Wednesday, 19 November 1986
Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.00)
—I move:
That so much of standing order 48a, as amended by sessional order, be suspended for this sitting as would prevent (a) the Speaker proposing the question-That the House do now adjourn-at 10.15 p.m.; (b) the Speaker interrupting the debate at 11 p.m., and (c) a Minister requiring that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m.
This motion is just to make available more time this evening for the purposes of debate. Honourable members have asked me to arrange this. I give honourable members the undertaking that the normal Wednesday evening off will be adhered to for next week, so honourable members can make arrangements for next Wednesday night to do whatever they wish in terms of visiting restaurants, seeing their families or whatever they would like to do. I assure them that we will not sit next Wednesday evening.
Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.01)
—The emotional concern of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) about the needs of all of us late at night is becoming extreme, even somewhat hypocritical. It is really quite extraordinary that the Leader of the House has come in here and moved this motion on the Wednesday of the second last sitting week, at a time when we have told him that we are quite prepared to sit for at least another couple of weeks in December. There are a range of matters that affect the people of Australia. The Government has not even spoken about the industrial troubles in Victoria; the industrial difficulties on the waterfront are now placing our exports at risk.
We know that the Government is in a mess. We have seen the very irrational behaviour of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in Question Time and about the place over the past couple of weeks. We know that there are difficulties in the Australian economy. Those of us on this side of the House who spend our time out there in the electorates meeting people, instead of trying to sit down here in glorious isolation, as the Government and its bureaucracy tend to do, know how serious is the economic condition of the country. We know that it is important that the Parliament meets to consider these circumstances. If there were the opportunity, we would like to be able to tell the Leader of the House about the reasons for introducing, for example, a mini-Budget. It is quite obvious that the blow-out of the deficit will lead to enormous problems for people. Only today we have heard about the increase in home lending rates. Now that interest rates have gone up for people trying to borrow to fund their own homes, I would have thought that the Leader of the House, instead of making us sit later tonight, would have suggested that we might sit for a couple of extra weeks so that we would have an opportunity to talk about a range of issues which we would be delighted to canvass in this place.
I see the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) guffawing over there. The people of his electorate are worried about the returns on the grain profit and the extent to which they will be able to survive. The average mums and dads are worried about where their children will work next year. It is all very well for the Australian Labor Party-it is not worried about those things. Government members in office are more concerned about enjoying the perks of office. Frankly, staying up late at night does not seem to be one of the ways in which they can enhance their own image in the scheme of things. We see no reason, even if the Leader of the House wants to stay up late, why we should stay up with him. For that reason we intend to oppose this motion.
Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.04)
—in reply-One of the reasons that we thought we ought to bring the session to an end is that, now that the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) has put in the blackball against the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), it will be a very embarrassing place for him and for the honourable member for Kooyong. It is a replay of a few years ago of the late Black Jack McEwen. Poor little Billy McMahon did all that phenomenal work for Australia over the years but he was blackballed by the then Leader of the National Party of Australia from being Prime Minister. Now we have another star on the horizon ready to serve this country as Prime Minister, the honourable member for Kooyong, and the Leader of the National Party wants to stop him. It is unbelievable. It is almost a breach of privilege to think that the Leader of the National Party met with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Some people think he stood over him and said: `Look, we have had enough of this, John. You stay there because we can handle you, but we don't know about the colt from Kooyong. We don't know what he is going to get up to with all his fancy mates if he gets back in there as Leader of the Opposition. We have had enough'.
I would have thought, considering the position those opposite find themselves in at the end of this session, that they will all have their hands up for a very speedy adjournment of this session because they have a lot of work and a lot of thinking to do over the Christmas period. We want to facilitate that. We want to see those opposite get back into their electorates and back into their Party meetings to try to thrash out the enormous philosophical problems between the Nationals and the Liberals. What a bunch! Fancy anybody considering putting that mob into government the way it is at the moment. No wonder the Leader of the National Party said that his discussion with Mr Howard was confidential. He would want to keep it confidential. Could anyone imagine what he said to him in good old Country Party fashion? It would not take much summing up of what he had to say and the ramifications of what he had to say.
So the poor old colt from Kooyong, who usually comes in early in the morning and says his prayers with us, is missing this morning because members of the National Party have put the blackball on him and said: `We are not going to have you back'. It is a great relationship between the coalition partners as they sit in Opposition. Not only is the Liberal Party in absolute and total disarray, but now we find their country cousins, the Nats, following Joh's orders of laying down the law of what will be the relationship and who will be the leader of this once great coalition. All I can say is that we will finish our business next week and send those opposite back to their electorates, their Party rooms and their families and let them dwell on it. Let us see whether they can sort out their problems between now and 17 February when we come back. Let us see whether we can get a proper debate going in this country on some of the major issues.
Mr McVeigh
—Let the people decide.
Mr YOUNG
—I cannot understand why the honourable member supported the Leader of the National Party. The honourable member knows that the honourable member for Kooyong was going to put him back on the front bench. There is another brilliant career rusting on the back benches because the Leader of the National Party has stopped in his tracks this move by the honour- able member for Kooyong, who was just emerging again for the fifteenth time in his political career to become the leader with all his ideas about what he was going to put into practice for Australians. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) was going to be one of the honourable member for Kooyong's couriers. He was going to be one of his spokespersons on the front bench. The Leader of the National Party stopped it.
The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) was going to be elevated to the front bench. There is another one whose career has been stopped dead in its tracks just as he was again ready to emerge. He is a former Minister for the Army, someone much loved by our defence forces, someone who could have done a much better job than those serving on the front bench. Their leader is stopping them from ever playing the sort of role that they were born to play. I think that when those opposite get back into the National Party room to discuss their problems they should have a chat to their Leader, and say: `Look, there might be some changes made by the honourable member for Kooyong that could be beneficial to the National Party. We could have Tom McVeigh and Bob Katter back on the front bench'. My God! Even if there were not any more talent it would be a lot more colourful! It would be something with which to adorn the front benches of this Parliament.
The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and people like him have plenty of time. Honourable members have to remember that, when the honourable member for Gippsland was asked to run for parliament, he asked: `What's that?'. Opposition members said: `It's a big building in Canberra. You'll like it. They'll make you famous'. He said: `Yes, I'll run'. They said: `You have to join a political party'. He asked: `What's that?'. So he ended up joining the Nationals the day before they put him into parliament. So he can wait a while. He is not as conditioned as some of the older blokes on the back benches. Honourable members opposite should have a chat with the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and tell him that other things ought to be taken into consideration when we are talking about this parliamentary session. Sitting tonight will not cause brain damage even to members of the National Party. So we will sit tonight and we will have next Wednesday night off.
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to.
The House divided.
(Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child)
Ayes . . . . . . . . . . .
68
Noes . . . . . . . . . . .
57
——
Majority . . . . . . . . .
11
——
AYES
Baldwin, P. J.
Jakobsen, C. A.
Beazley, K. C.
Jenkins, H. A.
Beddall, D. P.
Jones, Barry
Blanchard, C. A.
Kelly, R. J.
Blewett, N.
Kent, L.
Brown, John
Keogh, L. J.
Brown, Robert
Klugman, R. E.
Brumby, J. M.
Lamb. A. H.
Campbell, G.
Lee, M.
Charles, D. E.
Lindsay, E. J.
Charlesworth, R. I.
McHugh, J.
Chynoweth R. L.
McLeay, Leo
Cleeland, P. R.
Maher, M. J.
Cohen, B.
Martin, S. P.
Cross, M. D.
Mayer, H.
Cunningham, B. T. (Teller)
Mildren, J. B.
Dubois, S. G.
Milton, P.
Duffy, M. J.
Morris, Allan
Edwards, Ronald
Morris, Peter
Fatin, W. F.
Mountford, J. G.
Fitzgibbon, E. J.
O'Keefe, N. P.
Free, R. V.
O'Neil, L. R. T.
Gayler, J.
Saunderson, J.
Gear, G.
Scholes, G. G. D.
Gorman, R. N. J.
Scott, J. L.
Grace, E. L.
Simmons, D. W.
Griffiths, A. G.
Snow, J. H.
Hand, G. L.
Staples, P. R.
Hayden, W. G.
Theophanous, A. C.
Holding, A. C.
Tickner, R. E.
Hollis, C.
Uren, T.
Howe, B. L.
West, S. J.
Humphreys, B. (Teller)
Wright, K. W.
Hurford, C. J.
Young, M. J.
NOES
Adermann, A. E.
Lloyd, B.
Aldred, K. J.
McArthur, F. S.
Andrew, J. N. (Teller)
McGauran, P. J.
Beale, J. H.
MacKellar, M. J. R.
Blunt, C. W.
McVeigh, D. T.
Burr, M. A.
Macphee, I. M.
Cadman, A. G.
Miles, C. G.
Cameron, Donald
Moore, J. C.
Cameron, Ewen
Nehl, G. B.
Carlton, J. J.
Peacock, A. S.
Cobb, M. R.
Porter, J. R.
Coleman, W. P.
Reith, P. K.
Connolly, D. M.
Robinson, Ian
Conquest, B. J.
Rocher, A. C.
Cowan, D. B.
Ruddock, P. M.
Downer, A. J. G.
Shack, P. D.
Drummond, P. H.
Sharp. J.
Edwards, Harry
Shipton, R. F.
Everingham, P. A. E.
Sinclair, I. McC.
Fife, W. C.
Slipper, P. N.
Fischer, Tim
Smith, W.
Goodluck, B. J.
Spender, J. M.
Hall, Steele
Sullivan, K. J.
Halverson, R. G.
Tuckey, C. W.
Hicks, N. J. (Teller)
Watson, D. J. H.
Hodges, J. C.
Webster, A. P.
Hodgman, W. M.
White, P. N. D.
Jull, D. F.
Wilson, I. B. C.
Katter, R. C.
PAIRS
Darling, E. E.
Dobie, J. D. M.
Duncan, P.
Hawker, D. P. M.
Price, L. R. S.
Fisher, Peter
Jacobi, R.
Cameron, Ian
Bilney, G. N.
Hunt, R. J. D.
Willis, R.
Millar, P. C.
Dawkins, J. S.
Braithwaite, R. A.
Keating, P. J.
Brown, N. A.
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
PUBLIC SERVICE LEGISLATION (STREAMLINING) BILL 1986
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 23 October, on motion by Mr Willis:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.19)
—The Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill 1986 is probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation tabled in this House in recent years relating to the Australian Public Service and the manner in which governments of the day should be responsible for the control of their servants. For that reason, the Opposition is of the view that the proposals contained in this legislation fall short in one specific area, that is, to return to the government of the day the ultimate responsibility and control over its Public Service. For that reason I seek to amend the legislation in accordance with the following second reading amendment:
That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
`the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to incorporate the principle of `no work as directed no pay' for those Commonwealth employees who engage in-
(1) the performance of work in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice in relation to work, the result of which is a restriction or limitation on, or a delay in, the performance of the work;
(2) a ban, limitation or restriction on the performance of work or on acceptance or offering for work, or
(3) an unauthorised failure or refusal by persons to attend for work or an unauthorised failure or refusal to perform any work at all by persons who attend for work'.
This amendment has been tabled because one of the first actions of the Hawke Labor Government when it came into power was to amend the appropriate legislation to remove those penal clauses from the Public Service Act and five other Acts which required that persons employed by the Commonwealth would be subject to no work as directed, no pay provisions enacted in this Parliament back in 1980 deliberately to enable relevant Commonwealth authorities to withhold pay from staff refusing to work as directed. The Public Service Board in its report of 1983-84 made it very clear to the Government that it did not support the proposal to amend the legislation to remove those vital clauses. Subsequently actions by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and other trade unions in the Public Service area demonstrated clearly that an employer must have the power to control the work force when members refuse to carry out the duties required of them.
Members of this House will recall that early last year there were major Public Service strikes over wages issues. At that time substantial costs, approximately $80m, were incurred by the Government, and on its behalf the Australian people, because public servants across Australia refused to accept the decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which had rejected the 8.3 per cent pay claim made by the unions. These strikes required the Government to reconsider its position and go back to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and a higher wage was given as a result. That particular strike action has played a major part in ensuring a continual increase in wages but no change in productivity. A significant increase in unemployment has followed, and of course it has made Australia even less competitive on world markets than it would otherwise have been. For all of these reasons the Opposition is of the view that this amendment should be carried by the House. It will ensure a total package rather than that currently before us. Although the legislation has substantial advantages which the Opposition supports, it does fall short on this very important point; namely, it does not give to the Commonwealth the control which it must have over its work force.
The legislation must be seen against the somewhat extravagant commitments of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to streamline and rationalise the Public Service which he made in his address to the nation on 11 June last. On that occasion he said:
. . . under successive governments, including my own, the Federal Public Service has continued, inexorably, to grow in numbers . . . We will take steps to halt this expansion, to produce a leaner, more efficient Service.
There will be a streamlining and rationalisation of some existing functions and agencies.
This legislation, if judged against those comments, regrettably falls far short of the expectations of this Parliament, of the Opposition and of the Australian people. As usual, the Prime Minister's rhetoric has not lived up to reality. Despite his commitment to produce a leaner Public Service, it has continued to grow, even in the 1986-87 Budget by a further 0.3 per cent per 607.5 staff years in this year alone at a time when he has said in this Parliament that he proposes to reduce the size of the Public Service by 2,000 this financial year. In the last four Budgets the Hawke Government increased the size of the Public Service by no less than 3.5 per cent, or nearly 15,000 new positions. Yet he has the gall to talk about the inexorable expansion of the Public Service when it has all been as a result of his Government's policies. In contrast to the activities of this Government, the Fraser Government, over eight years and under very difficult economic circumstances for much of that period, effectively reduced the Public Service by 0.12 per cent per annum.
The second great omission from this legislation is the evidence of the Government's intention to streamline and rationalise existing functions and agencies. Despite the passage of time, no evidence whatsoever has been brought before this Parliament which would demonstrate to us that the Government is serious about transferring functions out of the public sector to the private sector or transferring functions from the Commonwealth public sector to States and local government. Much has been said but the runs are simply not on the board. The Prime Minister has totally ignored the fact that significant reductions in both the size and the cost of the Public Service can be achieved only by a systematic reduction in functions. That is what this Government has failed to do. In the four Budgets that it has brought before this Parliament it has continually increased the functions of the Public Service. Every week we sit we are passing more legislation with attendant regulations. This month alone we have been party to no less than two new statutory authorities being written into the statute book. Is that the record of a government that expects people to believe that it means what it says when it talks about a tighter and more efficient system of public administration?
When the Government speaks of doing more with less, it ignores the salient fact that the civil service are the servants of the government of the day and, by extension, of the Australian people. They do not just create work; they do not just create programs. They are acting in response to the policies of government. Members of the Opposition are sick and tired of hearing the continuous innuendo that somehow or other the public sector is able to increase willy-nilly when in fact the responsibility for increasing the public sector at all times rests with the government of the day and its approach to public administration. It ignores the fact that the Public Service must implement programs that are initiated by the Government. Therefore, if the size of the Public Service is to be reduced, so must be the impact of those programs. Unless it has the courage to identify program priorities and to reduce systematically the introduction of additional expenditure, there is a very real limit to being able to do more with less. Beyond that point, no effective system of administration can possibly survive. What is therefore lacking is any evidence that this Government is determined to restrain its socialist ethic.
Also in this legislation there is a conspicuous absence of any proposals to negotiate with the States on the transfer of functions which can be better managed at that level of government. Nor has the Government apparently considered the need to rationalise and restructure departments to minimise duplication between programs. I have asked before in this House and I will repeat: How can the Government justify in excess of 130 income support and maintenance programs which are currently being administered by no less than 10 different Federal departments of state? It is obvious that there is massive duplication and substantial additional administrative costs, and these are all requiring additional labour to carry out work which is not necessary in the first place. If, as the Government proposes, we are to have concepts such as efficiency dividends for each department, let us see members of the Government come into this House and have the courage to say: `We expect efficiency to follow because we are not increasing resources on the one hand, but we will decrease the demands on those resources on the other'. With great regret, we continue to wait in vain to see such action taken by this Government.
The legislation also fails in a number of very important areas. We still have no coherent management philosophy for the Public Service. We do not see in this legislation or elsewhere a systematic training of public servants in management. While substantial improvements have taken place, especially in the context of the Senior Executive Service, the fact is that the area of middle management, which comprises classes 8 to 11 of the Public Service, is still not being given the degree of consideration that it needs. I have said before and I repeat it: Until we have a system which encourages people in middle management to improve their qualifications and experience and until we are prepared to apply a regular system to ensure adequate review arrangements for people who are eligible for promotion, regardless of who they may be and from what department they may come-until a system of annual assessment is put in place-we will not be able to assure the people of Australia that senior management will be able to be drawn from the best people in that cadre within the public sector which is obviously vital for maintaining efficiency and effectiveness in the longer term.
One of the other areas which again, I regret, the socialist ethic has prevented this Government from moving in is that of giving individual officers greater responsibility for decisions and for the outcome of those decisions. They must be more prepared to allow managers to manage. We have seen through this Parliament over the last four years a raft of restrictive legislation greater than any that has come to this Parliament in the last 50 years. It is restrictive legislation which affects not only the private sector; equally importantly it dominates the efficiency and effectiveness of the public sector. It in fact runs quite contrary to freeing up the system, letting managers manage. I will come back to that later in this debate.
In addition, we do not see in this legislation any proposals to give individual public servants greater incentives to improve the administrative system or for individuals to perform to their maximum capacity. There is an absence of measures by which personal performance can be measured in terms of resources in relation to output and stated objectives. But the greatest shortcoming is that, until we are prepared to give our public servants responsibility for the actions which they carry out, we will never be able to get a system in place which is cost efficient and effective, which according to the Government is meant to be the purpose of this legislation and one of the reasons why it was introduced in the first place.
Nevertheless, I have to emphasise that the Opposition supports all the administrative changes which have been introduced. For example, we were delighted-although, again, there is no mention of this in this legislation-with the proposals that the 71,000 keyboard and clerical assistants in the Australian Public Service, who are currently employed in no fewer than 48 distinct classifications with some 160 separate pay points, should be changed significantly to achieve greater integration, on the one hand, and a reduction in the number of separate work levels, on the other. The highly likely outcome of that will be that managers will be better able and more appropriately to use the resources which have been allocated to them. The objective of that, of course, is for departments to be able to organise their work more efficiently and there will be greater flexibility in the use of staffing resources. Nevertheless, these matters are still in the process of negotiation. The Prime Minister told us that in the House two months ago. We have heard nothing in the meantime, nor is there any indication in this legislation of the Government's intentions in that particular area.
We are also told in relation to this Bill that the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act will be repealed. Again, this is an initiative which the Opposition supports. Under the CE(RR) Act there were no fewer than four appeal points by which people who were being asked to leave the Service for various reasons could appeal against those decisions. Under these proposals there will be only one appeal and, of course, that will significantly improve efficiency, effectiveness and the ability of managers-above all, of departmental managers. We believe this is one of the major improvements in this legislation-to determine how governments can remove labour which is redundant or no longer efficient and effective under the definitions contained in the Act. One of the problems in the past has been that the removal of public servants has been slow, complicated and costly, featuring long lead times, extensive paper work and, as I said, multiple appeal points as well.
Nevertheless, this legislation addresses redundancy provisions. Again this is a step in the right direction. Currently it takes a minimum of three months to remove staff declared surplus to the Public Service. Normally there would be detailed consultation with the unions, extensive efforts to redeploy staff and considerable delays, at times as long as 12 months. During this time, of course, officers continue to receive their full pay. Now staff will continue to have the right to appeal against decisions relating to their redundancy, but the appeal system will be much tighter and, I have not the slightest doubt, more efficient compared with what we have had in the past. Under the new arrangements, Secretaries-not the Public Service Board-will be primarily responsible for notifying and consulting with unions on potential redundancies. Voluntary retrenchment payment arrangements will be brought into place and only if the voluntary arrangements are not successful will the redundancy provisions have their full impact. Staff will be identified as excess and when that takes place there will be no appeal mechanism.
I should mention the provisions in the legislation for invalidity retirement. Staff who are totally incapacitated for work, or partly incapacitated but cannot be redeployed to suitable alternative duties, may be retired on invalidity grounds. That has always been a provision in the Public Service Act. However, superannuation benefits on invalidity retirement are more generous than for ordinary retirement. In fact, an officer aged 55 with 20 years service receives a government financed pension of 50 per cent of salary if he or she is retired on invalidity grounds, as against 36 per cent if he or she retires voluntarily. As was brought to the attention of this Parliament by the Waste Watch Committee-and I shall refer to this matter later today when the appropriate legislation comes before us-the whole situation relating to early invalidity retirement is a scandal which this Government has taken far too long to recognise. Only now, four years down the track, do we see any serious attempt being made to improve and control the current situation.
The provisions in the Act which relate to inefficiency are also significant. Under current legislative arrangements staff who are inefficient and cannot be retained at their level may be declared by the Public Service Board as suitable for redeployment elsewhere in the Public Service. The very fact that one has to seek to redeploy somebody whom one has already determined to be inefficient is a contradiction in terms. Even if another department can be found that is silly enough to take on those persons, they are still known to be inefficient and therefore ineffective. One of the important elements in this legislation is that the definition of inefficiency is more clearly enunciated and the powers vested now in departmental management will be substantially greater than they were previously. When an officer has been given a formal warning and the opportunity over a three-month period to reach the necessary standard of work performance but has failed to do so, the Secretary will be empowered to reduce the officer's classification or to require him to retire. There is a limited right of appeal against such a decision, but nevertheless the powers and responsibilities will be vested in supervisors to counsel staff whose work performance is not up to standard.
That is why I return to the point that I have mentioned twice already. We must have in place an efficient system of annual assessments as there is automatically a counselling mechanism. It is a bit late when a person is about to lose his job, allegedly for inefficiency, to then tell that person what was wrong. If there is an annual system of assessment it is the responsibility of supervisory staff to make sure that officers are informed throughout their career as to how they are performing.
Mr White
—Just like the armed services.
Mr CONNOLLY
—Yes, just like the defence services. I would recommend that the Public Service Board look at the Department of Defence's assessment criteria for officers and NCOs, if it has not already done so. I have always regarded the armed services' system as most adequate. There is also provision in the legislation for increments. Again, under the old provisions, officers believed they had a right to increments, irrespective of their efficiency and effectiveness. I am not totally satisfied with the proposals here in relation to improving and tightening up the provision of increments. They will now be based on an officer's diligence, efficiency and attendance to duty. Of course, those are perfectly appropriate criteria on which to draw. But, unfortunately, where the Government and the Public Service Board have not been prepared to grasp the nettle is in considering implications of concepts such as merit pay.
As I said earlier the Opposition believes we must develop a Public Service where individual officers can feel in a very real and tangible sense that their efficiency will result in promotion or other rewards. In many departments regrettably, despite the provisions in the Act that promotion should be based only on merit, many other factors are taken into account, with the result that efficient officers are not necessarily promoted and not necessarily paid consistent with their worth to that department and to the public sector management overall. The United States in recent years has been carrying out some very interesting experiments in relation to merit pay. I do not resile from the fact that it is a complex area, but I would like to have seen in this Act a provision that departmental management should have the responsibility of determining, within guidelines of merit pay, mechanisms within departments which can make that a reality. Once we do that, we open up a whole new spectrum of opportunities for individual officers. It is not just a case of doing one's duty, which we hear so much about; officers of merit who are doing a good job at all levels of the public sector will also feel that they can gain as a result.
Perhaps the greatest area where merit pay could be utilised is in the social welfare area. Throughout Australia, in virtually every town, Commonwealth Employment Service officers are doing work of a similar nature, irrespective of where in the community they may be. It is therefore possible in comparative terms to determine efficiency and effectiveness and product- ivity criteria on an office by office basis. Management could, therefore, develop a method by which officers who have contributed considerably towards the achievement of good results ought to be in a position to feel, at the end of a specific period, that they have gained some reward. Napoleon, the great General and Emperor of France, made the observation: `If my generals want more medals and it makes them better soldiers, let them have more medals'. I simply say to this Government that in this legislation it has missed the opportunity to place in law provisions by which officers of merit, irrespective of the promotion system, will be able to gain more salary. The best way in which that can be achieved, of course, is by a flattening out of the annual incremental arrangements so that officers of merit can leapfrog on the incremental scale without necessarily having to achieve promotion if it is not possible for other reasons.
Mr White
—Could we give them medals too?
Mr CONNOLLY
—Whether public servants should have medals is another matter. The point I am making still stands: Merit needs to be rewarded publicly. A system that requires undue equality automatically reduces the capacity of individuals to demonstrate where they have been able to make a worthwhile contribution to the improvement of efficiency and effectiveness in the system.
Another area which the Government has totally failed to control is its burgeoning bureaucracy, particularly in relation to the establishment of statutory authorities. I have noted on just a rough analysis that we now have in excess of 60 statutory authorities established by the Hawke Government and there are at least another two or three coming through the legislative system at present. It is amazing to me that the Government's own paper, `Labor and the Quality of Government' which the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) was a participant in writing before the Government was elected, emphasised that statutory authorities would be established only under the most specific and tight criteria. What it said was that under most circumstances additional functions should be placed with departments, not with new statutory authorities. If ever there is an example of a government not living up to the principles which it has enunciated, surely it is in the area of establishing statutory authorities. This Government has made an art form of them. What it tends to forget is that statutory authorities continually increase the level of the relative cost of government, on the one hand, and the impact of regulations, on the other.
I said earlier that in the area of regulation there are two basic problems: Firstly, the impact on the private sector and, secondly, the impact on the public sector. Referring to the latter, the constraints on efficient management, on allowing managers to manage, in the public sector are now controlled by the following organisations and policies: The Department of Finance regulations and procedures, the Public Service Board Acts and regulations, the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services procedures, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, Senate Estimates Committees, union staff associations, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, clients' rights, the Auditor-General, Attorney-General, accommodation controlled by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, work loads, technology, the Ombudsman, the Human Rights Commission, grievance processes for officers and employees, equal opportunity legislation, review avenues under the Public Service Regulations-even though they will be amended in this current legislation-the impact of the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia, and the whole administrative review machinery. Other initiatives which have constrained management are joint management reviews, joint staff reviews, management improvement plans, corporate plans, increasing mobility in the senior executive service, the automatic data processing strategic plan, staff associations and employment conditions.
Many of the changes which have taken place in recent years are intrinsically good and are based on recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee when I was Chairman. The Opposition supports those initiatives. However, in many cases they have carried with them rafts of regulations which have controlled management in the Public Service: `Thou shalt do X, Y and Z'. Because it is usually a directive they have taken from management the capacity to determine to what extent efficiency and effectiveness will be neutralised or reduced by having to introduce changes which are dominated by outside bodies which are not direct parties to the decision making process. That is one of the greatest costs we are seeing in the public sector and one which I advise this Government to take very seriously indeed.
I turn to the question of business regulation. The Business Regulation Review Unit, established by the Hawke Government under the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, has estimated the total cost to the economy of business regulation to be between 9 per cent and 19 per cent of gross domestic product. It claims that some 16,400 public servants are involved in advising on, preparing and servicing business regulation. This does not include staff of the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Bureau of Statistics or various other departments of state. The salary cost to the Commonwealth, based on the low figure of 16,400, is about $700m per annum. In addition to that, there are State and local government personnel involved in regulation, probably constituting a figure more than double that of the Commonwealth personnel. Therefore, that would cost approximately $1.8 billion to $3.6 billion.
The effects of regulation distort the allocation of resources, reduce efficiency, distort consumer investor behaviour and thereby shift expenditure patterns, increase costs and cause lower productivity, which therefore makes overall management, both in the public and private sectors, that much more difficult. No one suggests that all regulation is bad per se. What I am saying is that it is the responsibility of the Government not just to take the evidence given to it by its own Business Regulation Review Unit but also to put in place effective management tools within departments and within this Parliament to ensure that regulation can be effectively reviewed from time to time. The Government should see that what we have on the statute books is relevant to the times and relevant to the problems facing Australia today.
The problem for which this Government is totally responsible is ensuring that we have a public sector, both in terms of departments of state and statutory authorities, which is lean while at the same time efficient and which is able to deliver the services expected and needed by the Government to encourage the private sector to fulfil its undoubted role of helping to pull Australia out of its current economic crisis, which has been created by, among other things, this Government, which took four Budgets to realise that, by consistently increasing the size of the public sector at the cost of the private sector, it has put in place an economic time bomb. We cannot run a country such as Australia where one in four members of the entire work force is paid for from the taxation of the people.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay)
-Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Carlton
—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.50)
—The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) talks about runs on the board. It is in this area of Public Service reform that the Hawke Labor Government definitely has runs on the board. As the honourable member for Bradfield has acknowledged, the reforms outlined in the legislation before us have the support of the Opposition. On behalf of the Government I thank the Opposition for its support and I thank the honourable member for Bradfield for some of the very constructive points that have been made in this debate. I may not agree with all the points, but at least it is a step forward to find legislators having constructive ideas about the Public Service.
This legislation is part of the ongoing analysis that this Government is applying to the Public Service. The Government is looking at how the Public Service delivers services to the public and how it responds to the Government. The Public Service has the responsibility for implementing policies, and it is its effectiveness in this area that is examined in this legislation.
What we are seeing in the Public Service now is a managerial revolution. This Government, since it has been in government, has had a very constructive attitude towards the Public Service. It initially produced a White Paper which outlined many areas for Public Service reform. Legislation followed and from that legislation we have seen many changes. In the past few years we have put emphasis on the importance of top level management. We have provided training, rotated departmental heads after five years and developed a proper career senior executive service, free of political patronage, which places great emphasis on management ability, appraisal of performance and flexibility of deployment in accordance with Government priorities. The Government has also opened senior levels to outsiders and has brought in an equal opportunity program which I support.
It is essential that the Government is always looking for ways in which all sectors of the community can perform more efficiently, effectively and economically. It is therefore essential that we look at the Public Service. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said, we need a Public Service which is responsive to the needs of the Government and the community, and one which is cost effective at the same time as providing a high quality of service to the people and to the Government. When the Government is looking at the Public Service it does not do so in a critical way. It attempts to look constructively at the operations of the Public Service.
The Government does not look at the Public Service, as many members of the Opposition do, in terms of numbers but in terms of its functions, the roles it performs and how it carries our those roles. The Government acknowledges that the Public Service has an essential role to play in our community. It is critical that we do not simply get bogged down in numbers, but look at the essential question of who benefits and who loses by each proposal. If we are to cut back numbers in the Public Service, we need to look at who will benefit and who will lose. Many of the dries on the other side of the House see this question in very simple terms. They do not clearly define the role they see for the Public Service.
The Public Service has a very constructive role in this community. When we look at spurs to efficiency, we see that there are very many. It is difficult, when one is doing an analysis of the efficiency of the Public Service, to define exactly what efficiency is. There are many watch-dogs of how the Public Service goes about its work. There are not only the members in this Parliament, but we have also got the Auditor-General, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, freedom of information, judicial review, journalists writing stories about the Public Service, ministerial direction and the public being great critics of the Public Service. But basically the bottom line is always: Is the Public Service delivering what it should to the public? I think by and large it is. Most public servants are to be congratulated for the work they do in delivering services to the people.
I see that particularly in the Australian Capital Territory where we have a Commonwealth department that has to provide all local government and State government-type functions. Commonwealth public servants take responsibility for administering everything, from garbage to a state school system. By and large, they do it effectively. But it is essential that government continually monitor the role the Public Service is taking. When we look at the relative merits of public and private sector efficiency there is no clear empirical evidence that comes out really on one side or the other that the Public Service is more efficient or that the private sector is more efficient. A lot of research has been done. I will quote some of that research which has been outlined in a paper which has been presented recently by the Chairman of the Public Service Board. He states:
There is no clear evidence for either side.
This is in part for methodological reasons-it is hard to get like organisations to compare and even then the same facts can be read very differently. This is evident, for example in the repeated reinterpretations in the academic literature of the analysis of comparative efficiency of Ansett and TAA.
However, the overall findings of reviews of the factual research in this field all tend to reach similar conclusions.
A judgment just cannot be made one way or the other. He quotes various researchers' reports. He states:
Thus Millward and Parker draw together their extensive and thorough review of numerous case studies with this statement:
`. . . there is no systematic evidence that public enterprises are less cost effective than private firms. The poorer performance, in this respect, exhibited in studies of refuse collection'-and I might add in parenthesis that the study of garbage collection has a peculiar fascination for right wing economists-
I think we can endorse that-
`and water supply . . . has to be balanced against the absence of any significant difference in Canadian railways and Australian airways and the superior performance in US electric power.
That was from an article in 1983 by Millward and Parker. He continues:
Their only reservation in coming to this conclusion was the general narrowness of the data base in which most studies have been conducted.
A similar conclusion was reached . . . in a study of Canadian Crown Corporations carried out for the Royal Commission on Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada. Parker in his review of the evidence is similarly inclined. Another reviewer, Goodsell, in his 1983 book states:
To summarise, available comparative data on the efficiency, costs, and quality of services in refuse collection, hospitals, transportation, utilities, and insurance show that whereas at some times business seems superior, at other times government appears to perform better. In still other instances the two surveys are mixed but by no means convincingly supportive of the common contention that the private sector always functions better, even according to economic criteria.
These reports do highlight a lot of the stupid comments that have been made about the relative inefficiencies of private and public sectors in our community. Quite obviously the public sector does perform very efficiently. The legislation before us today is in no way a criticism of the efficiency of the Public Service. What this legislation today is all about is adding to the efficiency of the Public Service. There is no doubt that the Public Service is becoming more output-oriented. The changes going on in the Public Service over the last few years have been quite incredible.
I have talked about a managerial revolution. I think that has, indeed, been the fact. Departments are developing much more clearly defined goals and strategies to achieve them. It is obviously very difficult to measure their achievement in social goals. The Public Service is now working on performance indicators to back up quantified evidence that considerable productivity gains are definitely being made. At the same time the Public Service is devolving responsibility and moving all unnecessary layers of hierarchy leading to much flatter structures that can be, therefore, much more responsive both to government and to the public.
This legislation is looking at areas of inefficiency. The processes the Government has gone through in bringing this legislation through are to be commended because the Government has consulted as fully as possible with public sector unions in the development of these initiatives. I would not say that all the union members support every one of the proposals before us today, but we have not seen any outright criticism. I thank members of the Public Service for the responsible attitude they have taken to the legislation. They have not been afraid to look at themselves and their own work practices.
Some of the highlights of the measures in the legislation before us today deal with the establishment, for example, of the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit, which is to be headed by David Block who is well known in the business community. He will undertake an extensive program of scrutiny of Public Service operations. That is already under way. I think it is important that we see his role as a constructive one. In the last decade so many reforms have been done of the Public Service that it is important that we actually get on with the job of running government and of delivering services to the people, but at the same time continuing to ensure that our work practices and the delivery of the services are up to scratch and are a very fine quality. That will be the theme that Mr Block pursues.
One of the other areas covered in this legislation is that departments and agencies will, in future, be required to cut administrative expenses each year for ongoing activities and to declare the savings so that the Government of the day can decide how they can best be utilised. It is important that we continue to look at the cost of running the Public Service. Inefficient public servants will be treated the same way as inefficient workers in well managed private sector firms. Special protection will be retained against arbitrary action, political interference and discrimination. I think that is a good balance.
One of the reforms that were highlighted by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), which I also endorse, is a simplification in the integration of a number of the classifications groups in the keyboard, the clerical assistant and clerical administrative areas to greatly reduce the number of separate work levels. Flexitime is to be reviewed to eliminate abuses but also to maintain advantages in the scheme. Also outlined in the legislation are ways of dealing with surplus staff and inefficiencies. I think inefficiency has to be looked at. Poor performers will be given a formal warning in writing and a three-month period in which to reach a necessary standard. If they do not do so, the Secretary will be able to reduce them to a lower level or retire them.
That is a great change in the operation of the Public Service. I do not think most public servants are opposed to such reform. Most public servants do work very hard and work very long hours and welcome this sort of assessment about their performance. The Secretary will be advised by an assessment committee of the performance of the individual. The officer will have one month's notice of reduction or retirement and a right of appeal to an independent committee under the Merit Protection and Review Agency. Superannuation benefits of those who will be retired will be for involuntary retrenchment.
It is important that supervisors also consider their responsibility in this role. They have to counsel staff whose work performance is not up to standard. The staff will be entitled to respond to an adverse report. We are trying to make individual public servants more responsive to the needs of the community, more aware that they have a responsibility to perform well and deliver a service. As I said, it is critical that we see this as a very constructive reform rather than a destructive one.
I would like to conclude by making some reference to the amendment put forward by the Opposition which again introduces the no work as directed no pay provision. We have seen a very constructive approach to this legislation from the response of individual public servants. I believe that this Government has had a very good working relationship with the Public Service and I believe that that will continue. I do not believe that it is necessary for this amendment to be approved by the House because I am very hopeful that the constructive relationship that we have had with the Public Service will continue.
Finally, there is no need for complacency in our look at the Public Service but, as the Chairman of the Public Service Board said, there is also no need for any apology. I would like to congratulate again the unions for their constructive attitude to the legislation that we have before this House. We have not seen any strikes in relation to it and we have not seen any critical resolutions coming from various meetings. Individual public servants have been very responsive, primarily because they are quite prepared to stand up and have their work analysed. Most of them know that, despite the bagging they consistently get from certain members of the Opposition, they perform well, they work very long hours and they deliver a very effective service to the people of this country. It is about time that members of this Parliament recognised the role of the Public Service. It has a very important role in this country and I think this legislation will make it more responsive to government and to the people of this country.
Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(11.07)
—I certainly take the view, as I am sure do all honourable members of this House, that in many respects the Australian community has been very well served by its Public Service, particularly in policy areas. It ill becomes honourable members on the other side of the House to suggest that the Opposition constantly berates the Public Service for inefficiency and ineptitude. We certainly do not do that and have never done that. Of course we are much more concerned than the Government about the way taxpayers' money is used, so we are constantly advocating measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Service. Having said those things, let me say that there is no doubt, in our view, that Australia has been well served by its Public Service in the main policy areas. Indeed, a lot of the weaknesses that have developed in the Public Service have been as a result of political decisions. For example, the expansion of the Public Service is something that has been pressed on it by its political masters on occasions. There is no doubt that that has been the case since March 1983. The politicisation of the Public Service is something which has not been initiated by public servants themselves but by politicians from Parliament House. Again, that is something that is weakening the Public Service and I shall refer to it later.
The legislation that the Government has introduced has been broadly welcomed by the Opposition. I certainly broadly welcome the thrust of what the Government has done in this legislation, but it is also true to say that it has done far too little and it has done that far too late. Nevertheless, there are some positives in the legislation and I want briefly to refer to those. The provision in the legislation for redeployment and retirement is something that is welcomed, certainly by honourable members on this side of the House. I think it is an improvement in the management techniques of the Public Service if it is made possible-as it is by this legislation-to demote or retire public servants, particularly where those public servants have been found to be inefficient. In the past it has not been easy to do that. This is an example of private sector management techniques at last being brought to bear on the Public Service. It is also part of the same provision that public servants can be transferred to lower levels in the Public Service-again something which is fairly common in the private sector and which I am glad to see has been introduced into the public sector.
The second positive aspect of this legislation is the change to the promotions and appeals provisions. I particularly welcome the decision by the Government to reduce the accessibility of the appeals system. The appeals system has become clogged up and is being used for a whole lot of reasons for which it was not originally designed. I am glad that the appeals process has been taken away from public servants in the range of class 9 to class 11. So I welcome the recognition by the Government of some of these management inefficiencies in the way the Public Service works but, as I said earlier, I believe that the Government has done far too little and it has done these things far too late.
I strongly support the amendment moved by the Opposition that a no work as directed no pay provision should be inserted into Public Service legislation. Again, that is something that would naturally apply in the private sector and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why that same provision should not apply in the public sector. In fact, quite the reverse. There is all the more reason that that should apply in the public sector because the public sector is being financed by the taxpayers of Australia, who deserve every protection they can possibly get from their elected representatives in the Australian Parliament. Therefore, there is still a great deal for the Government to do in terms of improving and reforming the public sector.
The Opposition has referred at some length to the enormous growth in the Public Service since 1983. I would have hoped that this Government, if it had taken a responsible approach to public sector management, would have resisted the temptation to blow out the numbers in the public sector. But it has increased the size of the Public Service by some 15,000 since March 1983 and announced in September, through the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), that it will reduce the size of the Public Service by 2,000. We still have a net gain of some 13,000 public servants at an enormous cost to the taxpayers with there being no evidence whatsoever that that growth in the public sector employment is leading to greater levels of efficiency-in fact, quite the contrary. There has been a decline in productivity in the Public Service through the substantial increases in numbers. So the decision by the Government to reduce numbers in the Public Service by just 2,000 is a cosmetic device designed to deceive the public into believing that the Government is doing something constructive about the size of the Public Service, whereas it should never be forgotten that the net increase is some 13,000. That contrasts quite dramatically with the performance of the Fraser Government where the size of the Public Service declined by 0.12 per cent per annum throughout the eight years of that Government's administration.
Quite apart from the need to restrain numbers in the Public Service-I think that is an extremely important priority for any government-there are three other key initiatives that I wish this Government had addressed, in both this legislation and in the Prime Minister's September statement, to reform the Public Service. First of all, I think the decision by the Tasmanian Government to set the pace in the community to abolish the 17 1/2 per cent holiday loading, in the case of Tasmania for just one year, is a very important initiative. If the Government were really serious about pay restraint, about reducing expenditure and about making the Australian economy competitive again, it would use the abolition of the 17 1/2 per cent leave loading as a way of setting the pace. Secondly, I think it is regrettable that the Government has still done nothing to tackle seriously the issue of workers compensation payments in the Public Service. I will come back to that later. Thirdly, the Government has done absolutely nothing to reverse the process of the politicisation of the Public Service; quite the contrary. This Government, more than any government we have had before, has quietly and subtly politicised the Australian Public Service to the detriment of ordinary public servants and to the detriment of the advice and efficiency of that institution.
Let me start by looking at the holiday loading issue and I will try to address some of the statistics there which could be beneficial to the Australian community. I have made the point already that, for any country to pay people 17 1/2 per cent more to go on holiday, is an utter absurdity. As far as I know, no other country in the world pursues such an utterly ridiculous policy. The Government has talked about the need to make Australia competitive; it has talked about the need to reduce public expenditure; yet it will not set an example to the private sector, to the broader Australian community in both the areas of reducing costs and reducing government expenditure, by abandoning this utterly absurd 17 1/2 per cent holiday loading.
If the Government were to do that-I suspect that many members of the Government believe it should but do not have the courage to say so because of opposition from their friends in the trade union movement and other vested interest groups to which this Government continually panders-it would save taxpayers a total in the vicinity of $500m a year. If it were to abolish the holiday loading in just the Federal Public Service and statutory authorities, which of course is all that the Federal Government could do, that alone would save about $130m a year. If all the States were to follow suit-if the Federal Government were to set an example it is likely that the States would, other than Tasmania, which has already done so-that would save the taxpayers, Federal and State combined, about $420m. If we added to that a similar move by local government, that would save a further $46m. In gross terms, if governments were to pursue this course of action, as they should, the taxpayers would be saved in the vicinity of half a billion dollars gross. If one took into consideration the tax loss that would inevitably flow from this, the savings would be less but would still be in the vicinity of $300m. I sincerely regret that the Government, whilst recognising that there may be a case for abolishing the 17 1/2 per cent leave loading in the public sector, has run away from that issue and done nothing about it. It has run away from it because of pressure from the trade union movement.
The second issue I want to address is that of compensation payments. It is important that people in the Australian community recognise the enormous burden that has been placed on them by workers compensation payments in the public sector. In the last financial year there were some 60,000 successful workers compensation claims in the public sector at a cost of $157m to the Australian taxpayer; of that $157m, $121m was spent on compensation to people who successfully claimed a total incapacity to work. When one goes through the statistics in more detail, the reality becomes even more frightening. One in nine members of the Australian Public Service made a successful claim for workers compensation. One in 12 members of the Australian Public Service made a successful claim for total incapacity.
When one breaks it down department by department, the full nature of the scandal evolves for all to see. Sixty per cent of the members of the Australian Capital Territory's Fire Brigade made successful workers compensation claims. Surely there is something suspicious about that. Over one-quarter of all employees of the Australian National Railways Commission made successful workers compensation claims. In the Department of Primary Industry, 25.4 per cent of employees made successful workers compensation claims, and 23.5 per cent of members of the Department of Housing and Construction. Contrast that with the compensation claims in a department such as the Department of Defence, whose personnel one would think are naturally under relatively high risk, even in peacetime. The level of claims as a percentage of total employees in that Department was just 3 1/2 per cent. Let us remember that in the Department of Primary Industry the figure is 25.4 per cent and in the Department of Defence 3.5 per cent. In the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, which operates in competition with the private sector and therefore has to take its responsibilities to consumers and to the community much more seriously, there were claims from just 3.4 per cent of its employees.
Something funny is going on; there is no question about that. Where the Government stands condemned is in its failure seriously to address this very real rort. Successful claims for workers compensation in the Public Service in Australia are up to 10 times higher than successful claims in the private sector. This legislation does something very minor to address this issue. It allows the transfer between departments of officers who have some disability. Of course, I welcome that. Instead of having to invalid those people out of the Public Service, they can be transferred. But what the Government has done is to duck the main issue of addressing this very real rort. It has done that for the same reason that it has avoided doing anything about the 17 1/2 per cent holiday loading issue-not because it challenges the figures I have put forward or because it does not know about those figures, but because its friends in the trade union movement and in the vested interest groups will not support any changes to the current rort. That is a pretty disgraceful indictment of the Government. I am sorry that it has not addressed that very important issue.
