Thursday, 26 March 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on the following days and at the times specified: Monday, 30 March, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, 31 March, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, 1 April, at 10 a.m. Thursday, 2 April, at 10 a.m. This is a purely formal matter. The motion shows that next week the House will be sitting on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in accordance with the normal sitting hours. The sessional orders that we have adopted provide for two-week sittings. Next week is the third week and we need to make arrangements to inform the House and to move the appropriate motion to enable it to sit on the dates and times specified. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of the Opposition Business)(10.02) —From the Opposition's point of view, there are a number of aspects of the motion moved by the Acting Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) that are of interest. The first matter of interest to all honourable members is that last night we had a guillotine motion. How unnecessary that was when the Acting Leader of the House has come along and has moved a motion, under the first item of Government Business, to ensure that we can sit for an additional week. Why on earth could we not have had an adequate debate on the identity card legislation of the Australian Labor Party? There was plenty of time. We all know that the Government has an ability to call this House back. We are all in total favour of sitting next week. Indeed, we would like to sit every week. The more the Government comes into this place and starts to acknowledge some of the problems that exist in the Australian community the better. Mind you, I would hope that the Government would start answering questions. I find the Government's behaviour during Question Time nothing less than deplorable. We have fewer questions and Ministers seek to evade answering; they do not provide answers. They are not giving to the Parliament or the people of Australia the responses that are necessary to our critical scrutiny of the way in which they are spending taxpayers' money, the reason taxes are so high, the reason trade unions exercise such power and the reason they are generally allowing the Australian people to run out there without any chance of overcoming the burden of high interest rates and high inflation that their economic programs impose on them. While welcoming the measure, I suggest to the Acting Leader of the House that it would be a very good idea if he looked to extending further the sitting hours during the period he is a custodian for the Leader of the House (Mr Young). I gather the Leader of the House is out there trying to get the Labor Party's campaign together. He has a fair job ahead of him. What about going back to some of the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) before the 1983 election? Honourable members will remember that he said that fuel prices would be reduced by 3c a litre. What has happened? The excise has gone up from 5c to about 17c. Mr N.A. Brown —The capital gains tax. Mr SINCLAIR —As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, the Prime Minister said something about a capital gains tax. He said: `There will be no capital gains tax'. We hear the hollow laughs. I can tell the Leader of the House that there is no need for him to go off. All he needs to do is read some of the Prime Minister's rhetoric. He would get a laugh a line, and the laugh a line would be for all the broken promises that the Prime Minister has perpetrated. There is no need for the Leader of the House not to be in the House. However, we are delighted to have the Acting Leader of the House here. If he were to keep the House sitting a little more, we would be even more pleased. I suggest to him that, if he plans to have the House sitting longer, he could consider the extent to which the guillotine is used. We do not want an aborted debate on matters that are of prime importance to the people of Australia. The guillotine was used yesterday on legislation which will create 2,000 more Public Service positions. The Government just wants to introduce more and more public servants, take more taxes, borrow more funds and see our overseas debt rise more. This is all part of what its program generally entails. We all know there should not have been a foreshortened debate on the identity card proposal; it should have been one that allowed a proper consideration in the House of Representatives. For the life of me, the Labor Party seems to think more and more that the Senate is the place where important debates should take place. I rather thought it was still part of the Government's program to abolish the upper House. Putting that aside, I hope that notwithstanding the guillotine and other ways of shortening debates there is an opportunity for all honourable members to adequately make their contribution. I know that we are about to go into a very important debate on equal employment opportunities. It is a measure to which we on this side of the House would like to give consideration. We do not want to have a very short opportunity to examine what seems to us to be a measure which, yet again, does not meet up to the Government's rhetoric. That is the Government's problem. It says one thing but every time it brings in another piece of legislation business has an additional financial obligation and there is yet a further consequence for the poor old small businessman and woman who are out there trying to battle for survival. We want to have an adequate opportunity for debate. We do not want to see the Government cutting debate short. I hope that by acceding to this extension of a week in the sitting hours of the House of Representatives we can see the Government being more charitable in its attitude towards members' speaking time and speaking opportunities. I hope also that while the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) is in his temporary position as Leader of the House he will approach all his ministerial colleagues and suggest to them that the abuse of Question Time, which is becoming worse and worse, just continues no further. If the Government wishes, it could provide more opportunities for ministerial statements. We are quite happy to debate, for example, the abuse by Mr Kelty of his entitlements for travelling abroad. We are quite happy to debate the analysis of the economy which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) brings in day by day. He tries to excuse those secret minutes that somehow get dropped off the back of trucks for which he has no answer. We would be delighted to talk about them. We do not want to have long, protracted answers from Ministers outside the normal procedures and requirements of this place. I am delighted to know the Deputy Prime Minister is asserting his authority. He is enabling us to have more debating opportunity. I suggest that he go to a few of his ministerial colleagues and say to them: `Look, Bob, Paul, you really are abusing Question Time. It just does not go down well in the electorate. If you really want to go to the polls, people would like to think you are nice guys. Don't carry on as you are because, frankly, everybody is seeing you as you really are. It is not much of a picture'. We accept the extension of a sitting week. I appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister to use his best endeavours to try to get some measure of responsibility from his front bench because it has been pretty notably absent to date, significantly in Question Time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Leader of the House)(10.08) —in reply-I welcome the support from the Opposition. I am just a bit surprised to think it had to be couched in such critical terms. One would think it is a surprise that we are having to sit next week. I remind honourable members that the program for this sitting was circulated last November and it included this week. It is just because the Sessional Orders are on a two-week basis that we have to make some provision for the third week, but notice was given as far back as last November. I would have thought the Manager of Opposition Business, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), would have been aware of that. The motion has nothing to do with the debate on the Australia Card. I might advert to that. Mr Sinclair —It has, for the guillotine. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The guillotine was moved because there is no reason to have a Committee debate when this is the second time the Australia Card Bill has been introduced. There is no point in honourable members opposite groaning and moaning here because if they had any ideas they would have at least given notice of amendments to be moved at the Committee stage. The Bill was debated for 16 1/2 hours without any amendment at all. That is an extraordinary situation. Those opposite come in here today and worry about a debate being short circuited. This is one of the longest debates in history. The Bill will now go to the Senate. There is a clear understanding that some honourable members may cross the floor. The Government would like to know where the Opposition stands in respect of these matters. We know that there will be a meeting of the National Party of Australia this weekend. Mr Sinclair —You are welcome to join us. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am sure that if we went along we would improve the debate. Why did the right honourable member make a speech from the dock here this morning on the basis that he ought to continue as the Leader of the National Party? It is not our job to keep him elected. He whinges all the time about what happens in Question Time. We spent most of our life in opposition having to ask him questions. I think that we did a lot better in opposition than he will ever do-if he ever learns how to handle the business. If he wants any advice from us, he should come to see us; we will tell him how we did it for years. We were able to get into government because we were able to show the weakness in the then Government. Because those opposite are so bereft of ideas and talent they should not blame us. To come in here today to suggest, out of surprise, that we are sitting an extra week is utter nonsense. I do not know what the people in the gallery think about Opposition members suggesting that we suddenly sprung it on them when it was circulated last November. They wanted to debate the Australia Card in Committee but never moved any amendments. They have had about 50 speakers on it. We have discussed it for 16 hours and they are still bereft of amendments. How silly do they think they are when they get to that position? No wonder the public are disenchanted with them. They do not know who is leading the Opposition. They do not know whether it is the Premier of Queensland or the director of Elders or somebody in the National Farmers Federation. It is certainly somebody who is not here. That is the problem. Those opposite should not come in here worrying us about a few sitting hours which they knew about last November, about a Bill which has been debated for 16 hours, and about a Committee stage when they never had any amendments. Is it any wonder that they are in trouble? We can give them many ideas, but it is not our job to do so. We just want to tell the Opposition this: The Australia Card Bill is a very important piece of legislation which has gone to the Senate. If it is not passed in the Senate, of course, it can create all sorts of problems for the Opposition, as it would for the nation. If not passed, it will allow cheats who are fraudulent in their nature to get revenue from other taxpayers to the extent of $800m or more. Opposition members acknowledge this even when they go on television every morning to tell us their latest troubles. They admit that the majority of Australians favour the Australia Card. The issue is that they favour it because they are having to subsidise crooks and cheats, and those opposite are in the same category when they say that they do not want to see the legislation passed. I am just using these few minutes to try to educate my colleagues opposite. If they want understanding in Question Time, it is up to them to ask short, clear cut questions. It is up to them not to breach Standing Orders. As you know, Madam Speaker, the House has a duty to perform in a reasonable fashion and you have untold difficulty at times trying to control honourable members here simply because it is Question Time. If those opposite put forward worthwhile and intelligent matters for debate, we will welcome them. If they put forward amendments in Committee, we will deal with them. But they should not come in here on a Thursday morning because of something that suddenly crossed their minds the previous night-and bearing in mind the National Party will have a conference about leadership in the next three or four days and wants to grandstand on the issue-and say that the Government has denied them speaking time and passed a guillotine motion. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the issues are very clear cut. We are now debating sitting times for next week's sittings, of which notice was given last November. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr N.A. Brown had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `this House is of the opinion that the Bill not be proceeded with until it has been examined by the Business Regulation Review Unit in accordance with the procedures announced by the Government on 9 January 1987 for the review of government proposals affecting business regulation and until the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations prepares a Regulation Impact Statement on the proposals contained in the Bill'. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.14) —I rise to speak in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. When I spoke on the previous legislation in relation to affirmative action I congratulated the Opposition for its approach to this legislation in supporting the Bills. I thought that I would be able to do the same today. It is a great shame that in this House we have lost that bipartisan approach that we had to women's affairs and to the treatment of women in our community. One of the reasons we are discussing the legislation today is the initiative of a member of the Opposition and the encouragement of a senator from New South Wales, who I must say is a member of the Liberal Party of Australia-Senator Baume. I refer to a section of the speech he made in the Senate on 22 August when he was speaking on the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill. Mr Slipper —Which Senator Baume? Mrs KELLY —Senator Peter Baume. In that speech he pointed out that the legislation that was then before the Senate did not cover statutory authorities and he emphasised the importance of that. He pointed out the error of the Government's ways in not including statutory authorities in the coverage of that legislation. He said: The answer is, of course, that some of the people in senior administrative positions within Commonwealth statutory authorities have no interest in equal opportunity, in employment equity. Senator Baume was pointing out the need for this equal opportunity legislation to cover statutory authorities. He said that this legislation was needed to cover statutory authorities because there were people in senior administrative positions within Commonwealth statutory authorities who had no interest in equal opportunity or employment equity. He said: I would have thought that they would be at the forefront of seeking to have the regulations extended to their employees, but not one single authority has sought that. Now we have this legislation to cover statutory authorities and the Opposition, for which Senator Peter Baume is the spokesperson on women, rejects the Government's initiative, which is a direct result of the comments made by Senator Baume in the Senate on 22 August. How hypocritical that position is. Why is that the case? That does not seem logical at all. It is the case simply because of the power of those members of the National Party of Australia sitting opposite, the 21 National Party people. They are the people whose views have prevailed on this issue. I know that there are a lot of people in the Opposition who would want to be on this side today, supporting this legislation, but because of the views of some of the troglodytes in the National Party the Opposition will be opposing this Bill. It is a great shame. The views of people such as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) have prevailed. Although I am slightly embarrassed about quoting from a speech by the honourable member for Maranoa, I would like to do that for the information of the House, so that honourable members have some idea of the philistine views that members of the National Party have about women and their role in our community. When the honourable member for Maranoa was speaking on the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill, which is the first part of this legislation, on 10 April 1986-I stress that these are not my words-he said: I have never seen such a wank of a Bill in all my life. That is what the honourable member for Maranoa said about it. He said: Why on earth do we need this sort of legislation? Most members of the Opposition at that time rejected those views of the National Party. Today they have listened to the views of members of the National Party such as the honourable member for Maranoa; his simplistic views about this legislation and his archaic views about the role of women in our community. They have listened to those views and it is a disgrace to that once great Liberal Party of Australia that it intends to reject this legislation. It also says a great deal, unfortunately, about the leadership of the Liberal Party. It makes a joke of some of the recent comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) about the independence of the Liberal Party from the National Party, asserting that independence. On 23 March the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) was talking about the role and independence of the Liberal Party. Referring to his Leader, he said: He wants to continue to present himself as a strong leader, someone who has put, and will continue to put, his stamp on the direction of the Liberal Party. What is his stamp on the direction of the Liberal Party today? It is giving in to these troglodytes in the National Party, opposing this legislation which a few months ago Opposition members were prepared to support. Mr Howard is very good at words; not too good at actions. Look at what else Mr Howard said: I have no intention of having a dishonourable Coalition with the National Party. He said that on 26 February. Could anything be more dishonourable than the Opposition's opposition to this legislation today? In another statement, to Michael Schildberger on 19 February, he said: The point I'm trying to make is that the Liberal Party is not going to be dictated to from outside. We see the reality of that today. It is being dictated to by outside forces, by the Bjelke-Petersens of this world with their philistine views. It is also being dictated to by the 21 members of the National Party. It is a great shame for the Liberal Party today. I would like to take seriously the points that were raised by the Liberal Party in its opposition to this Bill and I would like those honourable members who I know have more of an open mind on this issue to listen to the points of view that were put. One of the arguments that were put in this debate last night by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was that this was a back-door way of getting quotas into statutory authorities. I would like to take that issue on because I know many honourable members opposite are seriously considering their position in relation to this Bill today. Mr Goodluck —Never. I've got five daughters, a wife and a grandmother. Mrs KELLY —I know that the honourable member, who just came into the chamber, would not consider this Bill seriously, nor does he consider many others seriously. He just made some comment about representing his five daughters. To that I say that I represent my daughter and many women in this country who want a fair go for our children and for women in Australia. That is why the Government is introducing legislation such as this. It is not because of the nonsense we hear from the National Party; we are doing this because we believe that this country has a right and an obligation to give the women of Australia a fair go. We want to give the women of this country a fair go. Mr Hodges —You have a twisted view. Mrs KELLY —What greater right has the honourable member to be a representative of the women in this country than I? None. Mr Cadman —He has got a right to his views though. Mrs KELLY —He has a right to a view and so have I and what I am telling honourable members opposite today is that I do represent a lot of the women of this country who want to give women a fair go. Mr Hodges —You've got a complex-an inferiority complex. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Petrie will cease interjecting. Mrs KELLY —Again, I want to take seriously the points that were raised by the Opposition. The Bill does not represent a definite step towards quotas which are externally imposed. It clearly does not. The quantitative indicators referred to, which are to be developed by the authorities themselves, are part of the program development and planning. The provision in the Bill which requires authorities to set these quantitative and other indicators-this is contained in clause (6) (g) (ii)-do not go beyond the provisions of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act of 1986 or section 22b of the Public Service Act. They do not step beyond those provisions. It is quite clear that the legislation before us today is totally in keeping with the amendments to the Public Service Act and the legislation that was previously before this House. Clause (6) (g) (ii) requires authorities to set quantitative and other indicators. It does not require quotas at all. The Affirmative Action Act requires employers to set objectives and to make forward estimates. Forward estimates are then defined by that Act to mean a quantitative measure-or aim-which may be expressed in numerical terms, which may be designed to achieve equal employment opportunities for women. That is not a quota; it is just setting out an aim. It is the same as set out in the other legislation which was debated and which the Opposition supported. Another matter raised by the Opposition was in relation to the Business Regulation Review Unit. The Commonwealth authorities provisions also apply to research and administration bodies. Major authorities, in particular government business enterprises, were consulted directly on the proposal for separate equal employment opportunity legislation. The decision to exclude primary industry statutory marketing authorities was taken because it was recognised that arrangements for these authorities were comparable more with those applying to the private sector. So certain concessions have already been made in relation to the application of this legislation. I do not believe that the objections the Opposition has put forward are serious at all. I would like members of the Opposition to consider that during the debate. They said that they would keep their options open and wait for the response of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). I hope they will do so. Another point that was raised concerned the reporting processes. Some differences arise between the reporting processes in the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act and those in this Bill. There are a number of reasons for that. The first is that the Affirmative Action Act's reporting requirements are geared to private sector employers. I am sure that the Opposition would want that anyway. The Bill covers statutory authorities and its reporting processes are based to a very large extent on those provided for in section 22b of the Public Service Act. However, some variations from the section 22b procedures have arisen in that authorities will be allowed to elect whether to report to their portfolio Minister or to the Public Service Board. The reporting arrangements to portfolio Ministers are consistent with the general reporting arrangements between authorities and Ministers, and they are intended to dovetail as far as possible with those arrangements by allowing authorities, for example, to report on equal opportunity programs in their annual report. That basically takes up the three points raised by the Opposition. I would like in the few moments left to me to show how important the equal opportunity legislation which was previously agreed to by this House is in its application to the Public Service. The Australian Public Service equal opportunity report has shown that there has been considerable improvement and progress in the role of women in the Public Service since the equal opportunity legislation came into effect. That has occurred in a wide range of areas. Most government agencies have now devised comprehensive general plans which will affect all the groups referred to in this legislation, particularly in the area of women, about which I have been concerned. Statistically, I am pleased to see, there have been some results. A few years ago the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and I, serving on the Public Accounts Committee, looked at the training of public servants. One of the glaring defects we saw was the small number of women at senior levels of the Public Service. The Bill that was passed by this House last year has gone some way towards rectifying that situation. Of course, we still have a long way to go. Again we have not