Thursday, 23 October 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That standing order 106 (grievance debate), as amended by sessional order, be suspended for this sitting. Madam Speaker, I have a number of requests before me from honourable members who want reports discussed before this session finishes at the end of November. Honourable members can see from the business that was laid down that we are already well behind in what we had intended should go through the House of Representatives this week. We now have three sitting weeks after this week in which to complete the business. We also have running against us a decision of the Senate that it will not deal with business after a certain date in November, which again indicates the stupidity of the Opposition in encouraging the Senate to make a decision of this nature. I would like to have had the grievance debate today because our Queensland colleagues were going to tell us about the corruption and the cronyism in Queensland. Now we have the new knight in Queensland who has decided to throw Joh overboard. We have more reason to want a grievance debate today than anybody else. We are prepared to see that the business of the House takes precedence and that the legislation is given the importance that is due to it. Honourable members opposite should look at the list of speakers for today's business. As I have indicated to the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair), if the Opposition wants to put in long speakers lists on these Bills, then when some of the important legislation comes before the House in the week we come back it will find itself with very restricted time in which to debate it, because the Government must complete its business. That is always the way of governments, whether we are in power or those opposite are in power. Mr Rocher —Sit some extra weeks. Mr YOUNG —It does not matter, because the Opposition has encouraged the Senate not to deal with business after 14 November. The honourable member should go into his Party room and tell the Senate members that the House of Representatives is the House of government, not the Senate. Instead the Opposition parties tell the Senate how to dictate to the House of Representatives. I cannot conceive of a more ludicrous decision in terms of government administration than for the Opposition to tell us that unless we pass business by 14 November the other House will not deal with it. I can tell the Opposition this: All the business we want dealt with by the Senate will be dealt with by 14 November. These are the Opposition's rules and we will play by them, but it must not come complaining to the Government about having insufficient time to debate the issues. The Opposition is laying down the guidelines for how much time is available. As I have said, it would be an opportune time for us to have the grievance debate today because the great issue in Queensland is now the corruption and cronyism of the Queensland Government; the people who are appointed, the people who have been charged and prosecuted; all the things that are now coming out about the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, all the public works that have been done around the property the Premier has bought up at Duaringa. They are all questions that the people of Queensland and of Australia want to know about. They are all jumping overboard in Queensland now. They cannot get off the ship quickly enough. That is one of the reasons why we would like to have the grievance debate today. I apologise to all my Queensland colleagues, who have been pushing these issues so successfully for years. It will be a great victory for all those who have stood against the Queensland Government. I mention those few things because that is what the House would have had to listen to at lunch time if I had had the opportunity of letting the grievance debate be held. Mr Hodgman —You are chopping off the honourable member for Franklin. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Denison is always yelling out. Clyde Cameron told me to give him a message. He said: `Someone is putting something in his water. He should stop drinking water because someone is putting something in it'. The honourable member for Denison should give Clyde a ring and have a yarn to him. It is a bit unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that in a moment we will hear one of the old speeches of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). It is one of the speeches I left on the other side of the House when I was there from 1975 to 1983. I sympathise with him, but that is the way the world works. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.06) —I feel very sad for the Leader of the House (Mr Young) after that very hollow bit of rhetoric we have just heard. It was limp, it was insipid. It was a typical excuse of a government denying the members of this Parliament an opportunity to debate the nature of the economic system, the tax system and, today, the health system. The people of Australia need to comprehend that what the Leader of the House has just done in that delightful Irish way of his is tell the people that, for them, it does not matter what happens in this place; it is passing responsibility to the Senate. It is no use the Minister coming in here and saying: `We can't do anything about our Standing Orders; the Senate is controlling the place'. If the Leader of the House wants the Senate to exercise responsibility he should introduce legislation into this Parliament earlier. There is no justification for his saying that the Senate wanting to rise before Christmas is no reason for its passing a motion which says that all new legislation must be considered by a particular date. The inability of the Leader of the House to control the proceedings of his own Party-the factional divisions are such that he does not have the numbers-is no reason for his stopping our members canvassing a matter of very real importance. This is the second occasion in recent weeks when we have had General Business day aborted. There is no reason for that to be so. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has an absolutely undeniable case against the Government's Medicare proposals. Today we have an announced 2.6 per cent increase in the consumer price index. We know that one of the reasons the consumer price index will go up is that the Medicare levy has gone up by 25 per cent. Every Australian is being saddled with a hopeless medical scheme that is reducing the standard of medical care, that is not providing reasonable access to optional surgical procedures in the public hospitals, that has created a new class of disadvantaged. It is all because of the high cost of Medicare. The honourable member for Barker was going to detail, at very considerable length, why Medicare is a disaster. What does the Leader of the House do? He comes in and says: `We don't want to hear about it'. This is the second time this has occurred. It is not satisfactory that the Government cuts our General Business day. Many matters need to be debated. This side of the House would be delighted to talk about Queensland. In talking about factions, all we have to do is look at the Australian Labor Party. The Western Australian Branch of the Labor Party has just set up yet another faction. We cannot keep up with them. The Leader of the House talks about problems on our side of politics. I can assure the people listening to this debate on the radio and in the gallery that they have not seen anything until they have looked at the factional divisions on the other side of the House. That merry band of men and women has so many factions that the far Left sits in one corner on that side of the House and the factions range to the extreme Right in the opposite corner. I find it impossible to know whether the members of the Labor Party form one party or 20. Mr Chynoweth —We are not all from the far Left. Mr SINCLAIR —The honourable member is not on the far Left? I do not know how far left he is, but I know that he is way out. That is really what this is about. It is all about this House not having a chance to talk about the good government Joh Bjelke-Petersen is bringing to Queensland or about the undoubted victory the National Party will have in Queensland on 1 November. I know my Liberal Party colleagues would like to say something about the Liberal alternative. I am quite sure that all members on this side of the House would be delighted to tell the people of Australia about the forthcoming Labor disaster. That is really what it is about. Labor is making a mess of the economy. It is making a mess of Medicare. There are more than 100 General Business notices of motion on the Notice Paper. Given the rate at which the Government is permitting debate on those, it will not be possible within the foreseeable future for more than a bare handful of those matters to be debated in the Parliament. The Government is making a farce of parliamentary sittings. It is not giving any reasonable opportunity for private members' motions to be debated. It is really quite inappropriate, unnecessary and, therefore, unacceptable for the Government to have moved this motion today. It is important that General Business debates be undertaken. General Business, I say for those who may not understand it and are listening to the radio, involves matters that are canvassed by private members of the House. This Government is running lamely from the Parliament, saying that there will be no debate on issues in the House of Representatives and everything will be considered in the Senate. For our part, we would have thought that even the Leader of the House would have accepted that the House of Representatives has a prime role in the consideration of issues of importance to the Australian people. It is impossible to consider them if the Government insists on cancelling the General Business debate, as it wishes to do by this motion. We on this side of the House are opposed to the motion and believe that it is entirely inappropriate in the present circumstances. Madam SPEAKER —I point out that the purpose of the motion is to cancel the grievance debate. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.11) —I support everything said by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). I want to refer particularly to the real concerns which have been highlighted today and which would have been discussed in the grievance debate. The consumer price index figures which have come out today indicate that one of the highest increases in costs facing this nation is in health costs. The annual-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J. Beazley, K. C. Kent, L. Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R. Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. 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. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Jacobi, R. MacKellar, M. J. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 16 October. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 4, paragraphs 10 (b) and (c), lines 7 to 11, leave out the paragraphs. No. 2-Pages 4 and 5, clause 11, line 12 (page 4) to line 21 (page 5), leave out the clause. No. 3-Page 5, paragraph 13 (b), lines 29 to 33, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(b) by inserting in paragraph (3) (b) `or a person on whose behalf the application was made' after `applicant' (second occurring).''. No. 4-Page 6, clause 14, proposed new sub-paragraph 30a (1) (b) (i), line 4, leave out ``and''. No. 5-Page 6, clause 14, after proposed new sub-paragraph 30a (1) (b) (ii), insert the following word and sub-paragraph: ``or (iii) the giving of access is in the general public interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public,''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.21) —I move: That the Senate's amendments be agreed to. The Senate has made four changes to the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986, having rejected the Government's request that the time for answering of freedom of information requests remain at 45 days. The existing statute provides for that period to be reduced to 30 days from 1 December. The Senate has rejected the proposed more stringent tests providing for the refusal of burdensome requests. It also wants to insert public interest as a mandatory consideration for remission of new application fees and broaden the criteria in relation to remission on the grounds of hardship and personal affairs. I am advised that these changes will affect the Budget to the extent of an increase in annual costs of $600,000 or a little less-say, $400,000. The Government, of course, is not satisfied that the changes proposed by the Senate are justified and I want briefly to refer to our reasons. Reducing the time for answering requests to 30 days is likely to increase the cost to the taxpayer without substantial reductions in pro- cessing time. False expectations will be raised and the number of applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the basis of a deemed refusal will increase. It is not an answer just to say that agencies should respond more quickly. In many cases requests are for sensitive documents that require consultation with State or foreign authorities or businesses and the information cannot be obtained in the time suggested. It would be irresponsible to disclose potentially sensitive matter without proper consultation. The present Opposition, when in government, saw difficulties in a rigid timetable when it responded in 1981 to the 1979 Senate report. I think Senator Durack suggested then that there ought to be the opportunity to do this by regulation. Another matter is why highly burdensome requests should be able to disrupt agency operations. As I mentioned earlier, some requests involve massive amounts of work and it is wrong to blame agencies alone for lengthy processing time. Agency processing efficiency has improved substantially since the FOI Act commenced, but it is irresponsible not to properly consider the consequences of disclosure of material. Agencies need protection against either deliberate or unintentional disruption of their work. Again, in response to the 1979 report of the Senate, the Opposition, when in government, rejected the work load test involving unreasonable burdens on agencies-in its terms-and it suggested tests of extreme burdens or considerable interference; in other words, much the same as the Government has now proposed. Another matter is that the public interest should be considered in relation to the remission of charges and fees. We agree with that, but the issue is whether it should be mandatory. We do not think the consideration of public interest would be prevented by the Government's proposals; it is just that it would not be mandatory. It is always a question of balancing the benefits of access against costs. In practice, those claiming remission from cost on public interest grounds mostly tend to be the media, which operate commercially with tax deductions; members of parliament, who have other recognised avenues to information such as parliamentary questions, whether on notice or otherwise; and interest groups with a capacity to make some contribution. Freedom of Information Bill Freedom of Information Bill Freedom of Information Bill Freedom of Information Bill Freedom of Information Bill Freedom of Information Bill I have already given examples of the enormous time spent in trivial areas in having to comply with requests. I made the point that a request for details of every item involved in the costs of ministerial travel was made by a former member, Mr Newman. It involved a cost of $40,000-odd to comply with that request. Why should one want to put everyone to that trouble with those details? The taxpayer has to pay that money. Why should not Mr Newman pay it? Somebody has to. If someone wants to do research on the Westinghouse project and wants every item of information made available, why should he not pay for it? Everyone can understand the justification for the information, but putting the cost on the taxpayer is not reason- able and is wrong. The Government is in the position of either accepting or rejecting the amendments proposed by the Senate, with all the connotations that has for the Budget. We will accept them in the short term because we do not want to delay the Budget, but I make the point that we will be looking at what further savings we can achieve. We will need to make up the shortfall, so voluntary reporting of statistics on the use of secrecy provisions, administrative costs and the like may have to be discontinued, consistent with the proposals in the Bill for much reduced mandatory reporting of statistics. Contrary to Press reports, the Government remains committed to freedom of information and we will continue to seek ways to make the legislation more efficient. The Government has made an enormous amount of information available to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which is reviewing the operation and administration of the Freedom of Information Act. About 60 submissions to that Committee have already been made by agencies on their experiences. A detailed submission has been made by my Department on the operation and administration of the Act, including an extensive analysis of legal trends. The report of the interdepartmental committee on freedom of information costs was forwarded to that Committee. At present the Government has not had an opportunity to look at the report because it received it only recently. In addition, the Committee has three of the very detailed annual reports on freedom of information. The fourth report is expected by the end of November. The interdepartmental committee report has already pointed out the way to further improvements in the Freedom of Information Act, and the Government will consider the changes to the Bill requested by the Senate when it is considering that IDC report and any recommendations by the Senate Committee. But as I indicated, the Government reluctantly accepts the Bill as amended by the Senate because of the urgency of putting its other freedom of information Budget measures in place. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.29) —The Government has said that it supports freedom of information. Anybody who has looked at this Bill knows that that is false. I say that not to call the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) a liar-I would not do that-but it is an assertion which is demonstrably wrong. Let me go through the reasons the Government has given here today. It has complained about the additional cost of the amendments we proposed in this chamber and which were supported in the Senate by the Australian Democrats. The Attorney-General said that the additional cost will be in the order of $600,000. We all know how reliable the cost estimates of this Government are. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech referred to costs that would be recouped by the additional charges as being in the order of $4m. That, one might say, is a pretty straightforward statement. But, in talking about recoupment, he stated-this is recorded at page 909 of Hansard: We will be fortunate if we recoup $2m or $3m having regard to all the exceptions relating to hardship and other matters. It is a good example of rubbery figures and rubbery thinking. Let us turn next to the time question. He referred to the Fraser Government's response to the 1979 report on freedom of information. But the Fraser Government supported at the time of introduction-and it subsequently supported, and so have we in opposition-the time limits which were laid down by the legislation which was introduced in this place. I think the Attorney-General will agree that the time limits originally introduced are those which he now seeks to change. The departments and the offices of Ministers have had four years to get themselves used to the working of the Freedom of Information Act. The Attorney-General made plain in his second reading speech that this experience has been valuable, that they now process requests more quickly. But what are we told? We are told that somehow or other it is a bit burdensome to have the time limit brought down from 45 days to 30 days for the purpose of compliance. Compliance should be timely. People should get the information that they require under the Freedom of Information Act, if we believe in freedom of information, as we on this side of the Parliament do and as the Government plainly does not. He then referred to public interest remissions. He complained that the public interest remissions-which we support and which will remain in the Act as a consequence of our action-were mainly sought by the media or by members of parliament. If he thinks that there is a problem about the media and about wealthy organisations misusing freedom of information, if he thinks there is a problem about specific abuses, he should legislate to deal with those specific abuses. It is a very simple thing. He does say, of course, that members of parliament may ask questions in the House during Question Time or place questions on the Notice Paper-that they have these other avenues available to them. Is that not rich? We have been sitting here in opposition for just over 3 1/2 years. We have put to this Government questions which, day in and day out, are evaded. We know that the interpretation given to Standing Orders is such that the provision of Standing Orders which states that an answer shall be relevant to the question is virtually meaningless. If we place questions on notice, for example, to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his arrogance, in his disdain, in his refusal to come to grips with the detail of his portfolio, what does he do? He simply does not answer the questions. There is no means of making him answer questions on notice; nor is there any means of making any Government Minister answer questions on notice. So that is a pretty spurious kind of excuse to put to this chamber. The Attorney-General said, however, that, much as the Government did not like the amendments to the Act, he did not want to delay the budgetary processes. If I understand him correctly, what he is saying is that somehow the increased charges under this Act, as it will be, constitute a budgetary measure which is so locked in with other budgetary measures that he has to concede the amendments so as to get those measures passed. That, of course, is nonsense. We are dealing with a specific subject matter and the subject matter is increases in charges and new charges under the Freedom of Information Act. Those charges can be considered quite by themselves in the sense that they do not form any inseparable part of other measures. He spoke, lastly, of his commitment to freedom of information. Had the measures which this Government proposed been accepted by the Senate, the Freedom of Information Act would have been gutted. In opposition the then shadow Attorney-General had this to say about the Bill which the Fraser Government presented on freedom of information. Senator Gareth Evans, speaking on freedom of information, said this: Good freedom of information legislation is that which would set a minimum of procedural obstacles by way of delay or complexity of costs and afford the maximum of practical assistance to those who are pressing access to information. That was a test which demonstrably this Bill did not meet because it had the necessary consequence of, first, giving to the public servants and ministerial officers wide powers of discretionary refusal based on their views as to whether the burden of acceding to the request for freedom of information would be too great and, secondly, proposing heavy charges which will effectively debar freedom of information from all save the wealthy. That is not our view of how freedom of information should work but since this Bill is a measure which was brought down by the Government in the context of its financial planning for this financial year, a government which is desperate to get money from whatever source it can, we do not propose to object, by amendment, to those charges. But let it never be forgotten that those charges and every other charge which has been imposed are charges of this Government, not charges of the Opposition. While I am on the subject of the so-called commitment to freedom of information, let me remind the Committee again of what Senator Gareth Evans and this Attorney-General said. Senator Evans, when speaking on the original Bill, said: The present Bill is not a good, effective freedom of information Bill. I wonder how he would describe, in the closeness and privacy of his mind, the amendments which this Government proposes. I think he would find them disgraceful. What did the present Attorney-General say when speaking on the same Bill, that is, the Fraser Government's Bill? He said: If we look at the Bill from the point of view of assessing its merit in marking it, it would get about five out of ten, barely a pass. If one looks at what this Government proposes, if one looks at the charges which will be added and which will price freedom of information out of reach of the ordinary Australian and if one looks at what is intended by way of providing road blocks for public servants and ministerial officers, one would give the Bill zero out of 10. Let me pass on to one or two other criticisms of the amendments and generally of the Government's position on freedom of information. Since my time is coming to an end, I will have to wait until I am next called when I will have 10 minutes in which to speak. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.39) —I will reply briefly to enable the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) to be called again to speak for 10 minutes. He has again raised a number of issues he raised earlier. The work load test, of course, is always subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, for example, and so there will be no question of any abuse of that test. The revenue figure was an estimate and it would depend on the amendments. I have already indicated that there will be additional costs. I make the point that we now have to meet a 30-day deadline in which to provide information. That will increase the number of charges because there will be additional requests. I am told that there will be appeals in certain circumstances because of the nature of the information, which I endeavoured to mention to the honourable member earlier, and because of its sensitivity. It may have to be obtained from overseas or businesses, so one cannot always comply with the deadline. One will run into the difficulty of a number of applications being made to the AAT. I am advised that the number of applications might well double, and that will certainly increase costs. The honourable gentleman then spoke about commitment to freedom of information. We certainly have a strong commitment to it. In fact, the provisions are well used and nobody objects to that. However, as I said at the outset, this is a Budget matter. The real purpose of the legislation is to try to recoup some of the costs. No government can afford the luxury of expending taxpayers' money on someone else's requests. I think this is basically what the legislation is all about. There is no doubt that the legislation works well in terms of personal information. However, I think people who want all sorts of information which has nothing to do with them personally but which perhaps would help them in writing a thesis or a newspaper article, ought to make a substantial contribution towards the cost of preparing that information. I think that is basically the reason for the measure. There are no other particular problems. I think to use up the rest of his 10 minutes speaking time, the honourable gentleman then talked about Question Time. I am not here to give him advice about that. Mr Spender —You raised it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, in respect of where one would get information. The honourable member raised the matter on the basis that one could not get information. Perhaps he has been asking the wrong questions. I can only say that if he has not learnt after three and a half years how to obtain information, he probably needs a bit longer. I am not here to improve his performance in the Parliament. As Madam Speaker has already told him, if he feels that the Standing Orders are inadequate, he can take appropriate steps to get them altered. It is not much good coming in here and complaining about the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or anybody else. We have all lived in this place long enough to know that we succeed or otherwise on the merits of our intellect. If the honourable member after three and a half years does not know how to go about these things, he will have to do better in the next three and a half years. I think that the matter is completely irrelevant to what we are about. Questions on notice are always answered effectively and well. Mr Spender —By the Treasurer? He is 12 months overdue. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is a matter that the honourable member can take up with the Treasurer's Department. The point I want to make is that information is always readily available. Why should taxpayers be asked to pay for somebody else's request? Compliance with some requests involves up to 150 working days. Why cannot information such as that sought in the Newman request or the Westinghouse request be paid for? If requests of such an extensive nature have to be dealt with, what is going to happen to the other requests, which run to about 35,000, that have to be answered? There has to be some balance in the situation. I know that the honourable member sees the merit in this argument. He will not acknowledge it while he is in opposition but he would obviously see it in government, as did Senator Durack when he was in government. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.43) —The truth of the matter, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) knows, is that his Government believes in running things on the rule of numbers. That is how things are run in this chamber. He knows that the difficulty is not the question that is put. The question can be extremely precise. The difficulty lies with the answer which is given, which can travel all around the question but rarely come to grips with it. Let me move on to some other criticisms of this Government's conduct in the area of freedom of information. We again hear the Attorney-General talking about abuses. I say to him, as I said on the last occasion the Bill was before us, that if there are abuses, we should legislate to deal with those abuses. It is not difficult to do so. What this legislation proposes is not to deal with abuses under the Freedom of Information Act but to give to the public servants, as I have said, a series of roadblocks to those genuinely desiring freedom of information. The Attorney-General referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Let me remind the Committee of what the new and increased costs are going to involve. Information from the Department of Finance, not from the Opposition or from anyone outside government, has revealed that, on the basis of the new charges, the average cost of each freedom of information request, with an estimated 11 hours of departmental consultation and decision making-it escapes me how that kind of figure could be justified-is $310. I inquire of the Attorney-General: What is the filing fee for an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? I believe it is $200. I notice that he nods his head; it is $200. If we add $200 to the $310 average charge, we get some idea of the sort of problem we are looking at by itself under the Act, and more when an application is made to the AAT. I do not wish honourable members to think that the criticisms I make are made simply by me and are not supported by others. I presume that the Attorney-General has heard from the Council of Civil Liberties. I shall read the following passage from a copy of a letter from the Council of Civil Liberties to Senator Chaney of 7 October of this year on the subject of these amendments: . . . it is the purpose of the law, as disclosed by an examination of its provisions, which displays its vindictive motive and capricious operation. At the moment, economic charges are imposed for the administration of the Act and at the time spent in retrieving documents under the Bill, the Administration charges are increased by 250% (from $12 to $30 per request). The hourly rate for retrieving documents is increased from $12 to $15, and that is probably not objectionable. An additional charge of $20 per hour is, however, imposed in relation to the time spent in deciding upon the request including: (a) examining documents; (b) consulting with any person or agency; (c) copying the documents; (d) notifying decisions to applicants. It is easy to see how heavy a burden that can be on those who are genuinely seeking information, who are not seeking to abuse the system, and who are not wealthy media organisations but are simply ordinary Australians who want to use the Act. Let me quote again from that same letter: . . . the amendments and additions to the charges are capricious and arbitrary. Arbitrary because there are no limits imposed by the Act upon the extent of `consultation' and therefore no measure by which the utility and time of consultation may be objectively judged. Let me make the point that that is absolutely correct, and therefore consultation and costs effectively remain open-ended. The letter goes on: Capricious because it places users wholly at the mercy of bureaucrats, over whom they can exercise no control in performing services, however unnecessary and futile, for which they must dearly pay in advance of performance and with no guarantee of results. There can be no question that that is an accurate statement of the way the Act would have operated but for the efforts of the Opposition. However, we have the question of costs, and costs, as I have said, will price freedom of information out of the hands of ordinary Australians. I refer the Attorney-General to a letter from the Returned Services League of Australia which was written to an Opposition senator. I presume the Attorney-General is aware of the nature of the concern expressed. I quote: Because of the nature of Service life, long term members of the ADF must commence second careers in mid working life when they require documentary evidence of their first (military) career to support applications for employment, membership of professional associations etc. The letter goes on: It is commonplace in the private sector for ex-employees to be given access to their personal records without charge following termination of their employment. It is submitted that the introduction of these fees will greatly disadvantage ex-service men and women in their second careers, or when seeking compensatory repatriation entitlements. The letter also states: . . . the volume of freedom of information enquiries to the Department of Defence, now statistically recorded, appears greater than has really been caused by the introduction of the Freedom of Information legislation. No doubt it is this which, in part, caused the Government to propose charges for the provision of information. Effectively what has been said is that it was normal for ex-service men and women, before the Freedom of Information Act, to obtain without charge information which they now obtain only under the Act from the Department of Defence, but that, since the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act, that practice has ceased. The Attorney-General will know whether that is correct. If he has not seen the letter I am happy to hand over a copy of it to him so he can note the precise nature of the complaints which are made by the Returned Services League. I conclude by saying that freedom of information is a public right. The days of secrecy of all decision making have gone, or should have gone. If the Government had been successful in the legislation now before the Committee-if that legislation had not been rejected by the Senate as far as the public servants' roadblocks were concerned-freedom of information would have been greatly diminished. Governments are responsible to people. It is all too frequently forgotten that we represent the people and that we are not simply an island in Australia which is isolated from others and which is not account- able to others. The Opposition is committed to freedom of information. On our return to government in the next 18 months, after this directionless Government has been consigned to the electoral ashcan, we will make sure that the Australian people have freedom of information. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.52) —I know that hope springs eternal in the bosom of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) about getting into government, but if he does-God knows when that will happen-he might have a look at the record of a predecessor of his, Mr Ellicott, who imposed a $200 fee for Administrative Appeals Tribunal applications, not as a penalty but to overcome the problems of what often might be deemed to be, in his terms, `vexatious litigants', a term well known to the honourable gentleman. To put his mind at rest, if the appeal is successful the $200 is refunded. I hope that he takes notice of that. I thank the honourable gentleman for the letter he handed to me. I will have it investigated. I have not previously seen the letter. I make the point that where anybody is seeking information which relates to the question of what is called hardship, personal affairs, or income support, no fee is charged-that is in the Freedom of Information Act. We are a bit uncertain as to why this letter has been written on the basis that there is some problem there. There is an exemption against fees being charged in those cases. We will have it looked at. Mr Spender —I raised the question with you before. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. It is provided for in the Act and we do not charge. That goes to the whole thrust of this. We all agree with freedom of information. The honourable gentleman is making a case that we are too punitive about this matter. One has to bear in mind that the cost to the taxpayer is $14m and the income we are getting from it is about $60,000. I am not suggesting that we have no reason to debate the matter, but when he presents his argument on the basis that we should be able to provide all this information free of cost he is carrying the brief for the media, for members of parliament or for self-interest groups. He is not talking about individuals in this case. Mr Spender —I did not say that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is where the big charges are. Mr Spender —Oh? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is; that is shown by the facts. When I give the honourable member examples he does not debate them. He does not mind Mr Newman costing us-- Mr Spender —I said that those cases should be dealt with by specific amendments to remove abuses. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We have put in these charges so that if information is available people might pay for it. But the honourable member for North Sydney does not mind abuse. Mr Spender —I will draw an amendment for you. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable members might talk through the Chair rather than debate across the table. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member does not have to draw an amendment for me. I want to make the point that if information is to be made available we will make it available. The honourable gentleman is objecting to people paying a fee. The honourable member wants to put that burden on the rest of the community. That is the difference between us. Under the Opposition's amendments, if they ever came in, the honourable member would not want to give people the information. Mr Cadman —But you are rationing it to the wealthy. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Are we rationing it to the wealthy? I would not think so. This is the very point we are talking about. We want the wealthy, the media and members of parliament to pay if they make outrageous information requests. Mr Spender —Three hundred and ten dollars on average for a request. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know whether that is right. Members of parliament have information made available. The media want information and we want them to pay for it. That is the point. Sometimes members of parliament request information so that they can give it to the media. That is a clever way of the media not having to face up to having to pay for it. The outlay is $14m and the honourable gentleman says that that is because the Public Service is too slow and takes 11 hours to investigate a matter. He asks why that should be so. I am only saying that some of the requests made are very difficult to process so obviously it would take a reasonable amount of time for difficult requests. I want to make it clear that at present the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is having another look at the Act. I welcome that. The submissions made to it clearly show that there can be more savings. I hope the Opposition will support action on that when the interdepartmental committee report is analysed. In summary, we do not want to continue with the present difficulties. Both sides agree that the information should be made available, but the honourable member for North Sydney and I disagree on who should pay for it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Beale had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the 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'. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.58) —I rise to speak in support of the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill. Obviously, the Bill is only a minor procedural Bill to wind up the home deposit assistance scheme. This was a program of the previous Government but this Bill shows the compassionate approach of this Government that even when we have introduced a more generous and more equitable first home owners scheme we have allowed time for the previous scheme to wind up. This Bill gives the House the opportunity to discuss in more detail the housing policy of this Government. It is a record of which the Government can be proud of and of which I personally am very proud, particularly in relation to its impact on the Australian Capital Territory, which is my electorate. When this Australian Labor Party Government gained office the housing industry was in appalling shape. Nationally, there was very little growth and the Australian Capital Territory was incredibly depressed. In 1982-83 nationally there were only 105,000 housing commencements. In 1984-85 there was an increase to 152,700. That was a 45 per cent increase on 1982-83, the highest increase since 1973 and a record of which we are very proud. Since then there has been a slight fall-off in demand with slightly reduced activity but we should remember that that is a fall from a very high level of activity. In 1985-86 the level of commencements will be about 136,000, still up 30 per cent on 1982-83. The Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry, headed by Professor Fred Gruen, is predicting 125,000 commencements Australia-wide for 1986-87. So even though the figures are slightly down on last year, we are still seeing a very big increase on the 1982-83 figure of 105,000. Incidentally, the major reason for the decline is a decline of 7,000 in Queensland. Why is that? If any of us watched television last night we would have heard the view of one Queensland industry leader on why there has been such a decline in business activity in Queensland. I think he defined it as the influence of cronyism in Queensland. Obviously, it goes a lot deeper than that-to the general mismanagement of the Queensland economy. In stark contrast to the Queensland economy is the Australian Capital Territory economy which has seen a fantastic increase in housing activity. Between March 1983 and August 1986, 5,770 houses were completed. That compares with virtually nil activity in 1982-83. The situation in those days when the Opposition was in government was appalling. Alongside the increase in housing activity we have also seen in Canberra a stabilisation of land prices. We are quite unique in that we can control- Mr Goodluck —You can say that again. Mrs KELLY —We are doing extremely well, thanks very much. If the Tasmanian economy were doing as well as ours the honourable member could afford to make a comment. Why is he always in the House interjecting on me while I am speaking? In the Australian Capital Territory, where we can control the price of land, there has been a stabilisation of land prices. The previous Government attempted to force up the price of land by restricting the release of land. The decline in the price of land has been one very positive way in which we have been able to keep the price of the house and land package down for the first home buyer. The Indicative Planning Council expects 3,500 houses to be begun this financial year in the Australian Capital Territory. There have been a number of reasons for the increase in housing activity at the national level. Obviously, there has been a change in economic climate since the Hawke Government took over. One of the major incentives for first home owners, in particular, has been our first home owners scheme. The scheme was introduced in October 1983. It is a much better scheme than the Liberals' home deposit assistance scheme. The Liberals' home deposit assistance scheme involved grants of only $3,500. Our scheme involves grants of up to $6,000 to go towards deposits and reduce interest. People do not have to have the savings records which the Liberals insisted on to get help under their first home owners scheme. Since our program was introduced in October 1983 we have committed nearly $1 billion Australia-wide. Ours is a fantastic record of efforts to help first home buyers. There have been 214,000 successful applicants, which has proved to be a massive boost to the industry Australia-wide and, in particular, to my electorate. A further boost has been the change in the way the Government is assisting first home buyers, in particular, with the housing package which we introduced in April this year when we took action to assist the housing industry and to protect home loan borrowers. As part of this package we paid a subsidy to banks of around $150m to safeguard the one million borrowers paying an interest rate of 13.5 per cent to the banks. I would like Opposition members, in their replies today, to give a guarantee that they will keep that level of 13.5 per cent to existing borrowers if ever they get into government. We allowed the banks to lift the rate for new borrowings to 15.5 per cent and we got the banks to agree to lend at least $6 billion in 1986-87 to promote low start loans. Those low start loans are a great initiative for first home buyers and in my electorate people have taken full advantage of them. I congratulate many of the private banks in particular on the imaginative packages they have come up with to assist many of our first home buyers. Since this package came into effect, lending for housing has increased significantly. In the three months to July, house lending was running at an annual rate of $7.5 billion. In August and September bank lending for housing was at least double that in the two months prior to April 1986. So the housing industry is still looking fairly rosy. One has to consider that we are not looking just at building houses for people to live in; we are also thinking of the incredible flow-on effect that has throughout the industry and the economy generally. In my electorate the stimulus in the housing industry has contributed a great deal to making Canberra the city with the lowest unemployment in Australia. I would like to make some reference to a couple of new initiatives in the housing industry which are having a particular impact in my electorate. One of these is a proposal to try to reduce housing costs. We have what we call a joint venture for more affordable housing. There are two programs in particular in my electorate, one at Isabella Plains and another at Calwell, which are catering for 560 dwellings. This is a co-operative venture between the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories sponsored, of course, by the Federal Government. The objective of this venture is to illustrate to the public and the private sectors how different approaches to engineering and planning requirements can lower production costs while maintaining a quality environment. We are setting up a couple of demonstration models. I hope that honourable members who are interested in the housing area will take the opportunity to look at our building programs at Isabella Plains and Calwell. I would be very happy to assist them. In those areas we have narrow minor access roads and lanes, different types of drainage, reduced building set-backs, battle-axe allotments, lower cost road constructions, narrow frontage allotments and minimised landscaping costs. Within those restrictions, which are making a significant inroad into costs, we are still able to put the houses in a beautiful environment. Land servicing of these areas is currently under way and we hope that in the next 12 months honourable members will be able to see some impact. I would like to make some comments about the future of the housing industry in the Australian Capital Territory. We are going to move into a new era in the Australian Capital Territory next year. We are about to be aligned with the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. This will bring the Australian Capital Territory a wide range of benefits to public housing, including sound legislative bases, guaranteed minimum funding levels, which will be removed from annual budget processes-that is something we will really welcome here-and access to revolving funds generated by rental home lending and sales activities. That is particularly significant in Canberra because we have not been able to sell off some of the older government houses in the older established parts of Canberra, which are obviously worth quite a lot of money, and recycle those funds into the housing fund. After these new arrangements come into operation we will be able to do that, and I think that will lead to a great change and innovation in housing funding in the Australian Capital Territory. We will have consistency with arrangements with the States in relation to funding, interest rates, policies and programs and the vesting of overall responsibility for public housing activity in the Commissioner for Housing, subject to the direction of the Minister. Those honourable members who criticise the Australian Capital Territory for the generous treatment it always receives I imagine will also recognise this innovation in housing arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory. I think we will be a lot better off having our housing on a sound financial basis. I congratulate the Government on the contribution it has made to the housing industry in the Australian Capital Territory in particular because I know that through the policies of this Government a lot more people will be housed than was the case under the previous Administration. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.11) —Last Friday I stood in this House and condemned this Government for its disgraceful treatment of pensioners, ex-service men and women and war widows. On Tuesday night I stood in this House and criticised this Government for its shameful betrayal of the young people of Australia, particularly the students of Australia, with the introduction of the tertiary fee of $250. Today it is my duty to stand in this House and on behalf of all Australian home owners and prospective home owners to condemn this Government for its betrayal and deception of them with the implementation of its disastrous housing policies. The point has to be made from the outset that the Hawke socialist Government has broken its principal housing election promise, and that this year there will be only 122,500 new housing starts instead of the promised-I repeat, promised-142,000. That promise was made in the 1984 Federal election campaign, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) pointed with pride to the fact that 142,000 new starts had been achieved in 1984 and made a firm commitment in these terms: `My Government will ensure that it is maintained and continued for the next two years.' My colleagues the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), the shadow Minister, and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who are both present in the chamber, will recall that the Prime Minister said in 1984 that in the next two years the Government would maintain the level of new housing starts at 142,000. What has the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry told the Government? It has told the Government that it will be struggling to create 122,500 new housing starts. What does that drop of 20,000 new housing starts this year mean? It means that $1 billion-I repeat, $1 billion, $1,000m-will be lost in activity in the housing industry this year. More importantly, it means that 30,000 building industry jobs are now on the line and will almost certainly be lost. The job loss formula applied to a drop of $1 billion and a cutback of 20,000 new housing starts means that 30,000 men and women currently employed in the housing industry know that by this time next year they will not have their jobs. This is a shocking and disgraceful betrayal and deception of the industry and in particular it is a shocking and disgraceful betrayal and deception of the prospective home owners of Australia, and that means particularly the young married couples to whom the dream of owning a home has become a nightmare under the disgraceful policies of the Hawke socialist Government. Mr Goodluck —Interest rates. Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member for his reference to interest rates. I was about to say that the situation has been aggravated by deliberate Government policies. Let me mention just three. Firstly, we have high interest rates in Australia today as a result of a deliberate Government economic policy. Let us not beat around the bush. It is the policy of this Government to keep interest rates up for the purpose of protecting a falling dollar in overseas trade. That is the fundamental reason. This Government has used its great economic powers through the Reserve Bank of Australia to force up interest rates. It is not an accident that interest rates are high in this country. It is the direct result of the deliberate policies of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Secondly, in regard to the capital gains tax, the Government was told over and again that a capital gains tax would have an enormous impact on the housing industry, and it already has. Thirdly, the implications of the quarantining of negative gearing, as I will demonstrate in a moment, have had a most disastrous impact on rental accommodation in this country. The stockpile of rental accommodation in Australia has dried up. I notice that one of my colleagues from Western Australia on the other side of the House, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), is in the chamber. He will be speaking in this debate. He will remember that last year, at the Housing Ministers' Conference in Perth, a paper was presented which demonstrated that, if negative gearing was quarantined, it would lead to a major shortfall in the stockpile of rental accommodation. Of course, we all know that the smaller the stockpile, the higher the premium for rental accommodation, and that is why rentals have soared throughout Australia. This Government, by deliberate government policy, has created a situation in which 20,000 fewer houses will be built this year than should be built. Worse still, the rental position-the accommodation for those who have to rent houses, flats and units-has become critical. Let me give two examples. Residential rents in Sydney have soared by 20 per cent so far this year, and a further 10 per cent hike is predicted before the end of the year. This is not something that has crept up on the Government. It will surprise some members in this chamber, and no doubt some people outside the chamber, that I commend the New South Wales Minister for Housing, the Hon. Frank Walker, who predicted that this would happen 12 months ago. Whether one likes him or not, one has to give Mr Walker full marks for consistency because he predicted this more than 12 months ago. He repeated his comments publicly at the Australian Labor Party National Conference in Hobart. Again, only one week ago he made the point that deliberate policies of the Hawke socialist Government have led to higher interest rates, higher rentals and a diminishing of the stockpile of accommodation. In June 1985, in the city of Hobart, the rental cost for a two-bedroom unfurnished unit was $86.30. The same unit now costs $103 a week, and that is a massive increase of 19.8 per cent. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and I have assiduously attended to housing matters in our electorates. I do not know what the practice of most Federal members is. I know that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) does as we do. If we get a request from a constituent on a State housing matter, we make representations. I am told that some members say: `No, go and see a State member because it is a State matter'. But we make representations. In fact, the Department of Housing in Tasmania would confirm that, between us, the honourable member for Franklin and I would handle 75 per cent of the representations made through a parliamentary office with respect to rental accommodation. Mr Goodluck —Better than what that rotten editorial said about us. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member mentions a sore point. We did receive, unfortunately, a pretty rough deal in an editorial in the Sunday Tasmanian last week. I say in passing that we can live with that. A prophet is never honoured in his own land. Unfortunately, the Sunday Tasmanian, very unfairly and unjustly, castigated the honourable member for Franklin and me. But I believe in the judgment of the real people. Mr Cadman —You are there to serve the people. Mr HODGMAN —We are there to serve the people, as the shadow Minister says. Furthermore, we do it on the basis that the Housing Department knows that what we put in our representations is true and correct. If we believe the application is premature, we both have the courage to say to the constituent: `It is better if you wait for three or four months'. So the Housing Department knows that when we say it is urgent, it is urgent. When we say it is special, it is special. Our achievement rate or our strike rate, in cricketing terms, has been exceptionally high-probably in excess of 90 per cent. That is not an advertisement because, quite frankly, with up to 43 constituents in our offices each day when we are in Hobart, I am sure that the honourable member for Franklin and I are not asking for more customers. But we do make the point that we give service. With the rental position totally out of control, with the home building position in chaos, with 20,000 fewer houses to be built in Australia this year than should have been built, with $1 billion taken out of the housing industry, and with union secretaries and organisers in the building industry confirming that between 20,000 and 30,000 building industry jobs are now on the line and likely to disappear, is it any surprise that I now announce that the honourable member for Franklin and I have made a firm policy decision that housing will be a key election issue in the electorates of Denison and Franklin when the next Federal poll is held? Mr Goodluck —Have we got any candidates against us yet? Mr HODGMAN —They are struggling at the moment. Let us assume that the Government trots up somebody: Five times running it has been predicted that we would lose our seats and six times running we have held our seats. The honourable member for Franklin and I will make housing a key issue in Denison and Franklin at the next Federal poll. We are particularly concerned about the housing situation of the poor and of young married couples and, at the other end of the scale, the housing situation of the elderly. As chairman of the Opposition task force on the elderly the honourable member for Franklin is working assiduously in respect of the housing problems of our aged. The grandparents of Australia have received a rotten deal in housing from this Government. We deal with ordinary people in our elect- orates. I acknowledge that the honourable member for Stirling, who is about to speak, also deals with ordinary people. When it comes down to reality, the right of an Australian to own a home is a fundamental one. We reject the proposition that people owning their own homes are, as was said by one of the leaders of the Australian Labor Party many years ago, a bunch of little capitalists. We want to see home building zoom in this country; we want to see interest rates kept down; we want to see a situation in which the Government gets its act together. Time is running out for this Government. It is on its last legs. But even in a mini-Budget next year the Government could inject into the housing industry a capacity to put roofs over the heads of decent Australians who otherwise will be sleeping out. I say in all humility that I think the housing issue will be one of the key issues in the next Federal election campaign. It is an issue upon which the Government will be judged very harshly by an Australian people which has had a gutful of the Hawke socialist Government and will throw it out of office at the first available opportunity through the democratic process of the ballot box. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(11.22) —The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) spoke about the level of housing activity and declining interest rates. We on this side of the House hold very high in our objectives housing activity and declining interest rates. I suggest that the honourable member for Denison give the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) a prod because it is his hope that interest rates remain high and that economic activity remains low so that he will be forced into government. I am confident that interest rates will trend down in late 1987 and that economic activity will recover. However, I think we both share the view that housing is very fundamental to the welfare of the Australian community. It is fundamental in terms of both the social objective of getting people into homes and the economic objective of creating jobs and ensuring profitability in industry. I do not think that is a matter with which either side of this chamber would disagree, in acknowledging the remarks of the honourable member for Denison. If one looks back over the period we have been in government one sees that our record has been very impressive in terms of housing commencements. In a moment I want to address myself to one or two difficulties about interest rates and the declining housing commencement activity in recent times. However, if one looks at the overall picture and compares the 105,000 housing commencements in the last year of the Fraser Government with the 135,000 housing commencements in our first year in office one sees that the comparison is favourable. The honourable member for Denison said that the Indicative Planning Council was talking about a housing commencement rate of 122,500. That is quite right. It has revised its estimate down from 130,000. It is fair to say in this debate that there are a couple of reasons for that. One is the higher interest rates and the other is that there has been some resistance in certain markets. We need to look at that resistance, and I propose to do that. Western Australia is probably more fortunate than most States because not only has it had reasonably high levels of housing activity but also its commercial building sector has been very buoyant. Obviously tourism aspects are involved. The State Government deserves some recognition because it performs its role very well. I think there has been a Federal Government involvement as well. I make those couple of remarks in a sense to respond to the honourable member for Denison and to put a perspective, as I see it, on the housing picture. Obviously, as always, it is a mixed picture. For example, the current level of housing activity in Western Australia is very good. The level of commencements is good. One the other hand, there is some concern about interest rates. I say to the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) that the Opposition will face a major difficulty in that it has yet to come up with a comprehensive housing policy. I think that is something that will trouble the Opposition in the run-up to the next election. The absence of a major housing policy is a major difficulty that confronts the Opposition. Another difficulty that confronts the Opposition-I want to make this very clear-is the question of the 13.5 per cent housing interest rate ceiling. It is the view of the Government that the 13.5 per cent housing interest rate ceiling will remain in place. I reassure people listening to this debate who have a bank loan that that is the commitment of this Government. The Opposition is very uncertain about this matter. The more right wing elements of the Opposition want to deregulate interest rates completely. Very clearly, if that happened the banks would increase housing interest rates. We are not prepared to accept that. We believe that the housing interest rate ceiling should remain in place. Very clearly, it will remain in place while we are in government. I give that assurance to people. I also want to pick up the point that it is very unfair of the savings banks to be putting pressure on this Government and to be debating in the community the need to remove that ceiling when we look at the fact that the Commonwealth Bank recently recorded a pre-tax profit of $445.5m-up from $359.5m. It is very clear that this banking organisation is doing very well. I reiterate that the pre-tax profit was $445.5m. The after-tax profit of the Commonwealth Bank was up 91 per cent from $127.8m to $244.4m. Very clearly, that banking group has done very well as a result of our current economic management and policy. We are pleased about that. But I think the other side of that cannot expect to put pressure on this Government to lift the ceiling on housing mortgage interest rates. It is not on as far as we are concerned. We believe that the 13.5 per cent ceiling on existing rates should stay and will stay. It is very important that we look at the impact of interest rates. In this respect, I am very encouraged by the figures that were reported yesterday in the financial Press. The official cash rate was 16 per cent, traded down to 15.5 per cent. The unofficial market for cash was down from 16.5 per cent to 16.15 per cent. The 24-hour cash market held steady at 16.5 per cent. However, the quotation for 90-day bills was down to 16.5 per cent from 16.75 per cent. The 15 October quotation for the Australian merchant bankers bill rate was 17.44 per cent and the 22 October quotation was 17.31 per cent. The authorised dealers bank bill rate was 16.95 per cent for 15 October and 16.45 per cent for 22 October. So the closing market rates yesterday show that there is a trend down. I think in early 1987 we can expect to see some outcomes of this Government's economic policy. This is showing up at the moment in terms of dollar rates and the value of the dollar. The easing of the interest rates during 1987 will have a positive impact on the housing sector. This is something that I am very keen to see in my own electorate of Stirling in terms of the level of commencements and in terms of the level of obligation of people repaying housing loans. It is fair to say that those are areas for concern. It is interesting to compare the Government's policy on housing with that of the Opposition. First of all, the Opposition does not have a comprehensive policy on housing. Secondly, if we reflect on what happened when the Opposition was in government, we remember that its record is a sorry one. Under the previous Government, housing commencements fell to 105,000, which was a 20-year low. The Hawke Government in its first year lifted that figure to 135,000. During the term of the Hawke Government we have seen a peak of 155,000 commencements, and that is a very favourable turnaround. The great area of concern amongst people in the community is that the Opposition will not come clean on whether it will deregulate housing mortgage interest rates. I said earlier that we will not. The Opposition wishes to do so in respect of the banking sector. If that uncertainty persists I think the Opposition will have a lot to answer for in respect of its economic policies. I turn briefly to a couple of areas that I believe need addressing by the Government. I think we can look forward to changes in the home owners scheme, which is an important area of consideration. One could make a case for the income limit for the first home owners scheme to be increased and then indexed, because that would be an important step in restoring it to its buying power. We see that as being very important. I acknowledge the participation of the Master Builders Association of Australia and its chief economist, Gavan Forster, in discussions we held recently. I believe some sensible adjustments could be made to that scheme. The other area which I believe deserves consideration and which would mobilise capital for housing is the possibility of introducing granny bonds, under which would attract a reasonable level of interest would be paid to people, usually of mature age, who wish to invest in those but who at the same time would not have to declare the income from those bonds for pension purposes. As far as pension arrangements would be concerned, the bonds would be income test free. Pensioners and superannuitants often have sums of money that could well be mobilised by providing deposits for housing. If we were able to pay a nominal interest rate of 8 or 9 per cent and, as an added incentive, that interest was classed as not being part of the income test for either pensioners of superannuitants, we would be availing ourselves of a substantial amount of funds which could be directed to housing. The availability of granny bonds as a source of funding for housing is something that we could look at down the track. Let us look at this Government's performance in the housing area and compare it with the situation we inherited, of a commencement rate of 105,000, which was socially unacceptable because people did not have access to housing. It was economically unacceptable because of the resultant unemployment and declining profitability. This Government turned that situation around in its first year and brought commencements up to 135,000. I believe we have a very impressive record in housing commencements and I think the community recognises that. It also recognises that in the current climate of declining commodity prices and a threatened Australian dollar interest rates have been higher than we would have liked and than would otherwise have been necessary because we have been securing stability in the Australian economy. I think people are aware that this government is competent in its economic management. As a result of that competence, in 1987 we will see a restoration of profitability in the housing area and a further easing of interest rates. I conclude by giving this assurance to the people in the community: This Government's economic policies are comprehensive; they have delivered so far and they will continue to deliver. It is our view that the 13.5 per cent ceiling on housing interest rates will stay in place because it is a very important social and economic objective. I think I can say with confidence that this Government's housing policies have worked and worked very well. Mr Blanchard —Especially in Western Australia. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Especially in Western Australia, as my colleague the honourable member for Moore adds. There is every reason why the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen), the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and I, from Stirling, can look with confidence upon our electorates. The State Government has performed well and the Federal Government's contribution, in our view, has been outstanding. I am pleased to commend this Government's housing policies to the House. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(11.34) —At the outset I compliment the previous speaker, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). I thought his contribution to this debate on the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill was very well argued and thoughtfully presented. If other members of his Party followed his example we would have a greater and more sincere contribution from that side of the House. I particularly support his suggestion about granny bonds. If he can convince his fellow members, particularly those from Western Australia, perhaps they could act as a catalyst to prompt the Government into taking a decision in line with the view expressed by him. In rising on behalf of the Opposition I begin by saying that Australia, as a nation not yet 200 years settled, is a land of migrants. There is still present through history, tradition and folk lore a remembrance of what life was like in our ancestral countries. Most of our migrants were from relatively poor backgrounds where existence and shelter basically depended on the whim of the landlord or master. Few of these people knew the stability of food supply or the security of a roof over their heads. From this insecurity grew a determination by our early settlers to provide for themselves and their families a safeguard against the uncertainties they knew in the old world. Most saw the possibility of purchasing their own land and building their own homes as the sanctuary they sought so eagerly. As a result, Australia became the land of promise, the land of milk and honey, and the place where they could settle without fear or favour. It is against this background that federally funded home ownership schemes, past and present, have been founded. As a result, Australia once enjoyed the honour of having the largest number of home owners in the world but, sadly, this is no longer the case. High interest rates, uncertainty in the economy, and an inflationary level double and approaching triple that of our major trading partners have taken their toll on families wishing to own their own homes. The dream of security from less than sympathetic or unscrupulous landlords, as in the old country, is quickly fading for our most needy families. Whilst the Government takes great pleasure and pride in boasting of its first home ownership scheme and its apparent success, it is interesting to note that the $290m allocated in the 1985-86 Budget was not fully taken up. Only $239m was spent, leaving over 12 per cent unused in the Budget allocation to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). If this scheme is as popular and successful as the Minister likes to claim, if the economy is as buoyant as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) like to tell us, why has not all the money been taken up by our lower and middle income families? Why has the Government, if it believes its economic policies are good for home ownership and good for Australia, reduced its budget for housing from $290m in 1985-86 to $209m for 1986-87? This Labor Government has always uttered what I believe are platitudes about the importance of housing and the construction industry, Yet it clearly does not, by these actions I have enumerated, feel that housing is as vital as we have been led to believe. I come to this conclusion for several reasons. In its May 1983 economic statement, the Government decided to terminate on 1 July the general housing interest income tax rebate scheme available to all home owners paying in excess of 10 per cent on housing loans for their sole or principal residence. It also terminated the housing interest income tax rebate scheme, which provided rebates over five years to first home owners. This action was taken at a time when interest rates were peaking at 14 per cent, a high figure indeed for that time, but still a low figure when compared with modern high interest rates. Let us look at what this meant in dollar terms to those families trying to put a roof over their heads. In February 1983 the average cost of an established home in Melbourne was $56,000. Interest rates were 13.93 per cent on a mortgage amounting to $42,000 over 25 years. The cost to repay that mortgage was $458 per month, or 30.86 per cent of average weekly earnings. In Sydney in February 1983 the average established home could be had for a mere $80,000, with a $60,000 mortgage and repayments of $654 per month, or 44.09 per cent of average weekly earnings. Let us compare these figures with what we have now, after three and a half years of a so-called caring Labor government. The average home in Melbourne has gone up from $56,000 to almost $84,000 at an interest rate of 15.5 per cent. The redemption and interest payments on a mortgage of nearly $63,000 cost $830 a month, or 44.82 per cent of average weekly earnings. Mr Cowan —What about capital gains and negative gearing? Mr McVEIGH —They have to come into it later on. In Sydney, the average established home now costs over $100,000 and carries with it a mortgage of over $75,000. Interest and mortgage repayments amount to almost $1,000 per month, or almost 54 per cent of average weekly earnings. As the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) have said, how can the ordinary person working in an ordinary job have any hope of paying back that mortgage? What about the young railway worker who is married-his wife might be working in a medical or scientific laboratory-trying to save to purchase a home. What hope do they have under that type of economic policy? It is little wonder our public housing waiting lists are so long and are becoming longer by the day. Queensland, of course, is the exception; it does not have a very long waiting list and people have the opportunity of getting into a house within three weeks of application. Mr Cowan —It has a National Party government. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Lyne said, it has a National Party government. That is a very honest observation. One of the reasons why Queensland has an excellent housing policy is that it has a National Party government. Families simply cannot afford to pay out half of their weekly earnings on mortgage repayments and eat and provide for their children's needs. The Labor Government saw the first home owners scheme as offering a better deal for those in need than this Home Deposit Assistance Act and as an opportunity to reduce unemployment. When that legislation was introduced the then Minister for Housing and Construction, the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), in his second reading speech, promised to index the means test qualifications for those applying for a benefit. I quote from his second reading speech: The taxable income limits for those qualifying for this program would be adjusted each year in accordance with movements in average weekly earnings. In the 1984-85 Budget the Government adjusted the income limits, but it adjusted them downwards instead of taking account of the high inflationary factor that was prevalent in this country. They were not adjusted upwards to keep up with inflation and average weekly earnings as promised, but were adjusted downwards-another broken promise. Not only did it adjust downwards the qualifying figures for this scheme but also, at the same time, it decreased the amount of money that single people and families could receive. In the case of a single person with no dependants, the income level was halved from $20,000 to $10,000 and the maximum benefit was reduced from $5,000 to $4,000. For a married couple with a joint income, the maximum earnings permissible to receive the full benefit was lowered from $24,300 to $20,000. The maximum grant decreased from $5,000 to $4,000 at a time when people were having trouble even getting a deposit for a home. The cost of housing went up, inflation went up, interest went up and the deposit went down, yet this Government says it is a caring government. The maximum income for a partial grant has remained the same at $27,900, despite higher weekly earnings enjoyed by most of the community. Couples or single parents with dependants fared no better in the 1984-85 adjustments for qualifications and benefits. The base rate for two or more dependants has decreased from $7,000 to $6,000 and for one dependant from $6,500 to $5,500. This Government's policy on housing was supposed to ensure that housing played a key role in economic recovery and that Australian families had access to adequate housing at a price they could afford. What a farce this policy is when one considers that during the 1985-86 financial year total dwelling commencements reached 136,000 compared with 152,000 the previous year. Reliable sources have indicated to me that the 1986-87 figures could be as low as 125,000 when there is a demand for people to purchase their own homes. Approvals for private sector dwelling units in August-I base this on solid statistics-fell 6.4 per cent, despite reports from major financial institutions of increased lending for housing. The housing industry, as I see it, is bubbling along at the bottom of a trough with no solid upturn in sight. I take issue with the present and previous Ministers when, in their second reading speeches on the First Home Owners Bill and this Bill, they claimed that it was in a harsh and draconian manner that the coalition Government had terminated the home savings grant scheme. That is simply not true. We announced the home deposit assistance scheme in April 1982 and closed down the home savings grant scheme in August that year. The home savings grant scheme had been established since 1964. It was an initiative of the Menzies Government. It was time to introduce another, more efficient and effective program to assist families. I conclude on this note, because we do not want any confusion about this at all: I had the honour, as the Minister for Housing in this Parliament, to introduce for the first time ever a scheme which recognised the value of family life and which made a meaningful and significant contribution to allowing people with families to purchase their own homes. Mr Cowan —You were a successful Minister. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member is very kind and courteous. My Government, consisting of the Liberal and National parties, believed that it was appropriate to encourage people with families to purchase their own homes, and to back our propositions and our philosophies with action not just words. We introduced, for the first time ever in a parliament-national or State-extra assistance for families. It is absolutely wrong for the Labor Party to deny that we were the people with the foresight, that we were the people with the honesty of purpose, that we were the people with the sincerity of application who understood the role the family plays in Australian society, and that we were the people who were prepared to give those people some type of assistance. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(11.46) —I support the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill, which is designed to terminate the receipt of applications under the Fraser Government's home deposit assistance scheme. So far in this debate we have had some very excellent contributions from honourable members from both sides of the House. As usual, the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), in his aggressive but genuine way, made his play in this debate. As usual, the contributions from the Opposition were devoid of any substance in the sense that there was nothing concrete, nothing that we could get hold of to say what it would do if it got back to office. We also had a very thoughtful speech from the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), whose interest in this area is widely known, not only in Western Australia but also in other parts of Australia. He is highly regarded as an expert in the area of housing. It should be made clear at the outset that the Fraser Government's scheme applied only to homes purchased between 18 March 1982 and 30 September 1983. That scheme is now effectively obsolete. In 1983 this Government introduced the first home owners scheme, which was aimed at superseding the Fraser Government's scheme. The first home owners scheme has proved to be a much better and a more successful scheme than the one it replaced. At the time of its introduction, the Government gave a firm commitment not to wind up immediately the home deposit assistance scheme. It is now over three years since that scheme was superseded by the first home owners scheme and, rightly, the Government has decided that the time has come to terminate the old scheme. This Bill provides that 31 December 1986 will be the last day on which an applicant can deliver a valid application under the old scheme. Its effect on those seeking financial assistance for housing will be minimal. As I mentioned earlier, that scheme applied only to homes purchases between 18 March 1982 and 30 September 1983. There are savings, which are largely administrative, in terminating the home deposit assistance scheme. These will amount to only about $150,000 in the first full year. I should have thought that a saving of even $150,000 would please honourable members opposite, particularly the waste watchers. This Government can be proud of its housing record. We have stimulated the housing industry and assisted in creating more jobs. At the same time, we have helped to meet the social needs of those requiring housing. What was the position when we came to office? There is no doubt that the housing industry was in the doldrums. There were only 105,000 housing commencements in 1982-83-the last year in which the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), then the Treasurer, had the opportunity to damage the country's economy. In 1984-85 commencements increased to a total of 152,700. This was a 45 per cent increase on the 1982-83 figure and the highest total since 1973-74, which, of course, was another vintage year when a Labor government was in office. In 1985-86 there was a fall-off in demand which led to slightly reduced activity. But the 136,000 commencements were still 30 per cent more than the 1982-83 figure. For 1986-87, it has been predicted by the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry that there will be 125,000 commencements. Unfortunately, the major reason for the decline is the reduction by approximately 7,000 in commencements in Queensland. This illustrates the incompetence of the Queensland National Party Government. Its mismanagement of the Queensland economy hopefully will end on Saturday week. Looking at the newspapers today, we find that even within the higher echelons of the National Party strong doubts are emerging about whether that Party can survive on 1 November. The Government's constructive policies in housing, as I mentioned earlier, have resulted in a significant increase in employment in the housing and construction industry. Over 70,000 more persons are employed in the industry than were employed in it when we took over government. The first home owners scheme is a major element of this Government's housing policy. When it was introduced in October 1983 it met a real need for those on low and average incomes who did not have sufficient capital to put down a deposit for a new house. At that time, applicants for the first home owners scheme could obtain up to $7,000. This amount has now dropped to a maximum of $6,000. Let us compare the first home owners scheme with the Liberals' home deposit assistance scheme. The maximum assistance under the Liberals' scheme was $3,500, compared with the maximum assistance today of $6,000 under FHOS. To get this financial assistance under the Liberals' scheme the applicant or applicants had to have a savings record. The first home owners scheme does not have this restriction. There is no doubt that FHOS has provided a massive boost to industry. The record is excellent and deserves praise from both sides of the House. Since FHOS was introduced in October 1983, nearly $1 billion has been committed Australia-wide to boost the housing stocks of this country. The 214,000 successful applicants are well satisfied with that scheme. Mr Lee —Hear, hear! Mr BLANCHARD —As the honourable member for Dobell said, we can say `hear, hear' on behalf of those people who would not have a house if it were not for that scheme. I turn briefly to the Opposition's housing policy. As honourable members will recall, earlier this year the Opposition's housing policy was leaked by certain honourable members opposite. There is no doubt about it. It is a Clayton's policy-a policy you have when you have no policy. It showed a clear ignorance of overall housing problems and solutions. Further, it had no costings. It was a negative policy. In the public housing area it proposed the elimination of tied grants. Why do we have tied grants? These grants ensure that the most needy get priority help. Tied grants at the moment go to rental housing for Aboriginals-I assure the House that in my role as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs I am only too aware of the real need in that area-crisis accommodation such as women's and youth refuges, and housing provided by local government and community groups for age pensioners and persons facing short term mortgage and rent problems. These are the categories of persons who would be severely disadvantaged if tied grants were stopped. In 1985-86 about $140m was paid out in tied grants. The Opposition was also prepared to incorporate the FHOS scheme in public housing funds for the States. That would mean that it would effectively abolish the scheme, because the States would have to decide to help either first home buyers or those who need public housing. There is no doubt in my mind that the Opposition's housing policy-and particularly its public housing policy-would have a severe negative effect on those who need housing. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(11.58) —I rise with a great deal of interest to speak on the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill because I perceive it as being of vital importance to every Australian. In starting, I pay tribute to the contribution of the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) who spoke for the Opposition before me. His contribution was very worth while. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), in his own charming and inimitable style, made a reasonable contribution. However, I am forced to take issue just a little with the honourable member for Moore who, like all the Government members who are not sitting on the Labor benches at present, apologises for his Government's shortcomings and failure by attacking the Fraser Government. This is becoming stale pastry. Surely they have to get to the point where they can stand on their own feet and take responsibility for their actions, inaction and failure. The honourable member for Moore said that when the Hawke Labor Government-I would rather call it the Hawke failed Government-came in housing was in the doldrums. He went on to mention that it was a vintage year when Labor was in office. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the people of Australia who are listening to this broadcast, that 1986 will also be a vintage year for Labor. Mr McVeigh —A very rough red. Mr NEHL —As my colleague says, it will be a very rough red. It will be a year in which the real figures will demonstrate that the housing industry is going out backwards in the public sector. It is a cause of great concern. The honourable member for Moore also referred to housing starts in Queensland and said that the numbers were not increasing; that they had fallen. He blamed the Queensland National Party for being incompetent. When I get down to reading out the accurate figures on the growing waiting lists for public housing-throughout Australia people are in desperate need of housing-we will see that in the three years since the failed Hawke Government came to office, a government which blows its own trumpet endlessly, in only one State in the Commonwealth has the number of people on the waiting list for public housing actually fallen. It will come as no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you are aware of what is happening, to learn that that State is Queensland. As the honourable member for Moore pointed out earlier, an election is going on in Queensland. This is probably why Labor members, in the great bulk of speeches they make in various debates in this place and the other place, attack Queensland. They just want to score little points for the election. After the election, the National Party will be back in government. Labor will do no good at all in the election. Rockdale and Bass Hill in Sydney have pointed the way. Labor will get its next shock, its next tremor, in Queensland on 1 November. Housing is of vital importance to every Australian. As the honourable member for Groom said so very well, it is the basis of the family. If one cannot clothe, feed and house one's family one is in great trouble. I would like to refer to some very appropriate figures. In June 1983, slightly after the failed, trumpet-blowing Hawke Government came into power, the number of people on the waiting list for public housing was 125,449. By the end of June 1986 it had grown to 149,288. An additional 23,839 people had been forced on to the waiting list. Mr Goodluck —Shame! Mr NEHL —It is a great shame. The Hawke Labor Government has been in power for only three years but what a disastrous three years it has been. We have had the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the abolition or quarantining of negative gearing. The waiting list for public housing in Australia has grown, in those three disastrous years, by 23,839-up by 19 per cent. Mr Cowan —Particularly in New South Wales. Mr NEHL —Yes. Let us examine what is happening in the Labor-governed States. I have just cited the figures for the whole of Australia. Let us consider New South Wales, the governmental jewel in the crown of Labor, ruled for 10 years by a gentleman called Nifty. Let us take the three years of Labor government in Canberra, allied with the same three years of Labor government in New South Wales. In June 1983 the number on the waiting list for public housing in New South Wales was 51,432. That figure had jumped, three years later, to 57,437. An additional 6,005 families were waiting for public housing-a jump of 11.6 per cent. But let us not get too excited about New South Wales. After all, the figure for New South Wales has gone up by only 11.6 per cent. Let us consider Victoria, another Labor-governed State. In June 1983 the number of applicants on the public housing waiting list in Victoria was 17,718. Three years later the number was a massive 32,644-a jump of 14,926 in three years with Labor at the helm. That is a jump of 84.2 per cent. Let us come back to Queensland. It is very popular with Government members to attack Queensland. They enjoy it. They have to do something. In June 1983 in Queensland the number of people on the waiting list for public housing was 10,238. It was down, by June 1986, three years later, to 9,044, a fall of 1,194, or 11.6 per cent. That is exactly the same percentage by which the waiting list has risen in New South Wales. The people of Australia are not fools. They will not continue to be conned by the nonsense that is being put out about Queensland and Australia by the Hawke Labor Government. Let us consider Western Australia, another Labor State. Honourable members will not be surprised to know that its record is pretty crook, too. In June 1983 there were 8,243 people on the waiting list for public housing. Three years later, under Labor, there were 11,190-a jump of 2,947. Mr McVeigh —They must expect people to live in tents. Mr NEHL —Those feral women outside Parliament House are living in tents; they should be shifted. The increase in the number of people on the waiting list for public housing for Western Australia is 36 per cent, and Western Australia is another Labor State. How about South Australia? Three years ago the number of people on the public housing waiting list in South Australia was 28,774. In June 1986 it was 39,500-a jump of 10,726, or 37.2 per cent. How can honourable members opposite talk about their good government? They can be selective and choose their own indicators, but I am talking about the people whom they, the `workers friends', say they are there to help-the poor people. We in the National Party and our Liberal Party colleagues care. Honourable members opposite have lost sight of poor people. They can talk about housing starts; they are for people who have the money. But let us talk about the people who do not have the money to build their own homes, the disadvantaged people who are on public housing waiting lists. The statistics I have cited come from the Parliamentary Library. They are irrefutable and are a great indicator on what is happening in the vital area of housing under the Labor Government. In Tasmania, ruled by a Liberal government, the number of people on the public housing waiting list has risen by only 347. Mr Goodluck —Because we have been squeezed by the Federal Government. Mr NEHL —Of course Tasmania has. The upshot of all this is inescapable. The people who really need housing are being killed by the shortage of funds for public housing. Others who might be able to afford to buy or build their own houses are being killed by the Government's interest rates, and even by the capital gains tax. Throughout Australia there are many young builders, hard-working men who, to make a start for their families, build a house. When they sell it they make a bit of money on it and build another one. That is how they get a start at being free enterprise people-by being productive. These people will be absolutely killed by the Government's capital gains tax, but the Government probably has not thought of that. Mr McVeigh —And negative gearing. Mr NEHL —The effect on rentals of the negative gearing provisions will be absolutely frightful. Mr Brumby —Do you really believe that? Mr NEHL —Anybody with any sense believes it. In concluding-- Mr Brumby —Not yet. Mr NEHL —I will do my best for the honourable member. I return to the figures which show the growth in the number of people on the public housing waiting lists in the Labor States. In New South Wales the figure is up by 11.6 per cent. In Victoria it is up by an amazing 84.2 per cent. Mr Beale —Over what period is that? Mr NEHL —Three years. In Western Australia the figure is up by 36 per cent. In South Australia it is up by 37.2 per cent. In Queensland, which has a National Party Government with a balanced Budget, the figure has actually fallen by 11.6 per cent. That speaks volumes for good government and good management-which will continue after the Queensland State election. Mr McVeigh —I rise on a point of order. During the concluding remarks of the honour- able member for Cowper-it was an excellent speech-the honourable member for Bendigo suggested that he continue. Would it be in order to grant him an extension? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Groom will resume his seat. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(12.10) —It is my pleasure to speak in this debate. I must say that there have been a number of good contributions in this debate from many honourable members. I say at the outset that this Government is proud of its housing record. We are proud of what we have achieved in the 3 1/2 years we have been in government in terms of overall levels of activity in the housing industry, of providing jobs and of meeting social needs. Housing is crucial in terms of creating jobs and meeting very important social needs in our community. The point was made earlier in an excellent contribution by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) that when we won government in March 1983 we inherited a housing industry which was in very poor shape-desperate shape. Total housing commencements in 1982-83 were only a little over 100,000 and for an economy and nation as large as ours that is a very poor level. To illustrate how poor that level of 105,000 commencements in the last year of the Fraser Government was, we need to compare it with what we were able to achieve only three years later in 1984-85, when more than 150,000 houses were started around Australia. That really was a dramatic increase. It was a 50 per cent increase in just that two to three year period. That is our record. I think it is important to emphasise when we look at the overall housing industry that we have been successful both in the private sector and in the public sector. Private sector dwelling commencements have been particularly strong and there has also been strong growth in the public sector, where, through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, we have provided significant increases in funds for public housing. That is our record to date. Many members of this House will recall that in April this year the Government took further action in the form of its housing industry package to ensure that our solid performance in the housing industry was able to continue for many years. Part of that package was to provide a subsidy to the banks of $150m to allow them to continue borrowing and lending at very high rates. With that subsidy we obtained agreement from the banks that they would lend at least $6 billion in 1986-87 as well as promoting the low start loans, which are so important to many people in our community who frequently buy their homes when they are young, when their income earning capacity is not high and when they are starting a young family. The low start loans have been very successful in that regard. The package we introduced in April has enjoyed a considerable degree of success. Home lending has continued to remain very strong and it looks as though in the financial year 1986-87 we will have 125,000 to 135,000 new housing starts. That is a very steady level of housing commencements. There have been some suggestions recently that the Government would be asked to lift the 13 1/2 per cent ceiling on interest rates for existing home buyers. I want to make a few comments about that. I do not think there is any need at all to increase that ceiling. Lending is currently very strong. Deposit growth with the banks is still quite satisfactory. Indeed, the annual rate to July this year was more than 10 per cent over that of the previous year. We also have in place good arrangements in terms of fiscal policy and wages policy which should ensure that the pressure on interest rates is reduced as we head through the year and should provide the opportunity for good reductions in interest rates, particularly housing interest rates, early in the 1987 calendar year. The Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill 1986 is more directly about assistance to first home buyers, but in that sense it affects the whole of the building industry. The Government's first home owners scheme has been remarkably successful. It is continuing in this Budget. Since its inception in October 1983 more than 200,000 first home owners have been assisted with grants of up to $6,000. We have paid out almost $1 billion. It has provided a boost to the building industry and it has given enormous assistance to many first home buyers who otherwise would not have been able to buy their first home and would now be on the private rental market bidding up the price of rents. I will comment on a couple of points made in this debate. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) made some points about waiting lists, interest rates and home lending. He produced statistics which he said reflected waiting lists in States around Australia. I tend to think of the statistics he produced in terms of that old expression about lies, damned lies and statistics, because the fact is that under the 3 1/2 years of this Government overall housing commencements have been much higher than in the previous three years. Overall commencements in the private sector have shown very good growth and the increase in funds provided for public housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is quite astronomical compared with what was provided under the Liberal Government. The question which has to be asked in respect of waiting lists is what would occur in the States if the Liberal policies on housing were ever introduced. The simple answer to that question is that we could undoubtedly predict that within the space of two to three years housing waiting lists for public housing throughout Australia would at least double. There is no doubt that under Liberal housing policies the waiting lists for public housing would double in the first two years. Opposition members in their contributions to this debate have talked about housing in general terms but have neglected in any sense at all to talk about what a Liberal government would do for the housing industry if it were ever elected to office. In May this year the Opposition's draft housing policy was leaked-a common phenomenon nowadays. I see that the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), is in the House. It was a vacuous and scrappy document. It contained no vision for the future and no commitment to anybody in need in our community and, above all, it was typical of the free market rationalist approach which is now becoming such a strong hallmark of Opposition policies. Housing is crucial to Australians. It is crucial to Australian families. It is crucial to Australians who are in need and to elderly people who look for assistance in buying elderly persons' units. Housing has a very wide embrace throughout our community. The Liberal's policy was remarkably vague on the question of the first home owners scheme. It suggested that grants for the first home owners scheme might be tied up in housing grants that go to the States and that it would be up to individual States to offer that scheme in the future if they wanted to do so. Let me make it quite clear that this Government intends to maintain the first home owners scheme. we have assisted more than 200,000 first home buyers with that scheme with grants of up to $6,000 and we intend to keep the scheme in the future because we think it assists Australians who deserve assistance in buying their first home. On the question of public housing I simply say to those in the House and to those listening to the broadcast that people in the community who are in need of public housing, for whatever reason, would do well to study the record of the Fraser Liberal Government, because it absolutely slashed and decimated funding for public housing. Indeed, when Malcolm Fraser left office in 1983, he was spending well under half, in real terms, of what Gough Whitlam had been spending on public housing when he left office in 1975. To those people on public housing waiting lists I simply say that our policies are addressing the problem of the length of the waiting lists. In our three and a half years in government we have made remarkable achievements in housing commencements in both the private and the public sectors. I am genuinely concerned about what would happen to those people on waiting lists were a Liberal government ever to be re-elected to office. Have no doubt about it, there is no question that public housing waiting lists would double in the first two years of office of a Liberal government, and that would be outrageous. I turn to interest rates and home lending. These were raised in debate by the honourable member for Cowper. In the last three years of the Liberal Government 735,000 homes were commenced around Australia. In the first three years of this Government 914,000 homes were commenced. So on any assessment or comparison of our record on home lending and home constructions, this Government's record is second to none. It is certainly vastly superior to that of the Fraser Government. The yearly average of home loans under this Government has been 305,000; under the Liberals it was 245,000. We are well ahead there. In money terms, something like $21 billion has been lent for housing under this Government's policies compared with $11 billion during the last three years of the Fraser Government. On the question of interest rates, I think we need to understand that it was the Liberals in 1982 who increased the housing interest rate by two percentage points to 13 1/2 per cent. Also, under the former Government the 10-year bond rate was a massive 16.4 per cent in June 1982. It is now 13 1/2 per cent under this government. Yet the Opposition piously lectures us on interest rates. In 1982 under the Fraser Liberal Government-the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin, who is in the House, knows this very well-90-day bank bills peaked at more than 20 per cent. They are now down to 16.7 per cent. In the Australian Financial Review today there are further indications that the 90-day bank bill rate will fall even further. My time has almost expired. In conclusion, I simply say that this Government has an excellent record in housing. It is manifest in my electorate of Bendigo, where more than 1,600 first home buyers have received assistance under the first home owners scheme. There has been a dramatic increase in funding for public housing in my electorate. For instance, in Bendigo in 1981-82, under the Fraser Government, 41 public housing dwellings were commenced; in 1984-85, under this Government, there were more than 111 commencements in the public housing sector. The rate was virtually three times as high, an increase of more than 200 per cent. The Bendigo electorate has been well supported by special programs such as the local government and community housing program. A number of local governments showing a great deal of initiative-councils such as Eaglehawk and Marong-have combined with the Federal Government to ensure that housing is made available to people in need. In the area of real need, crisis housing, this Government's policies have produced the goods in Bendigo, where organisations such as the Salvation Army have been assisted with funding to provide emergency accommodation, meeting a need in my electorate, I support the legislation and am proud to support this Government's housing achievements and the work of an excellent Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(12.24) —Today the House has witnessed Australian Labor Party members of the Parliament describing to the people of Australia what an excellent track record this Government has in terms of housing and rental accommodation being provided to all Australians. That is a load of drivel. I will substantiate that claim by quoting people who really have their fingers on the pulse of housing and rental accommodation in Australia. I quote this statement made on 15 October: 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. The gentleman who said that is none other than the Labor Minister for Housing in the New South Wales Parliament, Frank Walker. He has been shedding light on the true situation in housing and rental accommodation not only in New South Wales but throughout Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that the crisis Frank Walker spoke of in New South Wales applies right across this country. Who is to blame for it? None other than the Labor Government here in Canberra. To explain and substantiate that claim I will quote further from the New South Wales Minister for Housing. He talked particularly about the high cost of rents in New South Wales. He said: 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 18 months of rapid rises and the shortage of rental accommodation is worsening as owners abandon real estate in favour of other investments. I emphasise that statement because that abandonment of real estate as an investment has come about because of this Government and its interest rate policies. Interest rates are one of the great causes of the high costs of housing and rental accommodation in Australia. I once again quote Frank Walker, the Minister for Housing in the New South Wales Parliament. He talked about why interest rates are so crucial to the housing and rental accommodation crisis in Australia today. 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. So Frank Walker is telling us that interest rates are one of the prime causes of the crisis in housing and rental accommodation. Who is to blame for those high interest rates? None other than the Federal Government. Once again I quote Frank Walker, the fountain of truth in all things to do with housing. In a major statement he made in the last few weeks he said: To attract higher levels of capital inflow, the Government imposed a tight monetary policy which resulted in record real levels of interest rates. Mr Walker continued: As the most interest rate sensitive of our industries, housing suffered most by this. Other policies of the Federal Government have contributed to housing and rental accommodation problems in the last year or two. In legislation over the last 12 months the Government has introduced a capital gains tax and removed tax deductions on negative gearing. I again quote Mr Frank Walker in his statement of 15 October: 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 Walker was clearly saying that the latest changes this Government has made to the taxation laws are causing problems in housing and rental accommodation in Australia today. Of course, one point he has neglected to make in his statements lately is that an additional factor in the housing crisis is the existing and proposed punitive landlord and tenant laws in New South Wales and all the other Labor States of Australia. How bad is the situation in Australia? How badly affected is the rental market as a result of this Government's activities? In Sydney it is expected that in this calendar year the cost of rental accommodation will increase by 30 per cent. On the other side of the country, in Perth, rent for a three-bedroom average sort of home increased by 52 per cent between June 1985 and June 1986. There has been an increase of 52 per cent in Perth and 30 per cent in Sydney. That is as a result of what this Government is doing by way of its taxation laws and monetary policies. This Government is deliberately jacking up interest rates. Frank Walker has accurately described what it is doing. It is now costing 25 per cent more to repay housing loans than it did in the last couple of years. It is a known fact that people who obtained finance for housing during 1985-86 are now paying 25 per cent more in order to meet their commitments. It is also interesting to look at the cost of rental accommodation as a proportion of one's income to determine how bad the housing crisis in Australia has become. I asked the Parliamentary Library in the last few days to tell me what percentage of a person's income is now spent on providing him with standard or average rental accommodation in Australia. The Library produced these statistics: In 1974-75 average rental accommodation cost a person 12.46 per cent of his income; in 1975-76 the figure rose to 13.83 per cent; and by 1984 the figure had risen to 15.16 per cent. So, in 10 years, the outlay for rental accommodation has risen from 12 and a bit per cent to 15 and a bit per cent of a person's income. If honourable members want to find out how much it costs to purchase a house as a proportion of one's income, it is interesting to ask the Library to produce the facts. I have done so, and these are the figures it has provided to me: In 1978-79 it cost 4.4 times one's average annual income to purchase the average home; in 1981-82 it cost five times the average annual income to purchase the average home; and in 1984 it cost 6.9 times average annual income to purchase the average home. So it is costing 50 per cent more in real terms to purchase a home today than it did a few years ago. The situation, rather than getting better, is getting worse. As I mentioned earlier, rent now takes a bigger slice of one's pay packet every week. It now takes 50 per cent longer to save to purchase the average home. Fewer people are now able to afford a home than was the case only a few years ago. The practices of this Government and the unions, particularly the Builders Labourers Federation, will create, and have already started to create, a generation of Australians who will expect only to be able to live in accommodation such as caravans. That is all that people are able to afford these days. The reason that that is the case is that this Government, through its monetary policies, has increased interest rates. This Government, through its taxation policies, has introduced capital gains taxes and negative gearing taxes. Throughout the Labor States of Australia there are punitive landlord and tenant Acts which discourage people from investing in rental accommodation. The Government, through its taxation laws and monetary policies, has effectively driven the investor out of the rental market. These policies are making it impossible for ordinary people to afford to build a home. In my electorate, for example, it is interesting to see how bad the situation is. In Cowra, a town of 8,000 people, in May this year, 118 people had applied for public housing. In this town 188 groups of people are already living in Housing Commission homes. In Nowra the situation is far worse. There are 327 groups of people who have received approval to move into Housing Commission accommodation, but who have not yet moved into it. Another 122 people are waiting for approval. In Goulburn, about 196 groups of people are waiting for Housing Commission accommodation. These Housing Commission waiting lists would be longer than they already are if it were not for the ridiculously low income levels at which eligibility for Housing Commission homes cuts off. In the case of a single person, eligibility cuts out at an income of $201 a week and for a married couple it cuts out at $250 a week. That, of course, is just too low by today's standards. Housing Commission waiting lists, in my view, do not show the true position of the need for public housing in Australia. Last week I conducted a very quick survey of the real estate agents in my electorate. It was interesting to hear their comments. In Goulburn, for example, the comments generally were that there was very little rental accommodation and the cost of rent for existing accommodation had increased by as much as $10 a week in the last few months. In the Shoalhaven area very little rental accommodation is available. In Cowra, there is very little rental accommodation and rental costs for existing accommodation have increased by as much as 12 to 15 per cent in the last 12 months. In fact, one agent described the availability of rental accommodation as desperate. In Young, the real estate agents said that many families were on waiting lists for rental accommodation. Rents have gone up in the last 12 months so that landlords can afford just to break even on their investments. One of the agents even mentioned that landlords are now getting out of the residential property market. This Government must act. This Government must be prepared to encourage domestic investment. It must be prepared, right across Australia, to encourage the abolition of the punitive landlord and tenant Acts. It must be prepared to axe the capital gains tax, the negative gearing tax and the fringe benefits tax. The Government should not underestimate the impact of the fringe benefits tax on the housing crisis in Australia. The Government must reduce interest rates. Otherwise, instead of people throughout the country having a home which they can call a home-that is, a nice, three or four bedroom brick home, which we were all brought up to believe was a typical home-they will have a trailer park home. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(12.37) —It is a pleasure for me to follow the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) in this debate on the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill 1986. I would also like to thank the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) for his contribution. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) cited statistics, as was mentioned by the honourable member for Bendigo, in an endeavour to show the relative inefficiency of Labor State governments to provide public housing. I point out to the honourable member for Cowper, although he is not in the chamber at the moment, that he seems to be unaware of changes in eligibility and application criteria in recent times which enable single people to apply for State housing assistance. From his statistics one could draw the conclusion that people in Tasmania and Queensland either are not single or are leaving those States in droves to go to the States in which Labor governments prevail. However, I will return to the Bill. This is a machinery Bill of the most necessary kind. It will bring about the end of a piece of legislation which has no further use but which continues to cause unnecessary work and recording, as well as associated administrative costs. Its purpose is to provide an end date for the lodgment of applications under the Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982 and to provide that the Minister need not report on the operation of that Act after 30 June. As most honourable members will be aware, the home deposit assistance scheme was introduced by the Fraser Government in 1982. It provided up to $3,500 to people who bought homes between 18 March 1982 and 30 September 1983. However, it was superseded by the first home owners scheme, which is acknowledged to be a vastly superior way of assisting families with their home ownership aspirations, providing, as it did originally, a $7,000 grant for assistance with deposits or mortgage repayments, and subsequently a $6,000 grant. At that time the Government agreed to allow a reasonable period for eligible people to continue to apply for home deposit assistance under the old Act of 1982. Accordingly, more than two years later, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has indicated that the home deposit assistance scheme will be discontinued at the end of this year. Only a small number of late applications have been received during the past 12 months. If honourable members opposite view the position objectively, which I am sure they are capable of doing, they will agree that three years is a reasonable period for the limited number of people who may be eligible under the old scheme to have availed themselves of it. If any genuine applicants still remain they have until 31 December to lodge their claim. I think it bears repeating that the scheme we are discussing applies only to homes purchased between 18 March 1982 and 30 September 1983; it is effectively obsolete. Its demise is even more logical when seen in the context of the first home owners scheme which superseded it. I remind honourable members that $210m has been allocated to the first home owners scheme for 1986-87 and, as a result, 41,500 successful low and middle income earners will have been able to acquire homes. By the end of the 1986-87 financial year the total number of successful applicants will have risen to 245,000 since the inception of the scheme in 1983. In my electorate of Cowan, which has a significant amount of housing construction, the first home owners scheme has been very successful. The select construction concept of the Western Australian Government has also considerably extended the scheme's applicability to new home builders and increased the employment potential of the first home owners scheme as a result. Regrettably from my point of view it has not been possible to extend the first home owners scheme to some people who have been in a home ownership situation previously from which they have derived no apparent benefit. A constituent of mine has been rendered ineligible for the scheme because his wife had been married before and been a joint owner of a home in the course of that previous relationship. Unfortunately at the present time this previous part ownership has to be taken into account even though my constituent's wife had derived no real, lasting or capital benefit from it. Like other members on this side of the House, I handle a large number of State Housing Commission inquiries through my office even though they may be technically referred to a member of the State Parliament. It is important that Federal members also be kept aware of the housing needs of their constituents who cannot afford to either purchase or privately rent a home. Our Government has a long-standing and well-recognised commitment to the provision of adequate public housing. The provision of this type of housing assists those people in poverty or conditions bordering upon it. We have also extended rental assistance to unemployed people in private rental accommodation. As commented on by the honourable member for Stirling, housing costs are cheaper in Western Australia than in most other States. This is reflected in the level of home ownership and in access to the first home owners scheme. Like him, I reiterate my personal commitment to the retention of the 13.5 per cent housing interest rate ceiling on existing home loans. Contrary to the claims of the Opposition, the Federal Government is not committed to a high interest rate policy. We understand that rising interest rates affect the ability of home purchasers to keep up with their mortgage repayments as well as reducing the possibility for potential home buyers to build or buy a home over the longer term. However, housing, or the lack of it, is undoubtedly a contributor to poverty. As a result it has been argued quite successfully in some academic papers that an after-housing poverty measurement should be adopted. It is claimed that the after-housing poverty line is a much more sensitive measure than its before-housing counterpart, acknowledging the effect of home ownership as a form of wealth. This Government is committed to alleviating housing problems. We will continue to assist home buyers and people in need of public housing. The Western Australian Labor Government has made particular provision for people in public housing to make the transition to home ownership through the State Housing Commission or Homeswest. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard three tables which relate to the after-housing poverty to which I referred earlier. They cannot be read. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1 THE INCIDENCE OF POVERTY, BEFORE AND AFTER PAYING FOR HOUSING, BY FAMILY TYPE 1981/82 Family type Income units below poverty line Before paying for housing After paying for housing % % Couple without dependents head aged 65... 4.7 4.7 head aged >= 65... 5.4 3.9 Couple with dependents... 11.6 12.2 Single parent 46.2 40.8 Single person aged 15-24... 15.7 20.6 aged 25-64... 14.1 12.8 aged > 65... 11.0 5.2 All family types... 11.8 11.2 Total number of income units in poverty ('000)... 646.8 613.2 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Income and Housing Survey 1981/82, unit record file. Table 2 THE INCIDENCE OF POVERTY, BEFORE AND AFTER PAYING FOR HOUSING, BY TENURE 1981-82 Income units living below the poverty line Tenure Before paying for housing After paying for housing No. ('000) % of all in tenure group ('000) % of all in tenure group Owner... 223.6 11.9 101.9 5.4 Purchaser... 116.8 6.8 168.3 9.8 Tenant of housing authority... 60.7 23.7 48.2 18.8 Tenant of private landlord... 151.0 15.4 209.8 21.4 Tenant of someone in dwelling... 23.9 13.0 34.8 19.0 Tenant-special... 17.8 11.4 17.1 10.9 Rent free... 53.0 17.6 33.0 11.0 All tenures... 646.8 11.8 613.2 11.2 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Income and Housing Survey 1981/82, unit record file. Table 3 MEAN ANNUAL INCOMES AND MEAN CURRENT WEEKLY ACCOMMODATION OUTLAYS, BY TENURE 1981-82 Tenure Mean Annual Income All1 In Poverty2 Mean current weekly accommodation outlays All1 In Poverty2 $ $ $ $ Owner... 15,347 3,668 8 11 Purchaser... 22,787 8,536 68 89 Tenant of private landlord... 13,571 5,075 51 57 Tenant of housing authority... 11,184 6,340 35 34 Tenant of someone in dwelling... 8,937 3,490 29 32 Tenant-special... 17,235 4,426 30 44 Rent free... 10,962 1,999 0 0 All tenures... 16,761 5,617 36 51 Notes: 1. All: All income units, except those with incomplete income records in the Income and Housing Survey and except income units living with parents who are listed as household head. 2. In poverty: Income units in after housing poverty. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Income and Housing Survey 1981-82, unit record file. Ms JAKOBSEN —I thank the House. The tables are drawn from an article in the Australian Quarterly of Autumn 1986. I believe that they may help some other members understand the reason for the argument in favour of adopting a measure relating to after-housing measurement of poverty. What would a Liberal government do about housing? Nothing! Under a Liberal government public housing would fall off the end of the earth. Private housing would be unaffordable for middle-income earners. I congratulate the Minister upon his commitment to his portfolio and upon his commitment to public housing. I commend him also for his endeavours to maximise assistance to first home buyers in this country and in my electorate of Cowan in particular. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.46) —The Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill sets out to establish a final date of 31 December 1986 for the lodgment of an application under the now phased-out Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982. It also requires me, as Minister, to report to the Parliament on the administration of that Act for one more year, the 1986-87 financial year. It is a fairly simple Bill and, of course, honourable members on both sides of the House have taken the opportunity-as I think is quite proper-to develop the debate into a more wide-ranging one on housing policy and programs generally. In that context, the Opposition has seen fit to seek to amend the motion for the second reading. It is an amendment that the Government emphatically rejects. I just want briefly to give the House some of the reasons why the Government rejects it and in so doing I will cover some of the points raised during the debate by the Opposition housing spokesman, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). Our first home owners assistance scheme is infinitely superior to the former Government's scheme, which it replaces. To begin with, the first home owners scheme makes available both a lump sum and an interest bill subsidy, whereas the old home deposit assistance scheme only made available a lump sum. The first home owners scheme has been hailed by first home seekers, industry organisations, trade unions and lending institutions as the most successful home ownership assistance program ever seen in this country. To date, some 215,000 Australian households have benefited by way of a lump sum and/or interest subsidy, and almost $1,000m has been paid out or is committed under the scheme. Of course, that is not the end of it and we expect that about $210m will be allocated under it during this financial year. So much for the first home owners scheme. FHOS lives, FHOS continues, FHOS is infinitely superior to its predecessor. As far as industry performance is concerned, Mr Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable gentleman is very generous but Deputy Speaker will do fine, thank you. Mr WEST —I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us just look at the state of the industry. In each of the three years that this Government has been in office-having in mind also the expectations for this year-housing commencements have far exceeded those achieved during the last year in office of the previous Government. That Government achieved only 105,000 starts in that year. In contrast, in every year since, culminating in 1984-85, when it achieved 153,000 starts, the Hawke Labor Government has achieved far more housing starts than did the previous Government. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), in responding to the motion for the second reading, covered the issue of employment in Australia and in the housing and construction industry generally. I will just give the House the figures. Back in the middle of 1983, 387,000 persons were employed in the housing and construction industry. Currently 490,000 are so employed; that is, over 100,000 more people are employed in the housing and construction industry than were so employed when this Government attained office. Those figures speak for themselves. I turn now, very briefly, to the issue of Federal funding of public housing. This year funding by Federal and State governments combined for public housing, for the acquisition of rental accommodation and for the subsidisation of assisted loans to low income earners through the co-operative societies, the State banks and other lending instrumentalities that the State governments wish to use, will total almost $2 billion. The results are evident in the figures. I wish to refer to the record in 1982-83 of the former Government. I am sure that the honourable member for Deakin would rather not be associated with the housing performance of that Government, but he cannot escape it because its record in public housing was very poor and very bad indeed. Of course, his latest policy is, by abolishing pensioner assistance and Aboriginal rental assistance programs, to slash savagely funding for public housing. I do not want to digress too far. I was pointing out that, as a result of increased funding through direct grants and cheap loans under State borrowing programs at the concessional interest rate of 41/2 per cent, the Federal Government and the States are going to spend some $2,000m on public housing assistance in this financial year. In addition to allowing 14,000 to 15,000 low interest loans to be made available, Federal and State funding of public housing, this will also enable about 22,500 new commencements to occur. Rental acquisitions this year should increase by about 18,000. That represents more than double the number of yearly acquisitions-or add-ons to the national stock-that the former Government achieved in 1982-83. The Labor Government has doubled the number of annual acquisitions to the national rental housing stock. That is a mighty performance in anyone's language. I turn now to the issue of the private rental market, which has attracted some publicity recently and which the Opposition spokesman mentioned in his speech. Mr Blunt —Do you agree with Frank Walker? Mr WEST —I am perfectly well aware of the nature of the remarks made by the New South Wales Minister for Housing. Regarding what Frank Walker had to say about negative gearing, I simply say this: It is the policy of the Opposition, not of the Government, to restore the tax rorts which were inherent in the old system of allowing tax write-offs to the extent of the full interest bill being offset against all income. We do not allow that any more and do not apologise for our decision in that regard. If the New South Wales State Labor Government and its Minister wish to embrace such tax avoidance measures as were evident in the policy of the former Federal Government it is on the State Government's shoulders, not mine. We will not return to that situation. Let us just have a look at the figures. Without decrying the tightness of the private rental market, without wishing to minimise the fact that that rental market is tight in two cities, Sydney and Perth-there are specific reasons why it is tight in Perth-I should point out that, according to the latest report of the Real Estate Institute of Australia regarding vacancy rates in the private rental market, only in the cities of Sydney and Perth is the vacancy rate tighter than it was four years ago, in September 1982. Let me compare some figures. Melbourne, in September 1982, had a vacancy rate, according to the Real Estate Institute of Australia quarterly report, of 1.4 per cent. Today its rate is 1.8 per cent. In Brisbane at that time the rate was 0.8 per cent; today it is 4.5 per cent. If honourable members opposite want to say that the result of the policy changes on negative gearing has been to create a vacancy tightness in Sydney and in Perth, I say to them that it was certainly not a good result that the outcome of the tax rorting, tax avoidance policies which existed in the period to September 1982 created vacancy rates in Brisbane and Melbourne of 0.8 and 1.4 per cent respectively. I understand also that some figures were given regarding the alleged blowout in rentals in the private market of the major cities. Some very extravagant figures, up to 25 and 30 per cent, were mentioned. There has been a slight increase in rental charges, but to nowhere near the extent indicated by the figures mentioned by the Opposition. The private rental component of the consumer price index increased by 10.7 per cent in the year to June 1986. This is to be set beside a CPI rise of 8.4 per cent over the comparable period. So there was a slight disparity, but nothing like the disparity that the honourable member for Deakin claimed during his speech. What the Government has done in this area is introduce a depreciation allowance on new buildings, and that will continue. It has the added advantage of stimulating new construction, rather than speculative activity in the existing market. I turn now to the issue, raised by the Opposition, of the availability of finance now compared with its availability when the former Government was in office. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for housing finance extended by all significant lenders have just been released. I do not know whether honourable members opposite are aware of that but they should have a look at the figures. The seasonally adjusted figures for the month of August 1986 show that $992.5m was lent by all lending institutions. That represents an annualised rate of almost $12 billion. Savings banks lent $638m or at an annualised rate of $7.6 billion, which compares with about $2.9 billion during the last year of office of the former Government. I repeat that I would be the first to say, as I have in this House, that the 15.5 per cent rate for new-I stress new-savings bank loans does put some pressure upon the capacity of some lower income earners to afford those loans. I have also pointed to the availability of low start loans and invite the Opposition to join me in publicising the availability of those loans. If more people inquire at the banks as to their availability and take them up it will certainly help the industry. For instance, the Commonwealth Savings Bank has a scheme which offers a starting rate of 9.5 per cent, to be repaid over 15 years at progressively higher repayments. Westpac has a similar scheme with an initial repayment based on an interest rate of 12.5 per cent. The National Australia Bank has a scheme which involves an initial repayment at 10 per cent. The Australia and New Zealand Bank's scheme involves the repayment of 80 per cent of a normal 20-year repayment figure. The State Bank of Victoria offers a 12.5 per cent starting rate, as does the Advance Bank. Significant advantages are available to people under low start loans, if they care to take them up. I have pointed out that the first home owners scheme also offers to low income earners a significant interest rate subsidy that is spread over five years. Having said all of that, I return to the fundamental issue-the economic questions that have been raised during this debate. It is true to say that the future of interest rates will determine the immediate and intermediate future of the housing industry. I point out to the honourable member for Deakin, who sagely nods his head in agreement, that short term bill rates reached an all-time high in June 1982, and that the current trend is for short term interest rates to head downwards. Currently, 90-day bank bill rates are about 16.5 per cent and, as I have said before, that will soon be reflected in a drop in cash management trust rates, the rates that in the main compete with those for savings banks deposits. We have in place fiscal policies which will be conducive to a reduction in short term interest rates. For instance, the Budget deficit was reduced by 38 per cent this year. (Quorum formed). As I was saying before that diversion, this Government has in place the fiscal policies to ensure that the current downward trend in short term business rates will continue. The Budget deficit has been reduced by 38 per cent, a domestic surplus level of $0.8 billion has been established and the public sector borrowing requirement has been reduced to 4.4 per cent of gross domestic product. All this is conducive to a downward trend in short term interest rates. On top of that over recent days, as everyone knows, the Australian dollar has firmed considerably and remains stable, so conditions are in place which will permit the lowering of short term interest rates, which in turn should benefit the housing industry over the next few quarters. The last point that I want to take up is the Opposition's assertion that the former Government ran low-tax policies. I simply point to the tables on income tax that were introduced as part of the 1982 Budget-the last presented by the former Government under which a person earning less than $35,788 was subjected to a taxation rate of 46c in the dollar. Mr Beale —I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the fact that the Minister's time has expired. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may respond as necessary. Mr WEST —Those persons who earned over $36,000 were taxed at the rate of 60c. What is the position under this Government? As from 1 December the equivalent rates will not be 46c, but 29c, not 60c, but 55c-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister must draw his remarks to a close since his time has expired. I am sorry. The Minister's time has expired. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Beale's amendment) stand part of the question The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. ABeazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V. Brown, John Lee, M. Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J. Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J. Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. Gear, J. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. 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. Jakobsen, C. A. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodgman, W. M. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen Macphee, I. M. Carlton, J. J. Miles, C. G. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Jacobi, R. MacKellar, M. G. H. Question so resolved in the affirmative Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr West) read a third time. Debate resumed from 15 October, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(1.15) —Let me say at the outset that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill, notwithstanding that it has certain concerns about the Government's policy on care for the aged and will be moving an amendment at the Committee stage to certain detail and machinery provisions of the measure. It is very timely that the Bill should come before the Parliament now because in the nursing homes of New South Wales, and shortly Australia, we will see a general crisis emerging-mainly because this Government's rhetoric has not been turned into action. Care for the aged in this community is something with which we should all be very, very much concerned. We all have parents. We all face the inevitability of old age. With that old age comes a concern for our security and for our capacity to deal with our rapidly changing community. This Government, because it has failed to translate its rhetoric into effective policy, has in New South Wales caused considerable trauma, suffering and worry for many residents of nursing homes. This trauma arises because the Government is unaware of, or is unconcerned about, the consequences of its actions. As a result of an increase in wage rates for nurses, as well as in the overall cost of operating nursing homes, a general increase in fees was granted. The minimum fee increase was $5.10 per day, which meant that for all nursing homes in New South Wales there was a $35.70 per patient per week increase in fees. For those who are not aware of the funding arrangements for nursing home care, it is important to understand that the cost of paying for nursing home care is met by, first, the contribution on the part of the patients themselves, generally through pension or rental assistance when available and, second the Commonwealth bed subsidy. What has happened, because of this Government's policy, is that the approved fees charged by nursing homes have gone up. But nothing has been done about the level of pension paid to many of the residents in those homes and no decision has been taken on the Commonwealth bed subsidy. The consequence of that inaction has been that a considerable gap, has developed between the income available to the nursing home through the bed subsidy and the contribution made by the patient or resident-through pension and/or rent subsidy if available-and the cost of providing the accommodation. In some cases that differential has widened to the extent, I am told, of $80 a week. In one case, because of the type of care provided it has gone even higher. The problem that this Government must really come to terms with is that we are dealing with people. We are not dealing with the administrative convenience of the bureaucracy. We are not dealing with the scheduling convenience of the Cabinet. I am aware that there is a proposal from the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) to Cabinet seeking a review of the Commonwealth Government contribution to the bed subsidy, but I am told that that is not going to be considered until next week. The approval for fee increases took place, in most cases, on either 1 October or 15 October. Before a decision is taken there will be a considerable period during which a large number of elderly Australians will be insecure as to their status in the community and the future of their accommodation. Of course we have no guarantee of the decision that Cabinet will make. I believe that it is about time that the Government actually recognised the consequences of its actions and translated its rhetoric about concern, about commitment to welfare, into effective welfare policies, into an administrative policy that did not cause hardship. This, of course, is not the first time that this gap has arisen. In my experience as a member of parliament the problem has arisen on an annual basis. This year it is exacerbated because of the size of the fee increases approved but to my knowledge there has been no attempt by the Government to synchronise the increase in pensions through consumer price index adjustment, the approval dates for nursing home fee increases and the review of the bed subsidy. There is always a period in which people are concerned about their ability to meet the gap between the funds available to them, both directly and indirectly, and the charges imposed upon them by the source of their accommodation. This Government, in campaigning for office, talked about an Office of Aged Care. It was very tardy in implementing that promise. The Government having implemented that Office, at this stage, I see no evidence of its being effective in developing a more practical and more humane set of policies for the aged in our community. Quite frankly, I see no evidence of a concern to consider the interaction of the various welfare policies that affect the aged in our community. There is no concern to understand the interaction of such political decisions as the implementation of the assets test, the withdrawal of income concession averaging provisions or even the deferral of the CPI adjustments to pensions or the impact that this will have on those in our community who are perhaps the least able to cope with these changes-that is, the residents of nursing homes. As I have said, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. We believe that in general terms it is a move in the right direction. We are concerned that greater emphasis should be placed on alternative care facilities for the aged in our community. There has been a general policy on the part of all recent governments that 70 per cent of residents in approved accommodation institutions should be able to meet the cost of accommodation with seven-eighths of their age pension and rent assistance, if payable. I believe that there is a need for a firm statement by this Government of its commitment to a continuation of this policy and a recognition that there needs to be administrative change as to the details of the way in which the components of that policy interact. We cannot afford in the future to have unpredictable periods during which a gap obtains. We cannot afford to allow that gap to blow out for periods of time without having an underpinning policy which provides security for those residents. It is important to understand the significance of the cost to the Commonwealth Government of providing aged accommodation. I am told that 55 per cent of the Department of Community Services' annual costs are accounted for by the provision of accommodation assistance and subsidies for the aged of Australia. Those subsidies are of benefit to a relatively small number of aged Australians. Most elderly Australians still live independently. Of those aged between 65 and 74, 1.5 per cent benefit from these subsidies; of those aged 75 to 84, 8.5 per cent benefit; and of those 85 and older, 36 per cent benefit. There are still a large number of Australians who are independent. It is for those Australians that we should be looking towards developing a more creative, more imaginative and more diverse system of accommodation support. There are a number of options available. These were considered in a review of accommodation available to aged Australians recently commissioned by the Government. In general terms we have no argument with the results of that study. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), speaking on behalf of his colleague in the other place, indicated that the basic philosophical goals of the Government in this area were fourfold. The first was that aged and disabled people should, as far as possible, be supported in their own homes and in their own communities. That is an objective that we support. The second was that aged and disabled people should be supported by residential services only where other support systems were not appropriate to meeting their needs. We have no argument with that objective at all. The third was that services should be provided in an atmosphere which promoted, and using processes which promoted, as far as possible rehabilitation and restoration of function. It was stated that the manner in which services were provided should develop and enhance personal freedom and the independent functioning of all residents. We wholeheartedly support that objective also. The fourth was that services should be based on a recognition that, for many, being discharged to a residential service that provided a less intensive form of care, or to a community-based support service, would be a possible and desirable outcome. That, of course, is a laudable objective and has the total support of the Opposition. We are also generally in agreement with the approach of the Government in terms of the principles underpinning its planning in this area. In his second reading speech the Minister said that the processes underlying the development of the Government's policies in these matters would include: (i) the requirement for flexible planning, which provides for monitoring, evaluation and changes where necessary, including more integration with community services; (ii) a publicised and better resourced hostel sector so that hostels can care for increasingly dependent aged people; (iii) the extension of residential care services beyond hostels to other forms of accommodation such as group housing arrangements; We support that and would add that we believe that those Australians who wish to live independently in their later years should have the capacity to do so provided, of course, that they also bear the financial responsibility for living outside any government approved system. The Minister continued: (iv) the expansion of community services to assist those elderly people most at risk of premature and inappropriate institutionalisation . . . That, of course, is a most important consideration and of great concern to many old people. The final principle laid down was: (v) the importance of carefully developing the process of assessment so that it will gain support from consumers, professionals and service providers. That, of course, is also very important because we cannot have a system that is not supported by those who are part of the system. Mr Deputy Speaker, it concerns me that the Government has moved in these directions. Previously in this place we have considered legislation known as the Home and Community Care Act. It was designed to provide additional financial facilities for the care of people outside of institutional care facilities. The Opposition at the time supported that legislation. We have, however, been concerned to see that its implementation has been far from perfect and that the objectives of the Government have not been achieved. We are concerned also that part of the problem in achieving those objectives relates to the attitudes of State governments. We are also concerned that perhaps those attitudes reflect the parochial nature of State governments and a determination on the part of those governments to persist with their own policies notwithstanding the Federal Government's contribution by way of finance. We believe that it is necessary to persist with that direction of policy development and would encourage the Government to do so at every opportunity and in the strongest possible terms. Turning now to the provisions of the Bill itself, as I said, we on this side do not oppose it. In general terms we agree with the principles that underlie it. However, as with many pieces of Labor Government legislation we are concerned about the detail of the way in which it intends to implement the proposals. We are concerned that the proposals are perhaps a little centralised, provide perhaps too much power in the hands of the Minister and, in one particular area in respect of which we will be proposing an amendment later in this debate, give the Minister absolute discretion. We believe that in that particular case it is appropriate for the matter to be brought before the Parliament and for the Parliament to have power of disallowance if that is considered appropriate. This Bill has a number of parts. Part I is a preliminary and introductory passage. Part II amends the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act. It affords the Minister discretion to give up to 100 per cent, instead of 80 per cent, of capital funding for financially disadvantaged groups. That, of course, has the effect of eliminating the need for a matching grant. In the circumstances in which I believe the Minister intends to use that discretion we believe that it is an appropriate change and we support it. However, we do believe that there is a need for the Parliament to have the power of disallowance concerning such proposals. It also increases funding for people receiving hostel care services, personal care services and respite care services in hostels. Parts III and IV amend the National Health Act and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act respectively. Control of the growth of the number of nursing home beds is obtained by allowing the Minister to specify a maximum of subsidised beds in each State and Territory, and region of a State or Territory. That is one example of our concern about the specific provisions or approaches that the Labor Government adopts in regard to legislation of this type. There is a tendency to centralise such power in the hands of the Minister. Notwithstanding our recognition of the need to have overall planning control, we believe that it is important for there to be countervailing balances to ensure that the needs of regions are truly met and there is an appropriate recognition of the competing demands of the various regions. Australia, as is well known to all members of this place, is a very large and diverse country. Our demographic pattern has aberrations. Some regions have much higher numbers of aged people than do others. To be frank about it, from time to time differences in priorities arise out of the political circumstances of the time. For that reason we believe that there is a need for a public decision-making process and a capacity in the Parliament to examine the basis of the Minister's decisions in allocating facilities throughout Australia. I do not believe that there can be any real argument against the provision of public information regarding this particular process. In my own region, that of the far north coast of New South Wales, we have a higher than normal number of aged people. We have fewer than the necessary number of aged care facilities. That particular situation should and must be rectified. As honourable members know, I represent the National Party and Australia currently has a Labor Government in power. I would hope that we would have a process of decision-making that would assure all of the people of Australia that political considerations would not be involved in determining the allocation of resources throughout the country. I cite that merely as an example of the need to reassure all Australians that determining aged care policy in Australia occurs on a non-party political basis. I personally believe that it is something that is beyond party politics and that there is a need for a genuine bipartisan approach to the decision-making process concerning it. The other provisions of Parts III and IV allow the Minister to specify, on the basis of advice from the aged care advisory committees, which regions should be allocated special needs beds; to set a maximum of such beds in a State and Territory; to approve a nursing home, firstly, in principle and, secondly, as to the premises themselves after construction; to revoke approval for a nursing home which does not comply with the conditions specified. That is, of course, a most important power. These provisions also enable the Minister to specify who will be allowed to occupy special needs beds; and, finally, to alter from time to time the conditions applicable to a nursing home. With reference to the concerns that I have expressed, we have no argument in general terms with that particular process. We believe that, used properly, it will promote better aged care and enable all Australians to have confidence in their future and a belief that in their old age appropriate accommodation will be available to them at an affordable cost. As I have mentioned, I am concerned that there does not seem to be on the part of the Government a preparedness to examine the interaction of the social welfare policies that exist from time to time. I believe that it is appropriate to continue in the direction of changing the emphasis from the provision of nursing home beds to the other options that are available to care for people. Those options, of course, include such things as self-care units and hostel care. I am, however, concerned that we do not see public debate occurring about the method of allocating government finance in this particular area. Perhaps I could take a moment to examine the principles underlying the provision of the bed subsidy. There is general agreement in Australia that our welfare system should be needs-based. Once a nursing home bed is approved, the Commonwealth bed subsidy continues to be paid on that bed irrespective of the person who occupies it. There is, I believe, a need to consider, first of all, the person's need to occupy the bed and, secondly, that person's financial situation. We could have a situation where there was a continuing demand for fairly scarce Commonwealth resources in this area because of a failure to adjust the underlying principles of aged care financial assistance. It would be appropriate in my view to ensure that there was a consistent philosophy underlying our welfare system, to ensure that the limited resources available, both directly through the Department of Social Security and by way of program assistance through the Department of Community Services, were allocated on the same basis. There should be, I believe, confidence on the part of all those Australians who are interested, both personally and on behalf of members of their family, that there will continue to be a consistent policy in this area. The Opposition does not regard this as a controversial Bill. It has our support. We have certain reservations about the implementation of the policy and will propose an amendment at the Committee stage. On that basis I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(1.35) —In rising to support the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill I do so with a good deal of enthusiasm. This is the first piece of legislation, I think it is fair to say, since the days of the Menzies Government, that has really shaken up the underlying principles on which our nursing homes and hostels are administered and I think that it is probably long overdue. The system that was established after the war and in the 1950s has really just been allowed to grow like Topsy with only limited adjustments over the years. The review that the Government has undertaken, which led to this legislation, undoubtedly was long overdue and will ensure that proper parameters for the aged care system in this country will be laid down and developed over the ensuing few years. I want at the outset to comment on a couple of things that the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) had to say. I share to some extent his concern about ensuring that the various regions of this nation are properly equipped with nursing home beds and hostels, but I must say that I was a bit surprised at his comment, that he was concerned that his own electorate, and the area of the north coast and the northern regions of New South Wales generally, were not adequately equipped with nursing home beds. I would have thought that he, as a National Party member, would be only too aware of the fact that the north coast and northern areas of New South Wales have, for a generation and longer, been represented in this place by National Party members-Mr Sinclair, Mr Anthony and various others. If there is anybody to blame for the fact that that area of the nation lacks nursing home beds and hostels, quite clearly it must be sheeted home to National Party representation over the last generation. There is no doubt that if those honourable members had been doing their jobs adequately the situation that he complains of would not exist. As I have said, this is an important piece of legislation and one which is going to ensure that aged care in this country will be adequate and responsive to the needs that are obviously going to develop over the next few years, as the population ages. There is an obvious imbalance in the way in which Government resources are directed towards providing the assistance required by our senior citizens. This manifests itself in a number of ways and is the result of many factors. Briefly these are as follows: There is a geographical imbalance, as to where nursing homes are situated. In most cases they are in the wealthy areas and, although this is a generalisation, if we refer to the cities of the nation we find that the vast majority of nursing home beds are to be found in the eastern suburbs-the eastern suburbs of Melbourne; the eastern suburbs of Sydney; the eastern suburbs of Adelaide and the eastern suburbs of Brisbane. The system as it exists promotes an uncontrolled growth of highly institutionalised and expensive care which is not always consistent with the needs or wishes of aged people. If I could just comment on that for a moment, one only has to go to nursing homes, as I do frequently in my electorate, to see many people who really do not need to be there particularly but who, because of their fear for the future, have sought nursing homes beds-or their families have sought them-when they have been available. They feared that a bed may not be available later when the need for one became more acute. A further factor is that the expense of providing institutionalised aged care has meant that the poorer sections of the community have been quite severely disadvantaged. If, in the Adelaide metropolitan area, we go to the area of Elizabeth, we find that virtually no nursing home beds exist. The newer working class areas are very poorly serviced with such beds. To some extent there has been a legitimate argument that those beds have not been needed so much there because the age of the population has been lower, but that situation is rapidly changing. The institutionalised structures have been tending to establish nursing homes beds in the more well-to-do areas where there are already community groups operating nursing homes with a capacity to continue to expand the number of beds that they operate, simply because of the fact that they are able to generate funds. Since coming to office, the Government has been very concerned to redress the imbalances and the inequalities that the factors I have mentioned have produced. In particular the review of nursing homes and hostels was undertaken to enable the Government to get high quality information and advice on the problems of aged care throughout the nation. One problem is that we have had very little information with which to plan for the future of aged care provision. We know more about the animal population of this country than we do about the numbers, problems, and whereabouts of our senior citizens. I believe that is a great condemnation of the way in which we have treated our senior citizens. The review's recommendations were very well received. Consequently, the Government has decided to move quickly to implement its decisions, which are consistent with the recommendations that were made. This Bill, in the Budget context, is the first in a series of pieces of legislation which will be introduced over the next 12 months to give effect to the recommendations contained in the review. Just what did the review recommend? First, it suggested that there needed to be a move away from intensive, institutionalised care to home and community care. This means a move from high cost nursing home provision to the more flexible, more human, and more cost-efficient care, such as hostels, home care, and special services for special groups in the community. Second, it found that nursing homes were outrageously expensive to run. The aging of our population means that the costs associated with the existing provision are going to increase markedly and rapidly. It will be impossible for any Government to maintain the existing level of expenditure into the medium term. At the moment we are spending over $1,000m each year on nursing home recurrent subsidies. We spend only $100m on home and community care programs. Most aged people want to live at home and in fact most do. Only 7 per cent of our senior citizens live in nursing homes. The other 93 per cent live at home, or in other circumstances. The imbalance here is patently obvious. We are spending $1,000m, or one billion dollars, each year on 7 per cent of the aged population, and only $100m on the remaining 93 per cent. This can hardly be said to be equitable. To return to the main features of the system as it stands, there is no incentive at present to prevent the uncontrolled growth of nursing home beds. In fact the system is working as a positive incentive for get rich quick merchants to rip off both the old and the Government. There is no doubt that this has occurred. We have only to look at a number of the reports that have circulated to know that the conditions in some nursing homes are absolutely disgraceful, leaving those who are inmates-since there is no other word to describe people while in such institutions-with little or no dignity, with little or no comfort, and with little or no respect. I am pleased to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in my electorate the nursing homes are of a very high quality-all in quite new buildings, in pleasant surroundings and have staff, as I have found on my visits, who treat patients and residents with the greatest of care, love, and attention. But, as we know from many of the reports that have submitted by both the Commonwealth Government and the State governments, that is not the situation throughout the nation. The fact is, however, that the current system acts to encourage uncontrolled growth and means that the few who have access to nursing homes have an easier time of it than they might otherwise have. Secondly, Australia has a very good provision of beds in nursing homes and hostels. It has more than 100 beds per thousand people over the age of 70, which is the target that has been set. In a community where most senior citizens have expressed a preference for living in their own homes, or with their families, a system which encourages uncontrolled growth above the target, with the increased expenditure that this will involve, cannot be justified on either economic or social grounds. The Government, in accepting the recommendations of the review, is planning to change the mix in the provision of beds for institutional care. This change will not be disruptive and will not be rapid. It will occur in a planned and sensitive way over the next 20 to 25 years. In effect, the mix of beds will be reversed from 60 to 70 per cent in nursing homes and only 30 to 40 per cent in hostels to about 70 per cent in hostels and only 30 per cent in nursing homes. This is consistent with wide-ranging views on the provision of aged care and will promote non-institutionalised and sensitive care for the elderly. It is, of course, also economically responsible. Under the legislation that the Government is introducing the new target will be achieved by funding the growth in beds, as required, at a 90 per cent level in hostels and only a 10 per cent level in nursing homes. At the same time the Government will significantly increase the capital expenditure for hostels. In order further to assist hostels, which will be taking increasingly frail people, the Government has decided to index the hostel subsidy each November and from May 1987 there will be a real increase in the weekly subsidy per person to be paid to hostels for aged care. This is one initiative in the new scheme which the legislation will introduce which I particularly welcome. The feature that I am particularly pleased about is the recognition that poorer and disadvantaged groups in our community, such as Aboriginal Australians, some ethnic groups and other low income groups, have been quite severely discriminated against by the system as it operates at present. Under the new arrangements the Government has decided to increase the capital subsidies to help such community groups with special needs and will provide up to 100 per cent of capital funds to provide facilities for the care of their aged people. I am confident that this will be a significant advance which is going to be of tremendous advantage and assistance to a large group of people who have previously found great difficulty in obtaining nursing home and hostel beds. I am especially pleased about it because I have a case in my electorate which has been of concern to me for some time. An Italian community group has been endeavouring to expand a nursing home established there but has been unable to do so because it has been unable to raise 20 per cent of the capital costs. This has gone on year after year. They have raised more and more money but because of the increases in building costs the effect has been that every year they have just not been able to meet the 80 per cent requirement. This provision should ensure that they will be able to be funded to meet the need, which the Department of Community Services recognises is present. In reaching its decisions the Government has consulted widely. A number of factors led it to adopt the changes which this legislation initiates. Those factors were noted by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in his statement. They were the requirement for flexible planning which provides for monitoring, evaluation and changes where necessary, including more integration with community services; a publicised and better resourced hostel sector so that hostels can care for increasingly dependent aged people; the extension of residential care services beyond hostels to other forms of accommodation such as group housing arrangements; and the need to expand community services to assist those elderly people most at risk of premature and inappropriate institutionalisation. Finally, there was the importance of carefully developing the processes of assessment so that it would gain support from consumers, professionals and service providers. I think those factors are set out very clearly and I support them strongly as the Minister has referred to them, because many of us, I am sure know, of cases of elderly people who, for various reasons, have been encouraged by families, friends or peer group pressure to put their names down to go into nursing homes. When a bed has become available they have in fact gone into the nursing home, found that it was certainly not to their liking and in some cases have actually been able to go back to living independently with a degree of community support. I know one lady in Melbourne who is, I think, about 95 now. She was put into a nursing home about 10 years ago, did not find that it was entirely to her liking, decided that she was not going to be bothered with it any more and found herself a flat. She has been living in that flat and, subsequently, a couple of others-she did not like some of the neighbours and moved again. She is still living independently with community support. The factors that I have mentioned have had a wide acceptance as guiding principles for the provision of aged care in the community and have formed the basis of the legislation which is now before this House. Their acceptance will overcome the problems which I have already noted-the uncontrolled growth of the nursing home sector, the rip-offs and disgraceful treatment of some of our senior citizens, and the unmanageable increase in expenditure that will be entailed if sensitive and carefully planned changes are not made now. Most importantly, the legislation will allow us to better meet the needs of our aged in a way which will provide them with a high standard of care and services and recognise the independence which they rightfully want to retain. It will allow our senior citizens to live with respect and dignity, as they are entitled to do. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(1.53) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because it is a piece of legislation that touches on a very important subject. There is a lot of debate in the community about how our population is aging. Whilst that is true, it is true largely because of the dramatic drop in the fertility rate in this country since the early 1960s. In fact, had family formation size continued, we might not be seeing an aging of the population. There would, however, have been the same absolute increase in the number of people aged 65 and over. No one should object to that because, after all, we spend an immense amount of resources in medical research so that an ever-increasing proportion of our population can have the joy and pleasure of longer lives. What then is important is that during those longer lives, a high percentage of people should be enabled to live in comfort and in circumstances with friends and family, as they would choose. But sadly, for some, it is not just the 7 per cent who happen to be in nursing homes today, as was implied by the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan), because that is looking at it on a still photograph basis. Over time, more than 7 per cent of our aged population spend some time, and for some of them long periods of time, in nursing homes. They spend it in nursing homes because their medical condition is such that that is the only way they can live in reasonable comfort. It is true that in the past, and sometimes still now, people in nursing homes have been and are well enough to live in circumstances where the costs of their care and accommodation are not as high. But contrary to the experience of the honourable member for Makin, mine has been that in visiting nursing homes in my electorate-and mine is next door to his electorate-in recent times it has been very difficult to identify people in nursing homes who, looking at them through a layman's eyes, seem to need that accommodation. I agree that we should keep the number of people in nursing homes at a minimum, because if we can make people comfortable in accommodation where they can care for and look after themselves, they should be able to live in those homely surroundings which we would all prefer to live in. If, as people grow older, they need care and assistance, if we can provide it to them in their own homes so we should. If it cannot be provided to them in their own homes and hostel care is the only alternative, that should be provided. I felt that the honourable member for Makin was implying that this report was bringing about dramatic changes. I do not think it is. I was interested in the fact that this legislation is based upon a report that said: Services for aged persons are provided in a framework of a continuum of care. Within this continuum the emphasis should be on maintaining people in their own homes, rather than in institutional or residential care with services matched to care needs. I guess if one takes the jargon out of that quotation what we are saying is that we should provide the care that people need and only when they need it, for it is what the people want as well as what is sensible in economic terms. But if they need care, care should be available for them. The same thing has happened with our policies for caring for the aged. They have developed along a continuum and there have been times when the greatest need was to provide independent living units. When that gap was filled, the urgent need was nursing home care. It may be true that in the past, as it will be true now, we tend to get fads and fixations about what is the most important area of need. I urge upon the Government, and upon the departments which administer the Government's policies, that they maintain a balanced approach, a sensitive approach to the needs of people and not, because they have a hang-up about one particular approach, deny people who need other types of care appropriate standards and levels of care. There is much that can be said in relation to this legislation and I want to spend some time in talking about the needs in the nursing home area. There are, as honourable members would be aware, three types of nursing homes: Those that are known as participating nursing homes run by independent organisations; those that are deficit-funded nursing homes which are provided by non-profit charitable and benevolent organisations; and State government nursing homes. I want to talk, when this debate resumes later today, on the effects of this Government's policies on the patients in those nursing homes because of the high level of insecurity that is being caused to those patients due to the uncertainty that they are confronted with as to the cost they will have to bear in respect of their necessary nursing home care. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It now being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his promise in the 1984 election campaign. Mr Cobb —Which one? Mr HOWARD —The one about inflation. We will come to the other ones later. I quote the Prime Minister: We expect inflation will be less than 5 per cent in the year ahead and we are determined to keep it below 5 per cent. Is it a fact that Australia's inflation rate has increased dramatically since that time and is currently almost 9 per cent? Will the Prime Minister accept that his election commitment on inflation can now be added to his ever increasing list of broken promises? Mr HAWKE —No, the fact is that the-- Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —When members of the Opposition are in trouble, they always press the giggle button. The fact is that by the beginning of 1985, a year after the last election, this Government had brought down the inflation rate in this country to the figure which the honourable gentleman refers to. So, within the capacity of the policies of this Government, that promise was delivered. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —There goes that giggle button again. It is no substitute for analysis. The fact is that since the end of January 1985, by which time the figure I said in 1984 would be achieved had been achieved, there has been a 35 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar associated with a massive decline in the terms of trade of which the honourable gentleman should be aware. If he is so economically inept, as well as being economically dishonest, that he says that that will have no impact-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will withdraw that remark. Mr HAWKE —Well, if he is both-- Mr Howard —Are you going to withdraw it? Madam SPEAKER —Withdraw the comment, please. Mr HAWKE —Yes, I withdraw it, Madam Speaker-of course I do. I rephrase it by saying that, if he adds to his capacity for misrepresentation a monumental incompetence by saying that those externally imposed factors will have no impact upon the Australian internal inflation rate, one can simply be sorry for him. The fact is that, in terms of this Government's policies, in the year after the election we produced the outcome that I promised. We cannot have a 35 per cent depreciation and a massive decline in the terms of trade and expect that there will be no adverse outcome. But the fact is that even with that externally imposed pressure, which has been responsible for this upturn in the inflation rate, this Government still has not managed to achieve the inflation rate which we inherited from the Treasurer under the Fraser Government. The rate of inflation which this Government inherited was 11.2 per cent. The former Treasurer managed to achieve that simply as a result of a combination of his own totally inept and misguided economic policies. He had no wages policy, a fact which he subsequently admitted in a moment of candour. He said: `One of the problems with my administration was that we had no wages policy'. How right he was. Not only did the previous Government have no wages policy but it also had a policy which allowed a wages blow-out in this country of 17 per cent. If one has a policy like that, of course one is going to hand over to an incoming government a rate of 11.2 per cent. We more than halved that in terms of the direct promise that I made to the people of Australia. With the appropriate fiscal, monetary and wages policies that we have in place, we still have an inflation outcome significantly below that which was the outcome of the honourable member for Bennelong's stewardship of the economic management of this country. If one is going to come into this debate and talk about inflation, one has to have respectable credentials. The honourable gentleman comes to this debate with the worst credentials of any Treasurer in the history of this country. Fancy producing 11.2 per cent inflation as a result of one's own inept economic policies! The fact is that the market has taken the consumer price index figure for today in its stride. In fact, we have seen, much to the regret of the Opposition, I am sure, that the exchange rate has increased and the dollar has gone over 64c. In other words, the market has taken account of the CPI in terms that I indicated within the last week or so. I indicated the reasons why the CPI in the September quarter would be high and why it would probably continue to be high in the December quarter. It is on track with the forecast in the Budget handed down by the Treasurer. Of course, it is true that in 1987, as I have said, inflation will be trending down. It will be trending down because under this Government we have the right policies in regard to wages, the right budgetary policy and the right policies in regard to the whole fiscal stance that is required in this country. Under the combination of those policies the inflation rate in 1987 will be trending down. I repeat: No man can come into this House when he has inflicted upon Australia an 11.2 per cent inflation rate because he did not have the economic competence, wit or wisdom to have the right policies and criticise this Government, a government which has more than halved that inflation rate. Mr HUMPHREYS —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the House whether all States have shared in the benefits of the Hawke Labor Government's economic policies? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Griffith for his very penetrating question. It is relevant that the honourable member comes from the State of Queensland. The fact is that most States have done very well indeed as a result of the economic and other policies of this Government. The one notable exception, which the honourable member knows, of course, to his great regret, is the State of Queensland. Queensland is simply in a terrible economic mess. I can only applaud, together, I am sure, with at least all honourable members on this side of the House and half the honourable members on the other side of the House, the statements of Sir Roderick Proctor for his courage and his honesty. We understand that this gentleman is, at least temporarily, a trustee of the National Party of Australia in Queensland. In his attack on cronyism in Queensland, in his devastating statements on the charade which accompanies the tendering process in Queensland, he said that it was obvious before the tendering process was completed who would win. He said it was a charade and went on to talk about the myth of Queensland being a low taxing, free enterprise State. Those statements of a trustee of the National Party simply underlie the horrific state of the Queensland economy under the leadership of the National Party. The simple fact is that when the resources boom burst in Queensland, Queensland was simply left high and dry because the Queensland Government, under Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, did not have the semblance of an economy policy to deal with the facts of that case. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the Prime Minister stop for a moment? I remind the honourable member for O'Connor of standing order 58, which states: Every Member of the House, when he comes into the Chamber, shall take his seat, and shall not at any time stand in any of the passages or gangways. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, as you pay attention to the Standing Orders, no doubt you will shortly ask the Prime Minister to cut short his tirade. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. May I suggest to the honourable member for O'Connor that he does not have the right to take the microphone whenever he feels like it. Mr HAWKE —The tragedy of the ineptitude of the Queensland Government in the area of economic policy is that Queensland has the lowest living standard of any State of Australia. It has the second highest unemployment rate, and the attempts that have been made to blame that upon an alleged influx of young people into Queensland have been totally demolished by the statistics. Not only has the ineptitude of the Queensland Government had this devastating effect upon the living standards of Queenslanders but it has had a devastating effect on the business community in Queensland. I remind the honourable member who asked me the question that a wave of bankruptcies is sweeping Queensland. The statistics are very simple and tragic for the people of Queensland. Mr Goodluck —That is your policies. Mr HAWKE —In the last two years there has been a 45 per cent increase in the number of bankruptcies in Queensland. I remind the House and the honourable member in particular that that 45 per cent increase in the last two years is three times the national average. My friend from Tasmania, who always wants to be helpful to me, says that we did it. How did we do it to Queensland, with three times the national average? The responsibility for that disastrous state lies with the Queensland Government and particularly with its Premier. Because the honourable member for Griffith comes from Queensland he would have heard the myth thrown out time after time by the Queensland Premier that Queensland is the low taxing State. Everyone up there knows that that is a myth. Indeed, Sir Roderick Proctor demonstrated that and pointed out the simple fact that an extortion racket is being practised by the Queensland Premier in regard to coal rail freight charges. That particular milch cow is running dry and there has been a massive increase in State and local government charges. I remind the honourable member that in the two years ended June 1986 Brisbane had the highest increase-22 per cent-in State and local government charges of any capital city in Australia. It would probably be useful for the House, and I think it would be particularly instructive and warming to the honourable member, if I were to repeat to him the latter stages of the interview that Sir Roderick Proctor had last night on the Carleton-Walsh Report, which is very relevant to the question he asked. The journalist said this to Sir Roderick Proctor, a leading businessman and a trustee of the National Party in Queensland: You're obviously one of the top businessmen in this State. You must meet a lot of other businessmen. Do you find that your sentiments are shared by others? Sir Roderick Proctor replied: Yes, I believe that there is fairly widely held concern in business. The journalist then asked: Well, why do you think that those people are not prepared to be very vocal with that concern? That is a good question. Sir Roderick Proctor replied: Because it could well disadvantage them and the businesses that they run. Then, of course, the journalist said to him: But you're doing it. Sir Roderick Proctor replied: I'm doing it to a degree because I'm trying to be honest. The journalist said to this leading businessman who had said that he was trying to be honest: Is that wise in Queensland? Sir Roderick Proctor said: Probably not. In other words, a leading businessman is saying that he is trying to be honest about the disastrous situation in Queensland, about the cronyism, about the charade of tenders, and he said: `Because I am honest it is probably not good for me'. It is interesting to note that in the midday news today another leading businessman has endorsed the attitude of Sir Roderick Proctor. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Notwithstanding your comments earlier this week, I draw your attention to Hansard of 12 February 1986, when you said: The Prime Minister will finish his answer. I submit to you that under standing order 144 the same circumstances apply in this case and you should apply the same dictum. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister is relevant to the question. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member will be interested to know that another leading businessman on the midday news today-- Mr Ronald Edwards —Who is it? Mr HAWKE —It is interesting that he is in the shoe industry. He is now putting a boot into Sir Joh. It is Sir Robert Mathers-there are plenty of knights in Queensland, as the honourable member knows-a leading businessman and deputy chairman of the organising committee for the Brisbane Olympic Games bid. The interviewer asked him: What's your view on claims made overnight by Sir Roderick? The answer was: Yes, good morning Steven, look I might say that I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments that Sir Roderick expressed. He was then asked: But what precisely are the concerns of the businessmen you speak to about the National Party? Sir Robert replied: Well, I think the main concern is that the sort of things that Sir Roderick mentioned in his article actually-I think one of the big things is the cronyism. So there we have it. At last the ineptitude of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his Government is being exposed, and it is being exposed, importantly, by those people who are in the best position to know. Mr HOWARD —I preface my next question to the Prime Minister by observing that the answer he has just given is about as near as he is going to get to the Queensland election campaign. I refer the Prime Minister to today's shocking inflation rate figures, which reveal that in the September quarter Australia's inflation rate has risen to 8.9 per cent, compared with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of only 2.4 per cent; that is, Australia's inflation rate is almost seven percentage points higher than and four times the OECD average. Is it a fact that this is Australia's worst inflation rate performance compared with the OECD average since that body was formed 25 years ago in 1961? Mr HAWKE —I have already explained that under the policies of this Government we have succeeded in more than halving the inflation rate we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer. We inherited a rate of 11.2 per cent and we have brought that down to a rate which was running at less than 5 per cent. I have explained the externally imposed factors which have been responsible for the increase in the inflation rate in this country and I have explained further that, because we have in place appropriate wages and other elements of economic policy, as we go into 1987 those rates will come down. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to make international comparisons, let us make the appropriate economic comparisons so that the people of Australia can judge under which sort of government they would be better off in terms of expectations of inflation. I refer to Budget Paper No. 1, which was handed down by the Treasurer on Budget night. We see there a very significant international comparison of average earnings. I remind the House of the disastrous comparison that existed when the now Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the economic management of this country. He asked about the OECD figures. In 1982 the increase in average earnings for the major OECD trading partners of Australia was 6.5 per cent. Under the stewardship of the honourable member for Bennelong, the then Treasurer of this country, the comparison for Australia was 16.5 per cent. That is what was happening to wages in the OECD major trading partners-6.5 per cent-when, under the policies of the honourable member for Bennelong it was 16.5 per cent. Under the policies of this Government we have brought that rate down. In 1985 it was 4.6 per cent for the major OECD trading partners and 6.2 per cent in this country. In other words, in terms of those elements of economic policy over which any Australian government has control, the honourable gentleman had us in a position where the increase in Australian earnings was 154 per cent higher than that in the major OECD trading partners. That reflected the area in which the Government of Australia had control and influence. Because this Government has the relevant policies in the monetary area, the fiscal area and the wages area, this country has been able to experience a substantial decline in inflation in terms of relevant domestic Australian policies and it can look forward in 1987 to a significantly declining inflation rate. The only alternative that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is a return to the wages policy which gave this country 1.54 times the rate of increase in earnings in the rest of the OECD countries, which would mean that we would have, under a Howard government, a return to double digit inflation, which is what was handed over to us when we came in and which we more than halved. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Has there been any criticism of the one vote one value electoral system? Has the Government received proposals to change the system? Mr YOUNG —In spite of all the protestations made in 1983 about the new system adopted by this Parliament, my office has received no official submission about changing the system back to the rigged gerrymander that existed in favour of the National Party prior to 1983. It is a matter of some pride to all members, particularly when travelling outside Australia, when asked about our electoral system, to say that we have a totally democratic system of electing people to the House of Representatives in Australia. Some people said that perhaps there might be problems with some of the vast areas serviced by honourable members from both sides of this House. That has not been borne out in practice. This Government has looked after members with vast electorates by providing them with the necessary facilities and staff in order for them to carry out their electoral work effectively. We have some outstanding members in this Parliament looking after electorates-such as the honourable member for Herbert who asked the question, the honourable member for Leichhardt, the honourable member for Grey, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie-and upholding the enormous standards set by people who have represented those districts-- Mr McVeigh —What about Bob here? Mr YOUNG —What is his name? So that has not been borne out in practice. This contrasts sharply and sadly with the position that we as Australians face in trying to explain what is happening in Queensland. The first thing we should say about Queensland is this: Just a couple of weeks ago, when the people throughout Queensland were asked in a public opinion poll about their views on the gerrymander, by a majority of 56 per cent to 20 per cent those who answered the question said that they wanted one vote one value in Queensland. So the voting system will be a very big issue on Saturday week when Queenslanders go to the polls. One can see why. There should be one vote one value in Queensland instead of the zonal gerrymandered system which has been imposed by a group of commissioners whose report was never made public and whose evidence was never made public. The submission from the National Party of Australia was never made public. It is a great system up there! Talk about cronies-there are bus loads of them. In the south-eastern zone, instead of having 51 members they should have 58 members under the one vote one value system; the provincial cities should have 14 not 13 members; the western and far western zones should have four, not eight; and the country should have 13, not 17. The members who represent people in the districts where the Bjelke-Petersen people are trying to maintain power should be treated in the same way as we are treating members in similar electorates here: They should be given the necessary facilities to look after the districts. Members of parliament represent people, not sheep and trees, and that ought to be the slogan in Queensland. The Queensland Premier made a speech in Townsville the night before last and this is what he said about electoral voting: I want to say to you ladies and gentlemen, the north needs a strong voice, not an elimination of members of parliament. You know the suggestion of the other two organisations is a very, very simple arithmetic-can't add it up any other way-doesn't matter what they say about giving you more representation-it doesn't add up-you can't make one and one mean two . . . It is a funny thing. When Joh was asked what Sir Roderick Proctor's problem was, he said: `I sacked him. He was Chairman of Suncorp and I said to him: ``You're out, you're out, you're 71''.'. We would rather have Sir Roderick at 71 and sane than Sir Joh at 76 and no Dick Emery. It is pretty obvious what is happening in Queensland. Sir Roderick is a trustee of the National Party-although I notice in the lunch time newspaper reports from Queensland that Sir Robert has sacked him, that Sir Robert Sparkes has moved in and said that, because of his interview last night, he is no longer eligible to be a trustee. How would anyone like to be the trustee of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation? That would be the big job in Queensland. If one could get in on that, as did Sir Edward Lyons, one could get a $300,000 credit with the Totalizator Administration Board. For $25,000, a little highland fling, to the Bjelke-Petersen Fund one can have breakfast with the Premier. That is another little source of income that works up there. Queenslanders should clean up the electoral system, as the Queesland President of the Liberal Party of Australia, John Moore, has told us, not only because of all the corruption but also because the electoral system itself is so corrupt that it breeds more corruption. Business people think they have to pay into the Bjelke-Petersen Fund to do business in Queensland. The interviewer said last night: `It appears that you have done yourself some damage, Sir Roderick, by speaking out'. Sir Roderick said: `I suppose I have'. There is only one way for the Queenslanders to clean all that up. On Saturday week they should not mess around with a milkshake; if they want to clean up Queensland they have to have a Labor Government. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the claim made in the first two answers that he has given to me today that the substantial explanation for our falling inflation rate is the recent devaluation of the Australian dollar. Is it a fact that, abstracting from the Australian Statistician's estimate of the contribution to the consumer price index of goods and services wholly or predominantly imported, Australia's annual inflation rate rose from 7.1 per cent in the June quarter to 7.6 per cent in the September quarter? Does the Prime Minister agree that, even allowing for additional one-off effects such as the large rise in fresh fruit and vegetable prices in the September quarter, such a figure still represents an intolerably high inflation rate compared with our major partners? What other excuse can he offer to the Australian public for an inflation rate which, when discounted for devaluation effects, is still four times that of our major trading partners? Mr HAWKE —I preface my answer to this question by reminding the honourable gentleman that he comes to this issue with no credentials at all. He comes to this question as the Treasurer who handed over to the incoming Government an inflation rate of 11.2 per cent, very substantially above the inflation rate at this time and more than twice the inflation rate that this Government had brought about before the onset of depreciation, which began at the end of January 1985. The elements to which the honourable gentleman referred in his question are the direct effects-calculated by the Australian Statistician-of depreciation. They do not pick up the indirect effects of the devaluation. Obviously, the figure for this quarter reflects the impact of the Budget decisions, which have been made by the Commonwealth Government and by State governments. Fruit and vegetable prices have also had an impact. The underlying inflation rate that this Government brought down, before the impact of the depreciation, was running at less than 5 per cent. The direct and indirect effects of the very substantial depreciation-in trade weighted terms it has been 34.5 per cent since the end of January 1985-have continued. There has also been an impact from the 10 to 11 per cent depreciation of June and July. I repeat: The policies that this Government has in place in the monetary, fiscal and wages areas will mean that in 1987 we will experience a significant decline in the inflation rate. Mr CROSS —Can the Minister for Primary Industry inform the House on the progress being made in statutory marketing reform and relate this to the levels of primary industry regulation in Australia? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I know that he is very interested in statutory marketing authority reform. The Government has introduced model legislation. Gradually we are working through the various primary industries. We now have reform of the meat industry and the Australian Wheat Board, and we have agreement on reform for the wool industry next year. Today or tomorrow I will announce the new composition of the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. Today I will introduce legislation on pigs. We have put out a discussion paper on horticulture. As honourable members will know, we are spending $10m as seed money to get a horticultural marketing corporation going. Similarly, with respect to research councils, we have put the farmers in the box seat. They are on the selection committee. We now have statutory marketing authorities that are commercially flexible and non-representative but representative of the farmers' interests in a functional sense in terms of the objects and functions of those marketing corporations. The corporations are fully accountable through a range of bodies. They pick up many of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations some years ago. That Committee sat under the chairmanship of Senator Peter Rae. In New South Wales, the Marketing of Primary Products Acts have been reformed. In Victoria there has been much reform of all statutory authorities. By and large, the States are moving to give primary producers boards that can compete more commercially in a very tough marketing environment. The exception to this progress and intelligent approach is in Queensland, which has a corrupt minority Government. Opposition members-Oh! Mr KERIN —The members of the National Party of Australia moan but they should look at a cartoon that I saw this morning. Someone runs into the National Party headquarters saying: `Our support is down to 14 per cent'. The campaign leader says: `Gee whizz, it could be a close thing'. That is about how bad it is. In Queensland there are more boards for primary production than in any other State. The board that ran into trouble recently was the Peanut Marketing Board. Queensland could not run it successfully. There have been dairy scandals in the southern part of the State, particularly in South Brisbane. There is no need for me to repeat all the allegations to the embarrassment of those opposite. They know a lot about them in cockies' corner. The industry that is most regulated is the sugar industry. To be serious, it is a great pity that a man of courage, Mr Neil Turner, the Minister for Primary Industries in that State, chose not to run in the current election because he is sick of being stood over by the Queensland Premier. The Queensland Premier was not able to provide any leadership to this industry. He would not let Mr Turner provide any leadership. As a result, the industry effectively lost about $50m worth of assistance-because of the nonsense and delays. It is no wonder that Sir Roderick Proctor says that Queensland is the most socialised and regulated State. It is only by dint of hard work by Mr Turner, who was so stood over by the Premier that he is not prepared to stand again for Parliament, that we have the Sugar Mill Adjustment Committee. We are trying to get some adjustments to help out mills such as Babinda, in which the honourable member for Leichhardt has a close interest, so that we can do something about mill amalgamation and get the sugar industry in Queensland into better shape. It is terribly important that we do so despite Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The only industry in Queensland that is not regulated-it is totally deregulated-is the real estate industry. This is really the heartland of the National Party. If one puts a bit of money in the tin for the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation one will have no problem getting rezoning. That is the reality. The National Party in Queensland is no longer concerned about farmers, marketing or any of this. It is concerned only about its rotten corruption, real estate development and looking after its mates. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to today's inflation figure. Is it a fact that Australia's unit labour costs have risen by 4 per cent per annum over the past three years, a rate four times that of our major trading partners? Is it a fact that had Australia's unit labour cost performance matched that of our major trading partners the Australian dollar would not have needed to have fallen by the same amount and, therefore, the inflationary impact on the consumer price index would not have been as great to secure the exchange rate relativity which now exists? Does the Prime Minister therefore accept that the Government's wages policy and its relative failure compared with the rest of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development area has driven the dollar down further and inflation higher than would otherwise have been necessary under a more responsible policy? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for asking me a question about changes in real unit labour costs. Mr Howard —No, I didn't. Mr HAWKE —It is relevant to it. I will go precisely to what the honourable member asked about. I remind the honourable gentleman at the outset of the figures in the Budget Paper No. 1-- Mr Howard —Those figures are in the Budget Papers. You get to them. Mr HAWKE —I will come to them. On page 59 the overall figure for real unit labour costs in the non-farm sector shows that the cumulative fall since 1982-83 has been 7 per cent. I go to changes in real compensation per employee deflated by the private consumption deflator. Let us look at changes in real compensation in the United States of America, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Canada in the period 1983-85. There was an increase of 2 per cent in the United States; an increase of 3.8 per cent in Japan; an increase of 2.5 per cent in Germany; an increase of 2.2 per cent in France; an increase of 6.5 per cent in the United Kingdom; and a decline of 4 per cent in Australia. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to consider what has been achieved in terms of costs in this country compared with what has happened overseas in the period of this Government and in the period of his administration, we are more than happy to make that comparison and examination because it is quite clear that the record under the period of this Government is infinitely better than the record during the period in which the Leader of the Opposition had control of the Australian economy. Ms MAYER —I ask the Minister for Defence: What is the Government doing to ensure that improved housing is provided to Australian defence personnel? Will the Government be taking any notice of the policy of the Opposition spokesman on local government and administrative services that defence housing should be privatised? Mr BEAZLEY —In answer to the two parts of the honourable member's question, the first thing I ought to point out is that, as a result of decisions in this Budget under this Government, there has been a very substantial increase in the funds made available for defence. This Budget provides some $66m for defence housing, which is up 20 per cent on last year and which is vastly more than the amount spent by the Opposition when in government. In addition, we have decided to place defence housing under a statutory authority. The 22,000 defence houses are to be managed by that authority. That authority will have the ability to trade in those houses and the houses will be significantly upgraded. We recognise two things about defence housing. First, defence housing is a very important condition of service. Serving personnel rely on access to relatively cheap housing in order to sustain their families as they are shifted from post to post, sometimes on far too regular a basis. Nevertheless, it is a very important condition of service. The second factor which motivates our policy is acknowledgment of the factor that the Defence Force housing structure is based on operational necessities and that the positioning of houses, even in most of the capital cities, has to be such as to facilitate the effectiveness of the defence forces and the operations of their facilities. So we have decided to keep the defence housing program within a government framework. It is not as though we have not examined some alternatives to that course of action. The housing task force did so. It considered options such as those considered by the honourable member for O'Connor, who is the Opposition spokesman on local government and administrative services. In statements which the honourable member evidently made last week on this matter he suggested that available for sale was a substantial amount of defence property, including houses. In some areas of defence property, I would agree with the honourable member for O'Connor that there are opportunities for sale. We have done so in this Budget. In making several defence properties available for sale, I have received numerous representations from the Opposition on one or two of them suggesting to me that I ought not. Nevertheless, as a general point, when something like 83 per cent of the properties of the Commonwealth is concerned, from time to time there will naturally be opportunities to relieve oneself of budgetary strain by getting rid of some of them. However, defence force housing is a totally different matter altogether. Let me tell honourable members this about defence force housing: The implicit subsidy, which is, on average, applicable across the board, is $75 a week. If one were to place defence housing on the open market and lease it out, as suggested by the honourable member for O'Connor, to private enterprise and make anything like a reasonable profit for the people from whom one then leased it back, one would have to find from Commonwealth outlays, or from the defence service personnel, that $75. And that is only an average. In capital cities the effective subsidy is much higher. One is faced with two alternatives. One alternative would have a very substantial impact on Commonwealth outlays, because the subsidy is now implicit; it is not an explicit subsidy. We build the houses and rent them out to the service personnel. No line appears in the Budget saying: You have to subsidise that to the tune of X-amount. So one alternative would be a substantial increase in defence outlays to pay the person from whom one was leasing those houses, having sold the houses to them in the first place. The other alternative-which is the more likely course to be pursued, because no Defence Minister is going to be able to sustain, in Budget hearings over a period of time with his Cabinet colleagues, a continual payout to private enterprise subsidising service personnel-would be a rise in the cost for service houses, if they go up to the market level, of at least $75 a week. That would be a massive attack on service conditions. I note that around the Queensland electorate now a considerable amount of propaganda is being put about regarding whether or not this Government has done substantial damage to service conditions. One advertisement which appeared in the electorate of the honourable member for Herbert suggested that we were responsible, for example, for a services pay freeze. As I pointed out here the other day, only one government imposed a pay freeze on the services-and it was not ours. It was our predecessors. Mr Brumby —Who was the Minister? Mr BEAZLEY —The Minister and Treasurer of the time are still in the House. Let them reflect on what might happen in the honourable gentleman's constituency if service personnel in the Townsville area were obliged to find another $75 a week. I see the honourable member for Hughes over there. Let him rock on down to the team at Holsworthy and tell them that they have to pay another $75 a week for their houses. The policy that has come forward from the Opposition in this regard is a totally ill-thought-out policy. If ever implemented-and it never will be-it would pose a substantial threat to service conditions. We have had a thorough examination of what the Opposition's policy would mean and have found that it would be a potential blight on service personnel. It simply does not recognise the fact that service personnel, by virtue of their position, have to be shifted with regularity. They have to anticipate spending their service lives in at least four or five different houses. They have a right to anticipate that the Government will supply them with houses that are suitable to their conditions. They will get those houses under our arrangements. An efficient, effective statutory authority will administer this area in a way which protects their position and serves the interests of the defence forces. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that the average tax rates for a family with a dependent spouse and children and earning, respectively, average weekly earnings, which are currently $465 a week or $24,000 a year, half average weekly earnings or twice average weekly earnings, are all higher now than when the Government was elected and will still be higher even after the so-called tax cuts, if they take effect, in June of next year? Mr Young —What about your tax cuts in 1977? Mr HAWKE —As the Special Minister of State, by way of interjection, has pointed out, here again is an area to which the Leader of the Opposition comes without any credentials at all. This is the person who perpetrated the greatest fraud upon the Australian taxpayer in the history of this country. He was part of a government which in the 1977 election said: `Here is your fistful of dollars'. It could not wait to get back into government before it said to the taxpayers of Australia: `What a pack of mugs you are'. Whack! It took them back. And the Leader of the Opposition comes here and talks about tax. Let me give the position in regard to average tax rates. In September 1982, the average rate of tax payable on average weekly earnings, without deductions, for all employees was 23 per cent. Then the Government pulled its great rort by blowing out the Budget deficit, which reduced the average tax rate paid on average weekly earnings to 20.9 per cent. As compared with the average rate of tax payable on average weekly earnings of 23 per cent in the period when the honourable member for Bennelong was Treasurer, by December this year the average rate on average weekly earnings will be 19.7 per cent-significantly below the rate of tax payable on average weekly earnings left to us by the former Treasurer. Mr WRIGHT —Has the Treasurer noted comments by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition which argue for a wage freeze? What effect would such a policy have on the living standards of ordinary Australians? Moreover, how would such a policy be implemented in a deregulated labour market? Mr KEATING —I have noted the statement today by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the radio program AM in which he said: `We need a very definite pause in wage increases in this country if we are going to have any hope at all of reviving our trade and reviving our economy in general'. To the question `Does this mean that you are advocating no wage increase at all in 1987?', the Deputy Leader of the Opposition replied: `Yes. I do not believe that the economy can afford it. We need a pause in wages if we are going to recover our economy'. He went on to say: `We need a pause for at least 12 months in wage increases'. This demonstrates the utter confusion of the coalition parties on the principal issue of wages. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that he wants a deregulated labour market with opting out for firms with fewer than 50 people-that is, on a cumulative basis, nearly 1.8 million workers or nearly half of the private sector work force-and his Deputy is saying that we need the most centralised wage outcome of all, a wage pause. In other words, the Opposition wants its cake and to eat it too. The Leader of the Opposition, in his last question, asked the Prime Minister about the after tax return to taxpayers. At the same time his Deputy wishes to deny taxpayers a wage increase by introducing a further wage pause. The honourable member for Bennelong has opposed every wage increase since 1977. His Deputy is now arguing for a wage pause-for no increase in wages in 1987-while he asks the Prime Minister questions, with crocodile tears, about the after tax earnings of taxpayers. The Leader of the Opposition says that he wants a deregulated labour market with opting out while his Deputy says that he wants a totally centralised system with a wage pause. Is it any wonder that nobody in the country believes that a coalition government could control inflation? What a joke it is that today we have had a succession of questions about inflation from the Leader of the Opposition-the high priest of Australian inflation, the wage wrecker-while his Deputy is saying: `We do not have a wages policy or an incomes policy; we want a centralised wage freeze'. The Leader of the Opposition wants opting out for firms that employ fewer than 50 people. The Opposition has no wages policy, no anti-inflation policy, no fiscal policy and no policy on the central tenets of economic policy. It has no wages policy and no fiscal policy. In its fiscal policy there are $5.9 billion of tax promises. It has no idea about how to run a decent monetary policy because it never did. It has nothing to offer on the basic fundamentals of economic policy, yet members of the Opposition ask the Prime Minister and the Government questions about the inflation rate and wages. Today we have exposed yet again the total confusion and disarray in the Opposition parties on wages policy because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants a centralised wage outcome while his Leader wants a decentralised wage outcome. Let all Australians in business and the public understand that these parties have no policies now any more than they did when they were defeated in March 1983. If they were ever to get back on to the treasury bench they would wreck the place like they did in 1983. They would give us another depression like they gave us in 1983. We would be back to high double digit inflation, as we were in 1983, and we would be back to the same destruction and misery we have seen from the former Treasurer as he tried his policies for a second time. Mr COWAN —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the annual report of the Steel Industry Authority, which throws serious doubt on the future of the steel industry plan and on long term employment in the industry. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Authority has highlighted: First, a dramatic increase in industrial disputation which, at Port Kembla alone, rose by 680 per cent in the second part of the financial year; secondly, a disturbing decline in productivity; and, thirdly, a continuation of entrenched restrictive work practices? In view of the Authority's prediction that the steel industry will suffer as a result of the predicted declines in the building and construction industries and the motor vehicle industry, I ask: What action will the Government take to alleviate the disturbing findings of the Steel Industry Authority concerning declining productivity, restrictive work practices and increasing industrial disputes? Mr HAWKE —I say to the honourable member that I have not read the report but I am glad that he has raised the question of the steel industry. I must say that I am absolutely amazed that anyone in the Opposition would raise the question of the steel industry. The facts are that when this Government assumed office there was a very serious question-it was not some hypothetical matter being debated in some far off corner-being debated within the steel industry as to whether it would continue in this country. In other words, after 7 1/2 years of conservative government, those opposite had brought the steel industry to the position where it was being seriously questioned as to whether or not it would be abandoned. In the election campaign in February and March 1983 I said on behalf of my Party that an incoming Labor government would not tolerate the disappearance of the steel industry in this country. What did we do? We said that within roughly 100 days we would bring down a steel industry plan. It would not be a plan just imagined here in Canberra; it would be a plan arrived at in consultation with the industry, the employers, the unions and the relevant State governments and which would require an input from all parties. We brought down that steel industry plan. It required an investment by the industry, within a given period, of $800m, as I recall. That figure was easily surpassed. It required a change in work practices by the unions, which occurred. As a direct result of the policies of this Government, in co-operation with all parties in the industry and the relevant State governments, not only did we save the steel industry but also we increased productivity in the industry very substantially, to the point where it was able not only to compete very ably against imports but also to find export markets that it had not achieved before. No one was retrenched in the industry, its employees now have secure jobs and it has a firm hold on the domestic market and a capacity to win export orders overseas. That is the result of this Government bringing in a relevant steel plan in the industry. If there have been some increases in industrial disputes recently, that is to be regretted, but I believe that, in the atmosphere that has been created by the agreement to undertake an investigation of restrictive work and management practices, any difficulties that have arisen will be dealt with and eliminated and this country will continue to have, under this Government, a viable steel industry-something denied to it under the policies of the coalition Government of the past. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-I move: That this House- (1) resolves that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (XXX) which equates Zionism with racism- (a) has been unhelpful in the context of the search for a settlement in the Middle East; (b) is inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations; (c) remains unacceptable as a misrepresentation of Zionism; (d) has served to escalate religious animosity and incite anti-semitism, and (2) recommends that the Government lend support to efforts to overturn Resolution 3379 (XXX) in the United Nations. A motion in identical terms is being introduced in the Senate by my colleague the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). I have moved this motion from a conviction, which I believe will be shared by all Australians who value truth, fairness and tolerance, that the equation of zionism with racism is profoundly wrong, disruptive and unacceptable. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted in 1975, which sought to make this equation, has been regarded by successive Australian governments as unacceptable. In moving this motion in the Parliament the Government hopes for bipartisan support so that the voice of Australia can be added to the voices of others in the international community who wish to see this deeply regrettable expression of United Nations opinion overturned. To suggest that zionism is racism is, first of all, a blatant distortion of the truth. This is not the place to give a history of the development of zionism. I would, however, refer all honour- able members who wish to inform themselves on this subject to the outstanding address by my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to the Zionist Federation of Australia on 13 April under the title: `Israel: A Contemporary Democratic Socialist Perspective'. In that address the Foreign Minister outlined the idealism and the enlightened emancipatory principles which went into the foundation of the state of Israel. As well, he referred to the terrible impact of the Holocaust on the zionist movement. In the month in which the award to Elie Wiesel of the Nobel Peace Prize has reminded us all of the monstrous racial oppression suffered by the Jewish people less than 50 years ago, the characterisation of zionism as racism is a particular offence to decency and to logic, not only to our Jewish community but to all Australians. Apart from its distortion of reality, Resolution 3379 has become an obstacle to the search for a settlement in the Middle East, difficult as that already is. In a region where insecurity and suspicion are strong, where barriers between peoples have proved difficult to break down, it is highly counter-productive to insult the guiding philosophy of a people, especially one whose consciousness has been seared by the scourge of anti-semitism. Resolution 3379 has not advanced the interests of those who promoted it. It has done nothing to solve the plight of the Palestinian people. Successive Australian governments have believed that there can be no peace in the Middle East until the Palestinian problem is resolved justly and peacefully and with the agreement of all those involved. This Government's support for the overturning of Resolution 3379 is based on our continued desire to see a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the Middle East dispute. Diversions such as Resolution 3379 served only to distract and disrupt efforts towards this end. The resolution has done very real damage to the relations between states. It has also harmed the credibility and reputation of the United Nations. The United Nations was intended to promote peace and harmony between the peoples of the world. It has the primary task of maintaining international peace and also pursues the goal of encouraging respect for human rights. Resolution 3379 was clearly not an attempt to further those purposes and principles. It had the effect of unfairly isolating a member state of the United Nations and, in so doing, was contrary to the spirit of the United Nations Charter. There is no country which is more committed to upholding the reputation and effectiveness of the United Nations than Australia. Our performance as a member of the Security Council over the past two years is the most recent evidence of this commitment. Along with other countries, we have fought to maintain international support, including, very importantly, financial support, for the United Nations and its specialised agencies-the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and others. Our task has been made immeasurably more difficult in view of the disaffection felt for the United Nations in recent years by such countries as the United States of America. The passage of Resolution 3379 was an important factor in producing this disaffection. Over the past two years or so, increasing international attention has been given to the question of removing this unacceptable resolution from the United Nations record. President Chaim Herzog, the widely respected President of Israel, who will pay a state visit to Australia next month, has been a leading figure in this process. The Australian Jewish community has consulted closely with the Government, particularly the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the matter in recent months in order to determine what influence Australia might bring to bear. Realistically, we must acknowledge that it would be counter-productive to initiate a move in the United Nations at this stage to overturn Resolution 3379. There still would not be the support necessary to ensure the success of such a move. Indeed, the opposite result might be achieved: Countries which may have come to question their original position on the resolution might be forced once again to line up behind it. Nevertheless, the world political climate is changing and there are grounds for belief that an expression of the Australian Parliament's view along the lines I have outlined could contribute to that change. In taking this step it is, I believe, important to emphasise that the Australian Government's position on the Middle East remains unchanged. As I have indicated, we believe that a resolution of the Palestinian question is central to any Middle East settlement. The Government acknowledges the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people, including the right, if they so choose, to independence and the possibility of establishing their own independent state. We recognise that whatever arrangements are finally settled upon will depend on decisions involving the participation and agreement of all parties concerned. We remain fundamentally committed to the security of Israel and its right to exist within secure and recognised boundaries in accordance with Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. It is in the interests of helping to achieve a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the Middle East dispute, one which has the acceptance of all sides, that I commend the motion I have introduced to the House. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.09) —I am very happy to say on behalf of the Opposition that the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has the total support and endorsement of the Opposition. It can therefore be noted by the public of Australia that there is total, unanimous and bipartisan support within this Parliament for overturning a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly which should never have been passed in the first place. We believe that blatant anti-semitism was enshrined in that resolution. We believe that overturning that resolution is an important milestone along the path of rejecting the anti-Israel stance adopted by those countries which supported the United Nations resolution. It is instructive to recall that the General Assembly adopted the resolution describing zionism as a form of racism on 10 November 1975. I am very happy to say that, acting no doubt under the instructions of the Whitlam Government, a vote was cast against that resolution by Australia's representative to the United Nations. Subsequently, the passage of that resolution was condemned by the caretaker Fraser Government between 11 November and 13 December 1975. On the occasion of the resolution, Mr Ralph Harry told the United Nations: The attempt of the sponsors of draft Resolution III to make such an equation (between Zionism and Racism) is, we believe, a distortion of fact, is unhelpful in the context of the search for a settlement in the Middle East, and raises the very real possibility that it will exacerbate religious animosities in a number of countries. On that occasion Australia was joined in voting against the resolution by the United States, West European countries, Canada, New Zealand and a number of others. We should recall that those who voted in favour of the resolution included the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Guyana, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Uganda-which was then under the leadership of that great democrat, Idi Amin-Mali and Mozambique. It is worth noting that not one of those countries could be described as remotely resembling a bastion of democracy, freedom or tolerance. I think that that vote said more about the moral and political decline of the United Nations than it did about the concern of the international community to eradicate or minimise racism. The resolution reflected far more a hatred of Israel as the only democratic and pluralistic society in the Middle East than it did anything else. Chaim Herzog, to whom the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) referred, said at the time that the United Nations was on its way to becoming the world centre of anti-semitism. He stated: The issue is the continued existence of this organisation, which has been dragged to its lowest point of discredit by a coalition of despotisms and racists. It is worth recalling what Daniel Moynihan, on behalf of the United States, had to say: The United States . . . does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act . . . The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty-and more-to the murderers of the 6,000,000 European Jews. Evil enough itself, but more ominous by far is the realisation that now presses upon us that, if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened . . . In all our post-war history there has not been another issue which has brought forth such unanimity of American opinion. The United States Senate expressed its utter opposition, and expressions of revulsion and opposition were made on behalf of other Western countries. It is instructive to recall that Tass, in its commentary on 13 November, claimed that the resolution-and I quote: . . . constitutes a lawful and just condemnation of . . . an ideology which finds its practical expression in the aggressive, expansionist policy of the ruling circles in Israel . . . Those were the words of Tass. This is the same nation which has continually refused exit permits to Soviet Jews and has a long history of racial and religious repression. Paul Johnson, the British historian, said of that resolution: It was true that the [Anti-Zionist] vote was merely on paper. But the real danger of the UN was that paper majorities tended to grow into real policies. The corrupt arithmetic of the General Assembly, where in the seventies could be brought by arms or even by personal bribes to delegates, tended to become imperceptibly the conventional wisdom of society . . . Tommy Koh, Singapore's Ambassador to the United States, said: . . . when the Third World or part of it abuses its power in the General Assembly and rams through Resolutions which are untrue or unprincipled or inflammatory, they do tremendous damage to the credibility of the institution. I say on behalf of the Opposition, in expressing total support for this motion, that if ever a section of the Australian community is entitled to the respect and gratitude of its fellow Australians, it is the Australian Jewish community. The Australian Jewish community has played a very major role in the development, in the enlightenment, and in the moulding of the character and nature of the Australian people. The contribution that members of that community have made to all walks of life, to our cultural and professional existence, to both sides of politics and to the general enlightenment of our people is something which should not go unremarked on an occasion such as this. The Liberal Party of Australia has a long and proud tradition of supporting the right of Israel to exist within secure, defensible boundaries. Sir Robert Menzies was a proud defender of Israel's right to exist. My predecessor, Malcolm Fraser, won very wide acclaim within the Jewish community for his constant support of the right and the independence of Israel, and for his defence of the contribution that Jewish people had made to the life and work of Australia. We, like the Government, are committed to meaningful negotiations for a just peace in the Middle East. Our commitment to this goal was given practical expression through the former coalition Government's decision to send an Australian contingent to the Sinai peacekeeping force. With the Government, we call on the United Nations to overturn resolution 3379 as a practical step in promoting peace in the troubled Middle East. In expressing that bipartisan support, I say one other thing to the Prime Minister and the Government. It is ironic that, although bipartisanship does exist regarding this matter, and we on this side of the House-and, I believe, those on the other side-would want that to continue, the Government, I regret to say, has decided to issue a visa to a Mr Abdul Akhbar Muhammad, the National Assistant to Louis Farrakhan, the so-called Minister of the `Nation of Islam' in North America. It is reported that the Farrakhan organisation is funded by the anti-Semitic Gaddafi regime in Libya. Mr Farrakhan has been banned from both Britain and Nigeria. I hope that, in the spirit in which this motion receives unanimous bipartisan support, the Prime Minister will examine again, on behalf of the Government, the circumstances in which this person's arrival in Australia next Monday has been approved by the Government. I conclude my remarks by expressing, on behalf of the Opposition, to the people of Israel and to those of Jewish persuasion within Australia, not only our unanimous and enthusiastic support for this motion but also our respect and admiration for their contribution to the cause of peace around the world and within our own country. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.18) —I wish to associate the National Party of Australia with the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The passage of the United Nations resolution 3379 condemning zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination is steeped in historical irony. The passage of the resolution through the General Assembly of the United Nations actually occurred on the thirty-seventh anniversary of crystal night-that infamous night in 1938 when Hitler's nazis launched their program of death and destruction against Germany's Jews. We know that the ominous tragedy of crystal night ended in the horrors of Auschwitz and the deaths of millions of Jews. The United Nations established the state of Israel for the displaced Jewish people. The Soviet Union endorsed, and actually led the move, to see Israel established. The Soviet Union led the passage, unfortunately, of resolution 3379 through the Assembly, with its satellites and client states which were enumerated by the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago. The resolution aims to undermine the moral legitimacy of the State of Israel and, by implication, it attempts to give justification to calls for the dismemberment of the Jewish state. As Daniel Moynihan, the then United States Ambassador to the United Nations, said, shortly after the vote passed the committee stage: The real problem is very different, and vastly ominous. It is that the United Nations has become a focus of a general assault by the majority of the nations in the world on the principles of liberal democracy which are now found only in a minority of nations, and for that matter a dwindling minority. It was not zionism that was condemned in the United Nations on Friday, it was Israel; and not the State of Israel nearly so much as the significance of Israel as one of the very few places, outside of western Europe and North America . . . where western democratic principles survive, and of all such places, currently the most exposed . . . Resolution 3379 was, and is, nothing more than a blatant example of Soviet opportunism, a pandering to and an inciting of Third World interests to win support in the Soviet's campaign against the West. The movers of resolution 3379 have an unenviable record in human rights. They include the Soviet bloc, members of the Third World and the non-aligned movement. There is nothing noble or high minded about this resolution. It was conceived in the minds of a few radical Arabs, nourished by maniacs such as Idi Amin, promoted by the Palestine Liberation Organisation and reluctantly endorsed by many Third World countries which feared the emerging power of the petro-dollar. The resolution tarnished the founding ideals of the United Nations by substituting political adventurism and snide expedience in the place of ideals favouring human and international equality. The resolution divided the forum to the detriment of other more legitimate campaigns for racial equality, for example, those in southern Africa. By condemning Israel and zionism, the black Africans lost the support of the United States and other Western countries. It distorted the real meaning of dictators, such as Idi Amin, who were able to jump on the anti-zionist bandwagon while butchering thousands of their own people. Tommy T. B. Koh, Singapore's Ambassador to the United Nations-he was quoted by the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago-said: When the Third World or a part of it abuses power in the General Assembly and rams through resolutions that are untrue or unprincipled or inflammatory, they do tremendous damage to the credibility of the institution. The role of the United Nations as an international forum where truth and principle underly the resolutions of the international community of nations was the real victim of resolution 3379. I join the Leader of the Opposition in commendation of the contribution by the Jewish community to Australia. Like him, I share concerns that the world should recognise the state of Israel and that peace should be advanced in the Middle East. In those various ambitions the coalition parties support the Government, for we feel that unless there is unanimity in this part of the world the chance of persuading others to set aside their prejudice, to move away from the text of resolution 3379 and to recognise the contribution of the Jewish people to the world will be very slight indeed. The National Party joins the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party in supporting the motion moved by the Prime Minister. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(3.23) —I realise that there is an agreement that there be a restricted number of speakers and I shall be very brief in my comments. Rather presumptuously perhaps, on behalf of the Jewish people of Australia I think I can congratulate the House on this motion which, I believe, will be passed unanimously. It is a very proud day in this Parliament's record that such a motion will be passed with the support of all members from both sides of the House. When resolution 3379 was passed through the United Nations it was one of the blackest of black days in the history of the United Nations. The resolution, declaring that zionism is racism, is of course quite an outrageous one. I do not propose to go into the history of zionism but, very briefly, it was a movement, started in the latter part of last century and inspired by people such as Theodor Herzl and others, to find a home for the Jewish people, who had for 2,000 years since the destruction of the second temple wandered from various parts of the earth without a home of their own, resulting in some of the most horrendous persecutions and culminating in the crime to end all crimes, the Holocaust, which led to the extermination of six million people for no other reason than that they were Jews. It used to be common in various journals in not so recent times to insult people by calling them zionists. I would be delighted if anybody wanted to insult me by calling me a zionist because I have been one for as long as I have been conscious of the history of the Jewish people and I hope I shall die a zionist. I also want to comment on what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said. I commend him, and agree totally with him that this Parliament has a proud history of support for the state of Israel, tempered, of course, by a just and appropriate concern for the plight of the Palestinian people, through the days of Dr Evatt and the establishment of the state of Israel to Sir Robert Menzies and Malcolm Fraser who, whilst I disagreed with him on almost everything else, I stand in total agreement with on two issues-apartheid and Israel. A few years ago I was proud to attend a meeting in Melbourne of the Melbourne Jewish community where Malcolm Fraser and I addressed some 1,500 people; it is the largest meeting I have ever attended where people actually listened. I agreed totally with everything he did in support of the state of Israel. Of course, that support has continued through our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition, and for that I both commend and congratulate them. In conclusion, I am proud that the motion will be passed because we will be able to show it to the President of the state of Israel, Chaim Herzog, who will be here in a few days time. As honourable members know, like all good Israelis he is an Irishman and is the first President of Israel-in fact the first foreign President-to address the Irish Dail in Gaelic, something I do not think even you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your background, or the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), would be able to do. Once again, I commend the House and congratulate everybody. I think I can say on behalf of the Jewish people of Australia that this is a very proud day for all of us. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —by leave-I move: That this House- (1) Notes that 23 October is the 30th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian uprising against Soviet oppression; (2) Recalls that Australia vigorously supported the Hungarian cause both in the Commonwealth Parliament and the United Nations, where the Australian delegate said in 1956: `The people of Hungary made themselves by their heroism the wards of the United Nations'; and (3) Calls on Australians to support the commemoration of this day as a symbol of the struggle for freedom and justice for all the oppressed nations of Central and Eastern Europe. A motion in the same terms was moved in the other place by Senator Michael Baume. Mr Sinclair —I second the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present a report by the Law Reform Commission on community law for the Australian Capital Territory relating to loss of consortium and compensation for loss of capacity to do housework. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present a report by the Human Rights Commission on the human rights of Australian born children whose parents are deported. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —On behalf of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is absent, pursuant to sub-section 67 (2) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, I present the annual report of the Australian Federal Police for 1985-86. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report of the Australian Tripartite Mission to study the training of skilled workers in the metal and electrical trades in Singapore, Malaysia and Negara Brunei Darussalam. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members, I present a tax expenditures statement prepared by the Department of the Treasury together, with the text of a statement relating to the document which will be released concurrently. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) — Pursuant to section 18 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966, I present the annual report of the National Debt Commission for 1985-86. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977, I present the annual report of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Pty Ltd for 1985-86. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a document on Australia's population trends and prospects for 1986. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983, as Minister Assisting the Treasurer I present the annual report of the Prices Surveillance Authority for 1985-86. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —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 N.A. Brown —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Very briefly, I was misrepresented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in Question Time today. The substance of what he said-I will not repeat what he said verbatim-was that I had proposed an irresponsible course on wages policy which was inconsistent with that of my Leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). As I have made clear on very many occasions, the proposal for a wages pause is put in the context of the present centralised wage fixing system. The underlying position that we have always put is that that system should be reformed in a flexible way. In the meantime, we have put a proposal for a wages pause, but solely in the context of the present centralised system. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —During Question Time the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) claimed that I had said previously that defence service homes would be sold to the private sector and leased back to individual service personnel at highly increased rents. In fact, I think he suggested a figure of $75. In making that statement the Minister has demonstrated his complete inability for lateral thinking. I have raised defence service housing as a classic example of the disaster of government ownership. I have never suggested any arrangement for direct letting by the private sector to defence service personnel, nor that there be any nexus between the private sector rents and that paid by such personnel. In fact an article on page 50 of the Australian Financial Review of 16 October 1986 refers to an address that I gave to the Building Owners and Managers Association. It states: Not all of the properties would be suitable for the private sector, but many such as off-base Defence Department-owned housing would be ideal for small investors, he said. The Government could then lease them back. On page 2237 of Hansard of 16 October-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member has made the point about where the Minister has misrepresented him. Mr TUCKEY —Well, if I could just briefly conclude-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not think there is any need to illuminate the House in respect of everything the honourable member has said. Mr TUCKEY —What I am quoted on that page as having said is further evidence of my position. I said: The Government could rent from such people- meaning small investors- it does not have to deal directly with the tenant. I think that the Minister was trying to deflect the problems that he has with his own Department. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that he cannot add arguments to personal explanations. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1986 The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 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 John Brown,Mr Cadman,Mr Coleman,Mr Cowan,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hodgman,Mr Mountford,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Ruddock and Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Nehl,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Kent,Mr Scott and Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr Willis. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Mr Coleman and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable 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. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 is having a detrimental effect on the car industry generally in South Australia, and more particularly, on employment in that industry. 2. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 contains many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting and its administrative implementation is an unwarranted burden on Australian business and the Australian taxpayer. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House repeal as a matter of utmost urgency this regressive legislation which imposes a disincentive to economic and employment growth, thereby jeopardising the well-being and living standards of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. 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 Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to Irradiate Food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should- (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia; and (2) Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax fringe benefits in iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that: We are opposed to the imposition of a Capital Gains Tax. Your petitioners humbly pray: that the Honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: that we the citizens of the Illawarra Region condemn the decision to close the Wollongong office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and that we respectfully request that this decision be reversed immediately. An your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Bill of Rights is not supported by the people of Australia, and calls on the Government to: Delay proclamation of the Bill until all matters of contention are settled by national referenda, and that: (1) Matters of States rights, property rights, rights of the newborn, the right not to belong to unions, among other issues, have not been submitted to the people of Australia to decide, and that; (2) No Australian Bill of Rights should depend on any foreign convention for its basis in Australian law. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 Benefits Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. 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 House. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners humbly pray that you repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bills of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned express our deepest concern over the government's discriminatory policies on overseas students which were contained in the 1986/87 Federal Budget. We register our strongest outrage and opposition to: 1. The introduction and subsequent increase of overseas students charge imposed on overseas students. 2. The proposed imposition of fees to secondary and TAFE overseas students. 3. The restrictive quota system on the tertiary institutions entry. 4. The heavy-handed deportation of overseas students who fail to pay their fees in time. The overseas students program is an important education program to promote international goodwill and peace, especially among nations of Asia and Pacific region. The above mentioned policies have adverse effects on the objectives of overseas students program. Your petitioners therefore urge that the overseas students policies in the 1986-87 Budget be immediately reviewed. by Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: 1. The Australian Government exert pressure on Moscow to- (a) Allow the International Atomic Energy Commission full expert investigation of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and its human consequences; (b) Allow Australian Ukrainians to send medical aid to family and friends in Soviet Ukraine; and, (c) Allow free communication between Australian and Soviet Ukrainians. 2. The Australian Government- (a) Launch a public appeal to help Chernobyl victims; (b) Support the removal of Russian nuclear weapons out of Ukraine; (c) Support the decolonization of the USSR so that captive nations like Ukraine and the Baltic states are not exploited for Soviet Russian nuclear purposes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the 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 Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject any move to cut funding to Australia-wide English as a Second Language programs in schools. We request that the Australian government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986/87 budget. by Mr Leo McLeay. 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- superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine 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. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia, hereby petition the Prime Minister as leader of the Australian Labor Party in Government in Australia and humbly showeth that: The voting public of Australia did in March 1983 and again in December 1984 vote as a majority for the election of a Labor Government who did claim to stand for social justice, equity and redistribution. That the said voters sincerely believed that a contract was entered into in voting for a Labor Government with democratic socialist principles. That there is an erosion of support for the pensioners, the unemployed, the aged, the sick and the working class of Australia, while the lot of the privileged class, the banks, the oil companies, and the money-changers continues to improve. Your Petitioners call on the Australian Labor Government to implement those policies and follow those principles of social justice, equity and redistribution which the majority of Australians voted for in 1983 and in 1984, and to adopt an immediate programme that will transfer the current economic burden to those better able to carry it. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Grace. 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Grace. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Prime Minister to keep his promise that inflation would remain below 5 per cent. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.38) —This matter of public importance is about two things which are both very directly connected. It is first and foremost about the credibility of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is about a Prime Minister who has broken more promises than Greg Norman has shot birdies, a Prime Minister who has gone the length and breadth of this country dishonouring every promise that he made to the Australian people in 1983 and 1984. I defy and challenge whoever may reply to me in this debate to nominate one promise made by the Prime Minister which has actually been honoured. In the course of this matter of public importance I will list promise after promise that this Prime Minister has broken and indicate the level of loss of credibility that he has now experienced. Before I do so, I remind the Parliament that the quarterly consumer price index figure for the September quarter of 1986 that was released today demonstrates that we now have an annual inflation rate of 8.9 per cent. That figure is no less than five times the average of our major trading partners-not one and a half times, not twice, not three times, but five times the average of our major trading partners. What do the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) say? They say: `Everything is on track; it is exactly what we predicted.' I would hate to imagine where we would be if the Prime Minister was saying that everything was not on track. Everybody in the House at Question Time today would have noticed that as the Prime Minister bobbed and squirmed and tried to evade the responsibility for this appalling high inflation rate, his great excuse-the great Hawke runner in the first half of Question Time-was that it was all the fault of devaluation. He said: `You cannot really blame us for it. It is all the fault of those wicked foreigners. If it had not been for the devaluation our situation would have been much better'. Our inflation rate is not only five times that of our major trading partners, it is also five times the inflation rate of the United States of America. Is that not the country the Treasurer was lecturing only a few weeks ago? Did the Treasurer not say in Washington: `We have all our fiscal aggregates in order. We have got the deficit down. We have brought down inflation. We have brought down unemployment. It is you Yankees who ought to get your house in order.'? What a hide! What a cheek! No wonder he drives around Sydney in a car with tinted glass. With the sort of economic performance he has been running over the last three years I would drive around Sydney in a car with tinted glass. Actually, if I were him, I do not think I would drive around Sydney at all. Let us not be uncharitable about this Government. Let us not be uncharitable about the Prime Minister and the Treasurer because, after all, according to them, this has all happened through circumstances beyond their control. They have a very selective view of history. When this Government came to power it had the benefit of the drought breaking, the benefit of the wages pause, which it bitterly opposed, and the benefit of the upturn in the international business cycle. Was that due to the rest of the world? Was that due to mother nature? Was that due to the last Government? Not on your sweet life. It was due to the sweet, innocent brilliance of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and nothing else. I say to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister that they, and they alone, are responsible for the appalling uncompetitiveness of the Australian economy at the present time. The other bit of news I have for them is that the swinging voters of Australia believe the Government is responsible for the appalling economic conditions this country has fallen into. There is not one single significant economic aggregate that is now running in the Government's favour. We have an inflation rate which, in relative terms to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, is worse than it has been since the OECD was formed 25 years ago. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer can rant and rave as much as they choose about what the rate of inflation was in March 1983, but what I will ram down their throats and what the Australian public will ram down their throats is that compared with the rest of the industrialised world our inflation rate is now worse than at any time since the formation of the OECD 25 years ago. No wonder the Treasurer got that wooden spoon. No wonder the Euromoney magazine recanted on the aberration of 18 months ago. It is not only the inflation figure that is important. Let us take all the other relative aggregates. Guess who is the biggest taxing Treasurer this country has had? It is none other than good old Paul Keating. Guess who is the highest spending Treasurer this country has had? Honourable members have got it in one-Paul Keating. Guess who has presided over the highest interest rates we have had since the Great Depression? Honourable members have got it again-the good old exponent of the banana republic. Guess who has given us an even higher number of people on the dole than there were in March 1983? It is the present Treasurer. Mr N.A. Brown —Really? Mr HOWARD —Yes, really. The reality is that there are more people on the dole now than there were in March 1983. Guess who has presided over the three largest Budget deficits in the history of this country? The present Treasurer. Guess who has presided over a rate of increase in government spending more than twice the rate of increase under the former Government? Honourable members have got it again. It is rather like that story of 10 green bottles sitting on the wall, and one by one they all come smashing down. Today's figure means that this bloke has got not one green bottle left standing on the wall. They have all come down, one by one, and every single economic credential that in his wild flights of fancy he may have aspired to has been swept away. What a shocking disgrace that a country with the natural endowments that Australia has should be heading towards a total national indebtedness of $100 billion gross. What an appalling record it is that this man who struts around the business community, who flaunts his supposed ability in front of this Parliament, should be presiding over the worst current account deficit in the OECD in 1986. What a disgrace it is that he should say to the people of Australia that he is going to introduce the greatest tax reform this country has ever seen. He has the most appalling chaos with the fringe benefits tax. His own back bench committee is about to roll him. He knows as well as we do that all those fellows in marginal seats, such as the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) and the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch)-if ever there was a dead one, it is Punch out in Barton-will be banging on his door and saying: `You have to do something about the fringe benefits tax, because if you don't we are dead'. I know that Treasury is breathing down his neck and saying: `Do not throw away the log books'. The Commissioner of Taxation will be saying: `For heaven's sake, you cannot open the floodgates and let any exceptions through because if you do you will destroy the beautiful symmetry of our fringe benefits tax'. I could almost write the minutes for you, mate. I know exactly what those people will be telling the Treasurer. He is in the most appalling mess on taxation. To crown it all, the one thing that is the king hit as far as the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are concerned, when we actually look at the figures, is that a family on average weekly earnings, after all these reforms, is going to be worse off in July next year than it was in March 1983, and there is nothing that the Prime Minister or the Treasurer can do about it. If honourable members really want to know what this fellow has done for Australia I ask them to look at some of these charts. Look at this appalling indictment of the comparative inflation rates. Germany has a negative inflation rate of 0.4 per cent. The rate for Japan is 0.2 per cent. The United States of America-remember, that is the country that had it all wrong, the country that was lectured, the country that was destroying the economies of those well run countries such as Australia-has an inflation rate of not 16 per cent, not 12 per cent, not 10 per cent, but a miserly 1.6 per cent. The Treasurer has said that they are the people who have got it all wrong. According to the Treasurer, the United Kingdom cannot run an economy and its policies are all wrong, but it has an inflation rate of only 2.4 per cent. It gets even better. If we look at this chart we see another gap opening wide, like a pair of jaws. That is the gap between the OECD inflation rate and the inflation rate of this country. But the most fascinating chart of all-this is the one this debate is all about, and I suggest to the House that this is the one that the next 15 months will be all about-is this one about the Prime Minister's credibility. This is a very interesting chart which pinpoints the very day on which the Prime Minister said: `We expect inflation will be less than five per cent in the year ahead and we are determined to keep it below five per cent'. Mr N.A. Brown —When was that? Mr HOWARD —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asks when this was. It was in October 1984. I suppose the Prime Minister could not have been expected to tell the truth in October 1984 because he was in an election mode, I think it is called. I think he was in the middle of an election campaign, and we cannot really expect the Prime Minister to tell the truth during an election campaign! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Mr Carlton —Or at any other time. Mr HOWARD —Or, indeed, at any other time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that-- Mr HOWARD —Was I being unfair, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think it might be an idea to withdraw those remarks. Mr HOWARD —We cannot really expect the Prime Minister to be totally reverential towards accuracy during an election campaign. What did he say in October 1984? He said: `We're going to keep it below 4 per cent'. Where was it by March? Mr John Brown —The people said at the election-- Mr HOWARD —Oh, come on. The honour- able member should go back to the koalas in Lausanne. He was doing a very good job over there. Where was inflation by March 1985? It was soaring up to 6 per cent. Now it is at 9 per cent. So much for the promises of the Prime Minister. So much for the promise on petrol, the promise on capital gains tax, the promise on interest rates, the promise on pensioner benefits, the promise on the Bill of Rights, the promise on uranium, the promises on this and that. One after one, the Prime Minister has dishonoured every single promise that he has made to the Australian people. He has the temerity to come into the Parliament and say to us today: `It's not our fault. Please don't blame me. I'm an honest man and I really want to be believed and loved by the Australian people. Please don't take it out on me. It's the world's fault. It's the business community's fault. It might, in time, even be Keating's fault. It cannot possibly be my fault because I, the present Prime Minister of Australia, can do no wrong'. He tried to tell us that the real reason inflation had gone up was devaluation and that it had nothing whatever to do with him. When I put it to the Prime Minister that over the last three years unit labour costs have gone up by four times the level by which they have increased in the seven major member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-in other words, our wages relative to those of our major trading partners have gone up by four times the rate they have risen in those countries-and that, had that not occurred, our competitive position would not be as bad and depreciation of the magnitude that has taken place to correct that competitive position would not have been necessary, was there any reply from the Prime Minister? He just waffled on about entirely irrelevant and unnecessary statistics from the Budget Papers. The fact is that the depreciation of the Australian dollar is a direct result of the fact that over the last three years our wage costs have gone up at four times the rate they have in comparable countries. That is the fact. That is the reality. If that had not occurred our dollar would not have depreciated by the amount that it has and we would not be suffering the inflationary surge we are at present. It is therefore totally unacceptable for the Prime Minister to seek refuge behind the argument that it is all the fault of the Western world. It is the fault of two people and two people alone. The Australian people know it, the people concerned know it and this Parliament knows it. They both stand utterly condemned for their irresponsibility. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.53) —What we have just heard is a noisy but nervous little speech given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) not to the subject-- Mr N.A. Brown —Waffle. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence, now hear me in silence. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is far too much noise on my left. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. Mr KEATING —The honourable member did not talk to the policy issues. It was a speech given to the back bench of the coalition parties. That is what we just heard. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition words such as `Australia's appalling uncompetitiveness'. If there is one thing that the Leader of the Opposition ought to know about where the exchange rate is and the stability of wage outcomes it is that, on the Australian competitiveness index, we have not been as competitive as this in the last 20 years. But he says: `Australia's appalling uncompetitiveness'. In other words, he makes a totally erroneous point; a point made cheaply but a totally erroneous point. He talks about people on the dole when he doubled the unemployment rate in 18 months. He makes the cheap and lousy point about my presiding over Budget deficits, the largest and the first of which was inherited from him, and he fails to make the point that the Government has brought down the Budget imbalance consistently over four Budgets, to the point where now, as the Economic Planning Advisory Council said in its estimation the other day, the structural Budget deficit is zero. He talks about Australia's indebtedness when he knows that the generator of our debt has been five or six accumulated current account deficits which have arisen from the lack of Australian competitiveness. He knows that the cause of that competitiveness is the overvaluation of the exchange rate over the years under his Administration, poor wage outcomes, bad inflation, a terms of trade collapse and a trend decline in the terms of trade. He talks about indebtedness and he knows the cause of it-an increase in the valuation effect off the depreciation in the Australian dollar denomination of debt. He knows that the accumulation of the current account imbalances is the cause of our uncompetitiveness. He knows the position on the Budget deficit is not as he stated. He knows he makes simply a cheap point about the dole when unemployment was out of control in his period in office. His remark about Australia's appalling uncompetitiveness demonstrates either a lack of understanding on his part about how truly competitive Australia now is or simply a desire to make a cheap political point. The Leader of the Opposition came to office on a platform of decency in politics and a structure of political thinking and political policy. We have now found that all of that has been junked for the kind of opportunist rhetoric we have just heard. He had nothing constructive to say about competitiveness, employment, fiscal policy or indebtedness. At least let me say this of the former Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock): He may not have the framework the Leader of the Opposition believed he should have had, but at least what he did he did with grace and some style. What we have now is a graceless, styleless, idealless, nervous Leader of the Opposition. While this Government struggles with the restoration of Australia's competitiveness, a trend decline in the terms of trade, double digit inflation, massive unemployment, pulling Australia from two major crises in its recent history-that is, the internally induced depression of 1982-83 and the terms of trade collapse of 1985-86-relieving Australia from the yoke of the current account deficit, giving it the prospects of long term, sustainable low inflationary growth, and while it deals with the massive, fundamental fiscal imbalance of nearly 5 per cent of gross domestic product bequeathed to us by the honourable member for Bennelong, there is not one solid, constructive, positive word for the Government's courage in floating the exchange rate, sticking with the adjustments, wearing the adjustments in wages over three years, pulling down the fiscal imbalance from 5 per cent of GDP to 1.4 per cent, to the point where now this country has one of the most rigorous fiscal and monetary regimes in the world. Let me tell the House this-and I am quite prepared to point this out to any country, including the United States, Germany: This country has one of the most rigorous fiscal and monetary regimes in the world. We are not simply saying that we will let the dam wall of wages, the incomes policy, hold it all back. We are using the traditional instruments of policy effectively-more effectively than under the honourable member's Administration-but of course we have in place the other major policy of adjustment, an incomes policy, which has reduced real wage costs over the last few years. Mr N.A. Brown —What about indexation? Do you support that? Mr KEATING —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is stung by my answer at Question Time because he knows that he has put his foot in it yet again. On AM this morning he said that we ought to have another wage pause, when he rejects all notions of centralised wage fixing. The Leader of the Opposition denies the undeniable point that, when one has a major fall in the exchange rate, a major depreciation, to recover competitiveness, there is an unavoidable lift in inflation as imports price themselves out of the Australian market. As they do so, the price effect is measured by the consumer price index. Let us be clear about this: With a 2.3 per cent wage increase-the only one in calendar year 1986-it is clear that the surge in inflation has not come from wages; it has come from the depreciation. In Question Time the Leader of the Opposition said that the Australian Statistician had measured the direct effect of the depreciation surge in the CPI at, I think, 0.38 per cent. But the Statistician has measured only the price effects of goods sold as imports in this economy. He has never measured and does not attempt to measure the indirect price effects of materials imported which are then produced into import replacement goods. He measures only the direct price of imported completed, finished goods as they arrive in this economy. He does not measure the indirect price effects of materials which go to import-competing products. That is a very convenient point for the Leader of the Opposition to overlook, but that is the cause of the temporary surge in inflation. That temporary surge will be diminished as the Government's wage policies pull that price surge out of wages and we see inflation track down. What is this Government doing? It is dealing with the two big fundamental imbalances-the fiscal imbalance and the current account imbalance. It has licked the first; it is working on the second. It has laid down the policies to deal with the second. Australia fundamentally is in a much better position because its fiscal policies are down and Commonwealth demands on capital markets are down. In terms of the current account deficit, the dollar is now working its way to change the balance of imports and exports, to see the trade account respond to the increased indebtedness of the depreciation. We are then matching that inflationary surge with an incomes policy which we are putting together and have been putting together for the last 3 1/2 years with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and now with business. In that shabby, nervous little speech that we just heard there was not one solid point about how there would be a more competitive economy under the coalition or about this Government's policies of rebalancing the economy to reweight it away from dependency on the primary export sector to the manufacturing sector, to rebuild our secondary structure and to relieve us of the yoke of the current account deficit to allow us to go back to a policy of growth without needing to restrain demand and imports. There was no discussion or questioning of this strategy, just attacks about the short term inflationary consequences of the shift in the dollar. Then came all the other silly points about the fringe benefits tax and everything else. The Leader of the Opposition stands on his tax record. Everyone knows what it is. He talks about minutes from the Treasury. The Treasury knows that there was no courage lurking in the Leader of the Opposition to change the tax system. No one will find minutes from the Treasury urging him to make many changes because it knew that he would never make any. The Treasury is a department of principle. It is after good economic outcomes. I have fought for them; the Leader of the Opposition never did. He should not try to chide me about Treasury minutes. The Treasury has no pride in him. Let us be clear about that. Of course the Treasury fights for tax principles. Why would it not? Of course it fights for decent economic policies. Why would it not? I hope that the Australian Treasury will always stand up to any other section of the public and put its view courageously, as it does. In terms of tax and the fringe benefits tax, the Commissioner of Taxation wrote to the former Treasurer in 1977, saying: `We must do something about fringe benefits taxation and our runaway tax system'. He wants to make those points. I respond to the Leader of the Opposition. He raises this issue of inflation. I have come in to listen to what he has to say, but essentially there is nothing but abuse about appalling uncompetitiveness-things which are banal-cheap points about people on the dole and about who lived under the highest interest rates. Those are silly, banal points. This Government has in place a very sound structure for dealing with these problems. The quality, speed and magnitude of the changes are being recognised not just in Australia but around the world. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned my comments to American audiences. When they were told that equivalent changes in Budget outlays in the American budgetary system would be a change of $60 billion in outlays and $20 billion in receipts-which would reduce their deficit from about $200 billion to about $120 billion-they gasped at the rate of change here. When people around the world look at our monetary policy settings and the relative wage changes which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) read out at Question Time, they understand our position. That understanding is now being manifested in the exchange rate strengthening, interest rates subsiding today and a further decline in 90-day bill rates. Sitting in front of me is an eminently beatable commodity in the Leader of the Opposition. As he said in New York when our exchange rate was under pressure, he may think that the times suit him. He thought that this Government would not measure up to the changes that it needed to make. It has made them and that will pay off for this Government and for Australia. Any nervous little speeches, giggling, cackling or speaking to his back bench will not disguise the quality and impact of those changes on this economy over the next couple of years. The Australian people will have a very clear choice at the next election between a government of quality with quality changes for the long term and the kinds of shibboleths they heard from the Leader of the Opposition today. I know what their choice will be. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 259th report of the Committee, relating to the Department of Community Services-Proposal to acquire computing facilities, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Report 259 presents the findings of the Committee's examination of a proposal by the Department of Community Services to acquire a distributed computing capability. The proposal was referred to the Committee under the terms of its standing reference to investigate and report on proposed acquisitions of automatic data processing facilities by Commonwealth departments and authorities staffed under the Public Service Act 1922. The proposal by the Department of Community Services was estimated to cost approximately $20m for hardware and system software over three years and a further $6.1m per annum for other costs. The Committee identified several major areas of concern in the Department's initial submission which were not allayed by the Department's supplementary submission, sought by the Committee to address these matters. The Committee's primary concerns continue to relate to first, the definition of the system requirements: The individual applications proposed to be automated have not been examined for their cost effectiveness and have not been assigned priorities; and the estimate of computer capacity requirements appears excessive. Secondly, they relate to options for meeting system requirements: The Department has given serious consideration only to its preferred option of a distributed computing capability; insufficient consideration has been given to a range of options between the centralised and distributed options which might meet the Department's requirements at less cost; and no serious consideration has been given to less ambitious but potentially more cost effective options which exclude automation of low priority applications. Thirdly, they relate to option costs: Costs appear to have been understated for all options, particularly for the preferred option of a distributed computing capability; the understated costs have biased the proposal in favour of a distributed system; and should the Department proceed to acquire a distributed computing capability of the capacity proposed there is a likelihood of cost over-runs. The Committee concluded that the Department's preferred option has not been satisfactorily justified on cost effectiveness grounds. The Committee concluded that there are several other less ambitious, less costly and potentially more cost effective options which the Department should seriously evaluate in greater detail before finalising its procurement proposals. The Committee's consideration of this proposal by the Department of Community Services has differed from the scrutiny given other proposals under the Committee's standing reference in that it did not include a public hearing. The Committee has in its review of previous ADP acquisition proposals found that repeated attempts to elicit satisfactory answers and information from proponent departments have generally not justified the associated time and effort expended by the Committee. The Committee will in future be taking the view that if initial submissions are not satisfactory, and the subsequent communication of the Committee's concerns to the proponent department does not elicit a satisfactory response, the Committee will report its views to Parliament without further delay. The Committee has decided in this case to present its views in a short report to Parliament to enable the Department of Community Services to respond promptly to the concerns raised by the Committee in a further submission to Cabinet. The Committee considers that Cabinet funding approval should not be given to the Department to acquire computing facilities until the detailed studies recommended in this report have been completed, and the Department has demonstrated to Cabinet that it has selected the most cost-effective means of meeting its information requirements. In May 1985 the Committee issued its initial guidelines for the content of submissions to the Committee under its standing reference, and invited comments from departments on these. It has to date received no comments. The Committee itself has identified some areas of deficiency and of potential improvement. It now intends, with the benefit of its experience of the four inquiries it has now completed under the reference, to issue revised guidelines which will assist departments to prepare submissions that will meet the Committee's needs and therefore expedite the process of the Committee's inquiry and report and ADP purchases. The Committee continues to welcome any comments that interested departments and agencies may wish to make on the guidelines. I recommend the report to honourable members. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.13) —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: Redevelopment of the School of Military Engineering, Casula, NSW. This proposed work was referred to the Public Works Committee on 5 June 1986. The proposal includes refurbishment and demolition of existing sub-standard facilities, some of which date back to World War II. The school provides training in military engineering and other specialist skills for the Royal Australian Engineers. The school trains foreign students and personnel from government departments, trains dogs and their handlers in the detection of explosives and develops engineer doctrines, techniques and training methods. It also provides assistance to the civilian community. The proposed work comprises the provision of new training facilities, administration accommodation, vehicle maintenance and stores, and the provision of associated roads and engineering services. It also includes the refurbishment of facilities, the demolition of sub-standard installations, and the upgrading of the Moorebank area mains water system to provide a reliable and effective fire-fighting capability. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $31.6m at August 1986 prices. It is intended that initial tenders will be invited in April 1987, the first construction contract awarded in June 1987, and for the work to be completed by June 1991. Consultants have been used to design the proposal and it is intended that consultants will be used for the project documentation. The design of the Moorebank area water mains system will be undertaken by my Department. Construction of the work is to be contracted to private enterprise as has been the case for many years with DHC activities. This is consistent with the normal practice of my Department, contrary to anything that the Opposition spokesman on housing and construction may say or has said in the past. About 130 people will be employed on the work. I would like to thank the Public Works Committee for its effort, for the support it has given to this proposal and for the prompt way it has handled it. I commend the motion to the House. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(4.17) —In the absence of my colleague the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), I am pleased to inform the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) that the Opposition accepts this motion. We look forward to monitoring the progress of the things which are contained in it and which will flow from it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.18) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of new utility helicopter facilities at RAAF Base, Townsville. This proposed work is for the construction of new operational, technical and administrative facilities at the Royal Australian Air Force Base in Townsville. This will enable the relocation of No. 9 Squadron from Amberley after it is re-equipped with the new Sikorsky Blackhawk helicopters. The primary role of No. 9 Squadron is to provide support to the Army, principally the operational deployment force based at Townsville. Because of the many non-productive transit flying hours involved in operating out of Amberley, the Squadron is to be relocated to Townsville. The proposed work comprises site preparation and the provision of trunk engineering services, extension of the taxiway and new helicopter apron and the construction of a maintenance hangar, flight line annex and technical support facility. It also includes the construction of a headquarters building, ancillary building and carpark, the relocation of a fuel tanker parking area, and associated security measures. The relocation of No. 9 Squadron will require the provision of accommodation for RAAF personnel. This will initially involve a total of 15 married quarters. The estimated cost of providing these facilities at Townsville is $20.7m at October 1986 prices-$19.3m for on-base helicopter facilities and $1.4m for the 15 off-base houses. Provision for this outlay has been included in the Defence capital works program for 1986-87. Possible future requirements to accommodate the squadron at Townsville include 56 new houses and land packages at a cost of $6.3m and the upgrading of 42 existing surplus Army dwellings at a cost of $1.5m. These items will be subject to separate funding arrangements by the Department of Defence in future financial years after actual needs and the identification of the surplus houses has been determined. In addition, four accommodation blocks for single personnel will be upgraded and refurbished at a cost of $700,000 which will be funded separately from Defence repairs and maintenance programs. Construction on the initial $20.7m facilities is urgent if they are to be available at the earliest date after delivery of the new helicopters in 1987. In view of this urgency, approval has been given to concurrent documentation up to the tender stage pending the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. Subject to parliamentary approval of the proposed work, it is intended to invite tenders for the on-base helicopter facilities in March 1987, and to complete construction in August 1988. This will provide the RAAF with sufficient time to commission the new facilities before the squadron is relocated early in 1989. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(4.23) —Once again, in the absence of my colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), let me say that the Opposition welcomes the referral of these proposed works to the Joint Standing Committee on Public works. We look forward to its deliberations and report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Privacy Bill and the associated Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill is to regulate the collection, handling and use by Commonwealth departments and agencies of information about individuals so as to provide them with a level of privacy protection that is consistent with efficient Government administration. The Privacy Bill will establish a comprehensive set of rules regulating such dealings with personal information and provide an effective means for monitoring compliance with the rules. The rules will, however, mesh with and avoid overlapping existing legislation which coincidentally protects privacy, such as the Freedom of Information Act. At common law there is no enforceable right to privacy as such. There are, however, various existing legal rights that protect aspects of what are generally regarded as individual privacy. Thus the existing law on defamation, breach of confidence, copyright and passing off can be used to prevent unauthorised circulation of personal information or comment in various circumstances. In recent times there have been enormous developments in technology for processing information, providing immense opportunities for building up and using information on individuals. This has focused attention on the need to provide more comprehensive measures for protecting privacy against the threat posed by misuse of this technology. This has been recognised during the development of the Australia Card by the decision to establish the Data Protection Agency. With the greater range of services being provided by the Government, the greater is the accumulation of personal information about individuals. More than anything else, the capacity of modern computers to search and process information offers the greatest potential for invasion of personal privacy by misuse. The greater the accumulations of personal information, the greater are the possibilities of inaccurate material being included amongst such information. Decisions based on wrong information are oppressive to the individual concerned and hinder efficient administration. Internationally, guidelines for the enactment of legislation protecting personal privacy in the processing of information have been developed by the Council of Europe and by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of which Australia is a member. Most European countries, the United States of America and Canada have enacted privacy protection legislation. In December 1984, Australia formally signified its intention to introduce legislation along the lines of the OECD guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data. The Government has been giving detailed consideration for some time to comprehensive information privacy protection legislation. In December 1983 a very detailed report and recommendations were received from the Law Reform Commission following a reference to the Commission in 1976. The recommendations included draft legislation which drew on the OECD guidelines. The scheme of the Bill is to enunciate a series of rules, called information privacy principles, which are based on the principles recommended by the Law Reform Commission in its draft legislation. They will apply to Commonwealth departments and agencies to the same extent that the FOI Act applies to them. Privacy complaints against security and intelligence agencies, which are not subject to the FOI Act and thus are exempt from this Bill, will be able to be dealt with by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Under the principles, Commonwealth agencies must have a lawful purpose for collecting personal information, and the purpose must be related to the functions or activities of the collector. An agency collecting personal information from the information subject must see that the latter is generally aware of such things as the purpose for which the information is being collected and, if such is the case, the fact that collection is authorised or required by law. The principles require agencies, when both collecting and retaining information, to see that it is relevant to the purpose of collection, is up to date and is complete. Before using any information, they must also check its accuracy. Personal information is widely defined to include anything-fact, true or false, or opinion-that reasonably identifies the information subject. However, all the principles are concerned only with personal information in a record or collected for inclusion in a record or a publication, so unrecorded conversation, for example, is not covered. The principles require agencies to store information records securely against loss or misuse. If asked, they are to provide information about the types of personal information they hold. Subject to FOI Act exemptions they are to provide access to them if sought by the information subject and to make corrections for accuracy, relevance and completeness. Subject to certain specific exceptions, notably to law enforcement and preservation of life, information that was sought from the information subject may not be used for a purpose or disclosed to a person other than with the agreement of the information subject. Commonwealth agencies will be required to comply with these principles. A breach of the principles will be deemed by the Bill to be an interference with privacy. Under the Bill the Data Protection Agency-DPA-to be established by the Australia Card Bill will undertake the functions of investigating alleged interferences with privacy, attempting to resolve the allegations by conciliation and, failing that, reporting to the Minister where it finds that there has been such an interference. The DPA's powers in conducting investigations will be those prescribed in the Australia Card Bill. The DPA's investigation and reporting functions will be exercisable not only on complaint but also of its own motion. Remedies such as injunction and declaration will be able to be sought against interferences with privacy to the extent that they are available under existing law. However, the Government has decided that, at this initial stage, it should not be possible to recover damages for interferences with privacy by agencies. Nevertheless, when reporting a finding that an interference with privacy has occurred, the DPA will be able to make a recommendation for compensation to an individual affected by the interference. To help agencies achieve compliance with the principles, the DPA will be able to give advisory opinions, issue guidelines and examine proposed enactments for privacy implications. Where an agency believes that a current or proposed practice that may breach the principles is nevertheless important to its operations, it will be able to seek from the DPA a determination allowing the practice to continue or go ahead without risk of its being found to be an interference with privacy. Such a determination may be granted only if the DPA is satisfied that the public interest in permitting the practice substantially outweighs the public interest in adherence to the principles. I mentioned earlier that the law of confidence is an important existing means of protecting privacy in some circumstances. The Bill includes some limited extensions of the law of confidence recommended by the Law Reform Commission which will further enhance privacy protection. The companion Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill includes amendments of the FOI Act to extend the opportunities for access to personal affairs records by record subjects and establish the requirement for record subjects to be alerted to requests for access to those records by others. The proposals contained in the Privacy Bill and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill are expected to have a direct cost to the Government of $800,000 in a full year of operation. International instruments to which I have referred, overseas legislation and the Law Reform Commission's report recognise that there are important interests that compete with the right to privacy, including effective government administration, law enforcement and free flow of information. The Government considers that the Privacy Bill, applying as it does to Commonwealth agencies, strikes a fair balance between the right of the individual to privacy and the equally important concern of the individual, as a taxpayer, that the Commonwealth administration is not overburdened. What will be achieved by the Privacy Bill is a comprehensive code of information privacy protection standards. It will be the first such legislation anywhere in Australia. It will also provide a practical means for persons who have been adversely affected by a failure to comply with those standards to seek redress. I commend the Bill to the House. I present to the House an explanatory memorandum to this Bill and to the subsequent Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a companion measure to the Privacy Bill which I have just introduced. The main amendment made by this Bill is to the Freedom of Information Act to introduce `reverse FOI' for personal affairs documents. That is, where documents requested under FOI include a record of personal affairs of a person other than the requester, the record-subject must, if possible, be consulted and given an opportunity to seek exemption from disclosure to the requester of that record. Another amendment to the Act will slightly restrict the circumstances in which a ground of exemption from access can be used to prevent access to a record of personal affairs by the record subject. Otherwise this Bill makes essentially machinery amendments to ensure that privacy complaints wrongly directed to other agencies are transferred to the Data Protection Agency for investigation under the Privacy Bill without inconvenience to the complainant. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters)(4.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, on 25 September 1986 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced in this place a range of decisions taken by the Government to give effect to our commitment to improve the efficiency of the public sector. This Bill implements those decisions that require amendment of legislation-in particular, amendment of the Public Service Act and repeal of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. From the beginning of this Government's term in office we recognised that there were substantial barriers to productivity and efficiency in many industries because of inefficient work and management practices. Those barriers had built up and become ingrained over many years and would not be changed overnight. We recognised that change was vital if we were to maximise our economic potential. Consequently, agreements to address such practices formed an integral part of proposals to restructure the steel industry, the heavy engineering industry, the motor vehicle industry, the shipbuilding industry, and most recently the ship repair industry. The need to address inefficient work and management practices was agreed by both business and union representatives at the work practices meeting convened by the Federal Government. This meeting was a major initiative and the resultant agreement was a vital step forward in tripartite co-operation to address inefficient practices and improve productivity. The Government is therefore giving a lead to changing work practices in the private sector. It is, however, equally determined that its own house should be in order. This Bill is part of that process. Taken together with this Government's Public Service reform legislation passed in 1984, this amounts to the most substantial amendment of Public Service employment legislation since the introduction of the present Public Service Act in 1922. The most significant areas of change in the current legislation are: Revised redeployment and retirement provisions in circumstances of excess officers, inefficiency invalidity and loss of essential qualifications; and changes to the promotion and the promotion appeals system. In addition, many other amendments are made consistent with the Government's desire to simplify and streamline a range of personnel processes. There is a common thread to these changes-increased efficiency and better management. The Government expects its managers to manage. It is establishing the framework within which that can take place. Turning first to the tenure of public servants, this Bill repeals the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. As the Prime Minister said in his statement, this Act has not provided a satis- factory basis for the redeployment and retirement of staff. In its place, this Bill inserts new provisions in the Public Service Act which provide for circumstances of excess staff, inefficiency, invalidity or loss of essential qualifications. Surplus Staff The Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act has not provided an efficient or satisfactory mechanism for dealing with surplus staff. The processes of the Act are extremely complex; it does not provide for an effective voluntary retrenchment scheme; it provides too many stages of appeal; and its potential for providing a Commonwealth employment-wide redeployment system has not been realised. Further, its processes are extremely time consuming and it can take up to two years to finalise a surplus staff situation under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act Award. The Government has decided to simplify and speed up the processes of dealing with surplus staff. Detailed procedures have been kept out of the Public Service Act. Negotiations will take place with the unions to obtain a new redeployment and retirement award to apply to all public servants to provide common consultation, notice and benefit provisions. When a potential redundancy arises the secretary to a department will notify the relevant unions and the Board. After consultation with the unions, where redeployment prospects are poor, and where the Board approves, staff will be eligible for lump sum termination benefits if they agree to voluntary retrenchment. Voluntary retrenchment, where necessary, will be able to be offered one month after the unions have been provided with the relevant facts. A voluntary retrenchment payment of two weeks for each year of service with a minimum of four weeks and a maximum of 48 weeks pay, plus four weeks notice of payment in lieu, is proposed. Staff will be given one month to elect to take retrenchment. Using this approach, where redundancies are unavoidable, the aim will be to have voluntary retirements achieved within two months. Secretaries and the Public Service Board will continue to accept an obligation to take reasonable action to find alternative suitable employment in the Service before exercising the power to retrench involuntarily or reduce an officer's classification. In these circumstances, the current income maintenance periods of six or 12 months will be retained, beginning from the date of the offer of voluntary retrenchment; that is, at least two months earlier than the current processes. As an essential protection against arbitrary or capricious action by management there will be in the Public Service Act a right of appeal against involuntary retrenchment or reduction in classification to a tripartite Redeployment and Retirement Appeal Committee established by the Merit Protection and Review Agency. Inefficient Staff The repeal of the Redeployment and Retirement Act and the substitution of new streamlined provisions in the Public Service Act will have a substantial effect on management's ability to deal with inefficient staff. The Government acknowledges that most public servants are conscientious, hard-working and efficient. However, there are exceptions, as there must be in any big organisation. As the Prime Minister said in his ministerial statement, the Government expects the power given to departmental secretaries in respect of non-performing staff to be used in appropriate circumstances. Poor performers will be given a formal warning in writing and a three-month period in which to reach the necessary standard. If they do not improve, the Secretary, on the advice of an assessment committee, will be able to reduce them to a lower level or to retire them. The officer will have one month's notice of redeployment to a lower level or retirement and a right to appeal to a Redeployment and Retirement Appeal Committee established by the Merit Protection and Review Agency. The new measures are markedly different from those under the previous arrangements which provided for a multiplicity of appeals and a requirement for the Public Service Board to attempt to redeploy inefficient staff. The new provisions will be a significant spur to efficient performance. Promotions and Appeals I turn now to the promotion and promotions appeals system. The Government is firmly committed to promotion solely on the basis of merit. The Public Service is justifiably proud of the absence of cronyism from its ranks. There is no place for patronage, favouritism or discrimination. This Bill strengthens and extends the existing prohibitions on patronage, favouritism and discrimination. Section 33 of the Act will state categorically that powers are to be exercised without patronage, favouritism or discrimination. The disciplinary provisions will be amended to make express reference to the fact that patronage, favouritism or discrimination amount to misconduct and render officers liable to disciplinary action. The Bill amends the definition of efficiency for promotion decisions. It will be broadened to permit secretaries to departments to consider the potential for future career development of applicants and their capability to perform a variety of jobs at the same level as well as their suitability for the particular vacancy. This will lead to more realistic selection decisions and more flexible staffing. Whilst the present promotion and appeal system is generally providing good results, it is far too expensive and time consuming. When an appeal is involved it is estimated that, on average, it takes 36 weeks to fill a vacancy. Measures must be taken to reduce the costs and time involved when making promotions. This Bill and associated regulations will exclude appeals against promotions to positions above Clerical Administrative Class 8 and equivalent grades in other occupations. These positions are managerial, senior technical and professional in nature. This is already recognised by the cut-off of eligibility for overtime payments above this level. In such cases it is not appropriate for an external body such as the Promotion Appeal Committee to be substituting its view for that of departmental management as to who is best suited to do the job. However, as a protection against improper selection practices, the Merit Protection and Review Agency will be able to recommend to the departmental secretary that a promotion be cancelled if an unsuccessful applicant can establish, to its satisfaction, that the promotion decision was affected by patronage, favouritism or discrimination or that there was a serious defect in the selection process, and that it is unreasonable for the promotion to stand. Other significant changes to the promotion appeal system include the reduction of the appeal period and the limitation of the right to appeal to original applicants. The Government sees the increased use of joint selection committees as making a significant contribution to reducing the costs of selection processes, particularly where bulk promotions are concerned. The legislation will be amended to introduce a special category of management-initiated joint selection committees. After, consultation with the unions, the Board will notify in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette the circumstances in which these committees may be used. The committees will comprise a convenor nominated by the Merit Protection and Review Agency, a nominee of the department and, if nominated within a prescribed period, a nominee of the relevant union. If no union nomination is forthcoming the committee will nevertheless be able to proceed. However, due to the consultation with the unions it is expected that there will be full co-operation during the trial period of 12 months. Where the secretary accepts the unanimous advice of a joint selection committee, the promotion will not be subject to appeal. The Government would expect these procedures to be used in bulk selection situations in agreed areas such as the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Social Security where significant numbers of vacancies at the same level are to be filled simultaneously. It is expected that, together with revised guidelines on selections, these changes to the promotion and appeal systems will significantly reduce the time taken to fill positions and the number and cost of appeals. This must lead to a more responsive and efficient Service. I now wish to mention some of the other more important features of the Bill. The Bill includes a number of changes to the disciplinary provisions. This aims at reducing unnecessary procedural steps, providing more relevant penalties and removing costly appeals against minor disciplinary actions. There are also a number of amendments designed to permit the devolution of casework from the Public Service Board to departments. Over the years the Board has progressively delegated many of its functions; this is a continuation of that process. It is fundamental to the aim of providing managers with the power to manage. A range of other delegations will be implemented by administrative action by the Public Service Board. As mentioned in the Prime Minister's statement, many of the Government's decisions will be implemented by subordinate legislation or other administrative action. Regulations are currently being drafted to simplify selection procedures for temporary higher duties by allowing departments to select the most suitable officer available, having regard to operational requirements, and abolishing appeals against such selections, unless the period of acting extends beyond three months. These regulations are not dependent upon legislation and it is expected that they will be made as soon as possible. Arrangements are already in hand to begin the review by the Public Service Board of flextime. Honourable members will also recall the Prime Minister's announcement of the establishment of an efficiency scrutiny unit to be headed by Mr David Block, AO, and the announcement of a number of other measures to enhance financial efficiency. The efficiency scrutiny unit is expected to be up and running early in the new year and early action is being taken to implement the decisions announced on financial management. Financial Impact It is not possible precisely to quantify the financial savings that will flow from passage and implementation of this Bill. Major savings will be derived from more efficient personnel practices generally. In particular, there will be savings from a more streamlined promotion and appeal system, the removal of appeals above Class 8 and the increased use of joint selection committees. More efficient processes for handling surplus staff situations and the significant changes relating to the retirement of inefficient staff will also be a source of significant long term savings for the Government. This Government has done more than any of its predecessors to reform the Public Service, to maximise its efficiency and effectiveness and to improve the quality of services provided to the Government and the community. This Bill makes further significant changes towards that same end. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill and the two associated Bills-the Pig Industry (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1986 and the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986-is to restructure the statutory arrangements fo the Australian pig and pigmeat industry. This Bill establishes an Australian Pork Corporation to replace the existing Pork Promotion Committee, and establishes an Australian Pork Corporation Selection Committee, to nominate suitably qualified persons for appointment to the Corporation, and an Australian Pig Industry Policy Council to provide a forum where matters of concern to the industry as a whole can be discussed and appropriate policy options developed. During the past 10 years the Australian pigmeat industry has made many significant advances. These are best illustrated by the increase in pigs slaughtered from 3.4 million in 1974-75 to an estimated 4.5 million in 1985-86. The gross value of production in the same period has risen from $197m to $450m. Domestic per capita consumption of pig meat has risen from 12.9 kilograms to over 16 kilograms. These are growth rates of which any industry would be proud. It is appropriate that such a dynamic industry should review its organisational structure to ensure that it is relevant to today's needs and the requirements of tomorrow. The Australian pig industry has been concerned for some time that the legislation creating the Pork Promotion Committee has not been sufficiently broad to enable that body to become involved in marketing initiatives on behalf of the industry as a whole. This has included such developments as computer aided livestock marketing-CALM-and the development of a national livestock language-Ausmeat. In both these initiatives the interests of the beef and sheep meat industries have been represented by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation-AMLC. If the pig industry is to be fully involved in either of these schemes it will be necessary to place the responsibility in the hands of a statutorily-funded body. In discussions with the industry on the most suitable structure for industry organisations a number of options were put forward, one of which was to bring the marketing of pigs and pig meat within the scope of the AMLC. Serious consideration was given to this option but in the end the pig industry decided it wanted to remain independent of the AMLC. After lengthy discussion with the industry the package contained within this legislation was developed and accepted by the Australian Pork Producers' Federation as the most suitable that could be achieved. The new Australian Pork Corporation will have a wider range of functions and powers than the present Pork Promotion Committee. This will enable it to become involved in marketing issues affecting the industry where it feels such involvement is necessary and desirable. The Corporation is not intended to be a trading body or to involve itself in any form of price setting mechanism that would restrict competition in the market-place. The Corporation will have the power, on behalf of the pig industry, to participate in and contribute financially to marketing arrangements such as CALM or Ausmeat should, if in the commercial judgment of the Corporation, such schemes appear to be in the interests of the industry. The Corporation will consist of seven members. There will be an independent chairperson, a Commonwealth Government member and five members selected for their expertise in such matters as pig production, pig meat processing, product from promotion, marketing or appropriate commercial skills. The five members will be selected by an Australian Pork Corporation Selection Committee. This Committee will have four members: An independent chairperson, two members nominated by the Australian Pork Producers Federation and one member nominated by the National Meat Processors Association-the NMPA. Policy development within the industry is to be strengthened by the formation of an Australian Pig Industry Policy Council. The purpose of the Council will be to inquire into and report to the Minister and the industry about matters affecting the wellbeing of the industry and to develop recommendations and plans for measures to further the interests of the industry. The Council will be made up of an independent chairperson, the President and Senior Vice-President of the Australian Pork Producers Federation, the President of the National Meat Processors Association, the Chairperson of the National Smallgoods Council, the President of the Stockfeed Manufacturers Association of Australia, the Chairperson of the Australian Pork Corporation-the APC-and the Chairperson of the Pig Research Council. The new arrangements are to be financed from levies collected on pigs slaughtered in Australia for human consumption. There will be no implications for Commonwealth finances arriving from the legislative changes. The legislation governing the operations of the new bodies is in line with the guidelines laid down in the Government's policy statement `Reform of Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities' which I tabled on 20 January 1986. The accountability of the Corporation has been strengthened by requiring the Corporation to report at least once a year to the executives of the APPF and the NMPA. At such meetings the whole range of APC activities can be discussed. This accountability to industry is in addition to the usual requirement for an annual report to Parliament. The APC is to be responsible for making recommendations to the Minister for Primary Industry on the rate of the pig slaughter levy for the APC. In making such recommendations the Corporation will be required to consult with the APPF and the NMPA and will be required to inform the Minister of the views of those bodies when requesting an increase. The APC will be required to prepare and submit for approval by the Minister for Primary Industry a three-to-five-year corporate plan setting out its broad objectives for the period and its proposed strategies for achieving those objectives. In addition the APC will be required to prepare an annual operating plan setting out its strategies, programs and proposed resource usage for the year. Again this annual plan will need to be approved by the Minister for Primary Industry. The sections of this Bill associated with the selection of the members of the APC come into force on the day it receives the royal assent and the rest of the Bill will be proclaimed when the selection process has been completed and the new Corporation is ready to proceed. In concluding I would like to pay tribute to those members who have served on the Pork Promotion Committee since its inception in 1975. The progress and achievement of the industry to which I referred earlier are, I am sure, in no small measure due to the work of the Committee and the promotional activities it has organised. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present an explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill, which is associated with the Pig Industry Bill 1986, is to provide a smooth transfer of functions from the Pork Promotion Committee to the new statutory structure for the pig industry detailed in the Pig Industry Bill 1986. The arrangements will have no impact on Commonwealth revenue as the Bill provides that costs associated with selection of members for the new Corporation will be met by the Pork Promotion Committee which is financed solely by a levy on pigs slaughtered. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill, which is associated with the Pig Industry Bill 1986, is to provide for the financing of the Australian Pork Corporation. The portion of the pig slaughter levy that, until now, has been paid to the Pork Promotion Committee will, in the future, be paid to the new Corporation. The Bill also raises from $1 to $1.50 per pig the maximum rate of levy that can be collected for the new Corporation, although it is not intended to increase levies to that level at this time. The Bill has no effect on the operative rate of levy nor does it impact on Commonwealth expenditure or revenue. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In his statement on Public Service reforms on 25 September 1986 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced the Government's intention to introduce measures to contain the rate of invalidity retirements and associated costs under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. As part of that initiative this Bill contains provisions which will require invalidity pensioners under the scheme to report any employment. Invalidity pensions will be adjusted where annual earnings exceed a prescribed limit. In addition, the Bill contains a large number of essentially technical provisions intended to update and clarify the operation of the Superannuation Acts 1922 and 1976 and improve the administration of the scheme. The Commonwealth superannuation scheme is the principal occupational superannuation scheme for Commonwealth sector employees. Of the 74,000 Commonwealth scheme pensioners, 28,000-almost 38 per cent-receive invalidity pensions. Invalidity pensions offer higher benefits than those otherwise obtainable on early age retirement. A survey of Commonwealth scheme invalidity pensioners conducted earlier this year by the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office and the Australian Bureau of Statistics has indicated that 12.4 per cent of invalidity pensioners under 65 years of age were employed some time during 1985. The average earnings of those employed was $4,540 and the average pension paid to them was $15,200. In 1.3 per cent of cases, earnings from employment plus pension exceeded the salary the pensioners would have received had they continued in their previous Commonwealth employment. Invalidity pensions payable under the Commonwealth scheme are based on the premise that the recipient is unfit to perform duties. The Government therefore considers it imperative that the invalidity provisions of the scheme should not provide a taxpayer financed supplement to those who engage in employment. The Bill will amend the provisions of the Superannuation Act 1976 in relation to invalidity pensions payable under that Act and the Superannuation Act 1922 to persons who have not attained 65 years of age. It will require them to provide information to the Commissioner for Superannuation regarding any employment in which they are, or intend to be, engaged during the year. Invalidity pensions payable to such persons will be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis where the aggregate amount of the pension and income from personal exertion exceeds a prescribed limit. In setting that limit the Government will have regard to the position of persons in receipt of low pensions. Provision is also made for invalidity pensions payable to persons who have not attained age 65 to be cancelled where that pension has been suspended for 12 months because the person failed to provide information on employment or failed to comply with a request to attend a medical examination which would establish whether or not he or she had been restored to health. The Bill provides that a person who became entitled to an invalidity pension on or after attaining his or her minimum retiring age-generally age 55-will have the option to forgo that pension and receive instead the age or early retirement pension which would have been payable if, at the date the person retired on invalidity grounds, he or she had retired on age grounds. Taken together the new provisions concerning invalidity pension are expected to result in net savings of between $4.2m per annum and $7m per annum, depending on the level of the prescribed limit above which pension reductions will apply. Minimal offsetting costs and savings will result from other measures contained in the Bill, which I will now outline. Consistent with changes in employment prac- tices since the current Commonwealth scheme was introduced in 1976, the provisions concerning the preservation of superannuation rights are to be changed to enable persons to whom deferred benefits apply under the scheme to have access to those benefits on or after attaining the minimum retiring age-generally 55-that would have applied to them had they not ceased to be contributors. Under the existing provisions, such benefits become payable on or after a person attains age 60. Deferred benefits paid before age 60 will be payable at a reduced rate. The Bill provides for certain regulations under the Superannuation Act 1976 to be made with retrospective effect to enable those regulations to operate as originally intended. These provisions would be purely beneficial in nature and would extend intended rights to persons in certain situations that are presently not provided for in the legislation. In response to a recommendation made by the Auditor-General the Bill adds to the existing auditing provisions contained in the Superannuation Act 1976 so that the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust will be subject to standard auditing provisions applicable to the generality of statutory authorities. Other provisions contained in the Bill may broadly be described as `housekeeping' changes which have been identified in the 10 years since the current scheme was introduced. These are intended to ensure that the provisions operate in the manner originally intended, to clarify certain provisions and to improve the administration of the scheme. Detailed explanations of each new provision are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Passage of this Bill will complete a major overhaul of legislation relating to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. It will place the scheme on a more efficient footing enabling it to operate in an equitable and economic manner which has due regard for the legitimate concerns of contributors and taxpayers alike. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(5.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Purpose of the Bill The purpose of this Bill is to protect the Olympic insignia-that is, the five interlocking rings and the other designs of the Australian Olympic Federation from use by persons not connected with the Olympic movement. The Bill also provides that these insignia shall not be registered under the Designs Act 1906. The Bill invests the Australian Olympic Federation with a monopoly in the insignia and provides that the insignia are not to be used in trade or commerce unless a licence for such use has been granted by the Federation. Background The Australian Olympic Federation is established under the charter of the International Olympic Committee-the IOC-in Australia. It is the responsibility of the Federation to promote the Olympic principles in Australia and to co-ordinate the massive effort required to ensure that Australia is effectively represented every four years at both the summer and winter Olympic Games by the best possible team of sports men and women in the country. It is a task that the Australian Olympic Federation has undertaken for 90 years involving the attendance of Australian teams at every one of the 23 Olympiads. This great distinction is shared by only two other countries, Greece and Great Britain. I would like to point out that this has been achieved despite the horrendous pressure from the previous Government on the Federation and the athletes selected to represent Australia to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games. Had the previous Government been successful in its endeavours this great distinction would have been lost. Who, in this place, now remembers the nations that did not attend the Moscow Games? Who remembers the nations that boycotted the Los Angeles Games in retaliation, four years later? The Federation's responsibility has, of course, increased greatly over the period of the modern Olympiads. The size of teams that the Federation has had to prepare has increased greatly. For example, in 1948 in London, Australia was represented by 88 athletes and officials whereas in 1984 in Los Angeles Australia was represented by 335 athletes and officials-a four-fold increase. The performance of Australians at the Olympics has been quite outstanding, given the country's size and resources-right from the first modern Olympiad in 1896 when Edwin Flack won two gold medals, through to the champions in 1984, Glynis Nunn, John Seiben, Dean Lukin and the team pursuit cyclists-Michael Grenda, Kevin Nicholls, Michael Turtur and Dean Woods. The environment within which the Australian Olympic Federation has to set about its responsibilities has also changed dramatically over the years. The world of sport has become tougher and more competitive. The margin between success and failure is constantly shrinking with the pressures to improve and to win being greater than ever. It is the Federation's task to respond to these pressures in a way which strikes and sustains a balance between the desire to succeed and the no less important values and principles for which sport is rightly renowned. Indeed, it might be said that this is the challenge to Australian sport in 1986 and the years beyond. The Federal Government has been playing its part. We have taken up the challenge to offer more effective support to the sports community as it strives to realise its own high ambitions. Government funding to sport over the past three years has increased substantially. This Government recognises the important contribution that the Australian Olympic Federation makes to Australian sport. The Federation has on its Board leading persons from all walks of life who are deeply committed to the furthering of all sport in Australia as well as the Olympic sports. The President, Kevan Gosper, is the managing director of the Shell Group of Companies. Phil Coles, a great Australian sportsman, is the Secretary-General. Mr Gosper and Mr Coles are also the Australian representatives on the International Olympic Committee and Mr Gosper only last week was elected to the IOC Executive. These two have taken over from Syd Grange and Judy Patching, who retired at the end of last year, and both of whom, on behalf of the Australian Government and all sports lovers, I would like to thank for their tireless and total commitment over the years in promoting Australia and the Olympic movement. I am sure that Kevan Gosper and Phil Coles will emulate their efforts and ensure the attainment of the Olympic ideals in Australia. Judy Patching is of course continuing his great effort for sport as the Secretary-General of the Oceania Olympic Committee. The Olympic movement is respected world wide and makes an important contribution to the spread of good will and better understanding amongst all nations. It thereby contributes greatly to world harmony and it is fitting that this contribution is recognised, especially in this year of world peace. Anybody who has been to an Olympic Games, and particularly those who have had the pleasure of seeing a closing ceremony, can hardly help but be impressed with the extraordinary show of affection and understanding between athletes of differing political persuasions, colours and creeds as they all join together in this marvellous communion of love for sport. It is my own belief that in many ways the Olympic Games are the greatest vehicle for peace, understanding and harmony in the world. The Government supports the Federation's endeavours wholeheartedly. It makes a substantial financial contribution to the Federation and considers it to be a blue chip investment in Australia's sporting future. For the 1984 Games the Government provided $1.4m towards the preparation of the Olympic team. This compares with $40,000 provided for the 1960 Rome Games. The total cost of preparing the Australian team for the 1984 Games was $5m and the Australian Olympic Federation was responsible for raising the balance of these funds. It did so through a range of marketing programs which involved the use of its various insignia. I note in passing that there was some criticism of the Government for providing in 1984 $1.4m of public funds to the Olympic Games team. I can remember suggesting at the time to a critic that the contribution was 10c per head of population for four years, which is 2 1/2c per head of population per year-a pretty small charge to be levied on the public considering the enormous pride we felt from the involvement and certainly the success of our athletes at the 1984 Games. With the escalating cost of participating in Olympic Games the Australian Olympic Federation must ensure a continuing flow of funds. To do this it has embarked on a major marketing program based on the licensing and franchising of the Olympic insignia. This campaign has proved very successful, with exclusive rights being granted to some 66 products of major international and national companies. This campaign will provide an ongoing and major source of funds and will help to ensure that Australia is represented in a fitting and proper way. It may be seen as a measure of the success of the Australian Olympic Federation's marketing program that it has encountered problems with unscrupulous persons whose use of the Olympic insignia suggests, deceptively, to the public that they, or their products, are associated with and help fund the Olympic movement. Given the Government's support for the Australian Olympic Federation, and the Federation's responsible efforts to ensure its own financial independence, such unauthorised and deceptive use must be prevented. The Government has decided that, as with the `Advance Australia' logo and the bicentennial logo, legislation is necessary to aid in securing the rights of the Federation to its insignia and to prevent them from being used in a deceptive manner. It will also ensure that, if they are used deceptively the federation has a speedy and simple mechanism available to curtail such conduct. This is the purpose of this Bill. The ability to ensure exclusivity of use is also a matter of critical importance for the Federation when negotiating the best terms for its licensing agreements. I add that this protection is not without precedent in Australia. Prior to the 1956 Games held in Melbourne the government of the day brought in legislation prescribing the Olympic rings, the Olympic motto and the words `Olympic Champion' as prohibited trade marks. That is, they could not be registered under the Trade Marks Act 1955. That, however, does not prevent persons using them as unregistered marks and in these commercial times, when sponsorship plays such an important role, greater protection is required. This certainly would have been the case with Brisbane had its bid for the 1992 Olympic Games been successful. Regrettably, it was not. Nevertheless, the Brisbane City Council and in particular the Lord Mayor, Alderman Sallyanne Atkinson, together with the Olympic Project Office under the control of John Coates, must be commended for their tremendous endeavours to win the Games for Australia. They showed real confidence in the ability of Brisbane and Australia to take on such a mammoth task. They were also well aware of the really significant benefits through tourism and increased employment which major sporting events such as the Olympics bring to both the national and local economies. I note in passing that being a part of that Brisbane bid was one of the more enjoyable experiences of my life. I was a very proud Australian to stand before the Olympic Committee in Lausanne and be a small part of that effort, across the political borders of the State Government in Queensland, the Commonwealth Government in Canberra and the Brisbane City Council, all of differing political colours, together with an enormous amount of support from a whole range of private and public companies and seven of our former Olympic champions-Michael Wenden, Michelle Ford, Bill Hoffmann from the 1956 Games, John Konrads, Herb Elliott, Kevan Gosper and Phillip Coles-to present, on behalf of Brisbane and Australia, a very convincing case. I say without prejudice that the Brisbane bid was certainly the best. The only thing that defeated us was the politics of the International Olympic Committee. It decided that the Games should go back to Europe, and unfortunately that was the case. It certainly was a very proud moment for me. Anybody who has an opportunity to see the video that was put together by Brisbane for that bid, featuring a choir of Australian kids, would I am sure be very proud and would understand what a good case we put for Australia on the international market. It is a pity that there are critics of that bid. I have noticed in recent days some criticism in the Press that had the Games been secured for Brisbane they would have been a financial disaster. I can assure the critics that that would not have been the case. The economic study that was done for the Brisbane Games was very convincing and very positive. There is no possibility that the Games could not have succeeded, despite criticism to the contrary. The time slot for television coverage in the United States of America would have been absolutely perfect. Finals run in the morning in Brisbane would have been shown on television in the United States at peak viewing time, and the United States is where the big television money is. Australia was better placed than any country to guarantee the security, the safety and the peace of every visiting athlete and every visitor to the Games. It is a pity that the great Australian sport of knocking always takes over when Australia attempts to do something great. Major Features of the Bill The Bill provides that the Australian Olympic Federation has a monopoly in design in Australia with respect to the Olympic rings, thus ensuring its rights to use the rings in relation to any article. The Bill also provides that the Australian Olympic Federation has ownership of the copyright in the Olympic rings. These provisions will not, of course, impede the fair use of the rings for the purposes of disseminating information on the Olympic movement or its activities by the media. The Bill makes provision for the Australian Olympic Federation to grant licences to use the insignia in return for a payment or other consideration. The Australian Olympic Federation is a voluntary organisation whose purpose is to promote Olympic sport in Australia. The Bill provides speedy and effective mechanisms to ensure the Australian Olympic Federation is not in a situation where it must devote scarce resources, through common law actions, to protect its rights. The Australian Olympic Federation, or the holder of a licence in relation to the insignia whose interests are affected, may bring action against an unauthorised user of the insignia. The remedies available to the Federation include injunctions, damages and accounts of profits. It is recognised that some persons use the Olympic rings in conjunction with their goods and have done so for a considerable period. These persons have never held themselves out as being connected with the Olympic movement and do not increase their activity in Olympic years when the Australian Olympic Federation's fund raising campaign is at its peak. The rights of these persons to use the insignia are recognised and the Bill expressly preserves existing property rights in the insignia. The Australian Olympic Federation does not restrict its campaign to the Olympic rings. The Federation has developed a range of logos for which it grants licences. Honourable members would be familiar with Willy the Koala. I have it on good authority that Willy, unlike some of his cousins, is very well behaved in public! In addition to Willy, these logos include the Olympic rings and boomerangs and the Olympic rings and kangaroo. The Bill has provision for these logos to be registered as Olympic designs. Registration provides similar protection to that provided for the use of the Olympic rings. It also provides similar remedies for their unauthorised use. As these designs may change over time, registration for each logo will be for a period of 12 years, after which registration may be renewed. The maximum number of designs that may be registered at any one time will be restricted to 10. This will ensure that when the Australian Olympic Federation no longer has a use for a logo it will pass into the public domain. It also minimises the administrative costs associated with the process of registration. In terms of financial impact I would like to assure honourable members that the ongoing financial cost to the Government of administering this legislation will be minimal. My own Department will have no on going administrative costs. The Office of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs will incur costs associated with the registration of Olympic designs. However, given that the Australian Olympic Federation is the only eligible applicant, and that a maximum of 10 designs only will be registered at any one time, the administrative costs will be minimal and, in any case, will be offset by the payment of an appropriate fee for each registration. This fee is currently set at $65. This is the same as the amount charged for design registrations under the Designs Act 1906. The Government firmly believes that the measures provided for in this Bill will greatly assist the Australian Olympic Federation in ensuring that it is able to field the best possible teams in Seoul and Calgary in 1988 and in subsequent Olympics. It is likely that the increased security of the Olympic designs will improve the Federation's capacity to raise funds from its marketing program and consequently reduce its call on Commonwealth financial assistance. I commend this Bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(5.24) —Earlier in the day I began speaking on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 and had reached the point where I wanted to focus attention on the position of the patients in nursing homes. In Australia today there is a large number of nursing homes to cater for that group in the population who need nursing home care. In the main they are people who are in excess of 70 years of age. In many nursing homes the population exceed 80 years of age. So they are very old people, people who are frail, people who are very much in the evening of their lives. Some may ask whether they should be supported by their families. We need to recognise that their families, in many instances, are pensioners themselves because they are of the age of 60 or 65 and facing all the difficulties that confront people as they move from income that comes from participation in the work force to the limited income available to many people in our retired community. The participating nursing homes are privately operated, operated for profit, but they are very much controlled by the Commonwealth administration. Because of the high cost of providing nursing care, the Commonwealth over the years has provided support to patients in nursing homes. At present it costs, in round figures, $400 a week to maintain a patient in a nursing home. The practice of the Commonwealth has been to adjust the nursing home benefit to take account of rising nursing home costs. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) pointed out in his second reading speech, over the last 10 or so years the rate of increase in nursing home costs has far outstripped the ordinary consumer price index increase. Wages in nursing homes-and sometimes the standards of nursing home care-have been set higher by State governments, and therefore the costs have increased at a very rapid rate. Had there not been Commonwealth income-type support for the patients in nursing homes, many people would not have been able to afford to enter those nursing homes. The practice has been for the Commonwealth each November to set nursing home benefits applicable to each State at a level that would ensure that, within each State, 70 per cent of the beds in participating nursing homes would be available to pensioners who had no other income. The formula applied was to set a standard fee that the patient would have to pay. It was set at 87.5 per cent of the pension plus the rent allowance, the belief being-it was a proper belief-that anyone, even a nursing home patient, should be left with some discretionary income to purchase the necessary personal requisites one needs, even if one is a patient in a nursing home. Over the years, pension adjustments have been made in November and sometimes they have been made in May and November, but now we are changing the dates for that. As a result of those adjustments the patients have had to pay an increased amount so that they continue to pay 87.5 per cent of their pension. More significantly, the problem has arisen that during the year the costs of operating nursing homes have varied. Homes have made application to the Government fee fixing bodies and have been allowed to increase their fees, so that, after a 12 month period, instead of there being 70 per cent of the nursing home beds available at a figure that pensioners could afford the percentage so available would be substantially reduced. The Opposition is suggesting that the whole question should be examined to ensure that fee increases, pension increases and benefit increases are synchronised in a way that provides to the patients of nursing homes the ability to predict the sort of liability that will confront them. That would be easy if that were true in all parts of Australia, but unfortunately that is not so. The Government has frozen the amount of the nursing home benefits paid to certain States, notably the States of South Australia and Victoria. True though it may be that the fees payable in Victoria and South Australia are higher because the State governments have set higher standards of nursing care, and sometimes higher standards of accommodation, the Government has utterly failed the patients in nursing homes because it has failed to negotiate with the State governments to ensure that the State governments either relax their requirements and their conditions or, alternatively, put in the money to enable the patients in nursing homes to afford to pay the fees. In South Australia nursing home fees have gone up by 10 per cent but the bill received by patients in nursing homes has gone up by 40 per cent because in the past the Commonwealth was paying three-quarters of the increased costs and the patient was paying one-quarter. Now the patient in South Australia is being required to pay 100 per cent of every increase in costs. So there has been a dramatic drop in the percentage of beds available for pensioners at a fee they can afford. Instead of 70 per cent of beds being available as they were some 18 months or two years ago the number in South Australia has dropped to 36 per cent and will continue to fall. No one knows when this situation will be improved because the Minister has not said whether New South Wales or Queensland benefits are to be used as the yardstick. Will South Australian nursing home patients have to pay another $36 a week before they get any relief from the Commonwealth Government or will it be $60 a week before they get any relief? The great majority of these patients do not have the resources to do so, so they and their families are worried about how they will meet the costs of nursing home care. The great majority of patients have no alternative but to be in nursing homes. They have been properly assessed as being nursing home patients. My final point is that I am concerned that under the report that the Government is examining it will apply a similar type of fee structure to deficit funded nursing homes. Am I to say to patients in the deficit funded nursing homes within my electorate that they too will be faced with the same financial problems that confront those in privately operated nursing homes? If they cannot afford to pay the extra fees where are they to go? The Minister should do what his report recommended. He should talk with the South Australian Government and make sure that there is proper co-operation between Commonwealth, and its funding of nursing home patients, and the State and its requirement for the standards that it sets for nurse-patient ratios and other features that make the cost of operating nursing homes in South Australia higher than those elsewhere. Nursing home patients in South Australia are in a desperate condition. Their plight needs to be carefully examined. They should be funded to a level that ensures that 70 per cent of the beds are available at an amount that they can afford. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(5.34) —The community services aspects of this year's Budget have been well received. The Australian Council of Social Service in its Budget briefing notes said that the Government: . . . has maintained its commitment to significantly improve services for the aged and for people with disabilities. . . . . Of particular importance is the commitment to increased funding for hostels and home and community care to prevent unnecessary placing of elderly people in nursing homes. The Budget allocates $23.9m as part of a three-year strategy to implement matters arising from the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review. Of this amount $13.5m is to be used for capital funds to strengthen the hostel sector. Hostel care subsidies will rise by 19.3 per cent. The aim is to fund a strategy to restructure and improve residential and community care services for aged people through a shift to hostel based services. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) would not be aware-but would be glad-that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) announced today that the benefits freeze in Victoria and South Australia for nursing home benefits is to be lifted. In Victoria, the new benefits will be increased to $53.60 a day, an increase of $5.10 a day or $35.70 a week. In South Australia and the Northern Territory, where the freeze has been in place, the benefit will be $45.05 a day, an increase of $3, from 13 November. The matters to be discussed in the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill arise out of a series of inquiries into nursing home administration. The first of these inquiries was back in 1981-an efficiency audit by the Auditor-General. This was followed by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure report-the McLeay report-and the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes report-the Giles report. Prominent in these reports was the criticism that government intervention was largely unplanned, ad hoc and unco-ordinated. As a result, the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) instigated a review. In April the report of the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review was tabled in the Senate. It indicated that a disproportionate number of beds were allocated by regions and States; there was too great an emphasis on nursing homes; and there was inadequate support for hostels. The Review recommended that there should be a correction of the imbalance and that there should be new controls to organise the growth of the nursing home and hostel sector. This is in line with the Government's overall strategy in aged care to move away from institutionalised care and to encourage home and community care, to enable the elderly of the community to have a more independent style of living. After extensive consultations with State governments, the nursing home industry, consumers, welfare groups and professionals working in the field, the Government has decided upon a strategy. It is of interest to note that in the report of the migration committee of the National Population Council entitled `Greying Australia: Future Impacts of Population Ageing', a report which aims to encourage discussion and promote an awareness of the issues associated with ageing in the society, the following comment in made: There is no advocate with the political clout to compete with the nursing home industry. Unless the political will can be mobilised to improve services, there will be more misuse of expensive institutional care in dealing with non-critical patients, inadequate care of older people at home, and continuing heavy burdens on daughters and other carers. This legislation in part deals with and tries to redress some of those imbalances. Also, we should recognise the other aspects of the Government's strategy in providing adequate aged care. I was interested in the recent announcement of subsidies for geriatric assessment units. One which was founded was the Bundoora geriatric assessment team in Bundoora. It works at the Bundoora Extended Care Centre and covers municipalities in the north-east region of Melbourne. It is to get funding of up to $223,000. It is an important part of the program because there is a need to assess properly the type of accommodation that our elderly need. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, perhaps up to 25 per cent of placements in nursing homes are inappropriate. The people who are placed there perhaps do not need that type of care. Another aspect is put very succinctly by the review report. It states: Elderly and sick people are not in a position to make realistic choices between nursing homes on the basis of the best standard of care commensurate with their capacity and willingness to pay. Experience suggests that if beds are available they are likely to be filled, thus generating pressures on the Commonwealth to extend the availability of benefits. The focus should be on the provision of alternatives to nursing home care rather than on stimulating competition within the one sector through increasing the supply of beds. The review proposes that there should be a national ratio of 100 hostel places and nursing home beds per 100 persons aged 70 years or over. The review arrived at that ratio because it approximates the present situation. The report indicates that the Australia-wide ratio is 103.8 hostel and nursing home places per 1,000 persons over 70 years of age. The figures are interesting. They indicate disproportionate coverage in different States. In Western Australia there is a high of 117.7 places per 1,000 persons and in Victoria a low of 84.1 places. The Government's strategy is to try to redress that sort of imbalance. There are not only imbalances between States. There are also regional imbalances within States. Another aspect highlighted by the review is the way the different kinds of nursing homes are spread according to the socio-economic status of the areas where services are provided. The review states: Government, deficit-financed and participating non-profit homes predominate in low socio-economic areas. The mention of deficit-financed homes brings me to acknowledge something I noticed while researching for this debate when I looked at the Nursing Homes Assistance Bill 1974. This point relates to the honourable member who preceded me, the honourable member for Sturt, who I note also participated in debate on that Bill. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), who follows me, might also have been a participant in that debate. As this legislation has a great deal of bipartisan support, I should acknowledge their continuing interest in nursing homes and, in particular, the care of elderly Australians. I return to the report. It also indicates: there are considerably more participating-for-profit homes in high status areas. This is an unfortunate aspect. We tend to move away from equity unless we intervene and provide services in areas in which entrepreneurs decide not to participate. The Government's response to the review was arrived at after considerable consultation. It includes a five-point thrust, which was outlined by the Minister in his second reading speech. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) outlined it again, earlier in the debate. I refer to the third point, which is the extension of residential care services beyond hostels to other forms of accommodation, such as group housing arrangements. A particular type of group housing arrangement of which I have recently become aware is the Abbeyfield concept. I was very pleased to launch recently, on behalf of the Broadmeadows branch of the Abbeyfield society, a study of the aged residential accommodation available in the Broadmeadows municipality. I congratulate the society and also the Rotary Club of Broadmeadows which sponsored the study. That study of the needs in a suburb in my electorate indicated that there was clearly a lack of most types of aged accommodation. There is in the municipality only one hostel, which has an extremely high demand and a waiting list which is closed. All the nursing homes in the area are full and have long waiting lists. The study indicated that the Abbeyfield concept, which commenced in the United Kingdom and which allows for independent group living within a house with a housekeeper, is one alternative that perhaps we could look at. It provides the range of services, the alternatives and choices that our elderly should be given. Recently, the Minister for Community Services opened an Abbeyfield house in Malvern which receives funding under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act. Perhaps that home can serve as a model for other Abbeyfield houses. This legislation proposes that we move away from the ad hoc way in which areas for nursing homes have been selected. It highlights the necessity for a needs-based planning approach. It provides for a change in the existing balance between providing intensive care through nursing homes and providing appropriate community services and hostel options. I was a little disappointed when the honourable member for Richmond indicated that the Government might be rushing into this area and that there might be some cause for concern for people in nursing homes at present. As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, these changes will be implemented gradually. There is an acknowledgment by the Government that there is a need to be sensitive to those people because of their fears that they will suddenly be turfed out of their nursing homes or have their form of accommodation changed. The legislation implements the Government's intention to ensure greater flexibility in arranging programs for special groups. The special group I would like to highlight is migrants. Honourable members would perhaps know that there is a high ethnic population in the electorate of Scullin. There is a need for accommodation services which acknowledge the special needs of this group. This legislation will introduce a flexibility which will allow disadvantaged groups to get 100 per cent capital funding for new proposals. Inflexibility in this area was a drawback in times past. The Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, in a discussion paper it put out entitled `Ethnic Aged Policies', indicates general principles which perhaps need to be applied when putting ethnic services into place. I would like to go through them and highlight one principle, in particular, because I think it is of importance in the provision of nursing homes or hostels for ethnic communities. The general principles were: Equity, access, cultural relevance, locality, participation-that is, participation of ethnic communities in the planning and delivery of services for them-integration, complementary services, choice and dignity. I would like to highlight the notion of complementary services. The discussion paper says of these services: A combination of adequately supported and integrated ethno-specific services and universally accessible general service is desirable. When I was discussing this problem with a geriatric physician at the Bundoora extended care centre, he indicated that the problem we will have in putting into place ethno-specific nursing homes or hostels is that the overall population of individual ethnic groups will perhaps not be large enough for us to be able to give them nursing homes of their own. One of things they are trying to come to grips with at his geriatric hospitals is the recruitment of suitably qualified people who are multilingual. That is only one aspect of it because not only is the language a problem but also there are different cultural problems which are reflected in the types of meals these people require and other aspects. There is a need for these things to be considered because of the problem of not having populations of sufficient size within these communities to justify ethno-specific services. I am sure that, with the special attention that is being given to the provision of aged services for the migrant elderly, those aspects will be given particular attention. In conclusion, I think that this Bill, as part of an overall strategy that tries to encourage a more community based thrust to aged care, is an indication of what might be termed the quiet revolution that has occurred in aged care over the last three years under this Labor Government. I think it is important to note that strategy, because the honourable member for Sturt talked about the changing needs of the elderly and how this Government had chopped and changed its policies. I suggest that it is a matter of perception. We need to put into place, through a co-ordinated plan, the type of services that best represents and helps to give the elderly of Australia an independent way of living. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(5.51) —In supporting the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 I wish to highlight some real concerns affecting the industry as a whole and, more importantly, affecting patients not only now but also in the not too distant future. In considering this legislation, which deals with the provision of nursing home and hostel beds, one must take account of the whole range of services that are being provided for the elderly and disabled in this country. In its total spectrum it goes from pensioner units, which are usually provided by State governments, to unit and townhouse type developments where private enterprise has been rather vigorous in the past three or four years, through to the home and community care program-the HACC program, as it is known-which is designed to keep the elderly in their homes. The honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) made some reference to the move away from institutionalised care to keeping people in their own home environment. I support that concept completely. One then moves to nursing homes and hostels, whether they are operated by religious or charitable organisations or, in the case of nursing homes, by private enterprise. One has to take in the total area of the care of the aged and the disabled in this debate. My main concern in this debate is to point out what I believe is a head in the sand approach by the Government to the problems of the elderly in respect of the provision of nursing homes. In effect, the Government is saying that, with an increased emphasis on the home and community care program-that is, the provision of services within the home, whether they are home nursing services, meals on wheels or whatever-there is going to be a lesser need for hostel and nursing home beds and that, as a result of this legislation and the Government's current move towards the provision of a greater number of hostel beds, the need for nursing home beds will diminish. I just flag this as a problem in the not too distant future. Maybe three, four or five years hence we will find that a bottleneck develops. I think this has to be considered very carefully by the Government. I recognise that we have a very high proportion of nursing home beds per thousand of population for people aged 65 or 70 years and over, but there is this quaint view that with the HACC program and more hostel beds we will need fewer nursing home beds. I am not convinced that that is the case. Let us look at the cost of the provision of a nursing home bed. A very large proportion of elderly people, whether they are in their home environment, a single-unit dwelling, a townhouse or unit-type accommodation or, indeed, in a hostel bed, are going to require a nursing home bed or perhaps even a hospital bed. In round figures, it costs about $50 a day to keep a patient in a nursing home bed. If that patient is moved into a hospital bed, the cost rockets to between $180 and perhaps even $250, depending on the part of Australia in which the patient lives and the type of hospital accommodation. There is a vast difference in the cost of keeping a patient in a nursing home bed and in a hospital bed. It may well be that if there is an inadequate number of nursing home beds many of those people will finish up in the more costly hospital bed accommodation. I want to refer to a couple of examples of nursing homes and hostels within my own electorate. I do have among my constituents a fairly large number of elderly people and, like most honourable members, I have in my electorate some nursing homes and hostels. The Uniting Church in Australia, operates one establishment with a total unit accommodation-hostel and nursing home beds-of almost 600 people. Another establishment has 65 nursing home beds and 64 hostel beds. In the nursing home with 65 beds, in the city of Redcliffe, 63 of those beds are for extensive care patients. I think that is a fair illustration to the Government that when a nursing home has 65 beds and 63 of them are extensive care, we have to be extremely careful that we do not finish up with that bottleneck that I talked about, with an inadequate number of nursing home beds for an aging population. About half of the patients in the hostel which has 64 beds are personal care subsidy residents. Again the emphasis, I know, has moved towards caring for the frail aged in hostel accommodation. I do not necessarily disagree with that, but we have to be careful, given the number of frail aged being looked after in hostel accommodation, that we do not find ourselves with more of those people wanting to get or needing nursing home accommodation but with beds not being available. I turn to a couple of the private nursing homes within my electorate. One at Scarborough has 30 patients and 27 of those patients, or about 90 per cent of the total, are extensive care patients. The other three are ordinary-care patients. In the Redcliffe nursing home, another privately owned home within my electorate, 40 out of the 63 patients-about 60 per cent-are extensive care patients. I would dearly like to take the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to my electorate. Indeed, he could take the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) there. The only problem is, of course, that between now and the Queensland election, I do not think any Ministers of this Government will be welcome in Queensland. Certainly, the Prime Minister is not. Perhaps the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) could hold them by the hand as they went around my electorate. He appears to be accepted in Queensland. I would dearly like the Minister for Social Security, who is in the House and who has a deal of compassion for these people, to visit my electorate. Unfortunately, he is not allowed to fulfil a lot of his desires because of the economic mess in which the Government has the nation at the moment. I say that with all the compassion I can muster because I believe that he does have a feel for these people, who are less fortunate than we are. Mr Tim Fischer —Particularly with the CPI today. Mr HODGES —As the honourable member for Farrer reminds me, with the consumer price index increase now running at an annual rate of about 9 per cent with the 2.6 per cent rise announced today, the difficulty for pensioners in nursing homes and hostels will be in finding sufficient excess money, in addition to what they are paying out for their accommodation, to buy the niceties of life most of us accept as a part of our lives without too much thought. I turn to Garden Settlement, a complex of the Uniting Church in Australia. It has almost 600 residents. There are 193 nursing home beds, with 100 of them-more than 50 per cent-for extensive care. Of the total of 336 hostel beds, about 15 per cent receive the personal care subsidy. I pay tribute also to the operations of private enterprise people and to the Hibernian-Australasian Catholic Benefits Society, which has been developing for a number of years a complex for residents with a bell to provide after hours service for those who get themselves into trouble. It is an excellent operation called Ballycara, which is in my electorate. There is also a private enterprise operation known as Peninsula Terraces, which has privately owned units basically for people between 50 and 80 years of age. It also provides an on site caretaker type of person who looks after the needs of those who get into trouble. I return to the difficulty and the danger I see for the Government in what it is doing in relation to expenditure in this area on new beds. I know the reason that the Government wants to curtail the amount of expenditure in this area. It is not so much the capital cost. I think in this financial year it is planning to spend about $56m on new hostel and nursing home beds. In 1985-86 a lesser number of beds was built than in 1984-85. It is not the capital cost that is the worry. The Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, knows only too well that the problem is the recurrent cost of the beds once they are in place. Something like $1.1 billion is to be spent in this financial year for recurrent costs by way of subsidies to the wide range of people who are operating nursing home and hostel accommodation. I accept that that is a major concern for the Government. I turn to the Estimates committee hearings of the Senate which have just been completed. Senator Walters asked: How many new nursing homes are in the pipeline? Are there any? What is the figure? Mr Campbell replied: We have just over 4,000 outstanding approvals in principle. That is the number of beds approved in principle; but when one examines Budget Paper No. 1 1986-87 one notes an increase of about 400 beds, from 56,500 to 56,900, in 1985-86. In the case of the deficit financing arrangements, there is an increase of about 500 to a total of 19,500; that is, about 900 beds in one year. I have a feeling that with 4,000 outstanding approvals in principle and fewer than 1,000 beds being constructed-that is, right across the nation-in any one financial year we will fall rapidly behind the tens of thousands of people, in the not too distant future, who will want nursing home beds and will not be able to get them. Why would we approve 4,000 beds in principle when in fact we are building fewer than 1,000 annually? Mr Hodgman —This Government has no compassion. Mr HODGES —As the honourable member for Denison said, this Government has no compassion. I think individual Ministers in some instances do. The Government could have had more compassion had it not got the country into the economic mess that it has. The Minister ought to take note of what will happen to pensioner patients in nursing homes because the correspondence and complaints are flying thick and fast on this issue. They will continue to do so, particularly to Government back benchers. Government back benchers with marginal seats had better watch out. I spoke to a proprietor of one of the deficit funded nursing homes today and asked about drugs. He said: `I am terribly concerned about 1 November because many of these patients take considerable quantities of analgesics-paracetamol, aspirin-and preparations such as cough suppressants and expectorants'. It will cost them up to $5 a week extra if they are to continue to get what I call first line treatment drugs. It is possible they may have prescribed for them drugs that will be less satisfactory but which will be prescribed because they are free. They will have more side effects. This particular nursing home proprietor raised this issue with me. There is no logic in the Government keeping on the list a number of preparations which we term extemporaneously prepared preparations, in terms of the logic the Government has applied to the deletion of 45 ready-made preparations. It may as well delete those as well. The Government should be warned about nursing home patients in particular because those patients or their relatives or friends will have to find a considerable amount of money for drugs that the patients consume to keep them in what one might term a more normal state. These drugs are often called comfort drugs but they are essential to those people. Mr Hodgman —Pain killers. Mr HODGES —As the honourable member for Denison said, in many instances they are pain killers. Other drugs are taken to relieve the symptoms of coughs and colds. This Government is deleting them from the list from 1 November and it ought to be ashamed of that action. Nursing home patients in particular will have great difficulty in finding the extra money and it will fall to their relatives or friends to provide those drugs or the patients will not have the treatment. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(6.07) —Before going on with my comments on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill I would like to make some remarks arising out of the comments of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). If what he said is correct, I can understand the grave concern in the community. I followed up the issue and I spoke to a senior person tied up with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. I was informed that there are nine members on that Committee. Six of those members are appointed by or are delegates or representatives of the Australian Medical Association; one is a pharmacologist; one represents the Pharmacy Guild; and one is a Government appointee. The nine voted unanimously for the change in the pharmaceutical benefits list. Mr Hodges —They are all there at the pleasure of the Government. Mr WRIGHT —That is not what I am told. Moreover, I have been told that the changes that come into force on 1 November have been put forward because of a need to ensure that abuse and misuse of certain drugs does not- Mr Hodges —Rubbish! Mr WRIGHT —Let me continue. The honourable member had his go. I want to give him some credit for raising the issue because it is a matter of concern in the community. I think the facts ought to be known. Another factor is cost. Mr Hodges —Now you are talking about- Mr WRIGHT —We are talking about general costs. It has been pointed out to me that when a pensioner goes to a doctor to get what could be aspirin-although I imagine he would get most of those things while seeing the doctor for another reason, but many times he goes to see the doctor for some drug-that costs the taxpayer $12.50. When he gets the prescription filled at a chemist it costs the taxpayer another $2.50. So drugs that can be purchased over the counter at Woolworths or other places for $2 can cost not this Government, not the Hawke Government, not the Labor Party, but the people of Australia $15. Surely that must exercise the minds of all honourable members concerned about efficiency, waste and the delivery of Government health services. If what the honourable member for Petrie has said is correct I will follow this up as well, but I do not believe that is what it is about. When I asked, I was told that there were two aspirin type drugs left on the list and they were the ones that the aged needed for arthritic complaints and so on. That has been verified. I think we need to follow this up further. Maybe we ought to speak to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) at a later time. But let us be sure that this has been done because of recommendations from a body that is non-political. A body made up of doctors-- Mr Hodgman —It is a money saving measure. You know that. Mr WRIGHT —No, it is not. I do not believe that is true. It is a group of six doctors from the Australian Medical Association. I am also told that recommendations have been forthcoming to this Government-and to previous governments-for review and changes. In many cases drugs that have been taken off the list have been replaced by more expensive drugs. That was admitted recently at a pensioners meeting in Rockhampton. The head of the Mount Morgan Pensioners League said that the drug he would normally use was no longer available but he could get another one that was more expensive. I suggest to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) that money saving is not necessarily the issue. It could well be a question of efficiency. But let us come back to the Bill. In April this year the Minister for Community Services, Senator Don Grimes, tabled in the Senate the results of a major review into nursing homes and hostels that was carried out by his Department. I am sure that this created a lot of interest from all members and that most members read it. That report put forward a number of very important objectives which I believe are of paramount importance. I believe this Government has given special weight to these measures and objectives in the Bill that is before the House. I refer to four basic goals that were set out in this review: The first was that aged and disabled people should, as far as possible, be supported in their own homes, in their own communities. I suggest that few honourable members would disagree with that proposition. The second goal was that aged and disabled people should be supported by residential services only where other support systems are not appropriate to meet their needs. In other words, the aged should not just be put in a nursing home, as has been the case so many times in the past. The third goal was that services should be provided in an atmosphere and using processes which promote, as far as possible, rehabilitation and restoration of function and that the manner in which services are provided should develop and enhance personal freedom and independent functioning of all residents. The fourth goal was that services should be based on a recognition that, for many people, discharge to a residential service providing a less intensive form of care or to a community based support service would be a possible and desirable outcome. These four goals have been adopted by the Government. I hope they will be supported by all members of the Parliament who have taken an interest in the nursing home issue in their electorates. This legislation will allow for a more flexible and a more integrated planning approach to the provision of residential services and a better resourced hostel sector. There has certainly been a need for change. I think that need has been recognised, certainly amongst those who are involved in the care of the aged. But the point that I ask the Minister to take on board-and also Senator Don Grimes-is that that need must be explained over and over again to the people. There is still an attitude that when a relative, be it one's mother or father, is too old to care for herself or himself, the only alternative is to put that person in a nursing home. That is an attitude that has prevailed. I believe that this Government has a different approach. I believe that many members of the Opposition who have spoken in this debate and with whom I have discussed the matter understand that this is not the desirable approach and that we need to change it. Whilst we are doing that by way of this Bill-and the Budget is heading down that track-there are still people who have this attitude, and it must be changed. We all appreciate that during the last decade there has been enormous growth in the nursing home industry. Private enterprise has grasped what it sees as a very profitable arena. It has entered that arena, most regrettably for many relatives. I know of cases in which people have paid, and are still paying, about $50 per week just to keep an aged relative in a privately run nursing home. We need to stress to relatives of aged people that there is an alternative. We need to educate them as to the range of care options which are available, or which should be available. I take the point about the backlog mentioned by the honourable member for Petrie, and I will also mention that matter. Australia, like all Western countries-and, I suggest, also many Eastern bloc countries-faces an aging population problem. We have an enormous growth projection. Recently I attended a Blue Nursing Service meeting in my electorate. Some figures provided to me show that, at the moment, there is one aged person to about every five working people, but by the year 2020 or 2025 that ratio will drop to one aged person to only two working people. The question arises: How do we continue to pay for aged care? It is no wonder that this Government has embarked upon a national superannuation scheme so that we all contribute towards our retirement, because the pension burden will be massive. The capital cost of providing residential care will be unbelievable unless we address the problem. This is why I believe this Government has rightly adopted a new approach, a new strategy, on aged accommodation. Honourable members who listened to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) introduce this measure the other day will realise that this Government has embarked on a three-year plan. During this period we intend to accelerate the growth of those new services-the alternative care options. Also, we will limit the growth in the number of nursing home beds. This Government has recognised the need to enable people to stay in their own homes much longer. They should have options rather than that of moving into nursing homes. I applaud the care that has been given, and is being given, in nursing homes by so many concerned and sensitive people, but it occurs to me that many of the people who are in those homes should not be there. Somewhere down the track the assessment system has broken down. Earlier I made a point about an option. If a discharge took place, in most instances that discharge would be to the benefit of the resident. This measure will allow for a reallocation of government funding. Again, some information has been provided to me which shows that the people of Australia are spending 90 per cent of aged care funding on 10 per cent of the aged-that is, the 10 per cent who live in nursing homes. We spend only about 10 per cent on the other 90 per cent in the community. There must be a reallocation, a restructuring of funding. That will take place. The Bill before the House will ensure a redirection of our financial resources and, I would hope, save some money, because there is certainly a huge burden on the taxpayer. I am not sure whether much of it is spent wisely. I take the point that the honourable member for Petrie has raised, because it is a matter of introducing things gradually. There is a plan and a strategy, but we must make sure that the people who are already in the homes are not affected. I note that the Minister stated in particular that what is being proposed in this Bill will not hurt those who are already in these homes. But we do not want to cause a backlog. Already there are applicants who cannot get into nursing homes, and as we cut down and limit the growth in the number of nursing home beds they will not be able to go anywhere else-unless, of course, there is funding, in real money terms for hostels. This Government is increasing hostel funding. It is increasing the hostel care subsidy. If one looks at the figures that are available, one will note that there is a significant increase in hostel places. In 1986-87 there will be 2,750 new hostel and nursing home places. In 1987-88 there will be 4,730 new hostel and nursing home places. In the following year there will be 5,400 new places. That means that, in the three-year period under this strategy, there will be 12,880 new hostel and nursing home places. But the important statistic is that, of the 12,880 places, 11,585 will be hostel places. So there will be a reallocation, a redirection. This will lead to a growth of some 30 per cent in hostel places. In my State of Queensland this year there will be 60 new nursing home places, but 370 hostel places will be created. In 1987-88 60 new nursing home places will still be created, but there will be 510 hostel places. In the final year of the strategy there will still be 60 new nursing home places, but there will be 740 hostel places. So of a total 1,800 places, there will be 1,620 hostel places. I believe that we are putting this policy into place in a very realistic and proper manner. It will never be enough-we know that. Members constantly get constituents contacting them and saying: `My mother is old. She cannot stay in her home any more'-this applies especially to Queensland houses that are high and, as often said by southerners, on stilts-`she can no longer negotiate the steps which she has already fallen down and she must get out of that home'. However, that does not mean that she must go into a nursing home. I am most pleased with what the Government is doing in this area. We are tackling a very serious problem and we have not tackled it too soon because the problem, as I said earlier, will accelerate upon us. If something is not done urgently and quickly, we will have a crisis situation developing. I also ask the Minister to take on board the need for people to be able to stay in their communities. Those of us who represent country and provincial city areas find too often that people have to move from their small townships to go into the cities. People throughout my electorate, who have lived there for 60 and 70 years in some instances, have to wipe out all their friendships, break down all the arrangements that they have had, and live somewhere in Rockhampton, Mackay or Brisbane. We must ensure that hostel places are available in country areas as well and that we do not force the aged, because of the location of the facility, to go to the city. I also mention the need for the State Government to do something about the waiting lists. This is not just a belt at the State Government; it is something that is very real. In the public housing sector, which now supplies a considerablenumber of places for the aged, there is an enormous waiting list for the units that are provided. The Queensland Government needs to address that problem, with the support and co-operation of the Federal Government. There is also a need for State governments and the Federal Government to constantly monitor the standard and conditions of some of the nursing home and hostel accommodation available. It was not so long ago that one place in Brisbane was exposed. An old fellow was living downstairs on a dirt floor. He was still paying the same amount of money as people living elsewhere in that accommodation, but he was living there because there were so many beds on the verandah and in the rooms and there was simply nowhere else he could be. The worst part about it is that it was better than staying at his home. He could not stay there and he had to be somewhere. There is also a need to constantly monitor the rorts that go on when it comes to aged residential investments. Not so long ago on the Gold Coast many people lost a lot of money when they invested in aged care programs, in Eventide Homes in which they were looking to live themselves, but lost everything. We also have to ensure that people are aware of the moneys that are available to allow them to move into the hostel area. I welcome the Government's seed money program. This financial year $10m is still available for councils and others to get a grant to build some hostel accommodation. It has happened in the Mackay area and it will now happen in the Mount Morgan area. In closing I want to make one point. We have to ensure that those who are involved in doing things for the aged are fair dinkum. Many community groups are constantly called upon to help churches and various groups involved in the care of the aged, and it angers me when information is presented to me that an organisation has been set up that is not doing what it says it is doing. I refer to a group called Community Link in Brisbane which has been set up by a politician. I regret this because a number of politicians in Queensland have been involved in setting up all sorts of groups to help the aged raise money. This group was set up in Greenslopes. The member, Leisha Harvey, is only a new member and that is probably the problem. The brochure that was sent out stressed the importance of why it was set up and how it would help everybody and said that it would be a non-political, social organisation to raise money for the aged and to help the Red Cross Society. Recently information was provided to me about three newspaper advertisements that were placed in newspapers in that electorate area prior to Christmas wishing everybody a happy Christmas. That is wonderful. I think members of Parliament should do this. However, those advertisements contained the names of State Ministers. The question arises: Who paid for them? It is suspected that the advertisements were paid for out of Community Link money. Other moneys were raised last Melbourne Cup day, which is almost a year ago; and the figures given to me show that approximately 150 people went along to a function and paid $12 each. Honourable members can see that $1,800 was raised. It was said that this money was raised to help needy people in the community through Red Cross, but the Queensland Parliament was told that a profit of only $492 was made and that this money went to Red Cross. I am told that that money did not all go to Red Cross. If we are to ensure that community groups are getting the proper help, if we are to ensure that the aged are cared for and that there is willingness on behalf of ordinary people to back groups, whether it be Community Link or anything else, we have to make sure that they are accountable and that no nonsense goes on. I would like to see the accounts and papers of Community Link made public. I believe they ought to be made public. We want to know how much money is being raised, who is paying for political advertisements and where the money has been going. If the organisation was set up to help aged people, that is what the money should be used for. These kinds of activities throw a stigma on many other groups throughout the community which are raising money to help ordinary people, particularly the aged. Finally, I return to the Bill. I welcome what the Government is doing. I believe that all honourable members will appreciate the need to move down this track. In doing what we are doing under this three-year strategy plan we will achieve a major change in accommodation and care for aged people in Australia. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(6.26) —As my contribution will be interrupted, I would like first of all to take issue with something the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) said with regard to flexibility. He said that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) had flexibility under the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. We note from the Minister's second reading speech that he has a flexibility to vary allocations between the States, regions and special needs group whilst remaining within the national ceiling determined by government. I do not believe enough flexibility is in the legislation to take into consideration the problems we have in our isolated communities. In some communities in the division of Hinkler the beds available are allocated under a regional scheme. Elderly people who require hostel-type accommodation or care in a nursing home have to be taken many hundreds of kilometres away from their community. It is extremely traumatic to elderly people to be taken away, and to be isolated from their family and friends in an environment away from where they have lived most of their lives. I believe that the flexibility could have been greater and that the Minister could have been given the means by which he could have gone outside the guidelines in extreme circumstances. It is a worry for isolated communities. The worry is not so great in metropolitan areas because nursing homes are established there and people can be moved, can still be in close proximity to their families and friends and can still have visitors. Community nursing homes, from the Gunther Retirement Village in Gayndah, and even the retirement village at Theodore, to the nursing homes that are established in Bundaberg, should be able to provide beds for the aged within communities close to where they have lived for most of their lives. Let us make it quite clear, and understand, that this legislation relates inter alia to the reduction in the growth of expenditure for nursing homes. In his second reading speech the Minister indicated that inappropriate admissions of up to 25 per cent of current nursing care residents have been encouraged by the present system which emphasises the provision of the more intensive institutionalised care services provided by nursing homes while not producing the range of care options which elderly people are seeking. Within the division of Hinkler there are a number of facilities which provide assistance and care for the aged with hostel and nursing home accommodation. There are also a few retirement villages. The many voluntary community organisations which involve themselves with these facilities comprise dedicated people who, along with the administrators and staff, take a considerable amount of pride in the service they provide to the aged community-and well they might. It was indeed a pleasure that the Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, and Lady Stephen chose to call on one of these facilities recently. The Pioneer Memorial Home in Bundaberg, which the Governor-General visited, is in the Hinkler electorate. All at the home were delighted to meet Their Excellencies. I believe that Sir Ninian Stephen would have recognised the great work of the nursing homes that we have established in the Hinkler electorate. I have a strong feeling for our senior citizens and am highly supportive of an earlier Government initiative-the home and community care program. However, it must be recognised that nursing homes are still providing a service to meet a particular need which, from my observations, is still increasing and will continue to so do. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr CONQUEST —During the suspension of the sitting for dinner, whilst my speech was interrupted, I had some discussions with the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) and the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), who both agree with me that in many instances residents in hostels are in such poor physical and/or mental condition that they require nursing home-type care. In fact, they receive it, but in a hostel environment. I have recently visited one such institution in my electorate where it was demonstrated to me that the greatest need was for more nursing home accommodation because of the number of highly dependent residents in the hostel section requiring extensive care. The matron and members of the hostel committee in Gayndah want a resolution to their problem. I can appreciate that there are instances in which people are accommodated in nursing home care when their condition is only a little worse than that of a hostel resident. In some cases, because of inappropriate admissions, their condition is really more suited to hostel accommodation. Certainly this does not apply at the institution I referred to prior to the suspension of the sitting. My personal experience convinces me that the percentage of nursing home patients in those institutions in the Hinkler electorate who have been inappropriately admitted would be very small. I say this because the general comment always seems to be that they could do with more nursing home beds. However, it would be foolish to ignore totally the statistical evidence cited by the Minister to which I referred earlier. The intent of the legislation is, in part, to introduce new growth control arrangements over the approvals in principle and approval mechanisms for new nursing homes. It is also designed to provide a better hostel sector which can and will care for increasingly dependent aged people. This intention is seen quite clearly when we look at the Government's planning strategy for the next three years. This strategy effectively plans for 12,880 additional places up until 1988-89, of which 1,295 or about 10 per cent, will be for nursing homes. The balance will be for hostel places. Key elements of this residential care program are to provide alternative residential care services to nursing homes in the form of hostels. It is intended to strengthen the role of hostels in the care of the more frail aged, and the Minister's second reading speech indicated that existing hostels were under resourced. A commitment has been made by the Government to maintain the real level of subsidies and to increase assistance for care of those more frail aged people. I suppose the statistical evidence on which this legislative initiative is based reflects the broad view. Consequently, it can fail to be relative to particular situations in particular locations. I mentioned some of those earlier in my speech. The flexibility given the Minister to vary allocations between States and regions while remaining within the national ceiling set by the Government will, I hope, be a suitable mechanism by which this broad view can be related to individual situations throughout Australia. I mentioned earlier the problems of people in the isolated locations where people who require intensive or extensive care have to be located many hundreds of kilometres from the environment in which they have lived all their life. Their families and friends find it very difficult to visit them. Patients in this situation undergo a very traumatic experience. The scenario developing is one of a relocation of inappropriately admitted nursing home-type patients to upgraded hostel accommodation. This action will, if we are to accept the Government's proposal, provide sufficient extensive nursing care bed growth to cater for needs at a ratio of 40:1,000 aged 70 and over well into the next century. The ultimate conclusion will be that all nursing home beds are for extensive nursing care only. The balance of patients requiring support from residential services up to a moderate dependent level will be accommodated in hostels with provision of a full, improved ranged of personal care services. I can only agree with the strategy of the home and community care program. I believe that should provide a continuity of care for the aged. I think the strategy is good. I am concerned, however, about what will happen in the transition period between the existing situation and that which is intended. When I think of that particular institution in my electorate which has more nursing home-type patients occupying beds than it has nursing care beds I am concerned about how this legislation will be implemented to remedy the imbalance. To adjust the existing out of kilter situation, those patients whose residential care status is inappropriate relative to their health condition classification will have to be relocated. I hope that any relocation will be done by allowing the passage of time to adjust the situation rather than by any physical movement of patients to other institutions some distance from their present residences. This adjustment will be complemented by the adoption of appropriate admission procedures and accurate assessment practices so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. When we talk about the flexibility of this strategy it is probably most appropriate to encourage a similar flexibility on the part of the residential institutions to be able to cater for the varying numbers of either category of admissions to these respective institutions; in other words, try to avoid locking into a set number of beds for one particular type of accommodation only, where the institution caters for both nursing care and hostel patients. By doing this, I believe the aims of this legislation will be better met. Such a move may well present a challenge to architects in designing future residential institutions and extensions to existing buildings. I do not believe this should be beyond their reach. Whilst the coalition is not opposing this Bill and we believe it has some strategies that are certainly acceptable, we believe the flexibility that has been given may have some restraints. In regard to the national strategy, I would ask that the Minister and the Government take heed of the situation in those isolated communities where people who are requiring extensive and intensive care in nursing homes at present have to be relocated many hundreds of kilometres from the environment in which they have lived. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(8.07) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill. I am sure everyone recognises the fact that it is essential that we strive to provide a better residential care program for elderly Australians. We must develop more effective assessment and rehabilitation procedures. We must make sure that we provide services which are better matched to the real needs of our elderly citizens. It is imperative that we develop better community care programs that provide support for those who wish to retain their independence and remain in their own homes. Where an elderly man or woman chooses to remain in his or her own home in preference to a nursing home and when that man or woman is given care and aid by a loved one, whether it be a more physically fit partner, a son or daughter, grandchild or sister or brother, we must make sure that the carer-the person who cares for and administers to the needs of a loved one-is given a realistic allowance or a pension in return for the care that he or she provides. I have always recognised that most people between 20 and 60 years of age have a fair chance of taking care of their own needs and looking after themselves. My concern is mainly directed towards the young and the elderly because I believe they are the ones who need great assistance. We have our youth Priority One. We should have the aged equal priority one. This legislation before the House is splendid legislation. It is a very important step towards the development of standards of care and quality of life measures to improve the care provided for elderly citizens. It is a step towards a strengthening of home and community care services to ensure a better balance in the provision of care, better services to meet more adequately the real needs of the people towards whom they are directed. This Government is concerned about reports that elderly people are being neglected or badly treated in nursing homes. It will upgrade the inspection program to ensure that sub-standard care is completely eliminated. Our elderly citizens deserve better than sub-standard care; they deserve the best care. Since 1963 there has been a significant growth in the number of nursing home beds. Today there are about 1,200 nursing homes in Australia containing 75,000 beds, and this Government subsidises them all. This represents about 67 beds per 1,000 people aged 70 years or more. This bed rate is high by international standards. Before next month's increase the cost to the Government this financial year will be over $1 billion, or $14,000 per bed. The increased subsidy which will be paid from 13 November, the first pension pay day in November, will increase the Federal Government subsidy per bed to $43.40 per day, which totals nearly $16,000 per bed per year. In New South Wales the increased subsidy to be paid on 13 November is $6.60 per day. I have said that the bed rate in Australia is high by international standards, and this bed rate, this huge drain on government expenditure, will increase. The funding of nursing homes will increase because we have an aging population. Because of medical progress people are living longer, and because of the post-war baby boom we have an increasing elderly population. This Government is quite right to slow down the increase in nursing home beds and to increase the number of hostel beds. A nursing home, as its name suggests, provides professional nursing care on a 24-hour basis for patients who cannot cope without such care. A hostel, on the other hand, provides help for those people who need personal assistance at particular times, such as meal times and shower time. Hostels generally provide a private bedroom which a resident may personally furnish. This Government wants to build more hostels because there are many more people who need this type of care rather than nursing home care. Yet strangely, there are fewer hostels than nursing homes. This legislation is not an exercise designed to save money by limiting the growth of nursing homes. The aim is to switch to hostel accommodation, and that aim is intended to benefit elderly people. It has the approval of experts in that field and it also satisfies the wishes of all the elderly. It is quite correct, as other honourable members have said, that we need more hostels in country centres so that people can get accommodation in their local areas. There is nothing more traumatic than for elderly people to be taken away from the area in which they have lived for many years and to have to go to some distant spot and know that their loved ones will suffer the inconvenience of having to travel distances to visit them. It is not good enough that elderly people should be moved far away from those who love them and want to visit them. I wish to make a few comments about concerns which have arisen as a result of increases in nursing home fees. The Government's recent decision to allow nursing homes to increase fees has imposed real hardship on many nursing home patients or their loved ones. There are many cases within my electorate of Hunter where a pensioner is required to pay up to an extra $40 per week to meet the fees charged his pensioner wife who is a patient in a nursing home. Honourable members all know how easy it is for a pensioner to have to shell out $40 a week to have his aged wife cared for! I thank those people in the Hunter electorate who have rung me with details of hardships. People on unemployment benefit pay $40 per week in nursing home fees for a loved grandmother. A previous speaker from the Opposition criticised the Government for the fact that this gap between the Government subsidy and the increase in nursing home fees should have occurred. However, as I have said, early next month the Government intends to increase the subsidy for nursing home beds, but it is a pity that the increased subsidy and the increase in nursing home fees were not synchronised. I am disappointed at this interval which is causing hardship to nursing home patients, but it must be recognised that similar intervals of hardship occurred when the Opposition was in Government. However, that is no reason for the lack of synchronisation to be allowed to continue. I would like to refer briefly to one section of the legislation. Under the Aged Persons Homes Act 1954, the Commonwealth makes grants to eligible organisations towards meeting the capital cost of homes for aged or disabled people. The amount of a grant may not exceed 80 per cent of the capital cost of the home. Some eligible organisations which represent financially disadvantaged groups in the community experience difficulty in raising matching funds. The Government, in this Bill, is introducing flexibility in matching arrangements to allow for up to 100 per cent of Commonwealth funds for special groups, including ethnic communities, Aborigines and other disadvantaged groups. This measure is estimated to cost $500,000 in 1986-87 and $2.8m in 1987-88. To digress for just one moment, I would like to speak about the satisfaction that I have had from the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). There is a home in Maitland called Benhome Home for the Aged which is operated by the Maitland Benevolent Society. It is a home for aged and has hostel accommodation. The building is quite old and recently the Board of Fire Commissioners inspected it and said: `This home will have to close because it does not meet fire regulations'. Honourable members can imagine the panic that caused the committee of Benhome. Wonderful women such as Mrs Turner and Miss Frith and other hard-working members of the committee who have run fetes and done everything possible to raise money to help their fellow human beings were just desperate. They came to my office. I made representations to the Minister and within a matter of weeks these people who thought their patients would be consigned to the streets and thrown out with no homes whatsoever received a grant of $420,000 as a start towards meeting the fire regulations. In Cessnock there is a masonic retirement village. In recent months it has installed a magnificent example of hostel accommodation for the people of the Cessnock city area. Substantial funding for that hostel was provided by this Government. Further substantial funding was provided by this Government for Greenhills Nursing Home in Maitland. The things I have mentioned are proof of the genuine care and concern of this Government for aged people. This is a good Bill. I am pleased that the Opposition will not oppose its passage. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(8.20) —It is a pleasure to speak on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. I notice that by sheer coincidence, the very attractive group of children in the gallery come from one of the schools in the beautiful Blue Mountains, John Wycliffe Christian School. Mr Lloyd —Is that in your electorate? Mr WEBSTER —Yes. I am sure many of them have grandparents and even great-grandparents, some of whom may be in some of the lovely hostels and nursing homes that abound in Macquarie. Many nursing home patients and administrators in my electorate are aware that this legislation is being debated today. From what I have been informed, some of them find it very hard to accept that one of the purposes of this Bill is to improve the planning and co-ordination of nursing home and hostel care. They find it hard to accept because, over the last couple of weeks, they or their families have become anxious about and distressed by the Government's seeming inability properly to plan and co-ordinate three important things: An increase in nursing home fees, consideration and approval of an appropriate subsidy increase and an increase in pension benefits. The same Government, which seems oblivious to the unfair burden it has placed on pensioners by deferring pension increases, has, through either incompetence or disinterest, allowed elderly patients in nursing homes to face the temporary but very frightening situation in which they or their families are unable to continue to meet their fees. That situation has been compounded by the Government's inability to reassure them as to whether it will adequately adjust benefits and, unfortunately, I think by its arrogant dismissal of their concerns. I believe that today an announcement has been made about the subsidies that will be paid. I will justify that last statement by quoting from a letter from the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) released by the Nursing Homes Association of New South Wales. The Minister blithely stated: There is a percentage of people whose fees are not made up by the combination of the pension and the nursing home benefit which is payable. That always happens. In these circumstances, for a few weeks, that will happen again. It is incomprehensible to me how a Minister for Community Services could speak so matter of factly about a situation which has caused, and is still causing, real distress and hardship for pensioners in homes. But then it is, it seems, consistent with the actions of the Cabinet, which blindly spreads the sacrifices required to bring us out of recession evenly across groups which are not equally equipped to cope with them. Indeed, the more cynical community might be led to believe that the Cabinet has discovered some perverse utilitarian formula which has shown that political pain for the Government can be minimised by directing the sacrifices disproportionately and in short bursts towards those already suffering hardship. This Bill is intended to introduce new, but still overly centralised, nursing home care arrangements. It is intended to strengthen the role of hostel care. It provides new funding for the aged and care for special groups of disadvantaged Australians. It seeks to revise planning arrangements and improve consultation with the States, and it seeks minor amendments of the legislation. The Opposition finds no significant problems with the Bill in this regard. I want, however, to state a personal assessment, which is that I consider an opportunity has been lost by the Government in bringing this legislation before the House-an opportunity I believe it had to tackle the underlying barrier preventing adequate and appropriate care for the aged in Australia. The first view that I have has to do with the business environment within which nursing home and hostel operators are expected to operate. What businessmen or women will venture into this service sector, given the combination of excessive regulation, ever increasing on-costs, the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax? The other day I was talking to one retired nursing home operator who was outraged at the Minister's uninformed comments concerning the profits made by nursing home operators. He pointed out to me that he had made nothing from his operation until he sold it, and now, under this Government's capital gains tax, even that small return would be threatened. If the Government thinks that the charities and the churches will fill the void, it and the aged are in for an unpleasant surprise several years from now. The second view I wish to express has to do with encouraging Australians to take steps during their working life to ensure self-reliance and dignity in retirement. Suffice it to say that taxation on superannuation benefits, capital gains and the assets test are very effective disincentives to make such provision. The last point I wish to make has to do with the failure of the Government to provide taxation and allowance support for families to retain responsibility for the care of elderly members. What young or middle-aged family providers, with excessively high mortgages, child-raising costs and taxation, are in any position to bear the strain and costs of caring for an aged member of their extended family? This really goes to the crux of the matter. It is the wish of most aged citizens to be able to stay with or near their families. I believe that most families, given the chance, would not dump grandparents or brothers and sisters into institutions. It is in the interests of the nation as a whole, both morally and in terms of welfare resources, that we do not unnecessarily institutionalise the aged. This piecemeal short term readjustment of government regulation, manipulation and restriction is not a long term option in the search for quality and cost effective care of our aged. What we should have seen when this legislation was brought before us was an overall strategy to deal with the three key factors in this matter-private enterprise, self-reliance and the family. But, of course, that would require that the whole philosophy and record of this Government's taxation policy be reversed. A long term strategy based on these three factors is needed. I assure those people in my electorate of Macquarie as well as honourable members present in the House today who are concerned about nursing homes and other forms of care for the aged that this is what I will pursue with my colleagues in the coalition when we assume office after the next election. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(8.28) —It gives me a very great deal of pleasure to speak this evening on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. The purpose of this Bill is to make certain that the amount of money and resources that is devoted to aged care is spent correctly. It is to make certain that it does not go into the pockets of a few greedy individuals. For too long some entrepreneurs have been abusing the Government's assistance given to those in greatest need in our community. Many nursing home proprietors do not abuse the benefits that are given to them by the Government. However, the few who do have given this section of business a very bad name. The report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, the Giles report, and the report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure on Accommodation and Home Care for the Aged, the McLeay report, identified very significant problems associated with the provision of Commonwealth aged care services. The growth in private nursing homes and their cost has increased rapidly during the last 10 years. It is an area in which entrepreneurs and doctors can invest and make very large profits very quickly. The nursing home and hostel review, the report of which was tabled in the Senate in April, had four basic philosophical goals. They are that aged and disabled people should as far as possible be supported in their own homes and in their communities. Aged and disabled people should be supported by residential services only where other support systems are not appropriate to meet their needs. Services should be provided in an atmosphere of, and using processes which promote as far as possible, rehabilitation and restoration of function. The manner in which services are provided should develop and enhance personal freedom and the independent functioning of all residents. Services should be based on a recognition that, for many people, discharge to a residential service providing a less intensive form of care or to a community-based support service will be a possible and very desirable outcome. These recommendations form the basis of the amendments which this Bill addresses. The electorate of Dunkley covers part of the Mornington Peninsula. I would like to bring to the notice of our Government the special problems that have arisen in this area in relation to nursing homes and hostel care. In the 1950s and 1960s many residents of the Melbourne metropolitan area built holiday homes on the peninsula. They have spent many wonderful holidays there. They have now reached retiring age, have sold their suburban houses and are enjoying a well earned retirement on the peninsula. Very large retirement villages have been established on the peninsula which have attracted people from all over Victoria to live there. This has created the very large problem in relation to aged care that we have today on the peninsula. I take the opportunity in this debate to mention the Baxter Village, which has over 700 residents. It is in my electorate, just out of Frankston. I am sure that honourable members will be aware that it had very serious financial problems some 12 months ago. I am happy to say that a new company has been formed by the Baptist Union of Victoria and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia which have had to pay out debts of over $20m. Even with the investigations that have taken place, I still have not had explained to me how $20m was lost in three years. Bob Payne, who was the head of the village and one of the leaders of the Festival of Light, has now left the village. From discussions with a large number of residents it appears that a new feeling of optimism and a coming together of the community have emerged. The distress and anguish caused by greed and avarice have begun to dissipate. I thank all those who were involved in the battle to make certain that the residents were not disadvantaged in any way. Particular thanks must go to the Corporate Affairs Commission and the State Government of Victoria, for without their timely intervention a much greater and more serious problem would have occurred. Returning to the Bill, the peninsula had the highest rate of resident growth in Victoria between 1976 and 1983. The aged population of the Mornington Peninsula is increasing at an annual rate of 4 per cent. According to the latest figures I have, there are on the peninsula an estimated 8,624 people over the age of 70. There are only 338 nursing home beds, which is a ratio of 39.2 beds per 1,000 people over 70 years of age. The average rate of nursing home beds per 1,000 people over 70 years of age throughout Victoria is 60 to 70. The Mornington Peninsula is believed to have the lowest ratio of nursing home beds of any large community in Australia. Mr Lloyd —What ratio is it? Do you know what the figure is? Mr CHYNOWETH —The figure is 39.2. The huge growth in the number of aged persons is putting tremendous strains on local hospitals and the various geriatric centres throughout the peninsula. These strains have been caused by many people being attracted to the peninsula by large retirement villages. This is causing a great deal of distress amongst the elderly and their families. It is not right that our citizens should go into hospitals when hostel accommodation may be quite adequate. I have made representations to the responsible Minister asking that urgent attention be given to the special problems presented on the peninsula. I will continue to press the case. We must look after our elderly better. The amendments that are incorporated in this Bill, I am sure, will go a long way towards redressing the problem that has existed for many years. This has not just happened overnight; it has been building up over the last 10 to 15 years. I wish to end this speech with a poem that I used in a newsletter I distributed about 10 years ago. I feel it is a very important testimony which gives the view of the frail aged in our society. The poem was found among the possessions of an old lady who died in the geriatric ward of Ashludie Hospital, near Dundee. There is no information as to her name, when she died or who she was. It reads: What do you see, nurses, what do you see? Are you thinking when you look at me- A crabbit old woman, not very wise, Uncertain of health, with far-away eyes, Who dribbles her food and makes no reply When you say in a loud voice, `I do wish you'd try'. Who seems not to notice the things that you do, And forever is losing a stocking or shoe, Who unresisting or not, lets you do as you will, With bathing and feeding, the long day to fill. Is that what you're thinking, is that what you see? Then open your eyes, nurse, you're not looking at me. I'll tell you who I am as I sit here so still, As I rise at your bidding, as I eat at your will. I'm a small child of ten with a father and mother, Brothers and sisters, who love one another; A young girl of sixteen with wings on her feet, Dreaming that soon now a lover she'll meet; A bride soon at twenty-my heart gives a leap Remembering the vows that I promised to keep; At twenty-five now I have young of my own Who need me to build a secure happy home; A woman of thirty, my young now grow fast, Bound to each other with ties that should last. At forty, my young sons have grown and are gone, But my man's beside me to see I don't mourn; At fifty once more babies play round my knee, Again we know children, my loved one and me. Dark days are upon me, my husband is dead, I look to the future, I shudder with dread. For all my young are rearing young of their own, And I think of the years and the love I have known. I'm an old woman now and nature is cruel- 'Tis her jest to make old age look like a fool. The body is crumbled, grace and vigour depart. There now is a stone where there once was a heart. But inside this old carcass a young girl still dwells, And now and again my battered heart swells. I remember the years, I remember the pain, And I'm loving and living life over again. I think of the years all too few-gone too fast, And accept the stark fact that nothing can last. So open your eyes, nurses, open and see. Not a crabbit old woman, look close-see ME. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(8.38) —That was a very nice poem and, of course, tonight is not the time to get political and aggressive. There have not been many interjections on most of the speeches tonight because they have all been down to earth and the speakers have all realised that we have a mammoth problem and that between us we should try to overcome it. I have some very strong views on the aged and I always have had. I believe it has been said tonight that all of a sudden this problem has caught up with us. There is a realisation that we have an aging population and that we need to do more. I have studied fairly carefully the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill and, of course, the Opposition is not opposing it. The measures seem fine. It is a redirection towards hostel accommodation. But I do ask a few questions. I do not always agree with documents such as this Bill, because sometimes I study the people who have prepared it and they do not fit in with my line of thinking. I am a practical person; I go around my electorate and I look, talk and observe. Hostel accommodation is fine, but who will look after the people in these hostels? We have an aging population. We have lazy women out on the Parliament House lawn who talk about peace. They should try to look after some of the elderly people I know, who cannot cut their lawns and cannot do this and cannot do that. But we have a lazy, rotten lot in Australia who have not settled down to the fact that there are a lot of people out there who need us. A lot of people are talking about this and laying down foundations as to what should be done but, regrettably, they do not do it. We are talking about the elderly being integrated into hostel beds. That is fine, but I repeat: Who is going to look after them? Who is going to be with them after their 40 hours of care? Has anyone sat down and found out what domiciliary sisters do? They do a good job but they do only the bare necessities. They do only what is set down in the guidelines. An honourable member said tonight that married couples cannot look after the elderly. Some of them cannot because the wife may be working or the husband may not be in a fit condition to have his parents around him, et cetera. I understand all that, but who is going to look after the increasing number of elderly people if the elderly are to be redirected into nursing and hostel accommodation? Mr Hodgman —Into institutions. Mr GOODLUCK —I do not like the word `institutions'. It has been used tonight. Once nursing homes were thought of as places where people go to die-that is it, that is the end. We heard a lovely poem tonight illustrating the fact that elderly people need to be integrated with the young. Sometimes there is condemnation of single mothers. Would it not be good if some of the single mothers, with their little babies, could, to a degree, be integrated into nursing homes and look after these elderly people? Would it not be good if we could harness some of the unemployed in Australia, who want to do something, to help some of the elderly people who need help and attention? It is easy to put down statistics and say: `Bang, we will put them all in hostel accommodation'. But I ask again: Who is going to look after these people? Where are we going to get the people to care for them? Where are the young ones going to come from to look after them and do all the things that are absolutely necessary when one is old? We have a changing situation. Some people are old at 55. Dementia can set in at a very early age. Mr Hodgman —You're not. Mr GOODLUCK —I am not; I am vivid and wide awake. But I am different, I see things as they are. Mr McGauran —But you're not 55. Mr GOODLUCK —I am not 55 either. Some people get to the stage where they need help and attention at a very early age, so we have a massive problem. Some people are made redundant at a very early age. Mr Webster —Who is going to look after them? Mr GOODLUCK —Exactly; who is going to look after them? I have read a report on this matter. I have not studied it all that carefully because I do not study reports that much. Instead, I go around and look for myself. Then I am able to judge things for myself. Why is there an increasing number of people contacting me in Hobart and saying: `Bruce, we cannot get our mum or dad into a nursing home. It is impos- sible. They are full'? Yet a study of the com- munity of Hobart-done by probably very good people-talks about statistics and the number of people who are in nursing homes and in hostel accommodation. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) looks at me quizzically. That report just does not make sense to me. Therefore, I start to ask questions about where we are going. Senator Grimes apparently had the best of experts to bring down this report. I only hope to God that they are right because we have an increasing number of elderly people in Australia and if they are not redirected the correct way, we will have a massive problem on our hands. Mr McGauran —We already have one. Mr GOODLUCK —We already have one. It has come up so rapidly, before our very eyes. I get mad when, having gone to the opening of a magnificent building, a sports arena or something like that, and seen on the wall the name of a politician, who smiles and puts out his chest, I go around the corner and I see some sick elderly person who may be dying but who cannot get into a nursing home. Our priorities are not right. We need to redirect those priorities. We as politicians should start to realise that it is not the sporting, cultural or opera openings that are important; that we should start opening places for the elderly. We should start to realise that care for the aged is a massive problem. The honourable member for Denison and I were criticised in a Mercury editorial. People forget about the decent work we do. We are condemned just because we are a bit light- hearted at times. People do not realise the constant number of people we see every day, as we have for 11 years. The fact that we put on a lighthearted approach at times does not mean that we are not deadly serious, do not care or do not look after our electorates to the best of our abilities. This is a problem that comes before honourable members and we should all be aware of it. If we do not look after elderly people, we should be condemned for not doing our job. It is useless walking around and saying that we are great fellows because we believe in this or in that; if we forget about the people who need our help, our attention, we shall be in dire straits in the long term. Mr Hodgman —How is the task force going? Mr GOODLUCK —I am chairman of the task force-and I am doing it my way, so is the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and Senator-what is her name? Mr Hodgman —Senator Knowles. Mr GOODLUCK —Knowles-I always forget the women. They are all going a good job-because we are going out doing it our way, finding out the problems for ourselves, not condemning, not looking to the experts, not looking to the ones who have their heads in the sky and who think that statistics are everything. We are having a good look. Some of the places we have seen are using new ideas. For example, at Christmas they are bringing in young children and young singers and there is an integration between young and old. Mr N.A. Brown —Making it happy. Mr GOODLUCK —As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, making it happy. That is the important thing. That is good, because innovations occur every day and there seems to be an awareness of what is needed. On the one hand, there are the selfish people, and on the other hand, the people who are prepared to go in and have a look and to make certain that they are doing the best they possibly can for the elderly. The lonely elderly people who are out there tonight, who may not have very much money and who may be looking after their own little homes, doing the best they possibly can, should rest assured that there are people in this House who care for them, who are trying to find out their problems, to bring down recommendations and to make their lives better in the long term. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(8.47) —Accommodation for the frail, the chronically ill, the aging and the disabled needs to adapt. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will agree that under successive governments it has become very difficult to adapt to the demands, particularly for nursing home accommodation. Our system requires more care, more planning, more co-ordination and better direction. What has gone wrong? First, there was an emphasis-I know that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) does not like the word-on institutionalisation. Nursing homes were once the growth area of the aged persons' accommodation. In 1961 a Barry Humphries character named Sandy Stone said that when families grow up `They either wipe their boots on you, or they marry the first one that comes along and pack you off to a twilight home'. People who went into nursing homes all too often were transformed from residents into patients. The frail were accommodated with the chronically ill, the mentally active tended to receive little stimulus, and the costs of operation of nursing homes were high. It is to the credit of many nursing home proprietors and charities that much more has been done in recent years in resident care. There has also been a growing recognition in the community that Australians have for long pushed the aging aside. This recognition was accompanied by a trend to the less expensive, less disciplined hostel-type accommodation that employs administrative and often a very small nursing staff. They provide a mix of care, community activity and private living suitable for many frail people. In Eden-Monaro hostels operate at George Forbes House, Queanbeyan, Narooma, Bombala, Dalmeny and Milton. They are able to link in with nursing home accommodation at Queanbeyan, Cooma, Pambula, Bega, Dalmeny and Milton. Federal and State governments have at last come to grips with the need for aged and disabled people to have alternatives to nursing home accommodation, to be supported even in their own homes and in their own communities as far as possible. This action to help people live in their own homes is only now taking place through the Federal Government's home and community care program to the extent that it needs to be. State and Federal governments have at last joined to ensure the provision of not only personal and health care but also other assistance. It was only three years ago when an elderly elector told me that he had a choice of staying at home or moving to a nursing home. He was unable to do odd jobs around the house. The honourable member for Franklin has mentioned them-lawn mowing, garden clearing and certain aspects of housework. All the elderly elector needed was help for two or three hours a day five or six days a week. The dilemma seemed to be a tragic one: To leave the community and the house that he knew and cherished; or to stay there unable to cope-all for the lack of two or three hours assistance a day. Here was one case in which governments would surely save taxpayers' funds by keeping an aging person at home. Today, under the home and community care program, people such as that person should be able to receive some help in the home. This Bill takes us a step further. It follows extensive consultations with State governments, nursing homes, hostels, consumers, welfare groups, staff and public servants. The Bill amends the nursing homes and hostels legislation to give effect to some very important matters raised in those consultations. For a start, residential services will be better planned. Better planning will be associated with more monitoring and evaluation. Tonight the Sir William Hudson Nursing Home in Cooma is holding its annual meeting. This follows a series of actions and changes at the nursing home which led to calls to me for more government involvement. No action could be taken under legislation to perform the type of monitoring that was requested. Under the proposed amendments, monitoring and evaluation will be possible. Changes can be made where necessary. Integration of nursing homes, with their intensive care, and hostels, with community services, is required. Hostels will also be assisted to care for increasingly dependent people. Hostels, with their less intensive care, are not only less costly for taxpayers; they also allow residents to adapt to varying degrees of care. They are less likely to restrict residents to a high degree of care when it is not really needed. The amendments we are considering tonight will mean that the growth of nursing home accommodation can be controlled. This defends patients as well as taxpayers. It also allows for approval for beds to special needs groups, including the deaf and the blind aged. The change from nursing home emphasis to hostel options will be gradual and it will not affect present residents of nursing homes or hostels. I must say that I was very disturbed to hear recently of some unjustified rumours about pensioners being squeezed out of nursing homes or their relatives being charged for accommodation. For that reason I am very pleased to advise of increased rates for pensioners in nursing homes amounting to a benefit of $43.40 a day-a rise of $6.60 a day or $46.20 a week. In New South Wales that will more than compensate for the recent fee rise of $5.10 a day in that State, the result of a long overdue wage increase for nurses in nursing homes. The additional benefit for residents whose frailty or other disabilities require extensive care will remain at $42 a week. In 1537 Pietro Aretino said: `Age has a good mind and sorry shanks'. That is not always the case, but this Bill does recognise the sorry shanks when they exist and ensures that good minds are not allowed to waste. I support the Bill. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(8.55) —The Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill is the culmination of many years of analysis by the Government and, indeed, all parties in the Parliament of the problems of caring for the aged. We hope that the legislation will actually contain sufficient provisions to ensure the proper and adequate care of aged people in the community who require help. I emphasise that this legislation must continue to give to local people who have their nursing homes and communities adequate control of them without too much bureaucratic or government interference. We must recognise that the three avenues which provide care for the aged when they are ill are nursing homes, hostels and hospitals. I welcome the fact that the legislation enables people to have better care within their own private homes. This is terribly important and I trust that the States, together with the Commonwealth, will financially encourage this aspect of assistance. I know that many speakers in this debate have been able to quote instances in their own electorates and all of us know dozens, even hundreds of people who we believe are in need of particular care. I emphasise the fact that there are some aspects of the legislation that concern me from the practical point of view of looking after aged people within the community. I appreciate the fact that the emphasis will be on the hostels and not the nursing homes. In my electorate of Lyne we have quite a number of nursing homes and hostels for the aged. I know of no patient who is in a nursing home in my electorate who I personally believe could be cared for in his or her own home. These people are very ill-many of them are vegetables-and many have no relations to look after them. That is particularly important. There are others who have families but those families are not in a position to look after them. In these cases there is no avenue for these people, other than a nursing home or another type of institution, such as a hospital. I trust that in this legislation the Government will allow for a tremendous amount of flexibility in relation to hostel accommodation. This will certainly be needed. We will not be able to continue with the present criterion whereby an aged person is supposed to be immobile before he or she is allowed into a hostel. The Government will need to provide flexibility and ensure that adequate hostel care is available to people who, on present day grades, should be in a nursing home. I hope that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) will be able to provide that flexibility because it has never been spelt out clearly where that fine line will be drawn. I know it is difficult to draw such a line but we must know when a sick person is eligible to enter a hostel. We must know what state of immobility will be required. I also emphasise that wherever possible accommodation for aged persons should be undertaken by responsible groups within the community. I am not talking about the private nursing homes; I am taking about places such as the Nelson Bay Retirement Village, the Bushland Place at Taree, the Frank Widden Masonic Home at Wingham and other centres in my electorate where a community of people has raised one-third of the funds to build the home and has received a two-thirds grant from the Government. These homes then come under the deficit funding scheme. I strongly believe in the deficit funding scheme for community homes. We must never forget that the basic success of these homes is that they are run by experienced local people who know the needs of the local community. We must never ever forget that fact. There will be instances within the legislation whereby the disadvantaged groups-Aboriginals and others in the community-will receive 100 per cent of the total capital cost for the accommodation and then receive some extra care after that. I point out to the Government that there are many disadvantaged groups within the community today. The average age pensioner within the community is a disadvantaged person, as far as I am concerned. Many, not all, age pensioners within my electorate, and I am sure elsewhere throughout Australia, are disadvantaged. We do not want to see somebody turned out of bed in order to allow another person to use the bed. That person should be allowed to remain there. I hope that the legislation will be reasonable. Whenever I see this type of legislation before the House I wonder what the outcome of it, in practical terms, will be. I am concerned because I know that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) intends to introduce legislation concerning sheltered workshops. The same thing applies to sheltered workshops within the community. Wherever these workshops operate, they are highly successful. There is one at Manning Valley, Taree, in my electorate called Valley Industries, in which over 90 people work. I hope that if there is a change in the legislation control will not be taken over by the bureaucracy, out of the hands of the local people. The bureaucracy has an opportunity to get into this field. The legislation that is before us tonight refers to therapy that is to be applied to these groups. This is the avenue used by the bureaucracy to control nursing homes, hostels and sheltered workshops. It is able to tap into this area. We must be careful of this. I emphasise this point again: The local people who control these places understand the problems of the aged or the disadvantaged within the community. These people are best able to serve the institutions and the public. One hears some very interesting references with regard to aged persons accommodation. There is a Dr Redshaw in my electorate who has done a tremendous amount for the community. One day he suggested to me: `You should not put the three together-the unit, the nursing home and the hostel accommodation-on the one block of land'. One does not want people to go by way of steps and stairs from one into the other because, in the end, they are only awaiting death. I know it is not always practical to do this because of the services, ranging from the laundry to the kitchen, that must be provided. But these are practical facts that, when we get old, we will think about. We will be waiting to die. So we must be practical in our thinking and in the legislation that we introduce in the Parliament. Mr Miles —Long term planning. Mr COWAN —That is right. I emphasise that private nursing home and hostel accommodation provides a tremendous amount of accommodation for the needy. I do not know whether the Minister has announced the increase in the fees today-apparently he has-but I hope that it is adequate to meet the demands. It must be accepted that if a group, a company or a person builds a nursing home-we all have these within our electorates-they stand to make a reason- able return on their investment. We should remember the tremendous advantage that those beds provide-be they nursing home or hostel beds-to the people in the community. In my area there are dozens and dozens of people on waiting lists for beds in nursing homes or hostels. These people, whether or not they can afford it, are forced to go into these places. Dozens of people have contacted me in recent days, particularly concerning the Bonventi nursing home at Forster-Tuncurry. Initially, the people are put in such places because they are in need of accommodation. But when the fees go up-and they have to go up because of the nurses award in New South Wales and other extra costs involved-they are unable to meet the increased fees. They are unable to meet them because in many instances pensioners are contributing to pensioners. There is no other way out. We see many age pensioner couples within the community whose mother or father is in a nursing home. They are the only ones who are able, from their pension, to meet these extra costs. I do want to pay tribute to those people who have the entrepreneurship, the initiative, to build private nursing homes to cater for those people in our country who need these services. We all have to realise that we have the tiger by the tail. We have a great responsibility in this area; at the moment we spend over $1 billion a year. I am sure the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) will agree with me because he has quite a lot of nursing homes in his area. An owner of a number of those nursing homes also owns some in my electorate. The fact is that we as Australians have a tremendous responsibility to care for the aged. I am pleased to support the legislation but I trust that the Minister will heed those few warnings that I have issued this evening. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(9.06) —My good friend the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) and I both served in the New South Wales Parliament and we have known each other for a long time. As State members and now as Federal members, one of the biggest problems we have is advising and helping people who have elderly parents who need either hostel accommodation or nursing home accommodation. Perhaps I could reassure the honourable member that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has today announced an increase in nursing home benefits in New South Wales of $6.60 a day. This will more than cover the recent fee rise of $5.10 a day in that State, which was brought about by a long overdue increase in award wages for nurses, matrons and other hospital staff. I do not agree with one point the honourable member made. He referred to a suggestion by a doctor constituent that perhaps nursing homes should be put in a separate area to hostels, that facilities for the aged should be spread around. I have trouble with an elderly couple when from time to time one is in a nursing home and the other is in a hostel some considerable distance away and they cannot visit each other. It is distressing for people if they are living together in a retired person's hostel and one is taken a long distance away to a nursing home. So there is another side to the coin, and I am sure my good friend the honourable member for Lyne would appreciate that. The problems are very acute. I did serve for three years on the Executive Council of the Council on Ageing in New South Wales; so I have had a number of problems brought to my attention. I do thank Dr Paul D'Arbon at Western Suburbs Hospital in Croydon, Sydney, a man who has helped and advised me and who has helped many constituents whom I have referred to him. He has helped place elderly parents in nursing homes and advised people about respite care, the carer's pension and all the accoutrements that are now available to assist aging people in our nation, the population of which is aging rapidly. The area of Sydney that I represent in this national Parliament was really the nursing home heartland of Sydney, containing suburbs such as Burwood, Strathfield, Croydon and Ashfield. They were the places that people used to think of when talking about nursing homes. There is a great range of nursing homes there; there are the church and charitable nursing homes and nursing homes run privately, but they all have to comply with State registration requirements. They are strictly supervised and they are all of the highest order. Some years ago a proprietor, who is now dead, was gaining a great deal of notoriety in the local Press about not paying staff, or not paying long service leave or holiday pay, and putting pensioners who did not pay their bills out into the street. Nevertheless, when I rang the New South Wales Health Commission I was assured that the two nursing homes involved, in Five Dock at the time, were properly run and were even better than many others that looked very well run on the surface. The patients were well cared for and nurtured; they were properly treated. In New South Wales, and I am sure in the other States, the growth of nursing homes has been higgledy-piggledy and they have sprung up here and there. The late Jim Maher of Strathfield, Executive Secretary of the St Vincent de Paul Society, went to visit an old lady in Strathfield many years ago. A Matron Cullen was running a nursing home in Albert Road. When he got there he found that Matron Cullen was in bed sick and no one was looking after the frail patients in the nursing home. Jim Maher asked a number of local ladies to feed these people and then the St Vincent de Paul Society took over that responsibility. To cut a long story short, this home is now the largest nursing home in my electorate; it grew up by chance. It is now a Schedule 5 hospital, so the Health Commission has the right to place patients from public hospitals in Our Lady of Loreto, Strathfield. It is an outstanding nursing home. There is a wide variety of nursing homes and hostels in Lowe. We have the Little Sisters of the Poor in Drummoyne, we have the Presbyterian home at Drummoyne, which is a hostel complex and aged persons units. We have new ventures such as St Mary's Villa, Concord, a nursing home and a hostel which was opened last year by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We also have ethnic nursing homes. We have one for the Chinese community, and the Russian community also has one. I am sure that all honourable members would have had the same experiences I have had when visiting these places. We all go to such places at election time, of course, and perhaps it is a good thing. Most of the homes are polling places in State, Federal and local elections. If nothing else, people go to these homes at election time and see what is happening. They meet the patients and the proprietors, and that can only do good. One of the great things about being a member of parliament is that one meets some wonderful people. One man I met told me that he was working for the community because his old dad, who was a digger, had gone senile, had been put in a repatriation ward of the Gladesville Psychiatric Hospital in Sydney and had been cured. He was brought back to reality and returned to live with his family, where he lived for some years before dying peacefully. This man was so appreciative of what this hospital had done that he did voluntary work in psychiatric hospitals in Sydney. The legislation tries to create an atmosphere in which people are not seen to be depositing aged relatives in nursing homes forever. Nursing homes are essentially part of the hospital system. The whole notion of the legislation is to control their growth so that someone cannot start a nursing home just by raising money. A very worthwhile report entitled `Nursing Homes and Hostels Review', commissioned by the Minister for Community Services and available to honourable members and the general public, has pointed out not that Australia has more nursing home beds than any other country but certainly that we have more than most others and have a disproportionate ratio of nursing home beds to hostel beds. In 1985 in Australia there were 46.8 nursing home beds for every 1,000 people over 65 years of age. In Great Britain there were only 12; New Zealand had 21 and Canada 23. Only in the United States and Denmark were the figures higher than in Australia. Australia had 21.9 hostel accommodation beds per 1,000 of the population over 65 years. Other countries had a higher percentage of hostel beds; the United Kingdom had 25, New Zealand 32 and Canada 40. In other countries with which we compare ourselves there is more of a mix of hostel beds and nursing home beds than there is in Australia. If this can be achieved in our nation, as the honourable member for Lyne said, it will save an enormous amount of money. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), in his second reading speech, pointed out that some of the principles and philosophical goals of the legislation are that the aged and disabled should, as far as possible, be supported in their own homes and in their own communities. Naturally, there are people who must go into nursing homes because they have no one to care for them adequately, but tonight we must pay tribute to some of the people who care for others in their homes-volunteers who work in the community, the volunteers who do meals on wheels, the people who serve on committees to keep the home care services going, and the people who perhaps just help their neighbours to do what they can to assist them in their homes. Another provision that the Minister outlined and highlighted was that aged and disabled people should be supported by residential services only where other support systems are not appropriate to meet their needs. He also made the point that services should be provided in an atmosphere, and using processes, which promote, as far as possible, rehabilitation and restoration of function. I could not agree more. We must never reach the point where people are put into nursing homes and that is it-there being no return to outside life. The Minister stressed in this second reading speech that there must be a more flexible integrated planning approach to the provision of residential services and a better resourced hostel section. We are dealing in the private sector with a very valuable item and that is nursing home beds. In Victoria nursing home beds turn over for about $15,000 each. When a nursing home is sold, so too are its goods, chattels and goodwill. Australia, with its aging population, is going through a very difficult financial time. There is a very rapid growth in the expensive costs of nursing homes. This legislation has been brought forward, in a sense, to remove the political pressures for the establishment of nursing homes. A committee will overview and supervise the establishment of new nursing homes which will be needed to keep abreast of the aging processes in society. I am delighted to find that that committee will not be composed of career public servants but will include community representatives, representatives of the proprietors and also, I trust, representatives of the users. The present committee which advises on the establishment of new nursing homes in our community does not contain representatives of the voluntary or charitable nursing homes and I have brought that fact to the attention of the Minister. Finally, I point out that groups applying for a certificate to establish new nursing homes will be subject to rigorous standards. However, the basic aim of the legislation is to modernise the machinery under which nursing homes are established and at the same time encourage the establishment of hostel beds. I certainly commend the legislation to the House. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(9.18) —Many honourable members have indicated that they wanted to speak on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. So that everyone who wants to speak can participate in this debate we have agreed voluntarily to restrict our remarks. Therefore, the number of topics that one can cover in this debate is very limited. This is, of course, a very substantial piece of legislation which involves very large expenditure. The issues which it addresses are very fundamental. It is a pity, therefore, that the debate could not have been a little longer. I have decided not to recanvass many of the issues that have been raised tonight by both my colleagues and members on the other side of the House. My remarks basically will be ones of general principle. I will take the opportunity to reiterate some of the concerns that I have expressed in this place in the past. I say at the outset that I have no objection to the basic thrust of government policy insofar as there is good will towards the aged. I believe there is good will towards the aged and that, in my opinion, is essential. I have said before in this place-and I was reiterating the words of someone wiser than I-that the health of a society is truly measured by its attitude towards the young and the elderly. It is true that people's expectations in respect of age govern their behaviour throughout their adult lives. This is certainly so from the age of about 30 onwards. Government measures can affect people's patterns of behaviour, consumption, savings, earnings, expectations and so on. One thing that concerns me a little about debate on the aged, and specifically debate on this legislation, is that I am not sure that enough attention has been paid to the priorities that elderly people in Australia have for themselves. The aged tend to have different priorities of need than do other age groups. Matters that may seem very simple to people in their 40s, 50s or even 60s can assume very much large significance and have a higher priority in the life of the aged. For example, I have expressed in the past some concern that we do not put pressure on elderly people to stay in their homes longer than they really want to. Twenty or thirty years ago it was considered not desirable for elderly people to go into nursing homes. Nursing homes, were few; they were not well supported financially by government, and therefore they were very expensive. Alternatively, the standards were not very high, in order to make them affordable. We have made enormous progress in the area in Australia in the last two or three decades. In general terms these days nursing homes are affordable and of a very high standard and provide a very desirable service for the aged. I reiterate that my concern is that, our having moved away from not believing nursing homes were a desirable feature in our society to a stage where they are overutilised because of a lack of alternatives in some cases, I would hate to see a situation arise whereby we put psychological or financial obstacles in the way of people who really need nursing home care. As people get older their familiar surroundings become very much more important to them. I have had matrons of nursing homes tell me stories of elderly people whom they have moved, believing they were doing them a favour, from one bed to another-to beds which were in single rooms or which had a better aspect-and who shortly afterwards have died, not because there has been any reason for their health to decline but because a simple change of location, a loss of territory, even if that territory was only a nursing home bed, and a transplant into alien territory was more than they could cope with psychologically. All of us who have elderly relations become more aware as they grow older of how important their own territory and familiar surroundings are to them. That is why I have said in the past that I am very attracted to the type of aged persons development referred to by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) and the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), which are a combination of freestanding residential accommodation, hostels and nursing homes. There was a time when I found that sort of combination a little depressing, a little distressing. It seemed to me some years ago when I was first in this field that once somebody made the move into aged persons' accommodation he was on a slowly moving escalator which took him inexorably into the nursing home and beyond. I have realised in time that that is not so and that people who go into hostel accommodation do not view it in that way at all, although it may end up being the truth for them. A variety of other things can happen as well. I have realised, on the other hand, that somebody who has been resident in a hostel and has needed nursing home care-for example, a person who has had a stroke or a serious fall which has resulted in a broken hip-because of his connection with those in the hostel and the nursing home is very much happier with the situation in which he finds himself, very much more content and very much more capable of looking after the disability because he is not transferred suddenly to alien territory. I have learned that one of the most distressing things for the aged is to go from their own homes into nursing homes because of some health trauma. When something suddenly happens and they are uprooted from the homes in which they have lived for a very long time to what is, to them, totally alien territory, combined with a health trauma, it is a terrifying thing for them indeed. Some aged people are of sufficient independence and strength of mind that they can cope with that very well, but most cannot. I believe that type of developed accommodation is the best, except for those who really want to, and can, live successfully on their own. The importance of familiarity of surroundings, company and friends and relief from the pressure of everyday chores are very important priorities for elderly people. For younger, more mobile and more vigorous people, and people more flexible in attitude, it is not so important. The chores of keeping home, which a younger person does without thinking, can become insufferable burdens to an elderly person. The chore of having to prepare meals, of having to do the marketing and of having to look after personal hygiene, can become overwhelming. Good evidence of that is the number of people who are admitted to nursing homes needing nursing home care who, after a couple of months on a good diet and proper supervision of their own health, hygiene and medication, no longer need the nursing home care. They may need hostel-type accommodation, where there is supervision and support, but they do not need nursing home care. I am aware that this Bill attempts to address that. I support the principles stated by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who introduced the Bill, which were referred to earlier by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). I admit some small disquiet, however, with a couple of details on the first principle, which states: Aged and disabled people should as far as possible be supported in their own homes, in their own communities. I would have preferred the word `desirable' to be used there and that the aged were the ones who decided what was desirable. The second point relates to this passage: Aged and disabled people should be supported by residential services only where other support systems are not appropriate to meet their needs. I raise the question: Who decides their needs? If it is the aged and the disabled who have a free choice in making that decision, I have no difficulty with it. I strongly support the principle which states: Services should be provided in an atmosphere and using processes which promote as far as possible rehabilitation and restoration of function. The manner in which services are provided should develop and enhance personal freedom and independent functioning of all residents. I am nearly out of time and I shall therefore bring my comments to a conclusion. I very quickly raise a couple of points to which I do not ask the Minister to reply this evening, unless he wishes to. I raise them because I would like them to be in the minds of those people making decisions on this matter in the next year or two. The accusation has been made that many of the combined residential services that I have referred to have traditionally been middle-class establishments. I agree that that is probably so, because in order to stay in the free living accommodation people really need to have at least previously owned their own home to have enough capital. I believe there is not enough flexibility for nursing homes to add hostel accommodation. Too often either only a hostel is built or only a nursing home. It is only the much more recent establishments that have managed to combine the two, and I would like to see more of that. The other point I flag, which was referred to very briefly by the honourable member for Lowe, is that I am sorry there is no mention of the growing problem of non-English speaking migrant aged. Many of the non-English speaking migrants who came to Australia post-war are becoming elderly and needing residential care. The very particular problems that are involved with that are becoming well known and addressed and will require special solutions. I hope that in the planning taking account of regional needs there will also be a good recognition of the fact that this need will be magnified in the next couple of years. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.29) —The Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 deals with the problems of aged people. It was announced today that the consumer price index-that is, the measure of inflation in Australia-has grown to 9 per cent per annum, or about four to five times that of other countries. Nobody suffers more from inflation, and rampant inflation, as we now have, than the elderly. I wonder how much we see of the effects that inflation has on the elderly. I well remember my parents discussing the fact that if they could save enough to guarantee their receiving ten pounds a week in their retirement, they would live very comfortably. That is within my memory. One wonders where $20 a week might go today to support an elderly person. The inflationary effects over past years have eroded the savings of retired people, who cannot get back into the work force and get indexed wages to assist them. This Government should be concerned if it believes it is going to help the elderly with a program such as this one. The reality is that inflation is killing the aged. Other countries have got to grips with inflation but this Government has not. It has failed to do so because it is the biggest spending and biggest taxing government in the history of Australia. The devaluation of our currency is not the cause of inflation; inflation and big government spending are the cause of the devaluation. Governments must realise this. Nevertheless, this legislation is a positive initiative by the Government. It will assist by shifting some people back to hostel accommodation, and I certainly approve of that. However, I have to put in another word for the aged because it seems that the policies of this Government generally do not assist the aged in comparison with the young and the fit. This Government has constantly increased unemployment relief, which I think creates two problems for the young: Firstly, is discourages them from seeking work; and secondly, it is a misallocation of scarce government resources. If I had my druthers, I would always make sure the aged were well cared for ahead of the young. It is my experience that the young can protect themselves much better than people who are elderly and who are no longer able to compete in the work force. Let us look at some of the things this Government has done to the aged. It has introduced the assets test. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) will give us his 12 millionaires speech about that. We concede that the Government caught 12 millionaires. We also know it disadvantaged 56,000 other pensioners who did not really have very much on which to support themselves other than their need to stay in the home that they had occupied for many years. What is this Bill all about? It is about keeping people in the best possible place, be it a hostel or whatever. The Government's home and community care program allows for them to be helped in their homes, but I have cases in my electorate where the Government's assets test drove people out of their family homes and forced them into other houses so that they could qualify for the pension. The lump sum superannuation tax and reductions of Commonwealth pensions are an attack- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor may be making a valid point, but he is rather irrelevant to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I disagree that it is irrelevant to the Bill. A number of people today in hostels and nursing homes subject to this legislation have been put there by this Government's actions. The assets test has had the effect of driving people out of their homes. I make the point that that is very relevant to what is going on and my concern for elderly people- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair cannot accept the honourable member's proposition. It is a Bill within fairly simple parameters. Whilst the honourable member may have views as to the overall situation, the Bill before the House curtails him in his remarks on a broader basis. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will accept your ruling. This Bill increases certain payments, and we see in the second reading speech that the purpose is to put more accent on the funding of hostels as compared to nursing homes. As I said, this is where the merit of the Bill lies. People should not be put into any sort of hospital environment until they absolutely need it. At one stage I spent four months in hospital after a vehicle accident, and I agree that a hospital is a very debilitating place. It is a place where nobody wants to be unless it is absolutely necessary. We know that the cost of care in those areas is very expensive and therefore should be avoided in terms of government expenditure. Nevertheless, we have to look at how the Government is proposing to go ahead with these measures. I wish to raise specifically the case of a hostel in my electorate. It is all right for the Government to say that it wants hostels to be built in places of greatest need. If there are resources in certain communities to build these facilities and the local community is prepared to contribute, there is a very good reason to construct them there. This sometimes means that if a facility is not built in a `deserving area', people may move from that area to an area where the community is prepared to build these facilities. I particularly want to draw the Minister's attention to the position in the town of Kojonup in my electorate where the community did just that-it spent $650,000, for which it received $178,000 only from the Commonwealth and $80,000 from State authorities towards that sum. It received only $178,000 of Commonwealth money because the Commonwealth told the community that it only needed 14 units. The community knew that it needed more than 14 units: First, for economies of scale, because when one goes into this more intensive area of care there is the need to employ certain people and there have to be economies of scale and utilisation of staff; and, secondly, for the advantages in terms of capital. One can add additional units without great addition to other facilities including kitchens and things of that nature. The community knew what was best. It would have liked the subsidy which still would have required a substantial amount of community contribution, as one can see from those costs. In reality, 18 of the 22 units available for elderly people are occupied; the other two being required for the staff. Over the last four years the facility has generally been full. But statistically the Minister's figures tell him that that is not necessary because the elderly do not appear to be there. When the facility was created the elderly appeared. It is not a community of great need in terms of financial capacity. It is generally a reasonably wealthy community. It is prepared to help. I believe that the Government should, on the evidence that has been presented on the occupancy rate of that hospital, come to the party and provide the funding that it would have otherwise provided for the other 10 units. At that stage it was only $120,000-$12,000 a unit. In the second reading speech the Minister says: The Bill will also provide a mechanism for annual automatic increases-- which is good- In addition the Government recognises that increased numbers of hostel beds will necessitate a significant strengthening of the resources available for capital funding. These people are, of course, in the trap of having recognised the need at the time and now being ignored. Although the community has 18 elderly people in the 24 units at present, and has frequently had more than that, on 21 October it received a letter saying: `Definitely and for the last time, no, we will not assist you'. That tends to show that many of the words in the Minister's second reading speech are merely words rather than action. Apparently the money is not available. If these people were to get that assistance it would allow them to reduce the loans that were raised by the local authority for which they are paying very high interest rates as a result of this Government's inability to get interest rates down when they are so low in every other part of the world. The town of Kojonup should get better consideration than it has received. I would think that the Minister might, when he leaves this place, look at the circumstances related to that development. It was built with good faith and because the community had the sense to know that a home could not survive on 14 units and that one cannot give an economic service which is surely what government is all about. It is interesting to see-and I guess this is relevant-that the Minister in the other place has now announced increased nursing benefits. The Minister might advise me why Western Australia, my State, gets $37 a day when his State gets $53.60 a day-there must be some evidence. He could probably tell me that it is more expensive to provide a bed in Victoria and one might ask why. We have heard of a lady in Victoria-a trade unionist-who is causing a lot of trouble in nursing homes. As one of my shire clerks, who has the responsibility for looking after nursing homes and hostels in his area, said today, the unions are now running the show and some of the benefits that are being demanded are quite ridiculous. We have to look at that. My time is running out. I am sorry that I was not able to comment tonight on some of the other problems affecting the elderly because they are significant. It is no good the Government coming into the Parliament, arguing the goodies and saying that it is doing a great job with nursing homes when other people are being grossly disadvantaged by other Government policies. I am concerned for the elderly and I am certainly concerned that they be looked after ahead of other people in the community when it comes to the expenditure of government money. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.40) —I am pleased to speak in this debate and support the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. I begin by complimenting the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and his colleague in the Senate, the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who put together a comprehensive program both in terms of institutional arrangements and for dealing with groups in the community. In my view our total approach to social security and community services compares very favourably with that of our predecessors. One thing that marks off this Government's approach to community care is its commitment to the needs of groups. I want to devote just a moment in this debate to the concerns of special needs groups. This Bill will introduce a mechanism to enable the approval of beds for special needs groups. For example, in my electorate of Stirling there is particular concern about ethnic groups. I refer to groups such as the Macedonian community in the electorate of Stirling which, under the new arrangements and ethno-specific guidelines, is a group particularly concerned to see the development of hostel accommodation for its members. That is one of the areas that we as a government are very keen to see developed. Clearly, this legislation pays attention to that. We on this side of the House believe that is very important. A view being put about in the community at the moment is that this Government is not favourably disposed to ethnic communities. Again, in my electorate of Stirling the Maurice Zeffert Memorial Home, which looks after Jewish aged people in the community, has received approval for funding. That is important in terms of support that we regard as significant. In addition, I noted that speakers opposite have said that this Government's policies towards the aged leave something to be desired. They tended to go back to issues such as the assets test and talked about the attitudes that we developed at that time. It is important in the context of this debate to reassure the community that what this Government is about doing is directing more of its resources to the areas of greatest need. Once one begins to recognise that, one begins to see very clearly that, for example, the assets test was about taking scarce resources and providing them more specifically to areas of need. If one looks at this legislation, one sees very clearly that this Government is concerned about the effective and rational distribution of scarce resources to areas of need. Another initiative of this Government that is important is the emphasis being given to non-institutional care. We on this side of the House believe there are effective ways of dealing with non-institutional care. This Government has given that program priority. My purpose in intervening in this debate is really to say to those who are listening to this debate that we on this side of the House are confident that we have an arrangement of policies that go a long way towards meeting the needs of the community. I also say to the community in general that we recognise that, in times of economic difficulty such as we face in this community, it is not always easy to make the best decisions and to deliver resources to those in need. But I also say that we as a government are confident that policies such as those enshrined in this legislation have been well thought through and are designed to do those things that we as a government have committed ourselves to do. I close by saying that the intention of this Government is to continue to provide substantial policies for those groups in need. This legislation is part of that framework. As I said at the outset, the Minister for Social Security has indicated that his concern is to do that. This legislation provides substance towards that end. I am pleased to support it. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(9.45) —I rise to speak in this debate on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill with a great deal of pleasure and interest because, as many honourable members would know, I take a particular interest in the care of aged Australians. The care of elderly Australians is a most important issue. Many matters come before this place on which we must spend a great deal of time and to which we must devote a great deal of attention. The care of elderly Australians is not a sectional matter. It is not like, say, the steel industry, the motor vehicle industry or the farming industry. It affects virtually every Australian. All of us have elderly parents or grandparents. Above all, every young Australian, including every young person listening to this debate, will end up being aged. So the problem of caring for elderly Australians is of vital and great importance. I must be fair. I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) that nursing home subsidies will be increased. However, I wonder why, when the fees were increased from 1 October, there will be a six-week hiatus before the subsidy increases. The Minister announced today that the subsidy would rise only from 13 November. There is a six-week gap. I cannot help but ask: Why so long, and why so heartless an action? We are talking about elderly Australians, very many of whom have very little income. A great many of them will have to carry the burden of the fee increase themselves. I cannot understand why the Government has imposed this six-week, cash imposition on pensioners. In my electorate office I have had many calls from people who have been stirred up and made most fearful because of this action. I do not think it is fair that elderly Australians should have this imposed on them. It is not necessary and I do not believe it is right. I would be very grateful if the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) could ask his colleague in the other place to give some form of favourable consideration to genuine cases of hardship caused by this action. I am also a trifle concerned that, in announcing the increased subsidy, the Minister for Community Services launched into an attack on the Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals Association of Australia. In his Press release he said that the Association had conducted `a most unsavoury campaign in which the interests of nursing home residents were cruelly exploited'. He said also: `The Government has not been influenced by this scurrilous campaign'. I do not think it is right or proper that the Minister, in defence of the six-week shortfall between the fee increase and the subsidy increase, should attack the Nursing Homes Association. After all, it is trying to do the right thing by everybody. We are talking not only about nursing homes but also about hostels. This brings me to the home and community care area. Most of us in this place agree that the longer we can keep people happily in their own homes and environment, the better. However, one of the difficulties in this is that there seems to be a danger of going overboard. One cannot have the most marvellous scheme in the world-if that is what it is; it is probably not the most marvellous scheme but it is not bad-unless one has the funding for it. One can have all the theories, all the ideas, but unless one has the funds to back them up they will not be much good. Mr Peter Fisher —And flexibility. Mr NEHL —Flexibility is very important. I am concerned because, if we are going to keep people in their own homes, we cannot just say: `There you are, you are slotted in'. I speak from some experience. My parents are still alive. My mother is 82; my father is 81, and I know the sorts of things that affect and worry elderly Australians, such as how to get the lawns cut. Okay, my parents can afford to pay, but a great many pensioners cannot; all they have is the pension. How do they get the windows washed? Do they climb on a stool, a ladder or something and fall off and break a hip? All these matters are perhaps not important to the Minister for Social Security, who is sitting at the table. He has his health and his strength and he is able to get out every Sunday and mow his lawns with vigour. But we cannot really put the people I am talking about in a situation in which they will be so totally dependent on physical capacities they do not have. We have to go a bit beyond that. I am also very doubtful about the proposition that nursing homes should become basically extensive care nursing homes. I think presently 30 beds out of every 100 are hostel beds and 70 are nursing home beds. If we are to make the transition to 70 hostel beds and only 30 nursing home beds, I think we will end up in very big trouble, because we will end up with nursing homes that are chock-a-block full of people who will certainly need extensive care. I think the problem of burn-out of matrons and nursing staff will become a significant one. Once that situation comes about, it will be increasingly difficult to find nurses for nursing homes and, of course, this is an area where they are needed. I think, too, that another very human point that has to be considered is the impact on the people living in the nursing homes. If there is a fairly broad spectrum of people in the homes-some who are bed-ridden, some who get extensive care and some who are well and truly ambulatory-at least there is some stimulation; we do not have everybody stuck in a bed and there is some cross-flow. In terms of the very human needs of these elderly Australians, we have to consider that particular point. It is not just a question of medical condition in respect of nursing homes. There are social conditions as well and there are, most certainly, environmental conditions. I just cannot help but come back to this point about the six-week gap which has caused so much incredible worry for so many elderly Australians. I would like, in the time available to me, to make a plea, too, for special consideration of the integrated approach to caring for our elderly Australians-the situation where we have at least a hostel and a nursing home together. Very often it would be preferable-there are some outstanding instances of this in my electorate of Cowper-for there to be retirement units, a hostel and a nursing home together. This would mean that, if there were a need to go into a nursing home, it need not be a total change of environment and people would be able to make the transition. For heaven's sake, we have to look at the proposition of people being able to come back out of nursing homes. Again, it is very helpful if they can do it in the same environment. I would like also to particularly ask the Minister-if he cannot answer this question now I would be grateful if he could pursue it-about funding for new retirement villages or new units at existing ones. I am told that the amendments mean that there will be no further funding for new retirement villages or increases in the number of units at existing ones-that funding will cease under this Bill. I hope that this is not the case, but I would like to know because there is a lot of doubt out in the community. The second point is that we should also have some reassurance on the funding position of existing retirement villages, because people need to know whether that will continue too. I think it is very appropriate when talking about nursing home beds and the cost-and, of course, the Government naturally is concerned about the recurrent cost of nursing home beds, not just the capital cost-that it should be remembered that to keep somebody in an ordinary hospital costs four to five times the cost of caring for an elderly person in a nursing home. I pay tribute to the nursing homes and hostels which operate throughout my electorate of Cowper. A number of them are community based and a number are privately owned. To my personal knowledge, all of them are doing an excellent job. I refer to nursing homes and hostels in Wauchope, Port Macquarie, Kempsey, Macksville, Bellingen and Coffs Harbour. We should be working to assist them to continue doing an excellent job. In conclusion I would just like to say that every elderly Australian deserves a fair go. It is probably fair to say that this Government can be castigated for its attitude to the aged. I will not go into details on the assets test as the Minister for Social Services (Mr Howe) knows how I feel about that. However, I refer to the delay of the flow-on of the consumer price index increase in the pension for six weeks. Elderly Australians who are on the pension should not be short changed because after all they have very little change left. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(9.56) —I rise tonight because the matter of nursing homes in the electorate of Gilmore has been one of the biggest issues over the last few weeks. It has been brought to my attention because of the large number of telephone calls, letters and visits from concerned constituents of mine. They have all gone on about the tremendous increase in the price of nursing home accommodation for patients. Because of that I have taken a particular interest in nursing homes and have put myself on the speakers list tonight. The original speech that I proposed to give tonight was going to be severely critical of the Government for not raising the subsidy for nursing home accommodation by an amount equal to the recent increases that patients in nursing homes have had to undergo. The announcement by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Howe) in the last few minutes that the Government has decided that there will be an increase in the subsidy is very welcome. I know that in the electorate of Gilmore many people will sleep a little easier tonight because they will now be able to continue to afford either to be a patient in a nursing home or to have a spouse, relative or friend as a patient in a nursing home. In the Press release that was delivered this evening by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) I noted, as did the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), that the increase in the subsidy for nursing home accommodation will take place as of 13 November. As the honourable member for Cowper has pointed out, this represents a six weeks' delay in the catch-up between the cost increase and the cost compensation. Six weeks seems to be a very notable period in relation to this Government because as of 1 November all pensioners in Australia will be subject to a six-week delay in the implementation of their pension increases. In the case of a single pensioner I understand that will cost $49 and in the case of a married couple around $84. This delay, coupled with the fact that the inflation rates are increasing-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member is rather getting away from the Bill. I ask him to come back to it. Mr SHARP —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just relating how recent inflation rates- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member was called to order on that very issue. Mr SHARP —As I was saying, the people in the electorate of Gilmore have been very concerned. Now that the Government has decided to announce an increase in the subsidy they will certainly rest a little easier, but the point I make tonight is that the six weeks delay in the implementation of the increase will mean that many nursing home residents in my electorate will suffer a financial loss. From reading some of the correspondence I have received over the last few weeks, I estimate that many of the residents in nursing homes will lose, as a result of the delay in the increase, about $250. The sum of $250 may not seem a lot of money to honourable members, but I can assure them that it is a lot of money to people on very limited incomes. For example, one of my constituents, a lady living in a nursing home in the Shoalhaven district, for the last few weeks has been drawing on her funeral fund to meet the shortfall between her pension and the cost of staying in the nursing home. I also know another gentleman who has a total life savings of $337.77 and who has been drawing on those meagre savings to meet the shortfall. Because of the delay that the Government is imposing on people in nursing homes, it will not make up the shortfall and the people concerned will be much the worse off financially. In speaking of nursing homes, it is important to mention that I have a particular problem in a nursing home in Crookwell, the Harley Nursing Home. Unfortunately, a few years ago the proprietors of the nursing home received a shortfall in payments from the Department of Community Services. Recently that shortfall has been detected and the Government has promised to make good that sum. But to find the funding for that shortfall a special loading has been imposed on the residents of the home to try to make up the difference. I find this extraordinary. It means that if somebody in the Department of Community Services makes a mistake in payments to a nursing home proprietor, if that mistake is found, the people who eventually end up paying for it are not the Government but the residents of the nursing home. I have brought this matter to the attention of the Minister for Community Services, and I know that he is investigating the matter seeking to ascertain how this illogical situation could have developed. But as a result of the development, patients have been paying $29.15 a day over and above the Government subsidy at the Harley Nursing Home. A sum of $29.15 is certainly more than a pensioner can afford. I hope that as a result of the representations I have made to the Minister for Community Services and the mention of it in this debate tonight the Government will be able to sort out this illogical situation at the Harley Nursing Home. Australia is going towards an aging population. Because of that, I believe that the issue of nursing homes will become more important in our society. As parliamentarians we shall be dealing with this issue more and more frequently. In discussing the growing aging population, I mention the district of Culburra in the Shoalhaven region. The sum of $800,000 has just been graciously and gratefully received from the Government for the funding of hostel accommodation at Culburra. The Government has decided to provide this funding because it recognises that there is a very large aging population in Culburra. It is a rapid growth district, with 17 per cent growth per annum. Culburra's environment attracts elderly people, and though the Government recognises a need for hostel accommodation, to date it has refused to recognise the need for nursing home accommodation. I suggest that if there is a need for hostel accommodation today, as surely as night follows day-as another member would say-there will be a need for nursing home accommodation in future in Culburra. I have made representations to the Minister on this point and I hope that he will heed my words. If he wishes to do justice to the citizens of Culburra and to the people of the Shoalhaven district, it is a must that a nursing home be constructed at Culburra in that geographically isolated district. The people of Culburra have organised themselves extremely well. It has a community health committee headed by Fred Evans, and over the years it has been responsible for ensuring the health of all the people in Culburra. It has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and that money, added to the $800,000-odd which the Government will provide, will help to fund and build a worthwhile retirement complex. The Culburra Community Health Committee will be a worthy recipient of any funds towards building a nursing home facility in that district. The whole issue of caring for the aged-whether it be through pension payments or the provision of hostel accommodation, home and community care facilities or nursing homes-will be of ever-growing importance to this Parliament and the people of Australia. This Government and future governments must ensure that they give high priority to this issue, because if they do not they will be dealing with our elderly people in a most unsatisfactory fashion. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(10.05) —in reply-I thank honourable members from both sides of the House who have contributed, with the exception of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), to an extremely amicable debate in which there has been broad agreement about the principles involved in the legislation. A number of speakers from both sides of the House have referred favourably to the legislation. A number of honourable members referred to the delay in the nursing home benefit increases. Let me simply say that the increases announced today were on schedule, that they have been announced each year by governments of whatever political persuasion at around this time to coincide with the November payment of indexation increases. The announcement of the lifting of the freeze on nursing home benefits in Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory reflects the negotiations that have taken place with those States with respect to staffing levels. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) referred to some concerns about population increases in the future resulting in a lack of sufficient beds in nursing homes. There is no basis to that argument. While restricting the growth of nursing home beds-with emphasis on `growth'-the Government is expanding the number of hostel beds, and of course it is developing the home and community care program and the provision of services within the community. A combination of all these measures will mean that we will have adequate accommodation for those who choose it. I emphasise the aspect of choice because this was referred to by an Opposition member. The terms of my second reading speech may not reflect it, but it is Government policy to maximise choice for the aged. That is why we have sought to provide a greater range of accommodation and services. Several Opposition members referred to the need to give the public a voice in the planning of aged care services and to ensure that needs of remote country areas are recognised and met. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has announced his intention to establish aged care advisory committees to advise him on the planning priorities for the distribution of new residential places between regions and to advise him with respect to special needs groups in each State or Territory, including advice on the needs in rural areas. In addition to representatives of Commonwealth, State and local governments, these advisory committees will comprise representatives of both service providers and service consumers, thus ensuring a public voice in the planning process. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) raised the question of consultation between the Commonwealth and the States with respect to the variation in fee levels between States, which, of course, in turn-as the honourable member for O'Connor said-reflects different staffing standards that have been established in different States. Those standards have arisen not to create a conspiracy against the people of Western Australia but as a reflection of the different traditions that have operated in different States. That has been a matter of concern to the Commonwealth, which has put some pressure on those States with higher staffing levels. We believe that substantial agreement has been achieved as a result of the discussions that have taken place on future standards, and that has resulted in the freeze being lifted in those States. I conclude by thanking honourable members on both sides of the House who have contributed to this debate. The Government is very concerned to achieve a comprehensive policy for the aged and aged services. We have seen support for this policy from many members of the House tonight and that reflects well on the Minister for Community Services, the processes of consultation, and the research and reports that have preceded this Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.12) —by leave-Having regard to the late hour I will keep my remarks on these amendments very brief. The amendments which have been circulated in my name are seconded by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I move: (1) Clause 4, page 2, line 25, proposed new paragraph 9 (1) (b), after ``Secretary'' insert ``certifies, in writing, that the Secretary''. (2) Clause 4, page 2, at the end of the clause add the following proposed sub-sections: `` `(4) Each certificate under paragraph 9 (1) (b) and each determination under sub-section (3) shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the certificate or the determination, as the case may be, is signed by the Secretary. `(5) If either House of the Parliament, within 20 sitting days of that House after a certificate or a determination has been laid before that House, passes a resolution disallowing the certificate or the determination, the certificate or the determination, as the case may be, shall be void and of no effect. `(6) If neither House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with sub-section (5) disallowing a certificate or a determination, the certificate or the determination, as the case may be, commences to have effect on the day immediately following the last day upon which such a resolution in respect of the certificate or the determination could have been passed by either House.'.''. These amendments relate to clause 4 of the Bill, which amends clause 9 of the principal Act. They relate to a decision of the Government to implement a recommendation of the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review Report, which enables the Minister to provide up to 100 per cent of capital funding for certain categories of nursing homes and hostels for certain groups in the community, in particular ethnic groups, Aborigines and other disadvantaged people. The intention of the amendments is to provide for the certificates to be given under this clause to be tabled before the Parliament, to lie on the table and be subject to disallowance. We believe that in the granting of capital funding in this area it is appropriate for there to be public and parliamentary scrutiny of the Minister's decisions, the amount of funds to be granted, and the groups to which those funds are to be given. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(10.14) —The Government does not accept the Opposition's amendments. I understand that the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has confined his remarks very briefly. I guess that there may be further opportunities to discuss the principle behind the amendments in another place. We believe that the carriage of the amendments would result in substantial delays-perhaps up to six months-as a result of the proposed procedures. The intention of the Government is to liberalise the legislation in order to help disadvantaged groups in the current year, with particular focus on the needs of remote Aboriginal communities. Nevertheless, in other years there will no doubt be focus on migrant groups and other very disadvantaged groups in the community. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Howe-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(10.16) —I was saying that the Government believes that the Opposition's amendments would have the affect of causing quite serious delays. We believe that the procedure that is suggested is not an appropriate one in terms of decisions which, after all, will affect particular projects. We understand that there may be concerns on which the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has not had the opportunity fully to elaborate tonight. But we believe that the amendments, in the form in which they are before the Committee tonight, cannot be supported by the Government and the Bill should remain unamended. Nursing Homes and Hostels Bill Question put: That the amendments (Mr Blunt's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen Macphee, I. M. Carlton, J. J. Miles, C. G. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, 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. 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. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. 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 Howe)-by leave-read a third time. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the fourteenth report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr GEAR(Canning) —I present the report, incorporating two dissenting reports, together with the minutes of proceedings from the Committee of Privileges relating to the disruption caused to the work of the electorate office of the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) by telephone calls made in response to false advertisements in the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 September 1986, referred to the Committee by the House on 23 September 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr GEAR —by leave-The report deals with the disruption caused to the work of the electorate office of the honourable member for Wentworth as a result of telephone calls made in response to false advertisements placed in the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 September 1986. In accordance with established practice, the honourable member drew this matter to the attention of the House and it was subsequently referred to the Committee for consideration. The Committee is mindful of the effect of the unwanted telephone calls on the work of the honourable member's electorate office and has an appreciation of the disruption suffered. It believes that harassment of a member in the performance of his or her work as a member by means of repeated, nuisance or orchestrated telephone calls could be judged a contempt and members must be able to seek the protection of the House in such matters. However, bearing in mind the general reluctance to extend the ambit of parliament's penal jurisdiction, the Committee has concluded that in all the circumstances in the present case further action would be inconsistent with the dignity of the House. The Committee does not recommend that any further action be taken by the House on the matter. The Committee also draws attention to the fact that it is now over two years since the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege was presented. It is the view of this Committee that a high priority should be accorded to consideration of the Joint Committee's recommendations and decisions made which will serve to guide the House, committees and members and others involved in the work of Parliament in these important matters. I thank the House. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —by leave-I thank the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and the Committee of Privileges for the time that they have given to this matter which was referred to them by Madam Speaker, but I have to say that I am disappointed in the report as outlined by the honourable member for Canning. It says that the harassment of my staff could be judged a contempt but that further action would be inconsistent with the dignity of the House. It seems to me that the Committee could have done better than say it could be judged a contempt. It is either a contempt or it is not. If it is a contempt, the lack of further action is inconsistent with the dignity of this House. In that respect I am disappointed with the report. The essence of the complaint in reference was the harassment not so much of the member personally, because I was not personally harassed being in Canberra at the time, but the harassment of the staff. That sort of harassment of staff as a result of the placing of false advertisements deliberately-advertisements which were politically motivated as well as being deliberately placed-leads to the more serious forms of harassment of staff that we know about, certainly in these times. I do not need to go as far as to refer to terrorism, but we all know the sorts of times that we live in. I would have thought that this Government and this Committee would have been concerned with the welfare of our employees who, when we are in Canberra, are left entirely without protection and are very easily subject to this sort off harassment. The device used on this occasion is a very simple device which could be used in respect of any member of this House and the staffs of any member of this House. I think this report can be described only as wimpish. It tends to reduce this important parliamentary committee to the level of, let us say, the Australian Journalists Association Ethics Committee, and everyone knows that that is a completely worthless committee. One would have hoped that this parliamentary Committee would have done better than it has done. I agree with the honourable member for Canning that the important report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to which he referred should be considered. However, I am afraid I have to say that if the Committee puts in reports of this wimpish kind it is not surprising that that important report does not get the priority that it should get. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.32) —On Saturday, 1 November a valedictory dinner is to be held at Broken Hill for a great educator to that city and of the State of New South Wales. That person is Mr Jack Misson, the principal of the Burke Ward School at Broken Hill. Honourable members will note that Saturday, 1 November is All Saints Day. I know that Jack would be embarrassed, but I am sure that many people of Broken Hill, including the parents, teachers and students of the Burke Ward School, or any- body who has been taught by him, consider him to be a saint of education. Jack and Judy Misson have six children, so they have a great experience of the care of children outside the school environment. Jack was educated by the Christian Brothers in Wagga Wagga, has taught for 39 years and served for three years in the armed forces. Jack has been at the Burke Ward School for 14 years and during that time he has earned for himself a reputation second to none as an educator in that great city. He is a wonderful teacher, a man of understanding and compassion and a man of discipline, but always a gentle man; and that is reflected by the standards of the Burke Ward School. Any principal who went to Burke Ward School would have a job ahead maintaining those standards, such are the high principles that the school always maintains. One of Jack Misson's great passions is swimming. He plays a good game of billiards and snooker and cricket. In his early days he coached a number of cricketers, including such famous names as Lawson and Rixon. He is a life member of the Primary School Sports Association in Broken Hill; he is Secretary-Treasurer of the Royal Life Saving Association; and he spends many hours teaching young people life saving. He coaches netball. Mr Cobb —A great citizen. Mr HICKS —He is certainly a great citizen of Broken Hill and a great citizen of the State of New South Wales. Jack and Judy have not enjoyed the best of health over the past few years. The citizens of Broken Hill would not know that because of the many activities they are always engaged in. They are a team, and that team will retire from teaching on 18 December. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all members of this House will wish Jack and Judy a long, happy and healthy retirement. The people of Broken Hill want to join the parents, teachers, staff and, most of all, the pupils of the Burke Ward School in saying to Jack: `To sir, with love'. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(10.35) —The honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) referred to a valedictory dinner that is to be held on 1 November; in Queensland we will have a valedictory election on that night because the election of 1 November will mark the demise of the Bjelke-Petersen National Party Government. That Government, formerly in coalition with the Liberal Party, has had for a number of years the overwhelming objective of being able to govern in its own right. This, of course, was a fatal mistake. Since 1960 the National Party-Liberal Party coalition enjoyed more than 50 per cent of the vote and the Australian Labor Party was in a minority position. Over the last three years the National Party Government, with 38.9 per cent of the vote, has been clearly exposed as a minority, autocratic government. In Queensland's more recent redistribution, boundaries were created which would enable that Government to govern with 34 or 35 per cent of the vote. This election is being fought on fundamental issues. The issue in Queensland-something which the enormous resources which the National Party has from the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation can do nothing about-related to decay, decline, cronyism, corruption and all of those other aspects of the Queensland Government-- Mr McVeigh —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr John Brown —Who is this old crony? Mr McVeigh —That is personally insulting. Firstly, Mr Deputy Speaker, will you ask him to withdraw that, please? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I will hear the honourable member for Groom on his point of order. Mr McVeigh —I have two points of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you ask the honourable member for Brisbane whether he is confused about Neville Wran in New South Wales- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr McVeigh —My second point of order is that I ask for a withdrawal of the obnoxious, personally insulting remark made by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism which was insulting to me and, as Standing Orders require, it is absolutely necessary for such matters to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member made an offensive remark, he might withdraw it. Mr John Brown —I will withdraw the word `old'. Mr McVeigh —I raise a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the Minister should withdraw. Mr John Brown —I withdraw. Mr McVeigh —I have a further point of order. Is it fitting and proper for a Minister to withdraw when he is not sitting in his place? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for Groom will resume his seat. Mr CROSS —It has become clearly obvious to the electors of Queensland, as it has to all the people of Australia in recent times, that the issues involved in the Queensland election are fundamental. There is a need to restore one vote one value, which is supported by all the parties in this House, and there is a need to build in Queensland a more responsive, contemporary parliament, one in which members can meaningfully participate, one which respects the rights of the Opposition and, one in which members are enabled to exercise a proper scrutiny of the Government through a public accounts committee and a public works committee. It does not matter how much money the National Party will pour into this campaign in the next week. There is nothing that can stop the tide rising for the Australian Labor Party. I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Nev Warburton, the State Secretary, Peter Beattie, and all those people they have gathered around them on the campaign that is being fought. This is not an ordinary election; it is a watershed election. I remember the election in 1957 when the Labor Party went out of office. Mr McGauran —I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer you to standing order 58. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is your point of order? Mr McGauran —Standing order 58 reads: Every Member of the House, when he comes into the Chamber, shall take his seat, and shall not at any time stand in any of the passages or gangways. I refer you to the behaviour of the Government Whip who, in complete disregard- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Brisbane. Mr McGauran —Mr Deputy Speaker, in complete disregard of standing order 58- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Brisbane. Mr CROSS —I am sorry that our colleagues from the National Party are trying to prevent me exercising my opportunity to speak tonight. I say to them that the people of Queensland have made up their minds, and they are increasingly making up their minds to exercise a vote on 1 November, and no power on earth will stop them from exercising that vote and removing the Bjelke-Petersen National Party Government from office. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Will you arrange to be the stakeholder? I will set up any amount of money he wants. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! There is no point of order. I warn the honourable member for Groom that if he interjects again I will name him. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.40) —At a time when the Labor Government is promoting the cause of a deregulated exchange rate and is even conceding that the Opposition's policy of a more flexible wages system is appropriate, I wish to draw the House's attention to a paper delivered by the Attorney-General for Victoria, the Hon. Jim Kennan, to the eighth annual conference of the Australian Society of Labor Lawyers. As honourable members will be aware, a paper delivered in this forum would have attitudes and beliefs based on a socialistic approach to any problems arising in the corporate arena. At a time when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the trade union movement have been calling for businessmen to invest and take risks, we have the situation where the Labor Attorney-General in Victoria is putting forward proposals in a completely opposite direction. In Australia, where there is a low level of individual ownership of shares, approximately 7 per cent compared with 18 per cent in the United States of America, it is important to encourage individual small capitalists to take a stake in Australia's future. Coupled with this commitment to the corporate future of Australia, investors are requesting that the managers and directors of their corporations show entrepreneurial flair and exercise their choice in taking business risks. Any government regulations that bear down on both directors' and management's incentive to exploit commercial opportunities on behalf of their shareholders needs to be rejected before the dead hand of regulation strangles Australian Industry to a position of no growth and no investment. The Attorney-General in Victoria, however, spends a great amount of time in his address to the Labor lawyers, concentrating on the role of the small shareholder and the responsibilities of directors and management to `the local and national economy and employment, social and environmental conditions in the areas in which their companies operate'. He quite rightly suggests that the directors are constrained only by the market and whatever obligations are imposed by law. Those people who have been in the private sector fully understand the rigours of the market-place and the risks that companies undertake in pursuit of profits in the knowledge that there will be no big brother government to bail them out. The Victorian Attorney-General goes to great pains to suggest that it is almost a commercial wrongdoing that management has a great say in the fortune of the company that it manages. It would seem a most desirable objective of both the directors and management of any public or private company to optimise the wealth of the company and maintain its profitability for the benefit of shareholders. What has not been written into the paper is the negative force of union power, the destructive use of restrictive work practices and the trade union movement's total disregard for profit. In the area of capital and security markets, the Victorian Attorney-General concedes that the capital markets are efficient and accessible methods of realising capital moneys to small shareholders. However, he takes the rather more sinister view that: They can easily be distorted, they have an inherent tendency toward volatility and provide opportunities for manipulation and fraud. The general thrust of his remarks was to suggest that by increasing regulations and more legislation, these tendencies could be overcome. Nothing could be further from the truth in that no amount of legislation will ensure that correct decisions are made in the market-place and that honesty will prevail at all times. Only today we see an example of international trading taking place on a basis of trust and understanding between share traders on both sides of the globe. The Sydney Futures Exchange and the London International Financial Futures Exchange have made history this morning when they began trading in United States Treasury futures contracts. This innovation will ensure a trading link between traders to hedge and trade United States `T' bonds for 17 hours each day while the United States markets are shut. Imagine introducing Victorian State legislation to control these sorts of international activities. In a typically socialistic approach, the Labor lawyers wish to assess how responsibility can be imposed on directors and managers of companies to measure it with their economic and social power and to re-assess the duties and obligations which a director and a manager should owe the shareholders of the company. He wants more information and, of course, the share markets and financial markets are now overwhelmed with information to a position of excess. He suggests that, in some amazing manner, the market should not be distorted by any extraordinary event. Of course, if he was able to achieve this, he would not be in the Parliament but would be a millionaire because of his forecasting and market skills. The general thrust of the paper was to suggest that both managers and directors take their full legal responsibility and be accountable in law. Whilst the paper conceded that this might be difficult, it suggested it was a desirable outcome. At a time when the Labor lawyers are trying to regulate Australian industry, a recommendation is coming forward to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities that the salaries of senior executives be disclosed. This is a gross invasion of privacy by the public in the affairs of the individual managers and the companies concerned. If Australia is to progress, it needs managers of calibre, prepared to take risks and be accountable to shareholders for their actions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.46) —Yesterday, 22 October, was a very important day for the peace movement in Australia and a very important day for the issue of peace and disarmament. This was the day the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) presented the Australian peace awards to many Australians who have contributed so much to the cause of peace, and several of them over a great length of time. The Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, wanted to ensure that the work of these dedicated people be acknowledged in International Year of Peace. More importantly though, most of the recipients represent a wide cross-section of the community, and their individual awards are a recognition of the active involvement of those thousands of ordinary Australians who are committed to peace and committed to the task of eliminating nuclear weapons and achieving a world free from the threat of nuclear war. I would like to offer my personal congratulations to the recipients of the awards, most of whom were guests of the Prime Minister and Mrs Hawke at the Lodge yesterday. Time will not permit me to name everyone, but I would like to mention just a few: The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace; Bill Gollan, someone I have known personally for a long time and who was working for peace when `peace' was considered a dirty word; the Reverend Dorothy McMahon; the Medical Association for the Prevention of War; Dr Ian Newman, for his work in the scientific community around nuclear disarmament; the Peace Bus; the Peace Publications Co-operative; Peter Jones from the Quakers; Dr Keith Suter, former President of the United Nations Association (Australia), now heading the Peace Research Institute in Western Australia; the Wollongong City Council, which has initiated many local peace projects in the city of Wollongong. In congratulating the recipients of these awards I want to pay a special tribute to the Peace Bus project, one which has had many enthusiastic supporters, including me, since its launch in October 1984. The story of the Peace Bus is one of great interest and one of great success. It is also one of co-operation between the originators of the project, People for Nuclear Disarmament in Sydney, and the New South Wales State Government, or more precisely, the New South Wales Premier Barrie Unsworth, who, when Minister for Transport, made it possible for PND to get access to an old government bus in a reasonable and safe condition. The Bus was purchased by raising funds, by sponsorship and by donations. People who contributed to the project came from across the political spectrum. Free information available on the Bus has been provided by each of the political parties-the Australian Labor Party, Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats. The information outlines the disarmament policies of each of the parties, and it is this material which is much sought after by visitors to the Bus. The Peace Bus had its critics in October 1984; I am sure it has very few critics in October 1986. Since its drive for disarmament started, the Peace Bus has travelled to shopping centres, surfing carnivals, schools, universities, colleges, councils, and even Parliament House. Young people in particular are attracted to the project. They join the Bus wherever it goes and are very interested in the material that is always available. The videos on board are very popular and many of them have been reviewed by the New South Wales Department of Education as suitable viewing for high school students. A grant from IYP funds has allowed the Bus to embark on a national tour taking in southern New South Wales, Canberra, Melbourne and two months spent in South Australia. People for Nuclear Disarmament saw this tour as a way to reach those Australians who have not had access to available material on the issues of peace and disarmament and as a way to encourage them to take an active part in preserving our future. In South Australia it was so successful that bookings had to be turned away. This week, the Bus is in Newcastle. The rest of October is heavily booked, with a visit to Grafton for the Jacaranda Festival. In November it will visit Sydney suburban high schools, it will visit Lithgow and Katoomba, and at the end of November it will be in Coffs Harbour. The Peace Bus celebrates life and brings peace to the attention of thousands of Australians. If nuclear disarmament is to be achieved, it is up to the Peace Bus and other educational projects to raise the issue everywhere. I congratulate everyone involved in this project, and I congratulate the IYP Peace Awards Committee, which recognised the importance of the Peace Bus project. In closing, I would just like to say that Australia has led the world in IYP activities. Australian community initiatives for IYP have been commended by the United Nations as giving a lead to the rest of the world. This is a clear indication of the Australian community's desire for peace and disarmament and the Labor Government's commitment to the achievement of that goal. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.50) —I raise a matter which concerns the safety of my constituents. I refer to the crayfishing industry which operates within my electorate and offshore from my electorate, particularly around the town of Geraldton. I am speaking specifically about the need for certain organisations to have access to direct radio frequencies, and in particular the frequencies 4620 and 4535, which are the general fishing frequencies for that area. The problem is that although these frequencies are available in certain areas they often are not available to people such as engine repairers and engine providers who need them to assist fishermen in emergencies. I specifically refer to the application by Wigmores Tractors Pty Ltd, which is the agent for Caterpillar engines in Western Australia and operates a repair facility in Geraldton. Since 24 October 1985 it has been seeking the right to operate these frequencies not as some spare parts convenience or selling medium but on a 24-hour call basis for fishermen who operate in extremely hazardous circumstances along the reefs, where they catch the crayfish that are their living. For some unknown reason, the Department of Communications has consistently rejected this application, as it has in a higher area for the Gantheaume Bay Fisheries, which also needs this type of assistance. The reality is that the Department keeps saying that the service of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission is suitable in these situations when it is not. Fishermen can contact anybody on land through the telephone service offered by OTC by calling one of the coastal stations of OTC on the radio. This is frequently very difficult because of the power of the fishermen's sets but, more importantly, it is difficult because there is static and other interruptions. Having contacted the OTC, the OTC then has to make a telephone connection to the person the fisherman wants to contact, and this can take up to 20 minutes. I am suggesting that if the engine has failed and the fisherman needs specialist advice to restart the crayfish boat-these circumstances do occur-the rocks are getting closer and closer and 20 minutes is a little too long. He could be drowned in that time. If he were able to use the radio frequency to contact the repairer directly there would be an excellent chance of getting the information necessary to re-start the motor and get out of trouble. These situations have occurred. The professional fishermen's association in Geraldton has given strong support to this application, which is necessary to save people's lives. I am disappointed. I have contacted the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and I have received a response, but the fishing season starts again in Geraldton on 15 November and for the third year running Wigmores Tractors has been unable to get this frequency. I repeat that it does not want it for promoting its business; it does not want to put out early morning calls saying `Caterpillar is great'; it wants it to service people in emergencies and it is prepared to spend the money to do so. The other organisation I mentioned, Gantheaume Bay Fisheries, has another need. It has excellent export orders helping Australia's balance of payments with fresh fish. It too cannot get from OTC the service necessary to advise the shore-based station of the quantities of fresh fish that are coming in. It has to handle the fish with great speed and get them away in chiller trucks, and I think it too has sufficient argument to warrant the service and the direct access. I do not want to say that OTC does not provide a good service in normal circumstances, but the Department of Communications should have more sense and recognise these areas of safety and specific need, particularly in relation to fresh fish which is an export commodity and has to make airline connections to Japan. I ask the Minister to respond very quickly and to get his Department to provide these frequencies to ensure people's safety in servicing Australia's export industries. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.55) —The newspapers throughout the nation today have carried headlines that tell us how a trustee of the National Party of Australia, Sir Roderick Proctor, has made some major revelations- Mr McVeigh —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very conscious of the fact that you conveyed information to me and warned me, but I am advised- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -What is your point of order? Mr McVeigh —I am advised by the Clerk that it is my prerogative at any time to move, in relation to the question that the House do now adjourn, that the question be now put. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J. Beale, J. H. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Shack, P. D. Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair I. McC. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. 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. Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C. McArthur, F. S. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland. P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross. M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P. Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S. Duncan, P. Punch, G. F. Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J. Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scott, J. L. Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. Snow, J. H. Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R. Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Question so resolved in the negative Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being past 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Holding —Mr Deputy Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate may be continued until 11.10 p.m. I call the Minister. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.03) —I want to extend the debate because we have just seen the following situation in the House. The honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) was making serious and important allegations. He was continuously interrupted by a series of points of order. Then the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), who also wanted to exercise his rights within the adjournment debate, found himself-- Mr Sinclair —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you care to look at sessional order 48a you will find that the responsibility of a Minister is to respond to a matter that has been canvassed during the adjournment debate. Unfortunately, the matter that is being answered by the Minister is not a matter within sessional order 48a. I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is entirely out of order and you should be required to adjourn the House forthwith. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The Chair has not yet heard what the Minister was about to address himself to. If the right honourable member for New England will resume his seat, the Chair may be able to hear it. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member for Brisbane rose to speak on corruption within the Queensland Government. He was continuously interrupted by specious points of order. When the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) rose he made it perfectly clear that he was speaking on the question-- Mr Sinclair —Why are you-- Mr HOLDING —Why are you trying to hide corruption? Mr Sinclair —You are trying to hide corruption. Tell us about the Richmond Council. Mr HOLDING —I would be very happy to. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member for New England will resume his seat. The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr HOLDING —Why don't you sit there and write some cheques for Daddy? Mr Sinclair —The Minister is entirely out of order, and you know it, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member for New England will cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —He is out of order, though. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The right honourable member for New England will cease interjecting. The honourable member for O'Connor rose on a point of order. Mr Tuckey —I would like the Minister to resume his seat under standing order 99. The point of order is-- Mr HOLDING —I had better sit down or he will hit me with an iron bar or maybe a handle bar. That's what he goes in for. Mr Tuckey —Well, we will talk about your robbing the Richmond Council, you crook and you cheat, if you want to talk about iron bars. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I am on a point of order. I have not dealt with my point of order; I dealt with the interjection. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will not deal with the interjections, or the Chair will deal with him. Mr Tuckey —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would ask that the Minister not interject when I am trying to take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is your point of order? Mr Tuckey —My point of order is that the Minister is allowed to rise only on a matter related to his portfolio and which has been referred to during the adjournment debate. No matters related to the Minister's responsibilities were raised. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Tuckey —If he wants to talk about corruption-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member for Capricornia raised the question of corruption in the-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The right honourable member for New England will resume his seat. Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, you said `There is no point of order' and I suggest to you that that is a ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has the call. Mr Sinclair —I have moved dissent from the ruling that there is no point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a ruling; that is a statement of fact. I call the Minister. Mr HOLDING —The question of corruption by the Queensland Government has now become a matter of national scandal, and that scandal will be brought out. The question has been raised and I will not be-- Mr Tuckey —We will talk about the Treasurer-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr HOLDING —I will not be silenced by these gentlemen who are concerned to hide corruption. The honourable member opposite was a local council crook. He always has been and he will continue to be. Why are these gentlemen behaving in this way? Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The right honourable member for New England, of all people, should know, seeing that he quite readily draws the attention of the House to the Standing Orders, that one of them states that a member shall not interrupt the Chair while the Chair is attempting to address the House. Honourable members do themselves no good with this disruptive type of performance. The Minister is attempting to address the Chair. He is within the Standing Orders. The right honourable member for New England also knows that there is no substance in his pretension that dissent can be moved against what I said. The Minister has the call. However, I advise the House that if honourable members continue with these disruptive practices I will adjourn the House forthwith until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 November. I call the Minister. Mr HOLDING —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed: That the honourable member be not further heard. Grave disorder occurring- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 November 1986, in accordance with the provisions of standing order 40 as amended for this session; and I might say that honourable members should all be ashamed of themselves. House adjourned at 11.09 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 October 1986: Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 297. Australian Federal Police Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 299. Banking Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 302, 303. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 298. Excise Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 295. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 294, 304. Judiciary Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 290. National Gallery Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 296. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 300. Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 301. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1986- No. 63-Legal Aid (Amendment). No. 64-Police (Amendment). No. 65-Nature Conservation (Amendment). Veterans' Entitlement Act-Approval by Minister to variations of- Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, pursuant to sub-section 91 (3), dated 8 October 1986. Vehicle Assistance Scheme, pursuant to sub-section 105 (3), dated 9 October 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4467) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Communications the following question, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Is it a fact, as reported in the Melbourne Herald of 25 June 1986, that the ABC has settled an action by the Prime Minister who had claimed he had been defamed by the ABC in that the Corporation had imputed that he had improperly disclosed confidential matters. (2) How much was the Prime Minister paid pursuant to the settlement with the ABC. (3) Is the sum paid exempt from capital gains tax. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (1) Yes. (2) No damages were paid to the Prime Minister. Costs of $4,699.65 were paid directly to the Prime Minister's legal advisers. (3) No capital gains tax is applicable. (Question No. 4726) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: Has the life saving equipment carried by Qantas and other airlines for use at sea saved lives following a crash; if so, can he provide instances? Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since the beginning of 1960 there have been three accidents involving Australian airline aircraft which crashed into water or at sea. Two accidents occurred in 1960, one near Mackay QLD and one east of the entrance to Sydney Harbour. The third accident occurred in Botany Bay in 1961. None of these aircraft was operated by Qantas Airways Pty Ltd. In these accidents all persons on board the aircraft were fatally injured and the accidents were considered non-survivable.