The third issue I want to address is the politicisation of the Public Service, which is a trend that has accelerated dramatically over the last three years. It has received relatively little publicity but it is a very real factor in the life of members of the Australian Public Service. In private conversations I have had with public servants at all levels, this is one of the messages continually being given. They are concerned about the politicisation of the Public Service. Senior jobs in the Public Service have been given to former politicians and, of course, to trade unionists. I suppose one would half expect any political party that is a political wing of the trade union movement to use the Public Service as a way of rewarding mates in the trade union movement. But friends of the Australian Labor Party, people who have served the Party either as ministerial staff or in some other capacity, have also been lucky winners in the lottery of Public Service jobs. Perhaps not worse but equally bad is the fact that there have been many examples over the last three years of public servants, well known for their support of the Australian Labor Party, who have received fast track advancement-something that is deeply resented by many people in the Public Service who are affiliated with neither of the major political parties but who are just committed to a professional Public Service career.
Let us look at some of the facts. I do not want to mention any names because that is unfair to the people involved, but let us just look at some of the statistics. Twenty-three current and former Federal Labor members of parliament have been given jobs in the public sector by this Government. Eight former members of State parliaments have also been given such positions, as have five members of Territory governments. There has been an extraordinary acceleration, in other words, in the politicisation of the Public Service. I am not denying for a minute that such positions were given by previous governments. The point I am making is that there has been an extraordinary acceleration in the politicisation of the Public Service over the last three years.
There have been fast track promotions through the device of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act. That has been very much resented in a number of departments. For example, in the Department of Foreign Affairs there have been two particularly notorious examples of relatively junior officers suddenly finding themselves in senior positions, having previously been on the staff of Labor Ministers. The way that they have achieved that is through the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, under which they have not had to apply for positions competitively with other public servants or go through the appeals process that other public servants have to face. That has been deeply resented in the Department of Foreign Affairs. There are similar instances in other departments such as the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment-there is one particularly notorious example in that Department. Ministers should realise that that has been deeply resented by ordinary hardworking career officers of those departments. That has helped to undermine the morale of those departments and it is regrettable that the Government has refused to recognise this.
There have also been examples of Labor Party camp followers. I do not want to mention these people by name but they are well known to most members of this House. Such people have received extremely senior positions in the Public Service, in some cases as permanent heads of departments. Again I think that is extremely regrettable. The simple fact is that this politicisation of the Public Service is undermining the whole concept of an impartial and fearless Public Service. Public servants are now asking themselves: `Whom should I please? Should I be pleasing my peers in the Public Service through a demonstration of my professionalism, or should I be trying to please people in the Australian Labor Party?'. `Whom should I serve?', they are asking; `Should I be serving the general public of Australia, the ordinary people of Australia, or should I be serving the Australian Labor Party?'. Even more seriously, junior officers in the Public Service are quite seriously now saying that it would be in their best career interests to hitch their wagon to one of the major political parties.
The traditional view of an impartial Public Service giving objective advice, and of that impartial Public Service being part of the checks and balances process of our system of government, is being thrown away by this Government. It is getting rid of professionalism at the top of the Public Service; it is getting rid of impartial advice. It is replacing the professionals and the impartial career public servants with yes men committed to the Australian Labor Party. Politicisation is also taking place through the unionisation of the Public Service, where again there is clear scope for a conflict of interests between public servants, asked to help with legislation on industrial relations matters, and their union membership.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay)
—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.
Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(11.27)
—I should begin my remarks by saying that of all the people in this House who would want to speak about impartiality and patronage, I found it quite distressing that it was the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) who made such comments because it is well known that his father was the recipient of the plummest job in London that could possibly go to a former politician from this place, and of course that patronage was applied by coalition governments and certainly was not supported by us. I found it most disagreeable that he of all people should be unctuous and talk about politicisation in the Public Service. We have heard from the honourable member for Mayo and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) that the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill is all too little too late. They support our proposal, but say what a pity we did not do it earlier. I remind them that we have been in government for 3 1/2 years. I wonder why during the time of the Fraser Government they did nothing, why the coalition was not about reforming the Public Service in the way that this legislation is now doing. I return to the remarks of a former member of the Fraser Government, John Hyde, who said that he felt that this Government was doing a better job than the Fraser Government did. In March of last year the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) said of the Fraser Government:
But we never seemed to have time to talk about . . . how we could get rid of the dead hand of government, our Government, that was stifling initiative and taxing us into oblivion.
Indeed, these great deregulators, these champions of free enterprise and private enterprise on the other side of the House, found it too difficult in government to carry out these tasks. The honourable member for Menzies continued:
We actively and wrongly opposed the breaking up of the Telecom . . . did little to encourage deregulation or competition in the finance industry . . .
In all of these areas it has been this Government that has wrought the changes; it has been this Government that has looked at the Public Service and said that it needs to be more efficient and more effective. The honourable member for Bradfield suggested that growth in the Public Service per se was a terrible thing and therefore any government involved in a period of Public Service growth should be seen as terrible. One need only look at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on economic studies of spring last year on the role of the public sector to see that during the 1960s and 1970s, during times of coalition governments, general government employment far exceeded non-government employment in this country. It was under coalition governments that we saw the great growth in the Public Service in this country and it is only in recent years that the jobs created by this Government have been largely in the private sector. We have seen significant growth in private sector employment. In 1984 this Government brought in the Public Service Reform Bill and this legislation is a further initiative which will develop our approach to Public Service efficiency and an improvement in Public Service mechanisms.
But what do these public servants do? They are employed principally to get things done, to administer programs of the Government, to provide services and to make sure that there is efficient provision of such services. There is a myth in this country, and it is one that has been provoked and supported by members on the other side today, that somehow the Public Service in Australia is some sort of monster and compared with other countries we have a massive Public Service, much greater than we need. One need only look at the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in September, in which he suggests that the percentage of workers in the public sector amounted to 15 or 16 per cent. Of course these figures depend on the criteria we use, how they are collected and the extent of privatisation of our economy. OECD figures suggest that 15 or 16 per cent of our work force is employed in general government activities. Those figures have not been disputed by members on the other side. If we look at figures for OECD countries with which we might compare ourselves we find that the figure in Austria is 19.2 per cent; in Belgium, 19.5 per cent; in Canada, 19.9 per cent; in Denmark, 31 per cent; in Finland, 18.9 per cent; in New Zealand, 19.1 per cent; in Norway, 22.9 per cent; in Sweden, 31.8 per cent; and, in the United Kingdom, where Margaret Thatcher is presently wielding the knife, 21.8 per cent of employees are employed in the government sector. So the figures for Australia compare very favourably with all of those countries. France has a figure of 16.1 per cent and the United States of America 16.7 per cent. So I do not think it is fair for us to say that Australia has some sort of monstrous, burgeoning Public Service. The coalition did not find it necessary in government to redress the balance significantly, and I think that perhaps Australia has a reasonable balance. If we look at other figures, as a percentage of population, we find that in Australia those employed in public utilities total 8.8 per cent of the population; in Canada, 8.7 per cent; in the United Kingdom, 9.5 per cent; and in the United States of America, 7.3 per cent. Again Australia compares favourably with those other countries.
Why, then, is this legislation important? It is important because any government must be accountable to the taxpayers and have an efficient public sector. We are not about bashing the public sector. It is understood that the majority of public servants in this country are hard working and efficient but it is necessary for there to be a realistic appraisal of their work. The inefficient work and management practices of the private sector have come under scrutiny recently. Even before the recent Peko dispute in the north of Western Australia the Government had shown a lead in this area. An integral part of our restructuring of the steel industry, heavy engineering, the motor vehicle industry and the shipbuilding industry was a consideration of inefficient work and management practices. Government, businesses and unions got together to see that those practices were eliminated. That is the sort of procedure that over time this Government will be involved in.
What does the Opposition want to do? I am sure that it wants an efficient expenditure of taxpayers' money. The honourable member for Mayo said that taxpayers' money must be used efficiently. Yet last week, in this House, we introduced legislation to produce a high integrity identity card in this country. Presently in the United States the public is screaming out for such a high integrity identity card. It is estimated that in the United States $15 billion is paid in social security overpayments every year. In Australia, our Government is trying to do something about it. What do we find from the Opposition? We find the Opposition opposing this suggestion, opposing the idea that in some way the Government should act in a more efficient way and make sure that taxpayers' money is spent efficiently. There must be accountability; there must he productivity in our Public Service, and it must be efficient. This legislation is directed towards improving that efficiency. It is directed towards streamlining procedures in the Australian Public Service.
The most significant part of the legislation contained in Part II of the Bill amends the Public Service Act 1922, and it relates to the redeployment and retirement arrangements and revised provisions relating to promotions and appeals. Indeed, the redeployment and retirement provisions apply principally in two situations. The first is in that of excess officers where there is a surplus of staff, where perhaps the functions of a particular department have changed and there is an excess of workers in that area. It is reasonable that any management in those circumstances should be able to offer voluntary retrenchment schemes to its workers. For the first time this is included in this legislation. With respect to involuntary retrenchment or reduction of class of officers, again a new mechanism is provided in an appeals system which will be much more efficient than that which has previously operated.
The second area in which the redeployment and retirement provisions operate is that concerning inefficient staff-staff who perhaps are not performing their functions, those who perhaps because of physical or mental incapacity are not able to perform their functions any more or those who have lost some essential qualifications. Management's ability to deal with such staff must be the same as in any big organisation, and therefore new provisions are made available. There will be a formal warning for any staff in such a situation, and after a three-month period if there is no improvement management will have the opportunity to redeploy or retire such staff. Again, such a move can be seen as being consistent with management practices in any private sector activity.
With regard to promotions and appeals, the direction of this legislation is towards the promotion of people on merit. The potential, flexibility and adaptability of people need to be considered. Good management, of course, requires judgments to be made-judgments which are not prejudiced and which are not subject to cronyism. Good judgments have to be made by management. Presently the promotions and appeals systems in the Public Service are effective but cumbersome. The figure that strikes one is that when there is an appeal against a promotion it takes 36 weeks to fill a vacancy. That is expensive, time consuming and inefficient. Changes in that procedure are necessary, and this legislation gives effect to them.
It contains other changes in relation to the promotions and appeals systems. For instance, there will be a decrease in the appeal period; a limited right of appeal only to those who were original applicants for positions; and exclusion of appeals for those of class 8 level and above. There are other aspects to this legislation, and I could go on for some time. Briefly, they relate to the delegation of the functions of the Public Service Board which has had increasing functions since the introduction of the Public Service Reform Act 1984.
I think it is important that there should and will be some review of flexitime procedures. Certainly flexitime offers the opportunity for many government departments to have more extended opening times for contact with the public. This is a desirable outcome of flexitime procedures but, of course, it is undesirable that flexitime should be accrued by workers so that they can have long weekends and extra time off. I suppose that just puts extra pressure on those staff members who are not taking advantage of flexitime in that way. Certainly the review of that procedure will be an important aspect of this legislation.
The other thing that deserves mention is that of the establishment early next year of the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit which will be similar to that which operated from 1979 to 1983 in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Rayner scrutiny programs of that time in the United Kingdom were very effective in reducing the financial costs to government and increasing efficiency. The implementation of these decisions will be important in the financial management of various Public Service departments. I think this legislation has the support of the Opposition. It is part of our ongoing scrutiny of the Public Service. We are concerned that the Public Service should be accountable and that it should do the job for which it is there. This legislation is a further step in our move to achieve these aims. I support this Bill.
Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(11.40)
—We in the Opposition appreciate the job that is done for the people of Australia by those persons who are employed in the public services of this nation. We are not in the business of public service bashing, but we do not hesitate to criticise and comment when genuine reform is necessary. The Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill 1986 includes a number of machinery amendments which largely are non-contentious. The main thrust of the Bill constitutes changes to redeployment and retirement provisions and provisions in relation to inefficiency caused by invalidity or loss of essential qualifications and the promotions and appeals systems.
Generally we support the Bill, but our view is that it is too little too late. We in the National Party of Australia are concerned about the size of government in this country. We are concerned at the fact that the Bill before the House today makes absolutely no attempt to cut programs. This is a tragedy because in the current economic circumstances it is necessary for programs to be cut. The Bill does not propose to restore the situation in which we have `no work as directed no pay'. That is the reason that I support the amendment so ably moved by my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). The earlier legislation that was introduced in 1977, the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, contained provisions of this nature.
I would like to outline a situation set out in a letter from a constituent complaining about the approach of the Australian Labor Party to government and taxation. My constituent queried whether it had been brought to my attention that certain public employees are paid in full while on strike. He mentioned the situation of a person who worked for Telecom Australia on preparation work for the laying of cables. Technically Telecom employees may not be public servants, but the principle is exactly the same. I quote from my constituent's letter:
I have just become aware that last year for a period of nine weeks he, and about 100 colleagues were `in dispute' with Telecom. Apparently such workers are not allowed to strike so if they have a `dispute' with their employer, they do not work but are paid in full!
If I go on strike, I do not get paid and neither should I, so how is it that we (the legitimate tax payers of this country) have to pay public servants while in fact they are on strike?
That is a very fair question, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you will agree. I wrote to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) because I shared my constituent's concern. I thought it was ridiculous that people who failed to carry out work as directed were funded by the Australian taxpayer. In the Minister's reply he said:
You wrote to me on 13 June 1986 concerning a letter you had received which suggested that Telecom paid some of its employees while they were engaged in industrial action.
Although the letter did not identify the date or location of this action, Telecom has informed me that it may refer to a union selective ban on the installation of optical fibre cable during 1985. The ban was in support of a work value claim associated with the introduction of optical fibre cable. That claim was subsequently granted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
Further on in the letter the Minister added:
Telecom did consider seeking stand down orders from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of this group of employees. That option was however rejected because of the delicate progress being achieved in negotiations and the almost certain escalation of the dispute to the stage where it would have seriously impacted on service to Telecom customers. In adopting this approach Telecom also took into account the recommendation of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that negotiations be conducted in an industrially free climate.
How could there be an industrially free climate? People were on strike; people were failing to carry out their duties. In any event, everyone knows that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is not neutral. Everyone knows that the Commission has, in recent years, simply tended to act as an enforcer for the trade unions. In this situation people were on strike; people were failing to carry out their rostered duties. What was this Government's response? The employees involved got full pay, despite industrial action. In other words, people who would not work as directed still got wages. Is that satisfactory? Do honourable members opposite think that the people of Australia would agree that the position taken by the Government was in any way reasonable? That situation I have outlined is proof that this Government is the captive of the trade union movement. We have in Australia government of the unions, by the unions and for the unions. It is a tragedy that the Government's weakness in this matter, as in so many others, is absolutely pathetic.
Labor had a golden opportunity with this Bill to prevent a recurrence of the situation I have outlined in relation to Telecom. What has it done? It has completely failed to take up that opportunity. It could have reintroduced the no work as directed no pay provisions, but it has left it to the Opposition to move the amendment to the Bill before the House. I hope that honourable members opposite will be persuaded by the very strong arguments which we have. It would be nice if some of them were honest and came across to this side of the chamber and voted for our amendment.
Public Service reform is necessary. Public Service reform is not contained to any substantial extent in this Bill. The changes which are sought to be made are, generally speaking, superficial. They merely scratch the surface. It is unfortunate that there has not been any attempt to reduce the duplication of governmental responsibilities in Australia. We have various Federal departments overseeing the work of State departments and also local authorities. We have one group of public servants in, say, the Federal Department of Health trying to influence and manipulate State departments. The result is the duplication of governmental responsibility at tremendously excessive cost to the Australian taxpayer.
In 1901 when the States of Australia federated to become the Commonwealth, certain functions were transferred from the colonial parliaments, as they then were, to the Federal Parliament. Since that time the Commonwealth has continued to expand its area of governmental responsibility, partly through referenda-although this has not been a major means by which the Commonwealth's powers have been extended. Commonwealth powers have been extended rather more through judicial interpretation and, more recently, through the Commonwealth entering into international treaties and claiming to use the external affairs power to grab powers which were previously in the hands of the States. So we find in Australia today that the Federal Parliament is carrying out responsibilities infinitely greater than those which were contemplated in 1901. What the Commonwealth should be doing to reduce the size of the public sector is looking at the Constitution to see what are the true and proper responsibilities of the Federal Parliament and, when that exercise is done, functions should be transferred back to the States, because the State parliaments are closer to the people.
Do we find in this Bill provisions to prevent disruption of essential services? Of course we do not, because this Government does not believe that essential services should be protected for the benefit of the citizens of Australia. We have to compare this Government's weak-kneed attitude with the very strong approach of the Queensland National Party Government in 1985, when it ensured that the lights were turned on. The Nationals made sure that militant trade unions would not hold the people of Queensland to ransom-and the electricity has stayed on. What we need is for this Federal Government to acquire a bit of backbone and to follow the sterling example of the Queensland National Party Government so that the people of Australia do in fact have a guarantee that their essential services will be maintained.
Have deregulation measures been set out in this Bill? No, the Government has largely walked away from this, despite the reports of the Government's own Business Regulation Review Unit. Are there changes to the hiring processes? No. Are there any changes to the Budget cycle? No. Do we find that there is reform of some of the working conditions which Australia can no longer afford? The answer to that also is no. Has the Government talked about the need for or desirability of repealing the 17 1/2 per cent holiday loading? Has it talked about flexitime? Has it talked about restrictive work practices in the public sector? The answers, again, are no.
The Government's stated intention is to reduce the Public Service by 2,000 people. We in the Opposition would certainly support any move to reduce the size of the public services of this country. But the Government is imposing extra burdens on the Public Service. On the one hand it tells us that it is going to cut the Public Service by 2,000 people. Yet, on the other hand, it has brought in the disastrous fringe benefits tax and the disastrous identity card proposal, which will require nearly 4,000 new staff.
Mr Sharp
—It is disgraceful.
Mr SLIPPER
—These two measures are disgraceful, as the honourable member for Gilmore quite correctly points out. The Government's proposed reduction of 2,000 in the Public Service is shown to be a shallow prediction because, since this Government was elected in 1983, we have had an increase in the size of the Public Service of an average of 3.5 per cent per year, compared with the sterling example of the Fraser-Anthony Government, when there was negative growth. I think that the people of Australia will see through this Government masquerading as a government which is trying to reduce costs. How on earth can this Government pretend to be reducing Public Service numbers by 2,000 when it is bringing in legislation such as the fringe benefits tax legislation, its identity card or Australia Card proposal, its legislation for an assets test on pensions and so many other pieces of legislation which require a greater rather than a lesser number of public servants? The number of people on the Public Service payroll has increased from 408,300 in June 1983 to 442,400 in May 1986. As I mentioned previously, that is an increase of an average of 3.5 per cent per year.
Mr Sharp
—The Government is sending us broke.
Mr SLIPPER
—The country is broke and the Government should take steps to redress the situation. This Bill, sadly, does not meet the expectations of the people of Australia. The National Party is not in the business of attacking public servants, the vast majority of whom carry out their duties diligently and to the best of their ability. In respect of my own electorate of Fisher, I have nothing but the utmost respect for those public servants. They work very hard to ensure that necessary government services are brought to the people of Fisher. But what we need is genuine reform, not tokenism. We need to cut our cloth to suit our measure. Australia is no longer a wealthy country. We must trim our costs to meet our newly reduced circumstances. The banana republic of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is fast becoming a reality. The Public Service cannot be immune from the economies necessary for our nation's economic well-being. What is needed-what is needed now-is genuine Public Service reform to ensure that the Public Service meets the needs of contemporary Australia.
Mr WHITE(McPherson)(11.54)
—The Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill gives effect to the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of 25 September. The purpose of the Bill is to streamline the Public Service and encourage a more efficient and productive Public Service. In speaking to this Bill, the first thing I want to say is that, like many people in this Parliament, I have worked with many public servants over the considerable number of years that I was in the Services and the majority of them are efficient and hard working. I am not in any way attempting to carry out an assault on the Public Service. But, like any large organisation, there are obviously areas which should be looked at and which can be improved. This Bill is an attempt to do this. But I must say that it seems to me to be a rather timid attempt, given the Prime Minister's rather grand statement in September about what he was going to do to the Public Service. If this is the best that he can do to reform the Public Service, God help us all.
The first point to make is that the Government has still not restored the no-work no-pay provisions into any Public Service legislation. It is absolutely crazy that in 1986, given the economic conditions under which this country is labouring, we find that public servants can go on strike and be paid. I shall return to that point in a moment. Public servants have-and they realise this-a priceless asset in difficult economic times. That asset is a secure job and a pension at the end of it. There are many Australians who do not have that. Given that asset, there must be areas of the Public Service which should be looked at closely to see what improvements can be made. I would have thought that the majority of hard working and efficient public servants would welcome these reviews and reforms and the introduction of a no-work no-pay provision because this would increase the professionalism of the Public Service and the standing of public servants in the community. We all know that from time to time the Public Service is a good old chopping block for just about everyone who is not in it. As an example of some of the more extreme views that are held by public servants-I presume by the more radical Left-an advertisement appeared in yesterday's Courier-Mail for a big rally in Brisbane. The advertisement said:
Aren't you fed up with lies?
Australia's public sector Workers protect the average Australian.
Yet we are under attack from those who distort the truth!
Working conditions eroded. Tasmania leave loading suspended-
that is a step in the right direction-
Jobs abolished. Deregulation and undermining awards. `Flexitime' at risk. Selling off government agencies.
They are all sensible things that any government would want to do, yet public servants in Brisbane have a rally about these things. I do not know how many people went to that rally but I would not have thought it would be well attended. By promoting that sort of nonsense, the public servants who called that rally are bringing the whole of the Public Service and the best elements of it into disrepute because there is no way in the world that the public sector in this country cannot be expected to be asked to take its share of the cuts that the economic conditions dictate.
The Prime Minister is on record as saying last September that he would get rid of 2,000 public servants. Big deal! He has put 15,000 on in the last three years and he says now that he will take off 2,000. He makes that statement at the very time when he brings forward the Australia Card Bill, which will require at least another 2,000 public servants by the Government's own reckoning. God knows how many more people will have to be put on in the private sector to cope with that.
Mr Cohen
—That is job creation.
Mr WHITE
—As the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment well knows, it is nonsense to talk about this Government reducing the Public Service numbers by 2,000 when before it has even put those public servants off it has put on another 2,000 to look after the ID card, plus the 15,000 that it has put on in the last three years. It has been said before in this debate, and it should be said again, that the Fraser Government had negative growth in the Public Service.
If the Government were serious, it would have addressed in this Bill some of the real issues that should be addressed in any Public Service review. For example, the 17.5 per cent holiday loading in the Public Service should have been reviewed in order to set an example to the private sector. If the numbers of public servants are to be reduced, government programs must be looked at and reduced also. The Government should look at the functions that could be transferred to the States. It should introduce-and we are determined to do this-a no-work no-pay provision into the Public Service Act. It must have some mechanism to prevent the disruption of essential services, and the contracting out of existing government services must be looked at if the Government is serious about reducing the size of the Public Service. None of those provisions are being tackled in this legislation. It is no wonder that the credibility of the Prime Minister's statement in September is very low indeed. In this Bill the Government does not address the major problems. There are superficial changes, but they are seen for what they are. It is true that this is a big government, despite what it might say. Thirty-two extra politicians came in at the last election-32 for God's sake, in a country which already has something like 850 politicians. The Government puts on another 32 and then has the hide to say it is small government. The Government knows that extra politicians, apart from the expense they incur, mean extra--
Mr Cohen
—You blokes supported it.
Mr WHITE
—We did not support it. The Minister knows very well that we did not support it. The Liberal Party of Australia did not support that particular provision. Ministers should not come in here and tell us that they stand for small government when at the last election the Government put on another 32 politicians. More politicians, more programs and another 15,000 public servants.
It is difficult to understand why some provision has not already been made for the return of the no-work no-pay principle. This requirement was abolished by this Government when it came to office in 1983. How any government could claim that it is streamlining the Public Service and making it more efficient when it does not address that problem is beyond understanding. The public servants have a privileged position and most of them are the first to admit it. They have a secure job, a pension and, generally speaking, comfortable working conditions. Most public servants I know would welcome the return of the no-work no-pay provision in order to ensure that their professional standing in the community is increased. We will ensure that this provision is returned to Public Service legislation. I know that that will be welcomed by the majority of public servants.
The question of duplication of functions throughout this country must be addressed, whatever government is in power. We cannot allow the States and the Federal Government to continue paralleling services, whether it be in education, housing, or a whole host of other functions. There is no doubt that that will be a difficult operation, as we have seen, for example, with the meat inspectors. However, it is a problem that must be addressed. I believe that in the end the simple approach must be that the Commonwealth return to the States those things they do best and get out of those areas altogether in which there is no real need for it to be. Obviously in that way we would have a major effect on the number of public servants in this country.
There is also the question of the expansion of numbers in the Public Service. In the area for which I am responsible, tourism and sport, we have seen an increase in the number of senior officers in the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism from five to 23 in three years.
Mr Lloyd
—How many was that?
Mr WHITE
—An increase from five to 23 in a very small Department. In that same area we have seen growth of statutory authorities which is being paralleled in other departments while this Government has been in power. If the Government is not serious about addressing the growth of statutory authorities and senior officers in the Public Service, how can we expect it to be taken seriously in addressing some of these other issues? The question of the 17.5 per cent holiday loading is not addressed in this Bill. The Premier of Western Australia has got it right, as has the Premier of South Australia. This is not an attack on the take home pay of public servants; it is an attempt to face the reality that the country simply cannot afford at a time when we have these economic problems to continue paying people for work that is not being done. We are paying people more to go on leave or on holiday than to actually work. Its removal is not an attempt to cut wages. That would be a stupid approach because if we start to cut wages we cut the spending power of people and that is reflected through the whole of the Australian economy.
The fact is that the 17.5 per cent loading was given at a time when economic conditions were much better, and I would have thought that the Public Service, where people have secure jobs, is the most sensible place to start to do away with the controversial and, in some cases, delicate area of the 17.5 per cent holiday loading. In this way the Government and the Public Service will be seen to be setting an example. The way in which we will tackle this on return to government is simply to let employers and employees talk to each other and set their own wages and conditions based on an hourly rate. If an employer then offers a job to somebody and there are no penalty rates or holiday pay involved that is a matter between the employer and the employee.
The Bill addresses the question of surplus staff in the Public Service, and I am very pleased to see that. Up to two years to finalise the surplus staff situation in the Public Service, as explained by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters (Mr Willis) when introducing this Bill, is ridiculous. No wonder the private sector laughs. It will also be easier for inefficient staff to be removed. I would think that that is particularly welcomed by the Public Service because inefficient staff mean that someone has to work much harder. Disciplinary provisions are to be tightened up. There will be a review of flexitime. The best review that could take place would be to come to the conclusion that it should be abolished altogether because there is no justification or requirement for it at a time when the country is facing the economic problems that it is facing. In respect of invalidity and the generous provisions available to the Public Service, there is no doubt, when one looks at the figures that have been brought forward by the Waste Watch Committee, that a racket is being perpetrated in some departments; and I am very pleased to see that the Government is addressing that problem.
I want to mention in conclusion the question of annual reports, which the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) raised during his speech on this Bill. There is no doubt that a system of regular annual reports would go a long way towards achieving efficiency in the Public Service. A system whereby senior officers, as a matter of course, report on their juniors has been applied in the Services with great success over many years. It not only leads to an annual review of that person's work but is a record of his employment during the time he is in the Services or, as I am suggesting, in the Public Service. If it comes to trying to judge someone's efficiency, the total record of that man's work and how he is judged by his superiors is there to be seen by those who wish to make a decision. I strongly commend that efficiency provision to the Government and hope that it will be looked at. An annual review of all public servants is a very simple mechanism and a very effective one for increasing the efficiency of the Public Service.
Finally, there is no doubt that under this Government the politicisation of the Public Service has proceeded apace. In this respect one has to look only at the statement of the Taxation Commissioner in the recent week when he intruded into the political debate. With every justification, he said: `We would take an opposing view'. The point is that he was encouraged into that debate by the politicisation that has taken place in the Public Service in the last three years. We welcome the start that has been made in this Bill to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Public Service. We look forward to the review by Mr David Block, which will be a wide-ranging review, and hope that it will come up with some substance and that that substance will be taken up by the Government. We hope that the unions will co-operate in whatever that review produces and that the Government would then put some substance into the sort of legislation it brings forward to review the Public Service. The fear we have is that, given the influence and, in some cases, the control of the Australian Council of Trade Unions over this Government, what we on this side of the House hope for will be somewhat futile.
Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(12.10)
—I think it can be said that a good deal of thought has gone into the legislation before the House and, taking into account the 1984 legislation, I believe that there is also the presence of some imagination. The title of the Bill, the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill, holds out more hope than the actuality of the Bill itself. The legislation touches up the major legislation, opening the door wider for more direct authority of the departmental secretary to be used to command personnel. There will be a certain cost to be paid for these changes, particularly in the policy making echelons where there is a scope for personality pressures to develop excessively without restraint and there is no easy parallel with private enterprise.
The test for executive performance in private enterprise is the annual profit and loss account. Bad management is exposed on an annual basis. If bad management results from mistaken actions, for example, from authoritarian management souring relationships with supporting staff, that eventually relays its own message to responsible authority through the balance sheet. Institutional wisdom is thus built into a successful business enterprise and this element is a force which is a constraint over management. The profit and loss account is not the element of test for a Public Service performance. There are the obvious tests of smooth efficiency, for example, in the administration of a department of social security or a department of public works; elementary tests of performance are clearly observable. What are broadly described as the policy departments or the policy echelons of the system-and I am talking about such departments as Treasury, Trade, Finance, Community Services, Defence and Foreign Affairs-do not lend themselves to obvious tests of efficiency. Rather, they are significant sources of intellectual input into the advising of government. The allocation of national resources or the enterprise of national prosperity or international involvement cannot be easily tested for efficiency. Here the judgments of performance are more subjective as the element of policy making is a dominant one and the relationship with the political leadership of government is crucial.
Australia, since Federation, has slowly built a public service system which is a primary functionary in the transaction of major decisions affecting the prosperity of the nation. The system has relied heavily on the notion that the Public Service develops its own powers of institutional wisdom, its special sense of institutional behaviour and a poise, a strength and a confidence in its role. Prior to World War II the nation worked with a small public service based in Canberra. During the war Canberra acquired special income tax powers and a process of redistribution to State governments was built up. The traditions of a politically neutral public service were well maintained during the war under Prime Minister Curtin. They were strengthened by the public skill of Prime Minister Chifley and they were sustained by Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies.
I believe it is important to note that the major traditions were set during the war and the post-war period under two Labor Prime Ministers and one coalition Prime Minister. I say that because I believe it is sad to recall that due respect for this achievement was weakened by some of Prime Minister Whitlam's Ministers. A habit of mind developed that assumed that public servants who had served a long period under the coalition had disqualified themselves from service under a Labor government. The Government made numerous consultant appointments and all too often these inexperienced political appointees were at pains to belabour the Public Service. Then Mr Whitlam did something else. He developed a great flair for creating non-departmental bodies, always preceded, of course, by an inquiry. This inevitably led to the creation of a new statutory body outside the departmental structure and the structure of public enterprise swelled to meet these new demands. At the same time the nation has been accumulating a growth of Public Service functions concentrated in Canberra. It is debatable whether the evacuation of State capitals in favour of inflation in Canberra has been desirable and, more importantly, whether it has produced more efficient government. There has thus been a very strong and sustained public reaction which sees the public sector as inflated and the growth of the national capital as an unnecessary incubus.
We should remind ourselves that this legislation deals with departments; those bodies under the control of the Public Service Board. It does not deal with the large structures outside the departments. In that area the proliferation is very great and there has been a tendency to blame the Public Service for inflating itself. Parkinson's law operates, but not to the degree which explains the growth of the public sector to its current dimensions. The explanation is centrally to be found in the bidding that takes place at election time to deliver services at public expense to special interest groups significant to the election process. Hopefully, the process has at last taken a check.
This Government made the mistake of inflating government expenditure in 1984 and a very heavy price is now being paid by everyone for that frightful Budget. The Australian Labor Party has at last realised that money does not grow on trees. The day of any party riding to power by treating the public purse as a bottomless pit has passed. It is important to be fair and to recognise that growth in the Public Service is not the fruit of scheming by the Public Service but the fruit of promises and responses by governments to public demands.
Every government, however, owes a public duty to the need to minimise growth and overhaul and reshape its administration. As has already been noted, this Government has recently appointed the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit headed by David Block, who is a distinguished business and financial personality. He is ably supported by one of our most skilful public servants, Mr Tony Ayers. I do not think there can be any doubt that their work will test the system. Mr Block will see his job in the most practical terms. It is rather ironic that the idea is modelled on a Margaret Thatcher initiative, when she called in the managing director of Marks and Spencer to inaugurate such a review in the United Kingdom.
One of the complexities of Public Service administration is that accountability is a primary test of administrative achievement. Large sums are involved in the daily work of large numbers of people. The task is to ensure that money and resources which are requested and allocated are adequate to the task and that there is no perfidy involved in either process. It is possible to play safe and overendow the system with checks and balances, accounting and authorising systems. This might seem to be the way to go if we are to avoid wastage, but it has to be realised that surveillance procedures cost money and personnel, so the problem is to find the right balance between the risk of misuse of resources by officers feathering their own nests and 100 per cent fail-safe accountability. There have been numerous cost cutting exercises-review upon review-many of which have been in-house processes. The exposure of the departmental administration to the skills of a David Block will have the effect, I believe, of producing a good housekeeping seal of approval for the departments so scrutinised.
This legislation, and the Public Service Reform Act 1984 in like manner, takes risks by increasing the power of departmental secretaries to act independently of the Public Service Board. Their powers over staff will be considerably enlarged. There is the risk-it should not be minimised-that, once appointed, departmental heads will act too liberally in pursuit of their own inclinations. Contrary to what this Bill might attempt to say, there will be more scope for idiosyncratic behaviour by the departmental secretaries and more scope for political patronage. I believe that this is so and that it can be contained only by the selection of career public servants to the position of head of the Public Service Board.
The appointment of people prominent in the life of any political party to this key position seems to me to be most undesirable. It remains one of the oddities that membership of the Labor Party has not been a barrier to a Public Service career. Instead, it has assisted in many cases. However, members of other political parties are not so favoured by the workings of the system. The new arrangements have led to a spate of early retirements which have not been voluntary but have been forced on the individuals affected. On the whole, that has not reduced numbers and it is doubtful whether it has increased efficiency. Indeed, it has the appearance of the very nepotism which this legislation affects to discourage.
I have said that the growth of the Public Service owes much less to Parkinson's law than to policy programs emerging from the competing political parties at election times. It is undesirable to conduct a campaign of put-down against the Public Service or in other ways to diminish its stature. There is a need for a review of the system and I believe that Mr David Block is a good choice. I have already made the point that policy development is a central area which eludes the obvious test of efficiency.
The central policy direction of government is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is this process which engages the Public Service at its most sensitive point. The history of the central department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, reflects the growth of power and the role accorded to the Prime Minister as leader of government. There are those who say that Australia is producing a quasi-presidential system. All heads of government are more in public demand today than at any other time in history. Television has created the expectation that all national problems are within the capacity and range of powers of the Prime Minister. In these circumstances the advisory system around the Prime Minister is of paramount importance. There was a time when great reliance could be placed on the assumption that advice from the Minister responsible was always effectively on tap, yet there is a practical situation where both the Prime Minister and the Minister have different obligations and the immediacy of public pressure places great demands on both. Clearly, staffing of adequate people to satisfy the liaison needs of both is necessary. At the political level there is the political staff, but in the transaction of public administration the Public Service has to interrelate efficiently.
The Prime Minister, as head of government, is also chairman of Cabinet, which is the central policy-making body. The resources of the Public Service are vital in the preparation of the Cabinet program, its processes and the post-Cabinet decision tasks of legislation and administrative direction. The Prime Minister, as chairman of the group, has special needs. He alone is not directly responsible for a single area of government activity, yet he has to be sure of the discharge of his Government's administration. Clearly, as chairman of Cabinet, he needs and gets assistance in the questions he poses to his colleagues and even on the way in which he should react to the advice he receives. Thus the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet came into existence. It is important that it functions so as to facilitate, but not to intervene in, the relationship between the Prime Minister and his Ministers.
The role of the permanent public servant with developed experience and wisdom is vital. I believe that the present Government has shown some good sense in the balance it has struck between the Prime Minister's roles and needs and those of his Cabinet colleagues. I believe it is vital that this stability in our institutional development be retained. It can be destabilised by an excess of zeal by the Government to promote politically motivated personnel to central positions in the Public Service. The present Government is not entirely free from question marks in this area.
Secondly, the process can be destabilised by efforts to denigrate Public Service traditions of political neutrality by appointing politically favoured officers. Whatever may be the results of the administrative reviews on the structure of government which come forward from time to time, I believe very firmly that all of us, no matter on which side of the political fence we sit, should bend all our efforts to maintaining a politically unbiased Public Service. I believe the people of Australia must and should rely on disinterested advice going forward to the government of the day no matter what the political persuasion of that government is. If the Public Service is politicised to any great degree, disinterested advice does not go forward and the whole administration suffers if that situation comes to pass.
Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.25)
—I thank those honourable members who have taken part in this debate on the matter of streamlining the Australian Public Service. I would like to emphasise the description of the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill that is now before the House because I think to some extent some honourable members opposite have seen it as an opportunity to perhaps put forward their views not so much on streamlining the Public Service but perhaps on having a direct relationship in the industrial relations field which we do not believe has any place in a debate of this nature.
Let us look at the headings of the matters that are covered by this legislation. We find simplification of office classification structures, redundancy, invalidity, inefficiency, loss of qualifications, promotions, higher duties, delegation of central personnel functions, recruitment, discipline, flexitime and other miscellaneous amendments. It is very much in keeping with what the Government has been saying ought to have happened and has indeed happened in the private sector. By our own intervention, particularly in the steel and automotive industries, the Government has played a primary role in doing away with a lot of old work practices and by making both of those major Australian industries far more efficient and far more viable than they were when we came to office in 1983. The jobs of people in those industries and the money invested by others in those industries are far more secure than they were when we became the Government. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has indicated to the House, we cannot take one attitude in the private sector and another in the public sector. It is not for this Government to discriminate in our attitudes between these two sectors. It is for that reason that we continue down the path of echoing the same sentiments to the public sector as we have demonstrated outside. I refer to the words of the Prime Minister when he delivered this speech to the House on 25 September to put into context what this debate is really all about. He stated:
This is not a Public Service bashing exercise.
The Government did not embark on this as a matter of denigrating or, indeed, in any way bashing the Public Service. What we are saying to the Public Service is that we are going to take exactly the same attitude to the operations within government employment that we would take to employment outside. There are practices, procedures, problems and hiccups in the administration within the Public Service and we have got to free them up. We have got to facilitate a great deal more efficiency in many of the areas of Public Service administration and that is what we intend to do.
My colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), on whose behalf I act today, has had a long series of consultations with the Public Service unions over these matters. It is also true to say-I put this on record-that not all the Public Service unions and their representatives are happy with the measures being taken by the Government. They had some other ideas in these fields that they felt would have been more beneficial from their point of view as representing the employees. But the Government has to make decisions as to what it sees as being best in the organisation and the conduct of affairs within the public sector. That is what we have done. But we have not embarked on it without consultation. We have not imposed these things without consultation and without a great deal of consideration between the parties that will be affected by it and, indeed, within Cabinet. It is not the first measure that we have taken since we came to government; it is just part of a parcel of measures which is certainly going to give us a far more efficient and, as the Bill says, a far greater streamlining of the Public Service. When the Prime Minister spoke to the House on 25 September, he made the following points, which I reiterate:
The Government has decided:
Firstly, to establish an efficiency scrutiny unit, to be headed by a senior private sector representative, to undertake an extensive program of scrutiny of public sector operations.
As the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) says, Mr David Block has been selected and has the unanimous support of this House. He will look into those operations. The Prime Minister continued:
secondly, departments and agencies will, in future, be required to cut their administrative expenses each year for ongoing activities and they will be required to declare the savings so that the government of the day can decide how they can best be utilised-
that is, rather than be hypothecated by the departments themselves-
thirdly, there will be major changes in the arrangements for the redeployment or retrenchment of inefficient and surplus staff. Special protection will be retained against political victimisation. But inefficient public servants will be treated the same way as are inefficient workers in the private sector. In short, public servants are no longer immune from dismissal.
fourthly, the Government will proceed within a few months to simplify and integrate the complex job classification distinctions which currently exist in the Public Service office structure. New technology has made these distinctions obsolete. The review might well become the largest single restructuring of occupations ever undertaken in the Public Service;
fifthly, there will be a number of management changes designed to make Public Service personnel management more efficient and effective; and
sixthly, flextime will be reviewed, with the objective of eliminating abuses but maintaining the advantages of the system for both departments and employees.
They are six major factors which lie behind and which motivate the Government in the presentation of the legislation before the House today. I will turn to one factor which gives an indication of how overdue some of these measures are. In the simplification of office classification structures there are currently 71,000 keyboard, clerical assistant and clerical officers in the Australian Public Service. They are employed in 48 distinct classifications which have over 160 separate pay points. Many jobs in these structures are narrowly defined and specialised with rigid distinctions between classification groups. Some classifications are related to the operation of particular types of equipment. Departments must organise their work using only the classifications approved by the Public Service Board.
That gives honourable members a slight idea of the many problems which this Bill is aimed at overcoming. This should have the support of all honourable members of this House. There has been consultation with the unions involved, but there has not been total agreement. It is in keeping with what has motivated the Government since we came to power in March 1983; that is, to treat the public sector in exactly the same way as we treat the private sector. On that point, members of the Opposition used the opportunity they have been given today in this Bill to, once again, move on this no work as directed, no pay provision which was repealed by this Government in 1983. The moves made by this Government in any of the industrial relations field or in any of the efficiency aiming legislation such as that today is not based on confrontation. We do not see the best results emanating from any of these measures being brought about by having a total confrontation between the Government and the Public Service unions or, indeed, outside between the Government and the unions that might operate in the private sector. Unfortunately, the Opposition again sees this as an opportunity to raise this point. I will refer to the words of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in 1983 when this measure was repealed. He stated:
The justification for such legislation was to give the Commonwealth rights which, according to the then Minister, applied generally to employers in the private sector. In reality, however, the legislation placed Commonwealth employees in a different position to private sector employees. The common law rights of private employers to exercise no work as directed, no pay powers are not clear cut, particularly where employment is covered by an award of an industrial tribunal. For example, in 1980-the same year as the decision in Bennett's case-the Full Bench of the Federal Court held in what became knows as Gapes case that this power was not available to a major banking company as it was not consistent with the award concerned.
It is therefore clear that in the private sector, the ability of employers to apply the no work as directed no pay principle is constrained by the terms of applicable awards. In essence, then, this legislation created a situation where the then Government provided itself with sanctions against its own employees which were not necessarily available to all sections of the private sector and in addition it put itself in the position where its powers could not be overridden by a decision of an industrial tribunal.
Mr Willis also said in 1983:
The Government rejects such a confrontationist approach towards its own employees.
I reiterate that and repeat today on his behalf that we again reject such a confrontationist approach to industrial relations within the public sector. In addition to the matter raised by the Opposition spokesman, one other speaker in the debate raised the question of the holiday leave loading and said that perhaps this was an opportunity to put forward a view that Australians would all be better off if we did away with the 17 1/2 per cent leave loading. At the moment we are in the midst of some very important and urgent negotiations with the trade union movement in this country regarding wages. They are an extremely important arm of the economic management of this country. One would not have thought so under the Fraser Government because it allowed wages to blow out by 17 per cent in 1982. If such a situation were to emerge in 1986 we would face an inflation rate and an unemployment rate that would be totally unacceptable to the Australian people. Yet while these negotiations are under way and while it appears that we might be entering a period of adopting a totally new wage system in 1987-88, people opposite still put forward the view that one of the great saviours of this country could be the abolition of the annual leave loading. Such claims at such a time are idiotic.
Without going into all the details, the other feature of the leave loading is this: People opposite speak as though it is something completely unique to Australia, that it does not apply outside this country and, for no better reason than that, they believe its abolition is substantiated. Let me very quickly give some examples of the leave loadings that apply in other countries. Belgium has a 90 per cent leave loading, Denmark 30 per cent, France 30 per cent, Greece 50 per cent, the Netherlands 30 per cent, Norway 32 per cent, Sweden 25 per cent and Finland 50 per cent. So for some honourable members opposite to believe, as they do, that perhaps there is some great saviour in taking away the annual leave loading from the working people of this country is both economically ludicrous and politically suicidal at a time when negotiations are going on with organised labour in this country to maintain a sensible wage outcome which will allow us to put Australian industry back on its feet. So I ask honourable members opposite to rethink the stands that they are making on these questions.
In all these matters one has to make a judgment between the approach of this Government and the approach of the Opposition. If the approach of the Opposition were correct-one can only judge from its period in office between 1975 and 1983-days lost in industrial disputation under the previous Government would not have reached three times the days lost under this Government. So we had a great deal more industrial disputation under the Fraser Government with its industrial relations policy than we have under this Government. That is one way to judge it. We have less unemployment under this Government than we had under the Fraser Government. We have less inflation under this Government than we had under the Fraser Government. If honourable members opposite want a signal as to what is the key to the success of industrial relations, surely those matters are pertinent to the points that have been made?
People talked today about the growth in the Public Service and said: `This is terrible. What has happened under this Government?'. The largest growth we had recently was in the last year of the Fraser Government when the Public Service grew by over 5 per cent between June 1982 and June 1983. Most of that growth took place in the last nine months of the Fraser Government. I will tell honourable members opposite why the Public Service grew. The previous Government put 250,000 additional people out of work in its last year of office. If the Opposition, when in government, put 250,000 people out of work, it would put a lot more people back into work in the Commonwealth Employment Service and in the social security offices in trying to service the wants of the unemployed. So honourable members opposite should not talk to us about the size of the Public Service.