done this by quotas; we have done it by setting targets. There is a very big difference. When the Government has put so much emphasis on the soft approach of having targets and goals rather than quotas, why on earth would we want to change that for statutory authorities? The number of women in the senior levels of the Public Service has increased markedly. The number of women in the Senior Executive Service has grown from 67 to 99. That is nearly a 50 per cent increase, so we have done very well in that area. At class 11 level the figure has increased from 137 to 249 and at class 9 level from 551 to 839. These increases have occurred since the commencement of the Act. Women still represent a very small proportion of the total staff at these levels. In the Senior Executive Service only 6 per cent are women, with 11 per cent at the class 11 level and 18 per cent at the class 9 level. But the signs are encouraging, especially the doubling of class 11 numbers, because, for those who know the structure of the Public Service, this is the feeder group into the Senior Executive Service. The success has not been limited to the public sector. Affirmative action has not long been introduced in the private sector but there are already promising results from the banks, the Australian Institute of Management and others. A women in management group has now been set up in Adelaide in direct response to affirmative action. These improvements could not have taken place without the Hawke Government's initiatives, not just in this legislation but also in many other areas. There is no point in bringing in legislation such as this if we do not follow it up and give women the sort of community support they need and a change in attitudes. That is one of the reasons why I am so disappointed with the position of the Opposition today. What this legislation is about is setting targets. But without the community support that women need to get to the top levels of business, the private sector, tertiary education and the Australian Public Service, they will not achieve very much. All this legislation is useless without that support. It is all very well for this Parliament to set targets, but none of it will be successful unless it has wide community support. We also need to look at other things. Obviously, we need to look at education and child care. That is why this legislation cannot be seen in isolation but has to be seen as part of the overall view of this Government towards women, a view for which up to now we seemed to have had the support of the Opposition. Let us briefly consider what the Hawke Government has done for women since 1983. It is quite a list. I will outline some of the achievements. We have set up the Office of the Status of Women. We have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We have set up the National Women's Consultative Council. We have set up women's research and employment initiatives programs. We have also dealt with a women's Budget program. In 1985 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced consultation aimed at establishing a national agenda for women in the year 2000. I am not satisfied with those improvements. We have a long way to go, but it has to be a community effort. It has to be an effort for which we get support on all sides of the Parliament. It is all too simple to stand up in this House and talk about `socialist ratbags', as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) does. But we are very genuine in our attempts to give the women of this country an equal go. No country can survive without 50 per cent of its work force having the same opportunity as the other 50 per cent. No country can survive without everyone having every opportunity possible. That does not mean that we believe that at this stage every woman should be out in the work force. That is not possible, nor would any Government want that. We are very supportive of the role women play in the home but we want to ensure that every woman in this country has the opportunity to develop herself to the fullest. That is the philosophy behind this legislation and that is why it is important that the Opposition supports legislation such as this. We need a united front because, if we do not develop women to their fullest, this country will not develop to its fullest. I recommend the Bill to the House. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(10.34) —The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill, which we are debating this morning, aims to promote equal employment opportunity in those areas of Australian Government employment that are not already covered by the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 or by section 22b of the Public Service Act 1922. In leading for the Opposition last night, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), made the following statement: We- that is, the Opposition- must make it plain that we support genuine equal opportunity in employment and the removal of discrimination, as we supported them in 1986. The Liberal Party has a proud record of supporting equal opportunity for women. I support the statement to that effect made by my Deputy Leader yesterday. I also support the statement made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech when introducing this Bill: Equal employment opportunity assumes that freedom of choice of occupation is a basic social right which should not be constrained by criteria unrelated to ability to perform the job. It promotes efficiency by avoiding waste of talent and underutilisation and underdevelopment of human resources which result from discrimination. That is an absolutely unexceptionable statement from the Minister and one with which I and, I am sure, every other member of the Opposition agree. It ought also to be pointed out that the Liberal Party of Australia, in government and in opposition, has a long tradition of acting on this. It was as long ago as the period of the McMahon Government that the first equal employment opportunity office was set up by a Federal government-quite a long time ago. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) referred to some of the achievements of the Hawke Government in relation to women. I point out that it was the Fraser Government that signed the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and was aiming for ratification of it in negotiation with the States at the time that it lost government. It had also declared that it would introduce a sex discrimination Bill. When that Bill was introduced by the Hawke Government it was generally supported by the Opposition. We had some differences on detail and sought to move some amendments, but the principles were supported. So, the Liberal Party and the Opposition have much to be proud of in their record in relation to women. In debate last year on the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill, as the honourable member for Canberra rightly pointed out, we were critical of the fact that the Government had been so slow to extend equal employment opportunity provisions to statutory authorities. Now, some months later, we have the legislation. Of course, in the meantime, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, issued a Press release of 9 January this year. It read: Senator Button said any new government proposal affecting business must be cleared with the Business Regulation Review Unit and if necessary the department making the proposal is required to supply a Regulation Impact Statement. Senator Button said, `the Government is committed to a review of business regulation with a view to winding back those regulations not offering a net benefit to the community'. Under the system of review, before Cabinet considers a major new proposal for the regulation of business, it will be necessary for the Business Regulation Review Unit to be fully consulted. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that it is extremely unfortunate that the Government has nevertheless proceeded with this legislation without that review having taken place. The Opposition has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill to substitute the following words: `this House is of the opinion that the Bill not be proceeded with until it has been examined by the Business Regulation Review Unit in accordance with the procedures announced by the Government on 9 January 1987 for the review of government proposals affecting business regulation and until the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations prepares a Regulation Impact Statement on the proposals contained in the Bill'. I will support that second reading amendment. It is unfortunate that in relation to this Bill the Government did not comply with its high and lofty ideals as expressed by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce last January. I can see no reason for the Government, having delayed this long in relation to statutory authorities, not to do that before proceeding with the Bill. After all, the Bill does apply to corporations such as the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and Qantas Airways Ltd-statutory authorities that are in business. It would be reasonable for us to know from a review what the impact of this legislation would be on those businesses. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a number of criticisms of the Bill last night and I shall refer to them very briefly. One of them was the failure of the Government to act in accordance with the statement made by its Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Another criticism was that, from the definition of the Bill, it appears that it could extend not only to employees but also to independent contractors. One would expect the Minister to be very clear in his response to that. It should not be the intention of this Bill that independent contractors be affected, under a Bill that is intended for statutory authorities, past the scope of the affirmative action legislation of last year. Another criticism was that the Government has said that, in applying this Bill to what are referred to as designated groups, additional designated groups will be determined by regulation. I do not support extension of legislation as fundamental as this by regulation. If there is a good reason for extending the present application of the Public Service Act in relation to designated Acts, it ought to come before this Parliament for debate. As indicated by our Deputy Leader, we are also concerned about the reporting requirements. The honourable member for Canberra made some reference to this in her speech. Whilst I accept what she said in her speech, I must say that I am-- Mr Hand —Come on, Kathy, come over this side where you really want to be. Mrs SULLIVAN —Where was the honourable member for Melbourne yesterday on the Australia Card? Just wait for it. What the honourable member for Canberra said was fair enough, but I want to know from the Minister why reports to the Public Service Board are able to be confidential whereas reports to the Minister must be tabled under the legislation. Statutory authorities will have a choice. It is their choice whether they report to the Minister or to the Public Service Board. If they do not indicate an election they must automatically report to the Public Service Board. I know it is possible that there is an issue of commercial confidentiality related to these reports. I am only hypothesising because I have had no explanation as to why there would be a difference in the reports. If that is so, I point out to the Government the procedures followed by Senate Estimates committees which do require information from statutory authorities in relation to their employment practices. An authority can claim that giving that information would affect its commercial considerations, under which circumstances it is entitled to have its evidence heard in camera by a Senate Estimates committee which then decides whether there is a commercial application. On many occasions Senate Estimates committees have decided that statutory authorities were being too cautious by half and have required that information be given on the record and in public circumstances. There is not one occasion that I am aware of where a statutory authority has subsequently claimed that it has been damaged in its commercial operations by virtue of being required to give evidence publicly. I would have infinitely preferred a situation parallel to the Affirmative Action Act where business makes two reports-one which is confidential and which can contain that information which it would not want available to its competitors, plus a public report. I can see no reason why that should not apply under these circumstances. In any event, the option of reporting to the Public Service Board is one that ought to be treated very sparingly indeed because statutory authorities do occupy a privileged position in our society under legislation and they should be fully accountable in matters such as their employment programs. I have some difficulty in accepting the point of view that this Bill provides for quotas. I take on board the arguments put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I have read the Bill, the explanatory memorandum and the Minister's second reading speech, and I have re-read the Affirmative Action Act very carefully. I do not read them in the sense that they provide for a quota. However, the Deputy Leader has asked for an explanation in relation to that and I am sure that the Minister will be forthcoming on it. I notice that in the Minister's second reading speech he made the statement: I wish to emphasise the programs are not intended to and will not lead to positive discrimination. The Bill expressly confirms that employment matters are to be dealt with on the basis of merit, and the whole thrust of the legislation will strengthen the merit principle, by ensuring the review of any existing discriminatory personnel or employment procedures. If the programs are not intended to lead to quotas-and I will accept that this is the Government's intention-I would like the Minister to very carefully point out why the changes in wording in this legislation do not amount to providing for quotas. The Minister referred to the merit principle and I would like to place on the record what this Bill says in relation to that. Clause 3 (4) states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. That was a critical clause in relation to the Opposition supporting the principle of the Affirmative Action Act last year. I would like to hear from the Minister, if there is any room for debate about the wording of the Bill that would lead to a suggestion of quotas, whether clause 3 (4) would override other clauses. The difficult clause, as I understand it, is 6 (g) which provides that the program `shall provide for action to be taken': to set: (i) the particular objectives to be achieved by the program; and (ii) the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed; I believe that paragraph (g) should be read with paragraphs (f) and (h). Paragraph (f) asked for the program to provide for action to be taken: to consider policies, and examine practices, of the relevant authority, in relation to employment matters to identify: (i) any policies or practices that discriminate against women or persons in designated groups; and (ii) any patterns (whether ascertained statistically or otherwise) of lack of equality of opportunity in respect of women or persons in designated groups; Paragraph (h) states: to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the program and: (i) to assess the achievement of those objectives; and (ii) to assess the effectiveness of the program by comparing statistics and information collected and recorded under paragraph (e) with the indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. I believe I have discerned recently that, unfortunately, a large number of people do not understand what an equal employment opportunity program is. They do not understand that at some point it has to be quantified. If we do not count heads and assess whether people are not progressing on an equal basis through a career structure we are implementing the program by the seat of our pants and we have no ground for alleging discrimination or otherwise. It is only when we compare like with like and decide that there appears to be an inordinate number of people in a particular category or receiving promotion that we can, in fact, determine whether action is necessary. That is also necessary to determine, to some part, what sort of program we must implement to achieve equality in the work place. It is also necessary, once we have implemented a program, to determine whether it is having any effect-in other words, whether we have the correct program; whether we have properly identified the unintended obstacles to promotion or even employment. So the quantification is necessary at some stage. Statistics are necessary. Time does not allow me to give examples of that, but they are particularly obvious in the Public Service and statutory authorities where there is a very structured system of progress through different ranks and where there are pretty clear definitions of qualifications for certain jobs, whether they are qualifications by education or experience. I think that it is worth referring to the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and what it says about the contents of clause 6, because that is the critical clause and it is the essential stumbling block for some of my colleagues in their consideration of the Bill. Clause 6 outlines the contents of the program. According to the explanatory memorandum, the contents of the clause are as follows: Clause 6 sets out eight specific elements which must form part of an EEO program. Each paragraph outlines certain minimum requirements of a program, which are: (a) to inform employees of the contents of the program and the results of any monitoring and evaluation of it; That is perfectly reasonable, and indeed it is essential that, if there is an EEO program under way, employees know there is one under way and they know how it affects them. The explanatory memorandum continues: (b) to confer responsibility on a person or persons with sufficient authority and status in the authority to be able to develop and implement the program properly- that ensures that the program will happen- (c) to consult with trade unions which have members who will be affected by the program; That is not unreasonable in our present industrial structure. In any event, it is a good idea, in our present structure, to have the unions on side, because the unions of this country have been one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the advancement of women. Government members-Rubbish! Mrs SULLIVAN —They have indeed. In the matter of equal pay, in which I was involved 20 years ago, the greatest difficulties we had in arbitration and in court was persuading unions to take any notice of it at all. Their record in recent times in relation to redundancies and layoffs is anything but proud. Paragraph (d) states: . . . requires consultation with employees, particularly women or persons in designated groups; Paragraph (e) states: . . . applies to the collection and recording of relevant employment statistics and related information; Paragraph (f) states: . . . reviews policies and practices to identify those which discriminate against women and persons in designated groups and any patterns or lack of equality or opportunity for them; That ties in with paragraph (g), which states: . . . setting program objectives as well as quantitative and other measures of effectiveness; Both are essential. Paragraph (h) states: . . . monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the program and assessing both the achievement of its objectives and its effectiveness . . . All I can say about paragraph (h) is: Why have a program if one does not do that? My time has almost expired. I want to indicate in summary my attitude in relation to this Bill. There is some uncertainty, I gather, as to when we will actually vote on this Bill today. I wish to inform the House that before the Autumn session commenced in February, I sought and was granted leave from the House today as from 2 o'clock in order to attend an important electoral function. Mr Hand —Oh, you won't be here. Mrs SULLIVAN —If we vote before lunch, I shall be here. However, I may not be here, in which case I will tell the House what I would have done if I had been here. It is my intention to vote for the amendment to the motion for the second reading. I agree with the criticisms made by my Deputy Leader-I have reiterated an outline of them in my own speech-that the House is of the opinion that the Bill be not proceeded with until certain things happen with it. If, however, the Minister could give satisfaction to me in the matters I have raised in relation to quotas, if he can make it very clear that this Bill does not, would not and could not apply to quotas, I would not vote against it. Having voted, however, that the Bill be withdrawn, I cannot really contradict myself in my second vote; I would abstain. But I say very clearly that I support the principles of the Bill. I do not believe it applies quotas and, if it does not, under those circumstances it would have my support. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(10.54) —I am pleased to rise to speak in this quite extraordinary debate that is now before the House. I think the people of Australia deserve to be made clearly aware of just what is going on in this Parliament this morning. The first thing I understand is that the Liberal Party spokesman on the status of women, Senator Peter Baume, has just resigned from the shadow Cabinet. If that is correct-I have no reason to doubt that that is not the case-we can see on the Opposition benches at least one person who shows a modicum of principle and enough guts to stand up for those principles, unlike the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), who just spoke a moment ago and who gave a speech which clearly indicated that she strongly supported the principles of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill but that she had been kowtowed into voting against it. We heard the greatest lot of nonsense yesterday and this morning about what is wrong with this Bill. I can tell the House that there is no doubt at all that if this Bill had agreed in every last detail with what the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), wanted, the Liberal Party would still have voted against it simply because of the fact that the National Party tail is wagging the Liberal Party dog. That is exactly what is happening and that is what will continue to happen. I make the point to honourable members that even before Joh Bjelke-Petersen has arrived here the National Party is in the situation of running the Liberal Party. With the resignation or sacking, whatever it was, of Peacock a little earlier in the week and the departure of Senator Peter Baume today, the Liberal Party is starting to look more and more like the United Australia Party-a rag-tag of political opportunists slowly collapsing and declining in circumstances not dissimilar to the way that the United Australia Party collapsed. There is another very interesting parallel too, and this Bill brings it out and underscores it. The United Australia Party was laughingly described as `united'. There was nothing united about it; it was a rag-tag, as I have said, of political opportunists and the like just clinging together under this political label. What have we got here? This gang on the other side called the Liberal Party. Nothing could be more illiberal than the fact the members of the Opposition, or most of them, are planning to vote and speak against this piece of legislation which is nothing new to this country now. It is nothing new in that the principles have already been enshrined in legislation in various States of the nation; the principles have been enshrined in legislation to deal with the Public Service of this nation; and the principles have been enshrined in legislation to deal with the private sector in this nation. They are now being applied to the statutory authorities run by the Commonwealth. What do we find? Members of the Liberal Party have suddenly changed their spots on this particular matter. They voted with us not just to apply it to the Public Service; they voted with us to apply it to the private sector. And now when we want to apply it to the statutory authorities, organisations such as the Australian National Airlines Commission and the like, what do members of the Liberal Party do? They get up in this Parliament and say that they are not prepared to support the legislation any longer. It is very clear what has happened. Members of the Liberal Party, who at one time or another were able to show some modicum of Liberal principles, are no longer able to. They are clearly acting like a gaggle of hypnotised chooks. They have been hypnotised by the people in cockies' corner from the National Party. I think it is a disgrace. I know that those people who are still in the Liberal Party, who do have some principles and who are people of genuine, small `l' liberal bent will be ashamed and humiliated by the way that they are being dragged into this Parliament to speak and vote against the legislation that the Government so rightly has brought in. It will be very interesting to see how many of those people who claim to be of principle and to support a genuine small `l' liberal approach to society and life and the nation's government will be prepared to come in here and show that they have got sufficient guts to vote in favour of this Bill to provide equal opportunity in employment for people who work in Commonwealth authorities. As I said, it is very sad indeed to see the honourable member for Moncrieff, who spoke before me, indicate that she has not got