) Where a person who is required to pay an amount of higher education administration charge in respect of the enrolment of the person to undertake a course of study or instruction or part of a course of study or instruction at the College in respect of a year fails to pay that amount to the College before the final payment day for that course or that part of that course in that year, the person shall, unless the Principal of the College otherwise determines, cease to be enrolled to undertake that course or that part of that course during that year. `(4) For the purposes of this section, where the enrolment of a person to undertake a course of study or instruction at the College entitles the person to undertake a part of that course in more than one year, the person shall be deemed to become enrolled to undertake that course in respect of each year in which the person undertakes a part of that course. `(5) The reference in sub-section (3) to the final payment day for a course or a part of a course in a year is a reference to such day during that year as is determined by the Principal of the College in relation to that course or that part of that course.'.''. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(9.12) —For the reasons that I outlined earlier, I move: Clause 2, page 2, after proposed sub-section 32a (2), insert the following sub-sections: `` `(3) Where a person who is required to pay an amount of higher education administration charge in respect of the enrolment of the person to undertake a course of study or instruction or part of a course of study or instruction at the College in respect of a year fails to pay that amount to the College before the final payment day for that course or that part of that course in that year, the person shall, unless the Principal otherwise determines, cease to be enrolled to undertake that course or that part of that course during that year. `(4) For the purposes of this section, where the enrolment of a person to undertake a course of study or instruction at the College entitles the person to undertake a part of that course in more than one year, the person shall be deemed to become enrolled to undertake that course in respect of each year in which the person undertakes a part of that course. `(5) The reference in sub-section (3) to the final payment day for a course or a part of a course in a year is a reference to such day during that year as is determined by the Principal in relation to that course or that part of that course.'.''. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by-leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day, the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1986, concurrently with order of the day No. 6, the Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill 1986. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(9.14) —The House is now debating the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1986 and the Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill 1986. These two overseas students Bills both raise the overseas student charge rates for 1987 and extend liability to new categories of overseas students. Specifically, the principal Bill, the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill, fixes the overseas students charge rates for 1987 and extends liability, firstly, to diplomatic and consular representatives, their staff and families in tertiary study and, secondly, to overseas students enrolled in secondary education and technical and further education institutions, or TAFE level institutions, which receive Commonwealth funding. The Bill imposes a charge of $300 for secondary students and $740 for TAFE students who commence studies in 1987. Students in TAFE who commence their studies prior to 1 January 1987 will pay a lower rate of $530 in 1987. In regard to undergraduate higher education there is a differential application of the overseas student charge as a result of the pressure applied and amendments moved by the Opposition last year when the Government sought to increase by 40 per cent the charge on both continuing and new students. Students who were studying prior to 1986 are now protected by a legislative ceiling of a 15 per cent increase per annum in the applicable overseas student charge. For 1987, the overseas student charge for those students is again increased by the maximum 15 per cent, taking the overseas student charge to 32 per cent of the estimated full average cost of the course. Students who commence their study in Australia in 1986 have no such legislative or regulatory protection, and in 1987 face a 40 per cent increase on the 1986 overseas student charge-specifically, an increase from $3,500 to $4,916 for a standard course, discounted for the $250 tuition fee that we have spent the last several hours debating. The Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill further extends the overseas student charge liability by removing the current exemption for most overseas postgraduates. The Opposition would like to express two concerns about these Bills. First, we note with serious concern the fears voiced by senior vice-chancellors, directors and principals of colleges of advanced education that the extension of the charge to postgraduate students may reduce the overall research output of universities and colleges. It is sad but true-and I am sure that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) who is at the table will endorse this-that it is often difficult to get Australian postgraduate students to conduct postgraduate research in Australia. It is often the case that many overseas students visiting Australia and gaining their education in this country go on, especially in the sciences and technologies, to conduct research which is very beneficial, of course, to them and their home countries, but essentially to Australia. The concern has been expressed by vice-chancellors, directors and principals of colleges of advanced education that the extension of the overseas student charge to classes and categories of postgraduate students may hamper and put paid to the very important research work that many of those students undertake. We on this side of the House hope that in future the Government will closely monitor the effect of the extension of the overseas student charge in respect of that postgraduate research effort. Secondly, we repeat the concerns we voiced last year that arbitrary increases in the charge of the order of 40 per cent annually are extraordinarily punitive on existing students and a discouragement to potential new students. I note, pointedly, that in respect of existing students the Government has seen fit to raise the overseas student charge to the maximum, to the ceiling that was legislated for by an Opposition amendment last year when we debated this charge. Importantly, the point I am now making is that the charge is increased by 40 per cent for new students. Many overseas students who have based their calculations on an expectation of their costs throughout their period in Australia are already in Australia undertaking secondary education. For them their education is a continuum in terms of their stay in Australia. We fully recognise that they are making the jump from secondary schooling to higher education and we recognise the Government's right to impose and indeed to increase an overseas student charge in respect of higher education. However, the fundamental point I want to make-we made it last year and we will continue to make it although we will not move an amendment on this occasion-is that the Government has some responsibility to provide for overseas students in Australia some certainty and predictability in respect of the overseas student charge for which they are likely to be liable. Our concerns about students discontinuing their study and our concerns about some overseas students in secondary education in Australia deciding not to go on to higher education in Australia seem to be confirmed by Budget Paper No. 1 which notes on page 101 that there will be `a reduction in the aggregate number of overseas students in Australia in 1987'. I think that, in part, the increases in the overseas student charge have something to do with that expected reduction. To further buttress that point, the Opposition strongly believes in the concept of the Commonwealth having a tacit contract with overseas students, the concept of the Commonwealth being a party with overseas students to a contract which extends from their arrival in Australia to the completion of their courses of study in Australia. Mr Bilney —The contracts have escalation clauses. Mr SHACK —If the honourable member is patient he will see that I am making a point which I am sure he will understand and accept. We believe that one of the Commonwealth's obligations under this contract is the provision of certainty and stability with respect to the costs faced by overseas students. We do not deny-the honourable member would understand this very clearly from his Foreign Affairs experience-the Government's right or any government's right to increase an overseas student charge. However, we believe, concomitant with that government's right, is the importance of the host government-irrespective of whether it is the Australian Labor Party or the Liberal and National parties-extending to visitors in Australia who come here to undertake secondary or higher education study some certainty and some sense of future security so that, as their parents budget in their home countries and as they budget while they are here in the host country, they can have some understanding of what they might be up for in future years. That is the reason why last year we moved an amendment seeking to place a ceiling of 15 per cent on increases in charges for existing students. We call on the Government to listen to what we say in respect of this matter. We are not making a partisan political point. We recognise the absolute fundamental importance from a foreign affairs perspective and from a foreign aid perspective of extending educational opportunities in Australia to the children of our nearest neighbours, but in making such an extension do we not also have a right and a responsibility to extend to our guests some certainty and some predictability as to the extent of the overseas student charge for which they may be liable? For the honourable member who made an appropriate point by way of interjection, that is the point I make. The increases in the overseas student charge for students who commenced higher education studies in 1986 are a special case and that is why we do not move an amendment this year. We recognise that last year the Government signalled its intention to move to 45 per cent recovery in 1987, hence the 40 per cent overseas student increase for those students. I hope that the Government will recognise that the points we make are valid, that the contribution we make in this debate is a responsible one and that we have not charged off contrary to what we said last year and moved an amendment on this point. Nevertheless, to summarise, we put forward the argument that we believe there is a central imperative to restore certainty and predictability to the overseas students program. It is time to ease the anxiety caused by unpredictability and the fear of unannounced increases which upset all measures of tight financial budgeting by overseas students. On this point let me stress my own bona fides in this debate. I do not make a partisan political point and I do not seek to make political advantage out of an issue which is centrally important to all parties in this Parliament. If we are to extend an important form of foreign aid to the children of our near neighbours it is ludicrous that we also preside over deportations, anguish and anxiety, as happened in recent months when students who were not apprised of and certainly not aware of the overseas student charge when they left their own country have come to Australia and now find themselves unable to pay it. To preside over a situation which sees our popular Press blazoned with headlines about student A or student B being arrested with a view to deportation is not what our aid program in this area should be all about. I fully recognise the Government's right for budgetary reasons, for responsible economic reasons and for reasons central to the overseas student