Indeed, the Prime Minister in his statement to the House told us that it is the aim of the Government, this financial year, to reduce the size of the Public Service by up to 2,000 people. So in every way this Bill is aimed at expressing the sentiment in the public sector that we have insisted on in the private sector. It is another move to bring greater credit to the Public Service in the way it operates, in its efficiency and in its ability. I am sure that we will be able to do just that. As I have said, perhaps in some ways this legislation goes further than a lot of the employees in the Public Service would like. But the Government has a responsibility to the Australian people, not just the Public Service. We believe that, in the long run, what we are doing in this Bill will be of considerable assistance to the Australian people.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Connolly's amendment) stand part of the question.
The House divided.
(Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. B. Mildren)
Ayes . . . . . . . . . . .
62
Noes . . . . . . . . . . .
55
——
Majority . . . . . . . . .
7
——
AYES
Baldwin, P. J.
Jakobsen, C. A.
Beddall, D. P.
Jenkins, H. A.
Blanchard, C. A.
Jones, Barry
Blewett, N.
Kent, L.
Brown, Robert
Keogh, L. J.
Brumby, J. M.
Klugman, R. E.
Campbell, G.
Lamb, A. H.
Charles, D. E.
Lee, M.
Charlesworth, R. I.
Lindsay, E. J.
Chynoweth, R. L.
McHugh, J.
Cleeland, P. R.
McLeay, Leo
Cohen, B.
Maher, M. J.
Cross, M. D.
Martin, S. P.
Cunningham, B. T. (Teller)
Mayer, H.
Dubois, S. G.
Milton, P.
Duffy, M. J.
Morris, Allan
Edwards, Ronald
Morris, Peter
Fatin, W. F.
Mountford, J. G.
Fitzgibbon, E. J.
O'Keefe, N. P.
Free, R. V.
O'Neil, L. R. T.
Gayler, J.
Punch, G. F.
Gear, G.
Scholes, G. G. D.
Gorman, R. N. J.
Scott, J. L.
Grace, E. L.
Simmons, D. W.
Griffiths, A. G.
Staples, P. R.
Hayden, W. G.
Theophanous, A. C.
Holding, A. C.
Tickner, R. E.
Hollis, C.
Uren, T.
Howe, B. L.
West, S. J.
Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)
Wright, K. W.
Hurford, C. J.
Young, M. J.
NOES
Adermann, A. E.
Katter, R. C.
Aldred, K. J.
Lloyd, B.
Andrew, J. N. (Teller)
McArthur, F. S.
Beale, J. H.
McGauran, P. J.
Blunt, C. W.
MacKellar, M. J. R.
Burr, M. A.
McVeigh, D. T.
Cadman, A. G.
Macphee, I. M.
Cameron, Donald
Miles, C. G.
Cameron, Ewen
Moore, J. C.
Carlton, J. J.
Nehl, G. B.
Cobb, M. R.
Peacock, A. S.
Coleman, W. P.
Porter, J. R.
Connolly, D. M.
Reith, P. K.
Conquest, B. J.
Robinson, Ian
Cowan, D. B.
Rocher, A. C.
Downer, A. J. G.
Ruddock, P. M.
Drummond, P. H.
Shack, P. D.
Edwards, Harry
Sharp, J.
Everingham, P. A. E.
Shipton, R. F.
Fife, W. C.
Slipper, P. N.
Fischer, Tim
Smith, W.
Goodluck, B. J.
Spender, J. M.
Hall, Steele
Tuckey, C. W.
Halverson, R. G.
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.
Jull, D. F.
PAIRS
Darling, E. E.
Dobie, J. D. M.
Duncan, P.
Hawker, D. P. M.
Price, L. R. S.
Fisher, Peter
Jacobi, R.
Cameron, Ian
Bilney, G. N.
Hunt, R. J. D.
Willis, R.
Millar, P. C.
Dawkins, J. S.
Sullivan, K. J.
Keating, P. J.
Sinclair, I. McC.
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.
Bill (on motion by Mr Young) read a third time.
Sitting suspended from 12.50 to 2 p.m.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)
—I wish to advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements: The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) will be absent from Australia on Government business from 19 to 22 November. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will act as Minister for Trade during his absence. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will not be present in the House today. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will answer questions which would normally be directed to the Attorney-General.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
AUSTRALIA CARD: TAXATION LEGISLATION
Mr CARLTON
—My question is addressed to the Acting Treasurer. Is it proposed to change the reporting requirements under the taxation legislation for banks, financial institutions, real estate agents, stockbrokers and others who are required to record new information under the identity card Bill? If so, how, and what will be the extra compliance costs for these organisations?
Mr HURFORD
—The Minister for Health has been wiping the floor with the Opposition on the subject of the Australia Card. He is the Minister responsible for the Australia Card, and that question should have been addressed to him.
WAGES POLICY
Mr FITZGIBBON
—Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the Government's wages policy following its recent discussions with the peak business councils and the Australian Council of Trade Unions?
Mr HAWKE
—I am glad to be able to answer a question on economic policy, which naturally enough would come from this side of the House. The Government believes that in the current economic circumstances it is necessary and desirable to revamp the system of wages fixation which has served this country so well in the past three years.
Mr Tuckey
—On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I draw your attention to standing order 144. We have here a request for an announcement of Government policy. Paragraph (b) of the second part of standing order 144 says that questions should not ask Ministers to announce Government policy.
Madam SPEAKER
—Order! There is no point of order. The Prime Minister has been asked for information. He is giving it.
Mr Tuckey
—Madam Speaker, on a further point of order, if the Prime Minister would sit down--
Madam SPEAKER
—The Chair will direct the Prime Minister, not the honourable member for O'Connor.
Mr Tuckey
—Madam Speaker, the question requested that Government policy be announced. If the questioner cannot get it right, that is not my fault. He did not ask for information.
Madam SPEAKER
—The question is in order. The honourable member will resume his seat.
Mr HAWKE
—In seeking to get a revamping of the system of wages fixation, the Government will seek to continue to get modest wage outcomes consistent with the capacity of the economy to pay, the need to preserve our international competitiveness and our need to maintain growth in jobs. But it is also important that it be understood that in seeking those outcomes we will be seeking a fair wages system which protects lower paid workers and their families. So in those circumstances it can be seen that the wages policy of this Government is fair, responsible and realistic.
In all those respects it stands in stark contrast to the wages policy of the Leader of the Opposition. That wages policy is nothing more nor less than hocus-pocus. It is a further example of the absolute bankruptcy of the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to economic policy. He peddles this conjurer's potion, at one and the same time talking about a decentralised wages system and a wages freeze.
The Leader of the Opposition is simply insulting the intelligence of the Australian people by believing that he can con them into accepting a proposition which talks at the same time about a decentralised wage fixing system and a wage freeze. But even more insulting than that is the fact that he is peddling himself as the champion of Australian families, when he is talking about no pay rise for Australian families for a period of 18 months. How can he be talking about himself as a champion of Australian families when he wants a wages freeze for 18 months?
I suggest to those who are looking at the Leader of the Opposition as the champion of the families that they might recall that in the past decade he has opposed any wage increase in 18 out of 20 national wage cases. On only two occasions in the past 10 years has he supported any increase in wages.
In not one area of economic management does the Leader of the Opposition have a policy which adds up. His wages policy does not add up, his fiscal policy does not add up and his family policy does not add up. I think one could say that the only thing on the Opposition side that is beginning to add up is the numbers against the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER
—I wish to make an explanation to the honourable member for O'Connor so that the matter he raised is clear. Standing order 144 says that questions should not ask Ministers to announce government policy but may seek an explanation regarding the policy of the Government.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery this afternoon a delegation from the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association led by Sir Reginald Eyre, MP. On behalf of the House I extend to the delegation a very warm welcome.
Honourable members-Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
TAXATION
Mr HOWARD
—My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, relates to the taxation position of Australian families. Is it a fact that even after the so-called income tax cuts on 1 December virtually every single income family in this country will be paying a higher proportion of its income in pay as you earn income tax than it was in March 1983 when his Government was first elected to office? Specifically, is it a fact that because of the increased average tax burden during the period of this Government, single income families on average weekly earnings are paying an additional $23 a week in tax but will receive back only $8 a week on 1 December? Is this not a reflection of this Government's record as Australia's biggest taxing peacetime Government and its disregard for the taxation impact on families? Does it not also reflect the inherent failure of the Prime Minister's attempt at taxation reform, since he has failed to lower the overall tax burden on families and the economy more generally?
Mr HAWKE
—Before I go to the tax aspect, let me make the point that follows from my answer to the previous question from this side of the House. If we are to talk about the disposable income of people in Australia, it is relevant to suggest that people should look not only at tax policies but also at wages policies. I find it difficult to believe that any Australian family will derive any comfort from a position put by a Leader of the Opposition who has the record of having on only two occasions in the past 10 years said that there was any justification for an increase in wages. That is a clear nailing of what concern the Leader of the Opposition and those behind him have for the real welfare of the people of this country. If we are to talk about the welfare of Australian families, we should also address ourselves to the fundamental question of whether Australian families will be in a position to pay any tax at all.
What was the outcome of the policies of the Leader of the Opposition when he had the responsibility for the economic management of this country? He threw hundreds of thousands of people out of work. In the last 12 months of his occupancy of the treasurership of this country an additional one-quarter of a million Australians were thrown out of work. They did not have the option at all of paying any tax because he threw them out of work. If Opposition members look at their wages policy and their overall economic policy, like an increasing number of their supporters they will be turning away from the Leader of the Opposition in droves.
Let me go through this question of tax and remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Government has already cut the lowest marginal tax rate from 30c to 25c in the dollar and, as is well known, further tax cuts will be delivered from 1 December this year and, as is embodied in legislation, from 1 July next year. In regard to the question of tax cuts, let us have it on the record once and for all that the Leader of the Opposition had some five years as Treasurer of this country and his legacy in walking out of office was to leave the highest marginal tax rates. The best he could do was to leave a top tax rate of 60c in the dollar. Under this Government it is a matter of pride that from 1 July next year the top tax rate will be 49c in the dollar and there will be significant tax rate cuts further through the schedules.
We do not deny that under the tax regime that will come in under this Government some people will be worse off. Some people will be worse off as a result of the taxation changes that we have made. The people who will be worse off should be identified. They are the people who were making greater than average use of the tax shelters and other tax avoidance devices that flourished under the Government of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the House and I remind the Leader of the Opposition again, as I have had cause to say in this House, that it was not our royal commissioner but his royal commissioner who brought down his report in 1981 in which he said that in the previous five years the fastest growing industry in this country was the tax avoidance industry. Not only did he say that but also he went on to ask who paid the price for that. He said it was the ordinary Australians who paid the price for that because the then Government did not have the guts, the wit, the courage or the wisdom to face up to the fact that it allowed tax avoidance to flourish.
The Leader of the Opposition tried to make some comparison between the tax rates at the end of his period in government and those under our Government. The Leader of the Opposition conveniently, as he does these days in relation to all matters of economic policy, overlooks an essential point in talking about changes in tax rates; that is, he deliberately overlooks the relative roles of public sector borrowing versus taxes in funding expenditure. The clear fact is that average tax rate figures at the end of the period of the Fraser Government were artificially low.
Mr Howard
—Ha, ha!
Mr HAWKE
—The Leader of the Opposition can laugh his hollow laugh. We know that all he has left is his hollow laugh; he has nothing else. The fact is that those tax rates were artificially low because of the $10 billion projected deficit that the then Treasurer chose to hand over to the incoming Government. If this Government were irresponsible, it could produce significantly lower tax rates. It could slash tax rates by another $6 1/2 billion and produce lower tax rates if it were prepared to have the same deficit with which the Opposition left this country. The simple fact is that this Government is not prepared to fund the levels of government expenditure by having an irresponsible Budget deficit blow-out like that. It has brought down the Budget deficit from the near $10 billion that Treasurer Howard bequeathed to this country to $3 1/2 billion in the 1986-87 Budget, and in the same process it has reduced the marginal tax rate from that of 60c in the dollar which he bequeathed to this country.
AUSTRALIA CARD
Dr CHARLESWORTH
—My question is directed to the Minister for Health. In view of the inaccurate, hyperbolic and at times hysterical claims and assertions of the Opposition, and indeed for the edification of honourable members opposite, can the Minister inform the House as to what safeguards will be introduced to ensure the proper protection of civil liberties in the protection of the rights of the individuals in relation to the Australia Card program?
Dr BLEWETT
—In responding to the question from the honourable member for Perth, I think it is ironic to note that the sudden converts to the privacy principle on the Opposition benches have not in any single speech on the Australia Card Bill or in any question asked in this House concerned themselves once with the privacy protections embedded in the Australia Card Bill and the associated privacy legislation.
Mr Porter
—That is a lie.
Madam SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member for Barker will withdraw that comment.
Mr Porter
—I withdraw.
Dr BLEWETT
—In the Australia Card Bill we have tried to secure a balance between the need to protect the interests of the community by preventing tax evasion and welfare fraud and the need to preserve the rights of the individual to privacy and civil liberties.
In the measures that came before the House-as I said, on which we had no discussion-there are three elements to that protection: Firstly, the Data Protection Agency; secondly, the accompanying privacy legislation; and, thirdly, the actual safeguards written into the Australia Card Bill. The establishment of a Data Protection Agency is to provide for the first time an effective monitor not only of the activities of the authority in relation to the Australia Card but also of the use of all databanks by government in this society. That Agency will have the power to review the decisions taken by the Health Insurance Commission in its role as the Australia Card authority. It will have the power to issue guidelines to ensure that information that is kept on the Register is accurate and confidential. It will have the power to inquire into complaints that the guidelines have been breached. It will have the power to supervise the way in which the authority keeps the Register. It will have the power to publish a record of all Commonwealth databanks containing personal information; that is, it will have a series of major functions, to monitor not just the Australia Card but also the databanks held by government.
In addition, accompanying the Australia Card legislation was the privacy legislation which is the first comprehensive regulation in Australia for handling personal information to protect privacy. Though proposals were before the previous Government, in eight years nothing was done to bring forward privacy legislation. This privacy legislation of the Commonwealth will give the lead to the States. It will substantially implement the important recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission which are published in its privacy report, and it will provide a practical and workable code for protecting privacy principles in this country.
But that is not the end of the protections provided. In the Australia Card Bill particular protections in relation to privacy are enshrined. The Bill makes quite clear what are the details of the Australia Card and the only material that will be permitted on the Australia Card Register. In addition, every citizen of this country will have free access once every year to the information contained on him within that Register. The users of the Australia Card and all those eligible to make requests of it are defined in the Bill. The Bill makes it clear that there is no obligation to carry the card.
Furthermore, the Bill makes it quite clear that no further use for the Australia Card can be introduced except with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Clear offences are prescribed in the legislation. Any unauthorised request for the card leads to a $5,000 fine, or two years imprisonment, or both. Any unauthorised access to the Register leads to a $5,000 fine or imprisonment for two years, or both; and any unauthorised disclosure of information from the Register involves the same penalty. Again, specifically built into the Bill are those particular provisions. Thus we believe that, with minimal comment from anyone on the other side, we have introduced the most broad-ranging and effective safeguards ever in this country to protect the individual's privacy. I will quote again because these people on the other side are not prepared to listen to the comments of those who are really interested in this issue-
Mr Porter
—No one believes you; not a soul believes you.
Madam SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting.
Dr BLEWETT
—The credibility of the honourable member for Barker on this issue is so shot to pieces that I am surprised that he even bothers to interject. But I will quote to him what Professor Whalan said about what we were doing. He said:
If we do have an Australia Card, it is vital I believe that we have both very carefully circumscribed limits on its use and a protective body with similar independence to that possessed by the Ombudsman.
Mr Spender
—He was on the Privacy Committee.
Dr BLEWETT
—Professor Whalan went on to say:
Perhaps one irony would be that if we do have an Australia Card with all those protections . . . our privacy may be better protected than it is now.
The honourable member for North Sydney has interjected about membership of the Privacy Committee. I would point out that Professor Robert Hayes, who is a member of the Law Reform Commission inquiring into privacy, supports the protections embedded in this Bill. Professor Whalan went on to say:
On the one hand a person's privacy ought to be protected, but on the other hand-
and I suggest the Opposition listen to this-
an individual citizen ought not to be able to use the shield of privacy to defraud the state or anyone else.
That is precisely the position the Opposition has now taken up, because it refuses to make a balance between the needs of the community and the needs of the individual. The Opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition, in fact is claiming that people have a right to defraud the community. Honourable members opposite are cynically distorting the language of civil libertarians for that particular purpose. In seven years they did nothing about privacy legislation and they now pretend to be the great advocates of privacy.
INTEREST RATES
Mr HOWARD
—I refer the Prime Minister to the comments made last week by Mr Bob White, the Managing Director of the Westpac Banking Corporation and the former chairman of the Business Council of Australia, that the Australian economy is in more serious trouble now than at any time during the 46 years of his working life and that this situation will be made worse by the Government's additional tax imposts and its high interest rate policies. In view of the fact that the present level of the Australian dollar is essentially underpinned by the action of the Reserve Bank of Australia and our appallingly high interest rate structure, I ask the Prime Minister: When will the Government's professed Budget strategy of achieving a substantial and sustained reduction in Australian interest rates, including home loan interest rates, be achieved?
Mr HAWKE
—I am glad that this question has been asked by the Leader of the Opposition. It puts any criticism of this Government in the mouth of Mr Bob White and therefore it is interesting to look at the position of the banks in Australia. Before the decision that was taken by this Government-a decision which honourable members opposite would have taken if they had had any commitment to principle at all and any courage to open up and make a more competitive position; they never had the guts, the courage, the wit or the wisdom to do so-honourable members opposite allowed to flourish in this country the most sheltered banking system anywhere in the Western world, with the highest profit rates of any banking system in the world, and they did not have the courage to do anything about it. Now what has happened is that the cosseted, comforted, confined, protected banking industry in this country has now been opened up to the severe wind of competition, and it does not particularly like it. Now that Australian banks are forced to live in a more competitive environment they are blaming this Government for their relatively static performance. It simply does not wash.
Let us look at the criticisms that Mr White made. He made a criticism about the interest rate ceiling on the pre-package home loans. In regard to that particular part of his criticisms the facts are simple, straightforward and not capable of being argued with. There was a discussion, a negotiation, between this Government and the banks, including Mr White's bank, and the banks were compensated by a subsidy to the tune of $140m as part of that housing package. They criticise it now, but at the time-I believe, quite understandably-that package with its $140m subsidy was perfectly acceptable to the banks. It was agreed to; it was welcomed by them. Now they criticise it to some extent. May I say that the regular information which has been provided by the banks since the package does not show any reduction in margins with respect to housing loans. The same gentleman, Mr White, went on to make criticisms of the fringe benefits tax. Let me say simply that this Government will not be diverted from bringing equity, fairness and economic efficiency into the tax system of this country by the whinges and the whines of the Bob Whites of this world. We simply do not accept the criticism of Mr White about the fringe benefits tax because, as an increasing proportion of the people of this country are coming to realise, the fringe benefits tax is a vital element of the tax reform package aimed at remedying the disastrous situation which honourable members opposite inflicted on this country, and we will not be moving away from it.
It is a pity that, in the process of criticising this Government's tax reform package, Mr White did not have the common decency to refer to the very significant advantages that the business community stands to gain from the tax reform package. I refer particularly to full imputation. Full imputation was something that the business community, including the banking community, had been talking about for years in this country. But it never looked like getting that sensible reform from that pathetic mob opposite. Full imputation, which we have brought in in regard to company tax, is one of the most far-reaching measures of assistance to business ever introduced in this country.
Let me say in regard to the question of interest rates that the Leader of the Opposition knows, when he lapses into the occasional moments of realism and departs from the almost total cynicism and opportunism which characterises his conduct these days, that because of the massive turnaround in the terms of trade that was inflicted on this country, responsible economic management required a monetary policy which was relevant to that condition. No government likes to have a monetary policy regime which means high interest rates. But, in the circumstances inflicted upon this country, such a regime, such a policy, was necessary to protect and advance the interests of this country. What is increasingly becoming evident is that that range of economic policies is having its impact. There has been some decline in interest rates in the last two months. We will not interrupt that flow of forces which we believe, if allowed to operate, will mean that as we go through into 1987 there will be a gradual lowering in the interest rate regime in this country. But we will not prejudice that outcome by artificially speculating on timetables on what we consider will inevitably happen in that area.
COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY
Mr TICKNER
—I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Australia recently put forward to the General Assembly of the United Nations a proposal for a comprehensive test ban treaty. What support or opposition did that proposal receive? Could the Minister evaluate the outcome of the initiative?
Mr HAYDEN
—The Government certainly did put forward such a proposal. In association with New Zealand we promoted a resolution for a comprehensive test ban treaty. This Australia-New Zealand resolution received the highest number of positive votes of all five resolutions put forward on that subject. It received 117 votes and its supporters included the majority of Western non-nuclear states, as well as the Soviet Union and its allies. Twenty-six countries co-sponsored the Australian text, including Sweden, Canada, Japan and Papua New Guinea. Only one country voted against it and that was France. The second Australian resolution called on the nuclear testing states to make public each test and provide certain data, including the size of the test and the geology of the test site. This was a new initiative and the resolution received 107 positive votes. Only one country-France-opposed the resolution. In short, the Australian Government has demonstrated once again that it is taking a lead in the area of arms control and disarmament and that it is able to mobilise extensive international support for the initiatives it is taking. As a consequence, Australia is a voice that is respected and listened to-in fact it is regarded as a leading voice on the issue of arms control and disarmament internationally.
AUSTRALIA CARD
Mr PORTER
—The Minister for Health has laid great emphasis on the role that the digitised strip will play in maintaining the integrity of the ID card. But the Minister has now made it clear that clause 36 certificates will be a substitute in many transactions for the ID card. Will the Minister confirm that these certificates will not have a photograph or a digitised strip on them and as a mere piece of paper they will be easily forged or duplicated? How then will the integrity of the certificate be maintained?
Dr BLEWETT
—If the honourable member for Barker would bother to read the Bill he would see the outline of the details in relation to the verification certificates. Of course such certificates will not contain a photograph. They will simply be verification by a responsible member of the community that that person has seen the photograph and identified the person and the number. This question illustrates the confusion of the Opposition. We have the honourable member for Gwydir running around the countryside saying that things will be so terrible for farmers that they will have to take their cows, sheep and dogs and have them certified in Sydney. On the other hand the honourable member for Barker is saying that things will be so loose that any farmer can easily collect this kind of certificate.
Opposition members interjecting-
Dr BLEWETT
—When the barking has stopped I will re-emphasise the point that I have made throughout in responding to the sorts of questions put by the honourable member for Barker and the rather silly comments made by the honourable member for Gwydir. I suppose he has to prove the dedication of his conversion to opposition to the Australia Card. Between these extreme statements made by the honourable member for Barker and the honourable member for Gwydir, the Government has to take a reasonable position which will ensure security but at the same time make it possible for people who find it difficult--
Mr Porter
—What security is there in a piece of paper?
Madam SPEAKER
—I warn the honourable member for Barker; I will not put up with his ceaseless interjections.
Dr BLEWETT
—While maintaining the security of the card we must deal with those very real problems faced by some people who have difficulties of mobility or distance.
PRICES SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY
Mr GEAR
—Has the Acting Treasurer seen reports that the Opposition intends to abolish the Prices Surveillance Authority? Would he inform the House of the effect of such a move on price restraint in this country?
Mr HURFORD
—I have seen these reports; they are incredible, but I believe them to be true. I suppose it is not surprising that, in one of the few areas that the Opposition has given the Australian people the courtesy of announcing a policy, it is such a stupid one which runs against the interests of all Australians, including Australian families. The policy deserves to be totally rejected and the Australian people will totally reject it. As our Government undertakes the fundamental changes for the greater competitiveness that is needed if we are to stay on the job growth path, then restraint is vital. Restraint to the Opposition is only restraint for wages and salaries. I make it clear that restraint for the Government is restraint across the board-it is restraint in dividends and it applies to price makers as well, those who have the power of setting prices.
The Prices Surveillance Authority does very valuable work in restraining prices. Its work is mainly to ensure that there is real competition because true competition achieves the objective of the lowest possible prices. However, there are areas in which there are monopolies and oligopolies, and those situations need to be further examined. That is where the Authority's work is also effective.
Mr Hodgman
—Come on, you are putting the Gallery to sleep.
Mr HURFORD
—The Gallery does not need to learn what a monopoly is; only dummies like you need to learn that.
Mr Hodgman
—You hopeless idiot!
Madam SPEAKER
—I warn the honourable member for Denison. If he continues to interject the Chair will deal with him.
Mr HURFORD
—To abolish this valuable tool of fairness and restraint would be scandalous. Like the Opposition's wages policy, this proposal is an invitation to further inflation. I wish to thank Mrs Hilda Rolfe, the chairperson of the Prices Surveillance Authority, and other members and staff for the very good work they are doing. There are numerous examples of the Authority restraining prices. In the last few months it has linked with the Trade Practices Commission and built up a complaints mechanism recording complaints about prices. Mrs Rolfe and her colleagues have lifted the profile of the Authority enormously over those months. Such is the demand for information from the Authority that Mrs Rolfe now speaks to two million Australians on talkback radio each week.
Mr Carlton
—What about you, Scoop?
Mr HURFORD
—I am speaking to many of them regularly as well-and very valuably, too. I tell honourable members that it is better to be a big scoop than a little twerp! This exchange of information about prices is very valuable indeed and it helps to make the work of price restraint much more effective. In that context I wish to thank the honourable member for Canning and many of his colleagues on this side of the House for the work that they are doing in setting up price watch committees. I also wish to thank them for their interest in the Prices Surveillance Authority, because, through the work of the Caucus prices task force, we are also lifting the profile of the Prices Surveillance Authority. I also wish to thank the honourable member for Capricornia for the work that he does on the Caucus consumer affairs committee. He is also helping to get value for money and he is a valuable part of the fight against inflation.
Opposition members interjecting-
Mr HURFORD
—Honourable members opposite do not like hearing this. I will let the House into a secret. I would like price restraint work to be parliamentary work and not just Caucus work. We would all like it to be effective parliamentary work, but how can that be when we have this myopic attitude to this beneficial work on prices that is being done at present? All we get from the Opposition is a pathetic Press release on prices from the Leader of the Opposition last weekend, and we cannot put any credibility on that because members of the Opposition have no policy at all to address prices. I condemn them for not joining us in this anti-inflationary work and I condemn them for their policy of abolishing the Prices Surveillance Authority.
AUSTRALIA CARD
Mr SHARP
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. I remind him of the many distinguished and knowledgeable Australians such as Mr Justice Kirby and Mr Frank Costigan, QC-the latter dedicated to the elimination of tax evasion in all its forms-who have come out in opposition to the Australia Card. Will the Minister agree that these individuals, particularly the two I have just named, are as well placed as he is to make a judgment on the utility of the card and the dangers inherent in it? In fact, will the Minister not concede that Mr Costigan's understanding of the use and misuse of a computerised system for identification purposes would far exceed his own and that indeed Mr Costigan's knowledge on this subject is unique in Australia?
Dr BLEWETT
—I would prefer in fact to rely on the members of this House, on both sides, who have actively supported the need for a national identification system and on the Commissioner of Taxation who has to make that system work. We are now in the position of having had a select committee report from all parties in this Parliament which, while it did not support the particular proposals of the Government, did support a national identification system based on tax file numbers. That group supported a national identification system.
The Standing Committee on Expenditure, which recently reviewed the Australian Taxation Office, concluded that the Australian Taxation Office needed to take steps to establish a high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance. So, a second body of this Parliament believes in the need for a national identification system, at least in relation to the tax system.
Of course, there are the comments of the man who actually has to work the system, that is, the Commissioner, and I value those very highly indeed as coming from somebody who really understands the problems of taxation in this society. What the Opposition at some time has to tell the people of Australia is why it has turned its back on all those proposals-not just the Australia Card, but every proposal for an effective taxation identification system in this country.
MALABAR RIFLE RANGE
Mr GORMAN
—My question is to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. Is the Government about to sell the existing rifle range at Malabar? If so, will the Government make another site available suitable to be used by the many thousands of shooters in the Sydney area?
Mr UREN
—The Government has made a decision that the rifle range at Malabar is surplus to its requirements, and the decision was to dispose of it in this financial year. Arising out of that decision, I wrote to the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment, Bob Carr, asking him to prepare a land use plan for the area. The land use plan is under way. There has been an interim verbal report.
The Minister said that there are problems with the site in that there has been a great deal of infill because it was used as a garbage tip many years ago and that, therefore, there will be problems with construction on the site. Also, in October I was notified by the Australian Heritage Commission that, of the 140 hectare site, 80 hectares to the east and west of the rifle range had been nominated for a place on the Register of the National Estate.
I am awaiting the land use report from the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment. When we get that report the Australian Government, together with the New South Wales Government, local government, community groups and, I might say, the local member, who is the Deputy Prime Minister, will discuss the final disposal of that property.
AUSTRALIA CARD
Mr DOWNER
—Is the Minister for Health aware that a variety of false identity cards with photographs can be purchased in Times Square in New York for just $6 each and that there are already claims in Australia that the Australian identity card could be forged adequately for as little as $20 a card? With that information, and knowing that the digital strip will be illegible to the private sector, on what basis does the Minister disagree with the United States Justice Department's view that `organised crime would take advantage of any national identity system because of the presumption of validity surrounding such a large system'?
Dr BLEWETT
—If the honourable member for Mayo had really devoted his researches into the particular identification card problems of the United States he would recognise that that country's problem, which is admitted, is that it has a de facto identification card-it has developed out of its social security number essentially-and, therefore, has never had built in the security protections that are being proposed for the Australia Card number. I can say with complete confidence that the Australia Card, incorporating state of the art technology, will be incomparably more secure than any financial or identity card currently in use in Australia, and it is our belief that it will be more secure than the cards used in any other national identification system in the world.
AUSTRALIAN AUDIT OFFICE
Madam SPEAKER
—I present the annual report by the Auditor-General of the Australian Audit Office for 1985-86.
Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to:
(1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the annual report by the Auditor-General of the Australian Audit Office for 1985-86, and
(2) That the report be printed.
DEPARTMENT OF TERRITORIES
Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories)
—Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Territories for 1985-86.
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ARCHITECTS BOARD
Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories)
—Pursuant to section 39a of the Architects Ordinance 1959 and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Architects Board for 1985-86.
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY MILK AUTHORITY
Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories)
—For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Milk Authority of the Australian Capital Territory for 1985-86.
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SURVEYORS BOARD
Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories)
—For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Surveyors Board for 1985-86.
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION
Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)
—Pursuant to sub-section 102 (3) of the Postal Services Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Postal Commission for 1985-86.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr HUNT(Gwydir)
—I claim to have been misrepresented.
Madam SPEAKER
—You should seek leave to make a personal explanation, then I ask you whether you claim to have been misrepresented.
Mr HUNT
—Madam Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Health in one of his more excitable moments. I did not say that every time a farmer has to sell a consignment of cattle or whatever, he will have to identify himself in Sydney. To put the record straight, I will quote what I did say. Do you mind if I quote to put the record straight?
Madam SPEAKER
—So long as it is not a page and a half.
Mr HUNT
—My Press release said:
The card would have to be presented when a farmer sold produce to a marketing authority or agency.
In the presence of the Minister, I said here last week:
Primary producers will need to present the card before they can deal with marketing authorities or agencies. When farmers realise this they will go off their heads. This will be an incredible bureaucratic problem for agents and farmers and, if I am any judge, we will see an increase in commission by agents to try to cope with the bureaucratic requirements in this clause of the Bill.
That is clause 43 (1).
Mr PORTER(Barker)
—I also seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr PORTER
—I do, again, by the Minister for Health.
Madam SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
Mr PORTER
—I raise with you, firstly, that the Minister for Health continually misrepresents a number of my colleagues on this side and me. He seems to be unable to tell the truth. Is there any action we can take at the time at which he makes-
Madam SPEAKER
—No. Would you mind resuming your seat for a moment? You have risen to make a personal explanation and I will hear that in just a moment. When someone in this House has the call and is debating, answering a question or whatever, there is no way in which you can make a personal explanation then. You must wait until after the presentation of papers or, if it is urgent, the nearest possible time.
Mr Donald Cameron
—Even if he is telling lies?
Madam SPEAKER
—Would you stop interjecting? That is what I am getting to. You cannot sit in your seat consistently interjecting on whoever has the call from the Chair, because in doing so you put yourself outside the Standing Orders under which you are supposed to heed the Chair. Would you like to proceed with your personal explanation?
Mr PORTER
—I would, thank you. It is just that when one is so grossly misrepresented one seeks a way to try to remedy the problem at the time.
Madam SPEAKER
—You have the floor now.
Mr PORTER
—On two occasions during Question Time the Minister for Health misrepresented a number of my colleagues and me.
Madam SPEAKER
—You must speak only for yourself.
Mr PORTER
—And all members of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. The recommendations, firstly, of the Joint Select Committee referred to a national--
Madam SPEAKER
—Could I just interrupt for a moment? You must tell the House where you personally were misrepresented, not where your colleagues or your Committee were misrepresented-only where you, the honourable member for Barker, were personally misrepresented.
Mr PORTER
—I have been personally misrepresented by the Minister for Health, who has stated that I, in signing the Joint Select Committee report on the identification card, supported a national identification system. The recommendation relating to tax file numbers related only to tax file numbers for the purposes of the Australian Taxation Office and did not relate to a national identification system. Secondly, the Minister claimed in an earlier answer during Question Time that I and a number of honourable members on this side of the House had not raised the grave civil liberties concerns that we have in relation to the ID card. I quote only two sentences of my speech last Thursday, when I said:
. . . this system provides unparalleled opportunities for government abuse of personal confidential information.
I went on to say:
These are significant issues which are of enormous concern, not only to the Opposition but also to many Government members who obviously oppose the ID card.
We dealt in detail with the civil liberties concerns that the Opposition and many members of the public have. It is quite wrong for the Minister to come in here--
Madam SPEAKER
—Do not debate the issue, please. You have already pointed out--
Mr PORTER
—And mislead the House by suggesting that we had not done so.
Madam SPEAKER
—You must not debate the issue. You have already pointed out where you have been misrepresented, that is enough.
Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)
—I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr SPENDER
—Yes, I do.
Madam SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
Mr SPENDER
—The Minister for Health, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Perth (Mr Charlesworth), said this:
In responding to the question from the honourable member for Perth, I think it is ironic to note that the sudden converts to the privacy principle on the Opposition benches have not in any single speech on the Australia Card Bill--
Madam SPEAKER
—Order! Where is the honourable member personally misrepresented?
Mr SPENDER
—I am coming to that. I have to put it in context so it can be understood. The quote continues:
. . . or in any question asked in this House concerned themselves once with the privacy protections embedded in the Australia Card Bill and the associated privacy legislation.
This is untrue and it is known to the Minister to be untrue.
Madam SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Minister for Health did not personally attack the honourable member for North Sydney.
Mr Spender
—He misrepresented my speech.
Madam SPEAKER
—It was a general comment he made. The honourable member for North Sydney was not mentioned by the Minister for Health.
Mr Spender
—He said that none of us had raised this question.
Madam SPEAKER
—The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member was not personally misrepresented.
Mr Spender
—I take a point of order. The point of order is that he has said: `Not one of the speakers'. I was one of the speakers on the Australia Card Bill and I was the lead speaker for the Opposition on the other Bill.
Madam SPEAKER
—You were not personally misrepresented. You will please resume your seat.
Mr Spender
—He misrepresented my statement, and he did so deliberately knowing that it was quite untrue.
Madam SPEAKER
—Resume your seat, please. The honourable member has not been personally misrepresented.
Mr Donald Cameron
—Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Are you saying that one can generalise when one lies, but one cannot lie specifically?
Madam SPEAKER
—Order! What I am saying is what is clearly expressed within the Standing Orders. Would you like me to read them to the House? The honourable member must show where he or she personally has been misrepresented.
Mr Carlton
—Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. What redress does an honourable member have when there is a general smear, and inaccurate remarks are made by a Minister in this manner?
Madam SPEAKER
—The honourable member has been in this House long enough to know that people from either side of the House consistently attack politics and policies of the parties. The only alternative you have is to reply in the next debate. It has applied in this House for over 50 years that in a personal explanation you must show where you personally have been misrepresented, not where your party or the Opposition has been misrepresented; it is where you personally have been misrepresented. If you want something different from that, I suggest you go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and put the matter before it. It is no good expecting the Chair always to sort out the problems into which the House gets itself, when it does not have the courage to alter its Standing Orders and to make them more precise.
Mr Young
—I suggest to the House that there will be a three hour debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure next Tuesday night. I tell all the wimps opposite to get up next Tuesday night and give us their views and I will take them into very serious consideration.
Madam SPEAKER
—I hope that the members of the House do this. If you go back to your rooms and read the standing order and House of Representatives Practice explaining the standing order, you will find that a misrepresentation must be personal. There are probably occasions when it has not been-if fact, I know of occasions when I have sat here myself-but on the whole you must stick to where you personally have been misrepresented.
Mr Carlton
—Madam Speaker, with respect, the Minister did not say `the Opposition', he said: `No single speaker who has spoken in the debate'.
Madam SPEAKER
—He did not mention a name.
Mr Carlton
—That singled out a series of people individually. I personally was offended by that. It was untrue and he should not be allowed to get away with it.
Madam SPEAKER
—I understand your problem, but you must put into effect Standing Orders to cover these eventualities.
Mr Tuckey
—Madam Speaker, I seek your guidance. Is it therefore permissible for me to call these people a mob of liars, but not to call an honourable member a liar?
Madam SPEAKER
—No, that is unparliamentary language, so you would not get away with it.
PETITIONS
The Clerk
—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:
Closure of Post Office Agencies
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities.
They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport.
We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Beale,Mr Burr,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Carlton,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker.
Anzac Rifle Range, Malabar
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 Carlton,Mr Cowan,Mr Fife,Mr Hicks and Mr Punch.
Radioactive Substances
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 Hollis,Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott.
Fringe Benefits Tax
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds:
1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors.
2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes.
3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance.
4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community.
We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Blunt and Mr Fife.
Fringe Benefits Tax
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds:
1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors.
2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes.
3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance.
4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community.
5. We also feel it is morally wrong for one person to be forced to pay the taxes for another.
We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Hawker.
Fringe Benefits Tax
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds:
1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person.
2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal government departments.
3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats.
4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay.
5. The FBT laws are extremely complex.
We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Hicks.
Fringe Benefits Tax
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth:
That the anomalous Fringe Benefits tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that-
it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms,
by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive,
it has caused unemployment,
it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits tax legislation.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Ian Cameron.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government.
The humble petition of the undersigned showeth:
That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme;
That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are `relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses'.
That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fife and Mr Wilson.
Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre
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:
(1) that the phasing down and eventual closure of the services of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centre at Glen Waverley will be detrimental to the rehabilitation of disabled Australian citizens;
(2) that the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre is `purpose' built and its loss would deprive disabled Australian citizens of a unique multi-million dollar facility;
(3) that the essential accommodation for disabled Australian citizens will no longer be available.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:
(1) that the phasing down of the services of the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre be reversed immediately;
(2) that the one-hundred-and-four-bed residential facility be fully utilised immediately;
(3) that sufficient funding is provided by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services to operate the Centre at full capacity.
And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.
by Mr Aldred.
National Flag
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that:
1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag.
2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely:
The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law.
The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space.
The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901.
3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war.
4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism.
5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community.
Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Blunt.
Peaceful Relations with People
To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled to Petition of Peace your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government is more committed in establishing peaceful relations with the People within and outside of Australia.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Connolly.
Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries
To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, members of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Unions, shows:
We believe that Australia needs a strong and vigorous manufacturing industry. The Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industries make up 10% of our manufacturing industry.
Manufacturing needs TCF.
Your petitioners therefore pray, that you reject the IAC's recommendations for the TCF Industries and accept the TCF Unions Alternative Plan.
by Mr Hand.
Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries
To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, members of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Unions, shows-
we reject the proposal of the IAC to cut protection to a 50% tariff
we reject the IAC's projection that 20,000 jobs will be lost. We say it will be more like 60,000 jobs.
we reject the IAC's view that we will find new jobs without assistance to retrain
we reject the IAC's finding that 60,000 jobs will be created in mining, agriculture and elsewhere
Your petitioners therefore pray, that you will reject the IAC's recommendations for the TCF Industries and accept the TCF Unions Alternative Plan.
by Mr Hand.
Australian Bill of Rights Bill
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights;
That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education;
That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate;
That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum.
Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law.
by Mr Hawker.
Fuel Prices
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows:
That the Hawke Government should;
1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices;
2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes, and
3. Maintain its tax cut commitments.
Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Hawker.
Taxation
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation and 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 Hawker.
Pensions: Assets Test
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Hawker.
Family Allowances and Spouse Rebate
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows:
Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child.
All family allowances, whether for one, two, three or more children, have not kept pace with inflation.
There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child.
There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit.
Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should:
ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and
reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate;
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
by Mr Hawker.
National Flag
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas:
1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag.
2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely:
(a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law;
(b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth;
(c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901.
3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war.
4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism.
5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community.
Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Hawker.
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
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 Hollis.
Nuclear Free Zones
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.
Summerland Point Post Office, New South Wales
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 the Summerland Point Post Office recently closed at short notice by Australia Post should be reopened.
2. This Post Office has serviced a community consisting mainly of the aged and young families with small children who are now faced with a five kilometre journey to the nearest Post Office.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ask the Minister for Communications not to deny the 800 permanent residents of Summerland Point on Lake Macquarie the use of a Post Office.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Lee.
National Flag
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:
They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag.
Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give 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 McArthur.
Australian Constitution
To the Honourable the Leader and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with mismanagement of the Otway forests in Victoria, and we pray that:
The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant public expressions of concern, e.g. petitions by some action, e.g. referendums or committees of inquiry.
by Mr McArthur.
Nuclear Test Ban
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that-
(1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and
(2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until 6 August this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program.
Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Milton.
Superannuation
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth:
That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and
That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operation Standards for Superannuation schemes.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government:
1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice.
2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union.
3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for-
preservation of benefits to retirement
vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale
equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investment.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Shack.
First International Earth Repair Year
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out:
That deterioration of the total global environment is continuing at an increasing rate; that important environmental resources vital to human livelihood such as trees, soil and water are decreasing at an alarming rate; that there is a need for educating all people to assume a greater responsibility for the conservation, sustainable use and maintenance of vital resources; that dynamic and active initiatives are needed to conserve and renew the total environment; and that protecting, conserving and repairing the Earth can unite all people and nations in co-operative action for survival.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will: Propose to the United Nations General Assembly at its 41st Session in September 1986 that 1988 be proclaimed the ``First International Earth Repair Year''.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
by Mr Shipton.
Conditions of Service and the Remuneration for Australian Defence Forces Personnel
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 serving members of the Australian Defence Forces are frustrated and disillusioned at the continuing erosion of their conditions of employment, benefits and entitlements traditionally provided in recognition of the burdens placed on themselves and their families by service in the Defence Forces;
2. that the Government's decision to discount by 2 per cent the retirement benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces has broken a trust that should exist between servicemen and the Government concerning the financial security of themselves and their families in retirement;
3. that the Government's decision to discount the retirement benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces has seriously lowered the morale and commitment of servicemen and will further increase the number of experienced servicemen leaving the Defence Forces.
Your petitioners humbly pray that you establish or expedite reviews of conditions, salary, allowances, entitlements and benefits for servicemen and reverse the decision to discount by 2% retirement benefits for servicemen.
by Mr Webster.
Secondary Allowances
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Western Australia call on the Commonwealth Government to reverse recent decisions which deny Secondary Allowances to Year 11 Students under the age of 16 years and make such allowances directly payable to students on attaining the age of 16.
This request is made on the basis that:
(i) Education benefits as part of income support benefits generally are a Commonwealth responsibility under the constitution.
(ii) It is the right of parents with children in Year 11 in Western Australia to receive the same benefits as parents with children at the equivalent stage of their education in other parts of Australia irrespective of their age.
(iii) This decision by the Commonwealth Government will impact most unfairly on the capacity of low income families in Western Australia to keep their children at school in Years 11 and 12.
(iv) Direct payment of the allowance to 16 years olds will make it easier for young people to leave home and bring more pressure on State Authorities to find alternative accommodation for them at the community and taxpayers' expense.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Blanchard.
Taxation: Capital Gains
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that:
Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community.
Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to:
Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
by Mr Blunt.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Regional Stations
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Maranoa respectfully showeth that:
The ABC proposes to abolish certain country programmes from regional stations.
Such action will disadvantage those country listeners who only have the benefit of one radio station.
Regional stations broadcast entertainment and topics of local interest and any reduction in these programmes will undoubtedly inconvenience those listeners in the more remote and isolated areas of the state.
Talk back shows and the Hospital Hour are only two such programmes which it is thought are to be abolished.
Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to:
Approach the ABC requesting that they reconsider their proposal to adopt the above and that commonsense prevail in ensuring that those listeners who reside in country areas are not disregarded.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Ian Cameron.
Ayers Rock
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Parkes electorate respectfully showeth that:
Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985.
Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner.
Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia.
Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia.
Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset.
Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to:
Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Cobb.
Tertiary Education Administration Fee
To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
We the humble petitioners at Warrnambool Institute Student Union, in the Federal electorate of Wannon respectfully showeth:
That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system;
That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education;
That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all;
We the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Hawker.
Uranium Sales to France
To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell Uranium to France, against ALP policy.
The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell uranium to France.
by Mr Milton.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Staff Elected Director
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The petition of the undersigned who are staff of the ABC and the SBS respectfully showeth that: The proposed legislation to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS, together with certain existing provisions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (as amended), would have the effect of removing the present Staff Elected Director of the ABC from office before the end of his elected term, and of barring him from standing for re-election. This offends basic democratic principle.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Government will remedy this situation by either, continuing the current Staff Elected Director in office until the normal expiration of his term on 15 December 1987 or, making such amendments as are necessary to the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Act 1986, to enable the current Staff Elected Director to contest an early election after amalgamation, whilst preventing him from seeking a further term immediately following the one for which the early election is held.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
by Mr Milton.