sufficient guts to take that step. It was very interesting to hear her. In some respects I felt quite sad for her. I was not going to say anything against her, I might say, until she decided to pad out her speech by getting stuck into the unions. Union bashing is the only defence that those opposite seem to have. I heard the honourable member talking about the proud record of the Liberal Party in relation to equal opportunity, employment and the like. How extraordinary it is for somebody who is about to rip the record book to shreds by indicating that she was going to vote against this legislation that she would appeal to something called the proud record of the Liberal Party in relation to this matter. I really find that that was quite a little act of hypocrisy, the likes of which we have not seen for quite a while. Members of the Opposition agree that there should be equal employment opportunity, but they will not vote for it. Is that not extraordinary? I remind the people listening to this broadcast and the members of the Parliament that this Bill does not apply only to equality of opportunity between the sexes but applies also to the handicapped, to Aboriginal persons and to Torres Strait Islanders. When one considers that this Government is trying to do the decent thing, the right and the honourable thing by those people, those disadvantaged groups-in many cases minority groups in the community-to find that the Liberal Party is opposing this Bill in these circumstances is indeed pretty extraordinary. But it is not extraordinary to honourable members who have read this morning's newspapers. I am very glad that the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has come in, chewing his fingernails. I am hardly surprised that he would be doing that because in the circumstances he has got plenty of problems. He ought to have plenty of problems because it is one of the shabbiest pieces of political chicanery that I have seen in the years that I have been in politics for a party to turn around and throw out the door the principles that it has supported for the last 10 years simply because-I point this out to the people of Australia-the National Party happens to be having a Federal conference this weekend. Apparently, it was important to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and his ilk to ensure that they did nothing to upset the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the National Party. As I said, they are acting like hypnotised chooks and the sooner the Liberal Party falls apart, collapses and enables a genuine Liberal Party to form in its place, the better the whole nation will be. I find the Opposition's behaviour pretty reprehensible because this is a very important piece of legislation. It is not the first time that I have spoken in a debate of this sort. I have spoken on many occasions in support of equality of opportunity in employment and on equality of opportunity in society generally. I believe that one of the greatest achievements of the past 15 years of politics has been the way, slowly but surely, a reasonable degree of equality of opportunity has been achieved in this nation. We have been able to move slowly-too slowly for my liking-firstly, to remove the legislative barriers that stood against women, against the handicapped, against Aboriginals, against Torres Strait Islanders and other minority groups. Secondly, we were able to pass legislation which has given those groups a fair go. That is what this legislation is all about; it provides a fair go for the disadvantaged groups in our society. The legislation that moved in this direction initially was the South Australian legislation introduced in 1976. It dealt with sex discrimination. I was the Attorney-General of South Australia at that time, and I was very pleased to have the opportunity to implement the administration for that legislation. Since that time, anti-discrimination and equal opportunities legislation has been passed in all the States-surprisingly, however, except for Queensland and Tasmania! Queensland people are denied this sort of basic right, which we believe should be the right of every Australian, simply because Bjelke-Petersen and his ilk are the gang that run that State at the moment. I am quite sure that as soon as they are removed from power the rights that have been established everywhere else in the nation and that this legislation is intent on establishing for Commonwealth employees in statutory authorities will be established in Queensland. Tasmania also drags way behind the rest of the nation in that matter. Until yesterday I would have been pleased to say that support for this legislation has been bipartisan. The saner elements in the Liberal Party have prevailed previously in at least some matters. Governments of both political persuasions have seen fit to promote equal opportunities and human rights, and to play a role in forming public opinion. Sadly-and I say this with great feeling-we now are obviously in a position where the bipartisan approach that has been taken in this Parliament in the past will not continue. When I spoke on this subject in the House last April I outlined very briefly how the concept of equal opportunities had changed over the past decade. I do not want to go over that again, but I think it is worthwhile pointing out that equal opportunities will not be attained merely by the removal of legislative barriers which discriminate or underpin discrimination. Clearly, an interventionist approach is necessary to ensure that efforts are made to overcome the barriers which discriminatory legislation erected, and to encourage people to review their attitudes; attitudes, which I might say developed in a specific social context which is no longer with us, and are, therefore, no longer appropriate, notwithstanding the desires of some of the more backward members of the National Party and the Liberal Party to hanker for the past. I reiterate another point I made in my earlier speech that equal opportunities and affirmative action are two sides of the one coin. Given the fact that biases and prejudices abound about the ability of women in particular-and these are sociologically understandable because of the types of attitudes to which we have been subjected in the past, there is a definite need to counter these views. As we all know this Bill will extend the provision of equal employment opportunity into many areas of Australian government employment not covered by the Affirmative Action Act or the Public Services Act. It means that the majority of Australian government employing bodies will be required to develop equal opportunity or affirmative action plans. This in turn means that serious attempts to eliminate discrimination against women, those of non-English speaking backgrounds, Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders, and disabled people will have to be made. I do not think it can be pointed out too often that equal opportunity and affirmative action strengthens the principle of merit by ensuring that everyone with ability is considered in employment and that extraneous, irrelevant issues, biases and prejudices are not part of the basis of employment practices. Under the provisions of this legislation, Commonwealth statutory authorities will be required to develop equal opportunity plans from 1 July this year. The Bill establishes minimum requirements which must be met in the development and implementation of the plans, which must also be developed in consultation with employees, particularly women and members of the designated groups, and with relevant trade unions. This consultative process and the need to identify those factors which are discriminatory in the policies and practices of the organisation, will be of major benefit to the operations of statutory authorities. Recruitment and selection procedures, promotions and transfers, training and staff development, and conditions of service will all be reviewed in developing equal opportunity plans. Under the plans, objectives will be set and quantitative indicators of effectiveness of the program will be developed to monitor and evaluate the success of the plan. This will mean, of course, that plans that are developed will have to be constantly reviewed to ensure that they are meeting their objectives. Equal employment opportunity-as with other parts of this Government's commitment to equal opportunities-is not a token measure but is one which will be taken very seriously. We expect that it will deliver positive results which will benefit women, members of designated groups, and the community in general. As I pointed out earlier, this is the second time that I have been able to support equal opportunity legislation in this Parliament. Of course, the Hawke Labor Government in its first term amended the Public Service Act to provide the mainstream Public Service with legislation to provide for the development of equal employment opportunities. As honourable members know, there will be further legislation to bring the final few Commonwealth government employing authorities-those in the primary industry area I understand-into line with the previous legislation. I hope that this will not be too long in coming as I believe this to be an important area of reform and one which should not be delayed any longer. I have already referred to the quite extraordinary affairs that are going on in this Parliament at the moment. I find it quite incredible that the Liberal Party, which has, as the honourable member for Moncrieff said, had a proud record of supporting equal opportunity legislation, but now it has done a complete about-face and will now oppose the legislation. I do not think it matters very much what is said by members of the Liberal Party. Australians will hear the most extraordinary twisting and circuitous arguments over this legislation from the Liberal benches. There is no doubt that most of the Liberals who get up will try to attack the fine detail of the legislation. They will say that the t's are not crossed or that the i's are not dotted-that sort of thing. Honourable members know how these people carry on. When it gets to the bottom line it is a question of who will put their hands up, who will vote in favour of equal opportunity legislation and who will vote against it. The personal explanations and the bleatings that one will hear from the other side over this matter do not change one iota the fact that people, who previously stated that they believed in equal opportunity legislation, and who wanted to support it and were proud to do so, have been turned around, had their principles twisted and their credibility ruined simply, purely and utterly because the National Party has made it very clear that it opposes the legislation. The Leader of the Opposition is in such a difficult situation that he, for his own political survival, has had to chop the principles involved in this legislation to pieces and get his Party to vote against it. It is a disgrace and Australians ought to know that. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff) —I rise, under standing order 66, which relates to being misquoted or misunderstood, in relation to what the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) has just said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the honourable member for Moncrieff claim to have been misrepresented? Mrs SULLIVAN —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Do you seek leave to make a personal explanation? Mrs SULLIVAN —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moncrieff may proceed. Mrs SULLIVAN —This is the first time I have needed to make a personal explanation and I was not totally familiar with the form. The honourable member for Makin in his speech misrepresented me twice. In the early part of his speech he accused my of hypocrisy-which I thought was unparliamentary, but allowed to go over my shoulder-because he said that I was going to vote against the legislation. Apparently he thought better of his language in the latter part of his speech when he said that I was going to oppose the legislation. I thought I made it clear-perhaps I spoke a little quickly because time was running out-that I basically support this legislation. I sought assurances from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in his reply to the second reading debate, as to whether or not the legislation provides for quotas. I supported other criticisms made of the legislation by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). However, I did say that I will be voting for the second reading amendment. I shall not read it out, but I will be voting for it. The amendment says that this House is of the opinion that the Bill not be proceeded with until certain other things happen. In the expectation that that will fail and we will then be required to vote on the second reading motion, I will find myself in the impossible situation of having a conflict to indicate my view with one vote on the second reading. I therefore said that I will be abstaining, but if I am satisfied with the explanation I certainly will not oppose the Bill. Mr COBB(Parkes)(11.12) —This Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill is typical of the wimpish, trendy nonsense that has pervaded Western society generally and this country particularly in recent years. It is the third of a trilogy of Bills, following the Sex Discrimination Bill 1984 and the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. The intention of this Bill is to extend discrimination in favour of employment of certain groups to Commonwealth statutory authorities. What alarms me is that, whereas the first two Bills were a foot in the door in introducing all this nonsense, this Bill has not just opened the door wider but torn the door off its hinges. It goes far beyond any reasonable bounds of what many of those who supported the first two Bills ever envisaged. Those two Bills were concerned only with breaking down the so-called employment barriers for women. We heard the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) say a while ago that the unions do not oppose it for women. Look what happened in Broken Hill, where women who got married had to give up their jobs. This Bill extends that concept to a whole host of other groups, including Aborigines, Torres Strait Islanders and migrants whose first language is not English. That is a beauty. It appears that people who come from England will be on the outer. The concept is extended further to children of migrants who have English speaking difficulties. Where will it end? The group also includes the physically disabled, mental defectives and other designated groups, or, should I say, yet to be designated groups-this has been left wide open. Next we will see that so many homosexuals will have to be employed in schools, or Indians from Outer Mongolia, or one-legged, left handed lesbians, or whatever. This has been left wide open-goodness knows where it will end. Mr Hicks —Bizarre. Mr COBB —It is bizarre, as the honourable member for Riverina-Darling says. It seems that just about every group will have its snout legislated into this Government's welfare employment trough, except white Anglo-Saxon Australians. The average Australian will become a foreigner in his own land. This is not an equal employment opportunity Bill, this is an equal employment outcome Bill, or, to give it a more accurate name, a proportional employment Bill. Surely we have seen how these proportional employment schemes have failed in practice where they have been implemented in community employment programs. Time after time decent, ordinary Australians have been unable to be employed in these schemes because councils have had to fill a proportion of their work force with individuals from designated groups who are less suited to the jobs than others. Now, apparently, we will be forced to extend that failed principle into statutory authorities such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post and Qantas Airways Ltd-as if Government monopolies such as Telecom and Australia Post are not inefficient enough now without being burdened by more ridiculous Government regulations. This Bill further debases the meaning of the word `merit'. In the previous Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill the meaning of the word `merit' was changed to mean `adequate'. In other words, if women make up 50 per cent of the work force and a business employs less than 50 per cent of women, subtle pressure is applied on that business to head towards that goal. Mr McGauran —None too subtle. Mr COBB —It is not too subtle, as the honourable member for Gippsland says. This Bill further erodes the meaning of the word `merit'. The Bill says that merit is to apply in the hiring of staff, but the remainder of the Bill is totally in conflict with that earlier statement. I can only conclude that the merit clause was included on purely cynical grounds, so that it could be pointed to by apologists for this Bill in an attempt to defend it and have it passed through Parliament. We see how little regard is given to merit when we see that clause 6 (g) of the Bill refers to `quantitative and other indicators' which are to be set, against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed to see whether or not these are being achieved. There we have it-quotas are to be set and the success or otherwise of the program will be judged on whether or not these quotas are being achieved. I believe that most Australians find the concept of work quotas quite repugnant. Another thing that horrifies me about this Bill is the mass of rules and regulations and the invasion of business confidentiality which will go with enforcing the quotas for each designated group. The Bill says that a person or persons at management level within each authority has to set up and implement what is called `the program'. Goodness knows what the cost of that will be. For salaries at management level these days employers do not get much change out of $50,000. Every employee will have to be informed of the contents of the program and the results of any monitoring and evaluation of the program. I leave it to the imagination of honourable members to assess just what will be involved in these exercises. As if that were not enough, authorities will be obliged by law to consult trade unions and go through the whole process with each union. Mr Hicks —What about getting some work done? Mr COBB —Exactly, some productive work done. I find that requirement particularly objectionable. Authorities will have to have special consultation with all the people involved in the designated groups. As the honourable member for Riverina-Darling alluded to, the paper work involved with all that will be horrific. Authorities will have to collect and record statistics and related information regarding employment, including the number of jobs taken, the types of jobs taken or the job classifications of employees of either sex and persons in designated groups. Then, when they have done that, the Bill says that they must consider policies and examine the practices of relevant authorities and record any discriminatory policies or patterns they may have which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) would disapprove of. It seems that they will have to hire fortune tellers to read the mind of the Minister. The heavy hand of bureaucracy will intrude further by expanding to this equal employment opportunity authority the power to `take any action necessary'. I again leave it to the imagination of honourable members as to what would happen if authorities dared to resist that coercive phrase. Mr Sharp —They'd hit you over the head with the Human Rights Commission. Mr COBB —They probably would do, as the honourable member for Gilmore says. The Bill describes in some detail the reports that will have to be filed with the Minister or the Public Service Board. The law will require the reports to contain `a detailed analysis of the action taken in connection with all these requirements'. Mr McGauran —What does that mean? Mr COBB —Goodness knows-it could mean anything. The Bill goes on to describe yet other requirements for special reports, tabling of those reports in parliament, and so on. We will have to cut down forests to get enough paper and employ goodness knows how many more public servants to comply with this. Yet the Minister in his second reading speech said that there will be only `a minimal financial impact' as a result of implementing the directions in this Bill. That proposition is laughable. How easy it is to spend taxpayers' money and say: `No, it will not cost too much'. This Bill departs in other detail from the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act passed last year in that that Act initially had to be complied with only by businesses with more than 1,000 employees. That number was to be reduced to 500 and finally to 100 employees by 1989. However, this Bill brings in all its regulations in one hit for all statutory authorities with 40 or more employees-- Mr Tim Fischer —Horrific. Mr COBB —It is horrific. The salami technique of wearing away by thin slices has taken a quantum leap to considerably thicker slices. The initial requirement has been reduced by a factor of 25-from 1,000 employees to 40. Mr McGauran —It is hard to believe. Mr COBB —It is hard to believe because this, of course, sets the precedent for introducing these dictates into all businesses-all small business-in Australia at some time in the relatively near future. No doubt pressure will soon be put on private business to comply with the 40 employee rule, especially where a Commonwealth statutory authority competes with private enterprise in the market-place. One example of this is the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. If this statutory authority has to observe the 40 employee rule for all designated groups, why, it will be argued, should Westpac Banking Corporation, the National Australia Bank Limited and the ANZ Bank be able to get away at this stage with only the 1,000 employee rule, and only just for females? There can surely be no doubt that if this legislation is allowed to pass we will see statutory authorities become the pacesetters for private business in this area, just as the Whitlam Government and this Government made them pacesetters for private business in the wages area. Mr Hicks —That is why we are in the mess we are in now. Mr COBB —We are in a dreadful mess. I totally support the amendment of the shadow Minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which would exclude private and independent contractors who are doing work for statutory authorities from becoming enmeshed in all this nonsense. The ink of the Bill is not yet dry but we see that the Government is already expanding the legislation into the private sector in the most devious ways possible. One point I must stress with this legislation is that it does not apply solely to the hiring of workers; that is only part of the story. The legislation is also concerned with not just revealing and justifying details of what selection criteria are used but also the promotion and transfer of staff-I will come to that later-the training of staff and staff development, and the conditions of staff. In other words, the legislative snooping permeates the whole gambit of employment from the day an employee signs on until and beyond the day that employee leaves. I invite honourable members for a moment to reflect on where that may lead, not in the ivory tower mind of the Minister but in the nitty gritty of the real world. In that regard I draw attention to the case of a woman who was demoted by her boss in Queensland. She worked as a supervisor in a hotel and when he felt that she could not manage that job he downgraded her to the position of a bottle shop attendant. In other words he awarded her-by using the criterion of merit that is referred to in this Bill-the job he thought she could best handle. This is an excellent example to contemplate because it illustrates so vividly where all this pathetic legislation could lead. Mr McGauran —Is leading. Mr COBB —Yes, is leading. This woman went to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-- Mr McGauran —Which we will abolish. Mr COBB —Of course, and after it held closed proceedings-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland is continually interjecting. He may feel that he is helping his colleague. He knows that interjections of all types are out of order and I would remind him that he is interjecting while not sitting in his correct place in the chamber. Mr McGauran —Whoopee doo! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair will not accept that sort of misbehaviour from the honourable member for Gippsland. I will ignore it on this occasion. The honourable member for Gippsland should be reminded for the future that it is the requirement of the Chair to keep order in the House. I and others who occupy the chair do that on behalf of the Speaker. Mr McGauran —And a little too selectively. Mr Brumby —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I heard the comment that you just made in regard to the interjection by the honourable member for Gippsland. I, sitting on this side of the House, heard his interjection to your comment. I find it quite unparliamentary, quite disrespectful of your position in the chair, and I believe it should be withdrawn. Mr Tim Fischer —Which comment are you referring to? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland made a comment. I would imagine that the honourable member for Bendigo is referring to the comment that the honourable member for Gippsland made in respect of my maintaining order in this chamber a little too selectively. The honourable member for Gippsland did make that comment and I think it would be appropriate to the order of the House and the behaviour pattern that should be followed if he withdrew that remark. Mr McGauran —I withdraw. Mr COBB —I return to the case of the woman who was downgraded at a hotel in Brisbane, supposedly on merit, from a supervisor to a bottle shop attendant. She took her case to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and after it held closed proceedings a judgment was brought down. The hotel owner was forced by law to pay this woman $8,000 compensation-even though, I repeat, he downgraded her because he believed she could not manage the supervisory job. But that was not the end of it. This man and his hotel have been persecuted beyond belief by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. As well as the $8,000 cheque he was forced to write to this woman, the Courier-Mail of 20 March this year reports that disciplinary action was taken against the manager of the hotel for telling the woman that `women just can't manage'. Seminars also have to be conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission at the hotel, on paid time, on the issues of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. This is real Alice in wonderland stuff. On top of that, the owner has to apologise to the downgraded female, who now works for a nearby hotel anyway and-would you believe this?-the hotel has to provide a written reference to the woman acknowledging that she has the ability to be a supervisor. The name of the hotel, the name of the woman involved and the name of the hotel owner are not allowed to be revealed. The only information we have apart from the judgment is the name of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's conciliator. It comes as no surprise to find that she calls herself Ms Fiona McLeod. I repeat the prefix `Ms', which to me is a sound a bee makes when it has a wing missing. Ms McLeod said the hotel owner would probably have had to pay more if the hearing had been made in public. I should add that the hearing was a compulsory one. One cannot just say that one refused to hire someone or downgraded someone on merit and not attend because one does not want to. We also saw the ridiculous case recently in which a Brisbane doctor was also summonsed before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission because he committed the dreadful sin of offending another Ms by asking her in the course of a consultation whether she was a Mrs or a Miss! The Commission threatened him with a $10,000 fine or six months imprisonment if he did not turn up to a hearing. When he did, he copped a $1,000 fine that the complainant herself admits she requested from the doctor in a list she put before the Commission. Mr Sharp —It is a disgrace. Mr COBB —It is disgraceful. That case was in private business but this legislation today for Commonwealth statutory authorities goes much further. If complaints such as this come in again from designated groups exercising their so-called `rights', as no doubt they will, money will be splashed around in decisions as if it was going out of fashion because it will be taxpayers' money and it is always easier to spend taxpayers' money than one's own or another individual's. As this equal opportunity nonsense goes quite beyond the bounds of reasonableness and common sense with each passing piece of legislation, we will see more and more of these stupid and ridiculous cases before the pseudo-courts. Make no mistake: The National Party and the Liberal Party will abolish the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as soon as we return to government after the next election. For the reasons I have spoken of in this debate all of the National Party and the overwhelming majority of the Liberal Party will oppose and will vote against this absurd legislation before us today. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(11.30) —I am absolutely flabbergasted by the attitude of the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). Unfortunately, his remarks are an indication of the extremist views which currently prevail in the National Party and which also pervade the Liberal Party. I am disgusted by some of the things that I have heard in this House today. I am sure that there are many women and minority groups and people of liberal persuasion-not Liberal politics but liberalism-who cannot bear to hear the sorts of things that are being said in this House by members of the Opposition, particularly the minority National Party which, as the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) has rightly said, is the tail that is wagging the dog of the Liberal Party. One has only to look at the headlines in today's newspapers about another crisis in the Liberal Party-the headline stating `Baume threatens to quit as Howard appeases Nats'. Now, I understand, Senator Peter Baume has resigned from his position as shadow Minister. I think we should all be very sorry about that. But it shows that he is a man of considerable principle. I remember being very impressed by his speech on the affirmative action legislation when it went through the Senate. I was not in this House at the time-I do not think it was sitting when the Senate was dealing with the Bill-but his contribution to the debate was admirable. I suspect there are many people in the Liberal Party who share his views on this matter but who, for one reason or another, may lack the courage to cross the floor or to resign from the Party, which is now a mere shadow of its former self. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Parkes has a lot of pull in the National Party-far too much, if you ask me. He seems to represent the most extreme of views. However, I do not see how anyone can take him seriously, given that this is the man who drank 2,4,5-T in an attempt to show that it was not harmful, for goodness sake! Mr Reith —Is that your best argument? Have a look at him. It didn't do him any good. Ms JAKOBSEN —It did not do him any good; that is exactly right. It must have affected his brain. It proves that 2,4,5-T does an incredible amount of harm to people's brains. I thought it was simply babies who were affected, but obviously it has affected the honourable member. Dr Watson —Just think how good he was before. Ms JAKOBSEN —It is a shame that we have to get to this level of debate, I must say. I am very distressed by the sort of attitude that the honourable member for Parkes has conveyed and I am very frightened that this sort of thing will take over the Liberal Party. As the honourable member for Parkes has such a slanted view of our society in general and women in particular, I think it is an appropriate time to quote the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his speech at the opening of the Greek Conference on 13 March of this year. He talked about reactionary forces in our society, of which the honourable member for Parkes is a prime example. The Prime Minister said: Reactionary forces in various guises are now engaged in a concerted assault on the basic decencies which are fundamental to Australia. He went on to say: Attempting to appeal to fear, uncertainty and ig- norance, they are seeking to redistribute public wealth from ordinary Australians to a greedy few; to put a straight-jacket on our great institutions of organised labour; to realign our foreign policy with the diminishing centres of racism and apartheid. Now those forces are picking on women and minority groups, which are often, unfortunately, very easy to pick on. The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill continues the Government's commitment to equal employment opportunity. It complements the Government's affirmative action legislation passed last year and the amendment made to the Public Service Act in 1984 which required Commonwealth Government departments and prescribed authorities to develop equal opportunity programs. The Government is not prescribing quotas, contrary to what the honourable member for Parkes said. This legislation puts the Commonwealth's own house in order as an employer by providing for equal employment opportunities in major Commonwealth statutory authorities such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. It is very disappointing to find that the Opposition is opposing this important and progressive legislation. Are women in Australia going to be let down by the Liberal Party once again? Yes. Why? It is because Australia is witnessing a sordid deal with the devil which will prove nothing and save nothing. Australian women are the pawns in this futile political chess game and they are being sacrificed on the altar of the coalition-so much for the coalition-but to no avail. The so-called Liberal Party is dead already as a result of this capitulation. Senator Peter Baume's resignation underwrites that fact. No wonder some of its more admirable and principled members are having severe attacks of conscience and are contemplating voting with the Government. In fact, I think they are doing more than contemplating at the moment. Dr Watson —Where were you on the Australia Card Bill? Ms JAKOBSEN —Never mind about the Australia Card. I welcome every one of them who crosses the floor. They are people of principle. This sort of legislation is what liberalism stands or falls on. How will history judge these people? How will they explain their lack of backbone to their electorates, their friends and their families? It is a sad day for us all when the ultra-conservative politics of a sexist, elitist minority within that coalition determine the voting intentions of Liberal members representing thousands of Australians, including women, whose future income earning capacity and career prospects depend on the passage of this legislation. Many members of the Liberal Party and a few from the National Party-although I have not seen any standing up to date-have a personal and political commitment to anti-discrimination and affirmative action in employment. Australian women have relied on the concept of liberalism in the area of equal employment opportunity but they are to be let down by the Liberal Party once again. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said in his second reading speech: Equal employment opportunity assumes that freedom of choice of occupation is a basic social right which should not be constrained by criteria unrelated to ability to perform the job. It promotes efficiency by avoiding waste of talent and under utilisation and under development of human resources which result from discrimination. I support this statement, as indeed did the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), although she may not support the legislation, partly at least because of the pressure and division within her Party at the present time. She claims that she has some difficulty with quotas. I will take her word on that, but I feel that it is the pressure within her Party that is determining her actions in this regard. Her attempt to criticise the unions for their alleged past attitude to affirmative action in employment was a cynical and futile smokescreen to confuse the issue. The real issue today is the disarray in the Liberal Party itself. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Moncrieff is a unique victim of that disarray in that she is the only woman member of the so-called coalition in this House. I am sure that she does not want my pity, but I extend it to her anyway. She has been a strong supporter of women's rights in the past and it is an absolute disgrace that her Party has seen fit to place her in such a difficult position today. There are other members of the Liberal Party who are concerned about this legislation. I have seen the name of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) mentioned as one of them, and I am sure that he is. The honourable member for Boothby has a very good record on this sort of legislation, as has been evidenced in the South Australian legislation on equal opportunity and affirmative action. The programs are not intended to lead to positive discrimination. Rather, they are designed to redress existing difficulties confronting disadvantaged groups, including women, in employment. I repeat: They do not require quotas. They represent an improvement on the existing merit system in that the merit of women and other minority group employees in statutory authorities will need to be given proper consideration when they apply for promotion. That is the right and proper thing to do. The Public Service Board will exercise powers under this legislation which are comparable with its powers in regard to equal opportunity programs for Commonwealth departments and prescribed authorities under section 22b of the Public Service Act. It may issue guidelines on the development, implementation and review of programs to authorities which have elected to lodge reports with it. The Minister also indicated that there will be a minimal financial impact on statutory authorities as a result of the allocation of some staff resources to equal employment opportunity programs. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) earlier in the debate succinctly put the position of the Liberal Party and its erstwhile leader. The coalition has, by its stand on this legislation alone, condemned itself to a dishonourable, expedient liaison of interests in which the minority, unrepresentative view prevails. The dishonourable coalition which John Howard wanted to avoid is now a fact as a result of his own action, or lack of action, on this Bill. It is a very sad day for this Parliament when the proud tradition of the Liberal Party is abandoned in this way. I know that I speak for many women in my electorate, but also for many women and minority groups in Australia, when I say that this legislation is very good and very necessary legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(11.42) —My first reaction to the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill, thinking of it in the context of the confrontation which goes on continually between the Government and the Opposition as the Opposition sets out on its role of testing Government legislation, was to think in the wider terms of macroeconomics and say that the best thing the Government could do for Australia would be to take moves which would benefit all Australians. The best move the Government could take would be to reduce interest rates, which are a burden around the neck of every householder and every businessman in this country. The deleterious effects of interest rates reach into every home; they reach every person. However, having said that and knowing that it would be the best prescription for Australia in the macroeconomic area, I am aware that, despite my hard line attitudes to Government finance and my continually held view that we should not operate on a national deficit, that does not take away my obligation to view this Bill which deals with matters of a more social nature as I see it ought to apply to the Australian community. After all, despite the hard times that Australia is, I will not say enjoying but passing through, hopefully, we still have an obligation to deal with all matters in the community in a balanced approach to legislation. Therefore, I look at the Bill and assess it on its own merit, rather than on the basis of any continued argument on other matters. Upon my reading of the Bill I must view it as an extension of existing principles put to this House in other times. To me it is very little different in its effect from the Bill that passed this House last year, in 1986. To remind me of the debate on last year's Bill I read the pages of Hansard and found some interesting quotations. I noted that the spokesman for the Opposition in the House at the time said: The Opposition does not object to this legislation because we accept wholeheartedly the principle of equality of opportunity for women. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking later in the debate, said: The Opposition totally supports the concept of equal opportunity. To be fair to his speech I must say that the Leader of the Opposition went on to indicate that under his leadership the Opposition would not have brought in the Bill. After reading Hansard I turned to the platform of the Federal Liberal Party to determine the basic tenets of the Party in relation to the matters which are dealt with in the Bill. I read the following portion under the heading `Women': Women to have equality of opportunity and freedom of choice to engage in political, civil and community activities, employment and education. More importantly, the quotation continues: Removal of remaining areas of discrimination against women. I quote the following excerpt from the section headed `Employment': Jobs should be open to all those capable of meeting the employers' specific requirements without regard to sex, age, race, disability, politics, or religious beliefs. I subscribe to those views contained in my Party's Federal platform without hesitation and without amendment. I believe that they set the scene for an approach to this Bill. I sincerely believe, as I have said, that this Bill is little more than the Bill which was presented last year. You will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition then said: The Opposition will test the bona fides of the Government by moving amendments to include within the ambit of the legislation women who are employed in statutory authorities. So, whilst the Government would not respond then to the request of the Opposition to include statutory authorities, the Government is now, in this Bill, responding to it. There are some differences in wording between last year's Bill and this year's Bill. I guess that the main question overhanging all this is whether our attitude towards voting on this Bill is consistent with how we voted last year. My colleague the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), who spoke earlier representing the National Party of Australia, gave every indication in his speech that he would have liked to have voted against the Bill last year. I cannot see why he did not, given his speech here today. It seems to me that his remarks apply equally to last year's legislation as to this year's legislation. In examining this question I suppose that one has to take note of the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), yesterday when he foreshadowed amendments and moved an amendment in regard to this Bill. He said that if the amendments were not passed the Opposition would vote against the Bill. I notice that his main quibble is dealt with in an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this legislation which seeks to have the legislation referred to the Business Regulation Review Unit on the basis that it might add a new cost to business and, therefore, comes within the ambit of the Government's policy announced in January or February, I think, this year. However, I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition,-I ask as a Liberal member of parliament-whether this Bill has been referred to the appropriate Liberal Party women's body. Has it been referred for consideration by what I think is called the `Federal women's committee'? My inquiries lead me to the conclusion that it has not been so referred, which underlines very significantly the quality of the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader. However, in a spirit of trying to accommodate everyone in the debate on this Bill I am willing to vote for the amendments I have so far seen proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am not as concerned as he is about the matter of amendments. I turn to the statement I made in 1984 when I spoke to the Sex Discrimination Bill and said: My support of the Sex Discrimination Bill has not been dependent upon the acceptance of the amendments . . . I adopt the same attitude to this Bill. My support for the Bill is not dependent on whether the amendments are passed by the House. But to accommodate the views of members on this side of the House who are disturbed by matters that disturb me little, I am nevertheless willing and happy, I suppose, to support the amendments which are proposed and which, as I have said, I have seen so far. I will await the argument that develops around those amendments. I hope perhaps to partake in those discussions. However, the crux of the matter is to examine whether this current Bill is significantly different from the Bill that was passed here last year without a division at the second reading stage. One question needs to be mentioned which I find absolutely overriding in this quest of examination. The Bill of 1986 so approved had in it, under the heading `Interpretation' in sub-clause 3 (4), the following definition relating to merit: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require a relevant employer to take action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. I looked to see whether the new Bill had the same major safeguard, and I found that it has. Under the heading `Interpretation', also in sub-clause 3 (4), are these words: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that these sub-clauses in both instances are in the `Interpretation' clause. They are not listed at the end of the Bills in some miscellaneous throw-away line; they are in that part of the Bill that would be examined first by the judge of a court who might be asked to decide what the meaning of this legislation is. The first thing such a learned gentleman would do would be to go to the interpretation clause. In both this Bill and last year's Bill there are identically meaning clauses; there is some alteration to words, but with identical meaning and identical importance. So, overriding every consideration in this Bill is the matter that any employment will have to be dealt with on the basis of merit. The second major contention that seems to activate some of my colleagues' minds is the matter of the so-called imposition of quotas. I went to last year's Bill, which we approved of, and looked at that issue of quantitative attitudes in the Bill. I found that sub-clause 8 (1) (g) of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment for Women) Bill 1986, under the heading `Contents of affirmative action program', states: (g) To set objectives and make forward estimates in the program; Then in sub-clause 8 (3) there is a definition of these forward estimates. It states: `forward estimate' means a quantitative measure or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time. That is a fairly definite definition, if I can use that term, of what forward estimates were to be. In this Bill the reference is made somewhat differently, in these terms: the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed; Another sub-clause states: to assess the effectiveness of the program by comparing statistics and information collected and recorded under paragraph (e) with the indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. The reference in this Bill to quotas, which is so freely used, is `the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed'. I submit to the House that, whilst the wording is somewhat different, it has no further effect than the words that I read from last year's legislation, where forward estimates were to be a quantitative measure or aim. If my colleagues see some minute difference, that is their business, and of course they can vote accordingly. But I cannot accept that the question of merit is in anyway overridden in this legislation. I cannot accept that quotas have been set that must be adhered to regardless of merit. Of course, quotas are set by the statutory authorities themselves. It is their program; it is not some outside authority setting quotas that are to be arbitrarily and dictatorially applied to those statutory bodies. So, for me the criticism falls away. I must say to honourable members that, if I were in the position of directing this program, I would adopt a more educative attitude. I would not be forcing the pace as much as it is being forced in the Bills that have been brought to the House in these successive years. I would take a longer term view. I would have a similar aim, guided by the principles contained in the platform of my Party; but I would have a longer aim of an educative and educational program. However, the Government has brought in this legislation and I do not intend to vote against it, symbolic though that may be in a House in which, of course, it will be automatically carried. I do not intend to symbolically vote against it in an attempt to lose the benefits of this Bill to the Australian community of women. Therefore, I will support the Bill actively by voting for it in the House. I do so, believing that the way honourable members vote is a signal to the women in the Australian community. Whilst, as I have said, I am sceptical of programs forcing the pace beyond that which the community is willing to accept and develop, I nevertheless believe that the signal that the Parliament gives to women to help them take their rightful place in the community, free of discrimination, is extremely important. I believe that that signal is more important than the actual detail of the Bill itself. I again sum up my views: I believe that this legislation does not hold the faults that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who spoke for us, says that it does. Let me say that I do not believe that it imposes quotas. I do not believe that in any way merit is overridden in relation to decisions on employment. I believe that those who maintain that those two things are otherwise are misrepresenting the Bill. Therefore, as I voted for last year's Bill, I believe that I would be totally inconsistent in voting against this Bill. Whilst at times in my political history a consistent attitude has been a painful attitude or, should I say, has resulted in some political turbulence, I do not intend to depart from voting in a consistent fashion on this occasion, and I say that I will support the Bill. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(11.58) —I must say that I commend the attitude of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), which has been consistent on this sort of issue for a great length of time. The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill extends to the statutory authorities the requirement of establishing equal employment opportunity programs for women, but also for migrants of non-English speaking backgrounds, for Aboriginals and for the disabled. Those are very important additions to the major grouping with which this Bill deals, namely, women. I cannot say that I am anything but extremely happy to see equal employment opportunity principles and activities being extended to statutory authorities. It is extremely important that the House take note of the fact that women have not been the only people disadvantaged by the attitudes of employers, both public and private. Certainly, Aboriginals have been disadvantaged-and Aboriginal women probably have been more disadvantaged than Aboriginal men. Disabled people have been disadvantaged, quite often because of pure and simple thoughtlessness or the neglect of employers to spend a little money on enabling them to employ disabled people. It is pitiful to see disabled people not in a position to carry out the work that they are quite able to do and qualified and experienced to do, simply because they cannot get a wheelchair into a building or have to have specific help to get into it. Although the Bill certainly does not require statutory authorities to change the nature of their buildings, if those statutory authorities are to carry out the provisions of the equal employment opportunity Bills, they really do have to think very seriously about the provision of appropriate facilities for disabled people. While that was raised in people's consciousness during the International Year of Disabled Persons, it has certainly not gone far enough in many buildings. I want to take up, too, the question of freedom of choice. There are a number of attitudes in the community, which are slowly disappearing, that freedom of choice belongs somehow to those people who have had most of it for a large part of our history, that is, to the men in our population who take quite seriously their rights and even their responsibilities to equip themselves to do a paid job in the expectation of supporting not only themselves but also, at some stage, children. I think that women now need to be quite sure that they also have that freedom of choice because that freedom of choice establishes for women a responsibility that they too equip and qualify themselves for appropriate employment and careers and also have the option of making the choice to care for their children. If we have attitudes in this community which mitigate against the notion of parents caring for children and which put all the responsibility on one of the parents of a relationship, the children suffer and the person who has to accept the responsibility accepts too much responsibility and receives too little benefit from the arrangement. For women to have freedom of choice means that that freedom of choice has to be actual and practical, not simply theoretical and in principle. Many employers have protested in the past that they do provide freedom of choice and employ and promote people on merit, but when one looks at records of employment and promotion practices one finds that merit is attached to males and that females do not have so much of it. That seems to be an attitude which has to be legislated for because we still have some of the arguments we have heard in the House today-women cannot be employed on merit; they can be employed only because somebody makes people employ them. I feel sad for the women in the lives of those men who have put up that proposition. It is very important that the ability to perform a job is not obscured by the prejudice of an employer. There is no question that it has been in the past. There is no question that selection procedures in the Public Service also militated against that because selection panels asked women applicants when considering them for promotion or employment, how they were going to care for their children, whether or not they were going to take time off to have any more children and whether or not they had intentions that employers saw to be somehow threatening to the ability of the person to do a job. That is now a thing of the past for Commonwealth departments and it will be a thing of the past for statutory authorities once this Bill becomes law. It means that all employees have some chance of being treated equitably. Some of the chance of being treated equitably needed the sex discrimination legislation and the sexual harassment provisions because one of the non-policy or covert ways of preventing women from being employed in the jobs of their choice was the risk that they would be exposed to sexual harassment. It is interesting to note that, of the cases taken to the Equal Opportunity Board in Victoria, those cases have not been as it was originally thought they would be-mostly high achieving middle class women. Most cases have been working women who found sexual harassment a normal part of their work place. It is interesting that those provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act in the various equal employment opportunity legislation in the States has worked to protect young women who work in the sorts of jobs that really do not have a whole lot of attraction for people. It is very important in the selection procedures that those people who form selection panels be seen to be determining selection on merit. The criteria have to be established and stuck to. Everybody has to start thinking very clearly about what it is that a job actually requires in the way of qualifications, experience, record of performance and merit, because merit now is a principle rather than a selection on prejudice. I draw to the attention of the House the elements of the EEO program which are contained in Part II of the Bill. We have set minimum requirements for programs and they are much the same as those that apply to affirmative action. Authorities are to inform employees of the contents of the program and the results of any monitoring and evaluation of it. First of all, authorities have to tell the employees that the program is there, what that program contains and what the results are of establishing the program. Part II also requires authorities to give responsibility to a person with sufficient authority and status to be able to develop and implement the program properly. That clause is there to prevent an authority-I am sure that none of the authorities to which this Bill applies would even dream of doing it-giving authority for the EEO program to somebody too junior to effect any changes. It requires authorities to consult with trade unions that have members employed in the authority who will be effected by the programs. The trade unions, in spite of the nonsense we hear in the House, do a very great deal of educative work with their members. Authorities are required to consult with employees, particularly women or persons in designated groups. Designated groups, I repeat, include migrants with non-English speaking backgrounds, Aboriginals and disabled people. Authorities have to collect and record employment statistics and related information that are relevant to the operations of the program. So we need a few facts too. Authorities, under their programs, are required to review policies and practices to identify those which discriminate against women and persons in the designated groups and any patterns of lack of equality and opportunity for them. A review of those policies and practices must include not only written policies or practices about which there are instructions but also those sorts of attitudes which come out in conversations and discussions-those sorts of unwritten understandings which exist in networks between senior and junior employees and the sorts of taken for granted understandings which have always been such a barrier to the selection and promotion of women and which left us quite often fighting in the dark against things which we were told did not exist but which we knew very well did exist because of our experience of them. A review of those policies and practices certainly has to contain some genuine review of those unwritten understandings which are discriminatory. The Bill does not contain any measure of positive discrimination. It does not require statutory authorities to employ women instead of men; rather it requires them to employ people on merit. We are not discriminating positively for women. We are not even discriminating positively for migrants, Aboriginals and disabled people. We are preventing negative discrimination against those people. We are not trying to tell authorities that because they had had bad practices in the past they now have to indulge in an equally bad practice and prefer employees simply because they belong to one of those designated groups. The Public Service Board has a requirement to issue guidelines for the development, implementation, and review of the programs so that there is an outside authority that is keeping an eye on and monitoring the programs to see that some progress is being made. Clause 11 (1) provides that the responsible Minister or the Public Service Board can make a recommendation to an authority on action to be taken to improve the effectiveness of its program. Therefore, an authority which is slow, perhaps, to implement a program or is not putting sufficient energy into it can be jollied along, if it is appropriate, by the Board or the Minister. If an authority rejects a recommendation that is made by the Minister or the Public Service Board, it has to inform the Minister of its reasons for doing so. I guess that would leave it up to the Minister to say whether he or she agrees with the reasons. However, I think that they would have to be pretty good, for this Government at any rate. The honourable member for Boothby talked about forcing the pace. I can understand why he said that. I can understand that some of the legislation which the Government has introduced, affecting the status of women and the position of women in the community at large, may seem as if it is forcing the pace. It may seem that there has been quite a lot of legislation-three Bills in four years, and then this Bill. There has been the Sex Discrimination Bill; the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill; the Bill which provided for equal employment opportunities in the Commonwealth Public Service; and now the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill. The introduction of four Bills may seem to have been forcing the pace. I think that most women would suggest that it is not forcing the pace and we are not acting too speedily. We are certainly not doing anything but that which has been demanded by women over many years. I do not think that one piece of legislation a year, which is how it works out, on average, which corrects imbalances and takes action to provide for equitable treatment for women is forcing the pace. We may be running ahead of some attitudes that are found in very conservative ranks of men and in some very conservative ranks of women, but if we were to keep the pace as slow as those people would demand, we would never do anything at all. We would simply say: `In the course of time, these things will right themselves as people begin to understand that it is not quite nice'. That would probably lead us into the next millennium before we got anything done properly. I know that Australia is ahead of the world in terms of some of the legislation which this Government has introduced. We have been able to benefit from the experience of other countries in the formulation of that legislation. I am very proud to be a part of a government in a country which has recognised, and has done something positive about, the discrimination of women at home-that is what the Sex Discrimination Bill had a great deal to do with-and at work and which had tidied up its own house and has put its own house in order. It has said: `We are responsible for the Commonwealth Public Service; we are responsible for the statutory authorities of the Commonwealth; and we will show, quite clearly, that it is not necessary to discriminate against women in order to operate efficiently'. Rather, the reverse is true. One certain way to operate inefficiently is to discriminate against women. I am not only proud that the legislation has been introduced and that I am part of the government which has introduced it, but I also know that because of the effect of our legislation, both in the States which apply it and in the Commonwealth, we are being watched with considerable interest by other countries which also maintain discriminatory practices in the work force and in their legal systems. That interest is expressed when women from various countries get together. Whenever I have had an opportunity to talk to members of other parliaments who are visiting, and who are women, there has been an interesting exchange of information about attitudes and actions that have been taken. It is almost inevitable that those visiting members of parliament go away with a great deal of material from this Government because the legislation which we have passed has been both effective and the sort of legislation in which women all over the world are interested. Mr White —Thank God they don't put it into effect. Ms MAYER —I am sorry that the honourable member for McPherson feels that they do not put it into effect. Let me tell honourable members that he is wrong and that legislation outlawing discrimination against women is going into more and more democratic parliaments. In countries where there is not a democracy we do not find the same sort of understanding of the effect of discriminatory practices against women. In countries where discrimination against women is part of state-accepted religious practices, it will be a long, hard haul for those women to reach the point where they are able to make choices about their own lives, as equal partners in relationships-choices which give them a role and the respect of their children and which will enable them to contribute to their own nations according to their capacity to do so. That is something that the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) might think about. He has had the opportunity in the past to contribute to his nation in a capacity of which I have no doubt he is very proud. It is time that women in this country were allowed to contribute in the same way. We certainly have women who are able to do so. I would like to see all Australian women able to take pride in the fact that their contribution to their country has been to the extent of their capacities and capabilities and has not been limited, crippled, by attitudes and by legislation which has not enabled them to do the things that they know they can do. I commend the legislation to the House. I am very proud of it. I know that it will bring more efficiency and more creativity to the statutory authorities to which it will apply. It is just one more piece of very distinguished legislation for women in this country. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(12.17) —I will comment later on some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer). But I begin by saying that the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill gives further effect to the Hawke socialist Government's penchant for social engineering in the employment field, notwithstanding the urgent priority that the Government should be giving to the quite desperate, quite dangerous, the crisis state of Australian families and the Australian economy. The Opposition, not without some differences of opinion in its ranks, is opposed to the Bill in its present form. This is primarily because the Bill-making an overall assessment of it-has taken a definite step towards specific and quantitative equal employment opportunity programs which are in effect the equivalent of quotas. The Opposition is utterly opposed-particularly at this time of national economic crisis, when business is struggling to put its best foot forward in the adverse conditions of the nation's current extremity-to the regulatory excess involved in the imposition of compulsory quotas in employment for this group and that which in effect impose employment conditions which have been neither arbitrated upon nor agreed upon. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), put it, this Bill is the third leg of a trilogy. In 1984, equal employment opportunity programs were applied to the Commonwealth Public Service proper by the Public Service Reform-so-called-Act 1984. In 1986, the so-called Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act was passed as a measure to promote equal opportunity for women in employment in the private sector and higher educational institutions. Now we have the third leg, the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 which seeks to cover the field and to apply to Commonwealth authorities equal opportunity in employment for women-but not only to women it applies also to other groups-and so-called `designated groups' which may be specified by regulation. That in itself-change by regulation-is a particularly unsatisfactory feature of this Bill. While the objective of improving the employment opportunity for women and these other groups and the removal of discriminations is desirable, it is the additional regulatory burden and interference with business of requirements moving in the direction of compulsory quotas and the erosion of the merit principle that particularly concerns the Opposition. When the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill came before the House in April of last year, given our strong commitment to the objective of equal opportunity for women in employment my own position and, I believe that of many other Opposition members, was that the preferred way forward was by a voluntary approach. A mechanism was ready to hand. I believe this bears on the remarks of the honourable member for Chisholm in respect of the pace of change that can be achieved. In September of the previous year, under the auspices of the Business Council of Australia, a decision was taken to establish a private sector Council for Equal Employment Opportunity, as a positive self-regulation initiative with the objective of fostering the continuing goodwill of business and the securing of a genuine commitment in the private sector to equality of opportunity programs. In my view such a private sector, self-managed and voluntary approach had a great deal to offer in achieving effective and meaningful change towards greater equality of opportunity in employment for women. It would point the way, I believe, to any further steps in respect of the private sector. I will come back to that. Nevertheless, the Opposition took the stance of not opposing the 1986 Bill which was duly enacted. In the Bill presently before the House, the Government's case is, no doubt, that it is simply extending to the remaining sector, that is Commonwealth authorities, the equal employment opportunity principle of the 1986 Act applying to the private sector and higher educational institutions-the Commonwealth Public Service proper covered by the earlier 1984 Act. However, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out in leading for the Opposition on this Bill, a close examination of the Bill shows that the Government is proposing to apply to Commonwealth authorities a different regime from that applied last year to the private sector and higher educational institutions. While the present Bill is drawn and drafted quite parallel at many points to last year's Affirmative Action-ironically so-called-Act, yet at key points it is different, in particular in the provisions relating to the content of the equal employment opportunity programs-section 8 of the 1986 Act and clause 6 of the present Bill. The fact is that it is impossible to escape the judgment that the present Bill has taken a definite step towards compulsory quantitative requirements; in effect a definite step towards quotas. It is true that the 1986 Act provides for the so-called affirmative action programs under that Act to set objectives and make forward estimates and in the definition in respect of `forward estimates' there was a reference to quantity. But it was a forward estimate as `a quantitative measure or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms'. That was required-an objective to which the program should work. It was by no means a quota and certainly not a compulsory quota. In the present Bill, in contrast, under the corresponding sub-clause, action is to be taken by the Commonwealth authority to set-I emphasise that-`the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed'. Well, of course, it remains a matter of judgment but, for my part, this is to take an explicit definite step towards the imposition of compulsory quotas. Why otherwise is the language of the legislation so different at this point when, in other sub-clauses, it is substantially the same as the 1986 Act? Taking the Bill as a whole and making an assessment of the thrust of it and what it is clearly seeking to achieve, there is no doubt in my mind that the requirements of an equal employment opportunity program have been pushed further in this measure towards specific and quantitative measures which are tantamount to quotas. I am aware that some would argue that that cannot be because the present Bill in the precise terms of the 1986 Act has affirmed the principle of merit. Thus in clause 3 (4) of the Equal Employment Opportunities (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill it is affirmed: Clause 3 (4) states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. It would be contended-this is what I said some would argue-that if one has quotas, one cannot have merit; but if one has merit, as in this clause, one cannot have quotas. I believe that is an oversimplification. What this present Bill does, in effect, is affirm both principles, both requirements. Mr Miles —Quite right. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, as my colleague said, that is what it is about. It is somewhat akin to the 32 rights that were set out in the Government's Bill of Rights, of ill fame. Mr Webster —Which the people made them kick out. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Which the people obliged the Government to back off, however not necessarily for all time. All the rights are affirmed but in many cases they inevitably conflict. For instance, the guarantee of equal access to public employment which might be negatived for some by a requirement of compulsory unionism under the right to associate. Inevitably judgments have to be made-by whom is a good question-as to precedence and priority, and similarly here. There is no doubt in my mind from the wording of this Bill that the merit principle which we on this side regard as pre-eminent is eroded in this measure, and the requirements for quantitative measures-if not actual quotas-have been upped. Of course, the scope of the Bill is much wider than the 1986 Act and is applicable not only to women but to other designated groups which may be specified by regulation. As I said before, that latter is an adverse feature of this legislation. My concern is where this is going to stop. With this push further-in these two dimensions-to which I have referred; towards quantitative quotas and to categories additional to women-in the case of Commonwealth authorities, some of which are competing with the private sector, my concern is: Will this not become something of a pace-setter? We have shades of Clyde Cameron of times past. Will we not have next, if unhappily the Hawke socialist Government should continue in office, a revamping of the 1986 Act to push its requirements this much further in these two dimensions I have referred to, in respect of the private sector-adding to the regulatory burden on business contrary to the explicit expressed objectives of the Government as enunciated by Senator Button as recently as 9 January this year? That is a point of significance. On that date the senator announced that there would be what he called a `strengthening of the Government's commitment to the reduction of unnecessary business regulation'. He stated: Any new government proposal affecting business must be cleared with the Business Regulation Review Unit and, if necessary, the Department making the proposal is required to supply a Regulation Impact Statement. It all adds up. This Bill is surely squarely within the ambit of what was intended by Senator Button's statement, but there is no evidence that it has been so examined, hence the Opposition's second reading amendment to this legislation. Going back to what I said a moment ago, we do not want this sort of pace-setting to extend to the private sector. In my view it is time to call a halt now. That is what the Opposition from this side of the House to this Bill, drawn the way it is, is about. It is important in concluding to affirm that we on this side of the House support genuine equal opportunity in employment-and the removal of discriminations-based on merit, and without positive discrimination. It has been put to me-- Mr Webster —It is common sense. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It calls for common sense. It has been put to me by some of my colleagues that if the Government does not meet some of the requirements laid down by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his speech and we are obliged to vote against this Bill we will be seen in the public eye as opposing genuine equal opportunity in employment and that will not go down too well with the electorate. I doubt whether there will be that perception. But in any event I believe that the primary concern of the electorate is with the key issues of the serious plight of Australian families, the high and rising prices of food and everything else; the crippling interest rates; the barely-affordable any-more mortgage payments, and the up to $50 a week increase for a typical housing loan under this Government almost cancels out the effect of increases in wages over the past few years; ever-higher taxes; the lot. And at the back of all that it is concerned with the desperate, the dangerous, indeed crisis state of the Australian economy. It is a situation which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) referred to last June as `a situation akin to war', but now neither the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) nor any other senior member of the Government will any longer tell it as it is. My gut view is that the majority of Australians will see us getting into holts here over this legislation as akin to fiddling while Rome burns. I urge the Government to come clean about the state of the country and to come to grips with the real issues. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(12.32) —I am very pleased to be speaking on the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill especially since the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), is in the House. I will show that the arguments that the Opposition has produced for opposing this legislation are humbug and rubbish. We know what the real reason is for these proposals being brought up. Firstly, it has to do with the problems of the National Party of Australia. Secondly, it is to do with the agenda, with which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been concerned for some considerable time, to get rid of all small `l' Liberals from the Liberal Party of Australia. Mr N.A. Brown —Ha, ha! Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member should not laugh because by the time I finish with him he will have something to answer for. We heard today that Senator Peter Baume has resigned from the shadow ministry over this legislation. He has resigned because this is part of a plan of people such as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to get rid of any decent, reasonable person within the Liberal Party from the front bench. That is the type of strategy that has been used. The Liberals have got rid of Senator Peter Baume. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) will have problems in the next few days. There is a deliberate strategy to get rid of any moderate within the Liberal Party so that it can be taken over by extremists such as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He has the gall to come in here and say that the Opposition supports the principles of the legislation, but that somehow because of some details it will oppose it. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs he did absolutely nothing for equal opportunity. Can honourable members point to a single thing he did when he was Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs? During his period in the ministry there was systematic discrimination against women, against migrants and against other people in the community. Now he comes into this House and uses a flimsy excuse to provoke another crisis in the Liberal Party so that he and his pals in the dry extremist right can get rid of any other moderate element within the shadow ministry. They have already started this process. They got rid of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock); they got rid of Senator Peter Baume. Who will be next? Will it be the honourable member for Goldstein? Will there be one or two others? If he continues with this process there will be no difference between the Liberal Party and Joh's Nationals. That is what is happening at present. One person who is supporting the attitude of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), who is supposedly the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. He parades around Australia pretending to be the friend of the migrant communities. He should have been fighting to ensure that this Bill is supported. What does he do in the shadow ministry? Nothing. He is supporting the opposition to this legislation. I say to the many people in the migrant communities around Australia: `Whenever this man appears at your function he should be booed and shouted out because he is not a supporter of the migrant community'. This Bill is extremely important to the ethnic and migrant communities of this country. Mr White —Why? Dr THEOPHANOUS —I will tell the honourable member why-it is because there are problems of discrimination in Australia. Does the honourable member think that this Bill would have been brought forward if we were not aware of evidence of systematic discrimination against people in employment, against women and against the migrant communities? Of course discrimination exists. We introduced legislation to try to do something about it and the honourable member has the impertinence to oppose it. Mr White —Why don't you talk about Australians instead of migrants? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! I call the honourable member for McPherson to order. Dr THEOPHANOUS —He has had his go, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me turn to the specifics of the matter in relation to the migrant community. It is a very important issue. Although we are a multicultural society there are still people with substantial qualifications, with substantial merit, who are denied positions because their names may sound different or because their skin may be a slightly different colour. That is a fact in this country. We ought to recognise that it is a fact and we ought to be doing something about it. It is absurd for Opposition members to be going around pretending to be supporters of multiculturalism, pretending to be supporters of the ethnic communities and at the same time not being prepared to support the legislation of this kind. What has happened since last year? This Bill proposes to put into place provisions which are very similar to those which we introduced into Public Service legislation. This legislation extends these provisions to government authorities. These authorities employ a large number of people and it is important that women, migrants and others have equal opportunity in these authorities. What is objectionable about that, for God's sake? Absolutely nothing. What has happened since last year to change the position of the Opposition? I will tell the House what has happened. First, there was pressure from the National Party. I see the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) pointing to himself with pride saying: `We pushed the Liberal Party around; we pushed it into this situation'. Many of them did not need pushing. As I said earlier, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been responsible for the Opposition attitude to this legislation. He is responsible for Senator Peter Baume losing his position. Mr Slipper —Senator Baume resigned. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Senator Baume resigned because he is a man of principle. He is a Liberal which most of these other characters who are under the banner of the Liberal Party are no longer. They are extreme right wing conservatives like the honourable member for Fisher who would like to bring Australia back to the 18th century. In this context, it is very important that the migrant communities and women-- Mr Slipper —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take strong exception to the inflammatory words used by the honourable member for Calwell. I request that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Was the honourable member addressing comments specifically to the honourable member for Fisher? Dr THEOPHANOUS —Does he want to deny that he is an extreme right winger? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not a question of arguing the matter. My recollection was that you addressed particular comments to the honourable member and he takes offence. I ask for them to be withdrawn. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I withdraw, but let me say that I would like to see what alternative description is in order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Calwell will not traduce the ruling; he will proceed with the debate. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Proceeding with the debate: I was talking about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the disgraceful behaviour which has forced the situation to be brought to a head. We all know the other aspect of this matter. It concerns the divisions within the National Party and the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-the man who has no concept whatever of what it means to live in a multicultural society, no sympathy whatsoever for people of ethnic backgrounds and obviously no sympathy for the rights of women-has allowed this situation to come about for totally politically opportunistic reasons. He has allowed this situation to come about for those reasons because he is afraid that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen will win this weekend and will pull the National Party out of the coalition. Because of that fear he is not prepared to stand up for Liberal principles. Yet he said-- Mr White —Why don't you get back to the Bill? Dr THEOPHANOUS —This is the whole essence of the matter. This is the only reason that the Opposition has put forward in relation to this matter. The Leader of the Opposition said that he would stand up for the integrity of the Liberal Party. Where is the integrity of the Liberal Party now? Where is the integrity of the honourable member for Mitchell, who parades around Australia pretending to be a friend of the migrants; yet he allows himself to support the opposition to this Bill. The fact of the matter is that he has never stood up for the rights of migrants or ethnic communities. All he does is parade around Australia pretending to be their champion, but he does absolutely nothing when it comes to legislation in this House. This is not the first time that he has done this; there have been many other occasions as well. That is not the only matter. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition has never been a supporter of multiculturalism or migrant communities and we see this again in his approach to this legislation. He has allowed himself to be pushed around by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) and the others, so that we have a situation now where the Liberal Party has totally lost its integrity when it comes to the matter of equal opportunity. This is a very serious situation. There is discrimination in Australia. I have had brought to me systematically many cases from migrant people who have qualifications equal or superior to qualifications of other people and they have not been able to get employment in certain circumstances. I have had to make inquiries with the Public Service Board and a number of specific government departments in relation to discrimination against people of ethnic backgrounds. When we introduce a Bill to do something about this, we have the disgraceful scene that we had here this morning of the Opposition wanting to oppose a Bill which is clearly necessary. It has been claimed that we are trying to introduce forced quotas. There is no reference to forced quotas in the Bill. There is a reference to ensuring that people gain employment on the basis of merit. That is all we want. We want to overcome existing discrimination. Honourable members opposite should get that through their heads. We want to overcome existing discrimination against women, migrants and other people. If honourable members opposite think that that does not exist, they have been going around with their heads in the clouds. The fact is that it does exist and those honourable members ought to be supporting us in trying to do something about it. We are not trying to force employers to employ somebody who does not have merit. We are saying that there are many cases of people who have merit and those people are not getting the jobs or promotions that they ought to be getting. If honourable members opposite do not think that is correct, they are getting around with their heads in the clouds. They should ask themselves why there are so few women in senior positions in the Public Service, authorities and private enterprise. Why are there so few people of ethnic background in these areas? Many people of ethnic backgrounds have the qualifications and education, but they are not getting those positions. I return to the theme on which I started; that is, the situation in relation to the real reasons why the Liberal Party is doing what it is. The real reasons are the ones I referred to earlier. I want to emphasise them again and to ask for some explanation from the Leader of the Opposition. He should come into this House and give an explanation as to why the Liberal Party has changed its position from last year and is now opposing this legislation. It is simply because his arm has been twisted by the dries on his side on the one hand and the National Party on the other? Mr Martin —That's the answer. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Of course it is. As I said earlier, if this situation continues there will not be a single decent Liberal left on the front bench in this House. They will have to sit by themselves in the back corner. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(12.46) —I move: That this House- (1) condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its refusal to allow private investment in domestic and international terminals at Australia's major airports; (2) condemns the Hawke Labor Government for handicapping Australia's aviation and tourism industries by not moving to upgrade Kingsford-Smith Airport, and for refusing offers of private investment in Brisbane and Darwin Airports; and (3) calls on the Government to allow private investment in Australia's airports and terminal facilities, and to immediately commence the upgrading of Kingsford-Smith Airport, including the construction of a parallel runway, as Sydney is still the principal point of entry for over 50 per cent of Australia's tourists. I wish to emphasise the latter part of that motion; that is, I urge the Government to allow these necessary developments so we can overcome these growing problems before they get completely out of hand. I refer to the potential for tourism and the problems increased tourism is creating for aviation, and the fact that we have the opportunity to overcome some of our balance of payment problems if we do capitalise on our tourist potential. If the Government will do those things listed in paragraph (3) of the motion I can assure it of the complete support of the Opposition. A critical situation has been reached, Mr Deputy Speaker, with our airports, particularly the international terminals, and our runway capacity at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, or Mascot. That has been caused by, first of all, the dramatic increase in tourists-tourism is up 23 per cent in 1986-and that in turn has been caused by our weak dollar. It is cheaper to come here, and Chernobyl and fears of nuclear problems are far away from Australia. We are free of terrorists, and we have some very competitive international air fares. New technology planes are helping keep air fares down and there are more new technology planes to come to make those air fares even more competitive. There has been a range of favourable publicity for Australia. Some of it has been generated by the Government, deliberately, and I commend the Government for that sort of action. Domestic aviation is also increasing and as there is a swing back to narrow bodied, smaller aircraft there will be further domestic aircraft movements as well into our major airports. The focal point for all of this is Kingsford-Smith Airport, Mascot. It is our major international airport. Over 50 per cent of all international tourists come through Mascot. The airport is their first impression, and in many cases a significant impression, of Australia so it is important that they be treated efficiently and properly. It is also the major Australian airport for domestic aviation and the major Australian airport for intrastate-that is, within New South Wales-aviation. The problems of Kingsford-Smith Airport, or Mascot, are exacerbated because there are no parallel runways, there is a more stringent curfew than at any other Western nation's major international airport, and there is outdated radar and traffic control equipment. Anyone who flies into Sydney will be well aware of this, because of the holding pattern, and people flying in from overseas will be aware of the further holding pattern as they go through the international terminal. Honourable members do not have to take my word for this. I quote from a report in the Australian of 19 February 1987 of a speech made in Sydney recently by Mr John Menadue, the Chief Executive of Qantas Airways Ltd: Tourist industry development throughout Australia would be curtailed unless a new international air terminal was built soon in Sydney and public harbour foreshore land was released for hotel development by private enterprise, the chief executive of Qantas, Mr John Menadue, said yesterday. . . . . `If Sydney sneezes, Australian tourism will catch the cold,' he told the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) in Sydney yesterday. `Sydney is to Australia what London is to England and Paris is to France. They are world renowned as their nation's tourist capitals.' `Australia is so far away for most people that a trip without Sydney, like a trip to Britain without London, will not generally be contemplated.' Australia was already losing tourist business because of a shortage of accommodation in Sydney and the problem would worsen unless hotel development was launched urgently, he said. So I just throw the hotel problem in as well. The report goes on: He quoted as a recent example a United States incentive travel promoter who wanted to send groups to Sydney and Cairns. Because accommodation was available only in Cairns, the promoter sent the entire business to Bangkok. There are plenty of other quotations that can be taken, too, from various media articles. For example, the Australian Financial Review editorial of 15 January, under the heading `Terminal problems', stated: Already, tourist promotion bodies are holding back on tourist promotions in Japan because Sydney is effectively at saturation point so far as handling the Japanese tourist potential is concerned. An article in the Daily Telegraph of 18 November is headed `Sydney Airport chokes on the tourist boom'; and John Spiers, in an article in the Australian of 22 February headed `The Flying Circus', says: Air travel delays are snowballing across Australia and our long-heralded international tourist boom is in danger of being strangled at birth as political intransigence puts more and more aircraft into holding patterns over Sydney. So the main problem is in Sydney. But it is not the only problem. Brisbane is to have a new airport opened-I would say very joyfully opened-by the Minister for Aviation and honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris) in the near future, but it will not have an international terminal. That is 3 1/2 kilometres away, and not adequate at that. At Darwin a Second World War hangar is still being used as the terminal. Progressively, as the aviation industry picks up, there will be more and more problems. When we have the long range Boeing 747-400 series aircraft coming to Australia, there will be genuine one-stop flights from Europe and genuine non-stop flights across the Pacific. Qantas has ordered them. Singapore Airlines has ordered them and British Airways has ordered them. That, in itself, will further exacerbate the problems that we have. I acknowledge that this critical situation has not just developed; it has been growing for years. When we were in government as a coalition four years ago we were aware of this and were moving then to construct a parallel runway at Kingsford-Smith. In the four years since March 1983, when we lost office, this Government has had plenty of warnings. The Kingsford-Smith Airport Task Force, the Sydney Chamber of Commerce, all of the airlines-Qantas in particular-the Federation of Air Pilots; the New South Wales Labor Government and the New South Wales Opposition, the Federal Opposition, tourist organisations and media articles have all supported a second runway and a new terminal. So the Government must act. But the Government has a problem. It has to reduce the Budget deficit to allow interest rates to fall. So it cannot do what it did in its confidence trick of the present year-that is, just reduce the deficit by increasing taxes. Hundreds of millions of dollars are needed for these new international terminals; plus the runways which are required at Kingsford-Smith and Cairns; and the radar which is needed for Sydney and Cairns. All of these things are needed. What is the Government doing about this particular problem at a time when money has to be spent but there are budgetary restrictions on what it can do? The Minister has a very curious attitude. When it suits him-that is, when this Government and he in particular are reaping the benefits of previous coalition Government policies-he says: `Eat your heart out'. He must have said it 20 times yesterday. The bicentennial road levy, for example, which the previous Government introduced, has meant that some good things are being done for this nation's roads. That is good, but that program is ending next year. There is no word from the Government on the hard decision, to carry on. He has also been fond of citing 1981-82 as that terrible year of government expenditure on roads, and of course we were in government at that time. But he is strangely silent about the fact that this year this Government will be spending a lower percentage of Budget outlays on roads than in even the worst year under the coalition. So it is about time he shut up on that one. I turn to new airport terminals. The Minister opened the Perth terminal recently. Which government got things going for Perth? The previous Government. He is going to open Brisbane later this year. He is always keen to criticise the coalition decision on Brisbane, its cost and all other aspects of it, but I will bet on the day of glory he does not mention any of that. He will open it with great glee and, if he carries on as he has with roads, he will probably open it twice. Mr White —That is right. How many times is he going to open it? Mr LLOYD —It will be interesting to see that. At long last Adelaide and Melbourne have new radar, but when it comes to actual decisions by this Government and criticism that this Government is not doing anything, the Minister has a completely different argument. Darwin, for example, with its outdated terminal, is the best example. He tells everybody: `Money does not grow on trees. We have to make commercial decisions here in government. It is the end of pork barrel politics et cetera'. So one would expect logically that any offers of private finance would be accepted because the Government is making commercial decisions. There are no politics any more, so political decisions, political problems, will no longer impinge on any possible Government decisions. Acting logically would also solve the Government's budgetary problems. It would save hundreds of millions of dollars on terminals and allow the Government to concentrate its scarcer resources on runways and radar, et cetera, to improve our efficiency. But, no, the Minister is ideologically opposed to the private sector in international terminals. Here he has a curious distinction between, in some cases, international and domestic terminals. We also have the Federal Airports Corporation and its problems, and the runway and curfew problems in Sydney. So with this Minister, there is more short term politics involved than under any previous Minister for Aviation. Sydney is acknowledged by all to have tremendous problems with its international terminal. It is completely out of date; it is saturated. The parliamentary Public Works Committee recently reported on this, and the Minister's proposal to solve the problem, costing $23m to upgrade the present terminal, was rejected by that Committee because not only would there be chaos during the upgrading but also the problems would actually be worse after the upgrading than they are now. But the Minister has gone ahead against those recommendations; he is still dogmatically proceeding with what everybody says is a stupid proposal. There have been some very good proposals. Qantas has offered to build a separate terminal and that is very sensible. Mr Martin —No, it hasn't. Mr LLOYD —There are plenty of examples of Qantas time and again saying that, and Mr Menadue has said that there must be a separate terminal built for Sydney commencing no later than early next year. So the honourable member should check what Qantas is saying to the Government and what it is saying to everybody in the industry-as well as what the Minister says that Qantas is saying. I can assure him that they are quite different things. Let us not stop at Qantas. I have had three private groups come to me and say that they would be very willing to put up private sector finance to build what is needed; that is, a separate terminal which Qantas would use because it handles about half the international traffic into Sydney. That would overcome this problem very nicely. I want to say for the benefit of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), who will follow me, that he can quote Qantas to me all he likes and I can quote Qantas back at him. Our quotes will be quite different, but Qantas is on record as saying that the new terminal is needed, that it can provide it, and