program to gradually increase the fee, but we are talking about an element of predictability and an element of certainty. I think it entirely reasonable that the Government should voluntarily limit itself to a reasonable increase, and the reasonable increase which we suggested and which was passed last year by way of amendment was a ceiling of 15 per cent. It is time we not only let overseas students know the costs for tomorrow but also, as I have said, provided a sensible range of predictable increases. Last year the Government accepted the rationale in accepting a maximum 15 per cent annual increase in the overseas student charge. The amendment was passed in the Senate and the Government, of its own volition, brought it back to the House of Representatives and accepted it. So the points I make are not foreign to the Government and they are not ones that the Government has hitherto shown itself unwilling to accept or agree with. As I have said, the Government accepted this rationale last year in accepting a maximum 15 per cent annual increase in the overseas student charge applying to students who had commenced studies prior to 1986. It put the 1986-87 students on notice by telling them that the charge would be raised to 45 per cent recovery in 1987. The Government told the students that last year and that is why we do not break faith in what I am saying and move an amendment this year. The point I now make is that it is reasonable, with the exception of the extraordinary increases imposed by the Government in 1986-87, that there be a fair and average increase in the future. I seek the approval of the Minister for Science, who is at the table, to incorporate in Hansard a clear, straightforward table showing the overseas student charge rates and percentage increases from 1980 to 1987. Mr Barry Jones —We give leave with the precaution that it is not totally accurate. There are some minor amendments to the figures that ought to be put in. Leave granted. The table read as follows- THE OVERSEAS STUDENT CHARGE RATES 1980-87 New Students (b) Continuing Students (a) $ $Uni/CAE (d) 1980... 1500 1500 1981... 1500 1500 1982... 1700 (+13%) 1700 (+13%) 1983... 1850 (+ 9%) 1850 (+ 9%) 1984... 2150 (+16%) 2150 (+16%) 1985... 2500 (+16%) 2500 (+16%) 1986... 3500 (+40%) 2875 (+15%) 1987 (c)... 4916 (+40%) 3306 (+15%) TAFE 1987... 740 530 Secondary 1987... 300 300 Notes (a) Higher education students who were studying prior to 1986 or TAFE students studying prior to 1987. (b) Higher education students who commenced study in Australia after 1 January 1986 or TAFE students who commence study after 1 January 1987. (c) Overseas students in higher education become liable in 1987 for the $250 higher education administration charge. The OSC for these students will in fact be $250 lower than the above amounts as the $250 HE Administration Charge is payable direct to the institutions. (d) The figures shown for higher education OSC is for the ``standard'' course. Students enrolled in medicine, dentistry and veterinary science (high cost courses) pay a higher rate. Mr SHACK —I thank the Minister and the House. If I have made an error in my compilation of the table and if the Minister would like to correct it in the course of debate, I would welcome that. The point is not to convey information that is wrong; the point is not to convey information that is misleading; the point is to convey information, and when one looks at the table one sees that it conveys clearly, notwithstanding any minor changes, that there has been a relatively reasonable and sensible increase in the overseas student charge year after year. In 1982 it went up 13 per cent; in 1983, 9 per cent; in 1984, 16 per cent; and in 1985, 16 per cent. In respect of new students for 1986-87 there has been a large increase of 40 per cent, whereas in respect of continuing students it has been limited to 15 per cent because of the amendment moved by the Opposition and accepted by the Government. That is simply the point I make. I restate without embarrassment that many new overseas students arrive in Australia having carefully budgeted for the cost of their courses. Their parents and families often make great sacrifices, and the students are left in both their home countries and in Australia with very little room for financial manoeuvring. We believe that if the Government continues in future years to increase the fee markedly, many students will be seriously disadvantaged. In the time left to me-I am sure the Government Whip will be pleased to know that I will not take up my full allocation-I would like to say a few words in general about the overseas student program. I indicated in the debate last year that the Opposition was inclined towards the entrepreneurial educational philosophy reflected in the report of the Jackson Review of the Australian Overseas Aid Program. Mr Bilney —Hear, hear! Mr SHACK —In our view, that report correctly stated, and I welcome the support of the honourable member for Kingston, that the Australian education system can compete and should complete for international student enrolment in the global education market-place. The honourable member for Kingston may despair as to the success he has enjoyed or not enjoyed so far. However, to give him his due, the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) understands the export industry and the potential Australia has in terms of attracting overseas students. It is against that background that I make these remarks. We support the Jackson committee's report on overseas students. Without prejudice and without exciting all sorts of hysteria from some members on the Government side, might I say that in embracing, dare I say it, a market-based approach to the overseas student program, the Opposition would wish to gear higher education for a major expansion in this area. Quite simply, our singular goal is to build an education system which rivals the best in the word and which promotes choice, excellence and achievement in all spheres of activity, both for our own students and for the students of overseas countries. Education can be, must be and, we believe if the right decisions are made, will be, a major source of foreign income through services trade. If we are worried about our current account deficit and balance of trade situation, it is madness for some staff associations and some academic communities at particular institutions around Australia to be blinkered in their approach to the opportunities that exist for them and our nation in respect of attracting overseas students. I know that there is a measure of bipartisan agreement on this matter in this chamber and elsewhere. There is significant untapped demand for higher education throughout the Asia-Pacific region. We see Australian institutions playing an increasingly dominant role in training and educating the young people of this region, both on a developmental aid basis and on a commercial basis. These students are already showing their willingness to travel to the United Kingdom, Western Europe and the United States of America. We offer a country which is much more proximate to their own countries, we offer an attractive climate, and increasingly we offer a changing culture which is more akin to that which they might find in their home countries. We are all on the threshold, if we take the right decisions in respect of higher education, of a vast export industry which will benefit not just our overseas neighbours but certainly ourselves. As I have said, it will assist in the reduction of our balance of payment difficulties by bringing in much needed export income. It will also help maintain Australia's cultural and political influence in the Asia-Pacific region, and it will run parallel to wider foreign policy and cultural exchange programs. On that point, while I do not have much personal foreign affairs experience, unlike the honourable member for Kingston and others, I had an interesting talk to the honour- able member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) the other day. In a very important first hand anecdotal way, he spoke about the incalculable benefits that exist for Australia in extending this sort of opportunity in terms of both aid and commerce. One cannot put a dollars and cents value on the future national benefit that can be derived from an Australian Foreign Minister travelling to our nearest neighbours and dealing with the movers and shakers and political leaders who obtained their education in Australia. It is in that context that I make these remarks. The potential is only now being realised, but the estimates of the education foreign earnings, the employment potential and the foreign affairs ramifications of which I have just spoken are in fact breathtaking. The Opposition agrees with the Jackson Committee that the overseas student charge, provided there is certainty for those already enrolled, should be raised progressively so that by the mid-1990s overseas students not on scholarships would be paying the full cost of their education in Australia. We further believe that the charge should be paid directly to the institutions which the overseas students attend. The hidden subsidy now being provided by Australian taxpayers to subsidise overseas students partially or fully, which totals now over $100m a year, would be made explicit and used to fund scholarships for several thousand other overseas students. Just let me briefly flesh out that point. We believe that in time, from the educational perspective and from the perspective of the higher education institutions in Australia, the partly subsidised and fully subsidised overseas students should be progressively phased out so that all overseas students in their relationship with institutions are full fee paying students. Instead, through the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, the Foreign Affairs Department and the Foreign Affairs vote we should extend, in whatever number we wish to fund, full scholarships or part scholarships to potential overseas students studying in Australia. This would be a much tidier situation than exists at the moment. The educational aspect would be separated out from the foreign affairs aspect. We would fund Australia's overseas students through ADAB and through Foreign Affairs. We could extend to them full scholarships or part scholarships, which would enable them to pay fully or partially the fee that Australian institutions would charge to fee paying overseas students. In our view, the proposal I have just outlined has been sensitively designed to free up progressively and consequently restructure one important aspect of Australia's most regulated conservative and protection-bound industry-the education industry. Its adoption would allow overseas students unlimited access to tertiary institutions in Australia without prejudice to Australian students and with viable scholarships so that Australia's aid contribution to the educational enrichment of its less developed neighbours would be made explicit. It is worth noting-and this is my final comment-that while overseas students have two bites at the cherry as a result of the Government's decision last year to allow institutions for the first time free rein in enrolling overseas students on a full fee paying basis, it continues to be a cause of distress to the Opposition that Australian students are denied this opportunity. We recognise the inability of Australian taxpayers to fund unlimited numbers of domestic students, let alone overseas students, but we think it is scandalous that there remains a major internal contradiction in the Government's education policy which requires urgent attention-that is, that the same full fee paying opportunities extended to overseas students also be given to our own. In conclusion, the Opposition does not seek to amend these Bills. We do, however, make the point, as we have done time and time again, that the Government should look to its own decisions with a view to extending predictability and certainty to overseas students coming into Australia. If in the future we take the right decisions, Government and Opposition alike, the Australian education industry can be a major source of export income providing benefits to ourselves and certainly providing benefits to the overseas students and the countries from which they come. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(9.41) —I support what the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) said when he commented that when people come to Australia to study they are entitled to know their future financial obligations. Australia is also entitled to charge for the education of overseas students other than those assisted under our overseas programs. In fact we could go further and, as the honourable member for Tangney said, we could market it-we could make education an export industry. The case of the Goulburn college for seniors came to mind when the honourable member was speaking. Senior citizens were pouring into Australia to do subjects at the Goulburn College of Advanced Education-courses such as computing and psychology, which some of them chose to apply themselves to rather than subjects such as basket making and doll house construction. I know that the college for seniors had to limit its overseas numbers so that Australians could find places in its courses. If a country member can judge on the basis of the letters received, I would say that charging overseas students for education at universities and other tertiary institutions is popular in the electorate, but not always for the best of reasons. Australians, ever conscious of belt tightening-which everyone is asked to do-find it difficult to understand why taxpayers should tighten their belts a little further to educate overseas students. That is an argument which is fair enough when those students can afford to pay, but it does ignore an attitude which it is important that we develop in the interests of foreign relations, trade and security in the zone in which we live. Appreciation of Australia by countries in our region has been enhanced by our acceptance of overseas students, and this will continue. Over 1,200 full time students are currently accepted and their fees are paid by our Government for their secondary and tertiary education. They return trained to their countries and my view is that the dividend for Australia is great. Countries that benefit appreciate the assistance and governments express that appreciation with closer relations and trade benefits. Good relations mean less hostility, which is a factor in our own national security. The training of many young people in Australia at Australia's expense has brought to leadership in the source countries people who feel a strong kinship with our country. This must strengthen our links with them, including our trading links. That policy will continue, but it does not mean that we ought to allow other overseas students, those who select Australia as their place of study, to come at great public expense. Very often those students can afford an education in their own countries and when all sections of the community find Treasury's arms short and their pockets deep, as is now the case, we ought to be charging overseas students who come to Australia unassisted programs at least some of the fees. The Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill and the Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill vary the categories of students exempt from the Overseas Students Charge Collection Act 1979. Australian scholarship winners, where the rate is at least $3,500 per annum, who commence study before 1 January 1987, are exempt. The Bills allow recoupment of the cost of supporting places for overseas students at our educational institutions and place a charge liability on diplomatic and consular representatives, staff and dependants who undertake tertiary courses. A student who commenced a course after 1 January 1986 will contribute to 45 per cent of the full average cost of a place. A student who commenced a course before 1 January 1986 will incur a charge of 32 per cent of the full average cost. Along with the honourable member for Tangney, I believe we need to support these Bills. I believe this legislation is a realistic assessment of Australia's economic position and also our relations with our overseas friends. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.45) —I want to participate in this debate because, as honourable members will know, I have had an interest for some time in the question of overseas students in Australia. The charges imposed in this legislation will have an impact upon students and I think it is important that we continue to monitor the nature of that impact and that we understand it. I commend the very comprehensive and excellent speech made by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) in relation to this matter. I will emphasise two of the points he made and, for the sake of brevity, will refer largely to his comments, but in a complementary way. The Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill fixes the charges to be made for new students enrolling in the 1987 academic year. As was mentioned by the honourable member, the fees paid by those students-I mention particularly those students who are now in schools in Australia and who would be likely to enrol next year in universities-will be 40 per cent higher than those that they would have paid if they were entering university this year. The uncertainty and the disadvantage that those students will suffer as a result of the size of those increased fees are such that they are likely, in my view, significantly to damage Australia's reputation. Honourable members have emphasised the question of certainty. I think Australia's reputation is such that we ought to be very conscious of the impact of any variations in relation to these fees, and we ought to be conscious of variations of the order of 40 per cent and the likely impact that will have upon the way in which Australia is viewed. The second point made by the honourable member for Tangney which I want to reinforce was the impact of this legislation imposing charges on postgraduate students. I represent this Parliament as a member of the Council of the Australian National University. On Friday a fortnight ago I sat through a Council meeting where this matter was raised. I think it incumbent upon me to report to the Parliament that the university is very concerned at the impact of these charges upon post-graduate students, particularly those who are in receipt of awards provided by the Australian National University itself. Honourable members ought to under- stand that the imposition of these charges upon those students who receive a very modest stipend as post-graduate award holders is such that they will probably lose one-half of the value of the award that is given to them. Honourable members can imagine that if they receive an award and the amount is halved by a charge that is imposed, it is not very likely that they will be encouraged to enrol at that institution. We went through the rolls of Australian National University students who received awards last year and a large number of the students who received post-graduate awards were from overseas. The university is relying upon those post-graduate students to undertake very important work in the Institute of Advanced Studies. I think honourable members ought to know that that program of advanced study, which is so important to the reputation of the Australian National University, will, in the view of the Council, be put at risk as a result of the imposition of these charges. The Council itself does not want to be seen to be criticising governments. But that was the nature of the information that was conveyed to the Council members as they sat around that table. Australia's overseas student program is very important for Australia and its reputation. The students who come to Australia can be ambassadors for us when they return to their countries, or they can be our constant critics. A nexus between Australia and the students who have studied here is established. If their experience has been good, the nexus is desirable. If their experience has been bad, that can do Australia very considerable harm. I do not want to allude to national leaders who have panned Australia in the Press. I just ask honourable members to think about some of them who have had a go at us from time to time and ask why that has happened. In relation to one prominent Asian leader, it has often been suggested that this attitude to Australia was formed by an unsatisfactory association with us. It may not have been as a student, but his attitude is certainly a result of an unsatisfactory association or relationship with Australia. The way in which students are being impacted upon as a result of this legislation and the changes that have been made over time means that many students will go away with a view of Australia that will not help us in the future. Recently I read a paper which was prepared by students and which I thought was very persuasive. They made the point that we do not take into account the beneficial effects that these students have when they come to Australia. How many of us think of the program in terms of the balance of payments and how much money students bring to Australia when they come or how much their parents send them to help keep them while they are studying? It is not just a question of the cash that will go into the Government's coffers; there is also the money that comes to Australia by way of transfer payments when we have a successful program bringing students to study in Australia. The impact is very considerable. The second matter that the students mentioned, in addition to the ambassadorial relationship, was that of contracts and so on. We know from anecdotal evidence that many students have advantaged Australia and Australian contractors when in positions of responsibility in their home country, in government or in business. They may be able to influence the granting of contracts, have had a background of Australia and experience of Australians, for example as engineers or architects, and have confidence in us and what we are about. The imposition of the fee, which is to increase by 15 per cent this year for students who are already enrolled, has been commented on by the honourable member for Tangney. We acquiesced in the charge being increased by 15 per cent this year when the Government presented the regulations required under the legislation as amended on the last occasion. I repeat my understanding of the circumstances in which that amendment was negotiated and settled with the Government. I understood that it was settled in a form not that would impose mandatory 15 per cent per annum increase every year from now on but rather that would enable increases to be imposed that would accurately reflect the costs to Australia as a result of changes in the consumer price index. The reason the increase was not fixed to the CPI was that the Government said to the Opposition in the discussions: `There may well be currency variations that will require some greater or lesser change than the change in the CPI, and we need some flexibility'. That is the basis on which the 15 per cent increase was settled. If the Government insists on increasing the rate by 15 per cent each year, let it understand that I for one will watch for regulations coming forward to give effect to a 15 per cent increase and I will look very seriously at whether the regulations ought to be disallowed. Whether I will have the support of my colleagues is another matter, but certainly that is my view. I encourage the Government also to look at the way in which some students have been treated this year. Students have produced a number of papers about the hardship that has been imposed upon them. I will not go into any detail as to the nature of the hardship that has been imposed; but in many cases it has been considerable. Students have suggested that there be an improvement in the administrative arrangements. One of the suggestions they have made is that domestically the Government should improve the arrangements by providing for instalment payments of these charges. I encourage the Government to look at that suggestion. I also encourage the Government to look at the administrative arrangements outside Australia. One matter which has been brought to my attention and which is a very serious indictment of this Government is the way in which the administrative arrangements, particularly for Malaysia, occurred, especially in the establishment of quotas and the selection of students. People who observed the process from the outside could not be satisfied that the system of selection was fair. We saw Press reports in Malaysian papers, particularly, day after day, that did Australia very considerable harm. Some were headed: `On ``raw deal'' ', `Still in a bind', `Probe' and `Quota has been filled'. I could cite paper after paper in which students were reported as saying that they were getting a raw deal in Australia. I made representations for a student who I thought had been treated poorly. I wrote to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in some detail about that student's case because it seemed to me that the student had been treated very unjustly. I put before the Minister information from the Principal of Taylor's College in Malaysia, from which a number of students who have been able to come to Australia have matriculated in the past. I was able to put before the Minister a letter from the Principal of that college which I thought was very informative and which outlined the way students saw the Australian rules on this matter. I will not go on at length because I am being pressed to conclude my remarks. I understand that. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) needs 15 minutes to reply. I simply want to record that I am not the only person saying these things. When I wrote to the Minister for Education about this matter I was given certain information. I will comment adversely, too, on the fact that I did not receive the information from the Minister herself. That matter ought to be of very real concern in this House. I having raised the problem that students were not being selected on the basis of academic attainment, but on a whole lot of other factors as well, the reply from the Minister's office said: The Overseas Student Office was unable to approve entry to all students who obtained place offers and, in allocating the available places to Malaysian students, had to take into account the timing of offers by institutions, whether students were sponsored by the Malaysian Government and whether they received offers to courses nominated to the Overseas Student Office, as well as the level of their academic results. There was some resentment on the part of applicants who were unsuccessful after all these factors were taken into account, particularly if they were aware that some students with lower matriculation scores had obtained entry. Unfortunately, it was not possible to satisfy all the applicants for study in Australia. That is a masterpiece of understatement. There was enormous resentment from students at the way in which they were selected, and the fact that when students in the same institution got quite different results the student with the lower results was successful in obtaining entry into Australian academic institutions does us no credit whatsoever. The fact that the Minister, through her proxies, acknowledges that does not help. The final matter that I wish to mention relates to the way in which representations are dealt with by this Minister for Education. Mr Macphee —Has the Minister ever seen the letter, by the way? Mr RUDDOCK —I do not know whether the Minister has seen the letter, because the letter to me in response to representations that I was making on behalf of a constituent who was a friend and relative of Miss Agnes Yong Mei Kwan of Kuala Lumpur was signed by Sarah Portway. I do not know Sarah Portway, but she is said to be a private secretary. I have an acknowledgment in relation to that matter signed by Mary O'Neill, a ministerial liaison officer. I do not know who these people are. I do not know whether the information that I conveyed to the Minister actually reached her and she considered it. I wrote representations on behalf of a constituent and I expected the Minister to deal with them. Mr Macphee —But you wrote to the Minister. Mr RUDDOCK —Of course I wrote to the Minister, and the letter was not signed by a clerk of mine saying `I am raising a matter on behalf of the member'. I wrote to the Minister personally. I expect an answer from the Minister, not from some proxy. Mr Macphee —Do other Ministers do that? Mr RUDDOCK —Not all Ministers do it. I am quite used to getting letters addressed to `Dear Philip' and signed `Chris Hurford on behalf of the Treasurer'. I do not write so often to the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has written to me recently too, and I thank him for that. In relation to acknowledgments there might be some role for some staffer to assist the Minister to stop him getting writer's cramp. Mr Macphee —But the substantive reply must come from the Minister. Mr RUDDOCK —The question as to where a substantive reply should come from is quite unambiguous. The Minister must sign it to evidence that the Minister has seen it. When I am being given a statement of government policy, I expect it to be from the Minister. The Minister for Education has not signed a letter to me for as long as I can remember. The fact that we may have been students together at university is no excuse. I write to her about matters on behalf of constituents and I can produce dozens of letters signed by ministerial agents or private secretaries. Unless this matter changes, I will be raising it over and over again. I hope it is a matter to which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will give some attention before it becomes a cause celebre. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.02) —During the debate the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) requested the incorporation of a table, to which we agreed. I said that I thought that there were some minor discrepancies. I think the best way to resolve the problem is to incorporate in Hansard a somewhat more detailed table. There is not a significant difference in the overall thrust, but the points of detail are superior to the table incorporated by the honourable member for Tangney. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —This will be subject to the usual proviso. Is leave granted? Mr Shack —Leave is not only granted but granted with appreciation. The table read as follows- Table [OSO-1] OVERSEAS STUDENTS CHARGE, 1980-1987 % Course Cost $ % increase 1980/81 Postgraduate... 2,500 Undergraduate (1): Medicine, Dentistry, Vet. Science... 2,000 Undergraduate (2): all other... 1,500 1982 Postgraduate... 2,500 0 Undergraduate (1)... 2,200 10% Undergraduate (2)... 1,700 13.3% 1983 Postgraduate... 2,500 0 Undergraduate (1)... 2,350 6.8% Undergraduate (2)... 1,850 8.8% 1984 Postgraduate... 2,900 16% Undergraduate (1)... 2,700 14.9% Undergraduate (2)... 2,150 16.2% 1985 Postgraduate... 3,350 15.5% Undergraduate (1)... 3,100 14.8% Undergraduate (2)... 2,500 16.3% 1986 New students: medicine, etc.... 35% 4,340 40% New students: all other... 35% 3,500 40% Continuing students: medicine, etc.... 28.7% 3,565 15% Continuing students: all other... 28.7% 2,875 15% Uni. Advanced Education Courses 1987 From 1/1/86 students: medicine etc... 45% 5,756 *(5506) 32.6% From 1/1/86 students: all other... 45% 4,916 *(4666) 40.5% Pre 1/1/86 students: medicine etc... 32% 4,100 *(3850) 15% Pre 1/1/86 students: all other... 32% 3,306 *(3056) 15% TAFE Pre 1/1/87... 32% 530 TAFE From 1/1/87... 45% 740 Secondary (pre + post 1/1/87)... - 300 *Overseas student charge less $250 Administration Charge. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.03) —I move: After clause 4, insert the following clause: Declared course ``4a. Section 4a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting ``(other than a prescribed educational institution)''. This amendment is required as technical and further education institutions will be prescribed institutions under section 4 of the principal Act as proposed by clause 4c of the amendment Bill before the House and as it is necessary to ensure that the declared advanced education courses undertaken at TAFE institutions continue to attract the advanced education level charge and not the lower TAFE level charge. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.05) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 2, after proposed paragraph 4a (1) (b), insert the following paragraph: ``(ba) a student who is enrolled in a secondary education course at a secondary school as a result of a reciprocal exchange agreement between- (i) that secondary school and an overseas secondary education institution or an overseas organisation; or (ii) an organisation in Australia and an overseas secondary education institution or an overseas organisation, being an agreement specified by an authorised officer for the purposes of this paragraph;''. (2) Clause 3, page 3, lines 1 and 2, omit ``(not being a declared course)''. (3) Clause 3, page 3, line 9, insert ``or (ba)'' after ``paragraph (1) (b)''. (4) Clause 3, page 3, line 13, omit ``tertiary''. (5) Clause 3, page 3, line 15, omit ``by the institution in Australia'', insert ``for overseas students enrolled at the institution in Australia''. (6) Clause 3, page 3, line 18, omit ``by the overseas tertiary education institution'', insert ``for Australian students enrolled at the overseas education institution''. The amendments insert in the principal Act provision for exemption from the secondary level charge, as proposed in the Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill 1986 before the Committee, those overseas students entering Australian secondary schools under reciprocal exchange agreements between Australian and overseas secondary schools or organisations. This will result in a reduction in revenue of approximately $300,000 per annum. These exchanges are, however, fully reciprocal and at least an equal number of Australian students are benefiting from these secondary exchange arrangements in overseas countries. The amendments also make a technical change to omit reference to `(not being a declared course)' from section 4a (1) (j) of the principal Act as proposed by clause 3 of the amendment Bill before the Committee. It is possible that in future declared courses may be offered by institutions as full fee courses. In that case exemption from the overseas student's charge for such full fee courses should apply. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.10) —As would be obvious to the House and anybody listening, today is education day in the House of Representatives. We now move to the seventh Bill being debated today, specifically the Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1986. This Bill establishes the legislative framework for the introduction of what the Government has entitled Austudy, the single education assistance scheme, which from 1 January 1987 will replace the tertiary education assistance scheme, the secondary assistance scheme and the adult secondary education assistance scheme, with a full year cost of $528.5m, assisting some 238,000 students. The legislative changes are fairly minor as the administrative provisions, the determination of applicable rates and the eligibility criteria will all be detailed in the voluminous regulations to be made under the amended legislation. In short, the Bill currently before the House does three things. Firstly, it widens the definition of `student' beyond tertiary student, allowing secondary students to be treated as students within the purpose of the broader Austudy education assistance scheme now being introduced and debated. Currently the legislation is limited, by definition, to tertiary students. Secondly, the incidentals allowance of up to $100 a year currently paid to TEAS and ASEAS recipients is to be abolished, although the Government assures us that it has been absorbed into the living allowance payments. Thirdly, the Bill provides certain transitional arrangements and tightens up some provisions concerning the interaction between welfare payments and education assistance. Previous arrangements have permitted an element of double dipping between, for example, unemployment benefits and TEAS. The Opposition supports the move to reduce the opportunity for such abuse of assistance measures. In amending the principal Student Assistance Act to provide for the granting of assistance to both secondary and tertiary students, the legislation improves the current arrangements under which the secondary assistance scheme and the adult secondary education assistance scheme have had no legislative basis. Both of these schemes have been administered only