Petitions received.GOVERNMENT'S HOUSING, INTEREST RATE AND TAXATION POLICIES
Discussion of Matter of Public Importance
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay)
—Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The impact on living standards for hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians caused by the failure of the Government's housing, interest rate and relevant taxation policies.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-
Mr BEALE(Deakin)(3.04)
—The Government's housing, interest rate and taxation policies have failed. The failure of these policies is now causing hardship and affecting the living standards of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians. The failure of these policies is causing hardship to ordinary Australians in the following ways: Firstly, it has meant that housing interest rates have climbed sharply and hence home loan repayments are significantly higher than before; secondly, the rental market in Australia has deteriorated sharply with rents increasing at an alarming rate and vacancy levels going down; and thirdly, there has been the massive increase in public housing waiting lists around Australia. The increase in public housing waiting lists from about 125,000 at the end of June 1985 to 151,000 at the end of June 1986 is a savage indictment of the Government's inability to deal with our nationwide housing crisis and yet another example of how this Government's policies are affecting the disadvantaged in our society.
My colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) will speak in this matter of public importance on the crisis in the rental market. But I now want to return to the failure of the Government's interest rate policy and the impact it is having on the living standards of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has for months been saying that the direction that housing takes will depend on the direction of interest rates. Let us take for example, what he said on the Today program this morning. He said:
I am also as certain as I can be that we have got the economic parameters in place which will be conducive to a fall in general interest rates over the next few quarters.
He went on to say:
Now, of course, there is a small blip here and there.
Whatever that means. But the Minister acknowledges that the level of housing interest rates is the key factor in determining the future of housing. What has happened to home loan interest rates since the Hawke Government came to power? I regret that today is not tomorrow because it was two years ago tomorrow when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said to the nation:
Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months.
We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds, in the very near future we will harvest the crop.
What has happened to home loan interest rates since then? They were at 11 1/2 per cent when the current Government came to power; by March 1985 they had climbed to 12 per cent; by October of that year they were up 13 1/2 per cent; when the April package came out they were up to 15 1/2 per cent; and yesterday, when the National Australia Bank Ltd announced it would increase home loan interest rates for certain customers, they went up to 17 1/2 per cent. So much for harvesting the crop. In two miserable, horrible years home loan interest rates have risen from 11 1/2 per cent to 17 1/2 per cent. No wonder the coalition brings this matter of public importance to the House today.
But what does this increase in interest rates mean for the living standards of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians? It means simply that ordinary Australians have to pay more in home loan repayments than they did two years ago. Let us take, for example, an average $50,000 loan necessary to buy a modest house in suburban Australia. The monthly repayments on a $50,000 loan two years ago were $510 a month; by October they had climbed to $550 a month; by February 1986 they had climbed to $580 a month; when the April package came out they had gone to $660 a month; and today they are at $740 a month. Home loan repayments on a $50,000 loan repayable over 25 years have increased from $510 a month two years ago to $740 a month today. What a disaster for hundreds and thousands of ordinary Australians. This increase of $230 a month over that two- year period is an increase of 45 per cent. The Minister should not say `Oh, well, only a few people are affected by this', because for older home loans the increase has gone from $510 a month to $580 a month. That 12 per cent increase occurred in one year. Not only the Minister thinks that the future of housing is totally bound up with the future of interest rates. In this morning's Age the Chief Manager of the Westpac Banking Corporation said:
High interest rates in the economy have made it difficult for savings banks to attract deposits.
The Executive Director of the Australian Bankers Association said:
There would need to be a major review (of arrangements for housing finance) if market rates-
market interest rates-
did not fall by around 4 per cent by early 1987.
What will happen to the level of interest rates over the coming months? When can hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians expect some relief from the vice-like grip that exists on home loan repayments? Let me tell honourable members what the Minister thinks about this. He said, again in this morning's Today program, that the conditions necessary for a fall in interest rates would be to `exercise restraint in expenditure', and for the trade unions to `exercise restraint with regard to wage claims which have, on both measures, been truly met'. The Minister said that this morning. He said that restraint in expenditure and restraint on wage claims had been truly met.
If the Minister thinks that his Government is exercising the necessary expenditure restraint, perhaps he has not read the deficit figures that were released yesterday for the first four months of the current financial year. The deficit for the first four months was $6.2 billion compared with a full year deficit estimate of $3.5 billion. The Minister will say that, for a variety of reasons, outlays in the first few months of any financial year tend to run a little ahead of receipts and it is quite normal for that kind of Budget figure-that is, the $6.2 billion-to occur in the first four months of the year. But I say to the Minister: If that number were to be consistent with what happened last year, the number that should have been published yesterday would not have been $6.2 billion, it would have been $3.4 billion. Government expenditure is now running $2.8 billion above the forecast in the Budget. There is no way that the Government will bring in a Budget deficit as low as $3.5 billion this year. The deficit for this year is currently running at a level of $6 billion.
The sleight of hand which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) used to demonstrate the Budget deficit for this financial year of $3.5 billion was made in an atmosphere where hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians would have been prepared to exercise restraint. But the Budget deficit figure, just like the 2 April housing package, has been blown out of the water by this latest release and it is now abundantly clear that the Government, to quote the Minister, has not truly met the necessary expenditure restraint. In these circumstances the Government will have to go to the money markets to raise what is necessary to fund the increasing deficit and this will keep upward pressure on interest rates.
There is also a deliberate Government policy of keeping interest rates at a high level in order to attract the funds from abroad necessary to cover our seemingly ever increasing current account deficit. The trade figures for last month, when our current account deficit showed a level of nearly $1.75 billion, was the worst in Australia's history. The only way in which we can become more competitive internationally is to introduce more flexibility into our wages market; more flexibility for necessary adjustment to international competitive situations; more flexibility so that employers and employees can work together to be more productive and more competitive for their mutual benefit; and more flexibility so that we can move towards the elimination of unnecessary and costly restrictive work practices. The Government has shown no interest in creating the appropriate climate that would allow us to compete abroad. The evidence that the Government's policies have failed is clear for everyone to see in our increasing balance of payments problem.
The Budget estimate for our balance of payments deficit this year is $14 billion but already, for the first four months, it is $6 billion. That means that, to meet the Budget forecast, the deficit for the next eight months will have to be $1 billion a month. Does the Government seriously believe that it can average $1 billion a month for the next eight months when last month the figure was $1.73 billion and the average for the last four months has been $1.5 billion? The Government is in fairyland and there is no way that the Minister can say that the Government has truly met restraint with regard to wage claims. I have to tell the House that today the Australian Council of Trade Unions went before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on the national wage case and guess what it asked for? It asked for full indexation of 6.7 per cent in line with the consumer price index increase.
What of the other thousands of ordinary Australians who will be affected by the failure of the Government's housing interest rates and taxation policies and who will lose their jobs? On the night of 2 April this year-the night the Government introduced its increasingly irrelevant housing package-the Prime Minister stood before the nation and promised that there would be 135,000 housing starts in the 1986-87 year. Furthermore, the Treasurer, on 22 September in this House, said:
I have no basis for altering the assumption of 135,000 starts across the year.
So there we have the Prime Minister on 2 April and the Treasurer less than two months ago promising that there would be 135,000 new housing starts in the current financial year.
Mr Hodgman
—Telling fibs.
Mr BEALE
—That is right, because the Prime Minister also said on 2 April that each 10,000 housing starts represents 15,000 jobs. Part of the rationale for the introduction of the package and the financing availability that would flow from it was to be on the basis of the jobs that would not be lost. In June the Indicative Planning Council, the Government's own advisory body, told the Government that it expected that housing starts for the year would be around 130,000. In its report prepared for the Australian Housing Research Council on 3 October it said:
. . . the recovery over the course of the year is weaker than forecast . . . and as a consequence total commencements . . . are forecast to be lower at 122,500.
According to the Government's own advisory body, that means that there will be 12,500 fewer housing starts in the current year than the Prime Minister said on 2 April and the Treasurer confirmed two months ago. This is even fewer than the 147,000 starts, which is the underlying demand. Twelve thousand five hundred fewer housing starts means a loss of 20,000 jobs in the housing industry. What about the impact on the living standards of those 20,000 ordinary Australians who have been put out of work by the Government's policy failures?
This Government's policies have failed. The failure of the Government's policies has meant that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians are being subjected to significantly higher home loan interest rates than they were 12 months ago. The failure of the Government's policies has meant that housing loan repayments, on an average size new loan, have increased by 45 per cent over the past two years. The Government's failure to carry out the appropriate expenditure restraint and establish a framework for appropriate wage restraint means that interest rates will continue at high levels. The failure of the Government's policies has adversely affected the living standards of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians who will never forget the way in which their lives have been affected and they will empty this Government out of office at the next Federal election.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay)
—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(3.19)
—At Question Time today members of the Opposition were flat and the Opposition spokesman on housing and construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), was flat in the speech he has just made. Members of the Opposition say that this is a matter of public importance but they had no questions at all to ask at Question Time today. The reason is that the Opposition has no policy on housing, and no policy on anything at all for that matter. It had a bad housing record in government and it has a confused non-policy in opposition. The Opposition proposes to abolish the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement tied programs, for instance. This would abolish the crisis accommodation program, the local government and community housing program, the pensioners rental program, the mortgage and rent relief scheme and the Aboriginal rental program. All of these programs would go if the Opposition had its way. It also says that it wants to abolish the first home owners scheme. I will deal with the merits of that scheme later in my contribution.
If we look right across the board at housing policy, it would be very difficult to design a policy that would inflict more damage and hardship on first home seekers and on those in special housing need in the community than would the Opposition's proposals. It is no wonder there is no support for the Opposition's housing policy from anywhere in Australia. There is no support from industry organisations such as the Housing Industry Association or the Master Builders Federation of Australia. There is no support from the social welfare lobbies in the housing area, such as shelter, and no support from the trade unions.
The honourable member for Deakin mentioned housing starts in the industry. Let us look at the record. In 1982-83 the previous Government had the miserable effort of 105,000 commencements. In every year since we came to office we have achieved a vast number of housing starts above that miserable figure. In 1983-84 we achieved 137,000 starts, in 1984-85 we achieved 153,000 starts and in 1985-86 we achieved 136,000 starts. Even if the figure goes down as far as 130,000 in this 1986-87 year, the Opposition would have the gall to turn around and say that that was a major slump; yet in its last year in office it achieved a miserable total of 105,000 starts.
Let us look at employment in the industry. In the middle of 1983 there were 387,000 people employed in housing and construction in this country. In August of 1986, just three years later, over 100,000 more people are employed in the housing and construction industry-a total of 491,000. That is the record that this Government has with regard to employment in the housing and construction industry and industry activity measured through the level of commencements.
Let us look at interest rates because they were mentioned and I certainly agree that they are a key issue with regard to the future level of housing activity and lending for housing. Firstly, as I made clear yesterday and again this morning in the media, we will not renege on the 13 1/2 per cent pegged rate for those people who took out their savings bank loans prior to 2 April this year. There are 800,000 to one million of these loans, which means that about two million Australians would be affected. I say to these two million Australians that the Opposition could not be trusted to hold that 13 1/2 per cent rate, but this Government can be trusted to do so. People cannot trust the coalition in government. It has no housing record in government and it has no policy. No one can find out what it would do. The Opposition is simply leaderless.
With regard to lending, it has been said that the April housing package is a failure. Let us look at the current housing lending figures. In the month of September lending was at a rate in excess of $12 billion a year. The annual rate for the savings banks was $8.5 billion, with lending of $710m during the month of September. That is a good record in anyone's language. Savings bank lending has almost doubled since March this year. Furthermore, it is underpinned by a reasonably strong situation for savings bank deposits. In the six months to September the growth in savings bank deposits was 12 1/2 per cent. I know that that cannot continue at that rate, but we are reasonably confident that savings bank deposit growth will still be able to underpin the very strong lending performance overall by the savings banks.
As it was alluded to during the contribution of the honourable member for Deakin, let us look at the position of the National Australia Bank Ltd. I have said that we will hold the 13 1/2 per cent pre-April rate. I now say that there is no need for savings banks to increase the new post-April housing loan rate of 15 1/2 per cent. The National Australia Bank has increased its rate for new loans for non-customers to 17 1/2 per cent. As I said yesterday, the bank states that more than 80 per cent of its loans, which are to its existing customers, are still at the rate of 15 1/2 per cent. That is okay; good on it. The bank did not need to lift the other rate to 17 1/2 per cent. Clearly, it just does not want to lend any money to non-customers. As I said yesterday, who would walk in off the street and take a loan at 17 1/2 per cent when one can go to the other savings banks, say, the Commonwealth Bank, or building societies in New South Wales, and get a loan at 15 1/2 per cent?
I do not say this in a vindictive way but I repeat that the workers of Australia are exercising restraint, the Government is exercising restraint in its outlays and its public sector borrowing commitments and the States are being asked to exercise restraint. Public servants are being asked to exercise restraint. Why can the banks not exercise restraint? I am sure that, apart from the National Australia Bank, most of them will. In fact, I say to people who are looking for housing loans: `Shop around; see what the market has to offer; see what the free market has to offer. You will probably find that you will be most welcome at some of the other savings banks'. I note what was said on radio last night, and quoted again in the newspapers today, by the Executive Director of the Australian Bankers Association. He was asked whether the 17 1/2 per cent hike by the National Australia Bank might lead the way to a hike in rates by the other banks. Mr Cullen was quoted as follows:
The executive director of the Australian Bankers' Association, Mr Alan Cullen, agreed that the National Australia decision did not signal rate rises across the board.
He also said on radio last night that generally the banks are in agreement-without being too bullish about it, I should say-that the general interest rates should continue to fall over the next few quarters.
Let us just see what the position is with interest rates. The honourable member for Deakin talked about the bank bill rates and seemed to get some humour out of the fact that I said that the important thing was to watch the downward trend and to disregard the minor blips along the way. That would be true if rates were surging upwards too, but they are not; they are coming down. In late August the 90-day bill rate was 17.7 per cent. Today, the rate is 16.2 per cent. The rate for commercial 180-day bills is now just under 16 per cent. If the Opposition wants to talk about interest rates, let us look at the situation in the middle of June 1982 when those rates were 18.75 per cent and 18.35 per cent respectively. So much for the previous Government's performance on interest rates.
I now turn to measures that can assist first home buyers. First of all, in a time of very stringent economic circumstances and during a very tight Budget period, we have been able to retain the first home owners scheme. That has been a very good scheme. Almost 220,000 households have already been assisted through that scheme. A billion dollars has been or will be paid out as a result of the ongoing commitment to subsidise people's interest rates through the scheme. The previous Government's home deposit assistance scheme did not do that. It simply offered people a lump sum and said: `Goodbye. We don't want to see you any more'. The first home owners scheme offers a lump sum to help bridge the deposit gap and provides an ongoing interest rate subsidy. By June next year another 41,000 people will be added to the 220,000 who have already benefited from this scheme.
Unlike the Opposition, I am not being duplicitous about the housing situation. We want to be helpful and we want to tell the story as it is. That is what I am doing. I am saying, quite freely, that the future of the housing industry is bound up with interest rates, obviously, but I am also saying that this Government has in place measures to help. We have put our housing package in place and that has underpinned strong lending growth. I have already proved that. We have the first home owners scheme in place. We have ensured that the banks are in a position to offer low start loans. Let us look at what they are doing, across the board. With an interest rate of 15 1/2 per cent on a $50,000 loan, repayments amount to $676 a month. On a low start loan with the Commonwealth Bank with a reference rate of 9 1/2 per cent, monthly repayments on a $50,000 loan amount to $522. That means a reduction of $150 a month with a low start loan from the Commonwealth Bank. Most of the other banks are doing the same thing. I will not go through all the figures, but that is a typical starting rate for a low start loan.
Let us now deal with the private rental market, which I agree is tight. I hope we can do better. We need more investment in the private rental market. The Opposition is trying to make a big run about the tightness of the private rental market but back in June 1982, getting towards the end of the present Opposition's six years in Government, what was the position? In Sydney the vacancy rate was 2 per cent. What is it today? It is 0.9 per cent. That is tight, and so is Perth. But wait a minute, look at Brisbane. In the middle of 1982 the vacancy rate was 0.5 per cent; today it is 3.9 per cent. In Adelaide it was 0.9 per cent and today it is 2.7 per cent. So without seeking to downgrade the problem, despite the tax changes, the position in the private rental market is no more serious in any capital city, with the exception of Sydney and Perth, than it was in the middle of 1982.
This dispirited, divided and dozy Opposition does not care about policy and is more inclined to go chasing after its own leader than getting on with the job of offering a housing policy to the people of Australia. It would bring back the tax rorts. Never mind the depreciation allowance we introduced for the private rental market; what about the tax rorts? Members of the Opposition want to bring back full write-offs for negative gearing and do away with the capital gains tax. What would be the cost of that? It would cost $170m. `Do in the fringe benefits tax', they say. `Let the exploiters of that sort of system get $100,000 a year and pay an average tax rate of about 20 per cent, the same as that paid by someone on about $15,000 a year. Let us bring back that', they say. We say no, because apart from questions of equity, it would cost $700m. Opposition members would do away with the Australia Card, so they would lose another billion dollars. All up, that is nearly $2 billion. Where will they make the cuts to outlays? That is what they will not say. Will they rely on huge increases in consumer taxes, in indirect taxes? Will they go for the broadly based consumption tax or not? It is about time that they told us.
I do not have time to deal with our splendid record in public housing; suffice it to say that the States through our funding policies are allowing the various public housing authorities to acquire and build rental housing for low income earners at more than double the rate that the previous Government enabled back in 1982-83. Almost $2 billion all up will be expended on public housing this year. This is not a serious matter of public importance. It fools no one. The Opposition has no policies. Its front bench is divided and its members are fighting viciously amongst themselves over the leadership. They will not and cannot address the issues. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) is now threatening to pull out of the coalition, and half of the Liberal Party is intent on viciously putting its own leader to death by the death of a thousand cuts. The people of Australia will not listen to a divided party. I will tell the House what will happen-the Government will forge ahead over the next few months and when we come back the coalition will be doing in its own Leader.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay)
—Order! The Minister's time has expired.
Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.35)
—I always enjoy listening to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). He reels off these statistics and one comes away with a warm feeling inside that somehow everything in the housing industry is under control. We all know that that is absolute nonsense. We do not have to listen to the statistics put forward in this House, we do not have to listen to the blandishments and insults of people like the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the quite unremarkable rhetoric of the Minister for Housing and Construction as he closed his speech. All we have to do is go out into the real world and start talking to the people out there. All we have to do is ask the people who are affected by the housing and economic policies of this disreputable Government. I was interested to read a media release by the then Minister for Housing and Construction announcing a change to the first home owners scheme on Tuesday, 21 August 1984. Let me quote the opening statement:
Against a background of falling interest rates, and a level of housing construction activity which is close to resource availability, the income limits for the First Home Owners Scheme . . . have been reviewed for those who contract to buy or build a house after tonight . . .
Listen to those words: `A background of falling interest rates and a level of housing construction activity which is close to resource availability'. Let us not just consider the words of the Minister at the table but look at what is actually happening in the housing sector. The housing sector has contracted sharply during the past 12 months. The number of new housing starts has fallen in each of the past four quarters. The 12 per cent decline in the June quarter was the largest quarter decline in over a decade. This sharp contraction is expected to continue. Of concern to us is not the blandishments of the Minister at the table, but the reality of what is occurring in the real world. What are the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer saying? They say they will have an increase to 135,000 starts this year. What does the Government's chief advisory body say? No way-122,500 starts, and probably less; 20 per cent below 1984-85, and this with an expanded population. In case it has escaped the Minister, the fact is that the population of Australia is growing so we have a greater need. Therefore we cannot rely simply on the statistics of years gone by. We have to look at what the demand is at present. A falling rate in housing starts is a very serious thing indeed. My colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has pointed out clearly just how serious this decline is. The Minister has been advised by his own advisory body that the statements that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have made are simply not in accord with the advice that the Government is receiving.
So the Minister can say that the Government has done a great job, look at all these starts; the fact is that the industry is contracting. That has been going on for a year now, and a whole lot of people out there are looking for assistance in a situation which is becoming daily more desperate. Why is this so? It is so because of the absolutely stupid economic policies that this Government has put in place and insists on pursuing. The effect of the capital gains tax has been written off by the Minister as being of no consequence to the housing industry and rental housing. Again that is simply not true. I refer to the impact of the Government's negative gearing decision. The Minister writes negative gearing off as a rort. What is happening out there in the market-place? I am interested that the Minister said we need more investment in the private rental market. How true. That was about the only truthful thing the Minister really said during his contribution. We need more investment in the private rental market. Has the Minister asked himself why he does not have more investment in the private rental market? Has he asked himself why the degree of tightness in the private rental market has been reported in the Australian Financial Review and other papers? Why has that happened? Could it be that the policies that the Government has put in place are wrong, that it is a positive disincentive for investment in the private rental market?
Could it be due to the Government's decisions about the capital gains tax which, as I remind the Minister and all the members of his Party, their Prime Minister said would not occur? `There will be no capital gains tax', he said. We all remember that. We all know about the much vaunted integrity of this Prime Minister who said: `There will be no capital gains tax'. There is a capital gains tax and it is having a decided impact on investment in all sorts of areas, including housing and the rental market. What about the negative gearing decision? `It will not really matter', the Minister and the Government said. Let us look at what is taking place. People are not investing, and they are not investing for a very good reason. It is not worth their while to invest. Why is it not worth their while to invest? It is because of the policies that the Minister and his Government have put in place. He should not go around and say: `It is not our fault. It is all right out there'. It is the Government's fault, and it is not all right out there.
Let us look at some other areas. The Minister mentioned interest rates. We can all use figures, but let us get down to the reality of what interest rates mean to the person who is paying off a loan. They mean an extra $8,000 per year. That is $8,000 a year out of disposable income, and that is in a climate in which inflation is rising at a startling rate. Housewives who are battling to cope with the rising tide of prices go into the supermarkets around Australia and find the costs of goods and services going up week by week. They have to find an additional $8,000-plus a year out of their disposable incomes to pay for the increase caused by the rising interest rates. The Government can say that that is not its fault. The fact is that the economic policies pursued by this Government have brought this situation about, and it cannot escape the responsibility for those economic policies. Even the Minister, who is a not a senior Minister but who, nevertheless, is in the Cabinet, has the responsibility as part of that Cabinet for the policies that the Government has pursued.
We all know that rents have gone up very significantly-in Victoria, by something like $10 a week-because of the policies of this Government. There have been great increases in other areas. We know about increased unemployment in housing and related industries. We know that more young families are unable to afford homes. If the Minister does not believe this, he should start talking to people at private dinner parties--
Mr Beale
—He goes to restaurants in Queanbeyan.
Mr MacKELLAR
—He probably goes to restaurants in Queanbeyan. Nevertheless, he should give himself the exercise of getting out into the real world and asking people what they think of the prospects of young people renting or buying homes. Quite frankly, I hear it said in all situations: `I simply do not understand how young people today can look forward to realising that dream'. The desire to own one's home has been part of the fabric of Australian society. The Minister should put himself in the position of young people today who are faced with rising costs, rising inflation rates and rising interest rates. He should put himself in the position of those young people who have to lay out the deposit and meet the payments associated with buying their own homes or even renting places. It is becoming almost impossible for a significantly greater number of people all the time. That is the reality of the situation.
If the Minister does not believe me, he should look at what was said yesterday in the Melbourne Herald under the heading of `The balance of compassion'. It states:
. . . one of the constant problems they face is housing-particularly those on lower incomes-whether they can get it; whether they can afford it.
It talks about a deserted wife with two young kids having to spend the night in a car in Victoria because of the absence of proper housing accommodation. Public housing requirements have increased by a staggering 20 per cent in Victoria in the last year. That is the reality of the housing situation in Australia today. For people, including women and children, it is impossible to get proper housing accommodation. Young people are finding it impossible to realise their dream. More and more people throughout this community are finding it impossible to pay rent and the costs of moving into their homes. It is a disgrace, and the Government is responsible for it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay)
—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.
Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(3.45)
—This is just a phoney matter of public importance put forward by an Opposition which has absolutely no understanding of the needs of the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians whom it alleges it represents. Fancy telling us that we ought to find out more about what is going on by listening to young people at dinner parties! The young people to whom we listen have their interests expressed by the Inner City Regional Council for Social Development Co-op. Ltd. I have here a document from the Housing Information and Referral Service which really understands the needs of young people. It knows that this Government is trying harder than any government in history to solve the housing needs of Australians, the people who need government help. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has already spent a deal of time talking about the first home owners scheme and the help that we are giving young people in relation to home ownership. This document from the Inner City Regional Council talks about what we have done for public housing. It says:
There has been a massive increase in public housing funding through the CSHA, and also an openness to experimental developments like co-operative housing and the development of community housing alternatives. Public housing construction is now at record levels, and there are early indications that at last the exponential increase in waiting lists and waiting times is beginning to be overhauled. Before long, and for the first time since the Chifley Government, we will begin to reach the point where public housing will have a genuine impact on the housing sector.
The Liberals just do not understand that that is where the real need is. In total, with State contribution, this Australian Government has put in nearly $2 billion for public housing funding for 1986-87. That is the highest ever. Opposition members ask what this has to do with the matter. We are talking about the housing needs of the thousands of ordinary Australians who are referred to in the matter of public importance. The Liberals, of course, know nothing of this.
We might look at some of the Liberals' policies for housing. They have put forward some proposals to which we will have to refer as their policy; they have nothing else. It just shows their callous disregard for the people to whom this matter of public importance refers. In public housing it shows a clear ignorance of the overall housing problems and the situation of people with housing needs in Australia today. In relation to public housing the Liberals propose the elimination of tied grants. These grants currently go to those people who are in real need. The whole reason for tied grants is to ensure that those who are most needy get priority help. Their proposal means an end to public housing programs that are funded by the grants. Never forget the 70 per cent wind-down in Federal government financial commitment during the dark years of the Fraser Government. This proposal would be worse, much worse. People without money cannot be forced into home ownership, especially not in a deregulated market. The present massive disproportion in subsidy levels for home owners, as distinct from private and public tenants, will begin to look like a paradise in comparison with what the Liberals are proposing. They propose to renegotiate the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement which, as I have just said, is receiving such support from those who are really interested in housing.
The Liberals also propose to incorporate the first home owners scheme in public housing funds to the States. That would effectively abolish the scheme and would force the States to have to decide to help either first home buyers or those who need public housing. Where would the money from the first home owners scheme go under their scheme? What would happen to that money if it were put into general State housing grants? It does not necessarily follow that the money, or even the bulk of it, would go into public housing, which is where we are putting the emphasis, especially if the overall housing sector is privatised by a hostile Liberal-National Party government. Certainly under those parties people with housing needs would have a hostile government.
They also propose to enable the sale of public housing. It just shows their ignorance. It can happen already under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, but with conditions which ensure that if a dwelling is sold it is able to be replaced with the proceeds from the sale. Otherwise, the public rental stock is reduced. Any policy that sold off public housing stock would seriously harm the chances of those in need getting help. It is easy to see how honourable members opposite thought up that one. It matches squarely with the Thatcher policy of recent years. The people who put out this publication say:
Have a yarn some time with English housing workers and activists about what that's meant for low income families in grotty, run-down bed and breakfasts in London.
That is what the Liberals propose. It is also at peace with the long term practices of Liberal governments in this country-the major reason for the massive housing crisis for low income people being faced by the current Federal and State governments. Honourable members opposite have given us this problem. Putting all one's eggs in the home ownership basket might be all right for middle income earners, but it can be poison for low income earners. It is really just another way of shifting resources from the poor to the not so poor.
There are no indications of funding in any of the Opposition's proposals or in anything honourable members on the other side have said. Based on the Liberals' record we can guess what they would do. Their record is appalling in public housing funding. For instance, by 1980-81 the Liberals had cut public housing funding to $264m-only 40 per cent of the level in the last year of the Whitlam Government. In the first year of the Hawke Government we had increased it by 40 per cent and there have been very significant increases since. In 1986-87 the total funding for public housing, as I said previously, combining the Commonwealth and the State contributions, will be nearly $2 billion-the highest ever in real terms. Australians should be in no doubt that if the Liberals' policy is ever implemented there will be an appalling impact on housing and, of course, public housing in particular.
Another of the Opposition's proposals is the creation of a new department of housing and community services. Honourable members can imagine what the Minister for that particular department would have to do. There would be no public housing and no government involvement left for him to administer. The idea, equally obviously, links public housing firmly with welfare-for which, with the Liberals, one can read `charity'. That is the housing model which has consistently been espoused by the conservatives. Given the low priority conservatives traditionally assign governments in welfare activities, it does not take a crystal ball to guess how well that would be resourced.
So what does the Opposition propose? I will tell honourable members what the Opposition proposes. The Opposition proposes the continuing of the rorts, such as negative gearing-and it is a rort. This Government gives a high priority to overall tax reform, including the treatment of capital gains and negative gearing. As a broad principle, if these tax reforms are seen to generate problems in some areas, surely the appropriate course would be to examine ways to overcome those problems, rather than to abandon the reforms and continue the rorts. The Government's social objectives cannot and should not be sustained by an inequitable taxation system. Where concessions exist they must relate to social priorities. It is not acceptable that tax avoidance measures are necessary to stimulate legitimate investment.
Negative gearing on rental properties by high income earners has cost the taxpayers of Australia approximately $175m a year. The draft White Paper on the reform of the Australian tax system identified negative gearing of rental property investments as one of the better known tax shelters. This Government believes that it is not economically or socially justified to continue such blatant tax shelters. Rather, we will eradicate the shelters and examine legitimate means of stimulating investment. One of these, of course, is our 4 per cent depreciation allowance.
If one cannot look to the Liberals and the Opposition for help for housing, can one perhaps look to the banks? What are the banks doing to help the housing needs of the people referred to in the matter of public importance? We have heard what the National Australia Bank is doing today. Banks generally move in concert, and the National Bank was the first this time. It is part of the systematic change in strategy of the private banking sector. What it wants to do is to get out of housing. Like the Liberals opposite, the banks want to get out of housing. They want to get into loans to the business sector and those loans are tax deductible. This trend, the recent explosion in the debt financing of the business sector, is placing enormous pressure on the public purse.
The Liberals want more and more deregulation, They are not offering any solution except trusting the free market. The only responses then are more and more drains on government revenue, more and more tax concessions to the private rental market, more and more tax concessions to those who want to make a profit out of the housing market. Why do honourable members think that the banks want to take over the building societies? If lending for housing is such bad business, why are they clamouring to get on to the building societies? It is to gain access to the building societies' low cost deposits-and it is not to put money into housing. As I have said before in this House, it is these low cost deposits that have traditionally been channelled into providing housing.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay)
—Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded.
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WHARF AND SEAMANSHIP SCHOOL AT HMAS CERBERUS, CRIB POINT, VICTORIA
Report of Public Works Committee
Mr KEOGH(Bowman)
—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the eleventh report for 1986 of the Committee, relating to the construction of a new wharf and seamanship school at HMAS Cerberus, Crib Point, Victoria, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr KEOGH
—HMAS Cerberus is the Royal Australian Navy's largest training establishment. It occupies a site of some 1,500 hectares at Crib Point, near Westernport Bay in Victoria. The base has been developed over many years and contains instructional facilities for a number of schools, including the seamanship school. The major components of the proposal which the Committee examined included the construction of a new building to house the seamanship school and wharf, including a marina. The Committee found that existing facilities and arrangements for training sailors in seamanship, survival at sea and ship husbandry are substantially under standard and antiquated. The Committee concluded that the proposed new seamanship school building will meet the Navy's functional requirements.
The report draws attention to two matters which should be further examined by the Department of Defence and the Department of Housing and Construction. The first is the provision of storage space for paints and other flammable products in the ship husbandry section of the building. The Committee believes the location of this storage space should be reviewed and, if necessary, an alternative location found. The second is the amount of space available for instructors-65 square metres for 10 instructors. The Committee believes the space allocation provided should be reviewed.
Another component of the proposed work is the construction of a wharf for assigned and visiting craft, such as patrol boats, and seamanship training, and a floating marina for training and support craft. The need for these facilities was clearly demonstrated and the extent and the design of the proposed facilities will enable practical seamanship training to be carried out and operational training and support vessels to be adequately moored and maintained. Dredging of the turning basin adjacent to the wharf and of the channel into Hanns Inlet is also proposed. The Committee is conscious of the need to ensure that the effects of the dredging on the environment are minimised. On the basis of assurances given by departmental officials, the Committee is satisfied that every precaution will be taken to minimise the effects of the dredging.
DEVELOPMENT OF HMAS ALBATROSS, NOWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES
Mr KEOGH(Bowman)
—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works--
Mr Hollis
—A busy Committee.
Mr KEOGH
—It is a very busy Committee on which my colleague the honourable member for Throsby works extremely hard-I present the twelfth report for 1986 of the Committee, relating to the development of HMAS Albatross, Nowra, New South Wales (Stage 1), and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr KEOGH
—HMAS Albatross is located approximately eight kilometres south-west of Nowra, New South Wales. The base provides operational maintenance, logistic and administrative support for the aircraft. That area, until the last redistribution, was very effectively and capably represented by my colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), who is present in the chamber at this stage. The equipment and personnel of resident squadrons and the Royal Australian Navy ships' helicopter flights, when disembarked, are also located there. In addition the base provides a port for the Royal Australian Air Force, the Army and civilian aircraft operating in the area in support of the fleet or on other tasks. A squadron of Sea Hawk helicopters is to be deployed at the base, the first Sea Hawks being delivered in March 1988.
The proposal is for the provision of facilities to service and maintain the Sea Hawk helicopters, the development of new facilities and the upgrading of existing facilities for the efficient and effective operation of the base. The Committee concludes that the works proposed will be adequate to support the development of the Sea Hawks and will also improve the overall efficiency of the base. Attention has been drawn in the report to possible future urban development and whether this may hinder the operations of the base. The Committee concludes that continuing discussions should take place between the Department of Defence and the Shoalhaven City Council to ensure that this will not occur. Attention is also drawn to the possibility of a future cycleway from Nowra to the base. The Committee believes that there is merit in the Department of Defence having discussions with the Shoalhaven City Council and the various community groups that are concerned about that. Finally, the Committee has recommended that consultations should take place with relevant State and local government bodies prior to its consideration of a proposal. The Committee recommends construction of the work in this reference.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Mrs KELLY(Canberra)
—On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs, the eighty-eighth series, together with copies of minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Mrs KELLY
—by leave-The report that I have just tabled deals with the 14 items of the eighty-eighth series of variations to the plan of layout of the city of Canberra. The Committee recommends approval of all but one of these variations. In its consideration of items in this series, the Committee took evidence from 10 witnesses appearing as individuals and representing various organisations. The cost involved in the proposals in this report total approximately $7.5m, with another $45m estimated for completion of all stages of the eastern parkway. I wish to comment on only two of these variations.
Joint Committee on the ACT
Variation 4 provides for the deletion of part of the road reservation in Kaye Place, Yarralumla, to allow the area to be included in the lease for the Hotel Canberra and the construction of a rear entrance for that hotel. This forms part of the construction program for the hotel which should be completed by 1987. An objection to the variation was received from the proprietor of the nearby service station. Various representations have been made by that man over the years, including approaches to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is sitting at the table today. The man claimed that the increased traffic generated by the hotel entrance would jeopardise his business and make access to his service station difficult. At the public hearing, when questioned about his intentions regarding the continued operation of the service station, the proprietor assured the Committee that he would like to carry on as a service station operator. In response to a question regarding the state of negotiations and the potential purchase of the service station site by the Hyatt Hotel group, the Committee was told that although some discussions had taken place, no conclusion had been reached and all negotiations had ceased. Eleven days after the public hearing the Committee was informed that the service station site had in fact been sold to the hotel group, and the Committee is not satisified that it was made fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the sale. However, as the objection to the variation was withdrawn, the Committee does not see any reason not to approve the variation.
The one item not agreed to by the Committee relates to the construction of the preliminary stages of the eastern parkway, which will provide a parkway access system to Tuggeranong comparable to that existing for the rest of Canberra. The parkway will also have benefits for traffic between Queanbeyan and Canberra and for regional traffic travelling between the Monaro Highway and locations to the north. The estimated cost of the construction is $50m at present prices with that work being carried out in stages over a number of years. Whilst the Committee was provided with some details of the shape and the construction of the road system, it is not satisfied that it was briefed adequately on the costing components or estimates of traffic flows in particular sections of the road. The Committee has further doubts about the extent to which this road is a priority in the present economic climate and therefore it recommends that this item be deferred pending a full briefing and overview of the proposal at a later date by the National Capital Development Commission.
SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1986
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 23 October, on motion by Mr Hurford:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.07)
—The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), which is before the House this afternoon, is in fact a significant piece of legislation because it demonstrates yet again how this Government prefers to make amendments to legislation rather than try to make that which is already on the statute books work effectively. The problem we are facing was identified by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in a statement he tabled in the Senate on 17 April 1986 when he said:
Honourable senators may be aware that last year I established a working party to report to me on the causes and incidence of invalidity retirement from Commonwealth employment.
He went on to say:
I am concerned that the rate of invalidity retirement, which has been relatively stable for a few years following a dramatic upsurge in the late 1970s, shows signs of increasing again.
Having read that profound statement to the House, I think two points are worth making. First, no evidence has been put forward by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is at the table, or by the Government as to the outcome of this working party. Having therefore introduced legislation in what could best be described as an administrative vacuum, the Government now expects us to debate the issue without telling us why the existing legislation is unsatisfactory. Because of that I will move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill. I move:
That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
`whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government has failed to adequately apply the provisions of the Superannuation Act relating to the payment of invalidity pensions thus causing a significant loss of revenue to the Commonwealth'.
I am indebted to the work of my colleague in the other place, Senator Michael Baume, who, through the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee, has done some excellent work in identifying the implications of this problem. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table from the Department of Social Security which outlines the impact of medical examinations-or lack of them-over the period from 1982-83 to 1985-86.
Leave granted.
The table read as follows-
Year
Medical
exam-
ination
Found
fit for Re-
employment
Re-
employment
by APS or
Approved
Authority
(Note 2)
Pension
Cancelled
(Note 3)
1982-83 ...
936
126
29
35
1983-84 ...
601
90
36
49
1984-85 ...
565
49
33
36
1985-86 ...
356
27
15
17
Notes:
1. In any one year, the figures relating to `examinations', `found fit', `re-employed' and `cancelled' do not necessarily relate to the same individual pensioners.
2. The `Re-employed' column includes both pensioners who are re-employed following direct approach to an employer and those found fit through AGRBO invalidity review process and then offered employment.
3. The `Pensions Cancelled' column includes both pensions cancelled following re-employment and pensions cancelled for unreasonably refusing an offer of re-employment.
Mr CONNOLLY
—As I said earlier, the problem we are facing is that we are, in a sense, debating this Bill in an administrative vacuum. The only evidence we have is that contained in the report of the Commissioner for Superannuation in these matters and the information that was tabled in the Senate Estimates Committee. The table which I have just incorporated shows two things: First, that the number of medical examinations during the period of the previous Government was 936-those were examinations required under the previous legislation for people who claimed that they wished to retire from the Public Service due to invalidity. The significant point is that since 1982-83 the number of medical examinations has steadily declined and in the latest year was down to 356. That is about one-third of the total number under the previous Government. Equally, the number of people found fit for re-employment has declined. It is a provision of the legislation that people judged to be unfit are able to go out on a pension and can be later reabsorbed into the Public Service. This number has declined from 126 in the last year of the previous Government, 1982-83, to only 27 last year, a substantial reduction. The number re-employed by the Commonwealth Public Service or an approved authority has also gone down-from 29 to 15-and the number of pensions cancelled has declined from 35 to 17.
Those figures bear out without any shadow of doubt the fact that the regulations under the earlier Act are clearly not being applied. The Opposition has a right to ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters (Mr Willis) or the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who is at the table, to explain to the House why this Government has to change the regulations and make significant amendments to a Bill without being able to demonstrate conclusively why there is a need for those changes.
Many honourable members would have received correspondence from individuals who have retired from the Public Service on invalidity grounds. Some of those people are ex-servicemen and some of them may be totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. They are genuinely concerned that under these provisions they may find themselves financially disadvantaged. We have made inquiries of the Minister for Finance about this matter and I am pleased to be able to place on the record that it is our understanding that the provisions in these amendments relate only to the supplementary income which pensioners may gain by self-exertion. In other words, it is not based on capital invested previously, on the one hand, or access to TPI, invalidity or war-type pensions on the other. I hope that the Minister, when he has the opportunity to explain this legislation, will spell that out quite clearly, because people are concerned. They are writing letters to their members of parliament. Clearly this Government has failed utterly to explain the purposes and the thrust of its legislation in that particular field.
Another important point which I think is worth looking at is that the incidence of cases of invalidity retirement varies from department to department. This matter was covered most adequately by my colleague Senator Michael Baume in relation to work he has previously done on the Waste Watch Committee. That Committee showed that last financial year the number of people who retired on the grounds of invalidity was greater than the number of people who retired from the Public Service by reaching retirement age. That in itself is an extraordinary situation. If one relates that again to this consistent reduction in standards over the years 1982 to the present, one can conclude only one of two things: Either those in the Public Service are getting sicker--
Mr Cleeland
—Or the doctors are rough.
Mr CONNOLLY
—Or, as has been suggested by the honourable member, the doctors are rough. I do not know quite what he means by `rough'. Perhaps he will explain it to us later. I would go a step further. I would suggest that departments are not applying the regulations as they stand and are expecting the Commonwealth Medical Officers to equally apply those standards because, if that were not so, one would have to ask: Why is there such a variation from department to department? Why is it that in some cases two-thirds or more of people retiring are retiring on invalidity grounds whereas this is not the case elsewhere? Why is it that two-thirds more public servants are retiring on invalidity grounds than in the private sector? These are the issues which the Opposition is putting to the Government. These are the questions which the Australian people deserve to have answered.
The legislation clearly has not worked. Is it because of a fundamental weakness in the legislation or is it because the regulations have not been applied? Until I hear something to the contrary from members of the Government I am prepared to accept that it is the latter and not the former. It is precisely for that reason that we are sceptical of the need to make these changes at this stage when there is no evidence that the current legislation is necessarily being applied adequately. The evidence which bears this out is the tremendous variation between the number of people applying for and gaining access to early retirement on invalidity grounds under the Fraser Government and the figures we have seen in the last four years of the Hawke Government.
As I said earlier, the Minister has also appointed a working party and, because of the outstanding work of the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee, he made that statement in the House. However, we wait to see the outcome of its efforts. If we are to be told that the outcome of its efforts is these amendments, so be it. But what we have not received and what does not appear in the Minister's second reading speech is any really adequate explanation as to why that should be so. One thing that is clear-this again the Government has not really grasped, in my opinion-is that there is substantial financial advantage in public servants going out on the grounds of invalidity when they get 50 per cent of pension compared with about 35 per cent of pension received by those who retire through normal age processes. In addition, of course, they get a lump sum payment. That, of course, is an incentive for anyone.
The Government's response to that is quite straightforward. It says: `Fine, we will introduce an indexed arrangement by which people who gain above a certain level of wage through personal exertion in addition to their pension will be expected to pay back on a dollar for dollar basis'. The Opposition does not object to that proposal and we are, therefore, supporting the general thrust of this legislation. But one has to be very careful in introducing changes of this nature that one is not creating additional administrative criteria which cannot necessarily of themselves have any real impact on the size or scope of the problem in hand. That is why I and the Opposition are sceptical of the way in which the Government has handled the situation to date and why we believe it leaves much to be desired.
The issue is a complex one. There are many people outside in the electorate at large who rightly say: `Why should we have to pay people to retire on higher pensions just because they are public servants when they claim that they are going out on invalidity grounds and we see them mowing the lawn next week, or we see them working elsewhere and in some cases they have even been known to be earning higher salaries, including their pensions, than they were gaining before?'. Clearly that cannot be accepted, and the Opposition, as I said earlier, is supporting these proposals, but what we are concerned about is the manner in which this situation over the last four years was allowed to deteriorate so far. No evidence has been brought forward to this Parliament in this debate or in another place by Senator Walsh in his statement, which tells us no more than that he is concerned about the issue and proposes to solve it not at the source-that is the important thing-which is departmental level, but by simply saying: `Okay, you can still get your pensions but we are going to have our watchdogs out watching to see how much additional salary you earn and, if you do earn additional salary, you have to be prepared to pay it back'.
Mr White
—More public servants.
Mr CONNOLLY
—In other words, more public servants, more administration, more bureaucracy and more efforts being made to make sure that everybody does the right thing.
Mr John Brown
—Why do you hate public servants?
Mr CONNOLLY
—The Minister knows full well that what he is facing is the fact that the Australian taxpayer wants to get value for his dollar. He is fed up with a government which in the last four years has done everything it possibly can to solve the problems by creating larger bureaucracies and which has created over 60 new statutory authorities. I look at the Minister opposite, and he of course is a standing example of a lover of bureaucracies and bureaucrats.
Mr John Brown
—An outstanding example.
Mr CONNOLLY
—A sterling example. The fact of the matter is that it is the people out there paying the bills who know that a minimum of one in four people in the work force is being supported by their incomes, and they do not necessarily see any real benefit from it. The people are rightly saying to us: `How can you be sure that the administration of these programs and policies by this Labor Government is cost effective?'. It is clear from the evidence I have put forward and the evidence put forward in the Senate by my colleague Senator Michael Baume that the position is far from satisfactory.