even if Qantas does not provide it there are plenty of other offers from very good industrial investment people who will do it. Let us look at Brisbane. There has been a number of offers there for the building of a terminal at the new airport. Some of them combine a terminal and a hotel. The Minister has said that they are unsuitable, they are outside the guidelines, or they are all made by friends of the Queensland Premier. If that same rule of not accepting a tender or an offer because someone is a friend of the Premier were used in New South Wales, and we excluded friends of the New South Wales State Government, no building proposal would be ever accepted in Sydney. So, let us not be too choosy on that one. When it comes to Darwin, the latest of a number of proposals put forward by the Northern Territory Government was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in December 1986. So far it has not even had the courtesy of a reply. That was a proposal to use private sector finance in Darwin to reduce the cost dramatically, and to take advantage of the $10m already spent by this Government on a northern site by retaining that site. The Minister for Aviation himself has even admitted in this House that you can still see the bullet holes in the World War II hangar used as the present terminal. What we are suggesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, is not radical; it is what everyone else is proposing. It is here, and has been here for many years, to a degree, with local ownership. A lot of our domestic terminals have actually been built by the private airline users. If one looks overseas, it is not only common but is becoming increasingly more prevalent. The Minister's answer to all of this is: `Just wait for the Federal Airports Corporation. That is going to solve all the problems'. I do commend the Minister on the establishment of the Federal Airports Corporation, because it is a step forward. But that corporation was to commence in January. It may now commence in July. the details of administration, of debts and assets, et cetera, are still being worked out. There are a lot of fundamental decisions still to be made and the degree of ministerial interference is such that it will never be allowed to operate commercially. For example, for every item of expenditure of $6m there will need to be ministerial approval-and we can not get too many terminals for under $6m these days. The Minister is also trying to force 1,500 or 1,600 staff from the overstaffed Department of Aviation on to the Federal Airports Corporation, but the Federal Airports Corporation only needs 1,200 people to be in any way efficient. So it will be loaded with up to 400 more staff than it wants or needs. Employment conditions are still being worked out and my understanding is that the Corporation will be far too departmental ever to be commercial. Superannuation is still being sorted out. This Labor Government can learn from the New Zealand Labour Government. It has opened up its domestic aviation. It is turning eight government departments into eight state-owned enterprises or public companies, sacking hundreds of people. The airports are included and made into truly commercial operations. If one looks to the guidelines on finance, which are quite critical for the efficient operation of the Federal Airports Corporation, at this moment my information is that the valuation of the assets that the Government is putting on the transfer to the Federal Airports Corporation is double what it should be. Think of all the potential cost problems that will create for the Corporation. The Government is also saying it will sell the terminals. This is a nice contradiction-it is going to sell the terminals. If honourable members do not believe me they have only to look at a recent issue of Time magazine, dated 30 March. Mr Hawke is reported to have met with some interesting people, including the Minister, and they referred not only to selling the terminals but also selling Australian Airlines. There have been many other Press reports recently on this. So not only will the Government be preventing the Federal Airports Corporation from acting efficiently but also be selling the terminals from under its nose for the sake of a quick dollar for the Budget, it could be presenting the Corporation with an horrific debt equity ratio problem. There is also the question of whether or not the Federal Airports Corporation will be allowed to use lease-back arrangements, and other completely commercial arrangements, or whether it will be forced to borrow. Of course borrowing by the Corporation will be done through the public sector and will be subject to the same budgetary considerations as restrictions are placed on the public sector borrowing requirement. That also carries with it some pretty horrific debt equity ratio problems as well. So I think the Federal Airports Corporation as it presently stands is certainly not the correct vehicle to get commercial enterprise into our airports. For example, this week a Western Australian company has spoken to me. It wants to put in some buildings at the Perth Airport, but it was told by the Department, acting on behalf of the Federal Airports Corporation, that it could have a 25-year lease, at the end of which the area would revert to the Government. The company would then become tenants of the Government or the FAC, and no company can get money to borrow under that sort of arrangement. So the FAC, before it even starts, has already got a lousy name out in the commercial world. That is most unfair on a corporation which I do believe does have some potential to overcome some of the Government's problems. So the Minister must act to overcome these limitations, this political interference and these restrictions on the Federal Airports Corporation. One can go on further from that, Mr Deputy Speaker, to discuss the problems of terminals in the private sector. There have been some fairly interesting and ignorant comments made that somehow or other, once the two-airline policy ends-as it must inevitably end-and we allow the private sector into these terminals, this will restrict rather than enhance the possibility of providing more terminal capacity for new airlines. Nothing could be further from the truth. We already have that problem with the terminals we have now. Just ask East-West Airlines Ltd what it thinks about the availability of terminal space. The ability of the private sector to come in and either have lease arrangements or common user arrangements through the FAC presents tremendous opportunities to work hand in hand with the ending of the two-airline policy. It is inevitable that there will be greater private sector involvement and less Federal Government involvement in aviation in Australia. World-wide trends must flow to Australia because of this continuing budgetary public sector borrowing restriction problem and the fact that the original reasons for government involvement no longer apply. We can also do things far better in the private sector than we can in the Government sector. So the immediate thing the Government must do is open up these terminals for private investment as well as sell Australian Airlines. I want to say to the people of Australia that, whoever forms the next Government after this forthcoming election, both those things will be done. If the Government will do them now, which is the right time to do so, the Opposition will support it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur) —(1.06)-It is interesting to follow the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) in a debate on this issue because clearly he is endeavouring to present an argument to the people of Australia that is based on media reports. He has quoted extensively from what has been written in Time magazine, the Australian, the Australian Financial Review and everything else without actually getting the facts or, indeed, relying on answers to questions that he has already posed in this House to the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris). It was most interesting that he was trying to lecture this Government on how to run statutory bodies when in fact it was members of the present Opposition when they were in power who let Trans Australia Airlines virtually go broke. If it had not been for this Government coming along and rescuing that particular statutory body, there would probably be no Australian Airlines for them to sell off. The Government invested that capital, made the legislation tighter, and as a result there have been record profits for that statutory body. I would just say to the honourable gentleman that perhaps he should look at those facts. A number of points made in the course of the debate today need to be restated. The Government has announced quite a number of initiatives aimed at improving the provision and operation of aviation infrastructure in this country. I do believe that it is important to restate those points again because it can be clearly shown that these initiatives have stemmed from a consistent and coherent policy, as far as the provision of facilities and services are concerned, with respect to future aviation, and they have been introduced at the least cost to the taxpayer. That is quite appropriate. Perhaps I will develop that theme a little later on. Let us look at a few of the things the Government has done. Firstly, it has established the Federal Airports Corporation to ensure airports are operated in an efficient, commercially oriented manner. I was most struck by the fact that the honourable member for Murray commended the Minister for putting this Federal Airports Corporation into effect. Yet in this House last year, in the debate and in the subsequent vote, he opposed the establishment of the FAC. Now here he is, coming along saying that he commends the Government for it. What does the Opposition propose to do with the FAC should it ever get into power. The Opposition-or at least the Liberal Party, and I presume at this stage it is still the coalition's policy though maybe next week it will not be-- Mr Lloyd —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: It is the official coalition aviation policy; I introduced it and I am a member of the National Party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr MARTIN —That policy in respect of the Federal Airports Corporation says that steps will be taken gradually to phase out the Corporation. So here we have on one hand the honourable member for Murray commending the Minister for putting the Federal Airports Corporation into place, but on the other hand he voted against it last year and the coalition's policy is to get rid of it. Consistency has never been a strong point in the National Party of Australia and that is again shown quite clearly here. Secondly, of course, the Government has committed major investment funds to the expansion of international and domestic passenger facilities in a number of our primary airports. It is worth looking at this issue because the honourable member for Murray did catalogue a number of instances where, he said, investments did not take place and there were problems in various airports around Australia. Let us just have a look at those terminal developments and see what has in fact happened. In other words, we are going to look at the fact, and we will separate that fact from the fiction. As far as Perth airport is concerned, for example, $78m has been spent on works over the last three years, including a new international complex with associated aircraft parking apron, roads and car parks, a new control tower, an air traffic service centre and taxiways, with a new western parallel taxiway, to serve domestic traffic. An additional $24m is being invested by the airlines, oil companies and concessions operators to complement the Commonwealth's investment. Is the honourable member trying to say that this Government is letting down the people of Australia, the air travellers of Australia, by not investing in appropriate gateways to this country? Perth airport seems to have done reasonably well out of this. It seems to have done quite nicely. We are all familiar with Canberra Airport; we go there every time we come down to this place. We can see for ourselves the work going on at the moment. At present $3m is being spent on works to upgrade extensively the passenger terminal building. As part of a joint project between Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines, this particular development will see the airlines, along with the Government, contribute some $11m. So, Canberra Airport is being upgraded. Of course, a number of issues were raised concerning Sydney's international terminal and Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport itself. My colleague the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) will, I am sure, effectively cover that particular point, but there are some things that I would just like to touch on. There has been $22.6m allocated to improve the capacity of the Sydney international terminal to cope with peak demands. The honourable member for Murray was absolutely right when he said that he recognised that there were problems at Sydney. Sydney is recognised as the international gateway to this country, and rightly so. Why should it not be. The Government has recognised that. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has said that that is the case. The hourly passenger handling capacity is to be increased by 80 per cent. There will be an enlarged departure hall, new check-in facilities for outward bound passengers, improved concession facilities, which would be expected to generate additional concession revenue of up to about $7.5m per annum, an increase in the public waiting areas and, of course, as the Minister related to this House some time ago in answer to a question from the member for St George (Mr Dubois) about the operation of Sydney Airport, an increase in the number of Customs officials operating from that terminal. The honourable member for Murray did express some concern about the fact that the Public Works Committee had examined recommendations as to how Sydney terminal could be improved, and that the Government rejected those findings and instead agreed to do the works. Quite clearly from what I have just said major improvement will come from the investment of that nearly $23m. It will improve the facilities, and the handling capacity of Sydney's international terminal. These works are supported by Qantas Airways Ltd. The honourable member for Murray alluded to the fact that I might come in about Qantas, and I will, though I will not go through an exercise of quoting back to him so he could come back at me and so on. Rather, I will just say this: Qantas certainly agrees that its earlier proposal for a government funded temporary facility to be constructed adjacent to the current terminal was not a cost-effective solution. I refer the honourable gentleman to Hansard, of 10 October 1986 and the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) when the Minister for Aviation clearly pointed this out. He said that there had been a proposal many months ago from Qantas, it was concerned about a second terminal but when it looked at the costs involved it was no longer a feasible alternative and therefore was dismissed. The honourable member will say `Rubbish', then I will say `Rubbish', so we will just leave it at that. We will just say that what I am putting to the House are, in fact, the facts. What about the other areas? Darwin was mentioned. The Government has adopted a rational approach as far as Darwin is concerned. It has decided that there could be a significant saving on the original $95m that was proposed for the construction of new developments associated with Darwin Airport. It has taken the approach that it will look at the development of that airport facility in a much more rational way. The Government is planning for a much less expensive development of civil aviation facilities. That planning is most important. The honourable gentleman talked about the effect on Budget deficits and about the many hundreds of millions of dollars-I think that was the figure he used-that it would take to do all the sorts of works he was suggesting. Quite clearly this Government is not about blowing out the deficit. This Government is about planning what is necessary to meet the needs of the travelling public to this country and within this country. Again, as far as Darwin is concerned, rational planning is necessary and this Government is going down that track. We are looking to investigate the site to determine the layout of terminal facilities to be provided. We are looking at the possible maximum use of existing aircraft pavements, roadways and service facilities because we would not have to spend as much money. If the existing facilities can be used through upgrading, use them. Of course that is a rational approach. As has been indicated by the Minister previously, this could save a considerable amount of money for the Government. Brisbane Airport was mentioned as well. A new domestic airport at Brisbane will open later this year. The project, including capitalised cost, has been valued at something like $640m. The construction of it presently employs something like 910 people in the private sector. The existing international terminal is being extended and is expected to cope with demand levels into the 1990s. All of this indicates quite clearly-at least to any rational person, I would have thought-that there has been a commitment and that terminal facilities in Australia for international travellers, and indeed domestic travellers, have been improved. Upgrading has taken place because the need to do so has been recognised. It would seem, as a result of all of that, that this Government has taken a rational, planned, economically responsible position in everything it has done. I conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, with a few comments about Sydney's international terminal at Kingsford-Smith. This Government last year chose a site for a second Sydney airport, and in fact has commenced the acquisition of land for that facility. I understand-and I have to say to those honourable gentlemen opposite that I commend them for this part of their policy-that the Opposition has suggested that that is a very reasonable and rational thing to do. I agree although, as many honourable members would know, one of the sites not chosen was in my electorate. I commend the Government for actually making that decision, committing financial resources to the site at Badgerys Creek and getting on with this facility that obviously will take Australian aviation into the future. Some comments were made about radar facilities and so on required for Sydney Airport. Again, I refer the honourable member to an answer that the Minister has given in this House. He quite clearly indicated that there is going to be, and already has been, an upgrading of radar facilities. I refer the honourable member to the answer given to the honourable member for St George on 24 February 1987 when he said: . . . later this year we will be inviting registrations of interest for the installation of a new system of radar which will improve the handling of aircraft through the airport. We have already upgraded on an interim basis the existing radar. But the new system of radar is due for completion by 1991. So, as the honourable member has suggested, there has been upgrading of radar facilities in Melbourne and Brisbane, and these particular facilities are also being upgraded in Sydney to meet the demands of an international and domestic airport. Quite clearly it is important that we do get on the record the fact that this Government has seen the necessity to adopt a rational, planned approach to the development of airports around Australia. I pose just one question to those honourable gentlemen opposite, and particularly, perhaps, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) who will follow me in this debate. I would ask him, because of his tourism responsibilities: How does one justify the fact that during the course of Liberal-National Party governments pork-barrelling exercises were indulged in so that whoever happened to be the Minister for Aviation generally speaking ended up with a major airport facility in his electorate or adjacent to it? Why was it specifically necessary to have so many international terminals developed around Australia? We have heard his colleagues suggest that Sydney is the gateway to Australia. I reiterate that I endorse that remark 100 per cent, although the Minister at the table, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), shook his head to indicate that he did not agree-because he comes from Melbourne, I suppose. Why, then, can one say that it is necessary to have so many of these international terminals spaced right around Australia if in fact we are endeavouring to get people to Sydney and use that city as a staging point for the rest of Australia? It is a very interesting question and I hope that there are some answers to it. Quite clearly it is a fact that through changes in technology the 707 aircraft has gone and we now have the big jets with double the passenger capacity, so the facilities need to be improved-and they have been. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(1.21) —I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this matter. It is essential, particularly from a tourism point of view, to get it sorted out as quickly as possible. I do not intend to indulge in some juvenile point-scoring debate with the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) or anyone else. He asked why certain things had been done in the past, and I think that that is a fairly juvenile approach to take to problems we have now. We are not looking back; we are looking forward. I would have thought that the sensible approach to this enormous problem was not to keep mouthing what the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) have been saying, but to look at the problems as they exist and try to agree on some way to overcome them. We will not overcome them by spending a bit here and a bit there or by saying how good Perth is. We know where the problems are, and the Government knows where the problems are. They are basically in Sydney. There is a solution to them and I just fail to understand why the honourable member, his Party and his Government do not embrace those solutions. The reality is that some international airports in Australia are in a crisis situation and the worst one is Sydney, where well over 50 per cent of our international tourists arrive and depart. In degrees of inadequacy to cope with the demands of aviation and tourists in this country, Sydney is followed by Brisbane and Darwin. There are problems with Customs facilities and a lack of staff; in some areas there are problems with space; or there may simply be a problem with the number of chairs. There is nowhere to sit down at Sydney Airport. There is the problem of providing information for incoming tourists; the problem of inadequate facilities for older people, tired people or handicapped people; and the problem of inadequate reception areas. None of these, it seems to me from a visit I made to Sydney last week, is really being addressed in a proper fashion. We are being told continuously by the Government that next year, in 1988, something like two million tourists will come into Australia. We all welcome that; we very much hope that those predictions come true. Tourism is going to play an enormous part in the economic future and the economic recovery, we hope, of this country. But the problem is: How can we handle these visitors when something like 99 per cent of our tourists now come by air? Over 50 per cent come in through Sydney. How will we handle this problem? It is no use saying that the situation is under control, because, as the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has already indicated, as late as 19 February this year the Chief Executive of Qantas Airways Ltd, Mr Menadue, in an article by John Spiers in the Australian, said that tourist industry development throughout Australia would be curtailed unless a new international air terminal was built. It is no use saying that these remarks are old hat. That comment was made last month by the Chief Executive of Qantas. If we are going to start quoting authorities, no less an authority than the Premier of New South Wales said exactly the same thing-that Sydney Airport facilities are hopeless and it is about time that the Federal Government got off its tail and provided some solutions. Mr Lloyd —He is in favour of private money, too, isn't he? Mr WHITE —He is. The Labor Premier of New South Wales-a good friend of the Federal Government, except where his own interests are concerned-wants to see the private sector involved. So, it is not just a political exercise that we are indulging in here. We have a real problem which concerns the future of Australia. The Government is aware of these problems of space and inadequate facilities, the shortage of Customs staff and other staff at airports to assist in reception arrangements. The Government keeps saying that there is not enough money to upgrade these airports, and we agree with that. It is a bit like education-there will never be enough money to do all the things we want to do. We agree with the Government's assessment that there is not unlimited money to spend on airport terminals. In a moment, I will suggest a solution to that. The other problem for the Government seems to be its lack of any capacity to forward plan. It has taken four years to get around to spending some $23m on Sydney Airport. A couple of weeks ago when I was there, to the best of my knowledge-from what I could see-work had not even started. The Government has been talking about that $23m for over 12 months. It is no use saying, day after day, `Wait for the Federal