by ministerial guidelines, despite their significant financial impact. The Austudy scheme, which this legislation will facilitate, is therefore in some ways a significant advance on previous arrangements. However, it is a cause of considerable concern on several grounds, with which I will deal in the course of my speech. The Opposition welcomes moves to remove the financial disincentive to study. The wider availability of unemployment benefits and the significant unemployment benefits available at all age levels, when compared with the applicable rate of education assistance, according to some studies has encouraged some young Australians to discontinue their studies for the easy option of cash in hand. In other words, they have preferred to follow the money. Certainly the financial weighting in favour of the unemployment benefit has, at the secondary level especially, not served to encourage higher levels of retention and participation in years 11 and 12. While welcoming this decision to set a common rate of education assistance and unemployment benefit, I note with displeasure, however, the wrong statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) that the disincentive to study `was a legacy of the years of Liberal and National Party government from 1975 to 1983'. It should not be forgotten that the former Liberal-National Party Government initiated the first two investigations which recommended parity between unemployment benefits and education assistance, namely, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission `Learning and Earning-A Study of Education and Employment Opportunities for Young People' report and the Beswick study of tertiary students finance. Moreover, the Labor Government increased substantially the gap between TEAS and unemployment benefits in the 1983-84 Budget to something in the order of $16 a week. This was despite election rhetoric and assurances that Labor would immediately align education assistance and unemployment benefits. It will be six years from the 1983 election before Labor will completely deliver the goods-six years to make a simple adjustment. So let us have none of these attempts at political trivialisation of this issue by the Minister for Education. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Dr Blewett-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.15) —As I was saying, there was a disparity when we left office, but it was increased by this Government in 1984. Most honourable members will remember also that the Opposition's 1984 policy on education pledged to bring together the rates for unemployment benefits and education allowances. There is a bipartisan agreement that the financial disincentive to study resulting from the fact that unemployment benefits are set at a higher rate ought to be removed so that involvement in education or training is actively encouraged through such income support schemes. There has persisted for many years now a perverse incentive for some students, at secondary level especially, to abandon their education and take advantage of the availability of unemployment benefits at sufficiently higher rates, rather than continue their studies and accept a lower rate of educational benefit. To some extent this disincentive to study merely accelerated the trend in the early 1980s for many young Australians leaving school immediately after completing the compulsory years of education. The availability of unemployment benefits is not the only reason why young people at the margin of education-those who do not want to go on to undertake higher education and those who do not perceive any additional personal benefit they would gain from completing years 11 and 12-choose to discontinue study. It is not the only reason, but certainly it is a factor. I want to use some of the time available to me tonight to speak to some of the wider issues of youth income support and education. First, however, let me return to my opening remark that the Austudy scheme has some elements which are cause for considerable concern on the part of the Opposition. We express two principal concerns about the operation of the Austudy scheme for secondary students. Firstly, we believe the major change from activity based to age related assistance will cause considerable problems and may not be the most effective way of promoting involvement in education. Secondly, we believe that the change in the method of payment of Austudy from the parent or legal guardian to the student directly could be counterproductive or misguided. One of the problems in targeting education assistance in Australia is that our State education systems differ so markedly in important areas. Some States commence compulsory education at younger ages than others. Compulsory education, therefore, ends in certain States at younger ages. The question of basing secondary student assistance on activity or on age is by no means an easy one. We recognise that it is a vexed question. A fine line exists between basing assistance programs on involvement in years 11 and 12 or on the age of the young person, taking into account the easy availability of unemployment benefits from age 16 onwards. There are just as many reports, papers and studies to support either option. The Opposition believes, however, that the Government has, on balance, opted for the less beneficial alternative. Austudy, with an age related benefit payable directly to the student from age 16, is flawed in several respects as a result. The principal aim of education assistance should be to promote greater participation in post-compulsory education by easing the financial burdens faced by families with children at years 11 and 12. In these years, the costs of education escalate dramatically. But more importantly, it is in these senior secondary years that a supportive family network is most essential in making the decision to remain at school. All of us accept that young people are exercising independent judgment much earlier. They make critical decisions affecting career and life potential, sometimes from age 14-for example, in choosing subjects from the ever-diminishing core curriculum. They demand recognition of their independence and their maturity and it is essential that governments and the wider community embrace sensitively and with understanding the significant independent decision-making capabilities of our young people. However, there are important decisions such as whether to continue in education beyond year 10 in which the student's family will greatly assist in the making of the final decision. To clarify this, a student can drop out of school and seek work without the agreement or support of his or her parents, but it is very rare indeed for a student to continue in education without the agreement, commitment and financial support of his or her parents. The decision to leave school can be made independently but not the decision to continue in secondary study. That requires family financial and moral support. In deciding to move away from the principles which have guided the secondary assistance scheme-namely, an activity-based payment directed to the families of year 11 and year 12 students-the Opposition believes that the Government has taken a great gamble with the motivations affecting continuing education. The abandoning of activity-based assistance for years 11 and 12 towards the age related benefit from age 16 will vary in its effects between States as a result of the institutional differences affecting age in years 11 and 12. The number of 15-year-old students who would have been eligible for the means tested student assistance scheme allowance next year will now be denied education assistance in year 11 or, in limited exceptional cases, in year 12. In many situations the families of those students are even now working the figures to see whether their family income can be stretched any further to support their year 11 children until they become eligible for Austudy when they turn 16 years. It is instructive to look at the State differences in the educational participation of the 15-year-old cohorts. In Victoria, of all year 11 students, only 2 1/2 per cent are still 15 years of age. In the Australian Capital Territory the figure is 3 per cent; in New South Wales, 4 per cent; and in Tasmania, 9 per cent. Yet in the Northern Territory the corresponding figure is 36 per cent; in Queensland and Western Australia, 43 per cent; and in South Australia it is 45 per cent. Against the background of these percentages there will be situations in which some families will be unable to support their 15-year-old children in year 11. They will most likely try every avenue to save the money elsewhere, whether by cutting back on discretionary expenditure, on clothing, or even in some harsh cases cutting back on the basic family budget. But in the most acute cases it is foreseeable that these 15-year-old students will have to abandon their education. The parents will have to say to the son or daughter: `In the light of these Government changes we simply cannot afford to keep you at school'. To be scrupulously fair, I note that the Minister for Education conceded this possibility last Thursday in the other place. She has indicated that the Government will be very closely monitoring what happens to 15-year-olds who go into year 11 and who have to wait some time before becoming eligible for Austudy. I can assure the Minister that the Opposition on this occasion, although it has fallen short of proposing an amendment to change this situation, will also be closely monitoring the situation. If there is time I will come back later to the Minister's justification that since 15-year-olds are ineligible for unemployment benefit there is no need to ensure eligibility at that age for Austudy. However, I must say that I found that logic a little odd. I move to the second concern I raise with the payment of Austudy; that is, the payment of benefits direct to students. As I mentioned earlier, the financial support mechanisms for a student in secondary education are not simply an individual student responsibility but primarily a family responsibility. The Opposition believes we should encourage families to meet their responsibilities. One of the essential reasons why the secondary allowance scheme was introduced was to assist low income families to support their children in years 11 and 12. Paying Austudy direct to students, as the Government wishes to do, will have several serious consequences. It is not hard to envisage-one has only to look at one's own children, let alone children in one's electorate-some students pocketing the Austudy benefit, in which case it will not directly assist his or her education or the overall family income. It is not hard to perceive this education assistance payment ending up, in some exceptional cases, in pinball machines or being consumed in cigarettes or in other undesirable consumption. Moreover, taking into account the influence of the family in determining whether a young person stays on through years 11 and 12, it is vital to encourage the family to support the promotion of education as a high ideal. If we are talking about participation rates, we still have a big job to do within the Australian community, especially in Labor electorates. I make a specific socio-economic point: We have a big job to do to convince parents that higher education-years 11 and 12 and even beyond-is important for the future of their children. The best way to do this from the Government's perspective, apart from occupying the moral high ground, is effectively to target education assistance, to pay it to the families to give financial support and buttressing to those ideals. The Minister for Education has explained that the Austudy benefit, if paid direct to parents, would be taxed and therefore would have a diminished valued. We respond that this need be the case only where the Government decides to include education assistance as a form of taxable income, and it need not. Family allowances are not taxed and there is no reason why this specific family oriented, family directed education allowance also cannot be tax free. In the Senate last Thursday the Opposition moved an amendment to the legislation to direct the Austudy benefit for secondary students to the parents or to the legal guardian and to retain the operation of this benefit in