Let us go through a few more facts on this matter. Under this legislation the Commissioner for Superannuation will be empowered by section 74 of the Superannuation Act to require invalid pensioners who have not attained the age of 65 to provide information about employment and to undergo medical examinations. If the Commissioner concludes that an invalid pensioner is sufficiently restored to health to resume duty, he is supposed to notify the relevant employing authority and any subsequent re-employment action becomes the responsibility of that department or instrumentality. If re-employment takes place in circumstances in which the pensioner becomes an eligible employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act, again the employer is to be informed and the pension cancelled. The pension is cancelled also if a pensioner unreasonably refuses to accept an offer of re-employment. All those requirements were in the Act, yet there is abundant evidence from the figures I have quoted to show that the Act has not been policed.
The proposals in these amendments do not demonstrate any suggestion that those difficulties will be faced at the source. We are simply told that people who are double dipping, for all intents and purposes, will be told that they will have to pay back the money. That is fine, we are not disputing that, but I want to hear Ministers and honourable members opposite explain to the House and the Australian people why the regulations were not properly applied in the first place.
Mr Cleeland
—You were in government.
Mr CONNOLLY
—The honourable member says that we were in government. The simple facts are there. The statistics are clear; I have tabled them in the House. I quote the figures again, for the benefit of the honourable member, who has some difficulty with his hearing these days. In 1982-83, 936 people had medical examinations. Of those people, 126 were found fit for re-employment, 29 were re-employed by the Public Service or an approved authority, and 35 pensions were cancelled. It is extraordinary that those are the highest figures in all of the years since the Hawke Government has been elected. The year 1982-83 was the last year of the Fraser Government. In 1985-86 the number of medical examinations has fallen from 936 to 356; the number of people found fit for re-employment has fallen from 126 to 27; the number of people re-employed has fallen from 29 to 15; and the number of pensions cancelled has fallen from 35 to 17. Surely the Opposition can rest its case on that. The evidence is abundantly clear that the regulations have not been applied. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, on so many other aspects of social security relevant to him, is an acknowledged expert.
As the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has pointed out, in so many areas of social security and social welfare, fraud in this nation has become an art form. We have a government which says to the people: `We will give you more information about how to get access to your benefits'. Having made access available, the Government says: `We will not apply any test.' One has only to look in the area of unemployment benefits, where the work test is not being applied, and at the fact that public servants are effectively encouraged to take early retirement because public servants were not able to be removed by any reasonable system until this morning when legislation finally-four years after this Government came to power-was introduced to make it possible now to make officers redundant and to remove them on the ground of inefficiency. I find it extraordinary that this Government has been so lax for so long. It has had so many opportunities and it has let them pass it by, over the shoulder, because it believed incorrectly that the Australian people indefinitely, in their supreme and ultimate patience, were prepared to pay the bill. Well, they are not and the day has quite clearly come when the average Australian family is saying: `Enough is enough'.
The Government has talked about reducing taxation. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the dispatch box in Question Time today told us how the maximum marginal rate of tax will be reduced to 49c in the dollar. It sounds marvellous in theory, but if one looks at the consequences, the fact is that the level of tax under this Government over the past four years has been higher than it was under the previous administration of the Fraser Government. That is how the facts stand, yet this Government consistently tries to imagine that it is an efficient and effective public administrator. It could not administrate a paper bag, whether or not it was in the hands of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) with his lunch in it.
I turn to some other points made by the Waste Watch Committee. As I have said, there has clearly been inadequate supervision and in some cases collusion between senior management and public servants. The collusion was caused by weaknesses in the legislation which made it easier for management to say to an employee: `Look, fellow, we will look the other way'-nod nod, wink wink-`take early retirement, go out on invalidity grounds or get a better pension, but we do not want you around here any more'. What an admission of administrative chaos that this Government has allowed this to be in place for so long. The cost of invalid pensions rose by some $350m of taxpayers' money over that period.
A leaked internal discussion paper produced recently by the Department of Finance and the Public Service Board has confirmed the Waste Watch Committee allegations about compensation rip-offs by calling for a complete overhaul of the `bottomless pit' of compensation claims. Many invalid pensions appear to have been granted, particularly in Victoria, through collusive practices between managers who are keen to get rid of unproductive workers, especially long-serving ones, and the workers themselves were happy to be classified as invalids so that they were able to retire on a pension of 50 per cent compared with a maximum of 36 per cent. This rip-off of the Australian taxpayers-that is what it is-has been concentrated in the areas of alleged invalidity which have been difficult to diagnose and measure. Of the total invalid retirements last year of 3001, almost 40 per cent were made up of a combination of 792 mental disorders and 395 back problems. The most extraordinary thing is that Victoria seems to have more people with mental disorders and back problems than any other place in Australia.
As the Waste Watch Committee reported last April, the rip-off was heaviest in Victoria, where twice as many Commonwealth public servants were invalided out as in New South Wales, although the latter State employs some 10,000 more public servants than Victoria. In addition, about twice as many Commonwealth public servants in New South Wales retired as were invalided out-that is, 975 retired and 530 were invalided out-yet in Victoria twice as many were invalided out as retired; 1,051 were invalided out and 516 retired. Surely that indicates that an unjustifiable discrepancy has been revealed by the latest report of the Commissioner for Superannuation. The figures are from a statutory authority; they are not just a figment of my imagination or the imagination of the Opposition. The figures are the reported figures tabled in this Parliament by a statutory officer.
The Commissioner states also that almost 60 per cent of invalidity retirements take place at age 55 or over, which indicates a clear need for tighter procedures, especially in view of the fact that this Government has introduced a provision for voluntary early retirement. We do not object to that-it has merit and sense-but it seems rather odd to be able to combine voluntary early retirement with access to a supplementary pension by virtue of a person's ability, apparently ad nauseam, without any real control up to now, to approach the whole issue of retirement on the basis of invalidity. One way to fix up this rip-off is to improve the capacity of the Government to dismiss surplus or unproductive employees, which will be achieved on the basis of the legislation which passed through the Parliament this morning. Surely there is a need to control the administration of both the existing Act and the amendment provisions which we are now passing this afternoon.
Unfortunately this rip-off has existed for many years. I am not prepared to say that it just happened for the first time under the Hawke Government, but what I am saying is that whatever the trends may have been in the early 1970s-Senator Walsh made this point in his statement to the Senate-the undeniable fact is that over the last four years of the Hawke Labor Government the situation has gone from bad to worse. The result is that the Australian taxpayers have had to pay at least a further $350m per annum which may well have been saved for more worthwhile and useful purposes. We want a Public Service in which its members are able to feel that they get a worthwhile return in terms of personal satisfaction from the work that they do. The very fact that so many career officers, who have been there for most of their adult lives, believe that they want to get out and they have the opportunity to cheat because there is no future for them in the Public Service, I believe, is a very serious indictment on the manner in which the Government has run the public administration of the Commonwealth of Australia.
The Government's job is to make people do worthwhile work. Its job is not to create more public servants and thus result in higher costs and lower productivity. It is lower productivity, it is a sense of lack of achievement that one has nothing worth while to give as an individual which so often causes these people to try to get out earlier. When they are offered a wide open door and a difference between a 36 per cent pension against a 50 per cent pension, of course they will take it. Collusion from senior management is often built in and the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) made the point about alleged shonky doctors. That may be the position; I do not know. I have never been in the situation of having to be invalided out of the Public Service and presumably neither has he. I have raised these issues here this afternoon because the Government of the day is responsible for defending in this Parliament why its stewardship of legislation such as this has been so loose that its own Commissioner for Superannuation has had to admit that it has lost a minimum of $350m per annum for the Australian taxpayer in the time that it has been in power.
I merely reiterate my earlier comment. The Government has much to answer for. We are supporting these amendments in the hope that we will see an end to what has become an obvious public scandal and rip-off. But the responsibility to defend the administration of the existing Act and a need for these changes to demonstrate that it will improve upon its system of administration rest squarely with the Government.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh)
—Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Tim Fischer
—Yes, I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak.
Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(4.34)
—It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). He is a great thespian. We, on this side of the House, take great delight at his performance. I do not know what school of acting he went to, but he spent 20 minutes talking about nothing and looked very good in doing it. When we analyse exactly what the honourable gentleman said, he did not say anything. He made lots of allegations, but the interesting thing is that when we examine exactly what he said it is all false.
He made the claim that under the Hawke Government we have had a massive increase in the number of retirements due to illness of public servants. The record shows that that is clearly not true. Let us take the Fraser years and have a look at the incidence of retirement due to mental illness. It is a fascinating statistic. In 1977-78, 1,332 public servants were retired for causes put down to mental ill health; in 1978-79 there were 1,113; in 1979-80 there were 1,143; in 1983-84 it is down to 684; and in 1984-85 it is 792. We must draw the conclusion that under the Fraser Government many public servants could not stand the mental strain.
Let us look at other problems such as digestion. We know digestion problems are often related to mental strain and stress and problems caused from working. We find that under the Fraser Government in 1977-78 there were 133 cases and in 1979-80 there were 105. When the Hawke Government came to office in 1983-84 there were only 73 cases and in 1984-85 there were 83 cases. So the figures clearly demonstrate that under the Fraser Administration our public servants had a great deal more mental stress and certainly their stomachs were not working as well as they were under the Hawke Government. Like many other people, they could not stomach the Fraser Government.
The honourable gentleman did not really tackle any solid criticism of the Superannuation Legislation (Amendment) Bill (No. 2). What the Government is doing by this Bill, among many other changes to superannuation legislation, is removing the very problem he spent 20 minutes complaining about. It is a remarkable performance. Let us look at some of the other things he said. The honourable gentleman said: `Fraud under this Government has become an art form'. Is that not a remarkable statement from any member of the Opposition?
Mr Grace
—They should talk! How about their bottom of the harbour scheme?
Mr CLEELAND
—Yes, we could talk about bottom of the harbour schemes. But let us have a look at the context of what he said. He said: `Fraud has become an art form'. This is the first Government to tackle seriously any sort of fraud with the taxation system and the social security system. Our tax package, together with the Australia Card, will tackle that problem. Yet the honourable gentleman says that we are not concerned with fraud. This Bill is concerned with potential fraud. That is why the Government is bringing it forward today.
Then he says there is collusion between senior public servants and there is weakness in the legislation. Whose legislation are we looking at? It was legislation brought down by a Liberal Government. If there are weaknesses in the current legislation and if there is a need to reform the current legislation, it is because the former Liberal and conservative governments made a mess of it. He sits back and says it has taken us 3 1/2 years to change it. Good heavens! Those opposite have been in government for over 30 years in post-war years. What changes have they brought to the system? Nothing they can be proud of. They were just a government concerned with tax fraud cheats and they did nothing to stop it.
I will not attack public servants who, for a variety of reasons, are forced to retire through ill health. That is not my role or the Government's role. It is clear that in recent years there has been an increase in the number of public servants who, for a variety of reasons, have found themselves unfit for service with the Commonwealth. On that basis they receive a beneficial payment from the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund upon their retirement. It is most probable that on many occasions after the pressure of working for the Commonwealth has ceased and they have had a bit of time to devote to their garden and other activities their health improves somewhat. Suffering from boredom it is quite reasonable and proper that they go out and try to find some other activity to occupy their time rather than lazing around the house doing nothing. I do not find that critical and I do not criticise them for doing that, rather I commend them for becoming more active again after the cause for their first retirement has been repaired and remedied. It is not right and proper that someone who finds himself fit and able to work again after a recuperative period should then get the benefit of a Commonwealth pension at an attractive rate and still be able to work and, in fact, double dip. It is not proper that that should occur and so it is reasonable for the Government to amend the legislation to ensure that it does not happen and to ensure that those people who are disadvantaged by illness and who are forced to retire from the Public Service do so properly and are adequately covered.
The honourable member for Bradfield, in his attack, said the Opposition was not going to oppose the Bill; it supports the Bill. If it is going to support the Bill, why then would it move an amendment in relation to it? What would be the purpose? The only solid reason why it would move an amendment would be that it does not like it. That follows, does it not? If it supports the Bill in the first place why did it spend 20 minutes, as an Opposition, talking about nothing, because nothing is what we heard? If the Opposition is going to support the Bill, why would it move an amendment? If it is going to support the Bill, why would it have a list of four or five speakers who, no doubt, will all oppose the Government in this action?
Honourable members opposite should not come into this House and stand up and try to justify their inadequacies as an Opposition, their inadequacies as a former Government and their total lack of principle and policy, because they will not fool the Australian people. They can stand up and say to me that the Australian people will not be fooled by us but I can tell them that, at the next election, the Australian people will not be fooled by them. There is no doubt that the Hawke Government will be returned with an increased majority when it goes to the next election because we have heard nothing but opportunism and nothing but sham from this policy-lacking Opposition which is spending all its time in-fighting, counting numbers and trying to find some reasons why it should put up one leader or another. It is not concerned with the nuts and bolts issues of Australian politics, it is not concerned with the representation of the Australian family and it is not concerned with the ordinary work force in this country.
When we look at superannuation, which is what we are talking about, we see that this Government has recognised the fact that only 40 per cent of Australians have superannuation benefits available to them, despite the fact that the taxation system makes superannuation benefits and investment exceedingly attractive and does so quite deliberately. In fact, the fringe benefits tax and the tax changes by this Government have made it even more attractive as all insurance consultants, taxation advisers and the insurance industry well know. This Government is introducing industrial superannuation to ensure that every Australian-it is families we are talking about; honourable members opposite can well talk about families so I will talk about them-will in the future be covered by portable and proper superannuation.
The Opposition should be ashamed of its stewardship over the last 30-odd years because, in government, it never once established a sinking fund, never once provided an investment yield portfolio that would provide for the future retired of this country, and never once considered what would happen when the demographically aging society we now have reached that retiring age and there was not enough money in the bickie tin to pay for the pensions. The Opposition, when in government, did not plan and it did not think and it left this country darned near bankrupt in terms of providing for pensions in the future and it knows it. The Hawke Government has taken the bit between its teeth. The Hawke Government is concerned about families. The Hawke Government has made a real strong move towards ensuring that Australian families in the future will be protected and covered by superannuation.
I do not know of one Opposition speaker today-I forecast now that not one will stand up-who will support industrial superannuation. Not one of the speakers on the other side will stand up and support the proposal to provide the family with a proper retirement income in future years. Not one of the speakers on the other side will support any of those programs. Instead, they will talk, mealy-mouthed, about what is wrong with this Bill. If they are fair dinkum and if they are an honest and serious Opposition they should not oppose it. They should not even suggest that they are going to oppose it. They should just forget about speaking on the Bill and let the Government carry it and get it over and done with. They should not waste the time of the House and the time of all of us. They should support the Bill. They cannot have their options.
I support the Bill, which is not just about one aspect of superannuation or the invalid pensioner. It is a wide-ranging Bill which I guess could properly be described as an omnibus Bill, in that it changes many aspects of the current superannuation law of Australia, a law which was put up by the previous Government, which was found to be defective and which the Government is now repairing. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.45)
—The honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) who has just spoken--
Mr Cleeland
—A good member.
Mr HODGMAN
—Yes, a good member, but a very bad speech. The honourable member is a very good member but, on this occasion, he made a very disappointing speech because he had the opportunity to spell out in simple language, as I will now spell out to this House, why this Government has, by a deliberate policy decision, made it less attractive for Australians to plan for their retirement and, in particular, to plan in the area of superannuation. The honourable member for McEwen was quite correct. It is a very extensive piece of legislation and it is far broader in its impact than one would possibly have guessed from the speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) who represents the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in this House. He made a short 2 1/2 page speech, supposedly covering the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), which has no less than 91 clauses. The honourable member for McEwen was quite correct when he said that the Bill does not just deal with the question of invalidity pensions: It is far broader than that.
I want to address some remarks to the position of superannuation generally and then turn specifically to the legislation and, in particular, to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) on behalf of the Opposition. I think it has to be said that the question of superannuation has been a subject of keen debate in national politics since before I was born. Indeed, it is credited with having been one of the reasons for the fall from grace of Mr R. G. Menzies and his demise as Leader of the then United Australia Party, contemporaneous with the death of Prime Minister Joseph Aloysius Lyons. Honourable members can go back to the old Hansards-indeed I have-and read with interest discussions about a national superannuation scheme. As I have said, that was being discussed nearly 50 years ago and it has still not come to fruition today. As the honourable member for McEwen, who spoke a moment ago, has just said, currently only 40 per cent of Australians are covered by superannuation. Forty per cent of Australians are part of a superannuation scheme which will provide for their retirement and, at the same time, relieve both the Commonwealth and the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of the obligation for caring, in a financial sense, for their last years.
This Government has now made superannuation positively unattractive to many millions of Australians because it determined to substantially increase the lump sum superannuation tax. Worse still, this Government got into bed with the life offices because it was in the interests of the life offices that more people took annuities rather than the lump sum payment. Honourable members opposite, members of the Hawke socialist Government, cannot get away from the fact that this massive increase in lump sum superannuation to the outrageous 30 per cent, almost Moscow-like in its monumentality, has had the effect of making the provision for one's own retirement less and less attractive. Well may the honourable member for McEwen flee the chamber. It is a very wrong decision that the Government made and it is a decision which this Opposition will repeal upon election to government at the next Federal election. The plain fact is that we recognise that such excessive, draconian taxation is counter to the interests of Australia because people will not take out superannuation if they are effectively deprived of the option of the lump sum payment.
The plain fact is that this Government wants people who have superannuation to be forced, through fiscal pressure, into taking annuities. I am sad to say that it found the life insurance offices only too willing to go along with that proposal. Is it not better to encourage Australians to plan for their retirement, to put money aside so that they will be independent, both financially and personally, when they come to the end of their working career? The motto today is: `Don't plan for your retirement. The Hawke socialist Government exhorts the people of Australia to spend up, dissipate their assets and we will look after you'.
Mr Connolly
—No, the employer will have to look after you.
Mr HODGMAN
—I am coming to that in a moment. The Government tells people to dissipate their assets and the state will pick up the tab. In a country which has an increasingly aging population and which by the year 2005 will have as many persons on benefits as income earners, in a country where self-esteem and private incentive should be encouraged and exhorted, we have a socialist Government, through deliberate taxation measures, applying to the community a strict and firm dictum: `Don't you prepare for your retirement. We will look after you'.
Conversely-this comes to the point of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield-the Government, in its superannuation scheme, has been quite prepared to see a flood of waste of revenue to an extent that almost defies description.
Mr Connolly
—Three hundred and fifty million dollars a year.
Mr HODGMAN
—The honourable member for Bradfield says $350m a year. I was going to say almost $1m a day. Inadequate supervision-and in some cases collusion between senior management and public servants-has resulted in a retirement rip-off that has boosted the cost of Commonwealth employees' invalidity pensions to $350m a year. That did not rate a mention in the Minister's second reading speech. Not one word did he say about $350m being ripped off. He spoke blandly about proposed new section 73a of the Superannuation Act 1976 which, as I think honourable members have already mentioned, provides that invalidity pensions payable under that Act and the Superannuation Act 1922 would be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis where the aggregate amount of pension and income from personal exertion of the person concerned exceeded a limit to be prescribed in regulations under the Superannuation Act 1976. The Minister went on to state:
In setting that limit the Government will have regard to the position of persons in receipt of low pensions.
He went on to say-effectively, this was the substance of his speech-that, instead of doing this by prescription in the regulations, it would be put in the Act. That was the extent of the second reading speech on a Bill containing 91 clauses and which runs into 52 pages of technical, legal jargon. Not one word did he say about the $350m. The honourable member for McEwen, the last speaker for the Government, had the hide to chide the Opposition and the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield, for daring to bring up the subject. Honourable members should look at the words of the honourable member for Bradfield's amendment:
whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government has failed to adequately apply the provisions of the Superannuation Act relating to the payment of invalidity pensions thus causing a significant loss of revenue to the Commonwealth.
That is short, to the point and fundamentally correct. There are 350 million reasons why that amendment is a proper amendment. There are 350 million reasons why the taxpayers of Australia would want Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to raise this matter in the Parliament in this second reading debate. There are 350 million reasons why it was correct, prudent and wise for the Opposition to put on record its view at this time. It seems that the previous speaker is unaware of the fact that, whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the Opposition has every right to invite the House to accept additional words which place on record a grievance-in this case, a $350m grievance.
In accordance with the arrangements, regrettably, my time has nearly concluded. In conclusion, I want to say that, if ever there is a government which has declared war on the grandparents of Australia, it is this wretched Hawke socialist Government. Almost every legislative provision that one brings to mind has taken it out on the elderly, our senior citizens. The lump sum superannuation tax at 30 per cent is a blow to those people who have been prudent and provident. It hits them, particularly in their latter years, when, for a number of reasons, a lump sum would be a far more attractive alternative than an annuity. The vicious Hawke assets test has caused extreme hardship and suffering to the grandmothers and grandfathers of Australia. It is about time that this granny bashing Government laid off the elderly and started picking on somebody its own age. I can assure the House that there are many superannuitants and pensioners in this country who for many years have voted in the hope and belief that they would get a fair deal from the Australian Labor Party. That has now gone. That is now destroyed. It will be the grandparents of Australia who will throw out the Hawke socialist Government neck and crop as it goes to its well deserved political grave at the next Federal election. The day cannot come soon enough for the member for Denison and the grandfathers and grandmothers in his electorate, whom he represents to the utmost of his ability.
Mr GRACE(Fowler)(4.58)
—I rise to support the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) and thereby oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). It is amusing to note the way that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) uses the House to bring up election issues. I imagine that, with his numbers in Tasmania, he is the one who has to worry about numbers, not me. For the benefit of the honourable member for Denison, I remind the House who was in power in 1976 when the present legislation was introduced. It was in 1976 that the massive increase in the number of invalidity retirements occurred. Earlier this year it was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that the Government intended to introduce measures to contain the rate of invalidity retirement.
One of the provisions in the Bill requires invalid pensioners to report any employment that occurs during the taxation year. The Bill also addresses the associated costs of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. One can easily see why the Government is worried about costs when one realises that, out of the 74,000 Commonwealth pensioners in the scheme, 28,000 or 38 per cent are invalid pensioners. Of course, that is one of the main reasons why the Government has seen fit to introduce amendments to the Superannuation Act. The fact is that invalid pensions offer higher benefits than those otherwise obtainable at an early retirement. It is obvious that a tightening up of the scheme was required. I agree with the honourable member for Bradfield that that was required. But it was also required prior to 1983, but the previous Government did not grasp the nettle and make some amendments to the Act.
The requirement to report is very valid because statistics indicate that 12.4 per cent of invalid pensioners under the age of 65 were employed in the workforce in 1985. These statistics show that, on top of the average amount paid to invalid pensioners, which is $15,200, they also earned in the region of $4,540. The figures also indicate that 1.3 per cent of these pensioners earned in excess of the amount that they would have earned had they remained in their jobs. So one does not need to be an Einstein to work out that there were loopholes in the system. I reiterate that those loopholes existed prior to 1983. They existed right back to 1976 when the legislation was first introduced.
Invalidity pensions are based on the premise that the recipient is not able to work, or not able to perform his normal duties, so why should the invalidity provisions of the scheme provide that the Government, or the taxpayer, should provide a financial supplement to those who engage in employment? It is a ridiculous situation. I can assure the House that that does not impress-I would be surprised if it did-the constituents in my electorate, and I am confident that it would not impress the constituents of most of my colleagues on both sides of the House. I refer especially to the great majority of Australians-60 per cent, as pointed out by the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland)-who do not have the pleasure of being on any pension scheme whatsoever.
I realise, and everybody should realise, that there are mechanisms for the return to Commonwealth employment for pension recipients when they return to good health but I am sorry to say, and I am sure honourable members would agree, that mechanisms are not always effective. Consequently, this Bill contains provisions which will tighten up the mechanisms and therefore will put an end to the abuse of the scheme. The new provisions will also ensure that genuine recipients who are not able to return to full employment can top up their pension with part time work. It is not the purpose of the amendments in the Bill to displace those people.
In essence, the bulk of the changes anticipated in the Public Service reforms announced by the Prime Minister on 25 September are backed up by solid statistics. It is this Government that is doing something about the problem. As I pointed out before, the introduction of the present scheme took place in 1976. I remind the House once again that the Hawke socialist Government, as the honourable member for Denison refers to us, was not in office in 1976. What was done about the problem then? In 1980-81, for instance, 50.6 per cent of all Commonwealth superannuation scheme retirements took place on the ground of invalidity. Who was in power in 1980 and 1981? The honourable member for Bradfield said that then everything was going so right, and he plucked out of the air a figure of $350m. It is the first time I have heard that figure mentioned by anybody. It certainly was not mentioned by the Minister representing the Minister for Finance in this House, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). I notice also that it must be a reasonably bodgie figure, to use a colloquialism, because it has not been included in the Opposition's amendment. The amendment finishes by saying `thus causing a significant loss of revenue to the Commonwealth'. We are already conceding that. The figure of $350m cited by the honourable member for Denison to my mind needs substantiation.
By 1984-85 the figure had crept up to 42.1 per cent, representing 3,000 new invalidity pensions. In October 1984 the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure observed:
Although there had been a sharp decline in invalidity retirements from 1979 on, the acceleration of invalidity retirements in the immediate period following the introduction of the Scheme in 1976 has altered the composition of the pensioner population and the annual pension liability of the Scheme to the extent that even if a downturn in invalidity retirements was to be experienced it would take some years before the proportion of invalidity pensioners in the pensioner population would be reduced.
In other words, the great majority of people who have retired are on invalidity pensions. As at 30 June 1985, invalidity pensions accounted for $345m, or 45 per cent, of the scheme's total annual pension liability of $760m.
It is not my intention to spout statistics overly because that can be well done by those on the other side of the House. We know how good their statistics are when they give figures like $350m. I conclude by saying that the Bill also contains a large number of other amendments, broadly of a housekeeping nature, which I do not intend to go into at this time. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.11)
—I wish to speak on this Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) in the climate created by this Government of an expanding public sector and an ever increasing Public Service since this Government was first elected. Since the Government took office in March 1983 we have seen 15,000 new public servants added to the employ of the Commonwealth Public Service. In September of this year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced a reduction in the size of the public sector. He said we must reduce it by 2,000 people. That means that we have a net increase over the period of the Labor Government of 13,000 Commonwealth public servants who are subject to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. This compares with the situation under the Fraser Government, when over eight years the number of public servants actually declined. There is no evidence at all that Australia is better off as a result of having 15,000-shortly to be 13,000-more public servants. There is no evidence that services have improved or that there have been increased services. In fact, services have decreased. Anyone trying to get admitted to a public hospital in Victoria-even when the nurses are not on strike-will find 27,000 people already in the queue. So services have declined, productivity is less and as we have more public servants our standard of living is falling. We are in the banana republic class.
The role of the Opposition in getting this legislation before the House is an interesting one. I congratulate the Opposition and its Waste Watch Committee that brought to the attention of the people of Australia the excessive number of invalidity retirements in the Commonwealth Public Service. As a direct result of the watchful Opposition, through its Waste Watch Committee, the Government was forced to do something. We see here an effective Opposition that has dug around, raised the issue and brought it to the attention of the people of Australia. The Government set up a working party to look at the matter, the report of which has not been tabled in this House or made public. So, as a result of the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee, the Government set up a secret working party. The working party has obviously reported to the Government but we have no evidence of that report or of how it has affected the drafting of the legislation before the House. We have no report as to what that committee found. As far as the Opposition and, I suspect, the Caucus are concerned, we are debating this piece of legislation in the dark, not knowing the basis for it. We are even further confused by having an amendment to the Government's amending legislation put before the House which we are meant to understand and debate, in relation to this very complicated superannuation situation.
We have to ask ourselves why this Government is legislating when the working party has not reported its findings. It is very interesting to see who is on that working party-members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Department of Finance and the Public Service Board. It really is the corporate state looking at the public sector. No doubt the public sector unions would have a say about it and control over it. The Government was in a closet, had a secret working party and then introduced the legislation. To me, it has the flavour of a government trying to get the issue out of the way after it was raised by the Waste Watch Committee so that the Government can get on and have an election. It also appears-I would be glad of confirmation or otherwise of this by the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) at the end of the debate-that the Department of Finance has its own separate working party or committee looking at the issue. Again it is another case of the public sector looking at the public sector, but there might be some hope for objectivity.
Let us look at the legislation and the circumstances behind it. It relates to the principal superannuation scheme for Commonwealth Public Service employees. Of 74,000 pensioners, 28,000, or nearly 38 per cent, receive invalidity pensions. The Minister said in his second reading speech that invalidity pensions offer higher benefits than those otherwise obtainable on early age retirement. That is obvious when the figures for 1984-85 are examined.
The Waste Watch Committee report contained statistics showing that the invalidity rate in the Commonwealth Public Service was approximately four times that of members of private sector superannuation schemes. It showed that in 1984-85 a greater number of employees retired from the Public Service for invalidity reasons than by reaching normal retirement age. They are stunning figures and shattering statistics really. We on both sides of this House have to ask ourselves why this is so, especially when these retirement pensions are being funded by the Australian taxpayers. More people-3,001-left through invalidity than those who reached normal retirement age, 2,609.
The figures for Victoria, my State, are quite alarming. I would like to know from the Minister whether the working party report which is secret, which has not been tabled but which apparently exists refers to why the Victorian statistics are much greater than the Australian average and the statistics for the other States. In Victoria twice as many Commonwealth public servants were invalided out as in New South Wales. In Victoria the number invalided out was 1,051, while in New South Wales it was 530. This is incongruous when one looks at the numbers involved. I think there are 10,000 more Commonwealth public servants in New South Wales. The causes of invalidity retirement are interesting. Of all invalid pensioners, 26.4 per cent have been invalided out because of mental disorders, both neurotic and psychotic; 26.2 per cent due to diseases of the musculo-skeletal system; and 17.1 per cent due to diseases of the circulatory system. We need an explanation from the Government as to why these statistics for Victoria are greater than the Australian average.
Again looking at Victoria, 309 of its Commonwealth public servants retired due to neuroses, compared with 95 in New South Wales. At first glance this would seem to indicate the ease with which Commonwealth public servants in Victoria can get invalidity pensions through the mental disorders category. That may be a false accusation, but the statistics support it. In the interests of those pensioners in Victoria and in the interests of taxpayers, I ask the Minister to tell us what that working party report says about that.
The definition of `unfit' is something to which I hope the Minister will refer. It needs to be examined. Unfit for office has been defined as `for reason he or she is unable to perform his or her duties for health reasons as specified'. `As specified' is defined as `for reason he or she is in consequence of physical or mental capacity incapable of performing his or her duties'. It would seem that it is necessary to have tighter controls, tighter definitions or tighter procedures invoked in relation to that definition. Again I would like some explanation from the Minister as to whether the secret report refers to this matter. I think it is in the interests of all taxpayers that we get this information.
As to the superannuation scheme generally, it is in fact and effectively a contribution free fund. The members of the Commonwealth Public Service make payments to a fund, but on retirement they get back their payments with interest. In that regard, as I understand it, it is unique in the country. It is in fact a compulsory savings scheme for Commonwealth public servants. It is covered up and called a superannuation scheme. Members of the public may think it is a contributory scheme by way of contribution of the employee to his superannuation payment in the long run, but it is not. It is a compulsory savings scheme in the guise of payments made to a fund which invests those payments. It has large assets, but that Fund, as I understand it, devotes itself entirely to paying back the contributions to its employees. Both the invalidity retirement pension about which I have talked and the age retirement pension are employer financed. By that I mean that they are paid for by the Commonwealth and directly funded from Consolidated Revenue, which means that they are paid by the taxpayer directly. We have a unique situation which I think needs to be examined. I think the Government needs to be accountable for it because the costs are quite enormous. We have taxpayers of Australia every year paying their tax directly to fund public servants' retirement schemes. I think the time has come for this to stop.
A typical private superannuation fund is contributed to by the employee and it is contributed to by the employer and the employer's contributions are usually greater than those of the employee. It is a matter of arrangement; it is a matter of bargaining between the employer and the employee. We have the whole superannuation case, the rush for superannuation, and superannuation being debated in the private sector. But today we are talking about the public sector, where we have direct subsidisation and taxpayers' revenue directly paying retirement and invalid pensions of public servants, compared with private funds which are funded by both the employer and the employee. I believe that the Commonwealth fund should be put on the same footing as private funds. Contributions from Public Service employees should be paid into a fund. There should be an agreed contribution by the Commonwealth-the amount of the contribution having been agreed between the public service sector and the Commonwealth-and a direct fund should be set up, separate and apart from Consolidated Revenue. I believe that it is not only in the interests of the taxpayers of Australia, but also in the interests of Commonwealth public servants in the long run, because there would be an investment fund out of which pensions would be paid.
So there needs to be a change to a contributory fund, a fund contributed to by employers and employees. I have no doubt about that at all. If we do not do that the costs will grow out of control and the burden on the taxpayer will be enormous. Looking at an actuary's report on the long term costs of the fund from back in 1982, the actuary said in relation to the projected costs of the Commonwealth scheme, that is the directly funded scheme, that it is estimated that in 2001-2, that is, by the end of the century, the net benefit expenditure-it is called that but it is in effect the direct cost to revenue and to the taxpayer-will be $1.15 billion. I believe that the time will come then, if it does not come earlier, when the taxpayers of Australia cannot directly afford that. I would appeal to public servants to see that. I think common sense would show that to be true and would show that they have an interest in this, because eventually the taxpayers will say: `Look, we have had enough; we are just not going to go on ad infinitum paying for public service benefits, especially when you get leave loadings and all these other benefits that we do not get as average taxpayers'.
So the crunch point will come some time before the end of the century. It must therefore be in the interests of public servants and taxpayers alike to get the fund on a proper financial footing, on a prudential footing-that is a financial word, I suppose. But it is not prudential at the moment. In fact, I think governments are being negligent in having taxpayers' funds directly funding pensions in this way. I believe there needs to be a greater debate on the Parliament about it. One finds that this area is a bit of a mystery when one starts going to the library to inquire about Commonwealth superannuation. The information is never in one place. One has to go to a number of books and sources to get the information. If we ring up the Public Service Board we find the people there are pretty crotchety and short with us. If we look at the item in the Budget Papers we see that it is carefully worded with the word `Parliament' before it so parliamentarians are blamed, but parliamentarians have a superannuation scheme to which they contribute, and that is not in debate.
I believe that the Government should move on from here-it has just started as a result of the Waste Watch Committee's report-to establish a fully funded, prudential, contributory scheme in which there are contributions by both public servants and government, so that the pensions of public servants can be on a proper financial, prudential and responsible basis, responsible both to the taxpayers and to the public servants themselves. The reforms that we are debating in this legislation, I believe, are just the start of a fair go for taxpayers of Australia.
Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(5.25)
—The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), as my colleagues the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) and the honourable member for Fowler (Mr Grace) have adequately demonstrated, introduces measures to contain the rate of invalidity retirements and the associated costs under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. It is also clear that the passage of the Bill will complete a major overhaul of the legislation relating to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. I want to divert a little from some of the comments made by my colleagues earlier in the debate to talk a little about how we come to be in this situation and also to pick up on some of the comments made by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). I think it is reasonable to reflect that the Government has the object of seeing, in one form or another, adequate superannuation provisions in place across Australia for all members of the work force. So the restructuring of the public sector superannuation funds must achieve objectives which provide flexibility and an interchange between employees and must bring at least a reasonable degree of comparableness between private sector employees and public sector employees.
I do not believe, as has been made clear in the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the review of the Commonwealth Public Service, that Commonwealth public servants have anything to fear from these changes. In fact, the overwhelming indications are that they support these initiatives. The honourable member for Higgins talked about initiatives of the Waste Watch Committee. He talked about banana republics and, in the usual way, he went on-delicately today, I admit-with the public sector bash. When we see this we are entitled to ask: `Where is the constructive contribution from the other side of the House?'. I therefore turn to the amendment which has been introduced by the Opposition today. What does it say? It says:
whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading-
which really means, looking between the lines, that honourable members opposite will pass it without opposition-
the House is of the opinion that the Government has failed to adequately apply the provisions of the Superannuation Act . . .
Which superannuation Act is referred to? It is the one that was created during the 30 years of government of honourable members opposite-let us not forget that-those who come in here and preach to us: `Let us get rid of the public sector; let us cut it back; let us stop all these wasted dollars going into the public sector'. Those who created this Act talk about failing to apply adequately the provisions of the superannuation Act. Let us have a look at this matter. I see these superannuation changes not only as necessary reform of the Commonwealth superannuation Acts but also as part of a broader austerity measure that has been introduced by the Government, which has been accepted by people across our nation. I have here as guests today members of a delegation from the Bacchus Marsh shire and community groups who are looking to scarce government resources for assistance. When they sit here in this chamber-I am delighted to have them here-and hear this sort of drivel coming from the other side of the House they are entitled to ask: `Where are the scarce dollars?'. I will tell honourable members where they are. They are everywhere. As a society we know we are having to accept austerity measures. We know we are having to tighten the belt. That has been accepted by substantial groups in our community; it has been accepted by wage earners.
Mr Cleeland
—Not by them.
Mr O'KEEFE
—No, as my colleague the honourable member for McEwen interjects, it has not been accepted by the Opposition and not by the people whom it represents. I want to come to that point. It has been accepted by wage and salary earners who are prepared to accept discounting of their wages. It has been accepted by the farm sector which has realised that there is a major drop in our rural export income. It has been accepted by pensioner groups who know that they too must share some of this burden. Which is the group that will not accept it? It is the group that was so adequately depicted in that cartoon in the Australian Financial Review showing those corporate business leaders puffing their cigars, carrying their protest signs saying: `We have never paid tax and we never will'. Now they are protesting against changes such as the fringe benefits tax. They are being backed up by an opposition which represents these sorts of attitudes in these sorts of people. These are people who reject proposals such as a mild and moderate capital gains tax, people who are now opposing the Australia Card. These are the very same people who come into this House and talk about dole bludgers. Honourable members should not forget that the term `dole bludgers' is a product of the Fraser Government. Now these people come into this House and talk about the dole bludgers and welfare cheats, but they will not support moves to tighten up the system. They will not support the Australia Card.
We find ourselves faced with an ongoing role of contradiction, a role of opposition. We see it in this amendment to the second reading of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill-opposition for the sake of opposition. This comes from people who are led by a man who early in his leadership professed that he would support worthwhile government initiatives. He said that he would not provide opposition just for the sake of opposition. Now we find this sort of thing occurring. Let us not forget that the people who created dole bludgers, in their terms, who presided over a system which created mammoth tax avoidance in this country-the largest growth industry in Australia in the late 1970s was tax minimisation and avoidance-are now opposing the measures to cut back abuses. They are the people who vilified Mr Justice Murphy and then came in here with a sanctimonious defence of former Chief Justice Barwick. They are people who are continually caught up in contradiction. They are people who protest about the assets test yet claim they want welfare spending cut back. They are people who encouraged off shore borrowing but now talk about our national debt.
Mr Connolly
—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I think that we have been more than generous in giving flexibility to the honourable member. I suggest that he come back to the subject of the debate.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren)
—I ask the honourable member to bear in mind the subject of the Bill.
Mr O'KEEFE
—I take the point of order. I was developing the point that as we are moving to reform the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund and particularly these measures relating to invalidity retirements, these matters must be seen in a broader context of austerity measures in this country. They must also be seen in the context of the amendment introduced by the Opposition. The Opposition has led us down this path. We inherited this sort of legislation, this sort of morass of public sector regulation and difficulty. The Opposition left us with a record deficit, and now it talks about wanting spending cut back.
I believe that the measures in this legislation are substantial and should be supported. They should be supported by an opposition which recognises them as a substantial move forward by a government that is prepared to take hard decisions at a time when this country needs them. As I said earlier, the object is to provide across Australia a national superannuation scheme or a model which provides for fair interchange and flexibility of movement between the public and private sectors. Therefore, in all areas it needs to be compatible and it needs to have provisions which make those sorts of objectives feasible. Having said that, I wish to finish with this point: I cannot finish my speech without drawing the attention of the House to an article published in Australian Time earlier this month which discussed the role of the Opposition. It describes the Victorian Opposition as `broke, desperate and directionless'. When Opposition members come into this House and introduce an amendment which effectively says that they support what the Government is doing but they intend to oppose it for the sake of opposing it, I cannot help but reflect that they are broke, desperate and directionless. They have no policies and no proposals for substantial improvement. They simply provide a continuing opposition committed to knocking, knocking and knocking. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (5.37)
—In closing the debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), I wish to thank all honourable members who have taken part. As the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) said so eloquently, the Government will, of course, reject the Opposition's amendment. The Opposition accuses the Government of failing to apply adequately the Superannuation Act provisions concerning the payment of invalidity pensions, and this, so the Opposition suggests, has caused a significant loss to revenue. That is absolute nonsense.
Following the introduction of the present Commonwealth superannuation scheme in 1976, a massive increase occurred in the number of invalidity retirements. The rate dropped markedly between 1979 and 1981 as a result of administrative action, but now it shows signs of increasing, and that is the reason why this legislation has been so necessary. It is worth pointing out to the House the increases which came about from 1976-77 when 3,206 people retired on the grounds of invalidity. In 1977-78 that number grew to 4,722. In 1978-79 the number was 3,910 and in 1979-80 it was 3,654. As I said, changes were made in that period which caused a reduction, but when one looks at the way the figures have grown in recent years one sees the need for further changes. In 1983-84 the number of retirees on the ground of invalidity totalled 2,767; in 1984-85 the figure was 3,001; in 1985-86 it was 3,027. Since 1981-82 the number of invalidity retirements has grown. Indeed if one looks at the figures per 100 contributors, this is shown again to be so. I drive home this point by giving the following statistics. In 1981-82 the number of invalidity retirements per 100 contributors was 0.82; in 1982-83 it was 0.88; in 1983-84 it was 0.90; in 1984-85 it was 0.95; and in 1985-86 the preliminary figure was at least 0.93. The 1985-86 Commonwealth superannuation scheme invalidity rate per 100 contributors of 0.93 compares with one of 0.58 for the Victorian State superannuation fund. So clearly when one makes that comparison one sees that something had to be done.
These figures that I give and the point that I make in support of this legislation must be seen in a wider context. The adjustment of invalidity pensions for earnings from employment is one of a range of measures being implemented by the Government which aim to contain the high level of invalidity retirements under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. I remind the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his statement on the reform of the Australian Public Service on 25 September this year, announced major changes in the arrangements for the redeployment or retrenchment of inefficient or surplus staff and these will counter any tendency that may exist for employers to use invalidity retirement as a means of shedding inefficient staff. Continued employment or re-employment at a lower salary supplemented by a partial invalidity pension are alternatives to invalidity retirement already provided in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. Under the reforms announced by the Prime Minister secretaries to departments, with the Public Service Board, will retain powers to retire staff on invalidity grounds and secretaries will also have the power to transfer staff to other duties, including at a lower classification. The Board may also use its powers to transfer such staff to another department, for example, when no suitable position is available in the original department.
It is also necessary to see this legislation in the context of the Prime Minister announcing that provisions for invalidity retirement for statutory authorities will be considered for amendment to make them consistent with Public Service Act provisions. In the meantime, Ministers will require authorities within their portfolio responsibilities to take rigorous steps to contain invalidity retirements.
The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in his statement on invalidity retirement from Commonwealth employment on 17 April 1986, indicated that the Commissioner for Superannuation is advising all new invalidity pensioners that their fitness for re-employment may be reviewed from time to time. Persons whose incapacity for employment has been identified by the Commonwealth Medical Officer as being such that their health may later recover are being advised that they will be listed for early medical review. Of course, this is in their interests as well as in the interests of an efficient public sector because they must be much happier if they are healthy and able to return to work, to go back into the work force, than if that were not so.
New invalidity pensioners are being informed that, if they change residential locality after retirement, this will not ordinarily constitute grounds for refusing an offer of re-employment in their former locality unless the change of locality occurred primarily for medical reasons which are still relevant. The Government is reviewing employee compensation arrangements-we must see this measure in that context as well-including the relationship between compensation and superannuation. Measures to rationalise and tighten medical procedures associated with invalidity retirement are also being considered. I repeat: It is in that wider context that one must see this change in law.
The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), in leading for the Opposition, sought an assurance that welfare and service pensions would not be included in the amount of earnings in respect of which the calculation could apply under this Bill. The portion is clearly set out in the Bill. In accordance with proposed new sub-section 73a (1), an invalidity pension would be reduced in relation to the pensioner's personal earnings where the aggregate of the pension and the personal earnings exceeded the specified limit. I draw to the attention of the honourable member for Bradfield new sub-section 73a (1), which defines `personal earnings' as salary, wages, fees or other amounts received by the pensioner for services rendered or work performed, that is, income from personal exertion. The term `personal earnings', therefore, does not include a social welfare or service pension or, for that matter, any type of pension. Accordingly, receipt of a social welfare or service pension would not affect the level of invalidity pension payable under the Superannuation Act 1976 or 1922.
The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) made claims in his usual way that the Government is intent on forcing Australians to take out annuities as a means of providing retirement income. In his usual way he sought to persuade the House that there was something wrong in that. I suggest that retirement incomes should be in the form of income and where they are lump sums, of course, it is so easy for them to be dissipated so that the person becomes dependent on social welfare. If they are in the form of annuities they continue to get income for that person.
Mr Connolly
—There are ways around it.
Mr HURFORD
—The honourable member for Bradfield and I fortunately are in a special position as members of parliament-in my case as a Minister and in his case hoping to be a Minister, forlornly, I would say-where we have to close those ways around it because we are trustees for public funds.
Mr Connolly
—That is not the point. You can structure your tax system to take account of lump sums.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren)
—Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will cease interjecting.
Mr HURFORD
—I will make the point, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we make no apologies for seeking through taxation law to ensure that lump sums are not taken where indeed annuities should be taken for the protection of the person concerned.
Mr Connolly
—No freedom of choice. You do not like freedom of choice.
Mr HURFORD
—What is your electorate, Roger?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The Minister will take no notice of the interjections. I will deal with the interjections. Direct all your comments through the Chair.
