Wednesday, 22 October 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death, on 21 October 1986, of the Hon. Lionel Keith Murphy, a Justice of the High Court of Australia, a former senator for the State of New South Wales from 1962 to 1975, and Attorney-General and Leader of the Government in the Senate from 1972 to 1975, and places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Lionel Murphy's passing has taken from us a great Australian. Our nation has lost a man of vision, a man of compassion and, as the last months have so tragically underscored, a man of very great courage. Lionel Murphy's life was dedicated to politics and the law. He brought to both disciplines a brilliance and a reforming zeal that were both inspired and inspiring. Throughout his public life two fundamental principles guided his actions: Justice for all before the law, and fairness for all within our society. Born in 1922, Lionel Murphy spent his youth in Sydney. He began his academic life at Sydney Boys High School, going on to Sydney University, where his outstanding ability was rewarded with honours degrees in both science and law. It was at university that Lionel Murphy began his lifelong association with the labour movement and the Australian Labor Party. Lionel Murphy was admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1947, and after a meteoric career was created Queen's Counsel in 1960. At the Bar he stood out for his intellect, his diligence and his courage. In court he was a vigorous advocate and was very rarely bested. It was during this period that Lionel Murphy's commitment to the labour movement and to the Australian Labor Party really took root. It was a period which forged his deep commitment to social justice, to legal reform, and to greater rights for the working men and women of Australia. In 1962 Lionel Murphy was elected to the Senate on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. He displayed there a tenacity, energy and decisiveness which led to rapid recognition and respect by both his colleagues and his opponents. In 1967 he became Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. As Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Lionel Murphy was almost singly responsible for the renaissance of the Senate and its transformation from an effectively moribund chamber to a vital part of the Australian parliamentary system. It was his determination that led to the reformation of the Senate committee system, which is today regarded as one of Australia's most important agents of public debate and social change. Those who today praise and hold up the Senate, as they properly should, as an important and valued institution should not forget the role of Lionel Murphy in the creation of the modern Senate. As Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Lionel Murphy was an unwavering voice for reform. It is easy these days to forget the courage and personal commitment that it took to argue for social reform in the 1960s in Australia. It is easy to forget the nature of our society at that time. It was a period in which conformity and orthodoxy were dominant and a time when those who dared to voice the unorthodox faced social ostracism and personal vilification. It was a time when those who dissented from government policies were labelled traitors and subversives. It is easy to forget the courage that it took to stand up for what was right and to fight for reform. Where Lionel Murphy saw injustice he campaigned relentlessly against it without regard for the personal consequences that such action may have held. He will be remembered particularly for his unremitting stand against conscription. He was one of the first people in public life to question Australia's involvement in Vietnam and the arbitrary conscription of young Australians for that purpose. It is a matter of record that the position that he and a few others then championed is now widely accepted as principled and correct. It is a matter of great pride for both Lionel Murphy and the Australian Labor Party that on 3 December 1972 the newly elected Labor Government was able to announce that one of its first acts would be the freeing of imprisoned draft resisters. Lionel Murphy played a pivotal role in the 1972 election victory of the Australian Labor Party. As honourable members will know, he served in the Whitlam Labor Government as Leader of the Government in the Senate, as Attorney-General and as Minister for Customs and Excise. During that period he presided over a time of legal and social reform unparalleled in Australia's history. His reforms were both real and enduring. To achieve reform, Lionel Murphy was prepared to shake tradition and to disturb a slow and hide-bound legal system-and shake he did. He established the Australian Legal Aid Office, enshrining the principle that all Australians should have equal access to the courts. He established the Australian Law Reform Commission as a permanent means of challenging the relevance of laws and pursuing equity within the law. He introduced the Family Law Act. The anguish of divorce and separation can never be removed by law, but Lionel Murphy had the strength to remove the odium of moral judgment from that law. He overhauled and strengthened trade practices legislation, giving meaningful protection to consumers. These are but examples of Lionel Murphy's achievements. Others may wish to list more. In whatever reform Lionel Murphy pursued, his guiding principle was equality and fairness before the law for all. As an advocate for the Australian people Lionel Murphy's most dramatic achievement no doubt was to argue Australia's case against French nuclear testing in the Pacific before the International Court of Justice in The Hague-and, of course, to win it. In 1975 Lionel Murphy was appointed to the High Court of Australia. On the Bench he maintained his compassion, his concern for the less privileged and his commitment to social justice. He made a particular contribution on constitutional matters. His judgments consistently reflected this philosophy. On matters ranging from the powers of the Commonwealth in relation to section 90 and section 92 of the Constitution, the constitutional relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom, the basic legal rights of citizens under section 80 and the need to outlaw tax avoidance, Lionel Murphy exhibited vision and sensitivity. Lionel Murphy's judgments were distinguished and distinctive. Those who have found his judgments too distinctive might do well to remember Lionel Murphy's isolated stand against conscription for service in Vietnam. As in that case, history will make the judgment, and history so far has sided with Lionel Murphy. Lionel Murphy led a remarkable life. He achieved both personal distinction and lasting social and legal reform. He gave lifelong service to the Australian Labor Party. Lionel Murphy was a passionate man who excited the passions. He was a man of vision and commitment. He saw a better Australia and he helped to make it. His contribution to Australia as a jurist and as a humanist was immense. Every time an Australian enjoys the protection of fair trading laws, is able to seek protection against government decisions under an administrative law or is spared the odium and suffering of a divorce law based on guilt, that Australian shares and benefits from the legacy of Lionel Murphy. Lionel Murphy has earned and will keep a distinguished place in Australia's history. Australia has had and will have few sons and daughters of such strength, vision and zeal. Few will achieve so much. On behalf of the Government I extend to his wife, Ingrid, his sons, Blake and Cameron, and his daughter, Lorel, our very deep sympathy and sincere condolences. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition joins the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in expressing to the family of the late Mr Justice Murphy our sympathy and condolence at his death. We express that sympathy and those sentiments particularly to his wife and two young sons. As the Prime Minister has told the Parliament, Lionel Murphy had a very long public career. He occupied many positions in his chosen political party. He achieved the high office of Leader of the Government in the Senate and of Commonwealth Attorney-General. He was involved in many changes to the laws of this country. He also achieved the position of a justice of the High Court of Australia. He was a person who held very strong views. As one of my colleagues remarked to me last night, he was not a person who lived his life in neutral. Whilst I will not offend the sensitivity of this Parliament by pretending for a moment that I shared many of the views held by Lionel Murphy-it would be an hypocrisy of mammoth proportions for me to do so-nonetheless, on behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute particularly to the stoicism with which Lionel Murphy and his family bore the terrible illness that ultimately claimed his life. I say on behalf of all of us that we feel for them in their very grievous personal loss. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in expressing very sincerely my sympathy to Ingrid, Cameron, Blake and Lorel, the members of his family, on the passing of Lionel Murphy. Ingrid and her family have gone through an extraordinarily difficult period over the last 12 months. There is little doubt that the scourge of cancer and its manifestation in the manner of Mr Justice Murphy's death have shown to all Australians something of the trauma that the character of the disease places upon a family. There is little doubt that the stoicism they have displayed in these last few months has marked them as being people of very considerable quality to whom we all owe both respect and, at the moment, very deep sympathy. The life of Mr Justice Murphy is one of controversy. There is little doubt that his mark as a lawyer, as a parliamentarian and as a member of the judiciary has generated emotion and feelings of both support and antagonism. Indeed, I think there are few who do not feel strongly one way or the other about the actions of Mr Justice Murphy. He came from a coterie of people which included men such as Ray Gietzelt, the brother of the present Minister for Veterans' Affairs; Neville Wran, the former Premier of New South Wales; Diamond Jim McClelland, former senator and judge; Sir John Kerr, former Governor-General and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales; and solicitor Morgan Ryan, all of whom in their several ways made a mark on Australian society. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I would find it hard to say other than that I disagreed with almost all those things for which Lionel Murphy stood and worked throughout his life, yet as an individual I found him gregarious and likable. His sons went to the same school as my young son and I know both his wife and his children, therefore, personally remarkably well. Yet I feel sad that in the manner of his going there are so many unanswered questions and I feel sad that they will linger over the future. To Ingrid and his family I extend sympathy on behalf of the National Party and my own deepest personal sympathy. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I too want to join in the support of the motion of condolence to the memory of Lionel Keith Murphy. Yesterday marked the passing of a great Australian and it is fitting and proper that this House should pay tribute to his achievements and express publicly the deepest sympathy for his bereaved wife Ingrid, his sons, Cameron and Blake, and his daughter, Lorel. I hold the high office of Attorney-General and I think it is fitting at the outset to say something in perhaps more formal terms as to the legal significance and the contributions made by Lionel Murphy. Let me make it very clear that he and I had a very long association. We actually attended the same kindergarten and later the same public school. Later we were at law school together and subsequent to that we were in the practice of the law together in Sydney. Later we were together in political terms, being members of the same Party, and later, of course, we were members of the Whitlam Government in the period 1972 to 1975. In the process of that time and in that length of association we had an opportunity to assess each other's qualities and what we each thought of the other in terms of our political lives and family lives. I want to say this: In Lionel Murphy we have the sad result of a brilliant career and a great contribution to this nation still attracting statements that perhaps there is some cloud which has not yet been able to be dissipated. Of course, it cannot because death has intervened, but I would like to place on record that there has never been any cloud-just the issue, unfortunately, of politics and the problems of it, and the intensity of it and the keenness to get revenge to perhaps score a point. I think these are the things that should be put at rest now. Let me make the point of what we are about here today: It is the memory of the man for his contributions which everybody applauds. I am reminded by my notes to say that his first big industrial case was in the 1952-54 battle, in what was called the old Commonwealth Arbitration Court, over the control of a trade union. As a matter of history, he had to argue against a defence team consisting of John Kerr, QC, as he then was, and Mr Hal Wootten, who later became a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It has been said in the context of later developments that he made a great contribution to the Senate, and that he did. I recall with interest that he was anxious to establish the Senate committee system. He was able to do that with the support of the minority party in the Senate. We were never able to do it in this House because we were in opposition. When I look at the history of events and what happened in respect of the committee system in the Senate, I do not know whether this particular chamber has been bereft of talent because it did not have that committee system. At times it has performed in a way that I think denied justice to people and it has created an atmosphere where it has taken unto itself the role of a court and has created evidence which has led to all sorts of misunderstandings about the intention of Parliament and its rights and responsibilities. I will say a little about that later. I want to make the point that Murphy, as Attorney-General, initiated reforms, as has been said, in wide-ranging areas. He initiated reforms to the family law area, particularly to get the heat and anger out of divorce and at the same time to try to bring into that area conciliation and reform; to the trade practices area; to the consumer protection area; to the anti-trust area; to the legal aid area; and to civil liberties. He established the Law Reform Commission. So there was always a great reforming Labor politician in Lionel Murphy, always wanting to help people. That has caused unfair criticism of him. Those who worked with him, for example, on trade practices have a clear recollection that his vision was always focused on the need for detail and perhaps also the enjoyment of a political process. He had an ability to bring a broad perspective to legal and policy issues, to challenge established ways of thinking and to articulate aspirations and goals. But there was, as mentioned, that forceful personality, that enthusiasm as well as astuteness. Mention has been made of the great contributions he made in the International Court of Justice, where he led for this country against the French Government in obtaining an injunction against atmospheric nuclear testing by France in the South Pacific as being certainly contrary to the future of mankind and future generations in the Pacific. He threw himself into that case with a great amount of passion. I shall quote one of the concluding statements in his address to that Court in that case. It reads as follows: Mr President and members of the Court there are many interested parties watching this proceeding. It would be no mere rhetoric to remind you that one interest that cannot be represented is that of posterity. Yet, if unrepresented and silent, it must not be forgotten. The unborn generations have a vital interest in these proceedings. What you do or do not do will have implications for them. One way or another, the decision you are moving towards will be historic, for it will affect the course of human history. Those words were typical of the man. His elevation to the High Court of Australia in early 1975 was attended by criticism. I note that of course he was not the first politician to be appointed to the High Court. In fact a number of politicians have held such high office. The contributions made by Lionel Murphy came to be increasingly appreciated by both his brothers on the Court and a widening group of people. Some four years ago he said this: Every Judge contributes something and the law is not static. Over a period a Judge may be dissenting alone, yet have his opinion accepted in later years. He brought new concepts to the High Court. His judgments were generally brief. He used sub-headings to make them more readable. Both characteristics stemmed from his belief that the Court's work should be accessible to ordinary people and not represent some arcane art to which only the initiated have access. His approach to judicial interpretation was refreshing and overdue. This was no more evidenced than in relation to the great issues of tax evasion and avoidance. I mention for example the case of the Commissioner of Taxation v. West Traders Pty Ltd in 1980 in which he said this: The transactions in this case are conceded to be a major tax avoidance scheme. The supporters of the scheme seize upon the bare words of section 36a and claim that these should be applied literally even if for purposes not contemplated by Parliament . . . It has been suggested, in the present case, that insistence on a strictly literal interpretation is basis to the maintenance of a free society. In tax cases, the prevailing trend in Australia is now so absolutely literalistic that it has become a disquieting phenomenon. Because of it, scorn for tax decisions is being expressed constantly not only by legislators who consider that their acts are being mocked, but even by those who benefit. In my opinion, strictly literal interpretation of a tax act is an open invitation to artificial and contrived tax avoidance. I am pleased to say that the approach thus condemned by Mr Justice Murphy at that time has been put aside now. Although Mr Justice Murphy dissented in that case his approach to interpretation as then indicated is now accepted doctrine. I refer also to his pathfinding efforts in the dissenting judgment in the case of Bistricic v. Rokov in which he anticipated the Australia Act, which came into force earlier this year by proclamation of the Queen in Canberra. He stated that the United Kingdom had no legislative or executive authority over Australia or any part of it, and that any authority over the people of Australia would be incompatible with the integrity of the Australian nation, which is an indissoluble union of the people of the Commonwealth. Yesterday in the High Court his last judgments were delivered. They affirmed his affection for and his confidence in the democratic basis of the compact comprised in our Constitution. It was typical of him to recognise implied guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of movement. He was often lonely in dissent, as in what is called the ACF case of 1981, when he rejected what were called the floodgates arguments in respect of public interest standing in litigation. In other cases, such as in Onus v. Alcoa, he drew the support of his fellow judges because he was there recognising the rights of individuals. At all times he was prepared to assert those rights. In a significant judgment in 1982 in the Builders Labourers Federation case he expressed with chilling foresight the dangers he saw in the establishment of commissions with prestigious names to usurp the constitutional functions of the courts. I add to that commissions or Senate committees when they want to adopt those functions. Let me refer to what he said in that case: Many in governments throughout the world would be satisfied if they could establish commissions with prestigious names and the trappings of courts, staffed by persons selected by themselves but having no independence (in particular not having the security of tenure deemed necessary to preserve the independence of judges), assisted by government-selected counsel who largely control the evidence presented by compulsory process, overriding the traditional protections of the accused and witnesses, and authorized to investigate persons selected by the government and to find them guilty of criminal offences. The trial and finding of guilt of political opponents and dissenters in such a way is a valuable instrument in the hands of governments who have little regard for human rights. Experience in many countries shows that persons may be effectively destroyed by this process. The fact that punishment by fine or imprisonment does not automatically follow may be of no importance; indeed, a government can demonstrate its magnanimity by not proceeding to prosecute in the ordinary way. If a government chooses not to so prosecute, the fact that the finding is not binding on any court is of little comfort to the person found guilty; there is no legal proceeding which he can institute to establish his innocence. If he is prosecuted, the investigation and the findings may have created an ineradicable prejudice. I think they were words of some foresight when one looks at what happened to him in the last couple of years. He was zealous in recognising the rights of every accused person to a fair trial. He had this to say in a case: Every accused person has the right to a fair trial, a right which is not in the slightest diminished by the strength of the prosecutor's evidence . . . He made the point in Cleland v. the Queen that he considered a confession obtained by unlawful or unproper conduct should generally be excluded on the ground of public policy. Whether it be in the field of criminal, common or public law, commercial or constitutional litigation, or in any other part of the broad canvas of litigation in the High Court, what distinguished Murphy's tenure was his innate capacity to look at an old problem from a fresh stance; to think laterally, with originality; to engage in contemporary analysis of concepts, and not be overborne by the conventional expression of principles which did not measure up to the standards by reference to which he judged. To him, a doctrine should not continue to be received merely because it had the pedigree of authority. Latham, when he retired, said: `When I die, section 92 will be found written on my heart'. We all know that section 92 will not be found written on the heart of Mr Justice Murphy. Yet it was he who led the vanguard of a new approach in the case of Buck v. Bavone in 1976. His direct and lateral thought, as expressed in his judgments, acted as a catalyst throughout the Court. Unlike the legalism of some of his traditional predecessors, I believe that its effect will not dissipate upon his death. The verdict of history will, I am sure, vindicate many of the expressions of basic principle by reference to which he so often sought to resolve legal controversy. Let me make this point about Murphy the man, a most humane and likable person. I think those attributes also assisted a number of accusers in suggesting that perhaps a judge should not be likable, lovable or able to talk to others who may have been his friends or associates. I know the danger that that brings. I want to say something about Lionel Murphy in this context. In my Department is a very fine law library and it owes a great deal to Lionel Murphy. A law library may be described as one of the power sources of a legal office, and that it is. That was Lionel Murphy's approach. He was responsible, when Attorney-General, for the first significant injection of resources to build up that library which now has some 90,000 volumes. It is called the Lionel Murphy Library. At the opening and naming of that library he referred to the fact that he had declined the honours usually associa-ted with membership of the High Court. In his view, as he said, the naming of the library after him was the only offer that he wanted to accept. I have already indicated his concern for people and the issues affecting them. He was a very caring and warm-hearted person and that was seen in all aspects of life. He never forgot his friends, he never forgot the cause of people and he was always ready to listen to somebody who wanted his help and assistance. Nowhere were his human qualities more evident than in his attachment to his family, and particularly his children. His one desire, when he had the sentence of death, was to go back on to the High Court to indicate clearly that he had done no-thing wrong, not only in his terms, not only in terms of what the nation might think of him but, most importantly-this was his highest priority-in terms of what his sons would remember of their father. That was the most significant thing to him. Today we have an opportunity perhaps to remedy some of the sad things that have been said in this place. Obviously, that will not be complete to the extent that one would like; but, from what we know about Lionel Murphy, we are paying a great tribute to a great Australian. I again express my sympathy to Ingrid and the family in the sorrow they are now suffering. Mr DUNCAN(Makin) —Yesterday was a day of unique sadness for me and many thousands of Australians who have known, admired and loved Lionel Murphy. In my life I will never have the opportunity to say anything in circumstances such as these about a man who meant more to me and to his country. We met in 1966 when I was a member of Young Labor and a law student. Across the distance from Adelaide to Sydney and Canberra we became friends. He encouraged me into a legal-political career, often testing out political and other ideas which his remarkable brain turned out almost exponentially. His encouragement and befriending of younger Labor lawyers was to become a mark of Lionel. Over the years he would often telephone me with ideas, suggestions and encouragement. He took a role in my pre-selection for the State seat of Elizabeth when I was 26, and may have influenced my election as South Australian Attorney-General in 1975. Only last week he reminded me of his unsuccessful efforts to have me run for Bonython in 1977. During my time as South Australian Attorney-General he would often make suggestions about law reforms which he saw as needed in the interests of fairness and justice or to improve the lot of the poorer and weaker sections of society. As a judge I found he always acted with the greatest propriety. He never discussed with me cases before the High Court of Australia. On the other hand, he never tired of promoting the correctness and important implications of judgments that he had made. It was fitting that the first time I went out with my wife, Julie, we should attend a party at Lionel's unit in Sydney. Lionel, as a Tasmanian born Australian, was delighted when I decided to marry a Tasmanian. He was always the innovator, the visionary, and more often than not he was ahead of his time. He was very much the engine for change in much of the Whitlam Government's reforms. Others have chronicled his reforms as Attorney-General and his judgments bear testimony to his work as a judge. What is less understood, in my view, is the way he in the 1960s and early 1970s helped to change the climate of debate in this country on issues such as civil liberties, censorship, race, human rights and law reform. There is no person who has done more during the short history of this nation to ensure that the people of Australia have their rights and liberties protected. His struggle against injustice in this society and in favour of a fair go for ordinary Australians and minorities continued throughout his life. He was generous of spirit to a fault. And for any person to have had such a full public life and to still have such faith and trust in fellow human beings was a feature of Lionel which I greatly admired. It was also a feature which others exploited. Sadly and, in my view, disgracefully in the last three years this struggle for justice became a personal one. Trial by ordeal was to be given a new meaning. A jury acquittal-the test by which all other citizens are adjudged-was insufficient to satisfy his tormentors. Deception at the highest level was used to bring into place mechanisms for the hectoring, harassing and hounding to continue. Well, Madam Speaker, stress is a catalyst of cancer-of that there is no doubt. To the tormentors I say: `You misjudged this man in life-you have had your victory, the victory of evil over good'. What drives these detractors is quite beyond me. The passion with which David Marr pursued Justice Murphy on television last night went beyond journalism into the realm of fanaticism. History will be the judge of Lionel Keith Murphy-not the tall-poppy strippers who have sought to despoil him. History will judge him on his life's work in the service of ordinary Australians. To his wife Ingrid and to his children Lorel, Cameron and Blake, my deepest sympathy on this tragic loss made doubly tragic by the events of the last couple of years. Even to the last the Murphy spirit was to the fore. He lost consciousness before he lost hope and humour. When I visited him late last week he told me wryly that he was in his personal J-curve. Lionel Murphy, inspiration, mentor, friend, oh how we shall miss you. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Madam Speaker, during a reasonably long life in public office I have found that one's best qualities are discovered when one's condolences are read. Unfortunately it helps little for by then the calumnies of the past are one's headstone marring one's place in the hereafter. The observation has added poignancy for me today as we say our last farewells to a memor- able Australian. What I have to say can be said shortly. I prefer to leave more time to some who, I suppose, will be among those wishing to speak here and elsewhere and who presumably work on an inverse ratio of the help offered in time of need to the need to speak at a time like this. Death always has its victory. This is final and ultimate. Biological necessity does not allow it to be otherwise. But the indomitable and generous spirit of Lionel Keith Murphy survives that final victory. Life reserved its bitter sting for him but he fought on against it with a memor- able courage. I speak not as a close personal friend, for there are others who more rightly are entitled to that claim. I speak, I trust, as a friend nonetheless and one who had a friendly association with him. In particular, I speak as one who worked in close association with him in this institution, which could become venerable. I have absolute confidence, however, in the diligence of some among those who have served, are serving and will serve in it to prevent such a reasonable fate. I learnt to respect Murphy for the qualities he reflected in his commitment in public life. He was a very human person. He made no claim to perfectibility. His flaws were too obvious for that but they were the very human ones of a very humane person. He was neither self- righteous in himself nor righteous in what he expected of others. Yet, by his conduct, he set high standards that made him such a memorable and attractive human being. That is why there is so much evident affection for him-that it was so spontaneously during his trying last few years and that it is so now. Murphy was a fair and just man, and not just for the battler, as I have heard said in recent hours. Fairness, justice and tolerance were a universal imperative for him, but he tempered his understanding of these things with an understanding of the wrongs which a rigid and unvary- ing application of law and rights would impose. The rich man and the poor man may stand as equal citizens at the front door of the Savoy Hotel, but entry will not be equally available. To put it another way, which I strongly embrace, a poor man not only has the right to steal a loaf of bread to save his starving family; he has a moral duty to do so. When those principles are understood and practised, and not until then, there will be fairness in justice. Murphy's commitment to the basic rights of people was, in my experience, too spontaneously demonstrated for it to be anything but thoroughly authentic. His efforts in Parliament were for a fairer and more humane society, genuinely respecting all human beings. His service on the Bench was distinguished, liberal and innovative in an age impatiently shrugging off stifling restrictions which belonged to the past and cluttered the way of the future. I refrain from comment about Lionel Keith Murphy's experiences of the past few years, for I wish to avoid the injection of any rancorous note on this occasion. However, there are two things I wish to say. One is that I have never in all my life seen a man pursued with such relentlessness as Murphy was in the past few years. I wonder to myself: How often does one have to prove to one's peers that one is not guilty? The other thing is simply that I said briefly and clearly, on one occasion publicly, what I believed to be Murphy's situation in the midst of his controversy. I have never withdrawn that comment, nor do I intend to. In expressing my deepest condolences to his widow, Ingrid, and his sons, Cameron and Blake, and to his daughter, Lorel, let me quote from a work which curiously, I suppose, given my beliefs, can be a great comforter at certain times: Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt hath lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? The late Lionel Keith Murphy did not lose his savour. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —I join with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other honourable members of the House in supporting the motion and in paying my tribute to my beloved comrade Lionel Murphy. Lionel Murphy had an abounding faith in the law. That was the issue above everything else with Lionel Murphy. He saw the law as serving people. He had a great faith in people, and that is why he had so much faith and belief in the jury system. I want to share a few recollections about Lionel Murphy and I hope that they will not be taken out of context. I first heard of Lionel Murphy when he intended to oppose Joe Fitzgerald for Australian Labor Party preselection for the Federal seat of Phillip in 1957. At that time Joe was the Private Secretary to Doc Evatt. There was a split in the Labor Party. Joe was in the Centre, and the Left was trying to build a bridge with the Centre against the Right. We in the Left told Lionel that we thought we should support Joe. We supported Joe Fitzgerald and he became our candidate in the 1958 election. The next I heard of Lionel Murphy was when he became a candidate for Labor preselection for the Senate in 1961. Murphy's name had been put forward by Ray Gietzelt because of his great contribution in the struggle to move the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia to the Left. Of course, Ray was a great advocate of Lionel, but it was Arthur, his brother, now the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who actually convinced the steering committee that we should support Murphy as our candidate. That was an historic occasion because he defeated Senator John Armstrong, who had been a Minister in the Chifley Labor Government. Lionel took his seat in the Senate on 1 July 1962. Not long after, in March 1964, Lionel stood against Pat Kennelly for the deputy leadership in the Senate. At that time the Left again was divided. Some of us thought that it was better to deal with the `devil you know than the devil you do not know', and we had reservations about supporting Murphy. One might have thought that Murphy was in a hurry, but in later years we found that Murphy wanted to advance himself to serve the people. Very few people I have known in public life have actually served the people as Murphy served them. Again, Murphy was defeated by Pat Kennelly. Soon after, in early 1964, the economics committee of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party decided to discuss the paper on restrictive trade practices that was brought down by Sir Garfield Barwick. We decided to call two lawyers before that committee-Sam Cohen and Lionel Murphy. At that stage I was a Cohen supporter. He was the one I could see as the future leader of the Labor Party in the Senate. When it came time to hear Sam, he spoke in a typical lawyer's fashion of all the things we could not do because of a restrictive Constitution; but when Murphy spoke it was like a breath of fresh air. He stated positively what could be done within the Constitution-all the positive aspects of Murphyism. He was an inspiration. He opened my eyes and my mind, and later my heart. From that day I became committed, as a servant of the Left, to working to advance men such as Murphy to the leadership of our Party. In August 1966, on the retirement of Senator Nick McKenna as Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party in the Senate, Murphy, Cohen and Willesee stood for the leadership. I was doing the job then that Gerry Hand is now doing in the Left. I moved around amongst our colleagues, influencing not only the Left but the Centre to vote for Murphy. I received a telephone call from a tall poppy from the old Victorian Executive, who said: `Uren, what right do you have to interfere and to start advocating that Victorians should vote for Lionel Murphy?'. I replied with adjectives that I could not repeat here in the House because they would be regarded as unparliamentary. It was clear from the result of that ballot that Murphy was the choice of the Left. Even though three people ran for the position, Sam's numbers were well down on Lionel's. Of course, Don Willesee became the leader and defeated Lionel Murphy by one vote. Some six months later, after the disastrous 1966 election-fought on the issue of Vietnam, on which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that historically we were proved right-Murphy defeated Willesee by one vote. There had been some very clever footwork by certain people and the result swung on only one vote. So we won that, and the deputy's position was taken over by Sam Cohen. Lionel Murphy, as a shadow Minister and as a Minister, was a tower of strength to our Party, to our Executive and to our Government. He initiated reforming legislation in family law, consumer law, racial discrimination, trade practices, and civil liberties. What touched me more than anything else was Murphy's campaign for legal aid. He understood the battle of the ordinary person to get justice under the law. Not only was he outstanding but he displayed great compassion and wisdom. He was visionary. As the Prime Minister said, Murphy was a pioneer in the early struggle against conscription and the Vietnam war. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said, he was also an articulate advocate in opposition to the French atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific. Lionel Murphy's appointment to the High Court of Australia was a surprise. It is now generally known that, in Cabinet, I opposed the appointment at the time, not because of his ability but because Lionel had been elected to the Senate for six years and had served only 18 months. If he was to be appointed to the High Court, six New South Wales senators would have had to retire at the time of the next half Senate election and the Australian Labor Party could gain only three of those places. Under normal circumstances five New South Wales senators would retire and we would gain three seats. Therefore, if Murphy went to the High Court we stood to lose a seat and possibly fail to gain control of the Senate. For good measure I also tossed in this question: `Who is to say that Lewis will appoint a Labor man to fill Murphy's vacancy?'. But that is all history now. In the short term I may have been right but in the long term I know that I was wrong. As a judge of the High Court, Lionel Murphy made a rare and special contribution to the development of the law. He brought together a clear vision of what should be done with a sound, practical understanding of what could be done. He had the courage to stand firm to protect what was right. Even when his judgments were a minority opinion of the Bench he left a creative basis, a progressive foundation for further thinking. Lionel Murphy left for all Australians an enduring part of his life in the law. To his daughter, Lorel, to his sons, Cameron and Blake, and to his wife, Ingrid, I give my love, solidarity and comradeship. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton) —I want to be identified with this motion of condolence in connection with the death of Lionel Murphy. I knew Lionel Murphy for 25 years. We campaigned together in 1961 when he was a successful Senate candidate for the Australian Labor Party and I was an unsuccessful candidate for the House of Representatives. Lionel Murphy was a great innovator, a great reformer, a great jurist, a great humanist and a great civil libertarian. He was also a man who was surrounded for most of his public life with a considerable degree of controversy. It is not surprising that that was the case. The Establishment does not take kindly to anyone who storms its heights but fails to embrace it, fails to become part of it. The Establishment feels threatened by the Lionel Murphys of this world. Both Kensington and Launceston in Tasmania have claimed Lionel Murphy. I never had the opportunity to clarify with Lionel where he was born but it was certainly in one of those places. The boy from Kensington or the boy from Launceston, the son of a builder, the grandson of a foreman of the Launceston gas works sought to even out the balance of privilege in our society. He never lost sight of his origins. He was not a man who would ever deny them. He never repudiated them; he never forgot them. Finally, in the most recent controversy in which Lionel Murphy was involved it was accusations about that great traditional quality of Australian mateship that embroiled him in that controversy. Throughout that experience he and Ingrid, and their children, displayed great personal courage. They never lost their dignity, as did many of their accusers and detractors. We may well remember that day in April this year when Lionel was finally acquitted by the court in Sydney and he, Ingrid and the boys stood on the front steps of that court in their anguish, in their courage, in their relief and in their dignity. They might have felt that perhaps it had come to an end, but it had not. We need to keep in mind the remarkable contrast between the treatment that was handed out to Lionel Murphy, with the 13 cases in which he would have had to prove his innocence had they run their full course, and the treatment of Sir Garfield Barwick. There were two cases before the Senate in 1984, followed by the case before the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, followed by the case before magistrate Arthur Riedel in April 1985, who found that there was a case to answer and ordered that Justice Murphy stand trial. That was followed by the fifth trial, before the New South Wales Supreme Court, which found him guilty of attempting to influence Clarrie Briese but not guilty of the Flannery charge, followed by the sixth trial in November 1985, when five judges of the New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld his appeal and ordered a retrial on the one charge on which he was convicted. That was followed by the seventh trial in April 1986, a trial on appeal that found him not guilty, followed by the eighth trial in May 1986-or the start of what could have been the eighth trial-which should never have occurred, because it was based, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) indicated subsequently, on misinformation delivered to him by a person who should not have delivered that misinformation. Three retired judges could have formed a continuing commission of inquiry to decide, after all of those seven previous cases, whether any conduct of the judge amounted to proved misbehaviour. In the meantime it was claimed that a ninth case was being conducted against Lionel Murphy. It was claimed that his fellow judges had made their judgment and would refuse to sit on the bench with him. The tenth trial was the continuing trial by the media. The eleventh trial was the trial that was continuously conducted by the Opposition, unrelenting, vicious and vindictive in its pursuit of Lionel Murphy. The twelfth and the thirteenth trials would have been when the matter finally came back to the Parliament, before this chamber and before the Senate, because of the constitutional requirement that any case of misbehaviour on the part of a judge which would be sufficient to see his removal from the bench needs to be the result of a joint decision of both Houses of Parliament. How many times does any person in our community have to face trial and prove his innocence? What a remarkable contrast with the Mundroola case in 1980 when accusations were being made against the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, that a family company which he had established to transfer assets to his wife and family could have been a beneficiary under certain cases with which the judge had dealt. The then Prime Minister raised the matter in the Parliament and stated that he had received a letter from the Chief Justice indicating that that family involvement had not influenced in any way judgments which he had participated in making. Prime Minister Fraser said: I understand that six particular cases have been mentioned in which the Barwick family company is said to have had shares in one of the parties appearing before the court on which the Chief Justice sat. There is no evidence that any of these cases was in any way affected by the interests held by members of the Chief Justice's family. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Charlton that he get back to the motion. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister went on to say: We have considered the matter seriously and find no basis for believing that any conflict of interest situation exists or existed. He concluded: There is no case in anything that has been presented for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee, a parliamentary inquiry or any other inquiry. In connection with that, Russell Ward, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of New England-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member please speak to the motion before the House. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Russell Ward asked why Justice Murphy was perhaps treated in a differential way, and he said: Because the Chief Justice, like the Queen, can do no wrong though a minor justice may? Or perhaps because Justices Barwick and Murphy belonged, in their salad days, to different political parties? Lionel Murphy was born in either Kensington or Launceston. He was always proud of his association with Kensington primary school, and the Attorney-General made reference to that. He was very proud of the fact that in 1980 he was able to present the Lionel Murphy perpetual award to the dux of that school. The award was engraved with Plato's words `The basis of all education is rhythm' and Tolstoy's words `To understand is to love'. He studied science at the University of Sydney and graduated with first-class honours. He followed that up with his law degree and graduated with first-class honours. When he started to practise law, one of the first cases in which he was involved was a case concerning the Miscellaneous Workers Union. Reference has been made to that case. His involvement with that case and the people he was associated with du-ring that case largely shaped his future political inclinations, largely determined his political colleagues and created long-standing friendships. As has been mentioned, his association with the ALP began at university when he joined the Neutral Bay branch of the Party. Former Justice Jim McClelland, an associate and long term friend of Lionel Murphy and himself a barrister, a senator, a Minister and a judge, referred to Murphy's idealism as `a combination of high intelligence and a kindly optimistic view of his fellows. He thought if some of the shackles were removed there would be room for the best instincts of humanity to have a bit more play'. The editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning states Murphy's belief: The point of politics and the law was to get things done, to change things, particularly for those groups in society which have no powerful interests supporting them. In a couple of days one of the first books about Lionel Murphy will be published, called `Lionel Murphy: the rule of law'. It will have extracts of about 40 of his judgments compiled by the Melbourne lawyer Jean Ely. In a very short foreword to preface that book, Professor Manning Clark, another outstanding Australian, writes: Lionel Murphy is a child of the Enlightenment. He has devoted his public life to the abolition of ignorance, superstition and tyranny. He belongs to the great tradition of those who believe human beings have the capa-city to abolish every form of domination, of class over class, parent over child, man over woman, woman over man, of race over race, and spiritual bully over sceptics and agnostics. The article also states: Clark says `the victims and the oppressed will read (Murphy's judgments) as the words of a man who gave them hope'. I extend my personal sympathy to Ingrid, to Cameron, to Blake and to Lorel on the loss of a great Australian. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I would just like to record my respect and affection for Lionel Murphy. He was, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have said, a very interesting and engaging character whom most of us liked and respected. I think the other thing to say about him is that he was a truly intellectual man. He did not live within any rigid framework of ideas, as one might term it. He did not specialise within some limited or narrow field but was prepared to intellectualise and think about any notion or idea regardless of its source, which is, I think, the mark of a true intellectual. He was prepared to evaluate things on their merits as they stood. That was a rare quality indeed. He was very interested in people and he liked people, which again is a very nice quality. He was interested in people regardless of their station or association. Tom Uren mentioned some of Lionel Murphy's factional associations. Of course in the days Tom mentioned I was a boy in the Labor Party in New South Wales and Lionel would not have found any particular merit in my views, I should not have thought, but I think it is fair to say that he liked me, and I certainly liked him. He was always prepared to be interested in somebody regardless of the label stuck on that person, which is also a worthy quality. He was interested in views and in people and not really worried what other people thought of them or their ideas. To me, one of the nice things about Lionel Murphy was that he was the kind of character one would want to sit with at an airport terminal if one saw him there. If I saw him at Canberra Airport I used to arrange to sit next to him on the flight. There are of course many people in this Parliament one would run a million miles from at an airport terminal. Lionel Murphy was the kind of character one could have an interesting and exciting conversation with and if one saw him at Mascot one would be delighted to have run into him. He was always interested in what everyone else was doing, and of course he was invariably charming. It is a great tragedy that the Liberal Party of Australia always responded to him as a threat. The only real threat to the Liberal Party was the truly liberal ideas he held. It has always been a matter of great wonderment to me why the Liberals felt so threatened by him or his ideas. It is a measure of the massive intolerance of the conservative interests in this country that the very few people Labor has appointed to the High Court of Australia have always been vilified by them. I think it is a fact that the Australian Labor Party as an institution, the Labor movement, has been prepared to accept the conservative composition of the court over the years-mainly because Australia has had such long periods in which conservative governments have appointed jurists to the Court, many of whom were actual members of their political party or who supported their views. The Labor movement and the Labor Party have always been prepared to respect the High Court as an institution regardless of its composition. We have always hoped we could get the Liberal Party to respect some of the appointments we made. We have not quite got to that situation yet. We hope this episode in public life with Lionel Murphy will change that. However, in the Labor Party, from wherever people sit, whether on the right, the left or the centre, we all liked Lionel Murphy. He was a person of great quality and I am very sad to witness his passing. I extend my deepest sympathy and regards to his wife, Ingrid, to his boys and to his daughter, Lorel, who have endured so much. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —It may appear that I am unique in being both a friend and political opponent of Lionel Murphy. Had more present members on this side of the House been in this establishment a decade or so ago they would realise that this was not unique. Lionel Murphy, as Clyde Cameron wrote, had an extraordinary capacity to form friendships across the political spectrum. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and I are perhaps the only Opposition members of this House who knew Lionel Murphy well, though some of my close friends and colleagues in the Senate were also great friends of Lionel Murphy and regard him as such today. Throughout the period that I developed a warm association with Lionel Murphy there were few things-there were some-on which we could agree. To the end we had differences of view. There have been no other men on the other side of politics who have so persuaded me to certain views and the correctness of their ways in a number of instances. I attended a conference with Lionel Murphy 18 1/2 years ago, in April 1968. He was late in arriving at the conference. To carry on the elements of history-potted history, perhaps-that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) put to the Parliament, he was late in arriving because he was, with others, including the Minister, organising Jim Cairns's thrust at the leadership against Gough Whitlam in April 1968, and he nearly succeeded. If about five people had been as nifty in their footwork as was described earlier, there may have been an historic change in Australian politics. We were attending the twenty-first anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in, of all places, Iran-again, one of the ironies of life, if not of the United Nations itself. Repression was commencing in Czechoslovakia, particularly Soviet inspired, and, as honourable members will recall, later in the year the Soviets rolled into Czechoslovakia. The one man who was prepared to attack vociferously what was transpiring was my left wing colleague, Lionel Keith Murphy. As a consequence we, as the Australian delegation, with Nigel Bowen, were suddenly the focus of attack over our treatment of Aboriginals. There was a debate between Murphy and me as to who would lead off to defend. As he said: `I will not wash dirty linen overseas. I will not have my country traduced in this way'. For all that he might have had domestic differences and, indeed, did have, with so many of us on the other side over our Aboriginal policies of the time, he weighed in strongly in support. A few months after our return-it was about a year later that I was to have so many of my fairly hostile debates with Murphy because I became Minister for the Army; the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and others have expressed Lionel Murphy's view on our participation in Vietnam-I attended a meeting in Sydney at which Lionel Murphy and I debated the cause of Vietnam. Such was my capacity to win over the audience that the police had to provide me with a guard when I left the meeting. The Commonwealth car that was outside-I was a mere back bencher at that stage-was being rocked. When Murphy appeared the audience was stunned to find that his car was also there for my use. As was normal, looking after his fellow man and despite the trenchant attacks that had been made on the policies I was enunciating, he was providing me with transport to my hotel. One can imagine the atmosphere there. Throughout that period of government there were strong arguments between Lionel Murphy and me on policy issues. We contributed to a journal which met its demise very early in the piece. Regular weekly debates were recorded and reported in a David Syme publication. Our political stances were vastly different. Yet on what he described as the two most crucial decisions he had to take in his life, he phoned me at home and sought my view. No one, apart from my family, was aware that calls on these critical matters were made to me to get an objective view. The fact that I may have injected a viewpoint which was vastly different from those he was receiving elsewhere did not prevent him from seeking the views of a political opponent. I disagreed with so much that Lionel Murphy proffered. He did a damned good job, so seductive was his persuasiveness in argument, that he brought me around on a couple issues. He was a warm man, one of the warmest one would ever meet, a man possessed of enormous stamina, of high and restless intelligence. Indeed, he did not just have intelligence; he was an intellectual. He would go beyond the normal probing and analysing of matters to develop concepts of his own. It is true that on my side of politics there has been an incessant chase for Lionel Keith Murphy. I do not believe that members of this Parliamentary Party have engaged in that sort of behaviour to the extent that certain others in the community have. On the extremes of life and extremes of political view people seem to pursue both persons and conventions with a thuggery that is known only in what can euphemistically be called centrally controlled states. The Right does this as much as the extreme Left. I have never quite comprehended the reason for this other than the threats it may pose, but it was certainly an added element in convincing me that extremes in political views are wrong. My differences with Lionel Murphy continue. My warmth and respect for him continue notwithstanding those differences. To little Lorel, who has now grown to an older woman-not an old woman but an older woman in terms of the age she was when I first met her-his young sons and Ingrid go the wishes of a great many in this nation who disagreed with him but respected him. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —I join in the motion that has been moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by many honourable members. My association with Lionel Murphy also goes back to the 1960s, although I am reminded by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) that Lionel Murphy had a much longer history of association with and activity in the Australian Labor Party after university. The honourable member for Prospect reminds me that he came across Lionel Murphy as a campaign director in the mid-1940s, so Lionel Murphy had a life of association with and activity in the Labor Party. This morning I was discussing with Clyde Cameron the tributes being paid to Lionel Murphy in the newspapers. He reminded me that, just prior to Ben Chifley's death, one of the daily newspapers wrote that Chifley was acting similarly to the way in which an agent of the Kremlin would act. Chifley died and the next day the newspaper said that Chifley was one of the finest sons Australia had produced. One would have thought that if the paper thought that after his death it may have thought the same before his death when it was writing other material. So it is with Lionel Murphy. I suspect that he would have liked to read some of the things that are in the papers today, which he has not been able to read, rather than some of the material that has been published over the last couple of years. When I look at the column inches that have been dedicated to him by the National Times over the last couple of years, I wonder whether it can continue in publication after his death. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) or the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) should be upset or overexcited about the fact that they never agreed with Lionel Murphy. I think Lionel would have welcomed as his epitaph: `The conservatives did not agree with me'. Lionel did not treat politics as a fan club; he considered that the conservatives had had their chance between 1949 and 1972, that they had not achieved what he considered ought to have been achieved in Australia, and he set about in a very vigorous way, as a senator, later as our Leader in the Senate, and in party forums, to construct a policy, as the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) said, in civil liberties, law reform and in some ways in just human decency, to give the Australian Labor Party a new image in these areas. When he was given the opportunity, as Attorney-General in the Whitlam Government, he said that policy was not there just to be looked at, it was there to be acted upon and to be put into operation, and that is exactly what he did. Of course, he upset the Establishment but he was not greatly concerned about that. There were some great things about Lionel Murphy, and his death instantly makes him a part of our culture which only those who serve in the Labor movement can understand. Firstly, Jack Waterford wrote a very nice article about Lionel Murphy in this morning's Canberra Times. He said that Murphy did not live in an ivory tower. You can say that again! I remember that three years ago he was a guest at his old mate Clyde Cameron's seventieth birthday party and he was introduced to a lot of people who had not met him before as Lionel Murphy, a justice of the High Court of Australia. Those people were pleased and proud that he talked and listened to them and did not put on any airs and graces. He was just another normal Australian who mixed as one would expect any decent citizen would act under those circumstances. I do not know whether that might not also have played its part in upsetting the Establishment in terms of how they believe people who hold that sort of office should conduct themselves. Murphy gave a human face to the High Court. He was prepared to go out and talk to the National Press Club and do his conferences. He talked about the narrow base from which judges were selected as not being truly representative of the Australian people. Those sorts of things were music to our ears but, of course, to a lot of other people in Australia may have been somewhat controversial. There is no doubt about the encouragement that he gave to young people, especially to young lawyers in the Australian Labor Party, as the honourable member for Makin has pointed out. He did this all over Australia, irrespective of what factional label they may have carried. I can tell you this, Tom: He was not always happy with the stand of the Left. I recall, as General Secretary of the Labor Party, that when we were looking at the Victorian Branch in 1970 there were 12 charges against the old Victorian executive. Lionel, as a member of the national executive, was sort of acting as counsel for the Left. He convinced the executive that one of the charges-I think it was about the fifth-ought to be dropped without further investigation. Bill Hartley insisted that we continue to hear it. We did and we found the Victorian branch guilty. At lunchtime Lionel said to me: `Jesus, Mick, you can't help some people!'. I do not know that Murph would want us to be all that sad about today. His contribution to us in the Labor movement was immense. We are going to be enormously proud of the role that he played. If access to this dispatch box were open to all of those who would like to say a few words they would not necessarily be people who have letters after their names or people who wear three-piece suits. We would see a lot of workers and people from the professions, as we will see next Monday, an enormous representative group of the Australian community who will pay tribute to Lionel Murphy. Jack Waterford said another thing in his piece which we do not think about very much and which certainly was not thought about very much in the Labor Party back in the 1960s. Murph was certainly one of the first prominent people in the Labor Party who raised the question of treating women as equals. He was persistent in his views about this and he was not idle in letting his views be known throughout the Party. Irrespective of what the conservatives in the future may say about him, his record stands. He made a fine contribution. As they say in some of the tributes-and they will not say it about many of us-Australia is a better place because of Lionel Murphy. To Ingrid, who has withstood enormous pressures and pain in the last year or so and who stood by him, to Blake, to Cameron and to Lorel, I say that they can be extremely proud of their late husband and father. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —I rise also to pay a tribute to the late Lionel Murphy. Like many others on my side of the House who have come to this place in the last 10 years, I never had the opportunity of serving in Parliament with Lionel Murphy. Nevertheless, like a great number of my colleagues, I have been very influenced by his political life and political beliefs. I have been influenced by his life, first, as a barrister, particularly in the 1950s when he successfully set out to establish democracy with the trade union movement and stood up for the rights of the rank and file in several very important individual trade unions. I was also influenced by his life in the Senate, particularly when he was Leader of the Opposition prior to 1972 and then as Leader of the Government. As has been said by other speakers this morning, his chief and lasting contribution during his time as Leader of the Opposition was in improving the standing and the role of the Senate, particularly with regard to its committee work. In government, the measures that Murphy put on the record in the area of family law, which established the principle of no fault in divorce, the Trade Practices Act and the Racial Discrimination Act are enduring pieces of legislation which affect the lives of ordinary people. If there is one other thing that I would say about the Murphy of those years it is that he, along with Jim Cairns and others, including Tom Uren-who is of course still with us-was one of the earliest and most effective opponents of the tragic and foolish intervention in the Vietnam war by the Australian Government of the time. It was then that I first met Lionel Murphy, I think at the Wollongong Town Hall, in approximately 1966 or 1967. He was the main speaker at a demonstration and rally against Australia's involvement in that tragic war. Then there was his career with the High Court of Australia. That was featured by positive judgments around two particular issues: Firstly, the power of the national Parliament, of which he was a staunch advocate; and, secondly, the principle that all people should have equality before the law. I believe he was a judge for ordinary people. The first of the two most outstanding results of these commitments was perhaps the historic decision in early 1983 on the validity of the Hawke Labor Government's Federal legislation to prevent the construction of the Franklin Dam in Tasmania. Lionel Murphy was one of the High Court judges who upheld the validity of our legislation. The second was his judgment in the Koowarta case, which I have read only this morning, and which, of course, was a positive finding against racial discrimination in Queensland. Murphy's attitude to his judicial responsibilities was exemplified only yesterday by the fact that his last judgments were delivered in the High Court only hours before he died. Like many of my colleagues on this side of the House, I regret the controversial events of the past several years. It is obvious to me that powerful elements of conservative Australia never did accept Justice Murphy as a judge of the High Court. The implication, of course, was that a distinguished Labor politician should never aspire to and should never get such a job on the High Court. The fact is that those elements never said the same thing about Barwick or about other conservative appointments. So it was that Mr Justice Murphy was always destined to be the subject of controversy ever since his appointment to the High Court back in February 1975. His judgments were always exemplary. They were always clear, reasoned and understandable. He was in fact a judge for ordinary Australians. The Left in Australia has always appreciated Murphy's intellect, dedication and compassion. I can only express the wish that, in the fullness of time, it will not be too much to expect that the elements of conservative Australia that have pursued him so drastically over the past few years will at least come to realise and to appreciate the contribution that Lionel Murphy has made to Australian political life. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff) —Of all the people who come to parliament, the very large numbers who are elected over the years, most of us are simply shadows who pass across the stage. Lionel Murphy will never be categorised in that way simply because he achieved so many of the things that he set out to achieve politically. Both personally and politically Lionel Murphy was larger than life. I have sought to speak to this motion of condolence because I served, albeit for a brief time, in the Senate with Lionel Murphy when he was Leader of the Government in the Senate. Although I served with him for only a brief time and saw him rarely thereafter-either by chance at airports or at functions-I felt I knew him well. He was a man of enormous personal charm who extended with great gusto the hospitality of his office of Leader of the Government in the Senate to all. As a very new Opposition senator I remember my gratitude to him for the great kindness he showed to me. To him it did not matter that I came from a different political party, that I was of a different political persuasion. I was a new senator and he did all he could to help me settle in quickly and comfortably. Subsequently, on a number of occasions I felt free to go to him, although he was the Leader of the opposite Party, to discuss political matters with him. One matter I remember in particular was that of the Ombudsman. That was one of his political objectives as Attorney-General and it was a subject in which I had a long-standing interest. There seemed to be some sort of delay. I went to him to express my concern and interest in the matter and he very easily and freely spent some of his precious time with me, a very insignificant member of the Opposition, discussing our views on the subject. I also remember on another occasion talking to him about a matter he had floated, the idea of instituting methods of accounting for inflation, which was a subject in which I had a very active interest. That was an objective of his that was not achieved but, again, he was interested to discuss his views on that subject with a member of the Opposition. Although Lionel Murphy was in many ways a controversial Leader of the Government in the Senate, most senators regarded him with personal affection which was unaffected by whatever tensions or conflicts existed in the Senate. I suppose my most enduring personal memory of him in the Senate, my foremost mental image of him, is him coming late into Question Time-Question Time, of course, could not start without him-and being clearly torn between either getting to his place or doing up his cuff links and putting on his coat. The Senate had an excitability about it when Lionel Murphy was there. Since I had been there only whilst he was Leader of the Government in the Senate, it was not until after he had been appointed to the High Court of Australia that I realised what an enormous impact his personality and style had on the Senate. It was a very different place after his appointment to the High Court. I say this not to cast any reflections at all on Senator Wriedt, who was his successor-and a very capable successor-but the Senate simply was not the same. At Question Time when one asked questions it no longer resembled Question Time in the House of Representatives. One actually got answers to questions. It was a little more edifying but it was terribly dull. It was mentioned earlier that when he was Leader of the Opposition in the Senate he made a major contribution to the establishment of the unique committee system of the Senate. I will chide the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) very gently at this point for only giving credit to the Labor Party and a minor party for the establishment of the Senate committee system. The record shows that a substantial number of members of the then Government supported the establishment of the committee system. Lionel Murphy discovered in due course the differing levels of enthusiasm one has for the committee system, depending on whether one is in government or in opposition. Nevertheless, he was a major and a critical force in the establishment of committees. One of the very first examples, and I think one of the most telling examples, of his heritage in that area was when the Senate debated the Family Law Act. Senator Murphy had brought in a Bill. He had also, when in opposition, been responsible for the referral to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs of an examination of divorce laws in Australia. So at the time he introduced the Family Law Bill the Committee was close to reporting. It was decided that the Bill should go to the Committee and be reported on by it. The Committee's report recommended a very large number of amendments to Lionel Murphy's Family Law Bill. The Government considered those amendments and quite a number were accepted and incorporated into a redrafted Bill. Nevertheless, there was a substantial number that Lionel Murphy indicated the Government and he had not accepted. It was quite fascinating to see what happened to the Bill from there on. When members of that Committee moved the amendments on behalf of the Committee, amendments which were opposed by Lionel Murphy, it was always the will of the Committee that prevailed in the non-party vote in the Senate. However, when other individuals moved amendments to that Bill and Lionel opposed them, it was rare that his will did not prevail in the final form of the Bill. He loved the Senate and he is on the public record as having said, when there was a debate at one stage about how the Commonwealth Parliament should be unicameral, that he believed that it was the Senate that should be retained. I am personally glad he did not succeed in that. I extend my condolences to his wife, Ingrid, and to his children, who have been through a very trying and difficult time. Although it had been known for some time that Justice Murphy had a terminal illness, the pain of parting on death is not lessened by knowing about it in advance. Their grief and their loss will be very real. I say to them that regardless of party politics, there are many who will have warm and affectionate memories of him and who are saddened by his passing. Mr CROSS(Brisbane) —The debate on this motion of condolence has been extraordinarily lengthy because Lionel Murphy walked centre stage in most of the controversies of our day. As one of the two survivors of that generation elected in 1961, to which Lionel Murphy belonged, I would like to say a couple of things from an historical point of view. The large number of Australian Labor Party members and senators elected in 1961 was a watershed in the history of the Labor Party which, prior to that election, had been consumed by its internal disagreements arising from the intervention in Victoria in November 1954 and all that flowed from that. A great number of people came into the Parliament and into the Parliamentary Labor Party who were determined to put aside the factionalism and the disputes of more recent days to build a more constructive role for the Labor Party in the future. Lionel Murphy, with others, was one of the most active in that group. I will give a little more evidence of what he did in the Senate. Much of the discussion and comment today has been on his role in the High Court of Australia and on his various causes, but he was, probably more than anybody else, the person who changed the nature of the Senate. Two factors changed the nature of the Senate-the introduction of proportional representation voting in 1949, which gave the Senate the stability it lacked previously, and Murphy's dedication to the Senate playing a more meaningful role and to the establishment of a committee system. He was the person who changed the view of the Labor Party towards the Senate. It had been our policy at that time to abolish the Senate. It was a pretty forlorn hope because we would have had to carry a referendum in every State of the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, it was our policy. Lionel Murphy saw that the Senate ought to play a more constructive role. More than anyone else, he saw that the systems were put in place for the Senate to do so. This has meant that younger and more able people have been attracted to the Senate. I am sure that Lionel Murphy must have looked at the Senate in recent times with a good deal of pride because the Senate as it is today is very much the creation of Lionel Murphy's initiative. I would like to say one other thing which relates to the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. At one stage Lionel said in a public statement that we could co-operate with the Democratic Labor Party, as it was then, to reject a money Bill. I remember a traumatic discussion in the Caucus. I supported Mr Calwell, the former member for Melbourne, who said that members of the House of Representatives believed that the Senate should stay in its place. Some of us were naive enough to believe that the changes that had taken place in the Westminster system with the Parliament Act of 1909 when Lloyd George, Asquith and Campbell-Bannerman were able to reduce the power of the House of Lords might flow into the Australian political system. In the Caucus Lionel pointed out that, with the exception of the introduction of a money Bill, the Senate had equal powers in the matter of Supply. Some of us were naive enough to think that he was not right, but we found to our sorrow at a later time that Lionel Murphy was exactly right. It is in such areas that Lionel pointed the road ahead. I join with my colleagues on both sides of the Parliament in expressing my sympathy to Ingrid and Lorel, Cameron and Blake, at the loss of a husband and father. I hope they take some comfort from the fact that many Australians of all political persuasions and in all walks of life also mourn his passing. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —I knew Lionel Murphy for 20 or more years at the Bar and later on the High Court of Australia. I join those in this House who have expressed their sympathy to his wife, his two young sons and his daughter. It would be dishonest of me to say that I agree with all the views that Mr Justice Murphy expressed during his lifetime, either in parliament or on the High Court, although I recall one occasion when I was appearing for the Commissioner of Taxation and I got one judgment my way-that was Mr Justice Murphy's. I must confess that on that occasion I agreed wholeheartedly with his views. There are other views with which I would agree and many with which I would not. It would be equally dishonest to resile from some of the views which I have expressed in recent months, but those matters can be put to one side. I would like to say something very briefly about Lionel Murphy as a man. He had great vitality and zest. That has been remarked upon. He was a most entertaining and amusing companion. He was engaged in public affairs in a way that was almost European in his commitment. His views most certainly did not inspire neutrality, nor did the way in which he expressed them. He was neither intellectually nor emotionally somebody who approached politics or life in a neutral way. He approached both politics and life at high speed. As we know, he showed courage in the most difficult situation which faced him during his last weeks of life. He had to support him his family, who also have shown great courage, dedication and fortitude. Therefore, to those surviving family members I wish to extend my personal sympathy for the very deep sorrow that his death has occasioned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Lionel Murphy was a passionate participant in the human adventure. He was magnetic, fearless and even reckless-not qualities invariably associated with the judiciary. He could not be a mere bystander to history. He brought to his high office judicial penetration and analytical skills of the highest order, but judicial detachment was not his forte; nor would he have claimed it. Detachment was low in his value system, just as compassion was very high. Most High Court judges so far have been black-letter lawyers, seeing their role as the interpretation of statutes within an existing social system, moulded by their limited range of social experience bounded by law school, legal practice-mostly in commercial law or equity-and with little experience in, understanding of, or empathy with the traumas, diversity, tragedy, humour and vulgarity of modern urban life. Murphy identified with the shakers of convention, the unorthodox, the dispossessed and the alienated. Herbert Vere Evatt operated along similar lines on the High Court, as did Benjamin Cardozo, Louis Brandeis, and Learned Hand in the United States. Lionel Murphy's extraordinary passion for life, his warmth, sympathy and instinctive empathy with those on the wrong side of the tracks, his extraordinary and unique style were what led to his pursuit, persecution and destruction. His life had the quality of Greek tragedy. His stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise on what he regarded as an important issue of principle led to a final engagement with a powerful Senate committee-ironically, a system largely of his own creation-which led to prosecution, trial, conviction and sentence, appeals, retrial, acquittal and then a renewed round of recycled accusations, a parliamentary commission of inquiry, the sudden collapse of health, the return to the Bench and finally, the last irony, handing in his last two High Court judgments which were delivered within an hour of his death. Those of us who knew him, and I was far from the inner circle, will never forget Lionel Murphy-the vibrant voice, the sense of urgency, the endless curiosity, the passion for justice, his fascination with science, the penetration far below the surface of convention and normal social relations. He made implacable enemies but he had many admirers who identified with his causes and grieve for him today. History will vindicate him and his record will stand high. Our thoughts are all with the Murphy family and remain with them. In the face of death, two thoughts stand out-the common bond of human experience and its final outcome and the extraordinary vulnerability of our species, thoughts expressed in the memorable imagery of Pascal: Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed. There is no need for the whole universe to take up arms to crush him; a vapour, a drop of water is enough to kill him. But even if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his slayer, because he knows that he is dying and the advantage the universe has over him. The universe knows nothing of this. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I would like to make a brief tribute to Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. I would like it recorded that, during the past two troubled years, neither inside this Parliament nor outside have I uttered one word hostile to Mr Justice Murphy. I firmly believe in the sub judice rule. Secondly, while I was the Minister for the Capital Territory I saw Mr Justice Murphy and his wife, Ingrid, in Canberra on a number of occasions. They were always pleasant and charming and, if I might say, helpful. Of his term on the High Court of Australia, I want to refer briefly to a case which epitomises the clear thinking, forthrightness and concise manner in which he enunciated the views which he so firmly espoused. It is a case in which I was involved as counsel at first instance. The case is Heatley v. Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Commission, which is reported in 137 Commonwealth Law Reports, the report commencing at page 467. I will read two passages from His Honour's judgment to emphasise the point that I have made that he knew exactly what the principle was. He enunciated it clearly and concisely. The judgment commences on page 494: Murphy J: On 4th June 1975, the Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Commission, relying on s. 39 (3) of the Racing and Gaming Act, 1952 (Tas.), issued a ``warning-off notice'' to Mr Heatley, which requires him to refrain from entering any racecourse in Tasmania and which is in force until the Commission rescinds it. Before issuing the notice, the Commission did not notify him of its intention to consider warning him off or of any allegations against him and did not give him an opportunity to be heard. This was a denial of natural justice. At the original hearing the learned trial judge, on an application for a writ of certiorari, in which I appeared as counsel for the applicant, took 48 pages to reject the application. In the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, with His Honour the Chief Justice Sir Guy Green dissenting, our appeal was dismissed. It went to the High Court of Australia, where by a majority of 4:1 with Chief Justice Barwick dissenting, the appeal was upheld. I now turn to the concluding paragraph of a judgment which extended for only 3 1/2 pages. I repeat: Lionel Murphy knew exactly what the principle was. He enunciated it with great courage and in a most concise manner. He said: The applicant was denied the natural justice to which he was entitled. The Commission's decision was invalid. It is immaterial that the decision would have been made if natural justice had been observed. That judgment was masterly, because once he had detected the denial of natural justice he said that it was completely immaterial if the same decision would have been made if natural justice had been observed. I believe that Australia is in the debt of His Honour the late Mr Justice Lionel Keith Murphy. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —I rise to speak in support of the condolence motion, not about Lionel Murphy the eminent lawyer, the judge or the senator, but about Lionel Murphy the friend-for that is how I knew him. I knew of Lionel many years before I met him. I met him very soon after I became his local member of parliament. He remained a great supporter of mine and gave me a great deal of advice during my time serving this Parliament. He was a neighbour and constituent of mine and Ingrid is a friend. When I look back over my conversations with Lionel I remember that I was always impressed by his incredible energy and enthusiasm on such a wide number of issues. I recall meeting him once at Canberra Airport. He was in the middle of his court proceedings. I said to him: `How is the case going, Lionel?'. He said `Oh, I will win', dismissing my question, and immediately entered into passionate debate with me about how one can tap energy from the core of the earth. He had been reading some article late in the night when the court case was going on and had taken on this cause with great enthusiasm. That was the nature of the man. He was interested in so many things, so many issues and so many people. On another occasion he rang me late at night to give me a burst about the system by which we assess water rates in Canberra. He had been talking to someone who had received a huge bill. He thought to himself `this person can't afford this bill' and rang me at 11 o'clock at night to give me a burst about it. That was the nature of the man. One of my fondest memories of him is when I had him and Ingrid at my house a few months ago just before he got ill. He was at a table surrounded by economists. There he was, in full flight for six hours, giving them all his account of the J-curve and the Australian economy. I think he talked a lot more sense than many of the economists at the table. Until the end of his life he demonstrated that same vitality and interest in life. He had a determination which stayed with him until the end. He is a great example, not only to the politicians in this chamber and to his supporters in the Australian Labor Party, but to all Australians. More importantly, he will be a great example and a source of continued support to his wife Ingrid and to his children. I feel very privileged to have known Lionel Murphy as a friend. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —My time in this place overlapped Lionel Murphy's time but during the years he was here I did not on any occasion meet him personally. Evidently, I was very much the loser from that being the case. However, I rise to say that, just as my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has recalled a notable case, I also recall a case in which Mr Lionel Murphy found himself in the minority. It was a 3:2 High Court of Australia decision. When the case involving Mr and Mrs Chamberlain-the Lindy Chamberlain case-was appealed to the High Court, His Honour Lionel Murphy was not in the majority but I submit that his judgment in that case was a masterpiece of insight and brevity. Mr Robert Brown —Hear, hear! Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I thank the honourable member. It will be of great interest-I do not want to say anything about a matter that is sub judice-to see how his judgment stands up when Justice Trevor Morling's commission of inquiry brings in its finding. I would add, speaking in my capacity as Vice-President of the Australian Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, that there have been many earnest prayers by members of that organisation and by other people and associated organisations outside this place that Lionel Murphy would be sustained in his last days and that he find his peace with Almighty God. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —Many of us on the back bench knew Lionel Murphy. A large number of us were impressed by him although our contact with him may not have been as extensive as that of others. I call attention to one aspect of his work because to this point it has not been emphasised, that is, his great work in relation to multiculturalism and the promotion of the ethnic communities of this country. I first met Lionel Murphy after a brief introduction in which he said: `I know quite a bit about you'. He then said: `We have some concerns about the migrant communities and I want to discuss them with you'. I was astounded by the extent of his knowledge of the issues. A lot has been said about the great record of the Whitlam Government on ethnic affairs and its promotion of multiculturalism. But it was one thing to have the ideas and another to put laws in place to protect the rights of people from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Lionel Murphy did that. It was one of his lasting contributions. It is a pity, in this context, that my good friend Senator Nick Bolkus is overseas because he knew Lionel Murphy much more closely than I and would have been able to testify to Lionel Murphy's work and record in this area. I also think that history will record that Senator Bolkus's minority judgment in the Senate inquiry was the correct one and that in fact the Senate inquiry's majority report will be shown to have been mistaken and to have led to a series of events which the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and others have referred to. Others have recorded the general work of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy and I just wanted to put on the record that the ethnic communities of this country are particularly grateful for the work he did in the promotion of multiculturalism. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat) —As Chairman of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party I believe it is appropriate for me to put on the record our indebtedness for the work of the late Justice Lionel Murphy. We record the adherence to the long-felt principles of that man formed so many years ago. We record our appreciation of the example which he gave to those who serve in the Australian Labor Party and the supporters of the Labor Party through his constancy of purpose, his adherence to his principles and the pursuit of his ideals. We also record his courage, in the face of enormous and horrendous adversity, both in the way in which unjustifiable charges had been levelled against him over this last couple of years and, as has been indicated, the relentless pursuit of this man for over a decade by those who do not believe that we on this side of the House and the people we represent have a right to pursue those ideals on an equal basis in this country and to have those ideals formulated into law. Many people have gone through the Labor Party over the decades of whom we are proud, but there is no doubt that we in the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party will always be able to hold up our heads and say that Lionel Murphy was one of our comrades. We will never forget that. We are indebted to him. We on this side of the House and members of the Parliamentary Labor Party wish to record our sympathy and our solidarity with his wife Ingrid and his children. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation) —I want to join in the support of the motion of condolence before the chamber and the comments that have been made by previous speakers in respect of the late Lionel Keith Murphy. He was a man of great vision, courage and compassion and to so many of us he was a source of strength and inspiration in times of difficulty and adversity. I do not believe that many of us can ever repay him for the support and strength he gave us in times of need. I join other speakers in extending my deep personal sympathy to his widow, Ingrid, and to his children, Lorel, Blake and Cameron. Mr KENT(Hotham) —I also wish to join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this motion of condolence. I did not know Mr Justice Murphy very well. I knew about him when he was already running for high office in this country and I was only a humble member of the Australian Labor Party. Even though we had different origins-I was born some 15,000 miles away-we subscribed to the same ideas and we both came from humble backgrounds. The first contact I had with him was by letter. Shortly before he became Attorney-General in 1972 I was arrested in a demonstration against national service. I was taken to court where I thought that I made a very good speech. However, I did not impress the magistrate. I was fined and I was ready to go to gaol for the principle that I enunciated when I stood at the General Post Office steps in Melbourne and was arrested. Then came the change of government and I received a letter from the Attorney-General saying that the fine was waived. I wrote back to him and requested that the fingerprints that were taken against my will be expunged from the record. He wrote back to me that the record was burnt in the presence of one of his officers. That was the first contact I had with Lionel Murphy. Later I met him at various functions, but I was not a close friend, there being such a distance between his station in life and my own. However, I met him about a year ago at a function and he came over to me and congratulated my on my stand against racism-not on my stand, but on my leap here in this House from this position. He congratulated me on that leap. I was very proud to receive congratulations from a man-and I told him so-who stood up against the Establishment in this country and had the courage to raid the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in Melbourne while he was Attorney-General. That raid was never forgotten. The powers of the Establishment and its servants were such that they spied on him vindictively and tried to even the score. Finally, death intervened and the Establishment did not get him. He will always stand out as an example of a great Australian who believed in justice and who did not want to give in to powers and to the Establishment. I wish to extend my sympathy to his wife and family. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —I desire to join and perhaps summarise some of the range of expressions that have come from both sides of the chamber testifying to the life and service to the Australian people of Lionel Murphy. My own association with Lionel Murphy goes back many years and was essentially a legal association. Not the least of the cases we were involved in was the case which involved another prominent personality in this Parliament, Mr Clyde Cameron, who, Arthur Calwell told me, on one occasion when a plane was late, made a fearsome attack on Tom Dougherty, the then Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, which led to him being charged and facing expulsion from the union. In the ensuing case, I was instructing solicitor for Clyde Cameron and I briefed another great senator in this place, who was not then as prominent as a senator, the late Sam Cohen. The AWU briefed a very distinguished Sydney silk and had Lionel Murphy as junior counsel. I am bound to say, as Clyde Cameron would admit, that when Lionel Murphy was conducting cross-examination we were always in trouble. Fortunately someone told Tom Dougherty that Lionel Murphy was something of a left winger and Tom was not prepared to have any left winger associated with any case of his, so he sacked him from the case, for which Clyde Cameron, Sam Cohen and I were duly grateful. There were many other cases in which Lionel Murphy appeared both on my behalf and on behalf of my clients and in which I saw him in action against me. In my association with lawyers at all levels I have never met a man who had such a profound and enthusiastic belief in the processes of our judicial system and in the capacity of the rule of law to right wrongs and to deal with grievances. It will be said by some people that Lionel Murphy was a political judge. I believe if any proper political analysis were made of the records of justices of the High Court of Australia it would be true to say that there were a number of judges who were more politically predictable than Lionel Murphy. What distinguished Lionel Murphy was his belief in the rights of the citizen against the state. No matter how humble the citizen or whether he personally or politically agreed with the citizen, he was a fierce advocate and brought a great intellectual capacity, a forensic skill and a passionate advocacy to all the causes that he embraced. His political opponents today testified to his considerable personal elegance and his great charm. His record as a politician in this place is such that whatever view one takes he will stand in the annals of this Parliament as a great social reformer. His commitment to legislative initiatives in the fields of social justice, freedom of information and civil liberties is well documented in the records of this Parliament. Even within the Australian Labor Party, on those doctrines that are well embellished in the record of the Party, it took a man of Lionel's advocacy, skills and charm to persuade the Party that it was possible to turn the Senate. Our policy was very clear on that body; we believed it should be abolished. He actually persuaded a Labor Party conference that something could be done with the Senate as a House of review. That is one of the few areas in which his judgment was probably askew, but that is a personal view. The legal profession, by its nature, is full of anecdotal and apocryphal stories about the human feelings, strengths and prejudices of the judiciary and prominent members of the profession. I feel that it is a bit sad that those stories which are told with gusto tend to be confined to Bar dinners or personal associations of lawyers. One story which I think is apocryphal is of a very distinguished judge in Melbourne who, having been at a very successful social function, proceeded to ride a horse up and down the steps of Parliament House. When he was called in to be rebuked by his chief judge, who said that he had heard complaints about His Honour's behaviour off the Bench, the chief judge received the comment: `That is fair enough because I would like to make a complaint about some of my colleagues on the Bench'. I tell this story because the view is expressed from time to time in articles by columnists and other journalists that somehow once one becomes a member of the judiciary one is someone special and one elevates oneself out of the common levels of social relationships and intercourse because one is holding an especially privileged position in our society. That was a view which it was quite impossible for Lionel Murphy to accept. He could not accept that, by virtue of the distinguished and exalted position that he held, he was bound to move only in the most exclusive social circles. He was a man of the people and he drew his strength from the people. He never sought to apologise-indeed he was proud-for his social origins and the political and industrial movement which gave him birth. He carried that sense of social and political commitment to the Bench. In his judicial decisions his command of and feeling for the English language, his outstanding intellectual capacity and his clear views on the directions of Australian society and the directions in which that society ought to be headed made for simple and erudite reading and judgments which even the lay person could read and understand. For thousands of Australians he was their judge because he never removed himself from the community to which he belonged or abandoned his views as to the ways in which that community could operate. To his wife, Ingrid, and his children, Lorel, Cameron and Blake, we send our sympathies and our love. I was at a small social gathering 10 or 12 weeks ago, when Lionel Murphy knew he was mortally afflicted, as did his friends and colleagues from a great variety of social sources in Australia who were present. In what was a very short speech that was typical of the spirit of the man, he indicated that he had been to see his doctor, who could not find much that was positive to say at that stage except that his blood pressure was okay, to which Murphy said: `What else could you expect, Doctor, from one who leads a life so free of social tension?'. That embodied the spirit of Lionel Murphy. I pay a particular tribute to Ingrid, Lorel, Cameron and Blake, who, with him, in a very difficult period had to endure the calumnies, allegations and tensions that went with recent events. Lionel Murphy's place in our political and judicial history is secure. Despite the fact that there has been a wide range of testimonies for some hours now in this place, he does not need any testimonial from this Parliament. He has written his testimonial for himself. It lies in his political achievements. But, more significantly, his vision of a more just and more compassionate Australian society shines through his judgments. They will continue to be the subject of legal analysis and argument. But I believe that vision, that view of the law, that sense of compassion and the desire to produce a better Australian society are the real testament of Lionel Murphy. To his family I say this: You can rest your hope and your love on that testament because it will be read and thought about and the subject of social discussion in our society for many years to come, years in which his perceptions of Australian society will unfold and in which the calumnies and abuses which were heaped upon Lionel Murphy by those who did not share his vision of Australian society, and who indeed could not even contemplate it, will have long passed into oblivion. It is given to few men in our society by dint of their personality and their intellectual strength to touch so many lives just by their presence, their being and their capacity to reach out to their fellows. Such I think was the personality of Lionel Murphy. He was a great Australian, a great politician and a great jurist. No one who knew him has not been touched by that man in one way or another, and his loss will be an enduring loss for the people of Australia and for the movement which loved him, which he served well and which, whatever position he held in Australian society, he was never prepared to forget or abandon. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(12.20) —The House is debating the Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1986, which establishes the Austudy scheme of funding not only for tertiary students but also for senior secondary students. It is well to note that in 1974 the original legislation was introduced which established the tertiary education assistance scheme and the postgraduate awards scheme. Under this Bill, the tertiary education assistance scheme, the secondary allowances scheme and the adult secondary education assistance scheme will be brought under the one administration and will be known henceforth as Austudy. Those of us who have had knowledge of tertiary schemes and student funding schemes over many years will remember the mishmash of funding that existed prior to the 1974 legislation. Teachers college students were bonded to State governments, the Commonwealth Public Service offered free place schemes to tertiary undergraduates, and employers offered schemes, but many people had to pay their own way and many worthy students were denied the opportunity of education because they came from families which could not afford to send them to an institution full time. I admire what was done in the older universities to facilitate the education of people of moderate means. I was an evening student at the University of Sydney in 1969 when the university celebrated the seventy-fifth anniversary of evening lectures. So for a very long time the University of Sydney has offered evening students a chance to obtain degrees in arts or economics, and part time courses were always offered at the law school. All those who remember that period will also know that the greatest failure rate was amongst part time students, exceeded only by that for people who had to undertake tertiary studies by correspondence. The concept of Austudy is that a family can obtain the payment for a senior secondary school student or tertiary level student aged 16 to 20. The two schemes are being rolled into one. The amount of funding has been greatly extended so that more and more students will qualify for this worthy scheme. There is a long tapering of the means test so that families who are in receipt of well above average weekly earnings, and with one or two student children, particularly in tertiary institutions, can qualify. In fact, a family which is in receipt of almost twice average weekly earnings qualifies if there are a number of dependants in the family. The scheme will be welcomed by students. It was announced last year as part of the Priority One: Young Australia arrangements and it is an important innovation. A few other matters I wanted to touch on today in the time available to me include the fact that over the years, whilst Australia has had schemes to assist students to undertake full time courses, the percentage of young people enrolled in tertiary education did not increase between 1967 and 1983. The figures I have indicate that 7.6 per cent of people aged under 40 were enrolled as university students in 1967, whereas the percentage had increased to only 8.8 per cent in 1983. We are living in an age in which we need skilled and trained people. We need engineers, architects, surveyors and lawyers. We need tertiary graduates for the teaching and other professions. Yet our country is not really expanding its intake of university students. By contrast, in the United States the percentage of people enrolled in tertiary institutions was 56.4 per cent in 1982. That is the latest figure the Parliamentary Library could make available to me. The Australian figure for 1983 is shown as 26.3 per cent. This must include students who are attending not only universities but also colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions. In the United Kingdom, the enrolment figure in 1982 was 20.1 per cent; in West Germany, 29.6 per cent; in France 28.4 per cent; but in Canada the figure was 42.1 per cent. So the North American nations are well ahead of Australia in admitting young people to institutes of higher education for the training and production of graduates and technicians. Several points the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) made in her second reading speech are extremely relevant. She said that in 1985-86 $401m was expended under the tertiary education assistance scheme, the secondary allowances scheme and the adult secondary education assistance scheme. With the replacement of these schemes by Austudy the projected expenditure for 1987 is $528m. So a considerably increased expenditure is projected to encourage young people to study and to remain at school, and to encourage families which might not have been able to keep the child at school to do exactly that. A feature of the program is that there will be an alignment between Austudy and the unemployment benefit. So there will be no advantage for a young person to leave school early to obtain what is considered to be more advan- tageous-the unemployment benefit-rather than to stay at school for the final two years and obtain Austudy. This is a significant boost for lower income families-perhaps for those families in which the breadwinner is in receipt of worker's compensation or has some sickness or other problem which means that the family income is low. It may be very significant, particularly if a girl or boy is bright. I am pleased to note that school retention rates are improving greatly. In particular, in 1985 some 49 per cent of females were retained to year 12, whereas only 43 per cent of boys remained at school. Possibly, this is an indication that boys still have greater opportunities to obtain apprenticeships and do leave school earlier for that reason. However, the retention rate of nearly 50 per cent for girls is very good. There is still only a very small percentage of Australians entering university or a college of advanced education to undertake the nursing, teaching or other courses that are available for professional development or higher skill development. The legislation will be welcomed by young people. The Australian people do not want to go back to the days of bonds and subsidised study by employers. They do not want to go back to the system that discriminated against low income families which had a bright child. All surveys have shown that if young people are to do well at university they need to study full time and they need financial support. Young people can subsist on a lower income, perhaps on a stipend, during their university years, but they have some basic needs for materials and fares. Even though they get concessions, they must be able to live and, in some courses, take part in excursions. They must buy materials and text books, if they are not available. I commend this legislation to the House without delaying it further. Yesterday we had a considered debate on a number of associated education Bills. The legislation before us today launches the Austudy program for our students. The Minister has brought forward a worthy scheme following studies and recommendations from an overseas team of consultants. The House should support this legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(12.31) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 5, page 2, line 41, proposed section 10, omit ``to a person'', substitute ``in respect of a person''. (2) Clause 5, page 3, line 13, proposed section 11, omit ``to a person'', substitute ``in respect of a person''. (3) Clause 5, page 3, at the end of the clause add the following proposed section: ``Payment of benefit under Education Assistance `12. Benefit under Education Assistance granted in respect of a person is payable- (a) in the case of a person who is undertaking, or proposes to undertake, a course of study or instruction, or a part of a course of study or instruction, that is a secondary course, or a part of a secondary course, for the purposes of section 10-to a parent or guardian of the person, or, in circumstances prescribed by the regulations, to a person in accordance with the regulations; and (b) in the case of a person who is undertaking, or proposes to undertake, a course of study or instruction, or a part of a course of study or instruction, that is a tertiary course, or a part of a tertiary course, for the purposes of section 10-to the person.' ''. The thrust of the Opposition's amendments is to seek to preserve the situation which applied under the secondary assistance scheme whereby the money paid to needy families is paid direct to the families. The Student Assistance Amendment Bill changes that circumstance. It is proposed that the money be paid to school children in their final years of schooling, years 11 and 12. The Opposition moved these amendments not out of any sense of political hysteria and not wishing to make what we may regard as political points but out of genuine concern that the Government, in seeking to align the circumstances of unemployment benefits and student assistance, has taken a great gamble in the way this assistance works. I say, quite genuinely, that we believe the Government has made the wrong decision. Last night in the substantive second reading debate I made several points and I just briefly recanvass them. All of us accept that young people are exercising independent judgments much earlier in life, certainly much earlier than their parents did. In many cases from as young as 14 years they are making critical judgments and decisions that can affect their future lives-decisions about what subjects they will study at school and so on. It is incumbent on the political representatives of the nation and the Parliament to recognise the independence and maturity of young Australians. It is essential that we, in a public policy-making role, embrace with sensitivity and understanding the significant independent decision-making capabilities of our young people. The substantive point we wish to make which underpins these amendments is that the decision whether a young person continues in school beyond year 10 is one in which the family plays a vital role. I will clarify that. A young person can drop out of school and seek work without his or her parents' agreement or support and he or she can go on unemployment benefits. That is true. In seeking to eliminate that circumstance we can understand what the Government is trying to do. However, in support of our amendments let me say that it is very rare 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 and, regretfully, it is in many cases. However, the decision to continue in school requires family support, both financial and moral. We believe that the financial support mechanisms that the Government wishes to bring in for a student in secondary education are not simply an individual student responsibility but are primarily a family responsibility. We should encourage families to meet their responsibilities. One of the reasons why the secondary allowance scheme was introduced was to assist low income families to support their children in years 11 and 12. We stress the influence of the family in determining whether a young person stays on in the final years of schooling. It is important to encourage the family to promote education as a high ideal. I regret to say that we must recognise that there are still many parents who do not accept or understand the importance of their children going to school beyond year 10 to finish years 11 and 12, let alone going on to higher education. If there is the prospect of these parents suffering financial difficulty in keeping their children at school they may opt for the easier circumstance of having them leave. The best and most effective way we can assist families is to target the education assistance to them. It is possible for us to envisage circumstances in which some students will be pocketing the Austudy benefit directly and it will assist neither them in their education nor the overall family income. It is not hard to foresee circumstances in which that money, in the hands of 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds or 17-year-olds in years 11 and 12., will be spent at the tuckshop or the corner store on cigarettes and the like-it could even end up in pinball machines and other amusement pursuits. In the Senate when the Opposition moved these amendments-I regret to say that the Australian Democrats did not support them and they were lost-the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) explained that if the Austudy benefit were paid to parents it would be taxed and therefore would have a diminished value. Our response to that argument is that this need be the case only if the Government decides to include education assistance as a form of taxable income. We have another form of family assistance-the family allowance-paid direct to mothers, which is not taxable. If the Government were to accept our amendments, which we urge upon it, it would equally be possible to extend tax free status to the Austudy benefit in respect of children in years 11 and 12. I say to the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) that we are not making a political point. We have genuine reservations and serious concern about unintended consequences, one might say, flowing from the direction of this assistance to students as opposed to their parents. I have moved the Opposition's amendments in good faith. I ask the Government to reconsider its attitude with a view to supporting them. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.37) —I raise briefly the question of people getting the assistance that is provided when they are living in rural areas and are frequently using it to pay for the accommodation of their children away from home. This applies to government provided hostel accommodation for children at public schools in country areas. However, most importantly, many people in my electorate find themselves obliged to send their children to a hostel because education is not available within a school bus drive of their home. This involves huge costs which have been increasing rapidly. Some of the problems of the fringe benefits tax are impacting on and increasing charges. This usually happens when children go into year 11. Unfortunately, in the way the Student Assistance Amendment Bill will be applied, 16 years will be the set age for receiving the allowance, yet many Western Australian children qualified to go into year 11 would be 15 and some months. They have been told-a letter to this effect has already been circulated by the Western Australian Department of Education-that the allowances on which the parents rely to pay the board, not for putting into the kids' pockets as this measure proposes, will be denied them until their children turn 16. This means that those people, in the present rural environment and with the present costs, will not be able to send their children away to hostels. I have already had representations on this matter. People are terribly concerned. I ask that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) address his mind to that problem because those people genuinely need the help and without some change to this legislation it appears they will not get it until the children turn 16. The parents cannot afford the one or two terms of payments prior to that time. I thank the Minister for giving me time to speak. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(12.39) —I will respond briefly to the Opposition's amendments. Although the Government does not accept them I accept the spirit in which they were moved because, in fact, we have agonised over this point. It is the case that in the past secondary student allowances were paid direct to parents. In the process of rationalisation of income support for students, we had to consider whether we would continue to treat people under a particular age or involved in a particular form of education in a different way from those over that age or involved in tertiary education. It has always been the case the allowances paid to tertiary students and, in some cases, to tertiary and further education students have gone direct to the student. The other point which influenced us was the fact that these allowances have now become taxable. Whilst one can argue about whether or not they should be taxable, my own view is that because some students have income from other sources it is equitable as a matter of principle to see these as taxable rather than non-taxable forms of income. But the most important point is that we are involved here in a massive rationalisation of income support for young people, a rationalisation which I know the Opposition, or at least the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), has broadly supported. During this process of rationalisation we have been trying to bring into line payments made to people who are still in the education system on a full time basis and those people who are outside both the education system and the labour force and who are, therefore, in receipt of the unemployment benefit. We wanted to remove the situation, which has existed up until this rationalisation process, where young people in receipt of the unemployment benefit could receive very much more than the amount that was paid to parents under the old secondary allowance system for young people who remained at school. The point that has to be made and recognised is that unemployment benefits are paid to a young person as soon as he or she reaches the eligible age of 16. It is very hard to see why young persons of 16 years of age should be eligible to receive the unemployment benefit if they leave school but should not be entitled to assistance if they remain in the education system. The last thing that we want to see as a result of this change is any controversy within families. That is not the intent and we would certainly not want to see that happen. The honourable member for Tangney made the very important point that when a young person decides to continue at school-and, basically, young persons from lower income families will be eligible for this assistance-it is likely that the support of his or her parents will be required. Therefore, we hope that in that situation the family as a whole would see this payment, even though it is paid directly to the young person, as being part of overall family income and not something which is just for the young person. The payment is made to support the costs of the young person remaining at school and it should be seen precisely in that way. The difficulty was that, having made the decision to make this a taxable payment, if we allowed the option, as we had intended at one stage, for the payment to be made to the parents, we ran the risk of the value of the benefit being greatly reduced as a result of the effect of the other taxable income that one parent might have had. In addition, in the case of parents who had no other income, the payment could have affected the spouse allowance. So I am not saying that this was an easy decision or that its results are entirely predictable. But I think, in that process of rationalisation, the massive increase in the amount of support that we are providing for those families-I will call them families, for the sake of the argument-who keep their children at school through years 11 and 12 will result in a greater level of retention, and that is our primary objective. I say to the honourable member for Tangney, however, that while we will not accept the amendments, of course, with this issue, as with many of the issues involved with the rationalisation process, we will keep the matter under review. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Shack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C. W. McVeigh, D. T. Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C. Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, D. J. H. Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Jull, D. F. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.54 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that the figures he used in the Parliament yesterday to justify his assertion that average tax rates will not be higher after 1 July next year than they were prior to the election of his Government are based on a definition of average weekly earnings that is completely different from that used, firstly, in the draft White Paper on tax reform and, secondly, by the Prime Minister himself on many occasions in this Parliament? Is it also a fact that, using the definition of average weekly earnings used in the draft White Paper and by the Prime Minister on earlier occasions, all single people and single income families currently face a higher marginal and average tax rate than when the Hawke Government first took office, and that even after the promised tax cuts these people will still be paying higher marginal and average tax rates than they were in March 1983? Mr HAWKE —No, I am not so aware. I repeat what I have said on several occasions: This Government will be more than happy in the period between now and the next election to stand on its record on tax against the pitiful record of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr MARTIN —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of the recent dismissal of 500 employees by Besco Batteries in Sydney's western suburbs with less than one hour's notice? Does the Minister regard this as acceptable industrial relations behaviour? Mr WILLIS —I can assure the House that the Government does not regard that action as an acceptable industrial relations practice. As the honourable member has said, last Friday afternoon Besco Batteries, which is located in Sydney, notified its employees that the company would be ceasing production that day, and that up to 500 of them would be dismissed that afternoon; that is, with less than an hour's notice in the case of most of them. The Government does not deny a company the right to cease production if it cannot make a go of it. However, I note in this case that it was only last year that the company conducted a substantial investment program to upgrade the plant. But we do deny the company the right to treat its employees in such a callous and contemptuous fashion. The company operates under the metal industry award which requires consultation with employees and their unions as soon as practicable after the employer makes a decision to terminate employment. It seems very likely that this provision of the award has not been adhered to in this case, and it is up to the unions to take that matter up with the Federal industrial tribunals. I note, however, that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission does not have the power to order reinstatement in the case of unfair dismissal. Every other industrial tribunal in the country-that is, the State industrial tribunals-has the power to order reinstatement in the case of unfair dismissal but the Federal Commission does not. It was a recommendation of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems that the Federal Commission be given that power. That recommendation will be appropriately addressed in the legislation which we will be bringing before the Parliament to give effect to the Hancock report in the near future. Regardless of the legal position, I repeat that it is totally unacceptable for a company to treat its employees in this way. But perhaps we should not be surprised because, as most people would be aware, Besco Batteries is a subsidiary of Peko-Wallsend Ltd, a company which has already achieved an unenviable record for its actions at Robe River in Western Australia, where it dismissed 1,100 employees and defied a reinstatement order of the State Industrial Relations Commission. That action, of course, was supported by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy Leader, the spokesman on industrial relations, both supported Peko-Wallsend's actions at Robe River. It is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition is also an enthusiastic supporter of what happened at Besco Batteries last Friday. Two days after the sackings at Besco Batteries, the Leader of the Opposition was at a fashion show organised by the Liberal Party last Sunday afternoon, where he was a guest with Mr Copeman. Mr Copeman, of course, is the Chief Executive of Peko- Wallsend and the industrial pin-up boy of the New Right. We are told that the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Copeman, in the hot afternoon sun, sipped Mastersons dry chablis 1983 and chatted over fashions. They apparently did not spend much time chatting over Besco Batteries. The Leader of the Opposition was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. What the Minister is now doing entitles me to give the usual response that I am prepared to give-and I will, to him or to the Treasurer, with his $17,000-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Minister in conclusion. Mr WILLIS —As I was saying, two days after the sackings at Besco Batteries, a subsidiary of Peko-Wallsend, the Leader of the Opposition was at this Liberal Party function with Mr Copeman, the Chief Executive of Peko-Wallsend and told the Press: . . . I'm happy that Charles Copeman is here. He's a person I admire very greatly. That is what he told the Press that afternoon, two days after Mr Copeman sacked 500 people and discarded them like so much waste paper. That is the kind of approach that we have from the Opposition. It supports an industrial relations policy which treats people with absolute contempt. Behind all the rhetoric which we hear from it about giving people their rights, it is really stripping away their rights. It favours people being treated with total disregard by their employers. It supports the employer who in this country at present is trying to lead other employers into taking actions against employees which would greatly reduce the rights of employees in this country. I believe it is a disgraceful action by the company. If the Opposition had any decency at all it would be condemning Charles Copeman for his actions, not saying what a great man he is. Mr N.A. Brown —Speaking of getting jobs for people, I direct a question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Does he recall the television interview he gave on 10 September 1985 when he conceded, to use his own words, `there's a case for a junior rate in all awards, yes', and when in reply to the question, `What are you doing about it?', he said: `At this stage nothing.'? As more than a year has now passed since the Minister conceded that youth rates in awards would enable employers to afford to employ more young people, has he still done nothing, or has he done something about it? It so, what has he done to have youth rates included in all awards? Mr WILLIS —Let me say firstly that this Government, by comparision with any other country, is doing very well in regard to youth unemployment. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr WILLIS —Obviously this sort of inane giggling is supposed to take the place of considered reaction. In the last two years-a reading of the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development employment outlook shows this-we have had growth in youth employment of 1.7 per cent and 3.9 per cent compared with other OECD countries, which have had virtually no growth in employment for young people in that period. We have been performing very well in terms of increasing youth employment. The level of youth unemployment in this country is below the OECD average. In that general respect things have considerably improved for young people. The number of jobs for young people has increased, reversing the severe decline in the number of jobs which occurred under the previous Government. In respect of the specific issue raised by the honourable member, it is the case that in the development of traineeships we have in a number of cases addressed youth wages. The general provision that prevails in the industrial agreements for traineeships is that the wage rate should be no more than 75 per cent of the junior rate which would apply for normal employment. In a number of cases those junior rates are very high. In determining the rate for traineeships-usually because there is only a straight adult rate-we take a nominal junior rate and calculate 75 per cent of that. So we have substantially addressed the need to set appropriate wage rates under traineeships which will encourage employers to take on trainees. That is what is beginning to happen. It is a matter which will be addressed in the matter of public importance later. As I said yesterday, the traineeship system is coming on stream quite strongly. It is receiving strong support from all State governments and employers. Many employer organisations are involved in industrial agreements and agree with the wages policy which is being pursued in respect of traineeships. We believe that the traineeship system will make a great impact on the youth unemployment scene in this country. Mr MOUNTFORD —I address my question to the Prime Minister. Pope John Paul II when visiting France recently asserted his strong commitment to world peace by calling for a one-day world-wide truce from armed conflict on 27 October as a symbolic gesture which could lead to permanent peace. Will the Prime Minister on behalf of the Australian Government endorse the Pope's proposal and give consideration to holding a small ceremony in King's Hall to mark the occasion on that day? Mr HAWKE —We applaud the initiative of the Pope and express the hope that it will be one of many initiatives which, when added to the events of recent weeks between the super-powers, could give momentum to what all the world is yearning for-the achievement of substantial and permanent steps which will lead to the creation of a more stable and peaceful world. I have not had the opportunity of discussing the particular proposal the honourable member put to me, but if he would be good enough, after this session has finished, to speak with me I would give an undertaking to give fairly favourable consideration to it. Mr SHACK —I address my question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in the light of his answer that the traineeship scheme is receiving strong support. Does the Minister recall the claim made in the Government's propaganda at the time the youth traineeship scheme was launched? It was claimed: The bulk of traineeships will be in private industry. It is anticipated that in excess of 60,000 traineeships out of the annual total of 75,000 will be provided by private employers . . . Is it a fact that, after more than a year of operation of the scheme, only 4.8 per cent of traineeships are in the private sector? Is it not a fact that this pathetic result shows that the private sector will not provide the bulk of traineeships while the scheme continues to be strangled by union control of the traineeship allowances and by bureaucratic red tape? Mr WILLIS —It is the case that most of the early traineeship arrangements were reached in the public sector. It is also the case that increasingly we are seeing private sector traineeships come on stream. Of the almost 5,000 traineeship commitments which exist at present, about 30 per cent are in the private sector. As I said yesterday, the recruitment occurring in the private sector is happening in the retail industry, in the tourism and hospitality industry, in the office-clerical area, which runs across many industries, and in the furniture removal area, all of which are providing traineeships, with great scope for expansion. It is the case that as the system develops the majority of traineeships will be in the private sector. As I indicated in my earlier answer, there is a number of private sector agreements. In fact, of 40 industrial training packages which exist, 15 relate to the private sector. Therefore, there is a quite substantial development in the private sector which will expand further in the near future. I am quite confident that in 1987 we will see a strong development of traineeships in the private sector. Mr MILDREN —Has the attention of the Special Minister of State been drawn to remarks by Senator Archer that the Government has gone soft on drugs? What is the Government's attitude to the role of law enforcement in the fight against drugs, including crack? Mr YOUNG —Earlier in the week, because of some legal problems, Four Corners had to replace a program and very quickly put in its place a program on drugs which had been sent from the United States. It asked me whether I would be prepared to be interviewed after the showing of that program, and I agreed. Unfortunately, I was not able to see the program before it was played and before I was interviewed. Nevertheless, I understand that this is what Senator Archer has commented on. I have not seen his comment appear anywhere except in the Launceston Examiner, so perhaps it has not done too much damage. As honourable members would know, there is no evidence that this Government is soft on drugs, nor is it the case that the Government is fighting drugs at one level-the law enforcement level. Law enforcement is an extremely important part of the fight but, as the House knows and as I continually say, and this is the reason why the Prime Minister has put the Minister for Health in the vanguard of the campaign, the only way we can defeat drugs is by educating the public about the danger of drugs. No country in the world has been successful in keeping out drugs. We can minimise them with law enforcement, with customs agencies and, in the case of some countries, with the coastguard, but we cannot keep them out altogether. We have had a great deal of success in the seizure of drugs. The program referred to revolved around the development and sale of the new drug in the United States called crack. It was felt that, because so many people had taken to the drug in the United States, proportionately Australia would go the same way. When I am interviewed on this subject, I continually make the point, and I hope everybody in Australia understands, that we are not part of the United States. We should look at our problems here and deal with those problems as they exist. On the program with Andrew Olle was a young journalist from 2GB who wanted to give evidence that crack was easily obtained. He said that he spent three or four nights in Kings Cross in order to prove his point and that eventually he was able to do a deal and buy some crack, which he had handed over to the police. He said: `That proves my point about how easy it is to obtain it'. I do not make light of this, but the material he handed over to the police has now been examined by the Department of Health in the analytical laboratories and has been found to be aspirin. I take it that if someone embarks on this type of junior law enforcement activity and wanders around Kings Cross offering money to buy something there will be someone clever enough to sell something to him, irrespective of its makeup. Whatever the development of a new drug, it poses some problems, but people who point to crack as being the danger in Australia-obviously any new drug is a danger-ought to look at our experience with cocaine. A few years ago people were saying that we would go the same way as the United States in the use of cocaine, that we would develop proportionately the same number of cocaine addicts and that we would face the same problems. Cocaine has come to Australia, in spite of all the efforts and co-operation between our law enforcement agencies, State and Federal, and with international agencies. But I do not think that it is true to say, and people should not say, that we have reached the same level of problem as the United States is facing. The same thing should be said about crack. We should continue as intelligently as we can, with the Minister for Health leading the way, in educating the public about the problems of drugs. If everybody in Australia understands the problem and we minimise the demand for the drugs, that is the best way of combating the problem we are likely to confront in this country. I have been briefed by people in the United States. I invite honourable members on both sides of the House, when they are visiting overseas countries-and I will facilitate this-to get briefings from law enforcement agencies about what problems those countries are facing. If honourable members are in the United States and are briefed by its agencies they will see that there is a vast difference between the problems with which they are confronted and the problems with which we are confronted. We have had a great deal of success with the joint Commonwealth-New South Wales task force in seizures, arrests and prosecutions. All the figures from the last two or three years are available for honourable members. They will see that the National Crime Authority has the runs on the board from drug matters that were handed over from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. We are dealing with these matters competently. I can only hope that Senator Archer misunderstood what I was saying. I continually emphasise that as a responsible Australian Minister I see that Australian problem and deal with it as we should in Australia. I do not see the problem in Australia and say that it is an American problem and we will deal with it in the American way. We are better able to deal with these problems in our own arena. Mr SMITH —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to his statement of 2 October 1985, which is over a year ago, when he announced amidst much fanfare the recruitment of the first private sector traineeships with the Ansett company. Will the Minister confirm that in fact, after 12 months, not a single trainee has yet been placed with the Ansett company? Will the Minister concede that there is a very real difference between a traineeship that has been announced and a traineeship that is providing employment for a young Australian? Is this not further evidence of the dismal failure of the Government's youth traineeship scheme? Mr WILLIS —As I have already indicated, there is no failure, but it is the case that the Ansett traineeship proposal did not go ahead. It did not go ahead because of some problems which arose and which we have not been able to overcome. As I have already indicated in answer to two previous questions today and yesterday, there has been a substantial development in private sector traineeships. There are 15 industrial training packages in the private sector at present which provide us with scope for considerable growth of private sector traineeships. Let me make another point. We have had a series of questions from the Opposition today about traineeships. I am pleased that those opposite have some interest in the subject at last. Let us recall what happened when they were in office. The actual number of jobs for young people declined very substantially. They left us with a youth unemployment rate of 27 per cent. Yet those opposite try to score off us about the traineeship system, a system which very substantially will improve not only the youth unemployment level but, more importantly, also the lifetime employment prospects of young people-something that those opposite did not attempt to do in their seven years under Fraser or in their 23 years prior to that. In regard to doing something for young people, this Government, through the traineeship initiative, through a whole array of other initiatives and through reversing the long term downward movement of youth employment and getting strong employment growth for young people, stronger than in any other country in the Western world over the last couple of years, has shown that it has what it takes to do something for young people, to get them jobs, and to improve their education qualifications-which is also important for young people. Over the last three years the youth retention rate in high schools, that is retention to year 12, has gone up from 36 per cent, which was a disgracefully low figure and one of the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development area, to 46 per cent-an enormous increase in three years. The actions we are taking in respect of the large increase in the secondary allowance scheme, which already has been virtually doubled from the amount it was when we came to office and which will go up again at the end of next year to equate with unemployment benefits, will dramatically increase the retention rate of young people in secondary schools and help to overcome one of the great deficiencies of young people at present in the labour market, which is that they do not have adequate educational qualifications. The other side of that is that for those who do not complete the higher school certificate we need to improve their vocational skills and transform the process of moving from school to work so that they are more attractive to employers. That is what traineeships are about. That is why they have the support of employers, the trade union movement and all State governments. Although the system has taken some time to get under way it is now coming on stream quite strongly and in the next few years it will transform the transition from school to work and greatly improve the employment position of young people. Mr Baldwin proceeding to address a question to the Treasurer- Mr Tuckey-I take a point of order. The Standing Orders are quite explicit on hypothetical questions. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat and rephrase his question. Mr Keating-I take a point of order. If the honourable member for O'Connor objects to that question being hypothetical, every question directed to me in recent days has been similarly hypothetical. Madam SPEAKER —That is quite so but fortunately the other questions did not include the word `hypothetical'. Mr MILES —Does the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations recall the television interview he gave over a year ago on 10 September 1985 when he said that by the youth traineeship scheme alone: `We will halve the unemployment rate for 16- and 17-year-olds'? The Minister said that that would happen within four years. Is it a fact that since the traineeship scheme was introduced the rate of youth unemployment, including the rate for 16- and 17-year-olds, has not been reduced at all but has increased? Is it still the Government's expectation that the unemployment rate for 16- and 17-year-olds will be halved within the next three years? Mr WILLIS —It is the case that if traineeships come on strongly, as I now expect that they will, that will have a significant impact on 16- and 17-year-old youth unemployment levels, because traineeships are directed particularly at 16- and 17-year-olds. As traineeships become more readily available, obviously that will have a considerable impact on the level of unemployment for that age group, as too will the increase in the retention rates at school, which, as I have already mentioned, have increased considerably over the last three years. I stress again that the action we have taken in respect of the secondary allowance scheme, which provides substantial assistance to young people from low income families to stay at school-and because children from low income families are the group most likely to leave school early-will greatly increase the incentive for those young people to stay at school. We expect those retention rates to go up much further. The combination of increased numbers of traineeships and increasing the retention rate at school will have a very considerable effect on the unemployment rate for 16- and 17-year-olds. Mr BALDWIN —My question is directed to the Treasurer and relates to the operation of the capital gains tax. I ask the Treasurer about the position of a peanut farmer with a house and curtilage in the Kingaroy region of Queensland. Suppose the farmer also operates a fowlyard located at some distance from the farmhouse. If this farmer develops paranoid schizophrenic tendencies, culminating- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I cannot hear the question. During the last few Question Times the Chair has given quite a bit of latitude to questions which normally would have been ruled out of order. Most of them were hypothetical. In future the Chair should stick strictly to the rules. However, having given latitude previously, I continue to do so. Mr BALDWIN —I shall start again. My question relates to the operation of the capital gains tax. I ask the Treasurer about the position of a peanut farmer with a house and curtilage in the Kingaroy region of Queensland. Suppose the farmer also operates a fowlyard located at some distance from the farmhouse. Suppose this farmer subsequently develops paranoid schizophrenic tendencies, culminating in a bifurcated personality, believing himself to be Benito Mussolini for part of the time, but for most of the time believing himself to be a headless chook. While he is a headless chook he rushes frenetically about the fowlyard flapping his arms. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Standing Order 144 says that questions should not contain hypothetical matter and ironical expressions. Madam SPEAKER —It is hardly ironical; it is more medical. I suggest to the House that this is probably the last hypothetical question Question Time will see. I call the honourable member for Sydney and ask him not to start his question again, please. Mr BALDWIN —While he is a headless chook he rushes frenetically around the fowlyard flapping his arms. While he is Benito Mussolini, on the other hand, he uses the farmhouse and curtilage to make frenzied, demagogic speeches about the threat from the Canberra socialists to a massed assemblage of trained cane toads, clad in miniature combat fatigues and steel helmets. Madam SPEAKER —Will the honourable member hurry up and finish. This is almost a thesis. Mr BALDWIN —In such a case, would the farmer be regarded as ordinarily resident at the fowlyard, thereby making the farmhouse subject to capital gains tax? Is this an intended or unintended consequence of the capital gains tax legislation? Mr KEATING —Where the area of tax principle and policy starts and finishes in this particular circumstance, one could not be entirely certain. As I have indicated to my colleagues and the Opposition, questions which relate to particular taxpayers' circumstances-even headless chooks-and to the application of the tax law and the statute responsibility of the Commissioner of Taxation in determining that law quite properly ought to be put on the Notice Paper. They will then be given, along with other questions, a considered reply. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and refer him to an answer he gave on Monday in which he incorrectly asserted that the United States would be offering very generous and heavy subsidisation for cattle exports to the Philippines and that the United States is `not fair dealing or intends not to fair deal' on this matter. Is the Minister aware that no official United States offer of finance has been made? Is he also aware that the United States has no subsidy program for cattle? I ask the Minister why he misrepresented what is a standard United States Government guarantee against a commercial loan at commercial rates as `unfair' and as an extension of recent United States farm export subsidisation. Has he not incorrectly and unfairly attacked the United States and prejudiced Australia's credibility in future negotiations with the United States over export subsidies? Will he now apologise to the United States and admit that his statement was a misrepresentation of the issues involved? Mr HAYDEN —I compliment the honourable member on a curious conversion. However, the conflict of assertion on the part of National Party members has never been a problem for them in this place. The honourable member was saying something almost exactly similar a little while ago in public statements he was making, as were National Party representatives. I was quoting from a statement which came to us through our representatives and came out of Manila. As to whether it is correct, I cannot vouchsafe. There are two things to be said. First, if the statement was correct, the concerns I expressed are entirely justified and are no different from the concerns which have been mentioned by some National Party representatives and the Australian cattle expert who seems to be so prodigiously represented in promoting his self-interest by those people. The second point is that the fears which that cattle expert and his representatives in the National Party have been seeking to generate in the community are, if what the honourable member now says is correct, totally unfounded. There is no longer any argument to justify the outrageous statements which he, and he through National Party representatives, such as the honourable member for Dawson, has been making. Mr JENKINS —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. In light of criticisms of the Australian Institute of Sport, can the Minister inform the House of the progress of athletes from that Institute? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for his question. In light of the unbridled criticisms that have been heaped on the Australian Institute of Sport-not only criticisms but all sorts of invective, particularly by Opposition members-it is only fair that I should answer this question. Perhaps I should start by indicating to you, Madam Speaker, that of the 47 gold medals which Australia won at the recent Commonwealth Games, 36 were won by full time or part time scholarship holders at the Australian Institute of Sport, which is a fair reason for its existence. Apart from that, three out of the four national squash championships have been won by members of the squash team in Brisbane. The recent addition to the Institute of Sport, the Australian rowing team, managed for the first time in history to win the blue riband of world rowing, the rowing eights, with five of the eight being full time scholarship holders at the Institute of Sport in Canberra. Peter Antoine, in line with that, also won the world lightweight sculls championship. The youth soccer team from the Institute of Sport has now won the national league. The women's water polo team members have become world champions. The women's netball team members are world champions. We are now in the final of the Davis Cup, against Sweden, to be held in December. Dare I say, Madam Speaker, as the Ambassador from Ireland is sitting in the gallery, that I wonder what will be the result of the final match on Friday between Australia and Ireland in football. My Irish background precludes me from offering an opinion. More importantly, particularly as far as this House is concerned, I hope that honourable members will welcome back into our fold the honourable member for Perth. The Australian hockey team has now won the world championship, an enormous achievement, particularly in the case of the honourable member for Perth, who has been magnificently representing Australia since 1972. He scored more goals in the tournament than anyone else, has made 201 appearances for Australia and was declared the man of the series, which makes him not only the greatest hockey player in the world today but probably one of the greatest hockey players the world has ever seen. Mr Hawke —He is a good member. Mr JOHN BROWN —As the Prime Minister suggests to me, he is also an excellent member of this House of Parliament. I think that the litany of successes I have detailed is a fair example of the efficacy of and the real reasons for the Institute of Sport. That brings me to mention once again what I happen to know are the intentions of the Opposition if ever it becomes the government. As the Leader of the Opposition so foolishly revealed in an interview in Sydney not that long ago and as relayed to me by all sorts of members of the New Right about the Opposition's views on the Institute of Sport, sports people in Australia happen to know that, if the Opposition ever happens to be the government, they will get exactly the same treatment from it that they got in the other 36 of the last 40-odd years when it was sitting on the government benches-they will get nothing. We happen to know that the Opposition intends, if it gets into government, to wind down the activities of the Institute of Sport. I suggest to the Opposition that Australia is once again at the dawn of a golden era in sport-the sort of reputation we had in the 1950s and 1960s. I am very proud of the achievements of this Government, not only in raising the standard of Australia in international sport but also, more importantly, in raising the participation rate of young Australians in all levels of sport. Sport in Australia has undergone an absolute revolution since we have been the Government. While acknowledging the enormous achievement of Ric Charlesworth and the Australian hockey team, I hope the Opposition will take to heart that any attempt by it, if it happens to achieve the treasury benches, to vandalise the great success that this Government has achieved in sport would not be acceptable to sport generally or Australia particularly. Mr ALDRED —Is the Minister for Defence aware that the former Commander of the Australian Submarine Squadron, Captain Bill Owen, with 31 years experience of submarines behind him, has heavily criticised the hasty and ill-advised decision making on the $2,600m new submarine project which he says has been determined by political and industrial considerations and not proper naval requirements? Is the Minister also aware of the grave doubts expressed by Captain Owen about the building cost estimates and unproven submarine designs of the two short listed contenders, Kockums of Sweden and HDW-IKL of West Germany? In view of Captain Owen's contention that the project should be deferred until the operational capabilities of several alternative proven submarine designs can be adequately assessed, and the technical, financial and security concerns expressed by naval experts both outside and inside the Department of Defence considered, will the Government now undertake a detailed review of the submarine project? Mr BEAZLEY —Madam Speaker,-- Mr Aldred —I take it that in answering this question the Minister will not present another faked Swedish document. Mr BEAZLEY —Such a threatening fellow. I understand from colleagues here that the particular gentleman concerned has been a political candidate for the side of the honourable member for Bruce. I am aware of his views. Mr Aldred —I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 145 which requires an answer to be relevant. It is well known that Captain Owen has been a National Party candidate. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has not started to answer yet. Mr Aldred —That does not negate his 30 years of submarine experience. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will sit down. Mr BEAZLEY —Having made that point, I am aware of his views. I have had the privilege of seeing his views not just in the last week or two, which seems to be when the honourable member has picked them up, but 12 months ago when he made very similar points and put forward exactly the same sort of argument. I think one or two points need to be made in defence of the Royal Australian Navy officers who selected the submarines that we decided to send to project definition study. There seems to be some misapprehension in the mind of the honourable member-- Mr Aldred —And the minds of many others as well. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr BEAZLEY —That the Government sat down and said to the Royal Australian Navy: `You will select HDW-IKL and Kockums as the submarine tenderers for the project definition study'. There seems to be some misapprehension in his view that an ideological prejudice on our part determined that course of action. We selected the submarines that were recommended to us. If the Navy had recommended the British submarine and the Dutch submarine, we would have selected them. The honourable member for Bruce interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bruce will consider his position. Mr BEAZLEY —We made no alteration whatsoever to the recommendations which had come through to us from the Royal Australian Navy. I believe that to be entirely appropriate. I believe that it is entirely appropriate that a government determines what sort of capability it needs, what sort of capability it requires in its submarines, what number is required and what it is prepared to spend on them. That is an appropriate role for government. It is not an appropriate role for government to make a technical decision, once all those determinations have been made, as to what is an appropriate submarine to choose. Mr Aldred —One man made the decision and he has since been fired. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr BEAZLEY —That is not an appropriate role. It is not one that we have assumed for ourselves in this instance. As to whether or not we are moving too fast, let me just say that the timetable we are moving on, is the timetable that was essentially set down by the right honourable member for New England when he was Minister for Defence. We have not, for a change, deviated from that timetable. We have been making decisions on time-- Mr Aldred —It is your mate who made the decision. Madam SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Bruce. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the honourable member for Bruce be suspended from the service of the House. Mr Sinclair —I suggest that there was a team of people on the front bench of the Government egging the honourable gentleman on. While I well understand the circumstances, could I suggest that the honourable member be given a chance to withdraw and apologise, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the Leader of the National Party that I four times suggested that the honourable member come to order and I then suggested that the honourable member for Bruce consider his position. I am aware that he has already been suspended once. I was being very co-operative. Mr Howard —On the intercession of the right honourable-- Mr Ronald Edwards —We will show him the compassion you showed Lionel Murphy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is out of order. Mr Howard —It is not only out of order but also in most appalling taste. Madam Speaker, could I add to the intercession of the Leader of the National Party. I put it to you that, in the context of exchanges that take place in this Parliament and having regard to the capacity of the Minister for Defence to answer questions in this place and to give a reasonable account of himself, the honourable member for Bruce be given an opportunity of reconsidering his position. The imposition of another suspension on him, against the background of what I have said, would be quite unreasonable. Madam SPEAKER —I just reply to the Leader of the Opposition that the honourable member for Bruce was named not for anything to do with the Minister for Defence but because he persistently and wilfully refused to accept the authority of the Chair. If the Chair's authority is going to be questioned in this way all the time, the Chair must take action to protect itself if the House will not. Question put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, D. J. H.Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. In division- Dr Klugman-Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. May I say that in my 16 years here I have never had greater pleasure in any vote than in this vote. Madam SPEAKER-Order! There is no point or order. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —This being the honourable member's second suspension during the year, the suspension is for the remainder of this day and the next seven consecutive days. Mr Aldred —Tell the truth in the rest of the answer. The honourable member for Bruce thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr BEAZLEY —I hope the honourable gentleman will read the rest of the answer in Hansard because he asked a question which I consider is entirely legitimate for Question Time and I am pleased to be able to give him a comprehensive answer on the subject. The source selection for the project definition study was, as I indicated earlier, a matter for naval advice to the Australian Government. The people giving us that naval advice of course included a substantial number of naval engineers, including naval engineers who had been involved in the submarine program. They had available to them, to study and recommend on, and place in some order of preference, the two submarines to which Captain Owens referred in his article, and they rated them below those that were ultimately accepted by the Government. The only intervention by this Government in the source selection program was a decision that we made against the recommendation by the Department to bring on a second competitor for the combat system. That is the only intervention that we made in that source selection program. Since that time a considerable effort has been put into arriving at precisely what is the right submarine for Australian circumstances. Involved in that process over the last 12 months has been a most intense consultation with Australian industry. Numbers of companies in this country are now setting themselves up to participate actively in this submarine program, which it is anticipated will not only improve the skills of Australian industry but also bring in a great deal of work to Australia. There is a conviction on the part of the Navy that it has made the right selection of the type of submarine that it wishes the Government to proceed with. I will conclude on this note: Any delay in that process will have a substantial impact on the confidence and effectiveness of the participation of Australian industry. That is the first point. The second point is that any delay will project out into service a submarine which, though good now, will be very old by the 1990s. Indeed, the likely characteristics of that submarine in the 1990s were described to me by one submariner as the equivalent by then of an underwater jazz band. The third reason why we wish not to delay the project is the way in which the defence budget will look in the 1990s. It will be a very close run thing bringing in not only the submarine but also the new surface combatant. If we seriously delay the submarine program for no good reason-and no good reason has been presented to us-it will be extremely difficult for governments in the 1990s to be able effectively to pay for both the new surface combatant and the submarine. For all those very sound reasons and as we have operated in source selection strictly on Navy advice and without prejudice, I am not inclined to give any consideration whatsoever to the suggestion made by the honourable member or Captain Owen for delay in the program. Mr DUBOIS —Will the Treasurer please advise the House of the current status of the Government's legislation implementing tax cuts? Mr KEATING —The Income Tax Rates Bill 1986 was passed in the Senate earlier today. It brings into law the biggest tax cuts in this nation's history. Tax cuts, in two stages, will total $4.5 billion. There will be a cut in the tax rates for average income earners from the level when the Government took office in 1983. The tax cuts will reduce the 60 per cent marginal rate of the Leader of the Opposition to 55 per cent and then to 49 per cent and, coupled with the new imputation system, will reduce the former Treasurer's 80c in the dollar tax rate on small business to no more than 49c, of course providing genuine incentive to people in the small business community. The tax cuts follow the Government's tax cut of $7.60 a week across the board in November 1984 for people earning between $12,500 and $28,000, which particularly benefited low and middle income earners. The tax cut which will take place on 1 December this year will take this further by lifting the tax free threshold from $4,595 to $5,100, exempting thousands of low income earners from taxation. I add that the tax cuts this year are real tax cuts. They are not like the tax cuts introduced by the former Treasurer in 1982 which the nation could not afford. Those tax cuts virtually mortgaged the future, blowing out the Budget deficit to $9.6 billion by 1983. These tax cuts have been won the hard way, that is, by cutting expenditure, by instituting expenditure restraint, and by pulling down the structural Budget deficits. We have still provided these fundamentally important tax cuts on this massive scale of $4.5 billion. It will be a very historic day in terms of the tax legislation of this country when the full proceeds of the tax reform package-and more-in all its individual parts, are returned to taxpayers, not just by way of a promise of the Government but by the law of the land, cutting taxes for individuals on 1 December 1986 and on 1 July 1987 by $4.5 billion. It is the largest tax cut in the nation's history and it will bring tax relief to many hundreds of thousands of Australian taxpayers who have been denied tax justice for so long by the policies of the former Government. I certainly commend the House and the Senate on the passage of this historic tax legislation, which brings to fruition the dramatic changes to the tax law. The proceeds from the eradication of shelters will go to increase incentive and provide the lower marginal rates of tax which will apply from December this year and July next year. That is now a matter of law. It is not a promise of the Government. It is not part of any announced package which has not been legislated. It is the law of the land, and it should be interesting to taxpayers that the Government's commitments on tax cuts have been fulfilled and will be fulfilled as their pay packets are increased by the tax cuts on 1 December this year and 1 July next year. Madam SPEAKER —On Monday last the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) raised his concerns about the operation of Question Time. The points raised by the honourable member for O'Connor are of interest and his precedents traverse a considerable period over which a number of Speakers have presided over various moods of the House. Implicit in his suggestion is that Question Time rests entirely on the actions of the Chair and that there will be consistency of rulings from Speaker to Speaker. This has never been the case. The House of Representatives Practice at page 488 states: Questions without notice by their very nature raise significant difficulties for the Chair. The necessity for the Speaker to make instant decisions on the application of the many rules on the form and content of questions is one of [the] most demanding tasks . . . Speakers tend to be lenient in applying the standing orders so that, for example, breaches of only minor procedural importance do not prevent questions on issues of special public interest . . . The result of this liberality in the interpretation of the standing orders is that rulings have not always been well founded and inconsistencies have occurred. To illustrate this point, Speaker Snedden said in 1982: I have indicated before, and I repeat-although it should not be necessary-that I possess no power to require the Prime Minister to end an answer. Indeed, although I am reluctant to admit it, I have no power to order any Minister to end an answer. In the past I have done so. I have never done so in relation to the Prime Minister. I give him, as I give the Leader of the Opposition, considerable latitude, and I do not intend to change that practice. To further illustrate the point, Speaker Jenkins stated in 1983: I respond to the matter raised by the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I indicated earlier that I hoped that questions would be succinct and that answers would be to the point. However, if honourable members turn to the relevant pages of House of Representatives Practice . . . they will see that there are no standing orders which enable me to cut down on the length of an answer. It can be done only by persuasion. Similarly, one must remember that with regard to questions the habit has grown for a question to contain more than one question. as we have seen today-- I hope that the House will take note of the request and that questions will be succinct and answers similarly so. On another occasion, in 1984 Speaker Jenkins said: The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order on two points. One of them concerns the length of answers. In the Standing Orders no restriction is placed on the length of answers. In fact, the matter was referred to the Standing Orders Committee in the previous Parliament, and no action was taken. My hands are bound on that question of length of answers. With regard to relevance, when general questions are asked it is very difficult to define them, down to specific relevant points. Bearing in mind the length of some of the questions and the ground they cover, controlling the length of answers becomes even more difficult. The House should grasp the nettle and determine its procedures so that Question Time will serve the purpose that members require. If the House wants more questions, it should face that fact and adopt the Standing Orders to ensure this. While we are all aware of the examples of intervention by the Chair on matters of relevance and length of answers, the procedural authority for such action is not very strong, and the further along the path of intervention the Chair goes the more open the Chair is to criticism for exercising an authority and control beyond that laid down in the Standing Orders. The actions of one Speaker are not binding on another and the climate and conditions of the particular circumstances must be taken into account. Over many years there has been considerable dissatisfaction with some aspects of the operation of Question Time and there is a perceived need for change. Effective change must, however, be based on the good will and acceptance of members. The House has a vehicle, in the form of the Standing Committee on Procedure, which is currently examining the problems of Question Time, and this is why I have encouraged, and will continue to encourage, all members to put proposals to this all-party Committee. I have no wish to pre-empt that Committee by my own actions and I await its report with interest. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) has drawn my attention to delays in receipt of answers to questions on notice and has suggested that I recommend a time limit. This is not a matter in which I have any power to intervene. Again, I say that members should put their problems before the Procedure Committee. In conclusion I should say that it is the House, through its members, which decides the way the House operates. Although the problems we are facing with Question Time have been with us for many years, the House has not been prepared to accept its responsibilities. Instead, members have consistently placed the blame for the inadequacies of the system on the Chair, when the responsibility lies solely with the House, and the House alone. I now place the matter in the hands of the House, where it squarely belongs. I assure the House that in the meantime I will endeavour to interpret the Standing Orders to the best of my ability and to ensure that a measure of equity and fairness as between Government and Opposition is maintained. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to raise two points in regard to the matter you have just canvassed. The first is that I would like to ask the Leader of the House (Mr Young) whether he can ensure that there is an opportunity to debate the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure which is before the Parliament. We have discussed this matter, and he has suggested that there might be some time when we can debate that matter before the House adjourns. Secondly, in thanking you, Madam Speaker, for the response you have given in some detail to the intervention by my colleague the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), could I suggest that perhaps there is still one matter that is not clear from the statement, and that is the question of the interpretation of relevance. I know you have addressed it in general form, but in your final comments you did say you would suggest that the House should comply with the Standing Orders. We have absolutely no dis-agreement in that respect. We would ask that, when Ministers respond to questions without notice, they keep in mind the appropriate requirements of standing order 145, which does obligate them to be relevant to the question asked of them. I accept your admonition that some of the questions may be very wide. At the same time, where there is a narrow application, I think that on occasions Ministers have transgressed, and I hope that they too will be required to be relevant. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Madam Speaker, may I have your indulgence for a minute or two on the same point arising out of the ruling which you have just given? Madam SPEAKER —Yes. Mr SPENDER —I remind you that standing order 1-I think this is directly relevant-states: In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by sessional or other orders or practice of the House, resort shall be had to the practice of the Commons House . . . for the time being . . . In the twentieth edition of May's Parliamentary Practice at page 345 this is said: An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers of the Crown . . . The emphasis is on `confined to the points contained in the question'. Madam Speaker, you have said in your detailed answer that you have no power, but I point out to you that, under the Standing Orders, since an answer is required to be relevant-although relevance does occasion difficulties in interpretation-where a Minister persistently fails to be relevant and refuses to do so, your authority to deal with the matter is to be found under standing order 303, which deals with situations where, amongst other things, there is a persistent and wilful refusal to conform to any standing order. Of course, a persistent and wilful refusal to be relevant would be a persistent and wilful refusal to conform to a standing order. That would give you authority to deal with the matter by asking the Minister to sit down or, if he refused to be relevant, to name him. So the power is there. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to speak very briefly on the statement you have just made. Madam SPEAKER —Yes. Mr SHIPTON —I thank you for answering my letter to you of 20 October in which I raised the matter of the long time taken to answer questions on the Notice Paper. I note that you have referred this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure. Madam SPEAKER —No, I suggested that you do so. Mr SHIPTON —I will certainly do that. Did you consider the question I raised in another letter to you on the same day of the possibility of drafting a set of guidelines in relation to standing order, I think, 145, which says that an answer shall be relevant to the question? Have you considered a set of guidelines for relevance to answers to questions after considering precedents and dictionary definitions of the word `relevant'? Madam SPEAKER —That would be very presumptuous of the Chair. That matter also belongs with the Procedure Committee. The Chair does not set down the rules by which this House runs. Sometimes I wish it did. It is the members who determine how the House will run. Therefore, if they want guidelines set down along the lines you are talking about, the Procedure Committee should recommend that to the House and the members of the House then determine whether they like it. Mr KEOGH(Bowman) —Madam Speaker, following your statement I want to take this opportunity to add a few remarks which I think might be helpful to honourable members. I do so as the person chairing the Standing Committee on Procedure. You referred to the fact that the Committee's current inquiry is dealing with Question Time. The inquiry is into the Standing Orders and practices which govern the conduct of Question Time. You suggested to honourable members that if they have any particular suggestions they should make them to the Procedures Committee. I indicate to you, Madam Speaker-I am sure you are aware of this-and to honourable members in particular that we are fast approaching the completion of the current inquiry. We have spent quite a deal of time on it. I am rather hopeful that when our recommendations come to the House the suggested changes to the Standing Orders will give you the support and backing that I believe is lacking at the moment and that that will arm you with the additional authority that so clearly is required to enable you to put a greater measure of control and order into Question Time. In addition, I believe that some of the Committee's recommendations will illustrate quite clearly to members that the reform of Question Time is, as you have suggested, Madam Speaker, in their hands. It will be necessary for honourable members to look very closely at the recommendation we have made and, provided there is a measure of goodwill on both sides of the House, I am sure that we can look forward to more respectable Question Times in the near future. Honourable members need to move very quickly if they have any special suggestions to make to the Procedures Committee, otherwise they will miss the boat or the bus. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977, I present volume 4 of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's report for 1985-87 triennium and the recommendations for 1987. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973, I present the Commonwealth Schools Commission report for 1987 and the response to the Government's guidelines. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian National Railways Commission accident statistics for the 1985-86 financial year. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members, I present an information paper entitled `Outlook for the Aviation Industry'. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —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 HOWARD —Yes. During Question Time the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), I think basing his remarks on some comments attributed to me at a weekend gathering involving the Managing Director of Peko-Wallsend Ltd, claimed that I had supported the action of the Besco company in the manner in which the employment of 500 of its employees was terminated last Friday. That claim is wrong. The only public comment I have made until now on the Besco sacking was in response to an inquiry from the Sydney Morning Herald. In response to that inquiry I indicated that I believed, on the facts known to me, that the company had behaved in an insensitive manner towards its employees. As is correctly reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, the company has a right to manage but it has to treat its work force decently, and what constitutes decent treatment of a work force will vary according to a whole set of circumstances. The point I make is simply that, although I in no way retract the remarks that the Minister referred to arising out of a social gathering at the weekend-I see no reason to do so-it should not be assumed, as the Minister incorrectly assumed, that because I express some support for an individual that necessarily means that I agree with the actions on each and every occasion of that individual. At no stage have I done other than express the reservations I have about the circumstances leading to that dismissal. 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 Braithwaite,Mr Ian Cameron,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fitzgibbon,Mr Hawker,Mr Nehl,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. 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 Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fife,Mr Nehl,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Ruddock. 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 Mora- torium. 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 Chynoweth,Mr Hollis,Ms Jakobsen,Mr Jenkins and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Carlton and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. 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 Carlton. 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: Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy 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 Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Bene fits tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the anomalous Fringe Benefits tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, it has caused unemployment, it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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: 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 Downer 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 1947). 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. 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 and Mr Milton. 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 showeth 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 Beale. 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. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned stud breeders of Australia showeth: 1. Stud breeders are deeply concerned over the Federal Government's decision to create a new tax which will be most harmful to the industry. 2. If passed, the proposed tax law would cause chaos in an industry that caters for the domestic and export markets. 3. Could cause the loss of pedigreed animals in all spheres of the industry for years to come. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will: (a) reconsider the stud stock tax and so remove an added burden on stud breeders. (b) Formulate policies that will de-regulate the industry and achieve an environment which caters for the depressed economy resulting from the devalued dollar. by Mr Burr. To 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 Bene- fits 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 renumeration pack- ages; 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes, and 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr 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 its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap can be terminated from 19 October 1986. 2. In the advent of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. 3. That all the most important U.S.A. Bases in Australia have nuclear First Strike functions is clear, with Pine Gap for example having the ability to pick out land targets for the U.S.A. Sea-Launched Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. 4. Action against U.S.A. Bases in Australia is overdue and urgent. They endanger World Peace and are an outrageous violation of Australia's National Sovereignty. We most strongly oppose any renewal of the Pine Gap lease to the U.S.A. and call for its closure and all U.S. Bases in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Holding. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we protest the funding cuts to the English as a Second Language Programme in government schools. We request that the funds be restored without delay. Private schools have received increased funding in real terms in the 1986/7 Budget. This money should be used to re-instate the ESL programs to its previous level. Government schools receive 86% of all new arrivals to this country. It is time that the Federal Government faced up to its responsibilities to both the non-English speaking children and to the government school system and your petitioners as in duty bound will humbly pray. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor government's productivity-super- annuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine the human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: (a) The film ``Hail Mary'' (i.e. ``Je Vous Salue Marie'') has been registered by the Film Censorship Board for public exhibition with a Restricted Classification; and is due to be screened in the forthcoming Sydney Film Festival; (b) The film is a blasphemous and pornographic attack on Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph and the Archangel Gabriel, as such it is extremely offensive to the undersigned; (c) The film therefore breaches regulation 13 (1) of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives call upon the Attorney-General, as the Minister responsible, to prevent the exhibition of the film in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Western Australia call on the Commonwealth Government to reverse recent decisions which deny Secondary Allowances to Year 11 Students under the age of 16 years and make such allowances directly payable to students on attaining the age of 16. This request is made on the basis that: (i) Education benefits as part of income support benefits generally are a Commonwealth responsibility under the constitution. (ii) It is the right of parents with children in Year 11 in Western Australia to receive the same benefit as parents with children at the equivalent stage of their education in other parts of Australia irrespective of their age. (iii) This decision by the Commonwealth Government will impact most unfairly on the capacity of low income families in Western Australia to keep their children at school in Years 11 and 12. (iv) Direct payment of the allowance to 16 year olds will make it easier for young people to leave home and bring more pressure on State Authorities to find alternative accommodation for them at the community and taxpayers' expense. 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 Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, electors of the Division of Fowler 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. by Mr Grace. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at Warrnambool Institute Student Union, in the Federal electorate of Wannon respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form or Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker 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. Petitions received. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986 Income Tax Rates Bill 1986 Income Tax Bill 1986 Taxation Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1986 Medicare Levy Bill 1986. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government's Australian Traineeship Scheme. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.25) —We raise this matter of public importance for the simple reason that the Australian traineeship scheme has been a dismal and complete failure. The Government should be condemned for that failure. It should be condemned because of the unreal expectations that it sought to build up about the prospective success of the scheme; because of the cost of the false propaganda that it peddled about the scheme; because of its ham-fisted administration of the scheme; because of the bureaucratic stranglehold it has put over the scheme; because of the degree of trade union control that it has allowed to come about in this case; and, finally, because of the effect of the taxation system on this scheme, yet another way in which the taxation system, and the way in which it operates, has served to destroy incentive in this country. The Australian traineeship scheme was not just another scheme dreamed up by a government because it had nothing better to do or because it thought it was a good idea to implement the scheme. The scheme was presented, and always has been presented, by the Government as being its vanguard, its spearhead attack, on the problems of youth unemployment in this country. Indeed, if we look at the propaganda that the Government has published, we see the point made time and time again that, so far as this Government is concerned, faced as it is with a continuing high rate of unemployment, the Australian traineeship scheme is its centrepiece-which is the word it uses-of the attack on youth unemployment. So it is just not another scheme; it is the main attempt used by this Government to reduce youth unemployment. Not only has the Government always claimed that it is its centrepiece of the attack on youth unemployment but it has persistently made four specific claims about the youth traineeship scheme. Whichever of those four claims we look at, we must come to the conclusion that each of the claims has fallen flat on its face. The Government stands condemned because each of the claims has been proved to be utterly false. Before looking at each of those four claims, I make the point that these claims about the youth traineeship scheme were not made lightly. They were made after an expensive investigation, probably costing over $1m, by the Government with expensive phone-ins and a barrage of literature and propaganda which the Government spread about the country to give the false idea to the people, in particular the young people, of this country that it had the answers. When the Government got down to tin-tacks it made these four claims about the Australian traineeship scheme. The first claim was that in the 12 months to 30 June 1986 there would, as a result of this wonderful scheme, be 10,000 young people actually placed in traineeships in this country-not just commitments for 10,000 places but 10,000 young people actually working on the job under the traineeship scheme. The Government said in the description it gave that there would be an intake of 10,000 young people. There can be no doubt whatsoever, despite all the fudging and all the attempts to confuse which we have heard from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), particularly at Question Time today, but that the Government's position from the very beginning was that 10,000 young people would actually be on the job working under the Australian traineeship scheme. The second claim that the Government made was that the bulk of these trainees would be in the private sector. The Government said: `Not for us just another government scheme forcing people into the Public Service or some gimcrack government operation. No, we will conduct a scheme to which the private sector will be so attracted that it will provide the bulk'-they were the Government's words-`of the positions under the scheme'. Thirdly, it went on to say that not only would the bulk of the positions be in the private sector but that 50 to 60 per cent of the positions would be provided by small business. The fourth claim and probably the most significant claim made-it was, after all, the centrepiece and spearhead of the Government's attack-was that this scheme would reduce youth unemployment. There can be no doubt that that was the Minister's and the Government's position from the very beginning. Listen, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will, to these heroic words of the Minister in September last year, just a month after the Government had set up the scheme and when it was engaged in the big propaganda exercise. The Minister got himself on television and said: Through the traineeship policy we will hope to significantly further reduce the level of teenage unemployment. In fact, he said: My Department's estimates are that in four years time-- this was a year ago-- by that initiative alone we will halve the unemployment rate for 16- and 17-year-olds. That is the dual claim: The Government will reduce youth unemployment and in particular it will halve the youth unemployment rate for 16-and 17-year-olds. They were four specific claims made by the Government as it engaged in its propaganda exercise about the Australian traineeship scheme. All four of those claims have now fallen flat on their face and the Government stands condemned for it. Those four claims and the promises, the inducements held out, all have failed, and the Government stands condemned for that. Let us look in a little detail at exactly how each of these claims has fallen flat on its face and how the traineeship scheme, administered as it is by the present Government, has proved such a damp squib. The Government's first claim, honourable members will recall, was that by the end of June this year there would be 10,000 young people actually on the job, working in youth traineeships. I put out a Press release the other day giving figures which I understood to be correct. They did not come to 10,000, they came to 2,449, and they applied not only to the position on 30 June 1986 but to the period up to October, four months after the end of the financial year. What has the Government produced? It has produced fewer than 2,500 traineeships. The Minister got up on his high horse and took great umbrage about this. He said: `You are peddling false figures'. Let me tell the Minister that those figures come from his own Department, and not just from one place within his Department but as a result of checking with each of the regional offices. If the Minister does not know, his own departmental officers should. What is his defence? His defence is that I am claiming there should be 10,000 traineeships and there are in effect only 2,449. But does he go on to say: `It is not 10,000, it is 9,000'? No. Does he say that there are 8,000 traineeships? No. Does he say that there are 7,000? Even that would be better. No, he says that there are 3,030. Four months after the end of the financial year, with a promise of 10,000, the best he can provide is 3,030. If that is the best he can do, he stands condemned out of his own mouth. The mere production of those figures, without any more, shows that this scheme, under the administration of this Government, with the union control and the bureaucratic red tape it has allowed to become involved, has been a miserable failure. The second claim was that the bulk of the traineeships would be in the private sector. That claim also is a dismal failure, as the bulk of traineeships in place are not in the private sector. Do honourable members know that 4.8 per cent of traineeships are in the private sector? How many are there in the private sector in Tasmania? There is none-not one. How many are there in the private sector in Victoria? There is not one, and there is a grand total of nine traineeships in the private sector in South Australia. So that claim, likewise, was incorrect. The third claim was that 50 to 60 per cent of these positions would be in small business. I ask the Minister: Are there any such positions in small business at all? If so, I ask him when he replies to tell us of them. He said that there would be 50 to 60 per cent in small business. How many are there? Small business has shown what it thinks of the Government, because it will not have a bar of any scheme it dreams up for youth traineeships or anything else. The fourth claim was that the Government would reduce youth unemployment as a result of this scheme. Mr Deputy Speaker, when you go back to those heroic words of the Minister in September last year you should remember-this is the greatest condemnation of all-that since the Government introduced the Australian traineeships scheme youth unemployment has actually increased. That is the great result of the Government's scheme and its fiddling around with the system-youth unemployment has in fact gone up. Mr Deputy Speaker, you are probably asking yourself how this came about, why the scheme is a dismal failure, why we have had this pathetic performance. If you are not, you should be. Let me give you the reasons. The scheme has failed first of all because the Government has allowed it to be surrounded and strangled by red tape. For instance, I have with me a chart which is the Government's attempt to explain to employers the simple, easy, couple-of-steps process of how youth can take part in the traineeship scheme. I show honourable members this chart, which is so complicated that they will think it was drawn up by someone suffering from the DTs-this jigsaw puzzle which is incomprehensible, this lot of bureaucratic gobbledegook which could not help utterly confusing employers. When one looks at the burden of red tape that the Government has piled on top of this scheme, it is not surprising that it has been strangled. Mr Carlton —Like the fringe benefits tax. Mr N.A. Brown —Like the fringe benefits tax. These hundreds of pages show the bureaucratic structure, not of the whole scheme, not even for one State, but for one job-the keyboard and clerical officer proposal-in one State. They are pages of bureaucratic gobbledegook. It is no wonder that the poor scheme is being strangled in its cradle with this sort of bureaucratic control. The second reason for its failure is the union control. The Government has stood by while the trade unions have strangled this scheme because the unions are not interested in getting proper youth wages so that employers can afford to employ young people-not the half of it. The third reason is that the Government has imposed on the scheme a taxation burden such that it is not surprising that employers are now very reluctant to take part in it. I mentioned this yesterday and of course the Minister took great umbrage at it. The Commissioner of Taxation, in applying the law-as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is always telling us-has published taxation ruling No. IT2364. He says four things about the operation of a tax scheme, which the Government allows to operate, because it will not change the law. This is the way the Taxation Commissioner says the present law applies. He says first of all that the allowance paid to the employers-the $1,000 bribe-is to be taxable. Let there be no doubt about it; that is what the Taxation Commissioner says. The Minister cannot seek refuge behind the fact that of course part of it can be spent and there may well be deductions. We all know that, but the Commissioner has made it plain, as he says, that amounts received by an employer under the scheme as on the job training fees are considered to be part of the assessable income of the employer. The second thing the Commissioner tells us is that allowances paid to a training institution can likewise be subject to income tax, other than, of course, if it is a tax exempt body. He tells us kindly that amounts received by the trainee himself or herself are also to be taxed. Finally, and almost inevitably, I suppose, the vicious fringe benefits tax claims another victim. We are told that a living away from home allowance received by a trainee is a fringe benefit under the fringe benefits tax legislation. I tabled this document yesterday and although there is a lot of verbiage in it honourable members can read the detail for themselves. But the only fair conclusion they can come to, after reading that ruling, is that there is now a tax stranglehold, which the Government will not change, on the Australian youth traineeship scheme. I have given the three reasons, but they result in this one conclusion: The scheme has been a failure. Now the Government is scratching around to find the odd place here and the odd place there. Do honourable members realise that there is actually one trainee in the Canberra Labor Club? Two more have been placed in the parliamentary dining rooms, and the Minister will probably claim that too. We say that the real answer is to get rid of union control of this scheme, to get rid of the bureaucratic red tape and to remove the tax burden. Then the scheme may have some chance of prospering. The real answer to youth unemployment is to do something about what the Minister said he would do something about 12 months ago, but about which he has done nothing; that it, to take some serious steps to get youth rates into all awards. Twelve months ago he said he had done nothing about that. In Question Time today we proved that he has still done absolutely nothing about it, and that is one of the reasons for the failure of this scheme. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.40) —Over the last 15 minutes we have heard a rehash of previous speeches on this subject by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown). He had nothing new to say on this subject and therefore, I guess, I can rest my case. I think I should elaborate because it is matter on which the Government is proud of its record. I remind the House that in respect of youth unemployment we have performed infinitely better than did the previous Government during its 7 1/4 years in office, when there was a decline of 92,000 in the number of young people in full time jobs. That was what the previous Government presided over. Since we have been in office that decline has been reversed and we have growth in employment for young people of just under 11,000. It has been a dramatic reversal of the disastrous performance of the previous Government, which reduced the number of jobs for young people by 18 per cent, or 92,000. It was an incredible performance, much of which happened when the previous speaker, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), was Minister for Employment. We can compare that disastrous decline in youth employment under the previous Government with the increase under this Government of almost 11,000 in employment for young people. Under the previous Government teenage unemployment grew by 88,000, or 120 per cent. Under us, youth unemployment has fallen by 34,000. The rate has dropped to just under 22 per cent, and there has also been a reduction overall of 22 per cent from the figure which we inherited. So one can see a tremendous difference in the performance of this Government in respect of youth employment when compared with the previous Government's performance. It is a total reversal of the trends. Looking at what has happened in other countries, as I mentioned in Question Time, one can see that under this Government there has been a much better performance in respect of employment of youth, which the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development calculates at 15- to 24-year-olds. When we came into office in 1983 our rate, according to the OECD, was 17.9 per cent and the OECD rate was 17.7 per cent. By 1985 we had reduced our rate from 17.9 per cent to 14.3 per cent. The OECD rate had dropped from 17.7 per cent to only 16.6 per cent. So we are well below the OECD average. Those are very important overall parameters to understand in the discussion of this issue. In respect of the absolutely basic issue of what is happening to the employment prospects of young people in this country, this Government has performed infinitely better than did the previous Government, which presided over a disastrous period for teenage employment and unemployment in this country. When we came into office we found that apprenticeships were declining at an enormous rate. We pulled that decline back from a 35,000 intake in 1983 to an intake of just over 51,000 in 1985. There has been a tremendous recovery in the intake of apprentices. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! As there has been a blackout the House stands suspended until the ringing of the bells. Sitting suspended from 3.44 to 4.04 p.m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Before I call the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) I will inform the House of what has occurred. Evidently there was a motor vehicle accident somewhere in Canberra which cut off the electricity supply to the whole of south Canberra. The Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority has told us that it believes the electricity supply has been restored permanently, but it cannot guarantee it. The Speaker will provide further information at a later hour. Mr WILLIS —Prior to the somewhat unexpected interruption I was making the point that, in a comparison of the performances of this Government and the previous Government in respect of employment and unemployment for young people, this Government had performed infinitely better than the previous Government. I was pointing out that there had been a dramatic improvement in the intake of apprentices. We are not content to rest on the enormous difference between our performance and that of the previous Government. We have sought to do other things to improve the position of young people in the labour market. Two basic measures have been taken by the Government to improve the position of young people in the labour market dramatically. One measure has been to institute a form of structured training for the 100,000 young people who leave school each year without higher school certificate qualifications and who do not go into apprenticeships or any other form of structured training. The traineeship system is directed at them. We have also tried to increase school retention rates dramatically so that the educational qualifications of our young people would be increased and that would make them more attractive to employers once they go out into the labour market. In both respects substantial achievements have occurred. As I mentioned in Question Time, there has been an enormous increase in the value of the secondary allowance. The amount has already doubled and will go up again next year and the year after to equate with unemployment benefits. The increase in school retention rates has been very substantial, with the proportion of students going through to HSC increasing in the last three years from 36 per cent to 46 per cent. That is in the context of a much better labour market than was the case under the previous Government. Clearly, there has been great success in that area. We certainly hope that the number of students going through to HSC will continue to increase substantially as a result of the increase in the secondary allowance. Also, we set about establishing the traineeship system. We set targets for ourselves which, in retrospect, obviously were too ambitious. The establishment of the traineeship system establishes, in effect, an equivalent-more than an equivalent if it reaches fruition as we would hope-of the apprenticeship system. It would be impossible to set up an apprenticeship system and get vast numbers of apprentices overnight. So it is with traineeships. One needs to establish the training. One needs to get agreement about what the industrial relations are to be. In particular, it takes a lot of time to develop the training arrangements. These arrangements are not developed simply by my Department. They are developed by the training authorities in each State, by the educational authorities and by the industrial parties, that is, by unions and employers in the industries concerned. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition holds up a sheet of paper and says that it shows that this is some sort of mad, bureaucratic exercise, he is holding up the training arrangements that have been agreed to by the industrial parties-the employers and the unions-and also State governments, the training and education authorities and this Government. Quite obviously, all this involves a great deal of co-operation and time. Clearly, we underestimated the amount of time it would take to get those training arrangements in place. We also, I must admit, have had greater difficulty than we expected in getting the industrial arrangements agreed to in some industries. That is because there have been some misconceptions, which is understandable in establishing a new training system. Those misconceptions are now largely overcome and there is now substantial trade union support for traineeships. The Australian Council of Trade Unions is now saying that it wants to do everything it can to assist the Government to reduce youth unemployment to zero by providing additional vocational training places, amongst other things. The development of the traineeships, therefore, is at this stage: We have about 40 packages, or areas, in which the requisite industrial and training agreements are in place. Fifteen relate to the private sector and the rest, obviously, relate to the public sector. The public sector has been the area in which it was easiest to get things going first because for governments-all State governments support traineeships-it is easiest to get schemes going in their own backyards first. Therefore, in the public sector a significant number of traineeships were developed in the early stages. But the private sector is coming on now. Let me just indicate to the House the number of organisations which are supporting traineeships in the private sector. These are not minor employer organisations. In the area of office-clerical traineeships, which has vast potential, we have agreements involving the New South Wales Employers Federation; the New South Wales branch of the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia; the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales; the Queensland Confederation of Industry Ltd, which I must say is strongly supportive of traineeships; and the Confederation of Australian Capital Territory Industry. In other areas we also have the Australian Road Transport Industry Association; the Victorian Employers Federation; the Hardware Retailers Association of Queensland; the biggest retailing organisation in the country, Coles-Myer, and also the very large Woolworths-Safeway group; the Queensland Master Builders Association; the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia; and the Australian Confederation of Construction Contractors. Major employer organisations are involved in agreements relating to traineeships and it is just an absolute nonsense to say that there is no private sector support for traineeships. Major employer organisations are clearly involved and, as I indicated earlier today and yesterday, about 30 per cent of the almost 5,000 traineeship places for which there are commitments are in the private sector. The number of actual commencements is much smaller than that but those commencements are increasing almost weekly. As I have said, recruitment is taking place at present in the retail industry, in the furniture removal area, in the office-clerical area and in the tourism and hospitality area. Indeed, only yesterday I launched traineeships in the tourism and hospitality area in the Australian Capital Territory. Last week in Tasmania nine or 10 trainees were taken on in the tourism and hospitality area. I believe that the tourism area, along with the office-clerical area and the retail area, holds great potential for the development of traineeships. The agreements are now slipping into place which are enabling us to get traineeships moving in those important areas. It is untrue to say that because there are just over 3,000 trainees now-in fact, there are about 3,160 at the best count we can make-we are not getting traineeships moving. That is only the tip of the iceberg. The enormous amount of work which has gone on underneath and which has led to the development of those agreements I have mentioned and the many more agreements being worked on means that the growth of the traineeship system in this country is likely to be very strong in future years. It deserves the support of all sectors of the Australian economy because it is a very important development for young people to provide them with that structured training. It has been said that we have not done anything to try to make traineeships attractive to employers. That is simply untrue. For a start, in most cases the wage rates for trainees are 75 per cent of the junior rate and in a number of cases are less than that, so there is an immediate industrial agreement about a reduction in the wages to be paid to trainees. When I am asked what I am doing to get junior rates reduced, I can say that every traineeship agreement involves a reduction in the junior wage rate. In addition to those 40 agreements, which all involve reductions in the junior wage rate, we have in some cases a reduction of the junior rate to much less than 75 per cent because the original junior rate was based on the adult rate or a very high rate and the agreement involves setting a notional junior rate and taking 75 per cent of that. There has been quite a substantial step towards providing attractive traineeship wages rates for employers. This is being achieved with the agreement of trade unions in this country. Also, of course, the employers receive an allowance of $1,000 to offset the costs of on the job training. That allowance is an important incentive to them. There is also a living away from home allowance paid to trainees where they have to move away from home to take up the traineeship to encourage them to become involved. It is simply untrue to say, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, that that allowance is subject to fringe benefits. What he read out to the House was: A living-away-from-home allowance received by a trainees is a fringe benefit under the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation. This was from tax ruling No. IT2364. He did not go on to read the rest of it, so I will quickly do so: Subject to the requirement to obtain declarations from the trainees . . . however, the taxable value of the fringe benefit would be reduced by the `exempt accommodation component' of the allowance, i.e., as much as is in the nature of compensation for additional expenses on accommodation that the employee could reasonably be expected to incur. In the case of the living-away-from-home allowance described in paragraph 6, the whole amount of $38.10 would be the `exempt accommodation component', thus reducing the taxable value to nil for fringe benefits tax purposes. He simply cannot read the whole of the paragraph. He read only the first sentence. Mr N.A. Brown —I tabled it for everyone to read. Mr WILLIS —Exactly. He tabled it but he could not even read the rest of the paragraph. He totally misled the House about the tax state of living away from home allowances for trainees. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BURR(Lyons)(4.16) —I have been immensely disappointed with the contribution which has just been made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). We expected far more from him in his speech here today. I remind him that there are thousands of young people in Australia who are looking to this Government to do something to improve their prospects and their opportunities to enter the workforce. It is sad to say that his Government has done remarkably little and that what it has tried to do has been highlighted by its failure. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown), during his contribution to this debate, made out a very cogent and compelling argument that should leave all members of this House in no doubt that this Government should be condemned for its failure to provide adequate training opportunities and adequate job opportunities for the young people of this country. All the Minister has responded with is an attempt to throw the blame back on to the former Government, without accepting the responsibilities that the present Government now has. He can no longer rely on that excuse. I remind him that his Government has been in power for three and a half years. He cannot blame the former Government. The Minister, his Government and his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) must accept their full share of responsibility. I do not believe that at this stage they have been prepared to accept the responsibility that the Australian people have placed in them. I remind the Minister that all his Government has done is to build up unreal expectations among the young people in Australia but has failed utterly to fulfil those expectations. I remind the House that in his pre-election policy speech on 13 November 1984 the Prime Minister said: It is essential for the wellbeing of our nation that in the years ahead our youth should have access to better educational opportunities and to improved labour market and training programs. It is essential that more jobs be found for them. The policies we are pursuing will ensure these fundamental objectives are achieved. That was the expectation that the Prime Minister gave to the young people of Australia, and this Government has failed them utterly. In Question Time the Minister claimed that the Government had been doing remarkably well in providing youth employment. I remind the Minister, as he was reminded by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition earlier, that the present rate of youth unemployment is 21.9 per cent. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr BURR —It is 21.9 per cent. If the Minister or anyone on his side of the House can claim that as an achievement, I believe they are a disgrace to this Parliament. It is not an achievement; it is a downright failure to the young people of this country. I remind the Minister that the Prime Minister, in his address to the nation on 18 August 1985, again held out to our young people that hope of some expectation for the future. He gave notice of this traineeship scheme and in this speech he said: In the coming year, 10,000 traineeships will be made available. That means 10,000 more young Australians will start their working life knowing that they have a chance to get the qualifications for a rewarding future. He went on to say: If we all co-operate, our aim of 75,000 young people in traineeships will be achieved in the bicentennial year, 1988. That was the promise he held out to young people but what has been the record? What has the Minister achieved apart from the 21.9 per cent unemployment rate for young people? What has this traineeship scheme been able to achieve? I remind the Minister that he has been talking about 3,000 places being available for young people. That is not his achievement. That might be the number in the agreements that he has but agreements are not young people in training; they are only agreements. Earlier the Minister referred to agreements with employer organisations around the country. They are not young people in training. What is the result? What has the Minister achieved? I remind the Minister that of those 10,000 places that were held out by the Prime Minister a little over 12 months ago he has so far achieved having 2,449 young people actually placed in training. Mr Willis —You are wrong. That is not right. Mr BURR —The Minister should not deny that because those figures are provided by the State divisions of his own Department. Of those 2,449 young people who have been placed in training only 120 are in the private sector. That is 4.9 per cent of the total traineeships that have been placed. Mr N.A. Brown —It is disgraceful. Mr BURR —It is disgraceful, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said. I ask the Minister not to leave the chamber. I remind him that he has simply used the Public Service to try to get this scheme off the ground. He has not been able to get private employers to co-operate or participate, because only 120 young people have been placed in private training. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, of those not one has been placed in private training in Victoria and not one has been placed in private training in Tasmania. That condemns the Minister's scheme. For all the reasons pointed out by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, private employers will not participate because they know that they will lose out through the taxation system and all of the other restrictions and red tape that are placed on this scheme. When this scheme was set up the flagship of it was to be participation by the Ansett company. But what has happened to the participation by Ansett? How many trainees have been placed with the company? Mr Andrew —It did not get off the ground. Mr BURR —It did not get off the ground, as my colleague said. Not one trainee has been placed with the Ansett company, yet when this scheme was launched the Ansett participation was to be the flagship of the scheme. The failure by the Ansett company, by the private sector, to participate condemns the Minister's scheme and the Government utterly. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in his contribution, correctly pointed out that there is only one way to train young people to get them into meaningful and productive jobs and that is to have them engaged by the private sector and to give them on the job training where they know they can be usefully engaged, where they can learn what the job is all about and where they can go on in later years to have a productive participation in the work force of this country. Why are not young people being taken on for training by private employers? What is the reason? The Minister has not addressed that basic and fundamental problem. The real reason is the wage rates that employers are forced to pay to young people. For that very reason they say that they will not take on young people, that they will take on older, mature people because their productivity will be higher and therefore it is more economic to employ them. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his contribution, if we are to get young people placed in the private sector in meaningful productive job training youth wages must be included in all awards. The only way to do this is to include a youth training wage level in all awards. Then we would be able to encourage private employers to take young people into their employ. Why is that not happening? I believe it is not happening because the Government's masters at the Australian Council of Trade Unions will not allow it to happen. They are telling the Government what it can and cannot do. The Minister for Industrial Relations and the Prime Minister are simply the puppets on the end of the string, and the strings are being pulled by Mr Kelty and Mr Crean at the ACTU. I plead with the Minister, if he has any compassion at all for the youth of this country, to tell Mr Crean and Mr Kelty and all his other mates in the trade union movement where to get off. I say to the Minister: Please think of the youth of Australia. Give them the opportunities that they need. Put the training wage into all awards so that the young people will have the opportunity to get the training and the opportunities they need for employment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(4.27) —I preface my remarks on this matter by saying: Wrong, wrong, wrong again. The Opposition used wrong figures and wrong material. It should be asking itself whether that is a proper way to debate in this Parliament. Let me take up two of the matters raised. First, the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) might like to know that on 10 October 3,040 trainees had actually commenced; they had begun. They are trainees in work. That is different from what he said. Maybe he will be prepared to apologise for giving the House the wrong figures. The other matter I take up is the comment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown). He talked about the $1,000 allowance for employers being taxable. But just as with the fringe benefits tax he forgot to say the rest. It is taxable, certainly, but not if it is used for the expenses for which it is given. If expenses over $1,000 are incurred in the course of the traineeship agreement the amount is not taxable. The whole truth might be a little more interesting to the House than the half-truths we have been hearing from the two Liberal Party speakers. The raising of this matter of public importance is another example of Opposition wishful thinking. There is no doubt the Opposition wishes the Australian traineeship scheme to be a failure, because the success of the scheme will be yet another example of the failure of the Opposition to do anything about unemployment amongst young people, which it deliberately created as part of its economic policies when it was in government-a gimcrack government policy. The Opposition did nothing-not one thing-about falling retention rates in schools. It squeezed the post-secondary education sector unmercifully and complacently watched the savage cuts in available apprenticeships. Let me give some figures about that which might be of interest to the people in the House. The number of higher education student places, for example, will have grown by 14 per cent between 1983 and 1987. What was the growth under the previous Government between 1978 and 1982? It was 3.2 per cent, a very considerable squeeze. Capital expenditure for higher education buildings from 1983 to 1987 will increase by 43.4 per cent under this Government. Under the previous Government, from 1978 to 1982 capital expenditure in that area declined by 73 per cent. What a record on which to talk about the Australian traineeship scheme! Opportunities for young people, underedu- cated and denied training for employment, became fewer and fewer under the stewardship of the previous Government. Its attitude to those difficulties which it created for young people was to label them dole bludgers and denigrate them individually and collectively-a shameful operation. Certainly, we were overoptimistic about the time scale in which we hoped to operate, and to that extent-and to that extent only-the Opposition is entitled to be critical of the Government on this issue; but to no other extent and on no other matter in this regard. The fact is that one can choose to do nothing or one can choose to be creative and find a useful solution to a difficult and almost intractable problem. This Government chose the latter course, as it has done in so many other policy areas. This has been the subject of carping criticism by a carping Opposition, whose chief carper is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. I pause here to give an example of that. In 1984, when he was the candidate for Menzies, I was speaking in a public place about the improvement in retail sales and instancing the success of a shopping centre which was the creation of a combination of private enterprise and the Cain Government in Victoria. I was saying how successful its opening was. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party said: `Next week all those shops will have closing down signs all over them'. I invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to come back and to look at what is a very thriving shopping centre, which contains not only the shops that were there when the centre opened but also many others which have commenced operations. I invite him to eat his words in public. It is the same sort of careless statement that we have heard today. It is not worth taking any account of what the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has to say on this issue, because on three separate occasions in his speech he made three quite deliberate errors. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has provided the House with the facts about traineeships-the real facts, not the Opposition version of facts-and the progress of the scheme. The progress is the result of lengthy consultations with employers, unions, education institutions and departmental officers. That consultation has laid the foundation for the development of Australian traineeships as a permanent part of the work education provision. There is no question that we need a better trained work force. Successive conservative governments were content to ignore the real needs of the Australian economy, to leave us precariously dependent on importing skills from overseas, and were notoriously reluctant to invest in the education and training of our own population. Such things as creativity, quality, and technology improvement were positively discouraged. `Quarry Australia' was the flavour of the month. It was all very easy and very disastrous. Instead of having the grace to admit its errors and approve this vital step in improving not only the chances of young people but also work force skills, the Opposition carps and carps. But it has nothing better to offer. It does not offer one single thing better than a return to the do nothing policies of the past. What are its ideas for improving work opportunities and skills? That question is always answered by a resounding silence. The Opposition put it into the too hard basket previously. It is there now, and there it will stay. This Government has offered a solution to part of the problem in this way. Other parts of the problem are being tackled by economic measures to improve the competitiveness of Australian production and by funding educational courses to provide a skilled and efficient work force. A prime example of the way in which this Government proceeds to deal throughly with an issue is the tourist industry. Australia has become a tourist destination of ever-increasing importance. Let me cite the figures. From 1980 to 1984 there was a 7.5 per cent improvement in the number of international visitor arrivals. From January to June 1985 there was a 9.8 per cent improvement in visitor arrivals. That is a very considerable improvement. We set out to inform people overseas about this country. We set out to sell the virtues of this country, and we succeeded. We have also funded hospitality courses which provide a work force of highly skilled people who give quality service to the tourist industry. Traineeships have been created in this industry and are presently operating here in Canberra. They will ensure that overseas tourists who travel to this country will enjoy their holiday not only because of the beauty and variety of our country but also because they will receive high quality service-something which did not enter the head of any member of the Opposition. One might well ask: Where was the tourist industry when we came to office? The answer is pretty depressing. This was yet another example of an industry allowed to suffer through lack of appropriate action. One of the greatest difficulties facing Australian industry in its struggle to regain a healthy position after long years of high protection, an overvalued dollar and an underskilled work force and management, is that of providing high quality, reliable goods and services that are produced and marketed efficiently. The traineeship scheme is an important step towards the solution of that difficulty. There are no easy answers to complex problems. In spite of the real desire of the Opposition to talk about black hats and white hats and be sure that we wear the black hats, the fact is that this Government, since it came to office in 1983, has continued, and will continue, to do everything that is sensible and creative to improve Australian work force skills, Australian industry and Australian services. It has a positive and forward looking plan to do all those things, something which marks it as being an extremely different and far better government than that which preceded it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —The discussion is concluded. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 257th report of the Committee, relating to the administration of quarantine services, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr NEHL —There are few countries in the world today as free as Australia of serious pests and diseases. High quarantine standards are maintained to safeguard Australia from the impact of the introduction of exotic diseases of humans, animals and plants. The cost of providing quarantine services in 1984-85 was approximately $36m. This report outlines the findings of the Committee's inquiry into the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit relating to the administration of quarantine services. The audit was undertaken in 1985 to review the effectiveness of the administration of quarantine functions by the Department of Primary Industry and the Department of Health, and controls exercised by those departments over State government agencies performing quarantine activities on the Commonwealth's behalf. The Auditor-General, in reviewing the effectiveness of the administration of quarantine functions by the Department of Primary Industry and the Department of Health, disclosed that, whilst the administering departments recognised the changing nature of quarantine control, there were nevertheless a number of areas in which there was scope for improvement. The more important findings of the audit included the lack of formalised management information systems to assess the cost of operations and to monitor the effectiveness of activities undertaken by the States on the Commonwealth's behalf; a low overall level of cost recovery; the absence of a formal agreement between the Commonwealth and the States; the need for a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the clearance of aircraft and passengers arriving in Australia; and the need to reassess the role of coastal surveillance. The Committee, in its review of the management and organisational aspects of quarantine, noted that many of the Auditor-General's criticisms of the administering departments' operating procedures had been addressed. The Committee also noted that significant improvements in the administration of quarantine services had already been achieved. Nevertheless, the inquiry identified a number of areas that still required attention. The Committee made 23 recommendations for action by the responsible departments. These recommendations address the following major issues: The formalisation of a Commonwealth-State agreement on administrative arrangements for quarantine; the integration of animal and plant quarantine functions; the requirement for a basic level of education for quarantine officers, such as a technical and further education certificate, and the establishment of on-going training programs; the annual revision of fee schedules; and the monitoring of operational costs of all waste disposal sites to ensure maximisation of cost recovery. I turn to quarantine procedures relating to international aircraft arrivals. The Committee expressed particular concern about the length of time taken to get a formalised agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. The agreement is still in draft form despite the Department of Health being advised as long ago as 1973 that a formal arrangement would be legally desirable. The Department of Primary Industry is now conducting negotiations within the States and the Committee would like to see these finalised at the earliest opportunity. Another area of concern was the lack of a formalised management information system that would allow the Commonwealth to assess the cost of operations undertaken by the States on the Commonwealth's behalf and the effectiveness of such operations. The Committee has recommended that the Department of Primary Industry develop a proposal for computer systems giving early consideration to compatibility with systems already in place in the States, thereby enabling satisfactory data transfer. The Committee would wish to see prompt action on these issues in particular. I commend the report to honourable members. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(4.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I bring before the Parliament today a Bill to enact an integral part of this Labor Government's tax reform package-a long overdue reform to provide fairness and equity for all Australians. The Australia Card program will play a significant role in this Government's fight against tax avoidance and evasion, and social welfare fraud. It will help ensure that every Australian pays his fair share of tax while ensuring that benefits from the welfare system go properly to those in need. By helping to restore fairness and equity to the Australian taxation system, and to the social welfare system, we will help restore public confidence in the integrity of those systems. The Australia Card is essential to the achievement of that integrity. At the same time, this Government wishes to ensure that we maintain a proper balance between the need to protect the interests of the community and the need to preserve the rights to privacy and civil liberties of the individual. Therefore this Bill establishes a Data Protection Agency, an independent watchdog body which will review, establish, and maintain guidelines for the operation of the Australia Card program and provide individuals with a fast and efficient appeals mechanism in the event of complaints of a breach of those guidelines. The Data Protection Agency will also administer privacy safeguards in relation to the protection of personal information contained in Government computer databanks. Those safeguards will be the most broad-ranging and effective ever seen in this country. The Bill provides for penalties in the event of the misuse or abuse of the Australia Card, the Australia Card register, and the national births, deaths and marriages register. Honourable members should note in particular that severe penalties will apply to those individuals or organisations who, unauthorised by legislation, demand the production of an Australia Card. Such demands will be illegal. Privacy legislation will also be introduced into Parliament this session to support and underwrite the privacy protections provided in this Bill. But privacy is not a one way street. Irrefutably, citizens need to be protected against abuse of their privacy by Government. But equally citizens need to be protected against others who cynically hide behind the mantle of privacy to create false identities and thus defraud the community. We need to achieve a realistic balance to protect the interests of both citizens and community. The Bill further provides for a national register of births, deaths and marriages. Not only will this facilitate identity checks to ensure the integrity of the Australia Card, but it will end one of the chief means of creating false identities in this society. Just as, in the past, different State railway gauges hampered national communications in Australian society, so today the State births, deaths and marriage registers, neither computerised nor linked with each other, hamper the national fight against crime, corruption and fraud. By the creation of a national BDM register we will plug this major gap in our defences. The Government believes in the basic principle that people should contribute to the tax system according to their ability to pay and take from the social security system only their just entitlement. By providing a fair system-whether in tax or social welfare-we underwrite equality. The Australia Card Bill provides for the detailed operation of the program in respect of the Australia Card Register and the Australia Card itself. Parts I and II of the Bill establish the Health Insurance Commission as the administering authority of the Australia Card and deal with the issue of the card. The legislation enshrines the principle that no one will be required to carry his or her Australia Card at all times, and that he or she will be required to produce it only for the uses explicitly authorised in the Bill. This, along with the prohibitions contained in the Bill, will ensure that the Australia Card does not develop into an internal passport, as some critics have claimed. However, if a person wants voluntarily to use the Australia Card as proof of identity, that person is free to do so. Much of the detail of Part II of the Bill derives from the Government's desire to make the administration of the Australia Card as flexible as possible and to cater as much as possible for individual needs. A provision for prescribed representatives is included so that a person may act on behalf of another who because of age, infirmity, or other condition cannot easily comply with Australia Card requirements. It will also allow parents to hold cards on behalf of their children. Special provision has been made in the Bill to cater for persons who are unable to attend an interview for an Australia Card, for example the bedridden. In such cases field officers will be employed to visit these people in their homes. Similar provision will be made for those in remote areas. Further, where the taking of a photograph would cause extreme distress, either to the person or to the person's family, the Bill provides in rare cases for an exemption of that requirement. Part III and the attached Schedule 1 deal with the Australia Card register, and I will address the issues raised by this part when dealing further with privacy and civil liberty matters. A key aim of the Australia Card Bill is to provide a major weapon to counter tax evasion, as set out in Part IV. The most conservative estimate put forward by the Australian Taxation Office of revenue gains under the Australia Card program is in the vicinity of $724m a year once the program is fully operational-over $700m dollars, and that does not take account of additional taxes and penalties which would arise where omissions of income have been detected, nor does it take account of amendments to prior returns. Even the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card considered that those two factors, together with an acknowledgment that the estimates of evasion and therefore the estimates of benefits were extremely low, could more than double the revenue gains to the Government from this important piece of legislation. That tax evasion exists is an indisputable fact. Explicit and quite specific information on tax evasion is contained in the 1984-85 annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation. In the financial year ending June 1984, 57,000 taxpayers were found to have understated their income by a total of over $470m. In the following year nearly 66,000 taxpayers understated their income by $472m. If these amounts can be detected through the efforts of the Tax Office without the assistance which will undoubtedly be provided by the Australia Card, is it any wonder that estimates of tax savings under the Australia Card program of $4.1 billion over the first 10-year period are considered conservative? With total costs over the same period of $759m it is clearly ludicrous to assert that the program would not be cost effective. The people of Australia have a right to expect that the taxation system in this country reflects one of the principles held so dearly by them-that is, the right of everyone to a fair go. This was an approach fully endorsed by leading members of the Opposition, just over a year ago, before a cynical opportunism overcame their commitments to principle and rationality. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), put it bluntly a year ago when he said: The use of plastic cards for an effective means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing a greater accountability on that small minority of taxpayers who sought to evade their responsibilities to the community. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) was equally enthusiastic. He stated: With the Government's White Paper on tax reform recommending the introduction of ID Cards, there is now broad bipartisan support for this measure. It should therefore be implemented. Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister is repeating a statement made yesterday which the honourable member for Richmond explained, by way of personal explanation, misrepresented his position. I ask the Minister to withdraw the statement which he has just made and which he pretends represents something said by the honourable member for Richmond. The honourable member for Richmond clearly showed yesterday, by way of personal explanation, that that is not his position. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It is really not the honourable member's position to take a point of order on behalf of someone else. This is a debating point which I do not think he should have raised at this time. But the Minister may take account of what has been said. Dr BLEWETT —Mr Deputy Speaker, I pointed out quite clearly that the statement was made a year ago. I also pointed out quite clearly that there have been twists and turns since that date. Another Opposition front bencher, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), put it even more succinctly. Mr Porter —When was this statement made? Dr BLEWETT —This was a statement that was reasserted in 1985 and originally made in 1982. The honourable member for Dawson said: We need a policeman to safeguard the public purse. A plastic policeman would be the most effective in preventing this abuse. The Australian people will no doubt want some explanation reconciling these strong statements of support by the National Party elite and their vote on this Bill. The Government has no such hypocrisies. In order to combat tax evasion the Bill before the House proposes that an Australia Card be produced to identify persons associated with the following transactions: Deposits and accounts with financial institutions; investments; income from certain trusts; primary production income and rental income; foreign remittances; real estate transactions; use of safety deposit boxes; shares in public companies; dealing in futures contracts; employment; and prescribed payments. By requiring production of an Australia Card for these purposes the Taxation Office has an immediate means of linking all sources of income to the one number. Such a link is essential to the success of the Australia Card program. One spin-off of this enhanced pursuit of the money trail will be an improved assault on corporate and organised crime. Although former Royal Commissioner Frank Costigan has asserted than an identity card would not have assisted his inquiries into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, I find this difficult to reconcile with his Royal Commission report which stated: Criminals seek to possess wealthy homes, land, expensive cars, yachts, and incur high living expenses . . . They may pay for much by cash; but ultimately . . . they find the normal financial institutions far more convenient and seemingly no less safe to use. . . It further stated: . . . this leads to the creation of large accounts with many taxation vouchers. Once located, those vouchers provide a fertile source of intelligence to the investigator. Mr Costigan was so alarmed by the extent of abuse of the banking system that he recommended that each person applying to open a bank account should provide a statement of full name, name under which the person was born, date and place of birth, any other name used between the date of birth and the date of the statement, whether the person is, or has been, a taxpayer, and, if appropriate, the name under which he lodged his last return, the place of lodgement and his tax file number. The Australia Card will provide precisely such an identity link. Mr Justice Stewart, when conducting the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, also recommended that banks require greater proof of identity. The bottom line is that two royal commissioners recommended for one reason or another, and in one way or another, that identity procedures should be tightened, indeed must be tightened, to assist in the fight against organised crime. The second major purpose of the Australia Card is to provide a weapon to combat fraud in the social welfare area. During its term of office, the Government has already taken steps to attack various opportunities for welfare abuse. The recent Budget initiatives are an example. The results of the steps taken since March 1983 can be seen in the frequency with which cases of social security fraud are being brought before the courts. It is difficult to establish the extent of welfare fraud, but a number of specific cases are notorious. To take one recent example, an individual was convicted of operating a scheme whereby he collected over 50 separate unemployment benefit cheques each fortnight. In just over two years this man robbed the social security system, and thus the taxpayer, of nearly $400,000. Furthermore, during the last 10 years, for example, nearly 15,000 people have been prosecuted for fraud involving social security-type offences. During the last five years those prosecutions have involved $36m. It has to be remembered that not every case of incorrect payment is prosecuted. In addition, it should be noted that total overpayments which require recovery from clients now stand at $141.5m. These, of course, are not estimates of social security fraud; they are simply pointers to the extent of the problem. The Joint Select Committee recognised this problem. It stated: While the Committee accepts the Department's difficulty in establishing the amount of social security fraud due to false identities, it believes that there is still significant fraud within this area. There is no doubt that, as we continue to uncover the cheats and bring them to justice, new ways of defrauding the system will be tried by a new generation of cheats and we have to protect ourselves against that. However difficult it is to measure accurately, we do have a problem with fraud in the social security area, and Opposition front benchers have seen, at least in the past, the Australia Card as a valuable response. Although I am told that he resiles from the position he took a least 12 months ago, the honourable member for Richmond and shadow Minister for Social Security put it this way: Another major benefit-- from the Australia Card-- would be a reduction of fraud affecting government outlays, especially social welfare payments . . . The Australia Card is a major step in further enhancing the integrity of the social security system-a process this Government has been committed to since taking office. A further but indirect impact of the Australia Card would be its deterrent effect on illegal immigration. It is estimated that there are some 60,000 illegal immigrants in this country-people who have entered this country contrary to our laws, an affront to all those who patiently wait to enter Australia through the proper procedures. Because these immigrants are here illegally they are often exploited by unscrupulous employers, they often escape the tax system and they often make demands on the social security and Medicare systems. By making employment more difficult, by placing firmer controls on financial transactions, and by protecting the welfare and Medicare systems from abuse, the Australia Card program will act as a major deterrent to illegal immigration. No one now doubts that the Australia Card will check tax evasion; no one doubts that it will contribute to the integrity of our social security system; no one doubts that it will be a useful weapon in deterring illegal immigration; no one doubts that by facilitating the pursuit of the money trail it will provide an invaluable instrument against corporate and organised crime. Any doubts that people have about the Australia Card relate primarily to whether the cost will be too high in terms of privacy and civil liberties. I wish now to turn to this part of the legislation and that concern. All controversies over civil liberties involve questions of striking a balance-a balance between the benefits to the community of some proposed course of action, usually government action, and the possible threat to civil liberties posed by that course of action. I would point out that Australians already are living with a range of identity systems. As we grow up most of us acquire a driving licence. As time goes on each Australian acquires a range of identity cards and papers: Student identity cards, credit cards, Medicare card, membership cards, security clearance cards and passports. Those who rail against the Australia Card proposal as an attack on civil liberties overlook these fundamental facts of modern life. Nor do they note that practically every democracy in continental Europe requires identity cards or unique identity numbers of its citizens. Such blurred thinking represents a failure to distinguish between identity papers per se, and the uses to which they are put. Let me make a few more pertinent observations. Already the Tax Office has comprehensive powers under the Income Tax Assessment Act to seek details of individuals, in some cases without these individuals being aware of an investigation. Many commercial enterprises keep detailed records of an individual's creditworthiness. Sharing of information between retailers and credit worthiness companies has been a long-standing practice. Information obtained by some companies is sold to other companies interested in sending out unsolicited material. Banks appearing before the Joint Select Committee indicated that they routinely double checked information given on loan applications with other banks-without the customer's approval. Most people do not know what information is kept on them by private companies, and certainly do not have an opportunity to correct that information. Absolute privacy does not then exist. The Australia Card program recognises this, but also begins the task of protecting privacy from abuse. Let us be clear about what information is and is not displayed on the Australia Card and, more importantly, is or is not recorded on the Australia Card register. The Australia Card itself will have on it only the given names and surname of the person; an Australia Card number; the expiry date of the card; a photograph of the person; and a signature. No other identifying information will be contained on the card. Slightly different information will be shown on the cards of persons under the age of 18 years, adults who have someone else managing their affairs and visitors staying more than six weeks. Children's cards will, for example, show date of birth, while visitors cards will show ineligibility or otherwise for employment and or medicare benefits. However, while accepting that the information on the card itself may be innocuous enough, there has been much conjecture-much of it ill-informed-about precisely what details will be held on the register. Indeed the outlandish allegations made on this point have fluctuated wildly from keeping information on everything from religious beliefs to political allegiance. It has even been suggested that employers will be able to check on the medical history of prospective employees through the Australia Card. This is totally wrong. Let me remind the House that no private agency has access to the register, that no government agency has access except for a narrow range of specified uses, and that no cross-matching is possible other than that which already occurs. The Australia Card register will contain nothing other than identifying data such as surname and given names, date of birth, sex, residential and postal addresses, changes of address, any other name by which the person is entitled to be known and wishes to use, and other basic identifying information as listed in Schedule 1 of the Bill. The register will also contain administrative details necessary to assist the Authority in its management of the program, such as where and when cards were issued, details of any replacement cards, details of amendments made to information held on the register, and where and when the changes were made, and by whom. The register will not, I stress not, contain information about such things as medical history, credit history, marital status, religious beliefs, education, employment history, income or voting intentions. To give further personal reassurance, all individuals will have access to the information about them which is held on the register, as provided for in Part V of the Bill. Access to the Australia Card register will be limited to the user agencies-the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and the Health Insurance Commission-and that access will be limited to the validation of identity for the purpose of carrying out their departmental or agency role. Again, this is set out in Part V of the Bill. Furthermore, every access and every attempted access by each department, agency and individual will be logged. That means every single access, Mr Deputy Speaker. In conjunction with the establishment of the Australia Card register we will establish a national births, deaths and marriages register, to be kept quite separate from the Australia Card register. The co-operation of the States is vital to the establishment of the births, deaths and marriages register. The purpose of the national BDM is to combine information held by State and Territory registries of births, deaths and marriages which is vitally important in establishing identity for the Australia Card. The most important function of such a streamlined system is the linking of records of events such as births and deaths, so that birth certificates for people who have died cannot be obtained for fraudulent purposes. Access to the births, deaths and marriages register will be tightly restricted, and information from it will be used for the following purposes only: By the Health Insurance Commission to check the validity of information on the Australia Card register; by the Department of Foreign Affairs to check the validity of passport information; by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the extraction of aggregated statistical data and the classification of causes of death; and by the Australian Institute of Health for particular epidemiological studies. Information held on the BDM will remain the property of the State or Territory concerned, and no State will have access to another State's information without prior agreement. Apart from the sanctions provided in the Bill for breaches of the legislation, a special body-the Data Protection Agency-is created to ensure that individual privacy is not abused. As set out in Part VII of the Bill, the role of the DPA will be to: Review decisions by the Health Insurance Commission in its role as the Australia Card Authority; issue guidelines to ensure that information kept on the register is accurate and confidential; inquire into complaints that the guidelines have been breached; supervise the way in which the Authority keeps the register created from births, deaths and marriages registers; publish a record of all Commonwealth databases containing personal information; research and monitor developments in computer technology and its effects on privacy; undertake educational programs to promote the protection of individual privacy; and perform functions to be conferred upon it by the privacy Bill. The DPA will consist of a president and two commissioners who will be appointed by the Governor-General on a full time basis. There will be power to appoint associate commissioners on a part time basis and there will be an advisory committee drawn from the community to advise the agency on which consumer interests will be represented. With these protections, I believe the Australia Card achieves the necessary balance between the protection of individual privacy and the protection of the community from exploitation through false identities. I can only echo the comment of Professor Whalan of the Australian National University: `Perhaps one irony would be that if we do have an Australia Card with all those protections . . . our privacy may be better protected than it is now.' Let me finally rebut the tax file identification system, a kind of soft and fuzzy alternative identification system to the Australia Card, advanced by the majority of the Joint Select Committee. In its bid to fudge its response to the Australia Card, the Opposition has toyed with this notion. But let us look at the crux of the tax evasion and social welfare problem. Tax evasion is caused to a large extent by the Tax Office's inability to link all sources of income-that is, to identify persons in receipt of income from more than one source. Likewise, welfare fraud is caused to a large extent by the inability of the Department of Social Security to fully verify identity to ensure that the identity of a person in receipt of welfare benefits is in fact the true and only identity under which that person operates. In other words, the problem is created by those agencies not having the means of establishing correct identity. The tax file number option does not solve that problem because it is not based on a secure document system. Under the tax file identification system it was suggested that, to allocate numbers, those who had paid tax continuously for five years should be considered genuine identities, while all other taxpayers and persons who did not possess a tax file number should verify their identity to the same level of integrity as that of the Australia Card program. Two glaring problems immediately become apparent. First, the Australian Taxation Office itself readily admits that the tax file number was never intended as a unique identification number and is flawed by numerous false identities in the system. Secondly, the lack of an effective identity document removes from the users the ability to ensure that the number presented is in fact the rightful number of the bearer. Let us not be fooled by the proposition that the file numbers could be upgraded to the same level of integrity as that of the Australia Card, and that it could in some way achieve a system of equal integrity. If the system is to commence with false identities-as is the current Opposition suggestion-and if it is to be based purely on a number without any secure documentation, it cannot be equated with the Australia Card program and it cannot achieve the same level of integrity. To verify a person's tax file number it would be necessary to undertake precisely the same identity verification procedures as are proposed for the Australia Card, which in turn would mean employing the same number of people to administer the same system for the same purposes. To take the logical further step of issuing a tax file number card would simply be to create an Australia Card by another name. Let there be no mistake. Whether an identification system is called an Australia Card program or a tax file number, its purpose, use and need for integrity is identical. However, because the integrity and security of the proposed tax file system would erode significantly over time due to lack of a secure card, or any secure document to tie a person with a number, the benefits would most defintely not be the same. On a comparative basis, the Australia Card program will return $5.37 for every dollar spent, using the extremely conservative estimates as discussed previously, while the tax file system would return $3.69 for every dollar spent. Over the first ten years the Australia Card program will provide net total benefits of $4.7 billion, after costs of $759m. The benefit figure includes gross benefits of $4.1 billion in taxation revenue and $1.4 billion in savings by the Health Insurance Commission and by the departments of Social Security, and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The cost figure includes $544m in establishment and operation costs of the Australia Card Authority, $27m for establishment of the Data Protection Agency, $49m for the establishment of the national births, deaths and marriages register, and a total of $137m in establishment and operation costs over the first 10 years for the Australian Taxation Office, the Health Insurance Commission, for Medicare purposes, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Detailed discussions have been held with the private sector. While it has been difficult to estimate precisely the costs to that sector, it is generally agreed that such costs will not be as significant as some critics originally predicted and that those costs arise as much from new tax requirements by the Australian Taxation Office for wider reporting as from the Australia Card itself. Indeed, it is generally expected that there would be some longer term gains in streamlining procedures. In conclusion, I believe this Bill has achieved the necessary balance between the needs of the private individual and the needs of the community. The savings to revenue in taxation and social welfare are too significant to be denied. The spin-off benefits in deterring illegal immigration and providing, through a surer money trail, a further weapon against corporate and organised crime are unarguable. The measures to limit the use of the card and prevent bureaucratic abuse of privacy are comprehensive, pioneering, and respond to the real concerns of civil libertarians. I would urge the members of both Houses to read the Bill with care and not to reject it on the basis of a Luddite distrust of technology, or on the basis of unexamined assumptions about the threat to privacy. For those who might be tempted by a facile opportunism let me say only this: It is inevitable that this country will establish an identification system before the century is out. If we are to secure the full advantages of the system for our people, and if we are to avoid it sneaking in the back door without proper privacy protection, we should seize the opportunity now. In the words of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), I ask the House to give the Australia Card `favourable consideration'. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.13) —I move: That- (1) the resolutions adopted by the House on 9 October 1984 a.m., as amended on 21 March 1985 and 13 February 1986, relating to the registration and declaration of Members' interests be further amended as follows: (a) Resolution (1), omit ``and within 28 days after the commencement of the first period of sittings in each subsequent calendar year while remaining a Member of the House of Representatives,'', and (b) Resolution (3), omit ``and in each subsequent calendar year during the life of that Parliament,''. (2) in all other respects the resolutions adopted by the House on 9 October 1984 a.m., as amended on 21 March 1985 and 13 February 1986, requiring the registration and declaration of Members' interests continue in force. The motion will give effect to the recommendation of the Committee of Members' Interests contained in its report of 14 August 1986. The Committee recommended that members should be required to provide full statements of registerable interests once only during the life of a parliament rather than on an annual basis. I emphasise that the requirement for alterations of a member's interests to be notified to the Registrar of Members' Interests within 28 days of the alteration occurring will remain, as will the requirement for those notifications to be tabled in the House. As pointed out in the report, the Committee of Members' Interests believes that the requirement to provide full annual statements of interest is unjustified, costly and an unnecessary burden on members. With the continuing requirement for notification of alterations of interest, the register is revised regularly and up to date interests reflected. In addition to the tabling of alterations from time to time, the up to date register is available through the Registrar of Members' Interests. In these circumstances it is unnecessary to produce copies of an annual register, not to mention the very substantial publishing costs involved. I commend the proposal to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.15) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of working accommodation and warehousing for 51st Supply Battalion, Guildford, Western Australia. The proposed work before the House is for the construction of this facility for the Army's 51st Supply Battalion. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Works in May 1986. The 51st Supply Battalion is currently dispersed at six separate locations in and around Perth. The proposed work will enable the battalion to be concentrated at Guildford, and existing inadequate facilities, some of which were constructed in 1916, to be replaced and expanded. This battalion provides supply support not only to the Army but also to the Royal Australian Navy and to the Royal Australian Air Force. The battalion's tasks include the receipt, storage, maintenance and issue of stores, including medical and dental supplies, to naval and Air Force units in Western Australia. Other tasks include the operation of an explosive ordnance disposal control centre and the operation of a central store for the Perth area. The work would construct a bulk storage warehouse, associated stores buildings and workshops, a single storey headquarters, an amenities building, a control post, and associated engineering services and site works. The estimated cost of this work is $8.6m at October 1986 prices. It is intended to call tenders in March next year for the construction to commence in July and the works to be completed 12 months later in July 1988. Private consultants will be used for the design process, and the bulk of the construction will be, as usual, undertaken by private enterprise. The work will employ an average work force of 55, peaking at about 100. In conclusion, I thank the Public Works Committee for the very prompt effort it has made to conclude this examination and for the support it has given already to this proposal. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(5.18) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making available to me the information on this motion. The Opposition does not oppose the motion. We recognise that there is a need for these facilities in Western Australia, particularly in the light of the thrust of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, to move the bases of Australia's defence from the south-east more towards the north-west. In that respect, Western Australia plays an important role. There are a couple of things to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. First, he said in moving the motion that the estimated cost of the proposed work was $8.6m at October 1986 prices. Page 17 of the Public Works Committee report states that the price would be $8.2m at April 1986 prices. This implies that between April and October the price of this project went up by $0.4m. That means that the Department of Housing and Construction has estimated an annual inflation rate of 10 per cent. The Minister will know that this assumption is different from the assumption made in the Budget. It will be interesting, in view of the comments the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made in Question Time a couple of days ago, to see whether there is announced tomorrow an inflation rate that reflects an annual rate of about 10 per cent rather than the much lower rate that was referred to in the Budget. Secondly, I want to thank the Minister for adding the words `as usual' to those in his prepared text. He said: Private consultants will be used for the design process and the bulk of construction will be, as usual, undertaken by private enterprise. I have been making the point to the Minister for very many months that his Department, in its activities, should optimise the use of the private sector. I am glad that those reminders at last have had an effect. I also point out to the Minister that, in addition to the work that by his motion he is proposing be done, there is some additional work that needs to be done in terms of the sale of land and rationalisation costs, for example, at Shenton Park. I also draw the Minister's attention-and he did not mention this-to recommendation 4 of the Public Works Committee report, which says: Commonwealth, State and local government authorities should hold urgent discussions aimed at ensuring that the preservation of the railway spur line easement is not compromised in the light of adjacent land use development planning. Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to the question of costs and the timetable. The Minister will be aware of recent audit reports that indicate that his Department has not been holding to cost estimates, adjusted for inflation. Paragraph 67 of the PWC report says that the Department of Housing and Construction has expressed confidence that the price of $8.2m at April 1986 prices will not be exceeded. I hope that the Minister will ensure in his monitoring of this project that that price is not exceeded. The Opposition does not oppose the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.23) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Warehouse development (stage 1) for 21st Supply Battalion, Moorebank, New South Wales. This work was first referred to the Public Works Committee on 5 June 1986. The 21st Supply Battalion is located at Moorebank in Sydney, from where it supplies Army units in the Second Military District. Moorebank also supplies air delivery equipment and provides such items as small arms ammunition and radio equipment to the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. The proposed warehouse development is to be undertaken in two stages so as not to disrupt the functions of day to day warehouse activity. Stage 1 involves the construction of a new warehouse to replace old substandard warehouses which are unsuitable for modern storage techniques. The new warehouse will incorporate administrative functions, central processing, technical support, protective treatment and packaging facilities, and a small parts storage area. The proposed work will also include associated services and site works and the demolition of asbestos clad cement storehouses. Stage 2 will involve the construction of a high density store and a small arms store along with further demolition work. There is also a requirement in the long term for the construction of a freight terminal. The estimated cost of the stage 1 is $19.1m at August 1986 prices. It is intended that tenders will be invited in March next year, contracts awarded in May and the work completed in December 1989. Consultants, including specialists in warehouse design, have been used to develop the proposed work and it is intended that they will also be used for project documentation. Construction of the warehouse, which will employ a work force of about 150, will be contracted out to private enterprise. I would like to thank the Public Works Committee for its prompt consideration of this proposal, its effort and the support it has given to this proposal. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(5.25) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the details of his motion available to me. The Opposition does not oppose this motion. We recognise that in this project and others for the supply of battalions in high usage areas there is a need to rectify productivity and facility problems because of obsolete facilities. The $19.1m figure might seem a bit high but we also recognise that the storage of over $100m worth of goods and equipment in that facility necessitates expenditure of this kind. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to a couple of matters. The first is that I notice that the Minister yet again has made it clear that the private sector is involved in the management of this project. Paragraph 81 of the Public Works Committee report says: The Committee was advised that the project had been developed by a team of consultants from the private sector under the management of DHC. I commend the Minister for taking notice of what I have been saying to him for some period now-that he should optimise the use of the private sector in the design and development of these projects. Secondly, I want to draw the Minister's attention-he did not mention this-to the question of security. The Public Works Committee is clearly sensitive about security requirements. I asked the Minister in his administration of this project to give attention to the security aspect. Thirdly, I point out to the Minister that in speaking to his motion he said: The proposed warehouse development is to be undertaken in two stages so as not to disrupt the functions of day to day warehouse activity. The Public Works Committee advised in paragraph 39 that it had discussed this whole matter with the Department of Defence, which had advised that the reason for its two-stage development was that this would give the Department of Defence the ability to provide urgently needed facilities without a commitment to develop the site fully. I ask the Minister to be good enough to check to make certain that the Public Works Committee was aware of all the details and to ensure that his Department is also in touch with the Department of Defence so that we do not get any duplication of effort on this project. The Opposition does not oppose the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.29) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Refurbishment of taxation building, Brisbane. This 13-storey building was constructed in 1960 and the passage of time has left it deficient compared with modern office accommodation. Refurbishment will bring the building as close as is possible to modern standards of office efficiency and safety. During the past few years floors six, eight and 12 have been refurbished at a cost of about $546,000. The current proposal covers the refurbishment of floors one through eight, as well as floor 11. The lifts, which are in poor condition and the source of many complaints, will be upgraded and fire sprinklers will also be installed on all floors. The estimated cost of this work is $7.35m based on May 1986 prices. The Public Works Committee stated in its recommendations on this matter that details of the layout of the floors and the finish should be provided to it before work commenced. This information will be forwarded immediately the final design of the internal layout has been completed and before the bulk work begins. However, the condition of the lifts is such that the earliest possible start to their upgrading is essential. This aspect of the work has been discussed with the Public Works Committee. The Committee agreed that it was appropriate for my Department to call tenders for work on the lifts prior to the finalisation of the Committee process. This has been done and tenders for the refurbishment of the lifts are currently being considered by my Department. Passage of this motion will allow work on the lifts to start in the near future. I thank the Public Works Committee for its co-operation in this regard. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(5.32) —I again thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making details of the motion available to me. The Opposition does not oppose it. However, I draw the attention of the Minister to some aspects of what is proposed here today. We in the Opposition are not thrilled about the idea of the Minister negotiating separately with the Standing Committee on Public Works to bypass the Parliament. It is clear that, without the Parliament's approval, the Department of Housing and Construction has entered into certain obligations in relation to the lift works. I would have thought that it might have been possible for this motion to have been brought before the House before the Minister's Department made that commitment. I also draw the Minister's attention to the efficiency audit report on the administration by the Australian Taxation Office of the prescribed payments system. Certain aspects of what is said in this report have a direct bearing on the design and internal layout of the building it is proposed to refurbish. Let me quote several phrases from a letter written by the Commissioner of Taxation to the Auditor-General on 1 July 1986 dealing with the prescribed payments system. The letter is available for honourable members to peruse; I will merely quote some phrases from it: I must first register my concern . . . you have persisted in ignoring them . . . misleading comment on the nature and timing of submissions . . . It is unfair and misleading, almost to the point of dishonesty . . . I despair of getting across to you . . . handled the project inefficiently . . . you lecture us . . . I ask that this false impression be corrected . . . simply to heap criticism, no matter how trivial, on the auditee . . . nonsensical line of argument . . . auditor residing in an ivory tower, emerging only to shoot the wounded when the major battle is over . . . you do not have evidence that warrants your lambasting us . . . Before you criticise us on this score . . . I am not particularly impressed with your report . . . I am not inclined to accept the criticism as valid . . . That extraordinary series of phrases from that letter suggests to me that the Tax Office needs some kind of an internal overhaul. The place where it must start is where the facilities are. I ask the Minister to give some attention to whether he wants to have further discussions with the Tax Office to ensure that the refurbishing job he is doing will be appropriate in the circumstances. Paragraph 12 of the Public Works Committee Report reports that the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services has a national strategy that `moves toward a higher level of Commonwealth ownership of office buildings'. I suggest to the Minister that his Department and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services give some consideration to whether that should continue to be a national strategy. On a number of occasions the Minister has referred to the constraints on the 1986-87 Budget. In those circumstances one wonders whether moving towards a higher level of Commonwealth ownership of public buildings is consistent with the constraint that the Government claims it is exercising. We agree with what the Public Works Committee says about decentralising public servants and Commonwealth services out of the costlier inner city locations and into suburban and regional centres. In regard to the matter I raised previously, I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 40 of the Public Works Committee report, which says that final petition layouts have yet to be determined. There has been a number of Auditor-General's reports around recently which suggest that costs escalate at a higher rate than inflation when these details are not finalised at the time the project proceeds. I ask the Minister to give urgent attention to making sure that those layouts are finalised as quickly as possible so that we can contain costs for this project over and above inflation. Paragraph 69 of the Public Works Committee report says that the planned timing for key activities is to award the contract for lift modernisation by August 1986 and in August 1986 to commence the documentation of building refurbishment. We have already heard from the Minister that this is now an urgent project. I draw the Minister's attention to the Attorney-General's report on his Department of September 1986 in relation to the whole question of urgent projects. Paragraph 11.1.11 states: . . . the planning for projects should be sufficiently detailed to limit variations and enable the full benefit of open competitive tendering to be available to the Department when project tenders are called. This underscores the point I have been making to the Minister that he should get his planning right for this project, otherwise we will have severe cost overruns. The Auditor-General also says in his report: The urgent nature of some projects did not always allow the Department the opportunity to fully document projects before the initial commitment. The same comment applies. The Auditor-General also says: . . . it is of concern to note that the planning process is often compromised by the urgency in which projects are developed . . . In these circumstances it seemed to Audit that the haste with which the projects were developed was a major cause contributing to the significant cost increases which had occurred. The Auditor-General's reports on the Taxation Office and the Department of Housing and Construction provide ample evidence to suggest that when these projects are not properly planned they tend to have significant cost overruns. That is a matter to which the Minister should give his urgent attention. The Opposition does not oppose this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.39) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Redevelopment of migrant accommodation facilities, Wacol, Queensland. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs proposes to redevelop migrant accommodation facilities at Wacol in Brisbane. This redevelopment is part of a general strategy towards replacing older institutional style accommodation at migrant centres throughout Australia with catering style accommodation. Facilities at Wacol currently provide accommodation for about 130 migrants in cluster style units with centralised buildings for catering and laundry. This style of centre is expensive to operate and does not provide the best conditions to assist migrants in adjusting to their new lifestyles in Australia. The major elements of this proposal are: Firstly, the conversion of the existing accommodation to fully self-contained units; secondly, construction of 16 single-bedroom townhouses and 26 duplex houses; thirdly, conversion of the existing communal kitchen-dining facility to provide administration, support and recreation areas; and, lastly, engineering services to the site as required. The Government has yet to decide finally whether to proceed with the project because of a number of factors. These include a satisfactory evaluation of similar redevelopment work recently completed at the Pennington migrant centre in South Australia and 1987-88 Budget considerations. This proposal put forward by the Government has now been put on to what is known in the Department of Housing and Construction as design list C, which allows the Public Works Committee examination and preliminary documentation to proceed prior to final Cabinet approval. Basically that is how the system operates. If the proposal receives final Cabinet approval, it is estimated that work will take about two years to complete, at an estimated cost of $6.5 million based on June 1986 prices. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(5.42) —I again thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the details of his motion available to me. I draw his attention to the comments he made about the fact that the Government has yet to decide whether to proceed. Mr West —I explained that that was the normal process, with Cabinet approval at the end of the process. Mr BEALE —I understand that, but I now say to him that it is widely acknowledged that the Pennington migrant centre in South Australia is operating satisfactorily, so at least one of the constraints on the Government for it to decide whether to proceed with this project has been removed. The Government must be assured that the cost benefit analysis in this project is properly carried out but in general terms Australia does need more migrants. If we are to attract the right kind of migrants, we need a positive immigration policy and better facilities for those migrants when they arrive. In that context, the Opposition does not oppose the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill 1986 is to establish a system of cross-vesting of jurisdiction between Federal, State and Territory courts. The Bill is the result of extensive consultations between the Commonwealth and the States in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and is an attempt to resolve difficulties that presently exist in determining the jurisdictional limits of Federal, State and Territory courts. The Bill will not detract from the existing jurisdictions of those courts. The Bill will be complemented by the enactment in each State and the Northern Territory of reciprocal legislation. I take this opportunity to thank the Special Committee of Solicitors-General for its hard work in the development of the cross-vesting legislation. The essence of the cross-vesting scheme, as provided for in the Bill and proposed complementary State legislation, is that State and Territory Supreme Courts will be vested with all the civil jurisdiction-except certain industrial and trade practices jurisdiction-of the Federal courts, at present the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia, and the federal courts will be vested with the full jurisdiction of the State and Territory Supreme Courts. The reasons for the proposed scheme are that litigants have occasionally experienced inconvenience and have been put to unnecessary expense as a result of, firstly, uncertainties as to the jurisdictional limits of Federal, State and Territory courts, particularly in the areas of trade practices and family law; and, secondly, the lack of power in these courts to ensure that proceedings which are instituted in different courts, but which ought to be tried together, are tried in the one court. Jurisdictional difficulties do the law and the community no good. They result in litigants with a genuine dispute requiring judicial determination being faced with the anguish, delay and additional expense which flow from the sterile and pointless need to search for a court, or courts, with jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. The seriousness of these jurisdictional difficulties to the community is all the more pressing because they occur in areas such as family law and trade practices which touch the everyday activities of so many people and corporations in Australia. We are thus confronted with growing frustration in the community and the legal profession with a system of courts with geographic and other jurisdictional limitations which get in the way of the efficient resolution of the disputes of litigants. Despite efforts by the High Court of Australia to resolve many of the jurisdictional problems that have arisen, problems still exist which require legislative action for a solution. Governments and parliaments have a responsibility on behalf of the community to find solutions to these problems which at present impede the efficient administration of justice. The cross-vesting scheme, as contained in the Commonwealth Bill and proposed complementary State legislation, seeks to overcome these problems by vesting the Federal courts with State jurisdiction and by vesting State courts with Federal jurisdiction so that no action will fail in a court through lack of jurisdiction, and will ensure that no court will have to determine the boundaries between Federal, State and Territory jurisdictions. The scheme, although simple in concept, amounts to a radical change in the Australian judicial system. The Bill seeks to cross-vest jurisdiction in such a way that Federal and State courts will, by and large, keep within their `proper' jurisdictional fields. To achieve this the Commonwealth Bill and the proposed State legislation make detailed and comprehensive provision for transfers between courts which should ensure that proceedings begun in an inappropriate court, or related proceedings begun in separate courts, will be transferred to an appropriate court. The provisions relating to cross-vesting will need to be applied only in those exceptional cases where there are jurisdictional uncertainties and where there is a real need to have matters tried together in the one court. The successful operation of the cross-vesting scheme will depend very much upon courts approaching the legislation in accordance with its general purpose and intention as indicated in the preamble to the Commonwealth and State legislation. Courts will need to be ruthless in the exercise of their transferal powers to ensure that litigants do not engage in `forum shopping' by commencing proceedings in inappropriate courts or resort to other tactical manoeuvres that would otherwise be available to them by reason of the fact that State courts would have all the jurisdiction of the Federal courts and vice versa. The courts themselves would also be expected not to take advantage of the legislation to aggregate business to their own courts in matters that would not otherwise have been within their respective jurisdiction. I have every confidence that the courts will approach the legislation in accordance with its spirit and purpose. Under the cross-vesting scheme, no court will need to decide whether any particular matter is truly within Federal or State jurisdiction since in either event the court will have the same powers and duties. This is because, in any particular proceedings, insofar as the matters involved are within Federal or Territory jurisdiction, the powers and duties will be conferred and imposed by the Commonwealth Act, and in so far as the matters are not within Federal or Territory jurisdiction, the powers and duties will be conferred by complementary State legislation. Provision is made in the Bill to recognise the special role of the Federal Court in matters in which it now has, apart from the jurisdiction of the High Court, exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction. In particular, the Bill provides for the compulsory transfer by a State Supreme Court of any `special federal matter' unless it appears to the Supreme Court that, by reason of the particular circumstances of the case, it is both inappropriate for the matter to be transferred to the Federal Court and appropriate for the Supreme Court to determine the proceedings. The expression `special federal matter' refers to matters of special Commonwealth concern, being matters that at present are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Two examples of special Federal matters are matters arising under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and matters within the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court by virtue of section 39b of the Judiciary Act 1903, this being jurisdiction with respect to any matter in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against certain Commonwealth officers. The special role of the Federal Court is also recognised in relation to appeal matters which presently lie within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The Schedule to the Bill lists certain Acts such as the Bankruptcy Act 1966 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1919. Appeals in matters under the listed Acts will remain within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the full Federal Court. The Commonwealth regards it as an important factor in its agreement to the scheme that a committee of Chief Justices of State and Territory Supreme Courts and the Chief Judges of the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia be established for the purpose of monitoring the operation of the scheme and to report regularly to the Standing Committee. Finally, the Commonwealth attaches great importance to the purpose and intention of the scheme as described in the preamble to the Bill. After a trial period of three years each party to the scheme would have the right to withdraw from the scheme upon the giving of the notice to the other parties. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill effects important changes in relation to the exercise of Federal jurisdiction by the Federal Court and by State and Territory courts. In the area of intellectual property-copyrights, patents, designs, trade marks and the like-it is proposed to vest civil jurisdiction exclusively in the Federal Court. At present the jurisdiction is exercisable by State and Territory supreme courts. In considering which are the most appropriate courts to exercise jurisdiction in this area, the Government has been much assisted by the report on patents, innovation and competition in Australia given to the Government in August 1984 by the Industrial Property Advisory Committee. This Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr J. Stonier, Manager of Patenting and Licensing, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, and consisting of seven other eminent members from government, the academic world, and the professions of law and patent attorneys, recommended that jurisdiction in matters of patent law currently vested in supreme courts be transferred exclusively to the Federal Court. IPAC considered it important that disputes over patents be resolved with as much convenience, consistency, expertise and expedition as can be achieved. Thus it drew attention to the problems of forum shopping, with different parties having different ideas as to the more convenient supreme court, the risk of inconsistency and duplication, and the inevitable difference in expertise and attitudes among supreme court judges on patent matters, given the specialised nature of the evidence and case law involved. Patent law and other intellectual property law, such as that on designs and trade marks, are indeed highly specialised fields of Commonwealth law. The Government believes that the arguments advanced by IPAC have considerable weight, and that the interests of the community would be better served by the transfer of these jurisdictions to the Federal Court. Commonwealth taxation law, too, is very specialised in many of its applications, and matters of great complexity are often involved. The Government considers that it is now desirable to bring this jurisdiction under the aegis of the Federal Court. The Federal Court has, virtually since its establishment, exercised appellate jurisdiction in taxation matters. Coupled with the fact that many of its judges were, as senior members of the Bar, recognised tax specialists, the Court has, in its appellate jurisdiction, built up an acknowledged expertise in this area of the law. The Government believes that transfer of original jurisdiction in taxation matters to the Federal Court will bring a consistent approach to the interpretation of taxation law at the trial level. Matters that have already been referred to the supreme courts will, however, be finalised by those courts. The Federal Court has, in the short time of its existence, gained an enviable and justified reputation as a highly efficient and learned court. Litigants, the legal profession and the public as a whole will be well served by the transfer to the Court of these areas of law. Divisions 1 and 1A of Part V of the Trade Practices Act deal with areas of consumer protection, such as misleading or deceptive conduct, bait advertising, pyramid selling and product safety standards. Examples of the diverse types of cases that arise under these divisions are disputes with motor traders, unsolicited advertising and unsafe consumer products. At present the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the area. However, the community's best interests are not necessarily served by this. Many complaints involve relatively small amounts of money or are disputes of local character. The general interest, and that of the parties, may be better served by these matters being heard in a State court rather than the Federal Court. The Bill therefore confers concurrent jurisdiction on State and Territory courts within the limits of their respective jurisdictions. The Bill enables the Federal Court to transfer a matter to an appropriate State or Territory court, and for an inferior court in one State or Territory to transfer a matter to an inferior court in another. With one exception, namely in relation to the new section 52A, which deals with certain unconscionable conduct by a corporation, appeals from State and Territory courts will lie within the relevant State or Territory appeal system. As a result of these changes the Federal Court will be gaining jurisdiction in new areas, while in trade practices it will be sharing the consumer protection jurisdiction with State courts. The extent to which State courts exercise Federal jurisdiction and the associated costs are, of course, matters that are taken into account in the overall context of Commonwealth funding to the States. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will provide a legislative basis for Australia to enter into arrangements with other countries whereby it can request and grant assistance in criminal matters. The assistance will relate to the investigation and prosecution of crime. This Bill represents a significant initiative of this Government in its fight against organised and international crime. At the conclusion of the special Premiers Conference in April 1985 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) committed the Government to actively pursuing opportunities for increased co-operation with other countries in combating crime. The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group which was presented on 12 July 1985 recommended, inter alia, that the Commonwealth Government give consideration to upgrading the priority accorded to the establishment of modern mutual assistance agreements. At present mutual assistance between Australia and other countries in criminal matters is rendered informally through Interpol and is limited to investigations. Australia can take evidence with the aid of compulsory measures under its extradition legislation but this is done unilaterally and brings about no obligation on the part of the other country to reciprocate. The Bill will greatly increase the scope for measures of co-operation between Australia and other countries. This Bill will provide the legislative authority for Australia to give effect to obligations which it will be undertaking with other countries in the area of mutual assistance. When Australia concludes arrangements with other countries those countries will be obliged under international law to render assistance at the request of Australia. The basis for arrangements with all Commonwealth countries has in fact already been settled. In July of this year I attended a Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting in Harare. At that meeting an agreed set of principles to govern the provision of assistance in criminal matters between Commonwealth countries was settled. That set of principles is intended to be implemented by legislation in each Commonwealth country. The legislation I am now introducing will enable Australia to implement the set of principles agreed in Harare. As far as non-Commonwealth countries are concerned, it is intended to develop a network of bilateral treaties to provide for the provision and obtaining of mutual assistance. Work commenced last year to develop a draft model bilateral mutual assistance treaty to form the basis of negotiations with non-Commonwealth countries. That model treaty has now been settled as a result of detailed consultations with Commonwealth agencies and the Australian States. I should note at this stage that the Australian States have been fully consulted at every stage of the development of this mutual assistance project. The bulk of Australian criminal law is State law and accordingly the provision of mutual assistance by foreign countries will principally be of assistance to State law enforcement authorities. The States have accordingly been given the opportunity to comment on both the model mutual assistance treaty and the Bill. Clause 28 of the Bill in fact contemplates that arrangements will be made between the Commonwealth and the States for the administration of this Bill. Principles have been agreed with the States for incorporation in these arrangements. These principles are directed towards apportioning the work load and expense of processing foreign requests and setting up a mechanism to resolve differences in making the appropriate apportionments. I shall now turn to the principal features of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill makes it clear that its object is to facilitate the provision and obtaining by Australia of international assistance in criminal matters in areas which include: (a) the obtaining of evidence, documents and other articles; (b) the provision of documents and other records; (c) the location and identification of witnesses or suspects; (d) the execution of requests for search and seizure; (e) the freezing or confiscation of proceeds or profits of crime; (f) the making of arrangements for persons to give evidence; and (g) the service of documents. It is important to stress that this Bill imposes no obligations on Australia or, of course, any foreign country to provide assistance. It is, in the words of the clause, a facilitative piece of legislation. The obligations to provide assistance on the part of Australia and other countries will be found in the bilateral and multilateral arrangements. An example of a multilateral arrangement is the scheme agreed between Commonwealth countries in Zimbabwe earlier this year. The Bill's real function is to provide a legislative basis for Australia to honour the obligations it will be assuming in treaties and arrangements, thereby ensuring that other countries will honour their obligations to Australia. Clause 7 of the Act provides that the Act may be applied to a foreign country if- that country and Australia have entered into a mutual assistance treaty the country is a Commonwealth country the country can provide reciprocity of assistance. The effect of this clause when read with clause 8 (1) (e) is that if this Act does not apply to a foreign country the Attorney-General shall refuse to grant assistance to that foreign country under this Bill. The one exception is in regard to requests to take evidence by a foreign country, which Australia has been able traditionally to accede to pursuant to other legislation. The intention of requiring the Act to apply before assistance can be granted is to encourage other countries to enter into arrangements with Australia to the benefit of each country. If the Bill were to permit Australia to grant unilateral assistance universally there would be little incentive for other countries to enter into arrangements with Australia and pass laws permitting them to accede to requests by Australia. Clause 8 is a particularly important clause in that it sets out circumstances in which I am obliged to refuse assistance to a foreign country or in which I have a discretion to provide assistance. These exceptions to the provision of assistance are designed to ensure that national and State interests are safeguarded and that no injustice or oppression is caused to individuals. The substantive parts of the Bill also reflect the concern that Australia, in responding to a foreign request for assistance, should not unfairly disadvantage any individual. Accordingly, further discretions and judicial oversight are incorporated in these parts. Part II of the Bill empowers me to authorise a magistrate in Australia to take evidence and have documents and articles produced for transmission to a foreign country for use in proceedings in that country. The person to whom the foreign proceedings relate is entitled to be represented at the hearing in Australia. Part III of the Bill deals with search and seizure. Such a serious intrusion on the rights of persons in Australia at the behest of a foreign country necessitates strict controls. Accordingly, a magistrate in Australia must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds before a foreign request can be processed by issue of a search warrant. A search warrant may not issue unless the foreign offence carries at least 12 months imprisonment. Part IV deals with arrangements for persons and prisoners to travel to a foreign country at that country's request or to Australia at Australia's request to give evidence in a criminal proceeding. Most serious organised crime has international dimensions. It is accordingly vital that Australia have arrangements whereby persons overseas, whether prisoners or not, can be transferred to Australia to give evidence. Safeguards are built into the procedures established. For example, the person is entitled to immunity from prosecutions, both in respect of offences alleged against him prior to his giving evidence and in respect of the evidence he gives. The Act enables Australia significantly to ease the task of foreign investigation and prosecutional agencies in cases where crucial evidence or witnesses are in Australia. Australia will therefore be in a position to make requests for similar assistance pursuant to the arrangements it will be entering into. For example, Australia will be able to seek by compulsory process access to banking and other financial records in foreign countries. The Bill does not deal with the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. It is, of course, vital that Australia be able to give effect to foreign confiscation orders and in turn be able to seek the confiscation of the proceeds of crime committed in Australia which are found overseas. The proceeds of criminal activity, regardless of where found, should be denied to those persons who have obtained them and hopefully returned to the society which was a victim of the criminal conduct from which those proceedings were derived. Legislation to permit confiscation of the proceeds of Australian offences found in Australia will be introduced in the autumn session next year. At that time a Part will be inserted in this Bill based on the procedures established in that legislation to permit Australia to give effect to foreign confiscation orders. In conclusion, let me emphasise that the Government attaches great importance to development of a comprehensive international framework of mutual assistance treaties and arrangements. It recognises that the activity of organised crime and drug traffickers thwarts and the personal and socio-economic aspirations of law-abiding citizens. It is imperative that greater international co-operation and assistance be introduced into the investigation and prosecution processes to enable major criminal suspects to be brought to justice. This Bill provides the legislative backing for Australia to enter into these international arrangements. I commend the Bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to repeal two provisions in the Australian extradition legislation which deal with the taking of evidence in Australia for transmission to a foreign country for use in criminal proceedings in that country. The reason for this repeal is that Part II of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1986 deals with the substance of those provisions. Such provisions are more appropriately dealt with in mutual assistance legislation that in extradition legislation. I commend the Bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill makes some fine-tuning amendments to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. As many honourable members will no doubt know, this Act, which came into operation on 1 October 1980, codified and modernised the ancient prerogative writ remedies under which the lawfulness of government decision making could be challenged. The Act streamlined the procedures under which citizens could challenge, on legal grounds, administrative decisions and it did away with technicalities that applied under the old remedies. This innovative legislation has thus been in operation for some six years and it is now an appropriate time to be examining the Act to see where improvements can be made. A particular concern has been the use made of the Act in the course of administrative proceedings before some other tribunal in circumstances where the particular decision can be challenged at the conclusion of those administrative proceedings. Recourse to the Federal Court under the Act in the course of the administrative proceeding, rather than assisting in the dispatch of business of that tribunal, can have quite the opposite effect. It can frustrate and delay the proper decision making processes of the tribunal. We are all aware of the events which surrounded the hearings of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal into the granting of a third commercial television licence for Perth in which, in the course of those proceedings, 16 cases were decided by the Federal Court under the Act. The effect of all this litigation was to delay the decision of the Tribunal on the third licence for some 12 months. The Bill will facilitate the efficient operation of administrative tribunals, authorities and persons by minimising the disruption caused by the making of applications under the Act in the course of proceedings. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that where an application for review is lodged in relation to a decision made by a tribunal, authority or person during those proceedings, and a review of that decision is available at the conclusion of those proceedings, and it is desirable to avoid interference with those proceedings, the court shall refuse to grant the application unless the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the application to be granted. Another area of concern is where overlapping remedies are available. For example, in Public Service discipline matters, a person is able to appeal to a Public Service disciplinary appeal body, which can review the whole case. The person can also test the lawfulness but not the merits of the decision under the Act. The Act at present gives the court a general discretion to refuse an application where there is another remedy available. The Government considers that some strengthening of this provision is desirable. The Bill does not remove any existing rights of review, but seeks to rationalise those instances where there exist overlapping remedies by encouraging applicants, where review is provided for under some other law, to avail themselves of that alternative review before seeking review under the Act. Review by means other than by recourse to the Act is often a more cost and time effective means of obtaining proper review of an administrative decision. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore amends section 10 of the Act by inserting a new paragraph 10 (2) (c). That paragraph provides that where an application for review is lodged with the Federal Court under the Act, and provision is made by any law other than the Act under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review of that decision-otherwise than by a court-the court shall refuse to grant the application unless it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the court to grant the application. This latter qualification recognises that there may be cases where the court should hear the application, notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. The Bill also makes express provision for the court to refuse to grant an application for review, or to stay an application where it considers it inappropriate to grant the application or continue the proceedings. This gives statutory expression to the court's present wide discretion to refuse relief and in addition makes it clear that this discretion extends to enabling the court to stay proceedings in appropriate cases. The Bill is intended to ensure these powers conferred on the court are exercised in such a way that costs and delays are kept to a minimum and to this end the Bill provides that these powers be exercised at the earliest appropriate stage in the course of proceedings. Whilst the revenue implications of these proposals are not quantifiable, the measure should result in fewer hearings under the Act, and thus will have an impact on the court's work load. By minimising the disruption to hearings it should also aid the efficiency of tribunals. This will result in revenue savings. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Before I call the Clerk I will just read a short statement relating to the electricity failure earlier today. Madam Speaker has been advised of information received from the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority concerning the recent loss of power to Parliament House. The Authority has advised that there was a loss of supply to the inner south Canberra area at approximately 3.45 p.m. today due to a failure on the high voltage main line supply. Power was restored at approximately 4.03 p.m. The problem was isolated to the Dairy Flat Road area. However, at this stage the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority is not able to ascertain exactly the cause of the power loss due to traffic problems in the area making access difficult for maintenance crews. Madam Speaker was previously advised by the Australian Capital Territory Police operations branch that it understood that a car accident in this area may have caused the power loss. The emergency lighting system in Parliament House operated effectively during the blackout. Madam Speaker has been advised that in the new Parliament House emergency diesel powered generation equipment has been installed to provide sufficient power and light to enable the Parliament to operate with minimal inconvenience during blackouts. The system has been designed to operate within 30 seconds of a power interruption. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs)(6.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Volume 4 of the report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1985-87 triennium was tabled in the Parliament earlier today. The report responds to the Government's Supplementary guidelines announced on 19th August 1986 and makes recommendations on the distribution of additional funds for universities, colleges of advanced education and institutes of tertiary education for 1986 and 1987, and the Commonwealth's contribution to technical and further education systems for 1987. This Bill gives effect to the Government's decisions on the report. The Bill seeks appropriation of an additional $414.7m, comprising $19.6m in additional grants for higher education for 1986 and 1987, including recurrent grants for the Western Institute in Melbourne, the first institute of tertiary education within the Commonwealth programs of assistance for tertiary education; $305.7m for the TAFE sector in 1987; and $89.4m for adjustments for cost increases to existing grants for all sectors consistent with government policy on retrospective cost supplementation for education grants. The distribution of the additional higher education grants for 1986 and 1987 is as recommended CTEC. The key features of the increased triennial program for the States and Northern Territory for higher education are: A further increase of intakes of some 3,000 in 1987, 1,000 more than previously planned. In total an additional 29,600 higher education places will have been created over the triennium. Some 90 per cent of the new intakes in 1987 will be directed to courses relevant to future economic growth, in particular, engineering, applied science, computing, economics and business studies; 200 of the new places in 1987 will be set aside for Aborigines which, together with the intakes and provisions made in earlier years, will result in some 1,050 places being earmarked for Aborigines in 1987; 50 places will be provided for initiatives in higher education in northern Queensland involving co-operative arrangements between TAFE colleges in Mackay and Cairns and James Cook University of North Queensland and Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education, respectively; 40 places will be provided for higher education initiatives in north-west Tasmania involving co-operative arrangements between TAFE colleges in Devonport and Burnie and the University of Tasmania and the Tasmanian State Institute of Technology; a contribution of $0.75m will be made towards the construction of the Macquarie University Graduate School of Management; and the special assistance for students program is to be extended to include students in advanced education courses in institutes of tertiary education, at TAFE institutions and at Northern Territory tertiary education institutions. In the TAFE program for 1987, increased funding will be provided for fees reimbursement grants, from $96.8m in 1986 to $102.7m in 1987, while designated grants for special course provision and equipment grants will be maintained at the same real level as in 1986. An additional $4m will be made available in 1986-87 for minor works and equipment to assist in the provision of the off the job training component of the Australian traineeship system. TAFE capital grants totalling $138.3m will be provided for 1987. This amount includes funds to commence construction of 16 new projects and design of seven new projects as well as providing further funding for 51 continuing projects. The Bill also provides for continuing support for the concept of institutes of tertiary education as multi-sector institutions. Recurrent funds for 1986 and 1987 are provided for the first such institute the Western Institute in Melbourne, under a new category of recurrent grant. This will be of particular interest to the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). A grant of $0.2m is provided as an initial contribution towards the construction of facilities for the Western Institute. The Commonwealth will be contributing $2m to this project with the balance-at least $2m-to be provided by the Victorian Government. This new institution, to provide both TAFE and higher education courses, will be an important advance in expanding education opportunities for people in the western suburbs of Melbourne. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs)(6.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983 to supplement for cost increases the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the participation and equity program in the years 1986 and 1987. The Bill also provides new schedules for 1987 showing the allocation of funds to the States, the Northern Territory and the education sectors. The cost supplementation proposed is in accord with the Government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost supplementation for this program. The adjustments are consistent with those being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bills, which are also before the House today. The financial impact of this Bill will be to provide an additional $0.741m in 1986 and an additional $1.476m in 1987. Total provision for the participation and equity program is $43,987,000 in 1986 and $44,722,000 in 1987. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs)(6.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purposes of this Bill are to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984 to implement decisions in the recent Budget on Commonwealth programs for schools in 1987 and to supplement for cost increases grants already appropriated for schools programs. The detailed appropriations for specific purpose and capital programs for government and non-government schools in each State and the Northern Territory give effect to the Government's decisions on the Commonwealth Schools Commission's report for 1987 which was tabled on 22 October 1986. The 1984 Act already contains the per capita grants under the general recurrent program for government and non-government schools for the period 1985-88. This comprehensive long term program was retained intact in the recent Budget and continues to provide authorities with stability and security in the planning of school operations. In the area of the Commonwealth's special education programs for the handicapped, the Government has accepted the Commission's proposals for the restructuring of some programs. This will entail the integration, into a joint program, of the existing separate elements for early special education, and the establishment of single State level committees to co-ordinate the administration and allocation of funds for this program along with programs for special education services, severely handicapped children, children in residential institutions and special education recurrent grants for non-government schools. The Government has also accepted the Commission's proposals for phasing in over a number of years more equitable bases for the distribution of funds for these programs between States and Territories so that allocations will closely reflect the needs of groups being assisted. For the English as a second language general support program, the Bill incorporates an additional $4m in 1987 to support English language teaching. These funds have been distributed between government school systems in the States and Territories on the basis of the number of students of non-English speaking background, the same basis as that used for the existing program. In relation to the out of hours element of the ethnic schools program, the Schools Commission recommended that, in the context of the development of a national language policy, further consideration be given to the continued administration of this element as a `schools' program. At the present time, given the advanced stage of work on a national language policy, the Government does not propose to accept this recommendation. The Bill appropriates $1.8m for the projects of national significance program in 1987 and approval of allocations for particular activities under the provisions of the Act will be determined by the Minister in the normal way. All the other recommendations of the Commission in its report for 1987 have been approved by the Government. The Bill also provides for a number of technical amendments. These include a requirement for government and non-government school authorities to provide appropriate recognition of the funding provided by the Commonwealth in respect of building and equipment projects for schools serving predominantly Aboriginal communities; provision for non-government schools and systems to furnish original documents, if required, relating to the accountability provisions under the general recurrent grants program; and provisions to enable the results of amalgamations or separations of schools to be included on the list of non-government schools for grant purposes. The financial impact of this Bill will be to appropriate an additional $19m for 1986, $418m for 1987-bringing total funding for 1987 programs to an estimated $1,614m-and an additional $47m for 1988. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986, which is now before the House, contains 15 Schedules of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Schedules 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 to the Bill, operative on and from 15 March, 17 April, 17 May, 14 June, 18 July, 16 August and 13 September 1986 respectively, alter the rates of Customs duty applicable to refined petroleum products. In each instance the Customs tariff rates are varied in line with changes to the rate of excise duty applicable to equivalent locally produced goods. Schedule 2 to the Bill, operative on and from 15 April 1986, implements two changes which formed part of the Government's economic and rural policy statement. The first change removes the 2 per cent revenue duty on certain agricultural chemicals falling within tariff item 38.11 in Schedule 3 to the principal Act. The second change concerns goods falling within item 84.24 in Schedule 3 to the principal Act. In its economic and rural policy statement, the Government announced that the Customs duty on certain cultivation machinery would be replaced by a bounty. Following a suggestion by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on cultivation machinery, the Government has now decided to make all goods falling within the item duty free and eligible for bounty. Schedule 4 to the Bill, operative on and from 18 April 1986, implements the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on electric motors and generating sets. The Government has accepted the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendation that the long term general tariff rate of duty for alternating current and universal electric motors should remain at 25 per cent and that interim assistance at a general tariff rate of 30 per cent for certain motors should revert to the long term rate of 25 per cent. The Government has also accepted the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendations in respect of the long term rate to apply to alternating current generating sets, except in respect of sets having a rating exceeding 500 kilovoltamperes. Sets having a rating not exceeding 5 kVa will be subject to a general tariff rate of 25 per cent, phasing after one year to 20 per cent and to 15 per cent after a further year. Sets having a rating exceeding 5 kVa but not exceeding 25 kVa will be subject to a general tariff rate of 20 per cent phasing to 15 per cent after one year. Other alternating current generating sets not exceeding 500 kVa will be subject to a general tariff rate of 15 per cent. The Industries Assistance Commission recommended a long term rate of 15 per cent for all alternating current generating sets. Alternating current generating sets having a rating exceeding 500 kVa are currently bound at a rate of free under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As there would be significant adverse trade implications should the Government seek release from this binding, it has been decided that alternating current generating sets exceeding 500 kVa should remain at a rate of free. Schedule 5 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 May 1986, removes the 5 per cent duty previously applicable on certain engine powered lawn-mowers from New Zealand. This action follows a further review under the intermediate goods provisions of the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement. Schedule 8 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 July 1986, contains four changes. The first change removes the 4 per cent duty which otherwise would have applied to certain furniture and parts of New Zealand origin. As a result of furniture representations by the Australian and New Zealand furniture industries to their respective governments, agreement was reached to bring forward by 12 months the removal of the trade restrictions on these goods. The second change removes the 2 per cent revenue duty on sulphur falling within item 25.03 in Schedule 3 to the principal Act. This change forms part of the Government's decision on the report of the Government study group on fertiliser production and consumption in Australia and the Industries Assistance Commission's report on fertilisers. The third change provides for the continuity of the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on electric motors and generating sets. This decision was originally operative on and from 18 April 1986, but some restructuring of the principal Act was required on 1 July 1986 because of the introduction of the revised system of tariff preferences for developing countries on that date. The rates of duty originally implemented are not altered in any way. The final change corrects a drafting anomaly occurring in the numbering of a sub-section of the Customs Act 1901 referred to in item 31 of Part I of Schedule 4 to the principal Act. Schedule 11 to the Bill is operative from 8 p.m. on Budget night, 19 August 1986. This Schedule contains tariff changes which increase the Customs duty on imported manufactured tobacco and refined petroleum products. The increase of $1.90 per kilogram in the rate of duty applicable to manufactured tobacco completes the alignment of the excise portion of the tobacco rate with the excise portion of the rate for cigarettes which was begun in the 1983 Budget. The excise duty, and as a consequence the Customs duty, on refined petroleum products is being increased by 14.365 per cent, based on the rates which came into operation on 16 August 1986. The change equals three cents per litre for motor spirit and diesel fuel. Schedule 13 to the Bill, operative on and from 10 October 1986, provides the mechanism for the restoration of duty free admission of certain parts for use in ship repair. The Government's package of assistance for the Australian ship repair industry includes the removal of the duty on imports of certain parts for ships. This was included to assist ship repairers to hold down costs of inputs and improve their competitiveness. Previously most ships' parts were admissible under a Customs by-law. This by-law lapsed on 1 July 1985 when the old commercial by-law system was terminated. This matter has previously been rectified in relation to parts for use in the construction or modification of ships. The amendments in this Schedule now rectify the anomaly that exists where certain parts used in ship repair-unlike the same parts used in construction or modification-do not enter duty free. Schedule 14, operative on and from 1 January 1987, implements Customs tariff assistance arrangements for books to complement a new book bounty scheme recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on book production. The Government has accepted the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendation for the continuation of the bounty but has decided to reduce the bounty rate in line with its Budget decision to reduce bounties generally and thus reduce expenditure outlays. The new scheme will operate until 13 June 1989. This will enable the Government to consider assistance for the printing industry as a whole, following receipt of the Industries Assistance Commission's report on pulp, paper, paper products and printing due in February 1987. Customs duties on goods of tariff items 49.01-excluding Australian telephone directories and timetables-and 49.05 will be free from 1 January 1987. Customs duties on books falling within tariff items 48.18, 49.07.9 and 49.11.9 in Schedule 3 to the principal Act and Australian telephone directories and timetables of tariff item 49.01 will continue at a general rate of 25 per cent. Other books falling within tariff items 49.02, 49.03, 49.04 or 49.06 will remain free of Customs duty. Schedule 15 to the Bill contains provision for the implementation of a general tariff rate of $2,100 per tonne for imports of those cheeses and curd falling within tariff item 04.04.9 in Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act 1982, in excess of the 1985-86 level of 11,500 tonnes. It further provides that this tariff be implemented from a date to be fixed by proclamation. There is a sunset provision under which, if activated, this section of the Act will cease to have effect from 30 June 1992. New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the forum island countries are excluded from the potential ambit of any such tariff action. Australia has become one of the major world growth markets for cheese, consuming some 125,000 tonnes in 1985-86, including more than 20,000 tonnes of imports. No other major developed country market is as open to imports as Australia. Even under the proposed arrangements, which will accommodate dutiable imports equivalent to the level of 1985-86 imports, the Australian cheese market will still be more open than that of any other major developed dairy producing country. The cheese tariff provisions contained in this Bill are designed to bring stability and predictability into our import regime while the industry faces adjustment pressures due to reduced assistance under the new marketing arrangements which came into operation on the 1 July this year. Financial Impact As stated earlier, the changes in the rates of Customs duty set out in schedules 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 on imported petroleum products equal changes made to the excise rates applicable to equivalent locally produced goods. The changes in the rates of excise on petroleum products have been made to offset the estimated revenue loss or gain to the Commonwealth caused by the adjustments to the import parity price for locally produced crude oil. At the time of the 1 March 1986 import parity price adjustment, 75 per cent of the revenue loss from crude oil was estimated to be recouped through higher excise rates on petroleum products. For the adjustments on 1 April, 1 May, 1 July and 1 August, the full amounts of the estimated loss in revenue were to be recouped. In the upward 1 June 1986 import parity price adjustment, excise rates on refined petroleum products were reduced to offset fully the estimated gain from the crude oil levy. Similarly with the 1 September import parity price adjustment no additional tax revenue will be recovered by the Government as a result of the increase in the price of indigenous crude oil. The removal of the 2 per cent revenue duty on the agricultural chemicals in Schedule 2 to the Bill is estimated to be at a cost to the revenue of approximately $250,000 per annum. The removal of duty from the agricultural machinery covered by that Schedule is expected to result in a loss of revenue of about $2m per annum. There may be some loss of revenue resulting from the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on electric motors and generating sets but it has not been possible to make any reliable estimate. The loss of revenue resulting from the removal of duty on certain engine powered lawn-mowers from New Zealand is estimated to be a loss of revenue of approximately $160,000 per annum based on imports of 18,000 units per annum. The removal of the 2 per cent revenue duty on sulphur is expected to reduce duty collections by approximately $1m per annum. The removal of duty from furniture and furniture parts from New Zealand is estimated to result in $400,000 in duty not being payable. The increases in excise duty and Customs duty on refined petroleum products contained in the 1986-87 Budget are estimated to result in increases in revenue of $625m in 1986-87 and $715m in a full year. The Budget changes relating to manufactured tobacco are expected to increase revenue collections by approximately $2m per annum. The net financial impact of the restoration of the ships parts duty concession will be negligible. Some revenue gain would accrue if the provisions relating to cheese and curd contained in schedule 15 to the Bill are activated and imports exceed a level of 11,500 tonnes per annum. The Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on book production is expected to result in a reduction in Customs duty collections of approximately $0.5m per annum. There are no significant administrative costs associated with any of the measures contained in the Bill. A summary of amendments for each Schedule in the Bill has been prepared and copies are available from the tables office. I commend the Bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 continues the practice begun last sittings of combining amendments required to bounty and subsidy Acts in one omnibus Bill. In brief, this Bill contains amendments to current bounty and subsidy Acts to- (1) amend the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980 to provide for a single cash limited bounty for all eligible vessels regardless of market destination; (2) give effect to the Budget announcement to reduce most bounty and subsidy rates in existing schemes by 20 per cent; and (3) make a number of technical amendments to the Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Act 1983 and the Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Act 1985 and to all Bounty Acts in respect of the appointment of authorised officers. In this speech I will outline the amendments to the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980 and the amendments required as a consequence of the 20 per cent Budget cut in bounty rates. Details of the technical amendments to the various Acts are set out in the exploratory memorandum to this Bill, which has been circulated. Part II of the Bill contains the proposed amendments to the Bounty (Ships) Act to provide for a single cash limited bounty for all vessels. Currently this industry's assistance arrangement involves a non-cash limited bounty for vessels built for the domestic market and a cash limited bounty for vessels built for export. The amendments proposed to those arrangements by this Bill are essential if the shipbuilding industry is to maintain and increase the significant gains in efficiency and competitiveness it has achieved over the last decade. The Government's 1984 decision to extend bounty payments to vessels built for export and to tighten registration requirements for bounty purposes hastened the pace of rationalisation in the industry begun in 1976. Australian shipbuilders have developed market niches for their products at home and abroad. Throughput has generally improved and some economies of scale have been achieved. Devaluation has also worked to the industry's advantage. These factors are reflected in burgeoning exports. Growth in exports, I am happy to report, has been remarkable since 1984-85, when only one vessel was built for export. More than 20 were being built for export last financial year. Contracts for further exports, worth over $120m, have either been finalised or are nearing finalisation. This success has created significant new demands for the export bounty, which under the current annual cash limited approach would not allow many of these contracts to proceed. If this were to occur, the scale advantages accruing to the industry from increased throughput would be lost, with resultant declines in competitiveness, investment and employment. The Government believes that the revised arrangements in this Bill not only will allow these contracts to proceed but also will provide the industry with the stable and predictable environment it needs to expand further its export activity. Confidence in the future rate and availability of bounty is very important for this industry of the long lead times in tendering and construction. Contract negotiations normally take between three and 12 months. Construction normally takes between nine and 24 months. The imposition of limits on expenditure at clause 7 is necessary to enable the Government to exercise appropriate budgetary restraints while at the same time continuing its commitment to the industry. Adoption of a reservation system for all vessels also proposed by clause 7 means that builders of domestic vessels, like builders of export vessels, will be required to reserve bounty funds from within the total allocation of $144m. All shipbuilders will be required to nominate a completion date, within this or the next two financial years, to be able to reserve funds. Failure to complete a vessel within six months of the nominated financial year will result in forfeiture of bounty eligibility. A roll-over provision is proposed if in any one of the financial periods the amount reserved exceeds the amount of bounty available for payment. This will allow the acceptance of reservation applications to be rolled over into the next period, if sufficient funds are available within the $144m limit. Another proposed change, reflecting the improved competitiveness of the industry, is that the rate of bounty for certain classes of vessels will be reduced from 20 per cent to 15 per cent on 1 January 1988. Only modifications and those vessels whose construction costs have not been reduced as a result of the Australian dollar's depreciation will attract the higher rate after that date. Tugs, bulk carriers, rig servicing and fishing vessels fall into this category. This change will require the Australian shipbuilders to improve their efficiency further. Improvements in efficiency will be aided by extending the orderly development provisions introduced in 1985 on an annual basis to all shipbuilders seeking bounty assistance. Under those provisions new entrants or those shipbuilders who were not building a bountiable vessel on 11 October 1984 had to demonstrate that their registration would not disrupt the market and negate the Government's objective to increase industry throughput and hence efficiency. As a result of those provisions the number of registered shipbuilders has reduced significantly-down from over 90 in 1984 to less than 30 today-and throughput has increased significantly. The Government considers that the orderly development extension will lead to further efficiency gains and a reduction, in the longer term, in the level of support required by this industry. The other important amendments in the Bill are contained in Part III and Schedule 1. Schedule 1 contains the amendments to most current bounty and subsidy Acts reducing the rates in those Acts by 20 per cent, as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech on 19 August 1986. Omitted from Schedule 1 is the Bounty (Ships) Act, which is dealt with separately in Part II of this Bill. The rate for that bounty has been the subject of a phased reduction from 25 per cent. The rate payable from 1 July 1986 is now 20 per cent. I mentioned earlier that the bounty rate for certain classes of vessels will be reduced from 20 per cent to 15 per cent on 1 January 1988. This bounty was not subjected to the 20 per cent cut in the rate. Long lead times are the norm in this industry. To enable firms to quote with certainty it was determined in pre-Budget deliberations to make the reduction to the cash limit rather than to the actual rate to be paid. Also omitted from the Schedule is the Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Act and the Nitrogenous and Phosphate Fertilisers Subsidy Acts. This is for the reason that the reduction in the metal working machines bounty rate has already been effected by a Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notification made under that Act, a provision unique to that Act which does not appear in other bounty legislation. It is proposed that the fertilisers legislation which is not affected by the Budget rate cut be dealt with separately later in this sitting. I should make it clear that the reduction in bounty rates is a fiscal measure made to reduce government expenditure and for no other reason. In framing the 1986-87 Budget the Government considered a wide range of options for reducing outlays and exercising expenditure restraint. It is the Government's view that such restraint should be borne by the community as a whole and a cut in the bounty and subsidy rates is just one of the measures needed to achieve the Government's expenditure objectives. Financial Impact Statement In relation to the revised shipbuilding bounty, clause 7 of the Bill sets an absolute limit of $144m on funds available for preservation purposes for bountiable ships in the period to 30 June 1989. Within this limit, clause 7 restricts outlays to a maximum of $42m in the current financial year and to $45m in the succeeding two years. Reserved but unexpended funds as at 30 June 1989 will be available as required up to 30 June 1991. The Budget cut of 20 per cent in bounty and subsidy rates is expected to save about $43m in bounty and subsidy payments in 1986-87 and it is estimated to maintain total payments at about the same level in money terms as in the previous two financial years. Other measures in the Bill have no direct financial impact. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(6.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. A number of important reforms to the Act are put before the Parliament in this Bill. Undoubtedly the most substantial and difficult issue that is addressed in the Bill relates to the provision of secure title to land for Aboriginals living in pastoral areas in the Northern Territory. Such people are among the most deprived of Australians, and many live in conditions that can only be described as a disgrace to this country. As a matter of national pride, and as a simple matter of respect for human dignity, we must give the highest priority to resolving the problems of these people. We have made it clear, in our discussions with the Northern Territory Government and with representatives of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, that our prime target is to provide for Aboriginals living in the pastoral zone, secure land bases with good living conditions. We want fast, lasting results. We have also stressed that we would much prefer that solutions be found by negotiation between the parties, rather than be imposed from outside. We have been assured by the Northern Territory Government and the Cattlemen's Association that they share these objectives. Our negotiations with the Northern Territory Government and the pastoralists, and with the land councils as the representatives of Aboriginal interests, have been proceeding for some time. These have reached a point where I can now put before the Parliament the package of proposals-not all involving legislative action-that we are implementing. Under the present Act it is possible for Aboriginals to claim title to stock routes and reserves, and a number of the claims that have yet to be heard and reported on by Aboriginal land commissioners are in respect of such stock routes and reserves. Some practical problems have emerged. On the one hand, a claim to such lands may offer, to some Aboriginal groups living in the pastoral areas of the Northern Territory, the best or in some cases the only prospect of obtaining title to some of their traditional lands. On the other hand, to proceed to grant title to some of these areas-assuming that a land commissioner had so recommended-would result in the splitting of existing pastoral leases into two or more segments, with consequent disruption and costs for the pastoralists concerned. Against this background, it has been the Government's position that it would be preferable, as a general rule, that claims to stock routes and reserves not proceed and that a program be developed, with the co-operation of the Northern Territory Government and pastoralists, whereby excisions from pastoral leases to provide living areas for Aboriginal groups would be negotiated. Useful progress has been made in these negotiations. These negotiations are now well advanced in 40 cases, and actual title has been granted in 13 cases. There are some 61 applications at varying stages in the pipeline. There are, however, some Aboriginal groups living in pastoral areas for whom the excisions program offers limited prospects and who may therefore, in view of the land councils, be seriously disadvantaged if they were forced to forgo the prospect of obtaining living areas on stock reserves. We have also been discussing these special cases with the Northern Territory Government. I have now informed the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the land councils and the Cattlemen's Association that the Commonwealth will proceed, in this Bill, with an amendment which will prevent a land commissioner from hearing claims to stock routes and reserves, unless a hearing has already commenced on unless the stock route or reserve is wholly encompassed in the overall area of land under claim. This is a significant concession. In order to provide protection, however, against a possible situation where negotiations fail to produce a satisfactory outcome, the Bill also provides a power to prescribe a stock reserve or reserves in respect of which land claims would be allowed to proceed. Let me make our intentions totally clear on this issue. We want negotiated, not imposed, solutions. If all parties concerned-the land councils and the Aboriginal people, the Northern Territory Government, and the pastoralists-approach the negotiations in a truly co-operative spirit, outstanding issues should be able to be resolved. But the Commonwealth must also ensure that, if the negotiations do break down for any reason, it retains sufficient power to take other action to achieve our objectives. We are not in the business of making concessions, then later finding that results have not been forthcoming and there is nothing we can do about it. Above all else, we have an obligation to safeguard the interests of those Aboriginal people who are presently deprived of any reasonable basis on which to plan and build their lives in their own country. The Government has also under consideration requesting a land commissioner to inquire, in accordance with paragraph 50 (1) (b) of the Act, into the likely extent of traditional land claims to alienated Crown land. I turn now to the other main provisions of the Bill. One of the most innovative parts of the Act is the scheme for people to claim certain categories of land on the basis that they are the traditional Aboriginal owners of that land. Since 1977, 26 traditional land claims have been heard and reported on by Aboriginal land commissioners, and inalienable freehold title to many of these areas has been granted to Aboriginal land trusts. The Act presently leaves open a number of questions about what can be done with land which has been claimed, but in respect of which a claim has not been determined. Some matters have been clarified by the High Court of Australia, but others remain. As a result of these amendments it will not be possible to alienate land under claim, or to reserve, dedicate or set aside such land. The amendment effectively will freeze the status of land at the date on which a claim was or is lodged with a commissioner. So, for example, were the Northern Territory to purport to grant an estate or interest in land which is the subject of a traditional land claim, such a purported alienation would be deemed to be of no effect. The Act will be amended to clarify the position in respect of repeat land claims. Where a claim has not resulted in a recommendation for grant from a commissioner it will be possible, in certain circumstances, for a commissioner to hear a later claim to the same land. These criteria to be applied by a commissioner are aimed at ensuring that claimants are not disadvantaged, while ensuring that the status of land which has been unsuccessfully claimed is not frozen indefinitely by claims which have little or no chance of success. An anomaly will be rectified whereby pastoral leases held by Aboriginals can be claimed by Aboriginal people other than the landholders, without their consent. In future, such consent will be required before a hearing can proceed. As already noted, as a general rule, claims to stock routes and stock reserves will cease to be heard. Claims which are already part heard by a commissioner will be allowed to be completed. Claims to parts of stock routes which are bounded on both of the longer sides by land which is available for claim will also continue, ensuring that land claim land will not be divided into segments by stock routes. The Act will also be amended to provide that no land claims lodged more than 10 years after the commencement of these amendments will be dealt with by a commissioner. These amendments will help give much needed certainty to the land claim process. Other aspects of the land claim process will be improved and clarified. Lawyers appearing before an Aboriginal land commissioner will be given the sort of protection already accorded to a commissioner and a witness. A commissioner will be empowered to give directions prohibiting or limiting the publication of, or access to, information or material produced to the commissioner under this Act. A commissioner will also be able to require specified persons, or persons within a specified class of persons, not be be in the vicinity of the place where information is to be given or material produced. Penalties will be provided where a person knowingly contravenes or fails to comply with such a direction. A commissioner will be able to refer a question of law arising in connection with a traditional land claim to the Federal Court of Australia, where it will be dealt with by a full court. Where a commissioner has been unable to complete the performance of his function before his term of office has expired, the commissioner will be deemed to continue to hold office for the purpose of completing the performance of the functions. So, for example, where a commissioner has heard evidence and addresses in respect of a traditional land claim, but has not reported his findings and made any recommendations before his term expires, he could write such a report after that date. Finally, in order to provide a wider base from which to select land commissioners, it is proposed that a commissioner may be chosen from the bench of the Federal Court. At present the only source is the Northern Territory Supreme Court. The views of the Northern Territory Government will of course be sought before any appointment is made. Other amendments There will be a scheme for the amalgamation of land trust areas if the traditional Aboriginal owners wish to have such amalgamations. Provision is made for compensation to be granted to persons who hold grazing licences over unalientated Crown land which is granted to a land trust. The scheme for the grant of estates or interests in Aboriginal land will be revised, for example, to remove the need for ministerial consent to certain types of short and medium term grants. The powers and responsibilities of land councils will be amended in a number of respects, consonant with the requirements of effective administrative practice. The Consultative Processes The various proposals put forward in this Bill are the result of discussion and consultation over the past three years concerning what changes should be made to the Act. The Act was an innovative piece of legislation. It established a set of rights in respect of traditional land which the common law had failed to recognise and gave the traditional Aboriginal owners of that land real control over what happened on it. It was inevitable that legislation of this kind would create some practical problems. In 1974 Mr Justice Woodward, on whose recommendations much of the Act was based, anticipated that the scheme would need to be reviewed. He noted that he had `experienced great doubt on a number of issues-particularly those relating to mineral rights and additional claims in pastoral lease areas'. He suggested that there be deliberate and planned examinations of the system to ensure that anomalies were brought to light and the system did not become rigid and unresponsive to changing needs. One of my first actions as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was to ask Mr Justice Toohey to make a general review and report on the provisions and operation of the Act. I asked him to recommend amendments to the Act having regard to the general principles which this Government sees as fundamental in relation to Aboriginal land rights. Mr Justice Toohey, the first Aboriginal Land Commissioner and a judge of the Federal Court of Australia, received oral and written submissions from a number of interested persons and bodies. In December 1983 he reported to me, recommending a wide range of amendments and suggesting other ways in which land justice could be achieved for Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. The report, entitled `Seven Years On', was printed in book form, tabled in the Parliament and distributed widely. Then, in 1984, Dr Jon Altman conducted a review of the Aboriginals benefit trust account. Release of these reports was followed by a most extensive process of consultation and debate. That led, earlier this year, to the development by the Government of a set of proposals for amending the Act; these proposals, in turn, have been discussed at considerable length with the Aboriginal land councils, the Northern Territory Government, and mining and pastoral interests. This is as it should be; difficult questions of policy are involved, in which the reconciliation of conflicting interests must be given the greatest attention if the best possible results are to be achieved. The Government is satisfied that it has done everything that it reasonably could to provide scope for reconciliation and accommodation. Indeed, I would doubt whether there are any instances of legislation that have been so exhaustively canvassed and discussed before introduction. Although good progress has been made on a number of fronts, there remain some contentious aspects on which there are some sharp divergences of views. We have decided to allow more time for these problems to be analysed and discussed, and will look at them again early in the new year. We did not believe, however, that we can afford to delay other much needed improvements until these outstanding issues can be resolved. The main elements being deferred are those dealing with: Exploration and mining on Aboriginal land, the granting of an estate or interest in Aboriginal land to the Northern Territory Government for essential services, protection of sacred sites, methods for calculating payments of royalty equivalents to the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account, and the removal from claim of pastoral properties owned by Aboriginals and of public purpose land. In relation to the Aboriginals benefit trust account, we have also decided to defer consideration of a number of possible legislative changes in order that the changes that have been introduced by administrative means, following on Dr Altman's recommendations, have time to take effect and can be evaluated. Financial Impact There will be little additional cost to the Commonwealth arising directly from these amendments. Provision will be made to compensate persons who have lost the use of a grazing licence or other licence upon land becoming Aboriginal land. I do not expect that such situations will occur often or that substantial payments will be involved. Conclusion In 1976 the Aboriginal Land Rights Act was seen to be a bold innovation at law. In social terms it was, and it remains, an attempt at what Mr Justice Woodward described as `the doing of simple justice to a people who have been deprived of their land without their consent and without compensation' and `the promotion of social harmony and stability within the wider community by removing as far as possible, the legitimate causes of complaint of an important minority group within that community. The Act has done much to achieve those and other aims. Yet in its operation the need for some amendment has been apparent. As Mr Justice Toohey wrote in his review of the Act: The number of amendments recommended to the Land Rights Act may be thought to suggest substantial defects in the legislation. It would be a mistake to draw that conclusion. Given the legislative novelty of the subject matter of the Act and the need to marry complex notions of traditional Aboriginal law and culture with European institutions and administrative procedures, the Act has worked surprisingly well. But it is inevitable that after 7 years cracks in the edifice have started to show. The amendments before the House will, I believe, do much to strengthen the Act for the present and well into the future. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Debate resumed from 8 October, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(7.05) —I have spent some 20 years of my life in Melbourne. They have a phenomenon there called the split round, which is where they play half the football games in any round on one weekend and the remaining half on another weekend. This is the second or third time in a row when I appear to be involved in a split round. Mr Hand —We can't take 30 minutes of you, that's the problem. Mr BEALE —I am delighted to know that the honourable member for Melbourne is here because he is a Magpie and he will understand what I am talking about. I hope that he will come back tomorrow morning so that he can enjoy further words of wisdom. The Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill 1986 seeks to amend the Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982 in order, first, to set a final date of 31 December 1986 for lodgment of applications for assistance under the Act and, secondly, to require the Minister to report to Parliament on the administration of the Act for the last time for the 1986-87 financial year. The original Bill was introduced by the previous coalition Government in 1982 and replaced the homes savings grants scheme which had been in operation since 1964. The record of successive coalition governments and their commitment to home ownership is unsurpassed in Australia's history. Coalition governments always made the greatest commitment to home ownership for all Australians. The coalition parties have always recognised and strongly supported the aspiration of all Australians to own their own homes, giving them an appropriate and stable family environment, a share in the nation's wealth and personal security. We in the coalition parties still have that commitment. The coalition's record compares more than favourably with that of the present Government and, in particular, with the Government's record in the past year which has produced the current housing crisis. There can be no doubt that there is a crisis. For example, I show to the House two pages from Sydney's Daily Telegraph of last Friday and last Thursday, which are full of stories about the difficulties that people are facing with housing. These newspaper articles are even headed `The Housing Crisis'. In these circumstances it is clear that the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill cannot be passed without honourable members participating in this debate-we have a real team in the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp)-having an opportunity to focus on the Government's shoddy housing record. Accordingly, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, the House condemns the Government for pursuing disastrous economic and taxation policies which have- (1) created the current housing crisis; (2) resulted in high levels of interest rates; (3) reduced the number of dwelling commencements; (4) reduced the availability, and increased the cost, of rental properties, and (5) increased the public housing waiting lists.' I now refer the House to the rather equivocal answer that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) gave to my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) last Monday. Honourable members will recall that at a seminar in Washington, DC the Treasurer's economic adviser told the audience that, although Australia's total 1986-87 gross domestic product growth was forecast to be unchanged at 2 1/4 per cent, the composition of that figure had changed in such a way that real domestic growth would be downgraded from half a per cent to zero per cent. The Treasurer said that his adviser was reflecting certain views and that there was `a lot of anecdotal evidence that there will be a high net export contribution'. In his own way the Treasurer seems to be confirming what his economic adviser said to the seminar in Washington. The key point though is that all the economic indicators in such areas as retail sales and motor vehicle registrations suggest that the Treasurer's economic adviser has attributed the lower domestically-generated growth forecast to a fall in private dwelling investment that is greater than the 5 per cent fall in real terms identified in the Budget Papers. An analysis suggests that the Treasurer's economic adviser was implying that the Budget forecast fall of 5 per cent in real private dwelling investment in the current financial year should be downgraded from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. The most interesting aspect of this is how closely it dovetails with what has happened to the Government's own analysis of dwelling commencements for the 1986-87 year. Let me take the House back to that incredible week which culminated on 2 April 1986 with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) going before the nation's television audience after housing package mark I was announced and promising the Australian people that there would be 135,000 housing starts in 1986-87. Incredibly, some commentators took that prime ministerial promise at its face value, but the rest of us know that promises from the Prime Minister are worthless. The last two years of this ill-starred Government have been littered with broken promises. There was the capital gains tax-`There will be no capital gains tax under my Government'. There were to be lower interest rates-`Interest rates will come down'. They are two broken promises that reflect directly on the Bill we are discussing today. I return to the evening of 2 April when the Prime Minister promised 135,000 housing starts in the 1986-87 year. What has happened, and how does that compare with what the Treasurer's economic adviser said to the seminar in Washington? The saga runs like this: By June 1986 the Government's own Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry-its chief advisor on housing-had downgraded the Prime Minister's figure from 135,000 starts to 130,000 starts. On 3 October, following a meeting of the Australian Housing Council, the Indicative Planning Council revised downward even further this figure from 130,000. I quote paragraph 2.13 of the report: . . . and as a consequence, total commencements for 1986-87 are forecast to be lower, at between 120,000 and 125,000-- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Willis-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —I thank the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) for allowing me to continue. Mr Humphreys —He is always very generous. Mr BEALE —It is nice to meet a generous Minister for a change. Mr Chynoweth —Give some of the back benchers a go. Mr BEALE —I have not met any generous back benchers. I again quote paragraph 2.13 of the report of the Indicative Planning Council for the Australian Housing Industry on 3 October. It states: . . . and as a consequence, total commencements for 1986-87 are forecast to be lower, at between 120,000 and 125,000. The mid point of 122,500 has been used in this paper. Furthermore, the report relied on the Budget forecasts of gross domestic product of 2 1/4 per cent consistent with the Budget Papers, that is, a 0.5 per cent domestic growth. If the Treasurer's economic adviser is correct, there will be only 115,000 housing starts this year, a number well below the downgraded, and further downgraded, figure of 122,500 starts from the Prime Minister's promise of 135,000 starts. It is appropriate at this time to make some reference to the barbs that have been coming from the Government side of the House on housing starts in the State of Queensland. Both the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) and the Treasurer have been at some pains to point out that a significant proportion of the downgrading from 130,000 to 125,000 starts in the current year has resulted from the effects of slower housing commencements in Queensland. But what those Government Ministers have not said is that in Queensland the significant proportion of finance for housing commencements rests with the building societies, whereas in most other States the significant proportion of funding for housing rests with the savings banks. I remind the House that the Government, in its 2 April housing package, gave a subsidy to the savings banks but gave no assistance at all to the building societies. This means, particularly in Queensland, that the lenders to the housing market have been squeezed by the Government's high interest rate policy, and because of that squeeze they are unable to find the funds to lend for new housing commencements. Rather than blaming the Queensland Government for the housing starts situation in Queensland, the blame rests fairly and squarely with this Government. In these circumstances, is it really any wonder that the Opposition is moving this amendment today criticising the Government's appalling handling of new housing commencements? There seems no better place to start, when looking at the Government's appalling handling of new housing commencements, than to look at the views of the Labor Party's colleagues in the States by quoting from the welcoming address of the New South Wales Labor Minister for Housing to the first meeting of the New South Wales Housing Council held on 9 October 1986. In that address he said: Continued high interest rates have had a major impact in substantially reducing housing affordability. Repayments on an average loan have increased by one quarter over the course of the last financial year. The high cost of housing finance remains the prime obstacle to home ownership for most low and middle income earners, and affordability is the name of the game. What an indictment that the New South Wales Labor Minister for Housing should be saying about the policies of his Federal colleagues that `the high cost of housing finance remains the prime obstacle to home ownership for most low and middle income earners and affordability is the name of the game'. The question we now have to ask ourselves is: How did the Government get us into this extraordinary mess on housing? We can do no more than look to the Government's macroeconomic policies. I turn firstly to inflation. The Minister for Housing and Construction brought before the House tonight several proposals for commencement of public works and in two of those proposals the Minister's Department had made the assumption that inflation for the current year would be running at the rate of 10 per cent. Yesterday in Question Time the Prime Minister started the process of softening up the community for a large consumer price index increase in the figures that are due to be announced tomorrow. Given that most economic commentators expect the figure for the quarter to be in the range of 2.3 per cent to 2.7 per cent, it is not surprising that the Department of Housing and Construction has estimated that the inflation rate for the year will be 10 per cent. What does inflation at a rate of 10 per cent mean to Australia when the inflation rates of our major trading competitors are between zero and 3 per cent? I use the phrase `major trading competitors' advisedly. We are too frequently used to talking about our major trading partners. Whilst it may be true that they are our major trading partners, when we sell we are competing with them in world markets and they are our major trading competitors. The sooner we recognise that we must think of our terms of trade in terms of world competition, the better off we will be. Inflation in Australia is running at 16 times the rate of inflation in Japan and between four and 12 times that of our other major trading competitors. Unemployment in Australia is now higher in number terms than it was when this Government came to power. The number of unemployed people in Australia today is higher than in March 1983. In some ways I am disappointed that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is at the table rather than the Minister for Housing and Construction, who should be there. It is with some regret that I have to say that the response by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the matter of public importance brought forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) today on the question of youth unemployment was totally inadequate. Our internal debt is now running at about $100 billion. Mr Robert Brown —That is gross. Mr BEALE —Our internal debt is $100 billion; for internal debt there is no such thing as a gross figure. I will let the honourable member for Charlton know about gross and net numbers when I come to the external debt, which this Government has doubled in its three years in office. I acknowledge the apology from the honourable member for Charlton. Our internal debt is now around $100 billion. Servicing that debt takes about 10 per cent of our national income. Despite all the blustering by the Treasurer, the additional $3.5 billion deficit in the current Budget is an absolute disgrace. Given the Treasurer's conditioning of the Australian people, he had every opportunity to introduce a Budget in which the deficit was significantly lower than $3.5 billion. He failed in that endeavour. Interest rates in Australia are still running at far too high a level. If we compare our real interest rates with those of our major trading competitors we will see that Australian business is left at a distinct disadvantage in trying to compete with the rest of the world. This is causing investment in Australia to dry up. The level of private investment in Australia continues to go down. The causes of our interest rates being too high are two; namely, that the Government is spending too much of our money and that our labour market is too inflexible. Mr Robert Brown —No, they are not the reasons. Mr BEALE —The Government is spending too much of our money. Let me take the honourable member for Charlton through a simple economic exercise. Interest rates are determined by the cost of money; they are the cost of money. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I trust that the honourable member will come back to the terms of the Bill rather than speak generally on the economy. Mr BEALE —With great respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you were not in the chair when I moved my amendment, may I draw your attention to the terms of the amendment. It says, among other things: whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, the House condemns the Government for pursuing disastrous economic and taxation policies-- In those circumstances I submit that the remarks I am making are clearly in order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may continue. Mr BEALE —I take the honourable member for Charlton back to a simple economic exercise. When governments spend more than they earn they have to borrow in the market-place. That increases the competition for money. When the competition for money is increased the price of money-that is, the interest rate-goes up. When our labour market is inflexible it is difficult for Australia to compete internationally. When it is difficult for Australia to compete internationally we have to borrow more money from abroad. When we borrow money the price of that money-that is, the interest rate-goes up. Our current account deficit is now running at an annual rate of $17 billion. It was $1.45 billion last month. That compares with a Budget forecast of $14 billion. We are not competitive in world markets and we now require 40 per cent of our export earnings to service our overseas debt. I turn finally to our overseas debt, which is running at a net $75 billion to $80 billion. We see again the difficulty that Australia has in being competitive in the world. In terms of how the Government has got us into this extraordinary mess, I say that this Government is the highest taxing government in Australia's history. Personal income tax in this country is far too high. The level of personal income tax has reduced motivation and strangled small business. Wherever one goes in this community-all honourable members know this-people will say that we must do something to restore incentive. I challenge any of the Government members who are in the House, and it is full of them tonight, to tell me that he has not heard that again and again from his constituents. We must restore incentive in this country if we are to create a competitive environment that will allow our businesses to compete in the world. I turn to the housing rental market and refer again to the first meeting of the New South Wales Housing Council. On 9 October this year, the New South Wales Labor Minister for Housing told the Council: The parlous state of the private rental market in New South Wales is well known to you all. Rents in Sydney have reached an all time high after eighteen months of rapid rises and the shortage of rental accommodation is worsening as owners abandon real estate in favour of other investments . . . . . . demand on public rental housing, crisis and emergency housing is accelerating. The Department's waiting list for public housing stands at over 57,000 households . . . In that respect, I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that in the last published figures of the queues for public housing in New South Wales-that is, at the end of June 1985-the figure for those on the waiting list was 40,000. In just one year in New South Wales-the home State of the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown)-the housing waiting list has increased from 40,000 to 57,000. Mr Robert Brown —That is all the people who know that if they apply they will get one. Mr BEALE —There we have it, Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Charlton is acknowledging that the Government's high interest rate policies and tax policies, namely, the abolition of negative gearing and the capital gains tax, have caused the increase in public housing waiting lists. In the rental market, which investors are deserting in droves, the Government's policies-notably negative gearing and the capital gains tax-have contributed to the situation. I shall quote what the New South Wales Labor Minister for Housing said in the New South Wales Parliament on 15 October 1986: Mr Speaker-- with great respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the other Mr Speaker-- there is a crisis in the accommodation market . . . of the private rental markets and our housing markets in this country. That is a fact of life, that anyone in politics knows. He continued: But there was another decision that affected the building industry. And that was the decision on income taxation. There was a change in our income taxation laws and the negative gearing that was given to landlords and encouraged investors in the private rental market, was taken away . . . Mr Hand —Who said this? Mr BEALE —Who said this? The Labor Minister for Housing in the New South Wales Parliament. That is who said it. He said: There was a change in our income taxation laws and the negative gearing that was given to landlords and encouraged investors in the private rental market was taken away, and Mr Speaker, there was one voice in this country . . . Rents around Australia in the last year have risen by between 15 and 25 per cent. The capital gains tax alone has forced rents to rise by $24 a week in Adelaide and $35 a week in Canberra. Rents in Melbourne and Sydney have risen by more than 15 per cent and by up to 25 per cent in the last 12 months. Mr Campbell —That is obviously arrant nonsense. Mr BEALE —I do not know where the honourable member for Kalgoorlie gets his information, but let me tell him that the Real Estate Institute of Australia-perhaps he might check with it some time so he can update himself on what is happening in Australia-has continually published figures over the last few months that demonstrate that rents in the capital cities around Australia have gone up by between 15 per cent and 25 per cent in the last year. This Government's housing policies have failed. Demand for new houses is running well ahead of supply. This means that young couples are unable to purchase their dream home. These people are then forced towards the private rental market. But the abolition of negative gearing and the presence of the capital gains tax have pushed private rental market vacancy rates down and rents up. This is making it more difficult for young couples and lower income groups to rent a house. That explains why the public housing waiting lists are growing. In New South Wales alone the numbers on the waiting lists have increased from 40,000 to 57,000 in just one year. The Government's housing policies have failed, and that is because its economic and tax policies have failed. We condemn the Government for pursuing those policies, which have created the current housing crisis. I commend the Opposition's amendment to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I understand that the honourable member for North Sydney will second the amendment. Does he wish to address the House? Mr Spender —No, I will reserve my remarks. I second the amendment. Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Willis) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr REITH(Flinders)(7.37) —In the last couple of weeks the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has had directed to him from the Opposition a minimum of ten questions on the implications and operations of the capital gains tax. On each occasion the Treasurer has hedged his responses. So it is no wonder that we see the Government this week embarking on a $2m campaign to sell the capital gains tax and other parts of the Government's so-called tax reform package. The Opposition will not be taking no for an answer on those questions as they relate to the capital gains tax. Tonight a number of Opposition members will raise certain aspects of the capital gains tax as it affects ordinary Australians. In particular, I refer to the capital gains tax as it affects the family home. I have already presented to the Treasurer a list of 15 situations in which the capital gains tax will incur a liability against the home owners of Australia. Tonight I want to add to that list a number of further examples of situations in which Labor's capital gains tax, contrary to Labor's claims, will affect ordinary Australians. Under the tax, essentially the situation is that one can have an exemption for one's principal residence. One can also have an exemption for the principal residence if one is in the process of buying and selling a home. In that situation, one can have two homes for which there will be an exemption. The exemption, however, is limited to three months. If, for reasons beyond one's control, one buys a house and the agent says that the place will sell easily and it does not, so one is stuck with it for a period in excess of three months, for that period the family home will be subject to Labor's capital gains tax. But it gets worse. If one is stuck with a home for a period in excess of three months and one has high bridging finance with a bank or building society and so attempts to defray the high cost of the bridging finance by renting out the home, one will immediately lose even that paltry exemption of three months. If that is a case of a tax rort, I must say the definition leaves a lot to be desired. Let me give another case of widespread application. If a person buys a home and intends before moving into it, to renovate it, the time it takes to undertake those renovations will see that person's family home-to-be subject to Labor's capital gains tax. I invite honourable members-some are obviously looking at me in disbelief-to read the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Bill 1986 which was rushed through the House and, in particular, clause 5. Basically, clause 5 says that if a person buys a vacant block, builds a house and moves into and occupies that house within four years, that block will be exempt from capital gains tax. However, if a person buys a block that has on it an old home which that person intends to demolish prior to constructing the family dream home, that block-the land upon which that person's family home is situated-will be subject to Labor's capital gains tax. I say to Government members: This is clearly an anomaly; clearly the drafting of the legislation ought to be looked at; and it is clearly wrong that Australians who aspire to build their own home will find their land subject to Labor's capital gains tax. Take, for example, a beneficiary in an estate. Under Labor's capital gains tax effectively a person who is the beneficiary of a principal residence owned by a deceased taxpayer will find that that property is exempt from capital gains tax if it is sold by the beneficiary within 12 months. However, if for the reason that the estate is not finalised or for other reasons-often there are such reasons in the finalisation of an estate-one cannot sell that property within 12 months, that property will be subject to capital gains tax. I ask honourable members: Is that fair and reasonable? As time runs out let me give one last case. If a person owns a suburban property and the country roads board decides to acquire the first five feet at the front of the property, under Labor's capital gains tax when that person is compensated the State Government will give with one hand and the Federal Government will take with another: The compensation that is received will be subject to Labor's capital gains tax. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(7.42) —On 30 October 1886 the 31st Battalion, the Kennedy Regiment, was raised in North Queensland by Government proclamation as the 3rd Queensland, the Kennedy Regiment, with Major William Slade Vincent as Commanding Officer. The early history of the Kennedy Regiment can be traced back to 1881, when volunteer companies were formed at Charters Towers, Ravenswood and Townsville. Many members of the 3rd Queensland, the Kennedy Regiment, served in the Boer War and gained the unit's first battle honour-South Africa 1899 to 1902. In appreciation of the service by members of the unit in the Boer War the regiment was presented with the King's Banner. In 1903 this unit was renamed the Kennedy Infantry Regiment. It was to be the first Australian infantry unit mobilised for service at the outbreak of World War I, when it was sent in August 1914 to Thursday Island to provide defence against German raiders. When the Kennedy Regiment returned to Australia many of its members joined the 31st Battalion, First Australian Imperial Force, which comprised two companies from Queensland and two companies from Victoria. It was formed in 1915 and its first commanding officer was Lieutenant Colonel F. W. Toll, a member of the Kennedy Regiment. After service in Egypt, the 31st Battalion arrived in France in June 1916. The Battalion served gallantly throughout World War I with men such as Major Hugh Quinn, whose name is perpetuated in Quinn's Post at Anzac Cove, and Private Patrick Bugden, who was awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously for his actions at Polygon Wood in France in December 1917. Casualties sustained by the 31st Battalion AIF during World War I were heavy-23 officers and 552 other ranks were killed in action or died of wounds or other causes. Total battle casualties numbered 77 officers and 2,050 other ranks. In 1919, following reorganisation to provide for titles, traditions and battle honours of the battalions of the First AIF to be carried by the Citizen Military Force of the Commonwealth, the 2nd Infantry Regiment, the Kennedy Regiment, was designated as the 2nd Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, Kennedy Regiment. In subsequent years the unit was restyled as the 31st Battalion, the Kennedy Regiment. It was commanded for a number of years by Lieutenant Colonel F. R. North, MC and bar, a distinguished North Queensland soldier who later was to become Brigadier F. R. North, CB, MC, ED, the Honorary Colonel of the Regiment. In 1940 a separate unit, the 2/31 Battalion AIF, was formed in England. This unit served in the western desert before taking part in the Syrian campaign when, in July 1941, just outside the village of Jezzine, Private James Gordon won the Victoria Cross for single-handedly attacking a Vichy French machine gun post. Following its return to Australia, the 2/31 Battalion AIF took part in the Owen Stanley campaign and the battle for Gona during the latter half of 1942. Subsequently the unit took part in the capture of Lae and in operations extending up the Ramu and Markham valleys in New Guinea. Its final campaign was at Balikpapan in Borneo. Casualties sustained by the 2/31 Battalion AIF during these tours of operation included 18 officers and 225 other ranks killed and a further 21 officers and 457 other ranks wounded. In 1943 the 31st and 51st battalions were linked to form the 31st-51st Battalion AIF. This unit served in Dutch New Guinea and later in Bougainville. Memorable battles included Tsimba Ridge and the landing at Porton, which was described by Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blamey as one of the most stirring he had ever seen. In March 1946 the wartime 2/31 Battalion AIF was disbanded. However, as with the 31st Battalion of the First AIF, the traditions and battle honours of the 2/31 Battalion AIF survived and were inherited by the 31st Battalion, the Royal Queensland Regiment. In 1948, with the forming of the Citizen Military Force, the 31st Battalion, the Kennedy Regiment, was re-formed and continued as such until 1960 when, with the formation of the Pentropic Division, it was restyled as `C' company, the Kennedy Company of the 2nd Battalion Royal Queensland Regiment. Five years later, with the termination of the Pentropic Division, it became the 31st Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment. In 1976 it was reclassified as the 31st Independent Rifle Company, the Royal Queensland Regiment, as it is known today. Townsville's 31st Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment, will have existed in various forms for 100 years on 30 October 1986. Various military reorganisations throughout its long history have given it a number of territorial titles, but its link with North Queensland has remained constant since 1886. In August 1959 the City of Townsville expressed its appreciation of the 31st Battalion, the Kennedy Regiment, for its long association and support in civic matters by granting the Battalion the high honour of `Freedom of entry City of Townsville'. A similar privilege was conferred on the unit by the City of Charters Towers in 1981. I have asked the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to request the Chief of the General Staff to re-raise the 31st Independent Rifle Company to 31st Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment, on the anniversary of its centenary, 30 October 1986. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(7.48) —I rise this evening to express my deep concern at the shortage of private rental accommodation in Australia. This has precipitated a crisis for many people, particularly lower income earners. The blame for it can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of the Hawke Government. It is the Government's taxation and economic policies which have precipitated dramatic increases in the cost of private rental accommodation and a severe decrease in its availability. It is generally agreed that the four main factors that have caused this situation have been the quarantining of negative gearing on rental accommodation, the Government's capital gains tax, record interest rates and anti-landlord legislation in States which have Australian Labor Party Governments. I digress to say that that is not likely to happen in Queensland after 1 November. As far as the effect of interest rates has been, the number of dwellings financed for owner occupation fell by a disastrous 17 per cent nationwide in the four months to July 1986 compared with the corresponding period in 1985. That means there is an increase in the number of potential first home buyers who are deferring purchasing their own home because they cannot afford the interest rates. Pressure is exerted, therefore, on rental accommodation. However, the main factors that have caused this dramatic effect in the last 12 months, have, without a doubt, been the quarantining of negative gearing on rental accommodation and the capital gains tax. The quarantining of negative gearing reduces the number of people who can afford to invest in rental homes and the capital gains tax reduces the attractiveness of this type of investment to those who can still afford it. The Labor Party is hooked on its own propaganda that landlords are wealthy. It overlooks the fact that many landlords in Australia are average Australians who have invested in rental property as a means of preserving the value of their investments. The attraction of investment in rental properties, particularly housing, has traditionally been the prospect of a capital gain, since rental returns are lower than bank interest rates. We have dramatic evidence of the effect of the Government's policies on rents. In the 12 months to June 1986 rent for three bedroom unfurnished houses in Australia increased at a greater rate than inflation in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Hobart. The rental for two bedroom unfurnished apartments increased at a greater rate than inflation in all capital cities except Darwin and Canberra. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which gives a city by city summary of the change in average rents expressed on a percentage basis. Leave granted. The table read as follows- WEIGHTED AVERAGE RENTS-HOUSES (3 BEDROOM UNFURNISHED) AMOUNT PER WEEK AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL CITIES City June 1985 June 1986 Percentage Increase June 1986 on June 1985 $ $ Sydney... 199.15 227.20 14.1 Melbourne... 131.00 147.85 12.9 Brisbane... 111.35 114.60 2.9 Adelaide... 114.90 122.05 6.2 Perth... 93.60 115.90 23.8 Hobart... 114.15 126.30 10.6 Darwin... 185.05 186.50 0.8 Canberra... 146.30 148.40 1.4 WEIGHTED AVERAGE RENTS-APARTMENTS (2 BEDROOM UNFURNISHED) AMOUNT PER WEEK AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL CITIES City June 1985 June 1986 Percentage Increase June 1986 on June 1985 $ $ Sydney... 129.80 152.20 17.3 Melbourne... 92.70 108.05 16.6 Brisbane... 85.90 97.55 13.6 Adelaide... 81.20 91.75 13.0 Perth... 70.30 89.70 27.5 Hobart... 86.30 103.40 19.8 Darwin... 134.30 129.80 3.3 Canberra... 132.50 130.30 1.7 Mrs SULLIVAN —The effects of these changes have been particularly dramatic on the Gold Coast, which is part of my electorate. The fact is that there is a rapid growth in jobs and population taking place on the Gold Coast at the moment, not the least because a number of international hotels have created thousands of jobs directly and have led to the creation of many additional jobs in ancillary services. However, most of these jobs are not high income jobs. They tend to be in the lower income range rather than the higher or middle income range. There is a crisis in the availability of rental accommodation in the area. In the last 12 months the vacancy rate for three-bedroom unfurnished houses has fallen from 1.8 per cent to 0.9 per cent and the figures are the same for two-bedroom unfurnished apartments. The Real Estate Institute, of course, regards a 3 per cent vacancy rate as a reasonable balance in the market. At the same time, rent for houses increased from an average of about $120 a week to $140 a week, which compares with $114 a week in Brisbane, the closest capital city. That is a dramatic illustration of the pressures that exist. The average rent for apartments has risen from $60 to $90 to a range of $70 to $100. It is not good enough for the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) to come in here and say that provision of 4 per cent depreciation negates the effect of the quarantining of negative gearing, because he knows as well as anybody else who can do their sums that what the Government gives with one hand here it takes with the other. On sale of the property, it increases the amount that will be subject to capital gains tax and the Government will recoup that money, so it is not an incentive policy at all. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(7.53) —I must say that it breaks my heart to listen to the bleatings of the members of the tax rort party. I want to talk tonight about the Bicentennial. I think the Bicentennial offers Australia a real chance for nationhood. We all ought to be working together to achieve that aim in 1988. I think that after 1988 we may in some ways be less tolerant of those people in society who try to divide us. I think that this is a message that some of the charlatans who seek to institutionalise divisions within the community should take cognisance of. Before 1988 I think we should attend to some housekeeping measures. We need to tidy up the country, so to speak. We need to tidy up some of the enormously unnecessary geographical waste-for instance, the Northern Territory. Anyone who has been to the Northern Territory will know what a presumptuous little place it really is, and what we should be looking to do is to whack it up between the existing States and give it some semblance of order. The only proviso that I would put on that, of course, is that Darwin not go to Western Australia. I think Queensland deserves Darwin, and vice versa. The Australian Capital Territory is another one of those pretentious areas that need consideration. We should look at doing away with the Capital Territory. We should have a sort of a lottery. We should put the Capital Territory into a hat and let Victoria and New South Wales draw for it and whoever got the short straw would get the Capital Territory. There is a very good reason for this. Can one imagine how a Labor government would feel if the Capital Territory ever got statehood and a Liberal government was in power? A pontificating little government in the Capital Territory could make life very awkward for a Labor government. There is only one worse consideration-what would happen if there were a Labor government in the Territory? With the sort of people I have met in the Australian Capital Territory, it would be absolutely intolerable; I just could not coun- tenance it. So we need to get into these housekeeping measures. That brings me to the new Parliament House. Although I opposed its construction, I now think it is a great building-a building which could bring Australia together. I am very profoundly concerned about some of the stories circulating that furniture in the Parliament House is to be downgraded. I think that good furniture is not generally appreciated by the people. Parliament House should be a showplace for Australian furniture, furniture which endures, furniture of an Australian character. The same applies to trees. Very few architects can raise a building to the perfection of a tree. I would like to see planted all the trees scheduled to be planted at Parliament House. I want to raise a very important point about the Bicentennial celebrations. With all the money we are spending on the Bicentennial celebrations, we ought to have some lasting monument. I believe that this lasting monument should be to set up a fund in perpetuity to enable every schoolchild in Australia to visit Canberra, the capital of this great country. It is an irrefutable fact that the great majority of schoolchildren today will never see Canberra. Certainly that is true for those children who reside in Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and what used to be the Northern Territory. Mr Hodgman —And Tasmania. Mr CAMPBELL —I nearly forgot Tasmania; I thank the honourable member for drawing it to my attention. We should have a scheme which will fund children to come to this city to see the capital of this country. It could be done so that only a very small reasonable contribution is required from the children; it should certainly be within their means. This program should be encouraged. I do not know what the costing would be, but I suspect that it would not be too great. The money invested could be left there forever so that it would be a monument to our 200th birthday. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(7.57) —I intended to speak tonight on the capital gains tax as it affects the farming community-a very important subject-but I will speak on another matter instead and will leave the capital gains tax for another appropriate occasion. I wish to raise one or two matters concerning my electorate of Lyne as it is affected by the Department of Communications. I make a special appeal to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to see that the New South Wales coastal region receives sufficient funds for telephones throughout the area. This area is one of the fastest growing parts of Australia, both in the rural towns and in the seaside towns. It is so important that sufficient loan funds should be made available to enable the extension of the telecommunications work. When I became the member for Lyne in 1980 there were almost 3,000 outstanding applications for telephones. A lot of work has been done and the figure is now down to about 700, but there is a prospect that less funds will be made available this financial year for the region. Only this morning I received a letter from a lady who lives in the country, about 40 miles from town. She prompted my mind to the fact that there are at least a dozen people on grazing properties surrounding her who urgently need a telephone. It is imperative that these people, who are the producers in Australia, receive a telephone service. That is only a part of the matter I raise. I am concerned also about caravan parks in the area. I appeal to the Minister to come up with a policy to allow for the laying of cables in existing and new caravan parks along the New South Wales coast. Aged people, pensioners and young people with families are making the caravan parks their permanent homes. They come to us and say that they require a telephone. The cables are not there. It may be the responsibility of the owners of the caravan parks to put the cables in, but surely to goodness as these people will be paying for telephones they would be an investment so far as the Department of Communications and the Government is concerned. I believe that the telecommunications policy ought to be that when a reputable park is approved by the council, the Department should install the cables in order that people may have telephones. This matter is terribly important so far as we are concerned. We believe that if we want people to settle in the districts concerned, we should see that the conveniences are available to them. I appeal to the Minister on behalf of the farming communities. A lot of people have had telephone party lines for years and years; some with a service and others without a service. We find now that more people are moving into the back blocks. People from the cities, Tasmania and Victoria like to go up north and get a bit of sun. They love the grazing world around them and the geography of the country, and they want to settle there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 8 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 22 October 1986: Quarantine Act-Determination fixing fees pursuant to section 86, dated 18 September 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4128) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: When may I expect an answer to my question No. 2031 on the subject of fringe benefits tax for Commonwealth employees and a substantive reply to question No. 2032 on the subject of a reasonable curtilage placed on notice on 8 October 1985. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to the answer to question No. 2031. In my answer to question No. 2032, which appeared in Hansard for 12 November 1985 page 2611, I advised that: The meaning of reasonable curtilage will be set out in a supplementary statement on design details of the capital gains tax that remained to be settled at the time of my statement of 19 September 1985. I propose to issue the statement shortly. Since that answer was given, I issued Press Release No. 24, on 20 March 1986 which dealt, among other things, with the subject of reasonable curtilage. The amendments to the income tax law providing for the tax on capital gains received Royal Assent on 24 June 1986. An exemption from the capital gains provisions applies to gains on a taxpayers' principal residence and reasonable curtilage. Reasonable curtilage refers to land owned by the taxpayer adjacent to the dwelling to the extent that the land is used primarily for private or domestic purposes in association with the dwelling, and the land together with the land on which the dwelling is situated, does not exceed 2 hectares. The term is not defined by reference to the value of the land. The principle that the land be used primarily for private or domestic purposes applies in all cases, including where the home is situated on a farm. Thus land on which sheds and other buildings associated with the farm operations are situated, or which is used for grazing or growing crops, could not be regarded as curtilage. (Question No. 4442) Mr Connolly asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) What arrangements will be made for the deductibility for income tax purposes of gifts to Bicentennial Community Committees? (2) Is it the intention of the Government that the incomes of Bicentennial Community Committees will be subject to income tax? (3) When will the Government resolve these issues? Mr Cohen — Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Gifts to Bicentennial projects and to Bicentennial Community Committees are not specifically allowable as income tax deductions. Nor does the Government propose to amend the income tax law to make them allowable. The Government, as the honourable member will know, is providing substantial direct funding for the Bicentenary celebrations. However, that is not to say that gifts to all Committees are not tax deductible. The Commissioner of Taxation has informed me that, where a Committee undertakes a Bicentennial project of the type that would constitute one of the funds, authorities or institutions listed in paragraph 78 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, e.g. the establishment of a public museum, gifts to the project would be deductible. Additionally, occasion may arise where gifts to Committees by business taxpayers would qualify for income tax deduction under the general deduction provisions of the law. (2) The income tax law does not specifically exempt from income tax the income of Bicentennial Community Committees. It is not intended to amend the law to do so. The Commissioner has stated that it is likely that many, if not all, Committees may qualify for exemption from income tax under existing provisions of the law. For example, if a Committee were established or instituted to carry out a project which is beneficial to the Community as a whole, the Committee would qualify as a charitable institution in terms of paragraph 23 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act which exempts the income of religious, scientific, charitable or public educational institutions. There are other provisions in the income tax depending upon the particular purposes for which a Committee is established. The Commissioner added that gifts to the Bicentennial Community Committees and grants to those Committees by sponsor local government authorities or the Bicentennial Authority would not be subject to income tax. The gifts and grants would not constitute income for the purposes of the Assessment Act. (3) See answer to (1) and (2) above. (Question No. 4171) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) What is the growth in executive income since 1983 in (a) money and (b) real terms. (2) How does this compare with growth of wages in the same period. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are difficulties in determining the growth in executive incomes because of the lack of a statistically reliable survey which measures the growth in both salary and fringe benefits for executives. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) publication, Average Earnings and Hours of Employees, (6304.0) provides a measure of movements in managerial salaries, but does not include fringe benefits. More- over, senior management is probably under-represented in the survey because concerns about confidentiality of senior management salaries lead to selective recording of the data. The latest issue of this survey shows that, over the period November 1982 to November 1985, average weekly earnings of full-time adult managerial employees rose by 20.9% for males and 17.6% for females, in money or nominal terms. The corresponding increase in the CPI for the period was approximately 20.6% indicating an increase in real terms of 0.3% for males and decrease of 2.5% for females. There are several private remuneration surveys which purport to measure the growth in executive salaries, and which include measurements of growth in base salaries and in fringe benefits, often a large component of executive salaries. One of the surveys used by the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes to monitor executive remuneration is compiled by the firm of Cullen Egan Dell. This survey tends to be skewed towards larger businesses. For a representative ``middle manager'', this survey shows a nominal growth in base salary of 31.5% and in base salary plus fringe benefits of 33.0%, for the period January 1983 to December 1985, the latest available figure for this classification. The increase in the CPI for the period was approximately 20.6%, so that the equivalent growth rates in real terms were 9.1% and 10.3% respectively. Later information from Cullen Egan Dell for the higher classification of ``senior executive'' suggests that the growth rates of executive salaries have been accelerating significantly over the last six to twelve months. Over the period 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986, the growth rate for the salaries of ``senior executives'' was 11.5%, compared to an average annual growth rate for this group of 9.3%, in nominal terms, over the two years to 30 June 1985. (2) Comparison of the movement in wages with movement in executive remuneration can be undertaken by using data for growth in non-managerial and managerial salaries from the ABS publication, Average Earnings and Hours of Employees (6304.0). This survey shows that, for the period November 1982 to November 1985, average weekly earnings for full-time, adult non-managerial employees increased by 20.2% for males and 23.6% for females, in nominal terms. The corresponding increase in the CPI for the period was approximately 20.6%, giving a decrease in real terms of 0.3% for non-managerial males and an increase in real terms of 2.5% for non-managerial females. These figures can be compared with an increase in real terms of 0.3% for managerial males and a decrease in real terms of 2.5% for managerial females (as outlined above in Part (1)). This survey thus indicates a higher rate of increase for male managerial than for male non-managerial salaries and a lower rate of increase for female managerial than for female non-managerial salaries, over the period. A commonly used measure of movements in aggregate wage and salaries can be obtained from the ABS Average Weekly Earnings (6302.0) survey, which provides data for approximately the same time period as that covered by Cullen Egan Dell's survey of executive remuneration. From February 1983 to February 1986, average weekly earnings for full-time adults increased by 25.0% in nominal terms and, as the CPI increase over the period was approximately 20.7%, they increased by 3.5% in real terms. The figures for average weekly earnings, however, include data on executive as well as non-executive salaries. Another commonly used measure of movements in wages and salaries can be obtained from the ABS publication Award Rates of Pay Indexes (6312.0). The indexes are designed to measure trends in rates payable under awards and hence would generally not include data on movements in executive salaries. The disadvantage of this measure is, however, that unlike the average weekly earnings measure it does not include over-award and overtime payments. Over the period February 1983 to February 1986, the award rates of pay index for the weekly wage and salary earners series increased by 16.7% in nominal terms but decreased by 3.2% in real terms. A comparison with the Cullen Egan Dell data (given in Part (1)) indicates that, over approximately the same time period, ``middle manager'' salaries increased by a much larger amount than either average weekly earnings or award rates of pay. Although the data discussed above give conflicting results, there is evidence to indicate that, over the last 6 to 12 months, increases in executives salaries have begun to move ahead of community wage norms. It is to be hoped that, given the present need for restraint from all sections of the community, recent trends in this area will be reversed. The Prime Minister has written to the heads of major corporations and business organisations urging that executives and directors accept, and be seen to accept, equivalent restraint in salaries and directors' remuneration as has been and is being exercised by wage earners. (Question No. 4549) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: (1) What are the (a) salary range and (b) employment conditions of a regional manager of the Commonwealth Employment Service. (2) What arrangements are usually made to replace a regional manager on long service leave or other extended leave. (3) What travel and accommodation arrangements are made for a replacement manager from another area. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The salary range of a Manager of an Office of the Commonwealth Employment Service is dependent on the number of staff allocated to that office. For an Office with up to 7 units of staff the salary range of a Grade 1 Manager is $26,640-28,331. For an Office with 8 to 19 units of staff the salary range of a Grade 2 Manager is $29,260-30,901. For an Office with 20 staff and over the salary range of a Grade 3 Manager is $32,336-33,603. (1) (b) The employment conditions of a Manager of an Office of the Commonwealth Employment Service are the same as those for any officer in the Clerical/Administrative structure of the Commonwealth Public Service. (2) In replacing a Manager on long service leave or other extended leave the Department observes formal Public Service Board policy and selects the most efficient available officer in accordance with normal selection procedures. (3) When a replacement is required in a metropolitan area and that replacement comes from within the same metropolitan area then no travel or accommodation allowances are payable. In all other circumstances, in the event of the most efficient available officer coming from another location, that officer is entitled to travelling allowance in accordance with standard Commonwealth Public Service conditions. Such an officer will receive a daily travelling allowance for the first 21 days which is then reviewed on the basis of personal circumstances. (Question No. 4622) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What is the estimated expenditure in 1986-87 on (a) age pensions, (b) invalid pensions, (c) widows' pensions, (d) supporting parents benefits, (e) family allowances, (f) family income supplement, (g) handicapped children's allowance, (h) orphans' pensions, (i) unemployment benefits, (j) sickness benefits, (k) special benefits, (l) rehabilitation allowances, (m) sheltered employment allowances, (n) handicapped persons' mobility allowances and (o) funeral benefits. (2) What is the basis on which these estimated expenditures have been determined, including the assumptions of the number of recipients. (3) What is the difference between the 1986-87 estimates and the actual 1985-86 figures for each of these benefits and allowances in respect of (a) expenditure and (b) number of recipients. (4) What is the increase in the level of these benefits and allowances between 1985-86 and 1986-87. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (3) (a)- 1985-86 Actual Expenditure 1986-87 Estimate Variation $'000 $'000 $'000 % (a) Age Pensions ... 5,897,156 6,317,000 419,844 7.1 (b) Invalid Pensions ... 1,673,523 1,895,000 221,477 13.2 (c) Widows' Pensions ... 924,517 959,000 34,483 3.7 (d) Supporting Parents' Benefits ... 1,237,959 1,361,000 123,041 9.9 (e) Family Allowances ... 1,537,632 1,365,000 -172,632 -11.2 (f) Family Income Supplement ... 49,388 61,600 12,212 24.7 (g) Handicapped Children's Allowance ... 31,169 31,400 231 0.7 (h) Orphans' Pensions ... 3,887 3,600 -287 -7.4 (i) Unemployment Benefits ... 3,122,120 3,558,000 435,880 14.0 (j) Sickness Benefits ... 391,820 410,000 18,180 4.6 (k) Special Benefits ... 108,131 108,000 -131 -0.1 (l) Rehabilitation Allowances ... 25,854 27,000 1,146 4.4 (m) Sheltered Employment Allowances ... 58,609 64,000 5,391 9.2 (n) Handicapped Persons' Mobility Allowances ... 6,016 6,500 484 8.0 (o) Funeral Benefits ... 1,431 1,400 -31 -2.2 TOTAL ... 15,069,212 16,168,500 1,099,288 (2) and (3) (b) The estimates are based on the number of expected recipients, (shown below) the effect of CPI increases the effect of Budget initiatives from the 1985-86 and 1986-87 Budgets, other Government initiatives (e.g. the overpayments project), and one-off factors. Nos. (`000) As at 30 June 1986 1987 (Estimated) Variation Age Pensions (including wives and carers')... 1,349 1,355 6 Invalid Pensions (including wives and carers')... 357 375 18 Widows'-Class A... -Class B & C... 74 81 67 82 -7 1 Supporting Parents' Benefit... 177 166 -11 Family Allowances No. of Children in: -Families... 4,181 4,070 -111 -Institutions... 10.3 10.0 -0.3 Sheltered Employment Allowances (including wives)... 10.3 10.6 0.3 Handicapped Children's Allowance... 30.6 31.5 0.9 Orphans Pensions... 5.5 5.3 -0.2 Family Income Supplement... 29.2 32.0 2.8 Handicapped Persons' Mobility Allowance... 11.4 11.8 0.4 Rehabilitation Allowances (including wives and carers')... 3.9 3.9 - Average Weekly Nos ('000) 1985-86 Estimated 1986-87 Variation Unemployment Benefit... 559 595 36 Sickness Benefit... 64 65 1 Special Benefit... 18.3 17.7 -0.6 (4) The increase in rates of pensions and benefits and other allowances between 1985-86 and 1986-87 are as follows: MAXIMUM WEEKLY RATE OF PENSIONS, BENEFITS AND ASSOCIATED ALLOWANCES Class of Pension or Benefit Current weekly rate Weekly rate at December 1986 (a) Variation $ $ $ Pensions (b) (c) Standard rate... 102.10 106.20 4.10 Married rate (each partner)... 85.15 88.55 3.40 Unemployment & Sickness Benefits Unmarried person aged 16 or 17 years - without dependants ... 50.00 (d)...50.00 (d).... . - with dependants ... 102.10 106.20 4.10 aged 18 or more without dependants - unemployment beneficiary aged 18-20 ... 88.20 (d)...91.20 (d) (g)...3.00 - unemployment beneficiary aged 21 or more ... 95.40 99.20 3.80 - sickness beneficiary ... 102.10 106.20 4.10 aged 18 or more with dependants ... 102.10 106.20 4.10 Married person with dependent spouse ... 170.30 177.10 6.80 Other Additional pension or benefit for each child ... 16.00 (d) (e)...17.00 (d) (e)...1.00 Mothers/guardians allowance for single pensioners and beneficiaries ... 12.00 (d)...12.00 (d).... . Rent Assistance payable to pensioners and sickness beneficiaries ... 15.00 (d)...15.00 (d).... . payable to unemployment and special beneficiaries ... 10.00 (d) (f)...10.00 (d) (f).... . Incentive Allowance ... 15.00 (d)...15.00 (d).... . Remote Area Allowance single pensioners ... 7.00 (d)...7.00 (d).... . married couple ... 12.00 (d)...12.00 (d).... . plus per child ... 3.50 (d)...3.50 (d).... . (a) For pensions and supporting parents' benefits, from pay-day 25 December 1986. For beneficiaries, from first pay-day on or after 13 December 1986. (b) Includes age, invalid, wives', widows' and carers' pensions, sheltered employment and rehabilitation allowances, and supporting parents' benefits. (c) Special arrangements apply for age pensioners aged 70 or over. Maximum rates of pension are payable subject to the normal pensions income test. However, minimum weekly pension rates of $51.45 (single) and $85.80 (married couple combined) are payable if weekly income does not exceed $200.00 and $333.00 respectively. These minimum rates are not indexed. The rates of $51.45 and $85.80 are reduced by half the income in excess of $200.00 and $333.00 respectively. (d) This rate not indexed. (e) Rate of $14 a week in the case of students qualifying for SAS or TEAS. $17.00 rate applies from first pay-day in November 1986. (f) Rent assistance of up to $10 a week payable to Unemployment and Special beneficiaries who are married, have dependants or are aged 18 or more (excluding single beneficiaries aged 18-24 living with parents) after six months on benefit. (g) Payable on and from 1 January 1987. OTHER ALLOWANCES Class of Pension or Benefit Current rate Rate at December 1986 (#) Variations $ $ $ Family Allowances First Child ... 22.80/month 22.80/month . . Second Child ... 32.55 '' 32.55 '' . . Third Child ... 39.00 '' 39.00 '' . . Fourth Child ... 39.00 '' 39.00 '' . . Fifth and later children ... 45.55 '' 45.55 '' . . Child in an institution ... 39.00 '' 39.00 '' . . Family Income Supplement (per child)* ... 16.00/week 17.00/week 1.00 Multiple Birth Payments ... 150.00/month (triplets) 150.00/month (triplets) . . (Children under 6) ... 200.00/month (quads) 200.00/month (quads) . . Orphans pension ... 55.70/month 60.00/month 4.30 Handicapped Childs Allowance ... 85.00/month 92.00/month 7.00 Mobility Allowance ... 10.00/week 11.00/week 1.00 * Income tested (#) From first pay day on or after 1 November 1986. (Question No. 4649) Mr Coleman asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: (1) Which non-government organisations received grants from the Office of Youth Affairs in 1985-86 to assist with participation in international activities. (2) What was the (a) activity and (b) grant in each case. Mr Dawkins —Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Office of Youth Affairs (OYA) provided two grants in 1985-86 to allow non-government organisations to participate in international activities. The organisations were the Youth Affairs Council of Australia and the Australian Rock Company. (2) (a) and (b) The Youth Affairs Council of Australia (YACA) received a grant of $50,000 under the OYA International Youth Exchange Program. The grant covered several activities. An amount of $25,000 was provided to bring together National Youth Councils in the Pacific Region to consider inputs to multilateral agencies, ways to assist the development of youth groups in the Region and to compare operational approaches to youth affairs matters. An amount of $10,000 was provided to allow YACA to send a representative to attend meetings of the Asian Youth Council and International Bureau and to visit other multilateral agencies in the region. A further $7500 was provided for a study tour of Malaysia and for discussions on future co-operative arrangements with the Malaysian Youth Council. Smaller amounts were provided to attend the Second Pacific Regional Workshop on Youth Participation and Development in Tonga ($2000), the International Conference for Promotion of Rural Youth in West Germany ($3000) and the Youth Counselling Workshop in Sri Lanka ($2500). The non-profit Australian Rock Company received a grant of $5000 under the International Youth Year Program to assist it to promote young Australian musicians at MIDEM international music fair in Cannes. (Question No. 4729) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) Is he aware of complaints by WA dairy producers that they have not received increases in cheese and butter prices under the dairy marketing arrangements which have been operating since 1 July 1986. (2) Have these prices been increased; if so, by what amount. (3) If increased consumer prices have not been reflected in increased prices for producers, how can this situation be rectified. (4) If returns to the producer have not risen, (a) why and (b) when will they increase. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have not received any representations on this matter, but, as explained below, am aware of the matters affecting returns to producers. (2) and (3) Under the marketing arrangements which operated before 1 July 1986, bulk wholesale prices for prescribed dairy products were underpinned by product levies on domestic sales and a system of export pooling. These arrangements provided the basis for a theoretical domestic price support value but discounting occurred during periods of oversupply while higher prices could be commanded when shortages occurred. Under the new marketing arrangements the basis for the floor price is established by a system of market support payments on exported dairy products and a product levy on domestic sales of butter and cheese. Under the arrangements, the theoretical domestic support values for butter and cheese were increased by 5% and 8% respectively on 1 July 1986. So far, however, retail prices for butter and cheese in 1986-87 have not risen because there are large carry-over stocks of pre-30 June 1986 production, for which domestic prices are underpinned by the old marketing arrangements. Once this surplus stock has been cleared, it can be anticipated that the effects of the new arrangements will become more readily apparent. The stocks are largely held by manufacturers in Victoria who, I believe, are now selling them at discounted prices on the domestic market, including in Western Australia. I understand that these discounts have resulted in Western Australian retail prices for butter and natural cheddar cheese being lower than in any other State of the Commonwealth during June 1986. (4) Net farm gate returns for manufacturing milk depend on a number of factors, such as prices received for the different elements in the product mix and costs associated with the collection and receival of milk from the property, as well as manufacturing, storage and interest costs relating to the product. With differences in prices received and/or costs incurred, net farm gate returns for manufacturing milk can vary significantly between manufacturers within and between States. I understand that opening prices for the 1986-87 season are, on average, about $2.50 per kg butterfat in Victoria and about $2.40 per kg butterfat in WA, with differences between manufacturers . These opening prices are, on average, equal to or slightly higher than those for the 1985-86 season. Final prices will, of course, depend on the manufacturer's efficiency and his ability to market his product effectively.