line with the replaced secondary assistance scheme. We would like to record our profound disappointment that the Australian Democrats in the other place chose not to support that eminently sensible and rational move. I give notice that in the Committee consideration of this legislation I will move that same amendment. I would encourage the Government to look at it again with a view to ensuring that if we are spending taxpayers' money to encourage higher participation in secondary education we ensure that it is spent and directed in the right and proper way and that is by paying it to the parents or legal guardians of students. I now turn to a couple of the wider issues of youth income support. The principal point I wish to make is that, whilst the common rates for Austudy and unemployment benefit are welcome, this move alone will not remove disincentives altogether. Let us recognise that the chief difference between education assistance and unemployment benefit is this: Student allowances are means tested against family or parental income; unemployment benefit is not. Moreover, student allowances are means tested, as I have said, on parental income as well as the income of the recipients; unemployment benefits are not. Tertiary students are still subject to extremely tight and restrictive income tests, while unemployment benefits are potentially available to the sons and daughters of even millionaires. There is a high degree of injustice in this approach, although we recognise that the solutions are extremely problematic and elusive. One option that must be considered is the Beswick partial dependence formula, which would treat an under 18-year-old student as wholly dependent on parents but then reduce the parental dependence factor by 25 per cent a year until the student is classed as 100 per cent financially independent at 21 years of age. Under this plan different income tests would apply to the parental and student incomes for each year of age. Although I am personally attracted to such an approach, as it recognises better the transition during tertiary education from dependent young adult to independent adult status, there are still the common problems of drawing arbitrary categories based on aggregations and assumptions which leave little room for flexibility. There will always be cases which do not fall into the easy categories designed by public policy experts. There will always be people at the margin. Nonetheless, there are students in genuine need. The classic case, for example, is the 18-year-old student whose parents take no responsibility for his or her education or welfare. Under present arrangements the student is regarded as dependent on parental support and is therefore ineligible for Austudy. I have recognised in my remarks that these inequities are problematic and complex, but they need to be faced up to. If we are ever going to remove all disincentives to study we must face up to them very shortly. The wide availability of non-means-tested unemployment benefits will continue to be a factor in encouraging some students, particularly those in genuine need whose parents incomes disqualifies them from Austudy, to choose cash in the hand rather than study under acute financial pressure. I have long remembered Senator Chaney's remarks, made after many years as Minister for Social Security. He found that people follow the money. If we are going to extend assistance benefits to people in recognised need we have to ensure that the incentives are put in place and that they not be perverse incentives which would encourage behaviour we would not wish to support or recognise. The rationalisation of youth income support schemes which this Government has initiated, to its credit-I recognise that-has been long overdue. Past public policy decisions, sometimes to meet temporary needs on a trial basis, led to 37 different schemes for different aspects of youth experience. The Opposition and I applaud the Government for tackling some of the contradictions between these schemes and moving towards a simpler regime of income support for young Australians. Because the hour is late and because one or two other members wish to speak, let me leave my remarks about the wider question of income support for young Australians and the need to continue the reform that this Government has initiated, a reform that we support, and reaffirm two of the remarks I have made about this legislation. We are concerned about the shift from Austudy support being paid to year 11 and year 12 students to students who reach the age of 16. We hold back from moving an amendment now. We note that the Minister has recognised that there are doubts about this change. In the Senate last week she said that she of all people would be closely examining the effects of this change. Let me repeat: We will join her in examining those effects with a view to supporting and suggesting improvements if improvements need to be made. Finally, I foreshadow that during the Committee stage of this debate we will be moving an amendment to restore and preserve the situation whereby financial assistance is extended to the parents or the legal guardians of students still at high school. Debate (on motion by Mr Maher) adjourned. Motion (by Dr Blewett) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.36) —This week we have heard of the $90m of taxpayers' money that the Hawke Government is spending on advertising, public relations and research for its own party political purposes. The latest abuse is the $2m plus spent in an attempt to convince the electorate that the fringe benefits tax is not an additional tax burden. I say $2m plus because chances are that the Australian Taxation Office will rule that this expenditure is a fringe benefit for the Australian Labor Party and new taxes will need to be imposed on ordinary workers to meet this tax on a tax. The list of abuses of public funding goes on. Funding is provided through the Australia Council for unions, including the deregistered Builders Labourers Federation, and for artists and muralists in residence so that they can deface our urban environment with graffiti. Millions more dollars are spent through the Theatre Board, the Community Arts Board and the Literature Board, not on ballet, music or literature, but on left wing homosexual groups and even terrorist organisations. Tonight, however, I wish to concentrate my remarks on another example of irresponsible funding, the funding through the community employment program of Streetwise comics. These comics, which I have with me, are developed by the Redfern Legal Centre and the New South Wales Law Foundation. The Doctors Reform Society has even promoted Streetwise comics in its journal, The New Doctor, devoting a full page to a message from a Mr Michael Ward who works for the New South Wales Department of Health and is promoting these comics. Let us look at a message these comics bring to our young people. They assume throughout that the police are brutal and dishonest. Parents get all the blame for the problems of their children. No parent is ever depicted as loving his or her children. There is only a desire to take revenge on his or her child. Car stealing is shown as a value-free pastime. The comics are all anti-police, anti-parent and anti-authority in their bias. In the two comics I have with me police are drawn as pigs. Traditional authority and figures such as parents, private doctors, police and even the community youth support scheme and the Youth Affairs Council staff are depicted as apathetic, unsympathetic and hostile. We must not consider these Streetwise comics in isolation, but rather as part of a burgeoning juggernaut of government sponsored networking organisations seeking to alter traditional society according to their minority ideological outlook and special class interests. Many of their activities undoubtedly give community activists the warm inner glow of moral satisfaction, if not superiority, as well as paid employment with our taxes. They will, however, increase instead of decrease the burden on the disadvantaged. They will increase the alienation of the genuinely disadvantaged, ensuring that they stay that way and that other youths who might have led normal lives also end up on the wrong track. Some of the advice offered by the Streetwise comics under the guise of informing children of their rights is anti-social. For example, the comics inform young people that children can leave home at the age of 16; that they can buy alcohol at 18; that girls can have sex at 16; and that boys can have homosexual sex at 18. According to these Streetwise comics, they are free to choose their own gods at any age but unfortunately they need their parents' consent to obtain an abortion if they are under 14. The Doctors Reform Society journal, under the misnomer `Health for Youth', depicts a situation entitled `Doing it'. The scene goes something like this: Two young people are going steady and Tim asks Maria whether she will do it with him. The ensuing dialogue, with the girl protesting that he must take responsibility for any child and Tim's emphatic refusal, brings them to the decision that the pill is the answer. Maria's fears of being thought a slut for using the pill are brushed aside with the comment: `I don't think people who go on the pill are sluts, they have common sense'. These comics are insulting to many of our professional people and are totally negative. They are targeted at poorly educated young people with a lack of knowledge who need assistance in a positive manner, and an appropriate attitude should be adopted to ensure that their rights are upheld. These comics are socially destructive, yet they have the backing of our Federal Government under the guise of an employment grant. So many of our people today are living in poverty; pensions are being reduced; our hospitals are in crisis; education funds are being cut; and students are being penalised. I simply ask: Where are the Government's priorities if it is not prepared to stop this abuse of public funds and the moral destruction of our youth? Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.41) —I express appreciation tonight for a major project, in which Amatil Limited is involved, in connection with the bicentenary celebrations. I express a special appreciation to that company. Amatil, of course, is a leading company in tobacco products, beverages, poultry, snack foods, communications and packaging. It is a joint sponsor, with the Australian Council of National Trusts, of a very major project associated with the bicentennial celebrations called `A Gift to the Nation'. `A Gift to the Nation' is a commitment to the responsible preservation of Australia's heritage. Individually, each of the projects within the bicentennial program is a vital component of our historical, environmental and cultural heritage. Collectively, these projects represent the largest community-based heritage program ever undertaken in this country. Amatil's sponsorship comprises the magnificent amount of $1.6m. That will enable the National Trust to undertake the restoration of 13 projects around the country at a total cost of more than $5m. The sponsorship is the largest yet provided by a corporation to a cultural organisation in Australia, and it signifies the concern shared by both Amatil and the National Trust in providing tangible benefits for future Australian generations. In connection with this project, the Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, stated: The support and involvement of Amatil Limited as sole national sponsor of A GIFT TO THE NATION marks a great step forward in heritage conservation in Australia, splendidly encouraging for the Trust movement. The sponsorship, totalling $1.6 million, is the largest of its kind in Australia and represents a major commitment by Amatil to our Bicentennial celebrations. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in commenting about this project, stated: Australia's Bicentenary in 1988 will be a rare moment in history to consider our national heritage and to ensure awareness, understanding and enjoyment of that heritage by future generations of Australians. . . . . The work of the National Trust and Amatil-with the support of various Commonwealth, State and Territory Government Departments and local organisations-will result in the permanent preservation of some of Australia's most significant heritage sites. A whole range of those sites is identified in this brochure that I have with me. They include, for example, Juniper Hall, in Oxford Street, Paddington, Sydney-a magnificent building that dates back to 1824 and is the earliest surviving domestic building east of the city of Sydney. The fact that Amatil, together with the National Trust, is prepared to commit funds of that kind to ensure that such buildings will be not only restored but will be preserved and maintained-important elements in the heritage inheritance of Australia for all future Australians-reflects very great credit on it. The 13 projects range from individual restoration efforts of that kind to the Callington Mill in Oatlands in Tasmania. That mill dates back to 1837 and was once the major flour mill for the region. Other buildings are Labassa, Manor Grove, Caulfield; Old Government House, George Street, Brisbane; Wolston House, Grindle Road, Wacol; Vienna, Hunters Hill, Sydney; the Old Melbourne Gaol, Russell Street, Melbourne; Hartley Street School, Alice Springs; Cooma Cottage, Yass; and so on. There are a number of others, including the Norman Lindsay Gallery at Falconbridge in the Blue Mountains. As I have said, this is a great contribution by Amatil. It is actively involved in my area. It recently bought out Steggles Pty Ltd, the chicken company. Steggles advertises itself by saying that chicken is the best meat and Steggles have the best chicken. I think that the concern for Australia's heritage shown by Amatil reflects very great continuing credit on it. I congratulate it. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.45) —Last year when I spoke on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs I mentioned my concern that Australia had reduced significantly over time its support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I have been concerned, and continue to be concerned, about the priorities of a government that is able to find money for organisations in the international arena that are less worthy, yet, in relation to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the amount of money that is available for the very important humanitarian tasks that that organisation is carrying out, seems to be reduced. I was therefore surprised when the Government, through the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), issued on 10 October this year a Press release which would indicate that there had been a significant change of attitude on the Government's part. You might not be surprised, Madam Speaker, that I question whether there has been such a change. I simply record that the Minister announced that another $400,000 had been found for three special programs to be undertaken in the Indo-China region: An amount of $220,000 was found for an anti-piracy program. I certainly would not complain about that. An amount of $80,000 had been found for a screening program to assist the Lao people who might want to return to Laos. Sixty-one people had accepted to return to Laos under that program. An amount of $100,000 was set aside for the UNHCR to expand its project at Kompong Chhang in Cambodia. That program started in 1980 and, again, is designed to help returnees. I mention those matters because, quite frankly, I want to compare them with a far greater issue of concern in relation to refugees in that area and to ask what the Government intends to do about it. I note that a number of petitions have been tabled over the last few weeks dealing with a matter which has been of very considerable concern to me. One that I found most recently was tabled by your deputy, Madam Speaker, but there have been others. I will read it: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, shows the Thai Government recently announced that Khao-I-Dang refugee camp will be closed on 31st December 1986. More than 25,000 Cambodian refugees who survived the ``Killing Fields'' of the Khmer Rouge and entered Thailand after 1979 are still resident in Khao-I-Dang, We hold grave fears for the future and safety of these refugees who will be relocated to camps along the Thai-Cambodian border when Khao-I-Dang is closed. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will uphold its enviable humanitarian record and act with all haste to facilitate the acceptance and resettlement of as many of these refugees as possible, including a proportion of those who have no relatives to sponsor them. I have attended meetings with Khmer people and with Laotian people. I can only say that there is a very real and genuine concern amongst many of those people as to what is likely to happen. The refugees in Khao-I-Dang, I am told, at the moment number 25,728. There may be some people who, as displaced people, arrived after 26 August 1984 and are not available for resettlement, who might be included in that area. I know they are considered illegal and might be sent back to the border area. But there are 25,728 souls who have not found a place anywhere else and whose future is very much at risk. I regard this as a very important question. I endorse the concerns of the Khmer and Laotian communities. I note that they have written to Ministers seeking information as to what Australia is doing not only in terms of trying to change the Thai Government's attitude on the closure of the camp but also asking what we might be able to do particularly to help the Khmer. We have done a great deal of work amongst the Vietnamese people and the boat people but there is a concern that the Khmer people particularly should be given some assistance. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.50) —Tonight I wish to raise an issue that affects part of my electorate, and that is the need for mosquito eradication in the Homebush Bay area. I raise this matter tonight because the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government have worked together to nominate Homebush Bay as a bicentennial park for Sydney and an amount of $8m has been made available. A significant problem in this area, which is being exacerbated by the creation of the park, is that of mosquitos. It has been drawn to my attention by the State member for Ryde, Garry McIlwaine, a Labor member who lives in Concord West, who has written to me about this matter to try to get Federal government instrumentalities along the Parramatta River to spray for mosquito eradication. Naturally the Federal authorities will not accept the blame for the mosquitos. Last week a resident was reported in a local newspaper as complaining that she could not with impunity hang her washing on the line. Every time she went out to hang her washing out she was bitten savagely by mosquitos. On Saturday night I was sitting next to Mrs Kane from Homebush at a dinner. She said that the problem is very serious, although it had improved. She told me that some years ago, when her son was small, she had put him outside in the sun and in one hour he had had 54 mosquito bites. That was six years ago, but the situation has improved. The bicentennial park, which I have mentioned, will be partly in Lowe, so the mosquitos will come from either Lowe or Reid-part of the park is in the Federal constituency of Reid. This year, being a very wet year, long grass is creating even more problems in the area. I am basically an environmentalist and I know that the mosquito larvae are essential for the small fish in the mangroves and that Homebush Bay is the last stand of mangroves left on the Parramatta River. There are all sorts of ecological balances and attractions for fish and birds in trying to revitalise the area. The area has been traversed by gas mains and Water Board sewers and there are many problems. An enormous amount of work is going on in the area and we trust that, in the fullness of time, when the millions of dollars that have been generously made available have been used and the park is a show place for Sydney, the mosquito problem will be turned to. If we are spending all this money on creating a bicentennial park in the middle of Sydney we cannot have the place infested with mosquitos. I am drawing this matter to the attention of Parliament mainly on behalf of the residents of parts of Homebush between Parramatta Road and Homebush Bay and those residents of Concord West who live near Homebush Bay. Mosquitos are annoying people this year. As I said earlier, the matter was brought to my attention by Mr McIlwaine, by residents and from Press reports. I commend it to the Minister, for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is handling the Bicentenary, and I hope that he will bring it to the attention of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.54) —Last Friday in the House the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) made a ministerial statement in relation to anti-terrorist measures at airports around Australia. He outlined in a quite extensive speech how the Government was using its best efforts to try to minimise any possibility of anti-terrorist activities in Australia. That speech was followed shortly afterwards by a speech from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who outlined a number of the Opposition's views. The speech-I took the opportunity to listen to it-raised in my memory a question I had asked on notice earlier this year of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. The question put to him was: Is it legal to import tear-gas into Australia? The answer that came back from the Minister was that it is legal to import tear-gas into Australia. Because it is not considered a warfare gas it is not limited to being used by either police forces or for military purposes. It can be imported by anybody who wishes to do so. This is an anomaly in our laws, and as we are concerned about terrorist activities eventuating in Australia I thought this would be a good opportunity to bring this loophole to the attention of the Parliament in the hope that the Special Minister of State, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Minister for Industry Technology and Commerce will try to ensure that tear-gas is no longer legally imported into Australia unless it is used by our police forces or military establishments. I cannot for the life of me see why anybody would legally want to import tear-gas for a proper purpose. Mr Robert Brown —The New Right. Mr SHARP —I am quite sure it has no need to use tear-gas in Australia. I think that by drawing this matter to the attention of the House tonight we may well find that this quite unusual anomaly in our laws will be overcome to the benefit of all Australians. I make this point for no political gain because the issue of terrorism is one that requires the attention of both sides of the House. I hope that the Ministers involved will take notice and investigate why we have this loophole and try to close it. Mr GORMAN(Greenway)(10.57) —I rise tonight to mention two items, the first of which was the highlight of last Sunday. I attended at a branch which I share with the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price). I was later invited to attend the blessing and the official opening of the Greek church in Reservoir Road, Blacktown. I must congratulate the Greek community and, in particular, the executive of the Greek church, who went to so much trouble to arrange such a memorable day. Many hundreds of persons attended the celebrations and everybody in Blacktown can be proud that the new Greek church was constructed in our city area. I could mention perhaps dozens of the people who joined in this wonderful celebration, but I intend just to thank all concerned with the day for allowing me to be a part of it. The second item I want to mention is the contribution that the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers is making to the Australian economy. The APM employs many thousands of workers throughout Australia. I am lucky in that a few of its plants are in my electorate of Greenway. The largest company is Borg-Warner (Aust) Ltd, which makes many of the differentials, gearboxes and clutches that go into not only Australian cars but also cars that are manufactured throughout the world. I congratulate the Federation for the activities it is contributing towards the Australian economy. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 21 October 1986: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1986/18-Holders of public offices on the Health Authority and other bodies. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4392) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) When did the International Law Commission last meet. (2) Did Australia or any other member make proposals at the last meeting of the Commission for a multilateral agreement on the topic of Relations between States and International Organisations which might be more acceptable than the 1975 Vienna Convention. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The International Law Commission last met from 5 May to 26 July 1986. 2. The topic of Relations between States and International Organizations has been considered by the International Law Commission in two parts. Draft articles on the status, privileges and immunities of the representatives of States to international organizations were prepared by the International Law Commission in 1971 and referred to a diplomatic conference which in 1975 adopted the Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal Character. Many provisions of this Convention considered to be unbalanced in their treatment of the interests of host countries of the major international organizations, and no such host country has become party to the Convention, which has not entered into force. Following the adoption of this Convention the International Law Commission ceased to give attention to the subject matter of the Convention and no proposals have been made in the Commission to develop the basis of a new convention on the same subject. The International Law Commission is now working on the other part of the topic, namely the status, privileges and immunities of international organizations, their officials, experts and other persons engaged in their activities who are not representatives of States. There has been no significant progress in the preparation of draft articles, which have not been given priority by the Commission in the light of the limited interest shown in the topic by Governments. (Question No. 4443) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Is a casino to be opened on Christmas Island. (2) Was the license for this casino widely advertised. (3) Has a decision on the license been made. (4) If so, what is the name of the company to be awarded the license. (5) What arrangements will be made to upgrade (a) airport, (b) road, (c) electricity, (d) water, (e) sewerage and (f) other facilities on the Island to accommodate the casino. (6) What will be the estimated cost to the Government of upgrading these facilities. (7) Has the Christmas Island Services Corporation purchased a number of four wheel drive motor vehicles from overseas for hire to visitors to the Island; if so, (a) what was the landed cost of the vehicles and (b) what are the proposed terms and conditions for hire of the vehicles. (8) Did he approve this purchase; if not, who did. (9) Is this expenditure an appropriate use of public funds. (10) How does he reconcile this expenditure with the Prime Minister's statements concerning a reduction in Commonwealth expenditure. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (6) The Government has agreed in principle to the development of a resort hotel with a casino on Christmas Island, subject to approval of a detailed development proposal which ensures adequate protection of Commonwealth, Island and environmental interests. The Government's agreement is on the basis that the developer will be required to bear all capital and recurrent costs arising directly from the development. This will include the costs of upgrading the airport and terminal, upgrading or extending municipal services, and providing customs, immigration and other facilities to the standard required to service the resort development. The resort/casino development was proposed to Government by a Western Australian developer, Mr Frank Woodmore. A number of proposals for a variety of projects were received in response to extensive Government advertisements for expressions of interest for commercial developments on Christmas Island, but Mr Woodmore is the only applicant to have evinced interest in a casino. The Government agreed that Mr Woodmore would have first refusal of the development. An important element of the proposal is that Federal Hotels be the casino operator and the Government has also agreed to this subject to appropriate police scrutiny of proposed employees at the time of issue of the casino licence. (7) Yes. Four second-hand four wheel drives were purchased in May 1986. They were purchased from the Australian mainland, not from overseas. (a) The cost of these vehicles was $7,285.00 plus $1,499.00 freight per vehicle. (b) The terms and conditions are similar to those applied by rental car agencies on the mainland. (8) No. It was approved by the Director of the Christmas Island Services Corporation. (9) Yes. (10) There was a great demand for these vehicles on the Island which has not previously been met by private enterprise or any other agency. The hire rates have been set to recover the landed and operating costs of the vehicles. (Question No. 4621) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What is the estimated saving in expenditure to his Department as a result of the overpayments project for (a) 1985-86 and (b) 1986-87 in each category of benefit or pension and how are these amounts determined. (2) What (a) was the cost of the overpayments project for each benefit in 1985-86 and (b) what is the expected cost in 1986-87 and how was this cost determined. (3) What assumptions underlie the allocation of fixed costs. (4) What was the total cost of the overpayments project for 1985-86 and what is the estimated cost for 1986-87. (5) What are the costs of the major components of the overpayments project for 1985/86 and 1986/87 and what are any variations due to. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) The following table sets out the estimated savings by benefit type for 1986-87. $m Age Pension ... 4.7 Invalid Pension ... 3.1 Widow's Pension ... 4.2 Supporting Parent's Benefit ... 4.0 Unemployment Benefit ... 10.7 26.7 The corresponding total figure for 1985-86 was estimated to be $13.1m. These savings estimates are based on the improvements in the department's overpayment performance which have been and will be achieved as a result of initiatives taken within the Overpayments Project. The figures outlined above do not include savings relating to the Social Security Amnesty which translate into a full year equivalent of almost $20m. Direct costs in 1985-86 and estimated costs in 1986-87 associated with the Overpayments Project are set out in the following table: 1985-86 1986-87 $m $m Forms Requirements ... .04 . . Training Material ... . . .06 Travel and Subsistence for Training ... . . .08 Personal Computers ... .9 -0.3* Laser Printed Advices ... .24 .6 Laser Printers ... . . 4.0 Postage ... .55 1.3 Publicity & Information ... .71 .22 Direct Salary Costs ... .4 .05 Direct Travel and Accommodation Costs ... .02 . . Computer Services ... .03 .04 2.89 6.05 * Represents reduction in budgeted expenditure for computer equipment due to acquisition of personal computers in previous year. These figures include amounts relating to the Social Security Amnesty details of which were set out in answer to Question No. 4217. Certain of the above costs do not relate wholly to the Overpayments Project; for instance the laser printers and personal computers are also utilised for a range of other functions. (Question No. 3158) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) What overseas visits on behalf of the Australia Council or its Boards were made by members of the Australia Council, its Boards or their employees in (a) 1983, (b) 1984 and (c) 1985. (2) What were the purposes of each visit. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Australia Council has advise me that details of overseas visits are- Name Purpose/Countries Visited Date 1983 Michael Costigan Director Literature Board Promotion of Australian literature/negotiate exchanges and study literature policies and programs (Singapore, India, Italy, Denmark, USA, West Germany, France, Britain) 11.3.83-28.4.83 Robert Adams, Director, Arts Co-ordination Study arts policy development (USA, Italy, Canada, Britain, France) 15.4.83-18.5.83 Timothy Pascoe Council Chairman (3 visits) (1) Attend Conference of South Pacific Arts (French Caledonia) (1) 5.5.83-27.5.83 (2) UNESCO meeting, negotiations-exhibitions, Venice Pavilion (Italy, France, Netherlands, Britain, Hong Kong) (2) 20.8.83-25.8.83 (3) Australia/China Council visit (jointly funded) (China) (3) 21.9.83-22.10.83 Jane Thynne Director Secretariat Australia/China Council visit with arts administrators (jointly funded) (China) 13.5.83-3.6.83 Deborah Mills Project Office Community Arts Board Study individual artist policies and programs (Yugoslavia, Italy, France, Britain) 8.6.83-24.7.83 David Williams Director Crafts Board Negotiations-crafts/design exhibitions, promotion of Australian craft and study craft policies and programs (Austria, Hungary, West Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Britain, USA) 26.6.83-8.8.83 1984 John Kitney Director, Management Services Study arts research/statistics programs/systems (Canada, USA, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Britain, Hong Kong) 26.4.84-11.6.84 Michael Fitzgerald Director Theatre Board Study theatre policies and programs (USA, Canada, Britain, Netherlands, France) 18.5.84-3.7.84 Jon Hawkes Director Community Arts Study arts policy development and programs (USA, Cuba, Jamaica) 3.6.84-19.7.84 Mary Travers Project Officer Theatre Board Study youth performing arts policies and programs (USA, Britain, Japan) 10.6.84-3.8.84 Timothy Pascoe Council Chairman Regional information and cultural conference (Foreign Affairs) (Indonesia) 17.6.84-22.6.84 Robert Adams Director Arts Co-ordination Australia/China Council visit (jointly funded) (China) 11.9.84-4.10.84 Merv Donovan Project Officer Aboriginal Arts Board Negotiations-Aboriginal arts exhibitions (primarily paid by German authorities) (West Germany, Switzerland, France, Netherlands, Britain, Canada) 5.12.84-5.1.85 Gary Foley Director Aboriginal Arts Board Lecture tour/West Germany-negotiations on Aboriginal arts exhibitions in West Germany (primarily paid by West German authorities) (West Germany, Switzerland, France, Netherlands, Britain) 5.12.84-5.1.85 1985 Terence Warry Senior Project Officer Special Services Study education and arts and youth arts policies and programs (Italy, Britain, France, Poland, Sweden, USA) 26.4.85-18.6.85 Chicka Dixon Chairman, Aboriginal Arts Board, Council Member (2 visits) Meetings/negotiations/attend Festival of South Pacific Arts (2 visits) (Tahiti) (1) 8.5.85-16.5.85 (2) 4.7.85-18.7.85 David Williams Director Crafts Board Negotiations-craft exhibitions/exchanges/promotion of Australian craft and study craft policies and programs (Malaysia, Hong Kong, China, Sweden, Denmark, Britain, Netherlands, USA) 3.6.85-14.7.85 Ross Wolfe Director Visual Arts Board Negotiations-visual arts exhibitions/overseas studios/promotion of Australian art and study policies and programs (Japan, Netherlands, West Germany, Italy, France, Britain) 20.6.85-4.8.85 Di Yerbury General Manager Negotiations-overseas studios/exhibitions and meetings with General Secretary and senior staff of Arts Council of Great Britain (Britain, Japan, Italy) 21.6.85-6.7.85 Gary Foley Director Aboriginal Arts Board Negotiations/arrangements-Aboriginal exhibitions (West Germany, Switzerland, France, Denmark, Britain, Canada, Netherlands) 26.6.85-27.7.85 John Cooper Principal Project Officer Special Services Discussions/attend Festival of South Pacific Art (Tahiti) 28.6.85-7.7.85 John Holt Director Design Arts Board Negotiations-design exhibitions and attend conference (USA, Britain) 17.8.85-31.8.85 Tom Shapcott Director Literature Board Attend literature conferences/promotion of Australian literature/negotiate exchanges and overseas studios and study literature policies and programs (Yugoslavia, Italy, USA, France, Britain) 27.9.85-15.11.85 In addition from 1983 to 1985 there were a number of calls to duty with very limited expenditure, ie., where Council members or staff undertook work for the Council while on private overseas trips.