Mr HURFORD
—You misunderstood me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was reminding myself of the seat of the honourable member for Higgins because I want to pay him the compliment of responding to the contribution he made in this debate. He sought information regarding the reasons for high levels of invalidity retirements in Victoria. The higher levels of invalidity retirements in that State under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme are reflected by higher than national average levels of invalidity retirements in the Victorian public sector schemes. It is difficult to establish beyond doubt the reasons for this. However, ostensibly it would seem that medical standards for invalidity retirement in that State as applied by the medical profession are tighter, that is, they are less inclined to take a risk that a person refused invalidity retirement is in fact unfit for employment.
Lastly, I draw to the attention of the House something which I think those who have taken part in this debate already know, that is, we need a Committee stage because I wish to move amendments to proposed new section 73a, to be inserted into the Superannuation Act 1976 by clause 32, to provide in the Act for a limit on pension and personal earnings above which invalidity pensions would be reduced. I thank again those who have taken part. Of course, the Government opposes this second reading amendment of the Opposition and I commend the second reading to the House. (Quorum formed)
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Connolly's amendment) stand part of the question.
The House divided.
(Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. B. Mildren)
Ayes . . . . . . . . . . .
69
Noes . . . . . . . . . . .
54
——
Majority . . . . . . . . .
15
——
AYES
Baldwin, P. J.
Jakobsen, C. A.
Beazley, K. C.
Jenkins, H. A.
Beddall, D. P.
Jones, Barry
Blanchard, C. A.
Kelly, R. J.
Blewett, N.
Kent, L.
Bowen, Lionel
Keogh, L. J.
Brown, John
Kerin, J. C.
Brown, Robert
Klugman, R. E.
Brumby, J. M.
Lamb, A. H.
Campbell, G.
Lee, M.
Charles, D. E.
Lindsay, E. J.
Charlesworth, R. I.
McHugh, J.
Chynoweth, R. L.
McLeay, Leo
Cleeland, P. R.
Maher, M. J.
Cohen, B.
Martin, S. P.
Cross, M. D.
Mayer, H.
Cunningham, B. T. (Teller)
Milton, P.
Dubois, S. G.
Morris, Allan
Duffy, M. J.
Morris, Peter
Edwards, Ronald
O'Keefe, N. P.
Fatin, W. F.
O'Neil, L. R. T.
Fitzgibbon, E. J.
Punch, G. F.
Free, R. V.
Saunderson, J.
Gayler, J.
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.
Hand, G. L.
Theophanous, A. C.
Hayden, W. G.
Tickner, R. E.
Holding, A. C.
Uren, T.
Hollis, C.
West, S. J.
Howe, B. L.
Wright, K. W.
Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)
Young, M. J.
Hurford, C. J.
NOES
Adermann, A. E.
Jull, D. F.
Aldred, K. J.
Katter, R. C.
Andrew, J. N. (Teller)
Lloyd, B.
Beale, J. H.
McArthur, F. S.
Blunt, C. W.
McGauran, P. J
Burr, M. A.
MacKellar, M. J. R.
Cadman, A. G.
McVeigh, D. T.
Cameron, Donald
Macphee, I. M.
Cameron, Ewen
Miles, C. G.
Cameron, Ian
Millar, P. C.
Cobb, M. R.
Moore, J. C.
Coleman, W. P.
Nehl, G. B.
Connolly, D. M.
Porter, J. R.
Conquest, B. J.
Reith, P. K.
Cowan, D. B.
Robinson, Ian
Downer, A. J. G.
Rocher, A. C.
Drummond, P. H.
Ruddock, P. M.
Edwards, Harry
Sharp, J.
Everingham, P. A. E.
Shipton, R. F.
Fife, W. C.
Sinclair, I. McC.
Fischer, Tim
Slipper, P. N.
Goodluck, B. J.
Smith, W.
Hall, Steele
Spender, J. M.
Halverson, R. G.
Watson, D. J. H.
Hicks, H. J. (Teller)
Webster, A. P.
Hodges, J. C.
White, P. N. D.
Hodgman, W. M.
Wilson, I. B. C.
PAIRS
Darling, E. E.
Dobie, J. D. M.
Duncan, P.
Hawke, D. P. M.
Price, L. R. S.
Fisher, Peter
Jacobi, R.
Brown, N. A.
Bilney, G. N.
Peacock, A. S.
Willis, R.
Braithwaite, R. A.
Dawkins, J. S.
Sullivan, K. J.
Keating, P. J.
Tuckey, C. W.
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
In Committee
The Bill.
Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(6.01)
—by leave-I move:
(1) Clause 32, page 18, lines 16 to 18, omit proposed definition of ``prescribed maximum rate'', insert the following definitions:
`` `prescribed maximum rate' means-
(a) before the operation of sub-section (2)-$19,200 per annum increased by the relevant percentage of that rate; or
(b) after the operation of that sub-section-the rate that is the prescribed maximum rate by virtue of that sub-section;
`prescribed percentage', in relation to a prescribed year, means the prescribed percentage in relation to that year for the purposes of section 148;
`prescribed year' means a prescribed year within the meaning of Part X, other than a year commencing before 1 July 1988;
`relevant maximum rate', in relation to an invalidity pensioner, means-
(a) the prescribed maximum rate; or
(b) 75% of the amount per annum that the Commissioner, having regard to any changes in the rates of remuneration that have occurred since the pensioner ceased to be an eligible employee and any other matters that the Commissioner considers relevant, determines would have been the annual rate of salary of the pensioner if the pensioner had not ceased to be an eligible employee and had continued to occupy the position held immediately before so ceasing,
whichever is the greater;''.
(2) Clause 32, page 18, after the proposed definition of ``relevant pension rate'' in proposed sub-section 73a (1) insert the following definition:
`` `relevant percentage' means the percentage that represents A-B expressed as a percentage of B, where-
a is the only, or earliest, all groups consumer price index number for the weighted average of the 8 capital cities published by the Australian Statistician in respect of the March quarter of 1987; and
b is the only, or earliest, all groups consumer price index number for the weighted average of the 8 capital cities published by the Australian Statistician in respect of the June quarter of 1986.''.
(3) Clause 32, page 18, lines 26 to 28, omit proposed sub-section (2), insert the following sub-section:
``(2) Where rates at which invalidity pensions were payable immediately before the commencement of a prescribed year are increased in accordance with section 148, the rate that, immediately before that commencement, was (because of paragraph (a) of the definition of `prescribed maximum rate' or the previous operation of this sub-section) the prescribed maximum rate is increased, with effect from that commencement, by the prescribed percentage, in relation to that prescribed year, of that rate.''.
(4) Clause 32, page 18, line 38, omit `'prescribed maximum rate'', insert ``relevant maximum rate for the pensioner''.
In the second reading speech on this Bill, I outlined the provisions of the proposed new section 73a of the Superannuation Act 1976 whereby invalidity pensions payable under that Act and the Superannuation Act 1922 would be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis where the aggregate amount of the pension and income from personal exertion of the person concerned exceeded a limit to be prescribed in regulations under the Superannuation Act 1976. I noted that in setting that limit the Government would have regard to the position of persons in receipt of low pensions.
The Government has now decided that it would be preferable for the limit to be provided in the Act rather than being left for prescription in the regulations. The proposed amendments would vary the new section 73a to provide for a limit that the Government considers would achieve its purpose but at the same time protect persons in receipt of low levels of invalidity pension, and allow all pensioners to earn a small amount of additional income without affecting their pension payments. The limit which has been adopted is the greater of 75 per cent of a pensioner's updated pre-retirement salary or 85 per cent of an amount-updated as necessary-reflecting the average weekly total earnings of full time adults in May 1986.
It is intended that the pension adjustment provisions of the Bill have effect from 1 May 1987. Accordingly, provision is made in these amendments for the limit based on the May 1986 average weekly earnings to be increased by the actual movement in the consumer price index between the June quarter 1986 and the March quarter 1987. The figure so determined will apply until 1 July 1988 when it will be adjusted in accordance with the March quarter 1987 to March quarter 1988 movement in the CPI on the same basis as that used for the indexation of Commonwealth superannuation scheme pensions.
Similarly provision is made for the limit based on pre-retirement salary to be updated. The amendments provide for the Commissioner for Superannuation to determine the amount which would have been the annual rate of salary of the invalidity pensioner had he or she continued to occupy the position held immediately before retiring. Adjustment of invalidity pensions in respect of earnings in accordance with these limits will result in estimated annual savings in excess of $4m. An explanatory memorandum explaining the proposed amendments in greater detail has been circulated with the proposed amendments. I now formally present it. I commend the proposed amendments to the House.
Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.05)
—The Opposition does not object to these proposals. However, I think they do open up some interesting possibilities which the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) did not answer in his address. Firstly, it is proposed that what was originally going to be the right to regulate these arrangements be changed to a specific reference in the Act. We understand that. However, I would just like to inquire from the Minister how he proposes to see what will be a regulation built into the Act which I would suspect will not have the flexibility which he claims it will have.
I draw attention to the fact that the Government has only very recently announced its intention to reduce the size of the consumer price index flow-on of Commonwealth retirees. As I recall, the figure was about 2 per cent on the last CPI figures. If he is going to apply that to existing retirees-his new proposal is to relate it to a pre-determined amount as of May 1986, which is a date earlier than what is currently the cut-off point for that 2 per cent-I simply suggest to the Minister that whoever drafted this proposal probably did not take that recent policy determination into account. If, on the other hand, the Minister remains with a regulatory arrangement, he would have greater flexibility to make those changes as he sees fit; in other words, on behalf of all those pensioners, whether they be recipients of early retirement, or whatever reason, or those who have retired on the basis of age. Can I seek the Minister's confirmation that a distinction will not be drawn between the various classifications of pensioners under the Commonwealth Superannuation Act? I think that will not be the Government's intention, but I think it is one which requires some examination.
The Minister also referred earlier to some statistics in relation to access to the pension over a period of years. I wonder whether he has bothered to examine pages 204 and 205 of the annual reports of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and Commissioner for Super- annuation for 1984-85. There is a most interesting statistic. What it basically says is that 61.35 per cent of current recipients of Commonwealth superannuation are also eligible for access to some level of social security benefits; in other words, age pensions. The pension ceases to be paid when the income reaches $218.60 per week or $11,367.20 per annum. That is of some period when this report was prepared and obviously does not take into account the current rate. It is proposed here that the amount of $19,200 will apparently be the cut-off point which is said to be approximately 85 per cent of the annual amount of the May 1986 full time adult average weekly total earnings. I merely make that statistical observation to the Minister because I think we must be very careful in these matters, with all the intentions in the world of being fair, that we do not create anomalies which come back later to haunt us. It is a characteristic of much of the legislation through this House that anomalies quite often tend to go with us. I think it is very important to be able to identify at the very early stage that that is not so.
It is also worth noting that the average pension paid to the 72,498 adult pensioners as at 30 June 1985, which excludes, I might add, children and orphan pensioners, was $10,452 per annum. The superannuation Acts do not provide for the divestment or forgoing of pensions in payment of the total or near total commutation of pensions. The pensions that they receive, therefore, limit the actions of Commonwealth superannuation pensioners to the regularly updated Commonwealth income-tested pensioners and fringe benefits. I only make that observation because there is a growing perception in the community at large that the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund is so generous that it places recipients of Commonwealth pensions in some type of special benefit category, different from the vast majority of the Australian work force. It can be argued with some justification. I know an honourable member, who like me, has taken a close interest in superannuation matters over many years could draw the observation that Commonwealth superannuation vis-a-vis the general thrust of most existing white collar superannuation is fairly generous. I think the figure I quoted, namely, some 61 per cent of beneficiaries still receiving pensions so low from the Commonwealth that they are still able to qualify for some level of secondary Commonwealth benefits through social security does suggest that the system is not as good as it ought to be. One reason why that is so is that many of that 61 per cent could well be people who have qualified for the minimum access to Commonwealth superannuation. It will also have to be taken into account that many others have been in the Commonwealth for a substantial number of years but throughout that period have not reached positions of seniority to the extent that they did qualify for substantial benefits under superannuation.
That leads me, once again, to seek the views of the Minister as to whether the Government is prepared to re-examine the application of Commonwealth superannuation legislation and the administration of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. The legislation which went through this Parliament, as I recall it, about a year ago, contained a number of significant reforms. One of those reforms was to try to encourage contributors to feel that at least they were going to be told what was going to happen with their money-something which, generally speaking, had not been the position previously. But I think it has left open two very important elements which are worth consideration. Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that an effectively closed fund, such as SFIT, necessarily returns to its contributors a level of benefit commensurate with that of the private sector as a whole. The second point which is worth raising in this context is: To what extent should a Commonwealth government, through a statutory authority-albeit one which has done its best in terms of the reforms of last year to isolate and separate from the thrust of the Public Service as a whole-be in a position where it can force its employees into a monopoly type environment where their funds must go to the SFIT scheme as part of their terms of employment? The Government talks of deregulation in terms of the financial sector as a whole. Why is it that, in that context, the Government is not prepared to say, at least to new entrants to the Commonwealth Public Service: `You have a choice. You may put your funds in SFIT or you may put your funds into any approved source of long term superannuation investment.'?
The other major consideration which should be taken into account in this context is this: If the funding of SFIT is offered on an annual tranche basis to a selected group of fund managers who would then have the opportunity to invest those funds in a totally competitive environment so that, over a period of years, on the balance of averages, one would be able to determine without any statistical doubt whatsoever the extent to which the funding of Commonwealth employees' superannuation contributions was guaranteed virtually to get them the highest rate, on an aggregate basis, available to the market at any specific time, surely it could be said that the Commonwealth, as an employer, was doing its duty by its employees? But while we continue with this arrangement for employees-in the context of this legislation we are talking about amendments to the Act which again do nothing to restrict in any way or to expand the opportunities of individual contributors to have that freedom of choice, and even if they choose to go into SFIT, to feel that the funds are then offered out on an annual tranche basis so they are given every opportunity to maximise their return on investments-I think the Government is failing what is undoubtedly one of the largest elements of the total superannuation community of Australia.
The Minister made the point earlier, as did other speakers for the Government, that some 40 per cent of the Australian work force were covered for superannuation. Of course, that is correct. However, the Opposition has never resiled from the fact that that is not a satisfactory basis for superannuation. We support the view that the entire work force should have the opportunity to be superannuated, whether it be in the public sector or the private sector. However, the fundamental difference between our policy and that of the Government is that, in the Government's attempt to realise national superannuation by another means and, because of its fear of its own trade union base, it has not been prepared to argue a case that normal superannuation for most people is based on a contribution from the employer and the employee. The best that the Government has managed to achieve in terms of its private sector superannuation schemes, to a large degree controlled and managed through trade unions-
The CHAIRMAN
—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(6.14)
—I want to thank the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) for answering some of the questions that I raised during the second reading debate. I refer specifically to his answer concerning the high levels of invalidity pensions in Victoria. As I understood him, he said that it was difficult to establish why the situation was so bad in Victoria, especially as the medical standards were higher. As I get no response now from the Minister I take it that that is so. This means that the mystery only deepens and the figures become more incongruous because the pension invalidity retirement figures in Victoria are horrendous. I have referred to them previously.
We now have evidence that the medical standards apparently are tighter in Victoria and we are still faced with payouts to those public servants who are invalided out of the public sector. So the situation is still serious; it is still bad. I ask the Minister whether he has any knowledge of, or whether the working party report makes any other reference to, the likely reasons, epidemiological, factual or otherwise, for the situation in Victoria being so bad. I also ask the Minister generally, at this Committee stage of the debate, whether he can reveal details of that working party report and its conclusions.
Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(6.16)
—Let me respond to the points raised by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). First of all, I give the honourable member for Bradfield an assurance that no distinction will be drawn between various classes of pensioners. We are dealing with just the one invalidity pension. Secondly, I am informed that the flexibility required to achieve the purposes outlined by him of accommodating any discounts to the consumer price index are built into the wording of this amendment. I also draw to his attention that the figure of $19,200 was decided upon after the discounting decision.
Thirdly, I take the point that he made about the low levels of income for some but I need to point out why a limit of 85 per cent of average weekly earnings and 75 per cent of salaries was chosen. The basic thrust of the invalidity pension adjustment procedure is to remove any incentive that might exist for persons to view invalidity retirement as a means of obtaining a taxpayer-financed income supplement while they pursue a second career. The Government recognises that pensioners, particularly those on low pensions, should not be discouraged from supplementing their incomes, where possible. The limit, based on 85 per cent of average weekly earnings, simply provides a level which is acceptable to the Government. In terms of the average pension, which is $15,200, of invalidity pensioners in employment, it would allow roughly an additional 25 per cent, which is $4,000. Ninety per cent of invalidity pensioners receive pensions less than the $19,200 limit. Based on the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for income of individuals, 70 per cent of income recipients in Australia receive less than 85 per cent of average weekly earnings. The limit of 75 per cent of updated, pre-retirement salary allows persons receiving invalidity pensions above the 85 per cent AWE limit to earn an additional 5 per cent of their updated, pre-retirement salaries free of reductions.
I point out that we, in government, will continually re-examine the necessary invalidity pension levels. I note the point that the honourable member made about giving new entrants to the Public Service the choice of deciding between public and private sector funds. I would see great difficulties in giving that choice. But we in this Government are very reasonable people, with open minds, running a very good government in difficult times. Of course, it goes without saying that we look at all of the options before us.
The honourable member for Higgins misconstrued my use of the word `tighter'. I meant to convey to him the message that, as we see it, the medical profession in Victoria is following the letter of the law much more closely than in other States in not wanting in any way to be dragged through the courts for being too strict in its interpretation of who deserves an invalidity pension and who does not. In other words, I suppose in one sense I could have used the word `laxer'. What I said conveyed the opposite of what I intended. The fact is that, if the medical profession is too lax in its assessment of people deserving an invalidity pension, it can be taken to the courts. So the medical profession is looking at its responsibility in a pretty tight way when it comes to make those assessments.
Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(6.22)
—I respond by asking the Minister: Is he saying that the conditions in Victoria-that is, the standards for medical tests-are the same as in other parts of Australia or are they different?
Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(6.22)
—As the honourable member will recall from what I said in summing up the second reading debate, we are only surmising what the position would be. We have put it down to medical assessments at this stage, but we will do more work on that because it would be in everybody's interests if there were standardisation throughout Australia.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted.
Third Reading
Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time.
Sitting suspended from 6.24 to 8 p.m.
ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL 1986
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Holding:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.03)
—Mr Deputy Speaker-(Quorum formed) The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986 will go down in Australian constitutional and legal history as one of the great opportunities lost by the Hawke Labor Government to restore to this nation agreement that not only the Aboriginal people of Australia, specifically those who reside in the Northern Territory, but all Australians regardless of colour, race or where they might live, have some right to expect equality of opportunity. This legislation is an attempt by the Government yet again not only to sell the Aboriginal people short but also to renege on the commitments it has entered into with the Northern Territory Government, the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, the mining interests of the Northern Territory and in fact every other community interest in that part of Australia. It seems to be difficult for some members of this Government, who belong to a party which claims to believe in consensus, to understand that that word means that an attempt must be made at all times to bring solutions to conflicts of interest which have always existed in relation to land rights in the Northern Territory.
This legislation is a public manifestation of failure. It does not even attempt to reach an adequate balance between what ought to be achieved to meet the legitimate interests of the Aboriginal community of the Northern Territory and the interests of the cattle industry, the mining industry and not least of all the interests of the Northern Territory Government itself-a legally constituted and elected government which has responsibility to keep within its purview of interests all the people of the Northern Territory, including the 23 per cent in the Northern Territory who happened to be Aboriginal people. It is a matter of great concern to me, therefore, that this Government's legislation fails. In this matter it has been led by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who at least a year ago made serious attempts to bridge the gap which obviously existed between these various community interests groups. He visited the Northern Territory and spoke to them. He negotiated with the Northern Territory Government, with the miners, with the Aboriginal land councils and with the cattlemen's association. He did all the right things. He promised them action. That is the one thing that he has failed to deliver in this legislation. No doubt he will tell the House during his remarks that next year he will look into all these matters; he will keep all these questions in mind. But the fact is that in the minds of all these groups this Minister was trusted, at least for a short time. Now, in desperation, those groups see this Government for what it is-people who will say anything to anybody for long enough to lead them astray.
The Minister has done nothing in the amendments before this House to overcome the fundamental problem which has bedevilled the Aboriginal land rights legislation since 1976 when it was introduced by the Fraser Government. I refer specifically to the degree to which Aboriginal owned land, some 50 per cent of the Northern Territory, can be made available for economic development. There has been a somewhat simplistic, but perhaps understandable, belief that the economic development in the Northern Territory, on the basis of its current economic record, involves either mining or the cattle industry. So be it. But one fact remains inviolate-that is, the economic position of this nation will not improve unless we have the capacity as a people to identify where our resources lie and then determine how best they can be utilised.
The Minister, Government members and certainly past ministers of the Liberal and National parties will share the belief that in many respects Aboriginal land ownership is not identical with the ownership of land held under normal white title. We made it so because we gave them a title which was different. We introduced legislation which was unique in the world. The people upon whose judgment we depended at that time-people like Mr Justice Woodward-advised us that necessary changes would have to be introduced from time to time. The years have passed and it is fair to say that not enough changes have been introduced. Because of our delay in introducing those changes and particularly because of the delays of the last four years, we have allowed a social atmosphere to be created in the Northern Territory which is extremely damaging to the long term viability of both the Aboriginal and white communities there.
No doubt, in due course, the Territory will obtain statehood. When that happens legislation such as this will undoubtedly be transferred to its jurisdiction. Surely if the Minister wants to be a statesman, if he wants to go down in the history of this Commonwealth as a great Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who brought unity to the Australian people, who encouraged Aboriginals to feel that they were part of the totality of the substance and the society of this land, this is the opportunity that he has allowed to pass him by. For that, he will not be thanked, but he will be remembered.
I find it incredible that in his second reading speech, towards the end-I emphasise that-he thought it was necessary to tell the people of Australia that he had not been able to consider a range of other amendments. The point is that the issues which he has chosen to ignore are precisely those which are creating the division among the people of the Northern Territory. Exploration and mining on Aboriginal land is a red hot issue in that State and elsewhere in Australia. The granting of an estate or interest in Aboriginal land to the Northern Territory Government for the provision of essential services is undoubtedly an essential element of any change if we are to have in place the principle of equality of opportunity by which the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory can expect from the Northern Territory Government the provision of services at least at a level similar to that given to other communities in that Territory. While there remains legislation which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the Northern Territory to approach the Aboriginal communities throughout the State on a similar basis to the way in which it approaches other people the Government is putting in place a division yet again, yet it calls itself a government of consensus and, may I add, a government of concern. In this case we see no evidence of consensus and even less evidence of genuine concern for the long term interests of all the people in the Northern Territory, including, and in this case especially, those who are of Aboriginal descent.
Another element which was ignored to some degree but which was then snuck into the amendments to this Bill in a most extraordinary way because, apparently, the Central Land Council wanted it was the question of protection of sacred sites. It seems odd to me that through this Parliament only in recent times we have passed Aboriginal sacred sites legislation. In the Northern Territory there are Aboriginal sites ordinances on the books. Yet in this Bill we have the provision that land councils will not only be able to determine the protection of Aboriginal sacred sites on Aboriginal land but also be able to determine the protection of those same sites elsewhere. I trust that when the Minister has his opportunity to comment on my observations he will be able to put forward a logical explanation as to why we need three sets of legislation-two from the Commonwealth and one from the Northern Territory-which are meant to be directed at precisely the same set of problems.
Is it any wonder that the cattlemen and the other communities in the Northern Territory regard this legislation with considerable doubt, if not fear, and certainly distrust for a government which introduces amendments of that type without even attempting to explain to people why those changes are necessary? As I said, in the atmosphere of the Northern Territory today, where there is such distrust, no government which claims to look after the interests of the Aboriginal people should take it upon itself to introduce with such arrogance and such lack of real concern changes of this nature unless it is prepared, slowly but carefully, to set in place the groundwork upon which the edifice must be built.
There are other changes, such as methods for calculating payments of royalty equivalents from the Aboriginal Trust Account, which is a matter of great concern not only to the Northern Territory but also to the Aboriginal communities. It is complex, and it deserves to be given due consideration because it is from the Trust Account that we see the opportunity of the Commonwealth's continuing to give royalties which are its share of mining in the Northern Territory back to Aboriginal communities, the land councils and the traditional owners on a shared basis so that many of the services which they need can be supplied, albeit indirectly, from their own financial base. It is a real opportunity and one which this Government must not ignore.
Perhaps the biggest problem facing many Aboriginals-those who own land or those who have access to land-is the question of removal from claim of pastoral properties which are owned by Aboriginals and which are public purpose land. I have already referred to the problem of public purpose land. Under the current legislation and, regrettably, under the amendments put forward by this Government to date, the Northern Territory still does not have adequate access on a similar basis to what it has to all other communities in the Northern Territory for the provision of services of housing, power, water and so forth. These matters rankle with the Northern Territory; they rankle with the white communities; and they rankle with the Aboriginal communities which then ask: `Why cannot we have assimilated services?'.
What is worse is that, because this Government has failed consistently over four years even to attempt to reach a reasonable modus operandi with the Northern Territory Government in this whole range of complex Aboriginal-Northern Territory-type issues, we see today virtual armed confrontation, whether we are talking about Kakadu National Park, World Heritage listing or the issue of Aboriginal title of which, I might add, the Minister has been making much in recent weeks-he gives it, then he takes it away for about seven days and then he gives it back again, and he flies to the Northern Territory as a gesture. For whatever reason he does that, let the point be known that when that title is given to those traditional owners, unlike any title which may be given to any other community and to most Aboriginal communities, this one has a very important codicil. It simply says: `You cannot use your land. You are getting this title only provided that you are prepared to hand it over to the National Parks and Wildlife Service which will then use it as a national park. If you do not want your land, fine, do not do it that way'. Why put in a condition? If the Pitjantjatjara people want to do that, that is their decision, not the Minister's. The Minister does not then have to put in place arrangements setting requirements and conditions upon which matters of that nature should take place.
An Aboriginal lady named Pat Fowell, who is currently the education co-ordinator for the Australian Teachers Federation-not an organisation which one would normally expect to be quoted by members of the Liberal Party, not an organisation that is particularly noted for its favouritism towards the conservative side of politics-had some very interesting remarks to make about this Government and its whole approach to Aboriginal welfare. This is what she said:
The image of the Labor Party as one traditionally more sympathetic than the Liberals to Aboriginal issues (especially the all-important matter of land rights), has been totally destroyed.
It has been totally destroyed for one fundamental reason-ever since just before its election in 1983, this Government, led by this Minister, along the length and breadth of this land has consistently offered the Aboriginal people a bill of goods which it could not buy nor could it sell. It could not buy the land because the land was not its to buy; it was the land of State governments. It could not sell its proposals for national land rights because, again, the vast majority of the Australian people regarded with some horror the basic proposition being put forward by the Minister on behalf of this Hawke Labor Government that it would introduce into this country, through this Parliament, legislation which for all times would determine the ultimate results of land decisions emanating from this Parliament over the property of individual people, corporations and, above all, the States. The greatest evidence of the Government's total unadulterated failure rests in the State of Western Australia. I find it extraordinary that the Minister, in the opening remarks of his second reading speech, said:
Undoubtedly the most substantial and difficult issue that is addressed in the Bill relates to the provision of secure title to land for Aboriginals living in pastoral areas in the Northern Territory.
I agree with the need for this; I emphasise that. I understand the problem; I accept the need for change. But there are disagreements about how many people fit the abovementioned description. Some say 4,000; some say 3,000. But one thing is clear: Because these people do not have access to unalienated land, the way most tribal groups have in the past, they have been treated differently from those in the other position. Let this Minister face the facts. Those communities are dotted around the pastoral properties of the Northern Territory today and I agree, generally speaking, that their economic and social circumstances are less than satisfactory. Some would even claim, as the Minister probably would, that they are shameful. But one thing must not be ignored: Many of those people, before 1972, had jobs. They worked on cattle runs and they were the mainstream-they were the backbone, in fact-of the economic viability of the Northern Territory cattle industry. Of course, the trade union movement of Australia would simply write this off as cheap labour, especially since it was labour not dominated by trade union controls, awards and so forth. Of course, in a sense, it was cheap labour. But at least those communities had the financial and social viability to be able to hold together. But when the Whitlam Government came in and determined that all things must change those people were no longer able to find work on those cattle stations and they became vagrants, whether on their own land or elsewhere. They were effectively vagrants. It is that social problem that we are facing today.
We have seen in the last two weeks the problem of the Pitjantjatjara people in the northern part of South Australia, where 22 young men are now very sick in the Alice Springs hospital, and one has already died, from sniffing petrol. The Minister knows, as I do, that this is a complex and difficult problem. But, in all fairness, it is one which has existed there for the full period of office of this Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I think it demonstrates quite clearly at least one important fact. The granting of land per se will not solve the massive social and economic problems being faced by many communities today. The Pitjantjatjara people were the first community in South Australia to be granted land rights. Much was made of that both by the Liberal side of politics, which made those grants, and by various governments since then. Many would say, in fact, that it was a trail blazer for much of the legislation and the activities of both Federal and State governments since then. But if one leaves people out in the desert and does not give them water and the basic requirements for life, it is rather difficult to argue that one has achieved very much. I think one of the fundamental problems that the Socialist Left in the Australian Labor Party tends to ignore is that people want now to live on their traditional land. But that decision leads on to a whole set of other decisions which face government. On a per capita basis the solution and the provision of basic goods and services and so forth by government to those communities will be extremely difficult indeed.
But one of the fundamental problems facing us in the whole land rights equation in the Northern Territory, leading on from the initial legislation of 1976, is the predisposed belief that Aboriginal communities, if possible, were to be hermetically sealed off from the realities of the world. They were to be apart-a word which today most of us reject out of hand. But we still use the term `homelands' in regard to many of those communities, because that is the term, apparently, they want to use. But I would not want it to be thought that any group in this community should want to pursue a policy directly or indirectly which ultimately leads to the present situation of these communities. About 60,000 Aboriginals live in the Northern Territory and the vast majority of them are in their own traditional lifestyle to one degree or another, whether it be in the north or in the central desert regions but in the longer term their children must be given at least the same level of access to the mainstream of Australia as we would expect for our children. They will be facing very difficult problems of mounting and passing over that social and economic bridge between one world and another. But they are the problems which the Aboriginal people themselves have to face. It is not the duty of this Parliament and it is not the function of this Labor Government to set in place legislation which in fact will make it more difficult for those people to face up to those very difficult decisions which they will have to face in the not so distant future and which they have, to one degree or another, been facing in recent years.
I return to Pat Fowell. As I said, she has probably voted Labor all her life. She is an Aboriginal.
Mr Gayler
—And will continue to.
Mr CONNOLLY
—Maybe she will continue to do so. But, reading what she says, I believe that she has put down her deepest seated conviction-and it is a conviction of betrayal. That is the most important thing of all. She believes that she has been betrayed, as the Aboriginal people have been betrayed, by this Government working through a Minister who has offered the world and has not been able to deliver. Now, in the context of this particular legislation, he has thrown away the greatest opportunity ever given to any Aboriginal Affairs Minister in recent years. I refer to the opportunity of sitting down with all groups-the Aboriginals, both those who have land and those who do not; the land councils that represent their interests; the Northern Territory Government, which is meant to represent everybody's interests; the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association; mining interests and so forth-to work out a regime which could then be introduced into legislation to put in place the fundamental amendments which are vital if we are to see the Northern Territory move out of an environment of conflict into one where both Aboriginals and white Australians and, for that matter, any other group-we all know that the Northern Territory has various racial groups within it-are able to see themselves as common citizens of Australia.
But that is not the opportunity this Minister has taken. He has allowed the left wing Caucus to roll him; he has allowed members of the Central Land Council to come down here and continually lobby against change. They do not want any change. Lobbying for them is second nature and they have done it extremely efficiently. But let the Minister be well aware that in May this year he took amendments to this legislation forward and he discussed the matter with all those groups. They were stupid enough to believe that he was telling the truth and that these necessary changes would take place on the basis of agreements which he entered into with them. I have the texts; I have the words of those amendments which the Minister's back bench committee took out and, with great regret, the Minister did not have the courage to face up to the commitments he had made.
We all know in politics one has to face the realities of the party caucus, but equally as a Minister one has wider responsibility-and those responsibilities are to live up to commitments that one has entered into.
The Minister will tell us tonight, as I said earlier: `Don't worry, I could not do it now; it is all too difficult; I will get around to it next year'. Next year is an election year. Everybody knows that, including the Aboriginal people. Certainly the Central Land Council knows that. If the Minister really believes that it will let him get off the hook which it has now put into his mouth, and if he thinks it will let him out of the net with which it has now trussed him up, he is more naive than I know him to be. The fact remains therefore that these changes are less than likely to reach the reality of legislation. Thus, this fundamental opportunity has been missed. Earlier I mentioned Pat Fowell. This is what she said:
While the minister for education and other federal politicians often express sympathy and understanding towards the plight of Aboriginal people, in three years of power, they have done little to assist us. Time is running out, and any opportunities which the election of a Labor government promised are quickly being lost. The attitude of the Hawke government towards Aboriginal people seems to be a cynical assumption that they can be assured of Aboriginal support because politically we have nowhere else to go.
There may be a whole host of pragmatic reasons why ALP policies cannot be implemented. However, `sympathy' and `understanding' amount to mere tokenism when it is unaccompanied by positive action, especially by a government elected on the basis of promises so to act.
She finishes her comments by saying:
Aboriginal people do not need more tokenism, nor more understanding, nor more sympathy. What is needed is positive action.
This opportunity is certainly not a demonstration of positive action. This Government had chances which were unique in the last four years to bring together all those community interests in a set of amendments which would have given the people of the Northern Territory-Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike-the belief that the economic development of their Territory would be assured. They do not want to remain in the position of being constant mendicants, at the receiving end of the handouts from the rich man's table in Canberra. Let the people of the Northern Territory stand on their own. Let the Aboriginal people be able to get the benefits from mining on their land, subject to the protection of their sacred sites and their community interests. All those protections are built into Senator Kilgariff's Bill which was introduced into the Senate a few months ago and which I will reintroduce in the debate tonight. I do so with concern that is based upon the fact that this Government has failed to do anything of a concrete nature to introduce into this legislation any of those fundamental amendments necessary to overcome this problem of economic utilisation of land in the Northern Territory.
Let us look at the facts. We have given more land to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory than the United States has given to its tribes. We have given 200 per cent more than the Canadian Government has given to Indian tribes in Canada. On international standards, our record stands supreme. But we are failing because we have not given those people the economic incentives, the desire or the opportunities to enter into an arrangement by which ultimately they and their children can be the beneficiaries, along with the rest of the Australian people-the men and women who make up this nation and whose taxes-some $3.4 billion-have gone from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs since 1970 towards supporting the Aboriginal people. We want to see the Aboriginal people gain the opportunity and the respect of their peers. They want to be part of the Australian community--
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay)
—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(8.36)
—I indicate at the outset that we have heard from the shadow spokesman for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the propositions of the mining industry and the grazing industry, but certainly nothing on behalf of the Aborigines of this country. Being a member who represents a considerable proportion of the Aboriginal community and the island people of this country, I must say that that comes as no surprise; but what is surprising is that in this range of conflicting interests that we have in this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill this evening we have heard nothing more than the propositions of the mining and pastoral industries, and no-one else.
I diverge for one moment to look at the underprivileged people of this country amongst whom are the Aborigines. I wonder whether the Opposition has such a thing as an Aboriginal policy. If it exists, it is well guarded. Is it any wonder that when the Aboriginal spokespeople and representatives come to Canberra they spend very little time talking to the Opposition about Aboriginal matters? This Act has been the subject of one of the most-I suppose, the most-extensive processes of review and consultation. As Chairman of the Caucus Aboriginal Affairs Committee--
Mr Robert Brown
—And a very good one.
Mr GAYLER
—Thank you very much. As Chairman of that Committee I wish to point out that that Committee has travelled the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. We have sat down and spoken to Aboriginal people.
Mr Everingham
—Why aren't you applying this legislation to every other State? You are a gutless worm.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay)
— Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will cease interjecting. He will have a chance to contribute later.
Mr GAYLER
—He will join a very fine list of speakers--
Mr Holding
—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The comments made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory were unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw them.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The unfortunate thing is that the Chair did not hear the remarks amid all the noise. I did not hear the words used by the honourable member.
Mr Holding
—They were utterly offensive, I assure you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
—When there is a lot of noise in the chamber and the Chair has not heard the remark it is difficult for the Chair to ask the honourable member to repeat his unparliamentary words. This compounds the difficulty.
Mr Holding
—He knows what he said and I assure you it was unparliamentary.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The difficulty is that the Chair has to rule upon whether the words were unparliamentary. If the Minister wishes to raise a point of order he might draw my attention to the words that he considered unparliamentary.
Mr Holding
—He referred to the honourable member for Leichhardt as a gutless worm.
Mr Everingham
—At least you can't apply a blow torch to his belly because he hasn't got one.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory has used words which were probably unfortunate.
Mr Holding
—They were offensive.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The Chair decides whether they are offensive. I think they are unfortunate and it might help the debate if the honourable member for Leichhardt continued his speech and the honourable member for the Northern Territory ceased interjecting.
Mr GAYLER
—Quite frankly, I do not listen too much to what the honourable member for the Northern Territory-or is it Brisbane?-says. Usually what he says is a total irrelevance. In 1983 the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) requested Mr Justice Toohey, a former Aboriginal Land Commissioner and now a prominent Federal Court judge, to review the 1976 Act. Seven years on, his report was presented in December 1983. Many of the amendments in this Bill flow directly from Mr Justice Toohey's proposals, and subsequently I will refer to some of those recommendations, particularly in relation to the mining industry. I have no doubt that we will hear from the honourable member for the Northern Territory in relation to his buddies in the mining industry. I do not know whether he ever had a retainer from them but I am sure he will be speaking in support of their interests.
In 1984 Dr Jon Altman undertook a review of the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account. Some of his proposals are picked up in this Bill, others are being implemented in administrative changes and others are still under examination. Overlaying these processes of expert review has been a most careful and painstaking process of consultation with interested parties about possible changes to the Act. `Consultation' has been the key word of the amendments now before this House, contrary to what the shadow Minister may have said, and the Aboriginal people will know this. I speak very confidently in this regard; we have had an enormous consultation process with them.
Mr Connolly
—You only talked to the Central Land Council.
Mr GAYLER
—The honourable member would not even know where they come from. He is talking from the suburbs of Sydney and, quite frankly, I suppose that he has about three Aboriginals in his electorate and would not know who they were anyway. The process of consultation has been far-reaching. It was quite enlightening to realise, when getting around the Northern Territory and speaking to Aboriginals, that they did not even know who their Federal representative in this place was. May I place on record, as I have done in previous debates on Aboriginal matters, much to the disgust of a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner, what he said when Aboriginal land rights were granted in the Northern Territory:
The Government's proposal to recognise Aboriginal land rights in legislation is one more expression of the Government's commitment to liberal and progressive reform-
the sorts of words we might not expect to hear from those present opposite. He further said:
. . . the Government believes that this Bill will allow and encourage Aboriginals in the Northern Territory to give full expression to the affinity with land that characterised their traditional society and gave a unique quality to their life.
Did we hear from the honourable member for Bradfield about the affinity with land? He does not understand it. He is quite out of touch with it. I think it is a sad reflection on the approach of those opposite in relation to Aboriginal matters. Mr Justice Toohey commented in his review that it would be a mistake to conclude from the number of amendments he recommended be made to the Act that it had substantial defects. Rather, to the contrary, his conclusion was that, given its legislative novelty and uniqueness and the need to marry complex notions of traditional Aboriginal law and culture with European institutions and administrative procedures, it had worked surprisingly well. It will continue to work surprisingly well and, with the fine tuning that comes with the amendments now before us, it will work even better.
There has been a considerable amount of criticism of the present mining regime in the Act. It has been claimed by the mining industry and by the Northern Territory Government, not surprisingly, that this regime has hindered exploration and mining on Aboriginal land. That is one side of the story. One particular aspect that has been criticised by these interests has been the so-called veto-the right of Aboriginal owners to refuse to allow exploration or mining on their land. I challenge anyone opposite who is going to speak on this Bill tonight to challenge what Mr Justice Toohey said about the right of veto. In his recommendations his position, his attitude, was clear. He said that the Aboriginals must retain that right to decide whether their lands be mined or not. I ask those opposite, if they want to fly in the face of such an unequivocal finding or recommendation of Mr Justice Toohey, to say so. Mr Justice Woodward, in the second report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission, said:
Of all the questions I have had to consider, that of mineral rights has probably caused me the most difficulty and concern.
That difficulty and concern remain. As part of the terms of reference Mr Justice Toohey had `Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land'. That is quite clear. Mr Justice Toohey said:
To the extent that the Land Rights Act gives effect to these principles, the review cannot recommend changes. There has been no suggestion to the contrary. It must be remembered, however, that although Aboriginal groups are given effective control over whether and on what terms mining takes place on their land, the right to and ownership of minerals remains with the Crown in right of the Commonwealth or the Crown in right of the Northern Territory as the case may be. The significance of the distinction between the control of mining and the ownership of minerals will be discussed when I consider negotiated mining agreements. . . .
This legislation now before this place comes here after the utmost of consultation. I do not have to beg this question. I can assure this place that the Aboriginal people are aware of this. They know to whom they have been able to speak in the last three years. They know that the only sympathetic ear to their causes is on this side of the House. Those opposite who represent unfortunately the interests of others to the exclusion of the interests of Aboriginal people will be condemned. It will not be we who condemns them; it will be the Aboriginal people, the indigenous people, of the Northern Territory. I would like to say in conclusion that the Caucus committee on Aborigines has worked tirelessly in this regard. It has enormous support.
Mr Hand
—It has an excellent chairman, if I may say so.
Mr GAYLER
—We will not go into the chairman. As I said at the outset, we travelled the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. It was suggested that we talked to only the Central Land Council, which goes to show how out of touch with this legislation the shadow Minister is. He is not only out of touch with this legislation but out of touch with all legislation relating to Aboriginals in this country. He is out of touch with the Aboriginals of this country and particularly out of touch with the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory. There are a number of amendments being considered and we have not heard anything of those from the shadow Minister. Obviously they will be raised at a later stage, but it is interesting to note that the predominance of them relates to the mining industry.
Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(8.47)
—Let us be clear about one thing: We are not talking tonight about Aboriginal land rights for the whole of Australia. We are not talking about a national Aboriginal land rights Bill. We are not talking about land in Queensland, where the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) comes from and where he gets on his soap-box and spruiks so easily. We are not talking about land in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia or particularly Western Australia, or any other Labor Government State. We are talking about land in the Northern Territory exclusively, and I predict that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), as he has already tried to do, will attempt to gag me in this debate. The decisions which this Parliament makes on this Bill will not touch the electorates of any other member in this place but mine. It will not apply where you live, Mr Deputy Speaker. It will not affect your communities. The only people who will live with the consequences of this legislation on a day to day basis are Northern Territorians. All the rest of you, from my point of view, are nothing more than officious bystanders.
I remind honourable members that no member of this Parliament-and especially so as every State has the power to look after land rights on a State by State basis-has been prepared to see land laws as they apply in the Northern Territory applied to their electorates. And where is the Australian Labor Party's national land rights legislation? No State Parliament in Australia has enacted the same laws. With that uppermost in mind, consider what has happened in the Northern Territory under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It is clear that the intent of this Parliament has been distorted out of all proportion since the dignified and credible stand taken by the people of Yirrkala and Wattie Creek first brought the issue of Aboriginal land ownership to the notice of Australian people. What was a fine intention has, by the manner of its introduction and operation, generated racial tension in the Territory and created a canker which is now spreading throughout Australia. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has bemoaned this attitudinal change. The Government has called on the people of Australia to show greater tolerance, but it has only itself to blame for this state of affairs; although the Government seeks to lay the blame at the feet of others and it will perpetuate the problem with these amendments.
In the wake of the anti-Vietnam war movement, the noisy and permanently active group of people who thrive on anger and protest found themselves looking for the exhilaration of a new crusade. Unfortunately for Aborigines, they settled on land rights. This Minister was amongst those activists. He probably feels proud of that early involvement, but those people generated hate, emotion and national guilt to foster their new-found cause. That was not a climate in which to develop a sound and stable policy of social reform, because public support fanned by such emotionalism will be short-lived, will quickly burn out, and the political response will be hasty and ill-judged. That is exactly what happened when the Whitlam Government decided to exploit the political potential of this movement.
In 1972 the Australian Labor Party had been out of office for 23 years. Having been in opposition for so long, the urgency was such that there was no time to think clearly. Aboriginal land rights suffered from the syndrome of political impatience. Thus in February 1973 the Whitlam Government established the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission under Mr Justice Woodward to report particularly on the means to establish land rights in the Northern Territory. The Royal Commissioner was told by Prime Minister Whitlam that he `was not to be concerned with whether Aborigines should be granted rights in land, since the Government had already decided that they should. His task was simply to advise how such rights should be granted in the Northern Territory'. The Northern Territory was to be the sacrificial lamb. It was to be the repository of the national conscience.
Consultation was then the in thing, as consensus is today. Consultation continued ad nauseam with Aborigines, as it does today with the land council. As the honourable member for Leichhardt said, there has been extraordinary consultation, but only with land councils. The philosophy was that this was Aboriginal business. Others, despite their legitimate and genuine interest in the outcome, were virtually excluded from consultation. Thus was the first real antagonism to land rights born.
The Whitlam Government produced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill, which the Fraser Government pushed through with only minor changes. This singling out of the Northern Territory by politicians who are not prepared to have their own electorates carry their share of this burden of imaginary national guilt was seen by most Territorians for what it was-sheer hypocrisy. Understandably, resentment and antagonism grew. It did not go unnoticed that, many years after Northern Territory land rights were in place, the Labor State of New South Wales had done nothing. When it finally did, it did next to nothing. South Australia enacted a form of land rights legislation, but it was limited in its application, avoided the claim process and preserved public purpose areas.
In February 1973 the Whitlam Government imposed, by way of ministerial direction, a freeze on the development of all unalienated Crown land in the Northern Territory. The processing of leases applied for had to cease and grazing licences on unalienated land in the process of being converted to a more secure tenure were frozen. Existing mineral exploration licences and mining leases on such land retained their status, but no new licences or tenements of any kind were allowed to be processed. The effects of these restrictions were so severe and unique as to make resource discovery and development in some of the most highly prospected parts of the Northern Territory virtually impossible. Just recently we have seen this Government going back on the undertakings given to miners, including Peko-Wallsend Ltd, by the then Minister in the former Labor Government.
Despite those events, the initial land grants under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act-just short of 20 per cent of the Territory-had broad acceptance from Territorians. But the provision allowing land claims to be made to unalienated land, sparking a massive land grab, confirmed the worst fears and provoked considerable antagonism. Areas such as all national parks, stock routes, stock quarantine reserves and other areas set aside for public purposes were claimed. Many claims were speculative, with no real attempt made to properly identify valid claimants. Land was claimed simply because it could be. This is to be given an effective imprimatur by this legislation, excusing the land councils from maintaining a register of traditional owners. Indeed, how do we have successful claims without traditional owners?
Grazing licences upon which marginal pastoral properties depended for their very existence were claimed. The viability of some station properties was seriously threatened as claims were laid to land areas held under grazing licences which the station owners had been encouraged by the Government to consider theirs by long occupation and usage. That is a brief summary of what has happened as a result of the land rights legislation in the Territory. Such is the nature of the legal, anthropological and sociological industry which descended on Territory Aboriginals, persuading them to claim every last square millimetre of unalienated land.
We should now consider what was intended by this Parliament and by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, who made the recommendations around which the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was framed. Mr Justice Woodward must have had some concern that such an outcome was possible, for he counselled Aboriginals in his report, stating:
. . . Aboriginal people should think carefully before laying claim to any areas which are not going to be of value to them-particularly since they have unimpeded access to this country at present if they want to visit it for any traditional purpose.
In 1979 the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner, wrote in the Northern Territory News:
. . . I have read and heard many alarming rumours . . . how (Aboriginals) are getting 50 per cent of the land and how afraid people are that their own land may be taken over. I want to put an end to these rumours because they are not only untrue, but dangerous to . . . future racial harmony . . . with so much of the land . . . being either desert or areas no longer having traditional occupants, it is expected that claims will be lodged . . . to another 10 per cent of the Northern Territory.
The Minister predicted that no more than 28 per cent of the Territory would be granted or claimed. But within two short years of the Act the figure had reached almost 47 per cent and now stands at more than 50 per cent. This situation has forced the Territory Government into a role it does not wish, but which it has a duty to perform in the public interest, of protecting the public interest in the complex, costly and tedious land claims process that goes on. This onerous responsibility was forced upon the Northern Territory Government by a Commonwealth that has consistently evaded its duty to clean up the mess. Someone had to represent the general interest as the implications of land claims strangling the rapidly growing towns of Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek became apparent. All other towns in the Northern Territory are already strangled.
During the hearing of a claim for a large area of land, including Uluru National Park and the future Yulara tourist village, the Northern Territory Government was bound to try to preserve the rights of all Australians to those areas. The division between the Territory Government and land councils was driven by Commonwealth inaction. This Minister and this Government have used every chance to widen that gap further by portraying the Territory Government as anti-Aboriginal.
The Northern Territory Government was given no credit for the land it provided, of its own volition, to Aboriginals in town areas-for instance, 30 per cent of the town area of Alice Springs-and in the Sir Edward Pellew group of islands; for its efforts to arrange living areas on pastoral properties, in contrast to the complete lack of action in this regard in other States; or for the arrangement for joint Northern Territory Government-Aboriginal control of, for instance, the Cobourg Peninsula National Park.
The Territory could have been spared the antagonism, the Territory Government could have been spared the adversary role and the racists on both sides could not have exploited this situation if a few simple amendments had been made to the Act. In summary those amendments should encompass the following principles: That the land claim process should not be infinite; that the rights of all Australians to public purpose land should be preserved; that the Territory's elected Government's ability to provide essential services is not inhibited; and that the importance to the Territory and Australia of economic resources-minerals, pastoral land, tourism potential and residential land-are recognised and provided for. That is the broad framework essential to deal with the problems that have come about as a result of the original Act.
I now turn to the specifics of this Bill. It is clear that this Bill addresses most of those problems not at all, and some only in a superficial way. Worse, it threatens to exacerbate difficulties and tensions. The Minister, of course, is very aware of these problems and what they mean to Territorians. So much so that he made a clandestine one-day trip to Darwin to hand over title to 400 square kilometres of Kakadu-the same piece of land that a Federal Court of Australia judge told the Minister to reconsider, taking into account other interests.
The Minister will deny that the trip was clandestine. He will say that he issued a Press release, but what does it say? It explains that Bill Neiji has pneumonia and that this can be `a serious condition for a man of his age' and that the Minister's decision is `not related in any way' to the Government's decisions on mining in Kakadu stages 1 and 2. What hypocrisy. This Minister has treated the Federal Court with contempt, giving the other interested parties-the Territory Government and Geopeko-just seven days to put their case. He probably did not even bother to read those submissions. In the time frame, it is difficult to see how he could have. The 400 square kilometres contains 100 mining lease applications, including probably the richest of Peko-Wallsend's leases. The Minister says that this is not related in any way to Government decisions on mining in Kakadu. What rot!
I quote from a letter to the Northern Territory News of only last Monday, 17 November, which may help members to understand why land rights legislation as it now stands causes dispute and division, even among Aboriginals. The letter is the latest in a saga of dispute that has surrounded a single claim area south-west of Darwin. It states:
The Wagait decision on traditional ownership is unjust and a disgrace to the Northern Land Council and Clyde Holding, the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs . . . The full blood people have every right to . . . seek a fair decision in accordance with Australia's Land Rights Act . . . For the Northern Land Council to have this opposition from the very people they are supposed to be advancing points to the fact their decisions are not as knowledgeable as we are led to believe, or the Aborigines are not as involved as they should be in the decision making process . . . At Lake Bennett . . . two years ago . . . Wagait was discussed and finally all the full bloods were asked to go and sit down together and come to a decision. They agreed the Marrananggu people were the rightful owners . . . The NLC did not accept this decision.
I do not pretend to know the answer to this dispute, but it is by no means an isolated one, and anyone in this House who thinks that the claims process is finally settled, even after the years of hearings, should think again.
There is widespread dissatisfaction amongst Aboriginal and amongst traditional owners with the present land council setup. They feel that the land councils are too big and too busy with their own particular concerns, such as lobbying and registering their message with the Australian Labor Party Caucus, to look after the interests of traditional owners. There is no doubt in my mind that the councils should be split to care for the interests of smaller numbers and the tenure of smaller areas.
But this Bill gives the existing land councils greater powers, no doubt at the behest of the land councils. It makes no attempt to address the question of proper representation and the complaints registered by traditional owners. Under this legislation they have no avenue of complaint, no rights of redress if they feel misrepresented by the absolute power of the land council. At least like other Australians they should be able to seek redress from the Ombudsman. Further, the Bill removes the fundamental raison d'etre of the land councils-the obligation to maintain a register of traditional owners. This Government must intend bureaucratic structures which are not obliged even to keep a list of who they represent-the very people to whom they are answerable. Indeed how are they to have elections? Who is to decide who may vote? There is more dirty work at the crossroads.
I understand that the registers that were supposed to be maintained are a shambles-presumably this is why the Minister has been persuaded to put in this clause. A better option would be to disband the councils for failing to carry out their primary task. I cannot believe the Government can be so thickheaded on this matter. It should be an absolute basic requisite for a council entrusted with the task of consultation with traditional owners on matters such as mining to maintain a register of those people. This is the very crux of the land council's responsibilities.
This Bill demands the incorporation of Ab- original organisations under Commonwealth law receiving money disbursed from a land council, but this clearly should be entirely a Territory responsibility. It will mean different arrangements for different organisations, duplicate incorporation and added complexity. If the Territory Government has declined or disavowed this responsibility, I simply cannot understand it. The further demand for incorporated communities or groups to lodge financial records with land councils is nothing short of a power grab for greater centralised power, greater control by councils, when the move should be in the opposite direction-a move for a black government.
This legislation will now extend the land councils' tentacles into the area of sacred sites. There is already more than adequate Northern Territory legislation on sacred sites-in fact some would say armour-clad legislation-for setting up a sacred sites protection authority, and, for good measure, Commonwealth legislation as well. The cut-off date for claims-set 10 years from now-means that there will have been 20 years in total since the Act was introduced for claims to be made. There is every reason to end this divisive and petty exercise. This Bill should end the land grab now.
The Bill is ambivalent on the vital matter of stock routes and reserves. Claims are still possible and the Minister will use his powers as a big stick. It should be unequivocal that such areas, and public purpose lands in total, are beyond the land claims process and, of course, national parks and all other public land. But this Government has already given away Ayers Rock and more of Kakadu. I mentioned earlier the disastrous effects on the Territory economy of the land freeze imposed by the Whitlam Government in 1973 and extended for more than a decade. This Bill imposes a new freeze on the status of all land under claim. Yet we know that the claims process will take at least another 10 years-more based on present progress. I suppose it will give the Northern Territory a statutory reason for more claims on the Com- monwealth Grants Commission.
Lastly, I note with considerable apprehension the clause which enables a Commissioner to be appointed from the Federal Court of Australia, instead of a justice from the Northern Territory Supreme Court. This is a transparent ploy, designed to allow the Commonwealth to dodge its responsibility to obtain the agreement of the Territory to such appointments. In summary, this is a Bill designed to thwart the legitimate interest of the elected Territory Government, to increase the power of the land councils and to increase the stranglehold of the Commonwealth. It fails to respond to any of the vital issues of racial disharmony, of administrative anomaly, of-to use a current phrase-the unintended consequences of the original land rights Act.
I have raised these problems today and I have raised them before as a Chief Minister. They have been stated and restated by the Territory Government, by the elected representatives in this House and elsewhere. There is a perfectly good private members Bill before the Senate which addresses exactly those problems. According to assurances given to the Territory Government this is the first of two amending Bills. I doubt whether we will ever see the second Bill. The Government has not got the moral courage to do what has to be done and this Bill is evidence of that fact. The Government should dare not make the charge of racism against people in the Territory. It has had the opportunity to remove the antagonism, to finish the divisiveness, and it has not got the stomach for it. The buck stops on the Minister's desk and everyone who must live with his failure of nerve-that means every Territorian, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal-knows it.
Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(9.08)
—As usual we heard a speech from the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) which would have been better delivered in cuckoo land. It is a speech which deserves to be treated with contempt, and I treat it with contempt.
I rise to support the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986. There have been few Bills in the history of the Australian Parliament which have been subjected to such close scrutiny as the Bill before the House. Unlike the Opposition which has had little consultation with Aborigines, as my colleague the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) said earlier, the Government has had extensive consultations with mining interests, pastoralists, the Northern Territory Government and, more importantly, with land councils representing the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory.
At the outset I would like to pay a tribute to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) for his patience and willingness to negotiate with all parties. He has not had an easy role in what is, as every member of this House knows, a difficult portfolio. The Government Caucus Aboriginal Affairs Committee played an important role in assisting in the final determination of this Bill. It, too, was involved in meeting and discussing relevant issues with the various parties concerned. The importance of its role can be gauged from the fact that it was not too long ago that the right of Aboriginal land owners to refuse consent to exploration was under threat as a result of a Cabinet decision. This threat to the right of veto unleashed a bitter reaction from Aboriginals not only in the Northern Territory but from all over Australia and was supported largely by church and community groups. The Caucus Committee, which had a basic sympathy to these cries for help, immediately set about to assist in redressing the situation. It was able to do this after extensive and delicate negotiations with the parties to the dispute. Now we have an amendment Bill in which the right of Aboriginal land owners to refuse consent to exploration on their land has been retained. Yet it does not prevent Aboriginal land owners, who do not object to exploration and subsequent mining on their land, from negotiating terms and conditions for such mining.
This Bill has had its genesis in 1983 when the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs requested Mr Justice Toohey, a former Aboriginal Land Commissioner and now a prominent Federal Court judge, to review the Act. His report, `Seven Years On', was presented in December 1983. Many of the amendments in this Bill flow directly from Mr Justice Toohey's proposals. A review by Dr Jon Altman of the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account was completed in 1984 and some of its proposals have been included in this Bill. Others are being implemented by administrative means, whilst others are still under examination.
The Minister, in his second reading speech, pointed out that, whilst good progress has been made on a number of points, there still remained some contentious aspects on which there were sharp divergences of views. Consequently, the Government has decided that there is a need for more time for these issues to be analysed and discussed. These issues will again be subject to further discussion in the new year. The main issues being deferred are those dealing with exploration and mining of Aboriginal lands; the granting of an estate or interest in Aboriginal land to the Northern Territory for essential services; methods of calculating payments of royalty equivalents to the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account; and the removal from claim of pastoral properties owned by Aboriginals and of public purpose land.
No doubt, the mining industry and the Northern Territory Government will argue that this Bill is a sellout to Aboriginals. They have argued that the present Act has hindered exploration and mining on Aboriginal land, particularly through the right of veto. This is a false argument and one that gives little credit to the mining industry. It ignores the fact that there have been a number of factors working to inhibit exploration and mining in the Territory. As we all know, these include the generally depressed state, worldwide, of the minerals industry as well as the moratorium which existed for a number of years on the issue of new exploration licences.
I remind the House that Mr Justice Woodward, in his second report in 1974 on land rights in the Northern Territory, said:
I believe that to deny to Aborigines the right to prevent mining on their land is to deny the reality of their land rights.
Are we, as a parliament, to deny that reality? It is now 10 years since the passing of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. This saw the establishment of land councils to act as the representatives of Aboriginal people in relation to Aboriginal land or land which may be subject of a land claim by traditional owners. In that time the land councils have developed an expertise which has served them well in the interests of Aboriginal people. In my dealings with the land councils as a member of the Caucus Aboriginal Affairs Committee and as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I have found them to be co-operative and prepared to listen to an alternative point of view, although strong in presenting their own point of view. If I had to offer a criticism of the land councils-I have stated this criticism to individual members of the land councils-it is that I would like to see greater Aboriginal involvement in the working role of the councils. In time I am sure that that will be overcome and we will find that the non-Aboriginal advisers and experts employed by the councils will be replaced by Aboriginals. As Mr Justice Toohey commented in his report `Seven Years On', land councils have experienced growing pains associated with organisations of any size. The proposed amendments contained in this Bill seek to cover a number of areas where revised powers and functions for land councils have been deemed necessary to assist in alleviating these growing pains.
At the moment land councils cannot enter binding agreements with anyone seeking an interest in land until the land actually becomes Aboriginal land. The amendments will empower the land councils to negotiate and conclude agreements with people who seek an interest in land under claim. The power to enter into these agreements will assist in the resolution of issues of detriment prior to land being the subject of a grant. Clause 8 of the Bill also allows for agreements entered into by land councils to be binding on land trusts which are subsequently set up to hold that land when a grant is made. Mr Justice Toohey, on page 25 of his report, explained the necessity for this amendment by citing a case in the Daly River area. He stated:
. . . landholders in the vicinity of the river draw water essential for domestic purposes across narrow strips of Crown reserve land. They also traverse that land to use the river for recreational and transport purposes. If, as recommended, that land becomes Aboriginal land, each landholder will have to negotiate an agreement for access to the river and the right to carry water across the land.
Counsel for the claimants in that claim made it clear that they did not wish to deny others these rights . . . However the Act does not provide a means whereby an enforceable undertaking in these terms could be given. In such circumstances, where an undertaking can be given or an agreement made in precise terms, the Act should empower the Land Councils to so act. This would assist the Commissioner in formulating both his comments on detriment and his recommendation, and would assist the Minister in deciding whether to recommend to the Governor-General that a grant, conditional or otherwise, be made.
I do not want to itemise the other amendments to the Bill. It is sufficient to say that there are similar substantial reasons for their inclusion in this Bill. I would like to conclude with a statement made in 1977 by former Senator Neville Bonner who is the only Aboriginal to have ever been elected to Federal Parliament.
Mr Spender
—From our side of the House too, you might add.
Mr BLANCHARD
—I ask the honourable member to listen. He served his Party in a distinguished way whilst a member of the other House. I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the House would agree with that. He said:
. . . there is no comprehension among whites that Aborigines have been forced to leap from primitive culture to modern society in less than 200 years. Aboriginal people feel like strangers in their own land, like refugees. They have been dispossessed.
This Bill helps the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to take those necessary steps and will make them feel less like strangers in their own land.
Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.19)
—I am pleased to see that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has arrived. It always amazes me to see how much concern the Government shows in Aboriginal affairs when legislation such as that which is before us is listed to be debated on a Wednesday which is a non-broadcast day. One wonders what the Government is trying to hide from the people of Australia, in particular, the Aboriginal people. It is known around this place that, if there are Bills that the Government really does not want people to take an interest in, they are listed to be debated on a Wednesday when the proceedings of this House are not broadcast and when people throughout Australia cannot hear what is going on. I am pleased that the Minister has returned to the House because, for the last 20 minutes, there has not been any Minister sitting at the table.
Mr Holding
—That's not true.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—It is true. The Minister has just come in. The chair has been vacant for the last 10 minutes. We are opposed to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill that we are debating because we believe that the amendments that are being put to the House tonight do not go far enough. The legislation was initially set up by the Whitlam Government in 1973. Mr Justice Woodward was asked to report to the Parliament. Two reports were brought forward in 1973 and 1974. At that time it was the Fraser Government, led by that very prominent person of today--
Mr Nehl
—Eminent.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—He is prominent and eminent and he introduced this legislation. Of course, we now know the disastrous consequences of the land rights legislation of the Northern Territory. I believe one of the best things that this socialist Government has done since it came to office has been not to transgress across the width of Australia with its national land rights policy, which was something it intended to do. The National Party in Queensland has been to the fore in the fight and the opposition to this absurd and ridiculous set of circumstances spreading across Australia.
I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs since I was elected to Parliament and I take a very close interest in Aboriginal affairs because I represent many Aborigines in my electorate of Maranoa. But I do not think any fair-minded Australian who, having travelled with us in the Northern Territory in particular, would not say that the situation there is a disaster. It is high time that we stopped this nonsense of kowtowing to these people and trying to kid ourselves that we help them by continuing to grant more and more land to them. Only a few people can have the land anyway as most Aborigines live in cities today. They do not live on large parcels of land. Even if they could all have a bit, there would not be enough to go around. I always use the expression that there are only 170,000 farms in the whole of Australia and there are meant to be about 300,000 Aborigines, so I do not know how we could ever give them all a piece of land. It is quite obvious that they all cannot have it; only a few get it. It is high time that we stopped the nonsense and caught up with some of the facilities that are needed. It is a shocking state of affairs.
One would think that an atomic bomb had hit the Alice Springs area. The kids are not being educated. We have set up these so-called free schools. The whole area is rife with petrol sniffing. I have mentioned that problem to the Minister previously in this place. Of all the States in Australia, the Northern Territory, together with the northern part of South Australia, has the worst problems. The Northern Territory and the northern part of South Australia are tied into the same sort of land movement. The South Australian Labor Government has given huge tracts of land to the Aborigines, turned its back on them and said that all of their problems are solved because they have this land. The Aborigines have always had the land. All that has been done is that the title on a piece of paper has been changed. It has never been any different. Arnhem Land is one of the biggest tracts of land in Australia that has been set aside for Aborigines. It is about 10 times bigger than Tasmania. The Aborigines still have it. The only thing that has been done is that the title has been changed. But we are not following up this ridiculous nonsense with some facilities.
We think we are helping them but their whole social system has broken down. There is no control or discipline on any of the reserves, and we have been to many. On our last few trips we have been to the southern part of the Northern Territory, the Alice Springs and Ayers Rock areas and the northern part of South Australia looking at the outstation movement, which is a separate thing again from the land claim issue. I believe it is high time that we stopped giving more and more land and resources away. We do not have the resources. The nation is bankrupt. We cannot afford the sort of money that people are demanding. We are not prepared even to allow mining in some of these areas. We have reached the absurd position of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wandering up to Kakadu and making pronouncements about not mining. As the Chairman of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee has just said, if anyone sits down on the ground and talks to these people, he soon finds out that they want to mine the land that they have. Why should they not? They are not strange, different or Stone Age people. Most Aborigines do wish to mine on their land. Having received a freehold land grant, why would they not want to exploit the resources that they have? Why would they not want to farm it, mine it or do something with it? There is very little that they can do with it other than mine it. Much of that country cannot be grazed. They have to make a living somehow or other. For God's sake, we cannot have them on the dole ad infinitum. But that is the situation that we have set up-a 100 per cent 1,000-year social security setup. These people will never have any form of income of self-respect. Aborigines are no different from us. We like to earn an honest income. We do not wish to be on the dole. No one wishes to be out of work. The Aborigines are no different. It is high time that we stopped this nonsense.
Fortunately, Queensland has not gone along with the national land rights legislation. It has offered the Aborigines deeds-in-grant which I believe are proving very successful. If people care to travel around Australia and visit all the States, they will find that Queensland is as far advanced in helping Aborigines as any of the other States. It is certainly further advanced than the Northern Territory.
Mr Nehl
—Joh is right.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—I am not saying that Joh is not right a lot of the time. He is not necessarily right all the time, but he was certainly right on the national land rights issue. There are not too many things these days in Australia on which Joh is not right. He was certainly right about the election result only a few weeks ago. We buried the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. The ALP was down three per cent on its vote. We absolutely buried them. It was a disgusting performance by the ALP. We will bury those blokes at the next election. I cannot wait for the Special Minister of State (Mr Young)--
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren)
—Order!
Mr IAN CAMERON
—Every day in the House he tries to tell us what date the election might be.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will return to the Bill.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—I cannot wait until he tells me the date of the election so that we can bury this Government--
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. The Chair is prepared to give the honourable member a considerable degree of latitude but I ask him to be relevant to the Bill.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—As we know, this is an important Bill. Unfortunately, it is a tragedy that we even have to debate such a Bill. I have never supported the concept of the so-called land rights legislation in the Northern Territory, but it is something that we seem to be stuck with these days. Some people want excisions from pastoral holdings. Personally, I am opposed to that.
Mr Holding
—I bet you are.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—Of course I am. In the long term, all we are doing is setting up segregated enclaves on pastoral properties where we have to continue to maintain all the facilities, et cetera. I have always said that I cannot see why governments cannot help the pastoralists. If we are so keen about their supplying all these facilities--
Mr Hand
—We do.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—What is the point in setting up these separate enclaves? We do not do it for white people who are established on stations. We do not go to white people working on stations and say: `Here you are, fellas. There are 20 or 30 ringers on this place. We will give you an excision from this station.' But if there are Aborigines, we say: `Oh, well, you guys need an excision here. You want a cow paddock. You want to run 100 head of cattle. You have to support yourself so here is half the cattle station'. That is the sort of situation we have reached. The Minister has threatened station owners and station managers in the Northern Territory and demanded excisions from their pastoral holdings. It is a ridiculous situation.
I worked for many years in the Northern Territory and I can assure honourable members from my experience that these things will do no good to the Aboriginal people in the long run. It is ridiculous that we set up these enclaves. Stations cannot afford to employ Aboriginal people any more because of the high wage structure that we have imposed. It is impossible for them to employ these people and most of them have been laid off. I do not believe it is fair to encourage Aborigines to remain on the stations where there is no work available. That is what is happening.
Of course, there are other problems for Aboriginal people. We have the absurd situation that the head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has now been given money to write a book. We heard about the head of the Australian War Memorial writing books but now we have Mr Perkins--
Mr Blanchard
—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member is again transgressing your ruling. He is not debating the Bill. He is just casting aspersions on the Minister.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Once again I ask the honourable member to remain relevant to the Bill.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am doing my best. I believe the Bill deals with Aborigines; it says something about them. I do have a number of Aborigines in Maranoa. It happens to be a fairly isolated part of Australia where Aboriginal people still seem to reside. It is my responsibility to look after their interests in this House. All I am saying is that I have had a letter from Mrs McKellar, a resident of Cunnamulla, complaining that she cannot get any funding to help preserve some of the history of her own area, of the Aboriginal people, and yet the head of the Minister's Department, Mr Perkins, can get all the funds he needs to write books about himself and glorify his own existence.
Mr Holding
—That is just not true.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—It is true. That is what he is doing.
Mr Holding
—It is not true.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—The Minister can tell me in his reply what Mr Perkins is doing.
Mr Holding
—He receives no money at all.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—The intention is that he gets some money. Is that right?
Mr Holding
—It is quite wrong.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—We will see about that.
Mr Holding
—Ask me a question tomorrow.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—I might do that. As I understand it, some thousands of dollars are being set aside for Mr Perkins to start compiling his own epitaph.
Mr Holding
—You are wrong.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—I wonder about that. We will see what the Minister says tomorrow about these things. He might even have the courtesy to reply to my speech on these matters when he closes the debate. I can assure the House that some weird and wonderful things continue to go on in his Department. We saw what happened previously. That is one of the best things the Australian Labor Party has done. Sugar Ray Robinson was my representative, and I continually get complaints. He was one of the leaders of the bush; he was one of the reasons why the Minister was forced to close it down. Sugar Ray is a part Aborigine. He lives at Charleville and he was doing all sorts of weird and wonderful things. The latest thing is that Sugar Ray has brought himself a racehorse stud. He has money, and I get complaints from all my Aboriginal people about where the funding from the Minister's Department is going. Sugar Ray Robinson, who was on the Northern Land Council, now has himself a racehorse stud. He loves horses, because every time I go to the races in Charleville, who should be there but Sugar. He is there placing a few bets.
Mr Holding
—What are you doing there?
Mr IAN CAMERON
—I am placing a few bets, too, but he wins more than I do. Unfortunately we have seen the Prime Minister up there acting like his own hypocritical self, pontificating about what we should and should not be doing. Meanwhile down here, in the centre of things, the country is going bankrupt. We are posting our biggest balance of payments deficit ever. Yet the Prime Minister is up there trying to tell the rest of Australia that we should not be mining in national parks. We already mine in national parks. There are three uranium mines in parks right now. The companies have made a good job of those; we have all been there and looked at them. Are they falling into great holes in the ground? Are Aborigines falling out of the trees with some strange disease? No, they are not. They have some employment and a bit of dignity. A few jobs are available. There are miners there so these guys have a bit of work to do.
Mr Nehl
—And they are getting the royalties, too.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—We realise that.
Mr Hand
—You don't like that, do you?
Mr IAN CAMERON
—I do not mind letting them have the royalties as long as we all get them on an equal footing. I have always argued that. Some of the changes in this legislation deal with royalties. Around $80m has been paid to Aborigines. One of the worst features of this royalties setup is that they are paid to the Aborigines but the Aborigines are not means tested and they continue to draw social security benefits. Some of them up there are quite wealthy individuals. Again there are only a few; only a few can benefit. Some of them are wealthy and there should be a system whereby there is a bit of justice in the community in the way these things are administered. If an Aboriginal trust is getting millions of dollars and is redistributing that back to its own people and those people happen to have more money in their pockets than is allowed when claiming the dole, they ought not get the dole. They are not being means tested, the money is in trust and everyone seems to turn a blind eye to it. Whilst the Minister has introduced these changes I hope he will look at these problems and make sure that the people to whom this money is distributed are being means tested the same as any other Australians. There is a lot of animosity up there in the Northern Territory amongst the Aborigines themselves about those people who are getting these funds and those who are missing out. That is one of the main reasons why they would like to see a bit of mining. When we are able these days, with all the advancements we have made in mining, to put country back and rehabilitate it after it has been used, I do not know why we cannot go into these areas and mine them and use some of the funds earned to help these people even more. Then we can put the land back. In lots of cases the land ends up better than it was when the mining started. I could show honourable members areas on Fraser Island, for instance, over which there was great controversy. Malcolm Fraser stopped the export of mineral sands and mining on Fraser Island. The areas that have been mined are now in a better state than some other areas. They have much more coverage on them; the sand itself is more protected than it ever was. Australia is not in a position to have the luxury of locking up huge areas of land away from mining and away from some useful purpose. We have a trade imbalance of $2 billion a quarter. We are running a $20 billion deficit, which is beyond the pale. We say to these people in the Northern Territory that we are not going to mine, yet they come to us cap in hand expecting us to give millions of dollars in handouts. We are spending something like $400m a year on the few Aborigines we have in Australia.
Mr Maher
—You said there were 300,000.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—That is not a lot of people. There are 16 million people in Australia, and of those 16 million people there are roughly 70,000 full bloods and the rest of the so-called Aborigines have a mixture of all sorts of blood in them. There are very few pure-bred Aborigines left. Most of them are in Queensland, the Northern Territory, the northern part of Western Australia and Central Australia. There are none in Victoria, and I will bet that there are none in the honourable member's electorate.
Mr Maher
—There are four.
Mr IAN CAMERON
—I doubt even that. I believe one of the worst aspects of the amendments is the fact that the period for claim will remain at 10 years. As I said earlier, I believe it is time we stopped this nonsense of handing out land higgledy piggledy to these people and caught up with some of the deplorable situations so that those who have been given land can at least catch up with their education, their health and policing et cetera, in some these areas. It is my pleasure to oppose the extension of this socialistic Bill.
Mr HAND(Melbourne)(9.38)
—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. Before dealing with some of the specifics of the amending legislation I would like to address two issues: Firstly, the consultative process that has accompanied the drafting of the Bill and, secondly, the opposition to Aboriginal rights that is a prominent feature of the campaign of the New Right and their servants on the Opposition benches. My colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has, in conjunction with the Caucus committee on Aboriginal affairs, chaired by the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), spent many hours in deliberation discussing and modifying the amending Bill since the Government's intention to review the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was first announced in March of this year. This consultation process has been developed by the Minister and the committee since the Government's re-election in 1984. The committee invited representation from Aboriginal individuals and groups, as well as others with an interest or involvement in the issues concerned with the policy deliberations of the committee. This ensured that policy decisions were not made in a political vacuum but instead in a context of informed debate, the purpose of which was to find the most appropriate means to satisfy the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal Australians. This was of paramount concern to the committee.
The Caucus committee, in its role of advising the Minister and Cabinet, has received representations from the Northern Territory land councils representing the interests of those on whom the Bill has the most immediate impact-the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. We have also heard at length the views of the Northern Territory Government and mining and pastoral interests. They sought amendments to weaken the present Act and to diminish the rights of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. Not surprisingly, the Government, through the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the committee, has also received numerous representations from a diverse range of groups supporting the position of the land councils whose diligence and professionalism in representing Aboriginal interests in this matter have been outstanding. The diversity of the groups and individuals who made representations in support of the Aboriginal position reflects the wide range of support that exists for land rights in the general community.
All major trade unions, branches of the Australian Labor Party, a range of community groups, indigenous nations and organisations in the Pacific, and the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia have all strongly expressed a demand that we uphold and defend existing rights. Church groups representing all major denominations at the highest level highlighted the obligation of government in Australia to ensure that demands of Aboriginal people for justice and the recognition of their rights to land, as the indigenous owners of Australia, are achieved before this nation celebrates its Bicentenary in 1988. Aboriginal organisations from every State supported the land councils' tireless representations to our committee. The committee's concern to listen to all views has meant that its deliberations have been almost without precedent in working out the details of the Bill before the House.
Foremost in our minds during these deliberations were the words of Mr Justice Woodward who, in the report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission in 1973, asserted:
The lesson of history is that any privileges which Aborigines have sought should not lightly be put aside or reduced.
We have been extremely conscious of the significance of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 which the Bill before the House will amend. Of course, the Northern Territory Government and its sponsors and supporters from the New Right, particularly from the mining industry, have sought at every opportunity to deny Aboriginal people their rights and, in the Northern Territory, to turn back the clock to the ruthless and untrammelled dispossession of Aboriginal people which preceded the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in 1976.
At the forefront of this campaign is the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) whose public outbursts against Aboriginal people have been disgracefully opportunistic and racist. He has undertaken, both in his former position as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and now, unfortunately, as the Federal member for that electorate, a campaign of vilification against the justice of the Act. The remorseless campaign of which the honourable member for the Northern Territory has been--
Mr Spender
—I raise a point of order. The honourable member used the expression `racist' against a member of this House. That is unparliamentary, and it should be withdrawn.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren)
—I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark.
Mr HAND
—In view of the time available, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw it. The remorseless campaign in which the honourable member for the Northern Territory has been a key player has been directed at dividing the Australian community, seeking to make race, Aboriginal rights, and land rights in particular, contentious political issues out of which he has sought political advantage. In fact, this man who masquerades as representing the interests of the Northern Territory electorate, of which almost one-third of the people are Aboriginal, when referring in June this year to the Bicentenary, said:
If there hadn't been a 1788 Aboriginal people would still be bashing their daughters skulls out on rocks when they decided they didn't want their daughters.
What could be said about such a statement, other than that one assumes he would argue that Aboriginal people should be thankful for the genocide that they have suffered as a result of the non-Aboriginal invasion of this land?
Let it be made quite clear to those opposite and to the reactionary ideologues of the New Right that this Government and the Labor Party will not be threatened or blackmailed into taking away or diminishing the rights of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It is this Labor Government's intention to ensure that Aboriginal people throughout Australia have land rights appropriate to their needs and aspirations. It is a matter of record that at this year's biennial conference the ALP, once again, unanimously reaffirmed this objective of land rights for Aboriginal Australians. We will not resile from this commitment. The time has come for all non-Aboriginal Australians to face up to the injustice of Aboriginal dispossession and the continuum of colonial oppression that has been the hallmark of this nation's history since 1788. It is time this nation grew up.
Let there be no doubt that the troglodytes who sit opposite would de-gut the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act at the earliest opportunity. The philosophical gurus, the acolytes of reaction and exploitation, who determine the political agenda of the Opposition have as their basic objective profit maximisation regardless of the social and environmental costs and have no interest in justice and equity. This is the South African recipe for profit and success. It is in our national interest to recognise Aboriginal rights, as it is inevitable that eventually international attention will focus on the Australian maltreatment of its indigenous population. We should be proud to have proper indigenous rights at the forefront of our nation's values. It is also inevitable that, unless we as a nation act to meet Aboriginal demands for justice, we will be subject to the derision of the international community, at great cost to this country politically, socially and economically.
The provisions of the Bill before the House are derived largely from the recommendations of Mr Justice Toohey, a former land commissioner who undertook, at the request of the first Hawke Government, a review of some aspects of the land rights Act. This Bill reflects in large part his recommendations. In considering the Bill, the Government has sought to extend the powers of the land councils, particularly as they relate to the protection of sacred sites as well as the ability of Aboriginal people to become involved in commercial enterprises. It is the Government's view that everything possible should be done to promote the involvement of Aboriginal people in the wider economy, where they desire it. This is especially so in relation to commercial developments on Aboriginal land.
For this reason the Bill empowers land councils to assist actively Aboriginal people in their respective areas to carry out commercial activities, including resource developments, the provision of tourist facilities and agricultural activities. Indeed, the Minister has indicated to representatives of the land councils that he is keen for the land councils, where appropriate, to participate in commercial activities on a trustee basis for their constituents. Of course, the land councils are statutory bodies and, as such, must account to the Parliament for their finances through the provision of annual reports under section 37a. In addition, the Act empowers the Minister to audit the accounts and records of a land council at any time. That is covered in section 36. I make the point that the record shows that the land councils have, on the whole, been scrupulous in the administration of their financial affairs.
Another significant aspect of the Bill is the amendment which will prevent the alienation of land under claim. The effect of this will be to prevent a malevolent Northern Territory Administration from seeking to stop land being claimed by arbitrary alienation. Previously the Northern Territory Administration has, under the Chief Ministership of the current member for the Northern Territory, attempted to deny the right of Aboriginal people to claim land by arbitrary alienations such as the extension of the Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek town boundaries. In an attempt to frustrate the Kenbi land claim, Mr Paul Everingham, as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, on 29 December 1978 extended the town boundaries of Darwin so that the area of Darwin was larger than that of Greater London, increasing the area from 142 square kilometres to 4,350 square kilometres. Needless to say, the issue has been taken to the High Court of Australia on more than one occasion. To date the judgments have been in favour of Aboriginal people, although I understand the question has yet to be finally resolved. The Northern Territory has done everything in its power to frustrate and prevent the legitimate claims of Aboriginal people to their land, taking litigation to the High Court on 13 occasions.
Another example which is still before the courts, as a result of provocative alienations of land under claim by the Northern Territory Administration while the current member for the Northern Territory was Chief Minister, is the Warumungu land claim around Tennant Creek. In this case the Northern Territory alienated nine of the eleven areas under claim on 29 October 1982, just three days before the hearing of the claim commenced on 1 November 1982. The Land Commissioner was not informed until 3 November 1982. Of course, this matter, too, has been, and continues to be, litigated. Judgment on various issues has been given in the claimant's favour once in the High Court and once in the Federal Court of Australia. There are still cases awaiting judgment, one in the Federal Court and one in the High Court. Only on one occasion has this ploy been successful, and then only on a minor point of law.
So we have had enough of people on the other side of the House talking about their parties' commitment to Aboriginal people. By pursuing litigation the Northern Territory Government has succeeded in wasting massive amounts of taxpayers' money with its only objective being to deny Aboriginal people justice. Of course, such action is discriminatory and has been taken solely to deny Aboriginal people their rights to claim land. For this, the honourable member for the Northern Territory is largely responsible. While preventing the alienation of land under claim the Bill provides for land councils to enter into agreements concerning such land. This will allow a person or a body, such as the Northern Territory Government, that desires to obtain an estate or an interest in land which is the subject of a traditional land claim to negotiate with the land council before the land claim is determined. Of course, the land councils must be satisfied that the Aboriginal people consent to such an agreement. This will enable land councils to agree that, if the land becomes Aboriginal land, they will direct the relevant land trust to grant an estate of interest, including a licence, in the land to the person or body with whom the agreement was reached. The effect of this process will be to limit disputes over detriment to the time when the land claims are being heard. With regard to the question of sacred sites protection, which has been mentioned by two previous speakers from the other side of the House, the Bill provides land councils with a role in protecting sacred sites both on and off Aboriginal land, recognising the primary role that the land councils play in sacred sites protection.
While the Bill is far from perfect in overall terms, it is a significant improvement on the existing Act. One area in which the Government may yet be forced to legislate concerns the provision of excisions or living areas for those Aboriginal people dispossessed by the pastoral industry. This is one group whose needs have not been addressed by these current amendments. However, the Minister has given his assurance to the Caucus committee, the land councils, the Northern Territory Government and the pastoralists that, should Aboriginal needs for adequate and appropriate excisions not be met by the agreed process, he will use his powers to acquire compulsorily the land to meet these needs. The Minister has also made it plain that, in the case of existing claims over identified stock routes and reserves, if after discussions between the Northern Territory Government and the land councils the needs of these people are not satisfied, claims over these areas will be able to proceed. This is notwithstanding the fact that the question of whether stock routes may or may not be claimed is presently before the courts.
It is to be clearly understood that it is the Government's firm intention to allow Aboriginal people to pursue their claims to land and for that land to be available under inalienable freehold title. It should be understood by everyone that this Government will not sit by and see Aboriginal rights whittled away by the pernicious acts of the Northern Territory Government, pastoralists, miners, cronies in the New Right and those people on the Opposition benches. This Party is committed to land rights and we will do everything, as long as we are on this side of the House, to improve the welfare and conditions of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. We will strengthen their claim to land rights as long as we are on this side of the House.
Let me say that to take away or in any way diminish the rights of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory would be a repressive and retrograde step upon which history would judge us harshly. History will judge honourable members opposite harshly. They are running with a group of people in our society whom I do not think they have properly examined. Honourable members opposite are running with people in the mining industry who produced the most racist set of advertisements ever to be produced in this community. These are the people the Opposition is running with; these are the people it is supporting; these are the people who terrified the people in Western Australia, and these are the people the Opposition is protecting by making the sorts of speeches that the previous two speakers made. I do not refer to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), because I have travelled around with him and I think he is a person who is committed to his shadow portfolio.
It is clear from the voice of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory that they see their future as dependent upon their land being held securely by them under inalienable freehold title. This provides them with the opportunity to reassert control over their society and culture while at the same time participating in the economic development and exploitation of the resources of that land, when and where they regard it to be appropriate, and in a way which accords with their concerns about the protection of their physical and spiritual environment. We hear a lot of talk from the other side of the House about what Aboriginal people ought to be doing. But it seems to me that if people have no home, no shelter and no place to call their own, those people are indeed left with virtually nothing. We should establish a home for these people, a place that they can call their own-a place on the land which we took from them.
We drove them into the problems of petrol sniffing referred to by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). How did they get into that situation? How did the children in those regions he talked about become petrol sniffers? It was because they were driven off their land and put into settlements and were not able to cope with the sort of society in which they found themselves. The question of land grants is fundamental to that society being able to get out of the dilemma that it is currently in, for those people to claw their way back, to regain their culture and the structure of their own society. It is incumbent upon the Australian nation to at last come to some reconciliation with Aboriginal people as the prior owners of Australia. That is what they were; they were the owners of this country, and now we have driven them into the furthest corners of the Northern Territory and the States. But we have an amendment Bill before the House which strengthens the original Act, giving Aboriginals greater control over their own lives and, I believe, a greater chance to further their future as a community.
Mr WILSON(Sturt)(9.58)
—I want to take part in this debate because I believe that it touches on people who are suffering, and have suffered for many years, great deprivation. Much of my political concern has been to bring about the reforms of public policy necessary to remove the causes of poverty. Only by removing the causes of poverty will all people be able to live with dignity, self-respect and security in an economic, social and environmental sense. The majority of the causes of poverty in Australia, and, I guess, in many other countries as well, has been institutionalised by the legislation of parliaments-in this country by the legislation of State and Commonwealth parliaments. Governments all too often institutionalise these causes-and the present Labor Government has been no exception-and then claim the credit for providing relief from the poverty they have caused, or perpetuated, by failing to introduce fair and equitable tax and social security policies and policies across the whole range of issues that affects the people they govern.
The relief that is provided, then, is palliative. It infrequently cures, and rarely removes, the causes of poverty. Large numbers of Aboriginals are caught in this kind of poverty trap. They suffer a double disadvantage-the disadvantage arising out of the way they were treated and dispossessed prior to the 1967 referendum and the disadvantage arising from the total or partial abdication of responsibility by the States for their Aboriginal citizens. The Commonwealth has sought to grapple with the many intractable problems of providing for these people standards and opportunities equal to those available to the rest of the Australian community.
Sadly, I believe that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill does too little and it comes later than it could have come. The Australian Labor Party and certain radical Aboriginal leaders, who in each case put self-interest ahead of the interests of the people of the Northern Territory and the Aboriginal people in particular, have caused a four-to-five year delay in the implementation of a number of the measures contained in this Bill. In 1982, when I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I announced on behalf of the then Government that we proposed to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of 1976. The amendments were part of a package of proposals which had been discussed over the previous 14 months with the Northern Territory Government and the Northern and Central Land Councils. The package included legislation to be introduced by both the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments. The package finally proposed was a package of reforms, agreed between myself as the Minister and the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who is now the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). We agreed, we achieved a balance and it was a true compromise. It would have made genuine and real progress for some very deprived Aborigines, progress which the Minister now says he hopes this legislation will bring about quickly. One of the reasons why there was not progress at all in 1982 was that the Labor Party failed to see that the proposal then agreed between the elected Northern Territory and the Commonwealth Government was a true balance of interests.
Talking of a balance of interests, I refer to the fact that, while I was the Minister, it was determined that there should be published a booklet explaining in full the proposals that had been agreed to. So vehement, however, was the opposition from the Labor Party that it was decided not to proceed with the package which would have resolved a large number of the problems that the Minister says he has had great success in solving over the past four years. Had the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and his colleagues only read the proposals and attempted to understand the progress that could have been made, many of the now very poor Aborigines in the Northern Territory would have achieved security of tenure in relation to their land long before now. The Fraser Government believed that the proposals would have benefited a large number of Aboriginal people and that their implementation would have reduced the significant tension that was emerging within the population of the Northern Territory.
As the proposals were shaped into legislation we promised that consultations with the land councils in the Northern Territory would continue and that discussions would be held with those communities and people who were clearly affected by it. As I have said, the package involved a balance of interests. The land rights legislation has a direct impact on the lives of many people. Changes to that legislation, then as now, had to be judged against the wider background of creating and sustaining a community in which legitimate and sometimes competing interests could live and work together without unnecessary tension and conflict. It must be remembered that in the Northern Territory the in excess of 100,000 people include people from all backgrounds, people who want to live there in peace and harmony, living out their own lives with independence and security and within a framework which relieves them from being forced into poverty. It was the Fraser Government's view that the proposals taken as a whole provided a substantial advantage and benefit to a large number of Aborigines living in the Northern Territory. It also believed that the proposals would overcome a major cause of tension and opposition to the land rights legislation, opposition which has escalated since the Labor Party came into government. In terms of community acceptance, we now have a much greater problem than we had in 1982. We could have made that progress and significantly reduced the level of tension if only Government members had then supported the changes that had been agreed to by the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth.
We also believed that the proposals would overcome those problems, and to this end we sought to remove a cloud over the social life of the economic development of the Northern Territory by removing the uncertainty as to how much of the Northern Territory would become Aboriginal land. One of the objectives of granting land rights was to achieve a greater degree of social harmony and stability within the wider community by removing as far as possible the legitimate causes of complaint of an important minority group within that community. It was the view of the then Government that, if the tensions then existing were permitted to grow unchecked, the Aborigines of the Northern Territory would be adversely affected, as I believe they have been over the last four years. This is just what has occurred as a consequence of the Labor Party's then expressed opposition to the legislation and to the implementation of the agreement entered into between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory
In 1974 Mr Justice Woodward presented to the Government of the day his recommendations on the appropriate means to recognise and grant land rights to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which was enacted in 1976, was based in large part on the recommendations of Mr Justice Woodward. In 1979 the Commonwealth Government commissioned Mr Barry Rowland, QC, to examine concerns about the practical operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Mr Rowland reported in 1980 indicating several issues which he considered the Government should examine and decide upon. These issues included the conversion of Aboriginal-owned pastoral leases to Aboriginal land and claims to stock routes. He did not recommend what policy decision should be made, but only that there was a need for decision. Following examination of the Rowland report, my predecessor as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Peter Baume, convened a meeting in March 1981 at which he, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the three chairmen of the Aboriginal land councils, discussed whether there might be some consensus about aspects of the Act or relevant Northern Territory legislation. The meeting acknowledged that there were matters of genuine concern to various groups within the Northern Territory community resulting from the operation of the Act and that there would be merit in discussing these matters further. Further discussions resulted eventually in the preparation by the Northern Territory of a draft proposal. That proposal was submitted to the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council in August 1981.
In August the Northern Land Council accepted the principles of the draft proposal. It further resolved that its representatives should be involved in the development of detailed drafting instructions and that the Council should be given the opportunity to have any draft legislation submitted to it before presentation to Parliament or to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. The Central Land Council, on the other hand, neither accepted nor rejected the draft proposal at that time, but indicated that it wanted to continue to be involved in the discussions and would participate in the development of detailed drafting instructions. A working party, comprising officials from the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments and the chairmen and lawyers of the Northern and Central Land Councils, was established to draw up detailed drafting instructions. The Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments made it know to the land councils that they intended to continue negotiations with them on the preparation of the actual legislation to give effect to the draft proposals. Such negotiations were planned to ensure that the land councils were aware of the form of the legislation prior to its introduction into the Commonwealth and Northern Territory parliaments.
Let me now summarise the proposals that were agreed for legislation. The Northern Territory Government agreed that it would legislate, firstly, to provide a process by which Aborigines now living on pastoral properties could have excised areas for living purposes under perpetual title. It proposed that an independent tribunal headed by a judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court would help to resolve any deadlock or conflict between the pastoral lessee and the Aboriginal applicants seeking areas to be excised. That process of excision under that framework could have begun in 1982 and been much further advanced than it is now had the Labor Party supported the package of proposals. Secondly, the Northern Territory Government agreed that it would legislate to provide perpetual title to Aboriginals who purchased pastoral leases in the future on the open market. To the extent that there were special conditions favouring the lessee that would apply in relation to mining activities on those leases, and where the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs approved, the Commonwealth, in the case of those perpetual leases, agreed that, if it were necessary as a condition of the grant of lease that there be some form of guarantee, the Commonwealth would underwrite the performance of the covenants of any Aboriginal leaseholder.
Thirdly, the Northern Territory undertook to legislate a grant of title to Aboriginal trustees in respect of Northern Territory parks to which valid claims had already been lodged and at the same time preserve the land for park purposes. Fourthly, the Northern Territory agreed to legislate to provide a grant of perpetual title over the Uluru National Park. In addition, the Northern Territory agreed by public assurances that it would not alienate any land which had been claimed without prior consultation with the relevant land council and that it would not prevent the transfer of pastoral leases to Aboriginals who may wish to purchase them in the future on the open market. Any subsequent alienation was a consequence of the fact that it was clear that the legislation that the Commonwealth undertook to bring into this Parliament would not pass because it would have lacked the support of the Labor Party. Realising that the package of agreements to balance the interests of the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory and the interests of the Aboriginal communities and those of the pastoralists and the miners, in a way that would have made progress, would not come into legislative form, the Northern Territory chose to exercise the full powers that had been given to it at the time of the grant of self-government.
For its part, the Commonwealth undertook to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to do three things: Firstly, to eliminate provisions for traditional land claims to pastoral or other leases held by or on behalf of Aboriginals with the exception of claims already lodged over pastoral leases up to 3 June 1982. Secondly, the Commonwealth agreed to remove the provision for the hearing of land claims over stock routes, stock reserves and other areas declared as public purpose areas under Northern Territory legislation. Thirdly, the Commonwealth was going to legislate to remove the provision for the hearing of any land claims in relation to Territory national parks.
I turn in the few minutes remaining to me to expand upon one or two elements of the Commonwealth's agreement in respect of that package. I turn first to the question of claims in respect of pastoral leases owned by Aboriginals, a conspicuous lack in this legislation. Yet in 1982 there was agreement and the matter could well then have been resolved, particularly in relation to purchases of pastoral leases by Ab- originals from that date on. The difficulty arising from the earlier legislation is that Aboriginals who hold or purchase pastoral leases can have their properties claimed by other Aboriginals who assert traditional links with that land. This situation arose in cases such as Borroloola and Beetaloo. In these cases if the lessees had been non-Aboriginals the Act would have protected their land from such claims. Neither the Commonwealth nor the Northern Territory opposed the idea of Aboriginals purchasing pastoral properties. The Commonwealth had encouraged the purchase of such properties through the use of funds provided, firstly, by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission and, more recently, by the Aboriginal Development Commission, but the progressive conversion of pastoral leases to Ab- original land does not remove those properties from the commercial market and the extent to which the elected Government can--
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
Liberal Party-Streetwize Comics-Australian Defence Force Exercise, Kangaroo 86-Administrative Appeals Tribunal: Charges for Referring Tax Appeals-Food Irradiation-Tasmania-HMVS Cerberus-Mr Joseph Adamov-Afghanistan-Seminar on Adult Education in Finland
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh)
— Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.15)
—Over the last few days there has been a great deal of speculation in the newspapers about leadership challenges within the Liberal Party. I know that it is very hard to believe, but I went to a bit of trouble tonight to find some information about the major contenders on the other side. I found out that, since the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) replaced the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) as Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong has made only 16 speeches in the House whereas, surprisingly, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has made 70. I think that is pretty typical, and I would like to quote to the House from an article in the Australian on 14 November 1986 under the heading `Jim Carlton: the new force in the Liberal Party':
There is a new force in the Liberal Party-a man whose ideas are now starting to dominate the Opposition coalition and who is potentially the most influential figure on the conservative side of politics.
It is not Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, John Howard or Andrew Peacock.
Rather, it is the honourable member for Mackellar. I would like to throw forward the name of the honourable member for Mackellar as Leader of the Opposition and, in order to help him along, I have put together what I consider to be a reasonable sort of shadow ministry for him. There are three criteria that I used in selecting my ministry: Firstly, as many as possible had to be from New South Wales and they must not have served on the front bench under the honourable member for Bennelong. Secondly, they must have a commitment to the policies of the New Right and, thirdly, they must have obvious hidden talent-hidden because nobody has seen it to date. The honourable member for Mackellar, Leader of the Opposition; the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), Attorney-General; the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), Treasurer; the honourable member of Warringah (Mr MacKellar), Territories; the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), Primary Industry; the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), Health; the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson): Education and Youth Affairs; Senator Michael Baume, Finance and Taxation-that is one for my friend the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis); Senator Chris Puplick, Trade; the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson), Transport and Aviation; the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), Aboriginal Affairs; the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), Special Minister of State-because he likes doing the job of the Special Minister of State for our side; the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), Social Security-and fix the assets test; the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), Industry, Technology and Commerce; the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), Communications and the Media; the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), Northern Development and Local Government; the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), Foreign Affairs; the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), Small Business and Administrative Services; the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred), Defence-because he likes to tell the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) what to do with his submarines; the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), Sport, Recreation and Tourism-because he obviously has some talent there; the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), Veterans' Affairs; Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen, Employment and Industrial Relations-because obviously she has had a very good tutor; Senator Parer, Resources and Energy-because he comes from a background in that field and because we have not had any questions on resources and energy that I can remember in the two years that I have been a member of this House.
Mr Chynoweth
—Who is he?
Mr MARTIN
—Well you might ask. Finally, Senator Susan Knowles, Community Services and the Status of Women. There is an alternative to the front bench that we have seen in operation in this House over the last 12 months.
Mr Lee
—What about White?
Mr MARTIN
—I must admit to my colleagues on this side of the House that, when I was going through the list, there were some potential candidates that I thought the honourable member for Mackellar would like on this front bench. Then I thought: `No, we will balance it up'. I thought that if we put New South Welshmen there in the main they would protect his interests, because we from New South Wales tend to stick together and people know this. I thought that, if we balanced it up with a smattering of people from around the countryside, at least there would be some representation. We have to be a little careful when selecting people from some of the other areas because talent, we have to admit, is not all that thick on the ground on the other side.
Mr Blanchard
—It is thick.
Mr MARTIN
—Perhaps it is thick. I have made this as a constructive criticism because, in all the talk about leadership challenges on the other side, reference keeps going back to the honourable member for Kooyong. Quite honestly, I ask honourable members to consider how many times we have seen him on his feet in recent times-never. He has put 264 questions on the Notice Paper, but very rarely do we see him on his feet in the House. Rather, he is content to sit back and see other people talk about leadership challenges. The article in the Australian, as I have indicated, is a very true reflection of the position and is something to which honourable members on the other side should give some consideration. If they are counting heads and looking to get rid of the temporary Leader of the Opposition, perhaps the honourable member for Mackellar offers the alternative.
Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.20)
—I draw the attention of the House to a Press release issued by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), dated 10 November 1986. This Press release trumpeted the launching by the Minister of two special Canberra editions of a publication entitled Streetwize comics-one on drugs and the other on sexually transmitted diseases. The Minister was lavish with his praise for those comics. He said that they provided useful health information in a format which is easy to read and entertaining. He said that the comics presented story situations which are real life and simple to understand, rather than the more traditional and bureaucratic ways which have often been shown to switch off young people.
Let us consider the kinds of messages being conveyed by Streetwize comics to our teenage and sub-teenage children-messages which are enthusiastically endorsed by the Minister for Health. The special health issue comic conveys the impression that it is acceptable behaviour for youngsters to mainline drugs so long as they use their own needles. In one scene a teenager says to his friend: `Did you know you can get AIDS through needles?' The friend replies: `Yeah, man, that's why I have my own needle! They're cheap-worth it!'. Girls reading these comics will learn that taking pills for fun is okay, but if they take them all the time they may become addicted and boring.
I could give more graphic accounts of some of the material in the comics which the Minister for Health says provide young people with accurate health information. However, I consider some of the material to be pop pornography and would be likely to offend the sensibilities of honourable members were I to describe some of the more explicit material. In fact, the Minister, in promoting Streetwize comics, appears to have committed an offence under section 19 (4) a of the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications (Amendment) Ordinance 1984. Section 38 of that Ordinance provides for a fine of up to $5,000 for a corporation and $1,000 for an individual.
Streetwize comics have covered eight topics to date and have upset the people of Geelong, my constituents in Corangamite and the public elsewhere when their children have been targeted with this material. The comics were even distributed in show bags at the Geelong Show in October, ending up in the hands of children in the 6 years to 13 years age group. Streetwize comics have been rightly described as garbage comics. In one issue the police are drawn as pigs and depicted as brutal savages, child bashers, bullies, stand-over merchants and ignorant fools. All of this and more has been provided by Federal and State Labor governments with the taxpayers' money.
Geelong's Chief Superintendent of Police, Max Porter, accurately described the comics as denigrating, damaging, insulting and incorrect. He said that they disturbed and disappointed him as they encouraged youths to be aware of ways to get in and out of trouble, rather than how to behave. It concerned him that the comics did not aim to educate youth on what the community accepted as correct social behaviour. The Chief Superintendent's stance was supported by an editorial in the Geelong Advertiser which stated that police have a right to be angry about a government-funded comic which depicts police with pigs' heads as youth bashers and intimidators. The Geelong Advertiser rightly determined that advice was not the issue; rather, the issue was the manner in which the creators of the comics chose to get across their message-including denigration of the police force by portraying it as being staffed by pigs.
These are the causes that Streetwize comics espouse and which the Federal Minister for Health enthusiastically endorses. This is not surprising, given the notoriety he has achieved as the Minister for marihuana following his advocacy of the decriminalisation of marihuana. His championing of Streetwize comics is but another example of how this Minister and community activists can increase the burden of the disadvantaged-ensuring they stay that way-and drag young people, who might otherwise lead normal lives, into the gutter. The Minister, of course, has got it all wrong again. Not only has he erred, but his enthusiasm to embrace the grubby and discredited Streetwize comics has led him into conflict with a senior fellow Minister, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis).
I have here a copy of a letter received from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, dated 7 November 1986, in response to my inquiry about Federal funds being used to help fund such a disreputable publication. I was told, in effect, that the Federal Government ceased to support Streetwize comics when the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations became aware of concerns over the content and language used in the comic. To the credit of the Minister, he expressed his attitude about two years ago to representations about Street- wize comics. I quote what he said:
. . . I share the concern expressed by your constituent that projects of this kind do not have broad community support . . .
He said further:
As noted earlier C.E.P. funding has now ended and . . . the comic will not receive further C.E.P. funding in the future.
How much longer should the Australian people have to tolerate a Federal Minister for Health who is out of step with broad community values-a Minister who is, in effect, a health hazard?
Madam SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.26)
—On 7 and 8 November 1986 I had the privilege of visiting the Australian Defence Force exercise, Kangaroo 86. It was the major Australian Defence Force exercise for 1986. It was a great success and involved over 6,000 personnel from all three services. K86 was the first deployment of the complete operational deployment force since its formation in 1980. Previous exercises, such as Swift Eagle, have been only at battalion group level. This operation was based on a low level threat scenario, along similar lines to the more likely types of contingencies stated in the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities.
The exercise scenario had been developed progressively over many months. The scenario outlined was that Orangeland, a mythical island nation situated 2,000 kilometres north-east of Australia, felt that Australia was conducting its export of resources at the expense of Orangeland. The Orangeland head of state, President Walup, decided that direct action against the whole export infrastructure in the Bowen Basin was the best way of teaching Australia a lesson. Our intelligence community was able to find out about these intentions and the operational deployment force was therefore warned for deployment. In the third week of October this year Orangeland's 7012 Raider Company was air landed in the Bowen Basin. This force immediately commenced preparation and reconnaissance for raids on key points within the coal export infrastructure such as export mines, railways and the coal loading facilities in Gladstone. The scene was set for battle.
The operational deployment force brigade, comprising 3,400 personnel, is the major combat element of the ODF and was deployed by air and road into the area of operation in the Bowen Basin. This brigade is based on the 3rd Brigade, Lavarack Barracks, Townsville. The initial area of operations of the ODF brigade covered an area of about 100,000 square kilometres. To illustrate the size of the operational area, Tasmania is but 68,350 square kilometres. The area extended from west of Emerald, east to the outskirts of Gladstone, north to the Norwich Park mine and south to Moura. A second area of operation was used for the final few days of the exercise. This area was much smaller and covered the Shoalwater Bay training area and some adjacent properties.
The 42nd Battalion of the Royal Queensland Regiment-an Army Reserve infantry battalion based in the Mackay, Rockhampton and Gladstone region-was allotted to the ODF brigade for K86. Its performance was outstanding and was a further example of integration between the regular and reserve elements of the Army. The first elements of the brigade arrived in the area of operations about 24 hours after receiving the order to deploy. In the first 48 hours the majority of the brigade's combat elements were deployed and operating within the area. Full deployment was completed within 96 hours. The speed of the deployment caught the enemy by surprise and gave the brigade a significant morale and tactical advantage. The brigade's mission was to support the civil authority by protecting the coal export infrastructure and conducting offensive operations to clear the enemy from the Bowen Basin area. This mission was successfully achieved.
I now make some general comments regarding the exercise. I refer, firstly, to the interaction with the Queensland police. As a state of war was not declared, the civil authority remained paramount. The involvement of the Queensland police at all levels from land force headquarters down to individual section patrols and road blocks was fundamental to the conduct of these operations. The brigade and the police quickly established an excellent rapport and were able to mutually support each other to achieve the mission.
Secondly, I refer to the civil community. Unlike many Australian Defence Force exercises in the past, which have been conducted almost exclusively on military training areas or in sparsely populated areas, K86 was conducted within the civil community. The civil community became actively involved in the exercise and proved to be a prime source of intelligence on enemy movements and activities. The exercise would not have been so successful without the support of the civil community.
Thirdly, I refer to air support. The exercise proved the fundamental need for the brigade to have control of its supporting Royal Australian Air Force transport assets. Having operational control of the Tactical Air Support Force enabled the Brigade to react quickly to reports of enemy activity. It also enabled the rapid evacuation of real and exercise casualties. Fourthly, there is logistic support. The ODF's policy on logistic support was to make maximum use of the existing civil infrastructure where possible. This not only reduced the burden on the Brigade and Logistic Support Group transport assets but added a considerable boost to the local economy, particularly that of Emerald.
Finally, Exercise 86 proved the viability of the ODF in a low level scenario and was valuable in that it confirmed the relationship and procedures as described in the exercise objectives. I congratulate Major-General L. G. O'Donnell, Commander, Land Force; Brigadier M. J. Harris, MC, Commander, 3rd Brigade; Group-Captain L. B. Fisher, Commander, ODF Tactical Air Support Force; and Lieutenant-Colonel G. J. Kells, Commander, 1st Logistic Support Group, and all other members of the Australian Defence Force involved in Exercise Kangaroo 86 on their outstanding and professional achievement. I say to them: Australia is proud of you.
Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.33)
—Recently there was an increase in charges for referring tax appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from $2 to $200. The Commissioner of Taxation has argued that this is a reasonable mechanism to dissuade taxpayers from lodging trivial claims. However, in my view such an approach is too simplistic, given that many minor difficulties facing taxpayers arise from the ineptness and bad administration which sadly occurs far too often in the Australian Taxation Office.
Let me cite one example that has come to my attention. In a joint return of income for the year ended 30 June 1982, a taxpayer and his wife disclosed interest income of $5,589.83 from a semi-government authority. On 22 March 1985, almost three years later, the Tax Office forwarded a letter seeking details from the taxpayer's wife in regard to the interest payments. These details were forwarded by the taxpayer's tax agent on 10 April 1985, very quickly, pointing out that the interest had been disclosed in that earlier return. An amount of $1,020 had been paid by the semi-government authority for the year ended 30 June 1982 but was not received by the taxpayer until 5 July 1982. Contrary to the principle that income derived from interest is assessable on receipt in the hands of the taxpayer, the Commissioner included the $1,020 in the return of income for the year ended 30 June 1982. Although the Commissioner adjusted the 1982-83 return, he made no adjustment with respect to the amount in the 1982-83 year. Thus the Commissioner maintained assessments against the taxpayer in regard to the same amount of interest in both years of income.
The taxpayer's agent requested the Commissioner to make a corresponding adjustment, decreasing the amount of income returned by the taxpayer during the year ended 30 June 1983. As a result of this adjustment, the difference in the amount of additional income from which tax would become payable by the taxpayer was a mere $13.86. In the taxpayer's return of income for the year ended 30 June 1982, an additional amount of $510 was included, being the difference between the amount previously disclosed and the total amount received by the taxpayer; that is, the $1,020. In respect of that additional amount, penalty-believe it or not-of $225.58 was imposed by way of notice of assessment dated 15 April 1986. By an adjustment sheet received by the taxpayer on 21 April 1986, the Commissioner responded to the taxpayer's agent's letter of 13 October 1985, reducing the amount of income returned during the year ended 30 June 1983 by $1,020. By a subsequent adjustment sheet for the year ended 30 June 1983, the taxpayer's assessment for that year was reduced by $510. By an amended assessment dated 18 June 1986 issued with respect to the year ended 30 June 1983, a credit was granted to the taxpayer of $234.60 in respect to the adjustment to his return, being a refund on the tax overpaid.
I have listed a large number of dates and a large number of amounts. Honourable members may not be able to absorb them, but it will be on record. The end result is that this saga has continued. Time does not allow me to detail all matters relating to correspondence between the taxpayer's agent and the Commissioner. In summary I point out that if the Commissioner does not make the relevant adjustment in order to receive a diminution of the penalty it will cost the taxpayer $200 to refer the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and that does not include any professional cost. Sadly, in too many ways this matter exemplifies the manner in which the Taxation Office conducts its activities all too often.
Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(10.38)
—I am compelled, yet again, to raise in this House the matter of the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. Australian consumers are having thrust upon them irradiation of food using radioactive cobalt 60. The Australian Consumers Association is currently conducting an inquiry over a six-month period on a shoestring budget of $90,000. How can the ACA be expected to deal adequately with the food irradiation subject against the massive resources actively promoting food irradiation in Australia and throughout the world?
The Australian Atomic Energy Commission is committing Australian resources in the active promotion of food irradiation. The question must be asked: Are the relevant Ministers aware of this promotion? If so, do they approve? Answers are urgently needed. Australian consumers are entitled to know. I ask the following questions: Who authorised Australian Government expenditure of $US260,000 in financial support for the second phase of the Asian regional co-operative project on food irradiation for three years in 1985? Who authorised Australian participation in this regional project on food irradiation? Was the Australian representative Dr Pamela A. Wills of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's Isotope Division? Were there other representatives of the Australian Government? If so, who were they and who authorised their attendance? On what basis did the Australian Government or its representative endorse or agree to promote acceptance of the codex standard and code of practice on food irradiation? Is the Australian Atomic Energy Commission de facto responsible for the introduction of food regulations, including food irradiation regulations, into Australia?
Was the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council still considering possible food irradiation regulations at the time the Atomic Energy Commission agreed to promote acceptance of the codex standard on food irradiation? How does the Atomic Energy Commission explain or justify this undermining of the responsible authority? Were the Ministers aware of this undermining? Who authorised the irradiation at 6 to 8 kilogray of contaminated frozen shrimp in Australia during the period from 11 September to 16 October 1978? Where in Australia were the shrimp irradiated? What was the total quantity of contaminated shrimp that was irradiated? Where were the irradiated shrimp marketed and were they identified as having been irradiated? In the list of clearances in the general survey of irradiated food products cleared for human consumption in some countries, including Australia, were some 61 food products decontaminated by irradiation? Does this indicate that food irradiation will be used to clean up contaminated food?
A recent publication titled `Marketing and Communication Guidelines for Acceptance and Usage of Food Irradiation', put out by the international consultative group on food irradiation, is yet another reason to believe that the Australian Consumers Association inquiry will be totally inadequate to match the power and push of the international nuclear club which is hellbent on forcing food irradiation on an unsuspecting Australian consumer community. The international consultative group on food irradiation meeting in Vienna on 14 to 19 September this year set as its overall objective to `achieve the approval, acceptance and usage of food irradiation on a world wide basis'. This high-powered international group has laid out its marketing plan even targeting Government Ministers at a personal level, and special programs have been developed and tailored to meet needs of individual countries. The question must be asked: Who is the Australian representative? Is the Australian representative contributing to the developing marketing strategies and targeting Government Ministers in a global push to introduce food irradiation into Australia? Further, to whom is the Australian representative responsible, if anyone?
Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.40)
—I wish to say just a few words tonight about my beloved home, Tasmania. If I asked the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is at the table, what he would like Tasmania to be called, what would he say? Would he say the Apple Isle? Everything in this world needs a hook. Everywhere I go everybody refers to Tasmania as the Apple Isle. It seems to have been forgotten by everybody, but if we listen to cricket commentators we hear them say, for example: `David Boon from the Apple Isle'. It is always listed in tourist booklets as the Apple Isle. Yet, regrettably people in Tasmania are trying to change that image. I have always been a firm believer that, if we have a hook we stay with it. Once we lose that hook we lose the image and the identity of the lovely place from which I and the honour- able member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) come. Beloved Tasmania, a little island with a population of 400,000 will always be known to us as the Apple Isle. The honourable member for Denison represented the Tasmanian apple industry in the Huon Valley which is synonymous with beautiful apples. Now I represent it as the Federal member for that area. Rest assured that I will always push Tasmania as the Apple Isle. I will never call it anything else, for example, the golden isle, the pearl or whatever people call it--
Mr Hodgman
—The treasure island.
Mr GOODLUCK
—Or the treasure isle. The trouble with this modern world is that we always get these so-called experts from the mainland-thank God that we have lost a few-who always come to Tasmania to try to change the face of it. They try to change what it is to something else. Regrettably, it just does not work.
Mr Hodgman
—They hate us just for being what we are.
Mr GOODLUCK
—They do. They hate us just for being what we are. But we will never be deterred. My good friend the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) is also in the House tonight. He knows what I mean by the lovely image of the Apple Isle. Let me just say something about parochialism. I am not a parochial politician but we have to stop parochialism in Tasmania. It is divided between the north and the south. Even the Australian Broadcasting Corporation representatives are smiling. That is something. Parochialism just has to stop between the north and south of Tasmania. Regrettably, politicians have become parish pumps in Tasmania. They seem to think that, by running down the north, they will get votes in the south. The two newspapers, the Hobart Mercury and the Examiner fight each other just for a parochial point of view. United we will win; disunited in Tasmania we cannot hope to win.
Just getting on to a more serious note, today the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) mentioned the Prices Surveillance Authority. It was news to me that we are going to get rid of the Prices Surveillance Authority but it is probably a good thing. Let me just relate something that is very important to the people of Tasmania and Australia. The Prices Surveillance Authority is just an instrument of the Government set up in a corner about which we can say: `Oh, it fixes the prices. It does this and it does that so, therefore, it must be right'. The Prices Surveillance Authority fixes a maximum wholesale price for petrol throughout Australia. Oil companies can go to the Prices Surveillance Authority individually and say to it `We need an increase', and they get the increase individually. All oil companies have different wholesale prices. That is fine. Everybody thinks it is a great idea to have a maximum wholesale price throughout Australia. Regrettably, the oil companies have the ability, when there is a glut of petrol in, say Melbourne or Sydney, to drop the price below the maximum wholesale price sometimes to the extent of about 10 cents a litre. Regrettably, that is the reason why people are looking at the Prices Surveillance Authority and they are saying: `What the dickens is it doing? It recommends a price but the oil companies drop below that price'.
Mr Hodgman
—Whose side is it on?
Mr GOODLUCK
—I do not know whose side it is on. Regrettably, it does not help the Tasmanian people or our beloved isle, which will remain the Apple Isle forever.
Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.45)
—This year, 1986, is the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy. But long before the formation of our Navy the mighty iron-clad man of war and flagship of the Victorian Navy had spent many years protecting Victoria. I am quite certain that it would have protected Tasmania if Tasmania had wanted it to. The ship, of course, was the Cerberus. In September 1870 Cerberus was completed. She was the first British battleship to have a low free board, breast-work protection, a central superstructure, a central superstructure with fore and aft turrets and, very importantly, she was the first ship in which sail power was dispensed with. This ship has worldwide significance in the history of naval architecture. She is now the only surviving vessel of her type in the world. Let me read a few extracts from the Argus of 10 April 1871. It states:
The arrival in Hobson's Bay yesterday afternoon of the `Cerberus' monitor will be generally accepted as extremely welcome news. It is now over four years since we got the first intimation that we should have her for our protection, and at last she lies at anchor in our waters, one of the most powerful vessels for harbour defence in the world.
. . .
. . . until the 29th October, when the `Cerberus' got under way at daylight, and left Sheerness for Plymouth. She had a fair start, but when in the Downs, a gale of wind came on, and her lower decks were regularly washed out. The men were up to their knees in water and had to bale, for it was found that there were no pumps, and the ship would not steer. Something was the matter with her boilers-she would not steam; her rudder did not act properly and she proceeded at the mild rate of one and a half knots, in almost every direction but the right one.
It sounds likes the Liberal Party of Australia. The article continues:
Under these discouraging circumstances, and with a crew of only 25 men, Captain Panter put into Spithead, in order to stop awhile at Portsmouth.
. . . . .
He had to rake the back slums of London before he could get sailors who would go, and he then telegraphed to the Victorian emigration agent at Plymouth to get men ready against his coming to that Port, and in that way he got his crew comparatively alright. Before this he had caused about 50 men to be put in prison, they preferring to go to gaol rather than fulfil their engagement and go to sea in a turret vessel.
. . . . .
. . . on November 20th and got to Malta on the 27th, where, as before, she was much visited and among others by the two Admirals and every captain in the fleet. On the afternoon of the day of arrival two-thirds of the ship's company got on shore and set to drinking. The end of which was that 25 men were left behind in prison.
That is, in Malta. The article continues:
The Bay seemed all alive as she entered Hobson's Bay, and she was the centre of observation. The Russian man-of-war the `Haydamack' dipped ensign to her and Captain Koltovsky hurried on board the `Cerberus' to pay his compliments to their Commander. The boys of H.M.V.S. `Nelson' crowded into the rigging of their ship and made the air ring again and peals of boyish cheers, as the monster steamed past; and nearly every vessel in the Bay hastened to pay the compliment of dipping colours.
The preservation and restoration of the HMVS Cerberus provides an opportunity for local, State and Federal governments to work together to create a bicentennial memorial of national and international significance. The proposal to restore this now unique warship certainly gains further significance in this seventy-fifth anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy. Experts' records indicate that the ship is still salvageable although, clearly, there has been some deterioration. It appears that, unless some prompt action is taken, the alternative for this piece of Australian history is to allow it to rust, become a hulk and collapse. I would like the Federal Government to assist in the funding of the restoration of the mighty Cerberus. Let me finish with a few words from a poem written by John Masefield. He wrote:
I touch my country's mind, I come to grips.
With half her purpose thinking of these ships . . .
They mark our passage as a race of men
Earth will not see such ships as those again.
Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.49)
—Tonight I rise to condemn the Hawke socialist Government as even more pro-Soviet than the Lange Government in New Zealand. It gives me no pleasure to have to attack in this House the disgraceful and shameful decision of the Hawke socialist Government to allow the so-called Soviet political commentator, but in fact paid apologist, Comrade Joseph Adamov, into Australia. It is a classic example of crawling to Moscow, a classic example of appeasement by the Hawke socialist Government towards a murderous and criminal regime.
Comrade Adamov, who has been seen on Australian television sets far too often, is the public relations mouthpiece for the murderous Soviet regime which has turned the Eastern bloc into the world's largest concentration camp and which has been responsible for the slaughtering of over one million innocent people in Afghanistan. For the first time in my political career, I feel it my duty to praise publicly Prime Minister David Lange and the New Zealand Government for having the courage and the wisdom to refuse Adamov entry into their country. I note that the New Zealand Immigration Director, Mr Don Bond, is reported as having confirmed that Adamov's application for a visa was refused. Mr Bond added that visas can be refused on various grounds, including security. If New Zealand knocked back Comrade Adamov on security grounds, why has Australia let this evil man into this country?
By coincidence, in Canberra today the Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International launched a new Amnesty publication entitled `Afghanistan: Torture of Political Prisoners'. I imagine that Comrade Adamov will smirk and sneer and dismiss this report as a figment of Western imperialist imagination and claim that it is a pack of lies. But, unfortunately for him, and indeed for the Soviet Union, some members of this Parliament, including me, have actually been to the borders of Afghanistan and spoken to victims of Soviet atrocities and victims of Soviet war crimes as bad as anything perpetrated by the nazis in World War II.
The report is a damning indictment of a cruel and heartless regime headed by Comrade Babrak Karmal, a puppet leader put there by Moscow and maintained by Moscow. It deals with torture of an 18-year-old girl student who was strapped into a chair to which electric wires were then attached, which chair was then rotated for between one to four hours per day for 15 days in a row. It details accounts of electric wires being attached to a young man so that he was given a succession of electric shocks. Finally, when the wires were attached to his tongue, he lost consciousness. It sets out in great detail the continuing vile torture and persecution of political prisoners in Afghanistan by the Soviet puppet regime.
Tonight I want to talk about some of the things I saw on the border of Afghanistan in 1984-things that I have not mentioned before in this Parliament. I mention them because this evening in Canberra a number of members of this House were very honoured to meet with Ambassador Edward L. Rowny, who is the special adviser to the President of the United States of America and Secretary of State for arms control matters. Ambassador Rowny has just come back from Reykjavik in Iceland, where he was present at the negotiations that took place between President Reagan and Party Secretary Gorbachev. Whilst most of the publicity has been on nuclear and conventional weapons, one matter raised with the Ambassador this evening at the United States Embassy was the question of the banning of chemical warfare.
In 1984 I saw, in the refugee hospital in Peshawar, not far from the border of Afghanistan, men who were victims of illegal chemical warfare. They were treated by German surgeons. The incidents were filmed and were shown on German television at the very same time as at the United Nations the Soviet Union lied to the world by continuing to claim that illegal chemical warfare was not being used in Afghanistan.
Ambassador Rowny is a very great and courageous man. He does not speak just for the United States. He speaks for the entire free Western world. How he can negotiate with a regime such as the Soviet Union, which is prepared to lie, lie and lie again on the use of illegal chemical warfare in Afghanistan, is absolutely beyond my comprehension.
Madam SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.54)
—During the parliamentary recess this year I attended a seminar on adult education in Finland. The Finnish Government, through the Finnish Association of Adult Education, has for a number of years conducted a seminar each year under the general theme `Meeting in Finland', where participants from the developed and developing world as well as from East and West meet to discuss issues of relevance to adult education and adult educators.
I was first privileged to attend this meeting in 1979, when the topic was the role of adult education in peace education. This year, appropriately in this the International Year of Peace, the topic was `Year of Peace-For the Sake of Life'. I congratulate the Finnish Government and the Finnish Association of Adult Education on organising this important seminar.
My congratulations also go to Helena Kekkonen, the Secretary-General, and her staff for their organisation of the seminar. Helena Kekkonen visited Australia in late 1984. She has also been awarded the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Peace Prize. Finland has a proud record in not only adult education but also peace education. It has an enviable record of assistance to the developing world and a proud record of opposition to repressive regimes.
The conference this year put emphasis on conditions in Southern Africa and we were privileged to have among us, as participants from South Africa, courageous men and women who have for their own safety had to leave their home in South Africa and live in neighbouring states. We met at Murike in central Finland, a beautiful spot beside a lake. These tranquil surroundings must have been a refreshing change from the brutal conditions in the homeland of the delegates from South Africa. The meeting concluded with the following appeal:
We, the educators from 29 different countries gathered at the `Meeting in Finland' seminar, June 8-14, 1986, have unanimously adopted the following appeal:
1. We express our serious and fundamental concern that violation of universally accepted human rights continues to prevent the accomplishment of the educational work, for example, the increase of literacy, education, cultural and democratic participation. We wish to emphasize the importance of educating children and adults for peace. In this connection we appeal to all governments and international agencies to give moral and material support to governmental and non-governmental institutions and organizations involved in peace education.
2. We are seriously concerned about the continuously increasing inequality between the industrialized and the developing countries. This creates inhuman conditions in the poorest countries. The massive arms expenditures of the industrialized countries should be, as soon as possible, reallocated to contribute to the solution of the problems of developing countries. In this connection we urge ratification of the SALT II nuclear arms agreement.
3. We are especially concerned about the growing critical situation in southern Africa which is due to the illegal presence of the South African Government in Namibia and its apartheid policy in South Africa. The conditions for human rights, education, peace and democracy are non-existent in these countries.
We appeal to the governments of the world to bring pressure to bear on the Government of South Africa by applying comprehensive economic sanctions and by cutting all political, diplomatic and cultural relationships with the apartheid government so that it would free all political prisoners, dismantle the apartheid system, withdraw its troops from the neighbouring countries and realize the UN Security Council resolution No. 435 for the independence of Namibia. All-round support and assistance should be given to the ANC and SWAPO in their efforts to achieve peace in that region.
As I have said, I have attended one of these seminars before in 1979 and again this year. I hope also to attend them in the coming years. I would like to see Australia develop a system of international seminars on such subjects as adult education. Indeed, I am on a committee organising such a seminar which will be part of our bicentennial celebrations in 1988. It is my hope that we can have as good a seminar as the two that I have attended in Finland and that we get as wide a representation of people as the meetings in Finland, with the same quality of discussion and friendship expressed here as I have always experienced in Finland.
Madam SPEAKER
—Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
House adjourned at 11 p.m.
PAPERS
The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 November 1986:
Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Amended Return for 1985-86 (in substitution for the paper presented on 7 October 1986).
Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and Equipment) Act-Amended Return for 1985-86 (in substitution for the paper presented on 7 October 1986).
Bounty (Books) Act-Amended Return for 1985-86 (in substitution for the paper presented on 7 October 1986).
Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act-Amended Return for 1985-86 (in substitution for the paper presented on 7 October 1986).
Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Act-Amended Return for 1985-86 (in substitution for the paper presented on 7 October 1986).
Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1986-
No. 10-Game, Poultry and Rabbit Meat (Amendment).
No. 11-Export Control (Fruits and Vegetables).
No. 12-Export Control (Fees) (Amendment).
Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1).
Parliament House Construction Authority Act-Direction pursuant to sub-section 9 (1), dated 7 November 1986.
Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy Act-Amended Return for 1985-86 (in substitution for the paper presented on 7 October 1986).
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
The following answers to questions were circulated:
Medical Fraud
(Question No. 4084)
Mr Porter
asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 27 May 1986:
(1) How many cases of medical fraud have been referred to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for investigation in 1984-85 and 1985-86.
(2) How many were referred by the (a) Department of Health, (b) Health Insurance Commission and (c) others.
(3) What is the (a) total number (b) date of referral and (c) current position of cases currently with the AFP.
Mr Young
—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
I am advised that the AFP has records of the following medifraud referrals:
(1) 1984-85-46, 1985-86-42.
(2) The number of cases referred to in (1) originated as follows: (a) Department of Health-34, (b) Health Insurance Commission-46, (c) Others-8.
(3) (a) There are 50 cases in various stages of investigation or prosecution currently held by the AFP.
(b) Date of Referral
(c) Current Position
1. 13 November 1981...
Brief to AGS 5 Dec 1985; further evidence being obtained
2. 18 May 1982...
Investigation completed; matter for NSW Medical Tribunal
3. 13 July 1982...
Brief completed; prosecution in progress
4. 16 June 1983...
Brief completed; prosecution in progress
5. 19 July 1983...
Brief completed; prosecution in progress
6. 10 August 1983...
Brief completed; prosecution in progress
7. 26 August 1983...
Brief completed; prosecution in progress
8. 26 August 1983...
Brief completed; prosecution in progress
9. 16 February 1984...
Brief completed; prosecution in progress
10. 18 April 1984...
Investigation nearing completion. Brief of evidence being prepared
11. 17 May 1984...
Brief completed; prosecution in progress
12. 18 May 1984...
Investigation continuing (Nursing Home)
13. 4 July 1984...
Brief completed; awaiting DPP advice
14. 16 July 1984...
Brief completed; summons issued and served; awaiting hearing date
15. 24 July 1984...
Brief completed; awaiting prosecution
16. 11 September 1984...
Brief completed; awaiting DPP advice
17. 26 September 1984...
Brief completed; summons issued and served; to be listed for hearing
18. 19 November 1984...
Investigation completed; brief of evidence being prepared
19. 5 March 1985...
Brief completed; awaiting DPP advice
20. 5 March 1985...
Investigation continuing. Offences under the Crimes Act and Health Insurance Act (HIA) being considered
21. 5 March 1985...
Brief completed; DPP advise matter will not proceed
22. 26 March 1985...
Investigation continuing. Whereabouts of suspect unknown
23. 26 March 1985...
Investigation continuing. Further search warrants to be executed
24. 23 April 1985...
Awaiting investigation (minor Forge & Utter)
25. 24 April 1985...
Investigation completed; brief being examined by DPP
26. 16 May 1985...
Investigation continuing (Laboratory-Tasmania)
27. 29 July 1985...
Offender believed overseas
28. 9 September 1985...
Investigation continuing. Suspect overseas. 1st instance warrant taken out
29. 9 September 1985...
Awaiting investigation (minor Forge & Utter)
30. 18 September 1985...
Brief completed; prosecution in progress
31. 24 September 1985...
Awaiting investigation (minor Forge & Utter)
32. 3 October 1985...
Investigation continuing. Search warrant to be executed
33. 23 October 1985...
Awaiting investigation (minor Forge & Utter)
34. 29 October 1985...
Brief completed; awaiting prosecution
35. 25 November 1985...
Inquiries completed; brief being prepared
36. 26 November 1985...
Awaiting investigation (minor Imposition)
37. 2 December 1985...
Investigation continuing-s. 129 (1) HIA
38. 2 December 1985...
Suspect before the Court 10.6.86; hearing date to be set
39. 3 December 1985...
Investigation continuing-s. 129 (1) HIA
40. 18 December 1985...
Brief completed; matter being examined by DPP
41. 3 January 1986...
Investigation continuing
42. 14 April 1986...
Investigational assessment in progress-s. 129 (1) HIA
43. 20 April 1986...
Investigation continuing
44. 22 April 1986...
Investigation continuing
45. 9 May 1986...
Brief referred to DPP for advice
46. 10 May 1986...
Prosecution in progress
47. 15 May 1986...
Investigation continuing
48. 17 May 1986...
Investigation continuing
49. 23 May 1986...
Brief completed; awaiting prosecution
50. 9 June 1986...
Investigation continuing (minor matter)
Commonwealth Centre, Newcastle
(Question No. 4317)
Mr Braithwaite
asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 19 August 1986:
Did he state in December 1984 that a Commonwealth Office block would be built in Newcastle; if so (a) when will it be commenced, (b) what will it cost and (c) when will it be completed.
Mr Uren
—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The construction of a Commonwealth Centre at Newcastle has been under consideration for some time. The need for a Commonwealth Centre remains and in order to meet the immediate needs, particularly the expanding needs of the Australian Taxation Office, my Department is pursuing a pre-commitment lease development for some 14,000 square metres of office space.
(a) Tenders for this development are to be called in the near future and construction is expected to commence following a decision on the successful tender.
(b) Costs are unknown at this stage.
(c) Completion could be expected during 1988/89.
Answers to Questions
(Question No. 4568)
Mr Donald Cameron
asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 18 September 1986:
Further to question No. 3346 placed on the Notice Paper on 13 March 1986, (a) have more than 6 months passed since the question was first placed on the Notice Paper, (b) have 19 Ministers already replied to a similar question, (c) when can I expect an answer to the question and (d) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his department.
Mr Dawkins
—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The answer to question No. 3346 appeared in Hansard of 19 September 1986.
Parking at Defence Establishments
(Question No. 4591)
Mr Andrew
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 September 1986:
(1) Which Defence Establishments in Australia provide free parking?
(2) How many parking spaces are there at each establishment?
(3) Is the provision of free parking spaces at Defence establishments considered to be a fringe benefit? If so, what is the:
(a) attributed value of a free car parking space for fringe benefit tax purposes?
(b) how is it calculated; and
(c) what is the estimated revenue for:
(i) 1986-87; and
(ii) full year.
for the fringe benefits tax on free parking spaces at Defence establishments.
Mr Beazley
—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Virtually all Defence bases provide free parking space for employees.
(2) Ample.
(3) Car parking space provided by employers for use by employees is exempt from Fringe Benefit Tax.
Recruitment of Air Traffic Controllers
(Question No. 4826)
Mr Lloyd
asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 October 1986:
(1) How many departmental or other officers visited overseas countries, including the USA, to recruit air traffic controllers and what was the cost of their visits.
(2) How many individuals were recruited and what was the cost of their transfers to Australia.
(3) What retraining was given to those recruited and how much did it cost.
(4) Was the previous experience of the recruited air traffic controllers taken into consideration in the provision of retraining; if not, why not.
(5) How many recruits have since returned to the USA or elsewhere and for what reasons.
(6) Who paid for the return and resettlement of recruits who have left Australia and what are the details of any costs incurred.
Mr Peter Morris
—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) During financial year 1981/82 two officers from the Department of Aviation visited the United States of America to recruit USA Air Traffic Controllers. Cost details of their visit are as follows:
Dates
Airfare
Travel
allowance
Total
$
$
$
28 Mar-12 June 82
3,350.66
8,431.14
11,981.74
28 Mar-12 June 82
3,350.66
8,323.19
11,857.15
Total...
23,838.89
There have been no visits by Departmental officers to overseas countries to recruit Air Traffic Controllers since the above visit.
(2) A total of 44 Air Traffic Controllers have been recruited from the United States of America. Resource constraints prevent the Department from providing detailed information on transfer costs. Organisation and funding of air tickets, air freight and settling out allowances was provided by the Australian Embassy, Washington. It has not been possible to determine what funds transferred to the Australian Embassy during financial years 1981/82 and 1982/83 were used for ATC Recruitment purposes. It is known that an average cost of $8000 per trainee/family was used to calculate funds required by the Embassy to transfer the last 8 trainees/families to Australia. It is therefore estimated that the transfer costs for a total of 44 trainees/families was approximately $352,000.
(3) All USA trainees completed a 12 month training course known as Short Term Direct Entry Training. This training was conducted at an average cost of about $25,000 per trainee. Included in this cost is trainees salary, travel allowance and airfare to final field postings. Not included in this cost is instructors salaries and the value of depreciation to buildings and training simulators.
(4) The previous experience of USA Air Traffic Controllers was taken into consideration and they were subsequently placed on Short Term Direct Entry Training Courses rather than the three year Long Term Training Course for trainees with no previous aviation experience. The Short Term course consists of two major phases; 6 months theoretical and practical (simulator) training followed by 6 months practical training at a major Air Traffic Control Centre. It should be noted that Australian Air Traffic Control differs from that operated in the United States with methods and procedures such as Operation Control being unique to Australian Air Traffic Control.
(5) 16 ex-USA Air Traffic Controllers and families elected to be repatriated to the United States at Departmental expense. The reasons for their separation from the Department are not known. 6 ex-USA Air Traffic Controllers resigned before completion of 3 years employment and were ineligible to be repatriated at Departmental expense. It is not known if they returned to the USA.
(6) The Department of Aviation has paid for 16 Air Traffic Controllers and families to return to the USA. The total cost of repatriation, ie. airfares, freight and settling out expenses of 13 families has been $156,873.87. The remaining 3 Air Traffic Controllers and their families were repatriated in the last 3 months and final costs are not yet known.