Airports Corporation to get going', because that Federal Airports Corporation will have real problems facing up to all these things we are talking about. Firstly, will it be able to borrow enough money? It will have to go, I presume, to the Australian Loans Council, so its capacity to borrow the sort of money that it wants will be severely limited. It will also be limited by ministerial interference, or ministerial supervision. It is not a free agent to just go and do what it wants to do. It is already limited by the fact that it has no real planning staff, and if we are talking about a new or extended terminal in Sydney it should be planning now because even with the best will in the world we will not see any improvements in Sydney Airport before, say, the beginning of 1989. It is just not possible. Yet every time the question of developments or airport improvements comes up, the Government says: `Wait till the Federal Airports Corporation is in place'. So people go off to the Federal Airports Corporation, which is not yet working, and it says: `We are sorry; we would like to help you but you had better go back to the Department'. So there is this hopeless, endless circle of people who are trying to do something in terms of airport facilities but are getting nowhere. When these matters are brought up here in the House and in other public venues, the Minister says: `It is all the fault of the last Government'. I remind the Minister that this Government has been in power for four years. How long will it keep on saying it is the fault of the previous Government? Mr Lloyd —We were under way with the parallel runway for Sydney, which they stopped. Mr WHITE —The parallel runway was under way, as the honourable member for Murray says, but it was stopped when Labor came into office. There are some solutions to these problems. The first one is to start planning now in the Department of Aviation so that when the Federal Airports Corporation really gets going that planning can be handed over as a going concern. The second solution is to let the FAC borrow the money and build our new or extended airport. As I have already pointed out, there is considerable doubt as to whether the FAC will be allowed to borrow sufficient money, be allowed to operate freely in a commercial sense and have the capacity even to have the airports. As I understand the suggestion that is floating around now, some of the terminals and some of the airports as a whole are to be sold out from underneath it. Will it have the resources to do the planning that is required? The answer to all those questions is either no, or at least that it is doubtful. The Federal Airport Corporation is a step ahead, but it is not our solution to these problems. We are not here to criticise it; we are here really to sympathise with it because we do not believe it will have the muscle to be able to do the job that is expected of it. So the second solution to the problem is to let the private sector get involved in the development of facilities for which the Government, or the FAC, will never have sufficient money. The Minister comes into this House time and again and says: `I have no proposal in front of me'. That in itself is a bit careless with the truth because we know of proposals that have been put to him, some of them not in a formal sense but nevertheless proposals to do a lot of this work involving airports. He rejects them. He says: `There is no proposal in front of me'. Of course there are no proposals in front of him, because some he has rejected and he has made it quite clear that others he will not entertain. I believe that sort of attitude is the absolute height of political hypocrisy. Qantas has made proposals to him. A consortium in Brisbane made a proposal to him. He objected to Sir Francis Moore being in that consortium because he felt that he was too closely allied with the Queensland Government and the Queensland Premier. Frank Moore withdrew and they put it up again. It still was not adequate. In Darwin, as the honourable member for Murray has said, a consortium has come up with a plan to improve that ghastly airport, but it has been knocked back. The Australian Federation of Construction Contractors has offered to get involved in Sydney and in Brisbane. The Federation was referred to the Federal Airports Corporation. It went to that corporation only to be told that the corporation had not the resources or authority and they should go back to the Department. The Department said: `I am sorry; you will have to wait for the Federal Airports Corporation to deal with it'. Mr Millar —That was straight from Sir Humphrey. Mr WHITE —It was absolutely. The problem that we, as Australians, face is getting the private sector involved, welcoming its involvement, rather than taking some ideological socialist stand that we should not allow the private sector to get involved in airports. What a lot of nonsense, as anyone who has been through Cairns recently will tell honourable members. The airport is run by a business group organised, as I understand it, around the Cairns Harbour Board. It is an enormously successful airport. So let us not have this nonsense that the private sector should not get involved in something like Australian airports. It is doing it around this country every day of the week, and doing it very successfully. Mr Deputy Speaker, the reason I am so concerned about the state of our international airports, particularly, is that we have one growth industry in this country-tourism. I very much hope that it is not going to be the only growth industry that we have. We cannot expect any future for this country if we are to rely on one industry, but at the moment that is it. This year overseas tourists are expected to bring in something like four billion dollars. It will be our second largest export industry. It has an enormous potential to redress our balance of trade, but we cannot keep talking about a growing tourism industry if the facilities to get these people into the country and make them welcome are just not there. I get very concerned when I see the dithering that is going on, the buck passing and hypocrisy that is involved in the construction of these new facilities. For God's sake, let us put some of that petty stuff aside and acknowledge that we have a real problem. Let the Government stop claiming that the $23m that it is going to spend on Sydney Airport will solve the problems; it is not even going to solve the backlog of problems. Let us take a realistic view of the enormous potential of our tourist industry, the enormous economic benefits that it can bring to all Australians and, putting ideological and fixed ideas to one side, get the private sector involved in the development of airports around Australia, get this country and this industry moving again. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(1.35) —On Friday, 8 October 1982, the Sydney Morning Herald described me as `having led much of the resident opposition to Sydney Airport expansion'. I make that statement at the outset to indicate to the House that to me this matter of the expansion or non-expansion of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is a matter of principle-to such an extent that if I should ever have to fight my own party on the issue, I would not hesitate to do so. Let there be no doubt about that. But I am quite confident that that will never arise. Like the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), I have been involved with this issue for many years, campaigning very heavily against the Opposition's policy in regard to it. I am equally opposed to the Opposition's new policy, little as it differs from the old. The building of another runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport would be an extremely costly, time delaying exercise that, without an accompanying abandonment of noise abatement procedures, would achieve no capacity increase at all for the airport. I note that this afternoon the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has said that the curfew at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is too stringent. That, I believe, is at least an honest admission by the honourable member for Murray of what the Opposition's intentions are. The bottom line of its policy, as presented to this House today, would represent a disaster in terms of the living standards of the people on the southern suburbs of Sydney and surrounding areas. That would be so because of the increased aircraft movements and noise over their roofs, the increased damage to their health, the increased cost to their local councils and the destruction of the environment of Botany Bay, Australia's birthplace. Indeed, it is ironic that the Opposition's aviation policy, as stated in the debate today-it would take the form of a bicentennial gift to Australia in 1988 should it be elected to government-would result in the cementing over of Australia's birthplace, Botany Bay. It is also noteworthy that the Opposition's aviation policy, which was leaked before it was announced some months ago, singles out only Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport for special attention. The Opposition has a fixation about that airport, that blinds it to all reality. The Opposition says that in government it would build another runway, but its policy is so confused, so lacking in any study, that it does not even know what sort of runway it wants to build. I ask the honourable member for Murray, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and all other honourable members opposite: What sort of runway do they want to build? Do they want to build a wide-spaced parallel runway? Do they want to build a close-spaced parallel runway? If they want to build a close-spaced parallel runway, do they want to build one of equal length, a CSP short, or a CSP balanced-as it is termed by the Aviation Department and recommended in the Federal MAN study report? Mr Lloyd —I rise on a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Murray on a point of order. Mr Lloyd —The Opposition, when in government, will build whichever parallel runway the best technical advice indicates can be built as quickly possible. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PUNCH —The point of order by the honourable member for Murray highlights just how ignorant the Opposition is on this issue. It is an admission on the record that it does not even know what sort of runway it wants to build, yet it has the audacity to come in here today and try to inflict that albatross around the neck of the residents of southern Sydney and the rest of Sydney as well. The Opposition does not even know what it wants to build. The other options I might just finish canvassing are Fraser's options, as announced in 1981- Mr Cowan —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Lyne. Mr Cowan —I point out that the previous Government had all the plans completed so far as as an extra runway was concerned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! No point of order is involved. The honourable member for Lyne will cease interjecting. Mr PUNCH —Honourable members opposite are obviously trying to take up my speaking time, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are obviously worried about what I have to say. Is it to be a close-spaced parallel runway east, a close-spaced parallel runway west, one of the short takeoff landing runways or a commuter linked runway? Which one is it? The truth is that the Opposition makes policy announcements without even knowing what the ramifications are. Let us look at the argument as to cost. A close-spaced parallel runway, balanced, for instance, would in today's dollars cost $920m. Let us compare that with the cost of providing a second Sydney airport of international standard at about $1,200m. Let us compare the time spans involved. Both would take in the order of eight to 10 years to build, presuming of course that a second runway could be built in Botany Bay, and the necessary fill found. It has to be pointed out that when in government in 1981 the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said that a second Sydney airport would still be a necessity, the construction of another runway notwithstanding. He said that in April 1981 in a letter to then Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran. So the solution offered by the Opposition is a $2.12 billion solution. On cost grounds it is uneconomic and a gross waste of taxpayers' money. As to the purpose of the construction, I am at just as great a loss. The basis of the argument of the Liberal and National Parties is that capacity can be increased and noise reduced by takeoffs and landings over Botany Bay being increased. That is an absolute fabrication. In reality, to achieve any increase in capacity the noise abatement measures that now operate at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport must be destroyed. It is very obvious that that is the intent of the Opposition. Indeed this afternoon it has been half admitted. The reality is that the proposal to provide a second runway is really just a cloak for the destruction of the noise abatement procedures at Kingsford-Smith Airport. Without that happening no close-spaced parallel runway will achieve increased capacity. That is a proven fact. The honourable member for Murray has already obviously said so. I invite him to look at exactly what would be involved in the process-as we on this side of the chamber did last year, subsequently rejecting it. Why then does the Opposition put up these furphies? As to why such a runway cannot be operational, as the Opposition insists it can, I say that, quite simply, one cannot have operations where takeoffs and landings are occurring over the same air space simultaneously. That assertion is both logical and common sense. In fact, an objective assessment of the record shows that one cannot have more takeoffs over Botany Bay than occur now mainly because of weather factors. Indeed, it must be noted that at this time of the year the weather is a very limiting factor in regard to takeoffs and landings over Botany Bay. Indeed 85 per cent of existing jet aircraft departures take off over Botany Bay. If we look at the proposal of Mr Fife in 1982 when Minister for Aviation we note that the figures that the Aviation Department gave then to justify the second runway-which would have been a close-spaced parallel runway-actually showed that there would be a lower percentage of departures over Botany Bay than occur at present. That is an admission that the Opposition's policy makes no sense. If not, it is an admission that a second Sydney airport is needed. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. The truth is that the provision of a second runway at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport would result in massive increases in the number of flights west and north of the airport. I wish to cite certain figures, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the basis of the balanced mode of operation applying. Flyovers of the St George area now number 38,745 a year. Under a close-spaced parallel runway, balanced, they would number 63,940, or an increase of 65 per cent. A similar increase of 65 per cent would occur over the northern approach to the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. For the St George area this means 25,200 additional flights a year-approximately 540 a week or 77 a day. This can be translated to 4.5 additional flights per non- curfew hour, which must mean that in order to make that close-spaced parallel runway-let alone a wide spaced parallel runway-an economic proposition the airport noise abatement procedures must be smashed. The health costs of this to my constituents are astounding: The Aircraft Flyover and Mortality Report of 1979, commissioned by Rockdale Council and drawn up by the Environmental Impact Studies Group from the Eastern Suburbs, shows that there is a very strong correlation between premature death and populations being subjected to heavy aircraft noise. That finding was, of course, pooh-poohed when the Rockdale Council put out the report. It was equally pooh-poohed three or four years later when I went on the campaign trail with it. But honourable members opposite should now recognise three things: Firstly, the first recommendation of the House of Representatives Select Committee on the subject last year pointed this out as the first option. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 109 as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of Notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr PUNCH —That was the first recommendation of the Select Committee's report. Secondly, the National Acoustics Laboratory is now investigating this in detail. Thirdly, the New South Wales State Government is now doing work on the subject. It is a long way from being pooh-poohed as it was a few short years ago by the then Liberal-National Party Government. The ecological cost of this proposal would be the destruction of Botany Bay's hydraulics and its ecosystems, the destruction of Towra Point as a nature reserve unique by world standards and the destruction of valuable sporting and commercial fishing grounds in Botany Bay, our national birthplace. Such a runway would require of course a minimum of 20 million cubic metres of fill. That was the figure given in the MANS committee's report. Indeed, anything up to 45-50 million cubic metres of fill could be required for a wide-spaced parallel runway. There is no known source of such a quantity of fill. Presuming that another source could be found, many costs to local government would result from an endless stream of trucks and other modes of transport passing through their region for eight years, transporting fill from some source as yet unidentified by honourable members opposite. In reality I believe that a wide spaced parallel runway would evolve under any coalition government. It could not be built on the eastern side of the existing runway because that would clash with the port facilities and be just too dangerous. Therefore I believe that the wide spaced parallel runway that they would build would inevitably end up on the western side of the existing runway. That would result in the complete destruction of the suburb of Kyeemagh in my electorate and it would make most of Brighton, Rockdale and Monterey uninhabitable. The massive costs involved in building over some 15 years a wide spaced parallel runway were, in fact, rejected by the advisers to the former Liberal Party Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, in the early 1980s, but now we find the Opposition conspicuously quiet about something which is an issue in itself. It says that it wants to build another runway; that the curfew is too stringent; that it is affecting tourism. I point out to honourable members opposite that tourism is now growing at a faster rate in Australia than anywhere else in the world. The lack of another runway cannot be doing too much harm if that is the case. But this Government is determined to increase aviation access to this country and is doing so in a logical and proper manner that does not involve smashing the living standards of ordinary Australians, such as those in my constituency. Qantas Airways Ltd, as it has to be said at the outset, has no proposal on the board for the provision of another air terminal. If Qantas put one up that was halfway decent I would support it. It must also be pointed out that the $23m expansion program for the existing terminal will increase capacity by 80 per cent. The proposed expansions will be finished by mid-1989. There will be a minimum of 20 additional Customs staff to increase the flow of tourists and move them through as quickly as possible, as well as improved management procedures. All of these improvements, including terminal expansion, honourable members opposite had seven years to carry out but failed to do so. Now they come into this chamber and claim that the Government is endangering our tourist industry. That is said although no objective facts are produced to back it up. For seven years the former Government did nothing about this matter. The Labor Party is doing something about improving Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport in a logical manner that, as I said previously, does not involve forcing our constituents to live in a noise-polluted slum. I refer to the constituents of Barton and to those of the honourable member for Grayndler, the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois), the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh), the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) and perhaps other honourable members. The Opposition, when in government, never had the courage to make a decision on this subject. The Opposition's policy is one that is completely without foundation on economic, noise grounds or capacity grounds. It is a proposition that, taken with the new admission today by the honourable member for Murray about the curfew, asks my constituents and 1.1 million people in Sydney to shoulder the burden for what the Opposition failed to do for so many years while in government. That is simply not on. It is a matter of principle with me and my colleagues and we will fight it to the last breath. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(1.50) —We have witnessed an amazing performance by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch). Mr Lloyd —Talk about short term politics! Mr NEHL —Short term politics indeed. I have never heard a more parish pump approach. I naturally understand that the honourable member is concerned that his constituents have aircraft flying over them, but hundreds of thousands of Australians have railway lines passing virtually through their backyards, hundreds of thousands night and day have semi-trailers going past. Frankly, I do not see any great difference. What has to be realised is that Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport really must get another runway. The reasons are cogent and very logical. The airport carries more traffic than do all of the other Australian international airports combined. It receives two out of three tourists visiting Australia and handles more than half of the nation's air freight. Airport-related industries and businesses spend more than $730m and provide direct employment for 14,000 people-just in the aviation industry. Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport directly generates additional income of more than $1 billion in the local government area surrounding the airport. What does the honourable member for Barton say about that? Does he not want to have another billion-- Mr Lloyd —He wants to have it both ways. Mr NEHL —He wants to have it both ways, as the honourable member for Murray says, but in this world of ours one cannot have one's cake and eat it too, one has to choose one course or another. Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport generates a further $500m of income over the whole Sydney region. An additional 14,700 jobs exist in aviation-dependent industries such as tourism, accommodation and travel. As a result, millions of dollars are contributed in taxes and charges to Federal, State and local governments. Yet, in spite of Sydney's magnificence as an airport, air traffic is growing faster at Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Cairns and Adelaide. Why? Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is becoming thoroughly overloaded. The proposed new airport for Sydney will not be operational until at least the year 2010-- Mr Gear —That is what Fraser said. Mr NEHL —Well, the honourable member can talk about Mr Fraser but, as the honourable member for Murray has told him, the plans were in place, ready to go and his mob killed them, because of the honourable member's fears about the ears of his constituents. Regional air services will deteriorate as competition for airport use intensifies. In 1986 Sydney's airport had 192,000 movements, of which 115,200 or 60 per cent, represented domestic traffic. At present country aviation retains its priorities for access to the airport. However, increasingly there are delays and these are being spread over the entire spectrum of airport users, with the possible exception of charter and private operators. Time and time again I fly from home at Coffs Harbour to Sydney and find that one has to stooge around over Gosford while congestion clears. It is not good enough to leave the situation like that until the year 2010. We must take some action fairly soon. Turning to Badgerys Creek is not the answer. The existing runway must be duplicated. There is no indication whatsoever of when air traffic will commence to be shed from the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. It is not even being talked about. Congestion and delay at Sydney's airport must lead to a decline in the number of tourists, international business and freight which its services. Kingsford-Smith is the gateway for over one and a quarter million tourists each year-worth to Sydney in 1984 an estimated $1,640m. Coopers and Lybrand's study on the bicentenary estimated that 2.9 million tourists would visit Australia in 1988. That is astounding but it is the estimated figure. The Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 1.4 million people visited Australia in 1986, an increase of 27 per cent over the figure for 1985. It anticipates a further 27 per cent increase in visitors in 1987. That would result in 1.9 million tourists coming to Australia. Where are they going to land, Mr Deputy Speaker? Coopers and Lybrand estimate that an additional one million tourists will visit Australian in 1988 alone. Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport's share of tourist arrivals has already fallen-from 56 per cent in 1981 to 53 per cent in 1984. These falls in the number of tourist arrivals will continue, with consequent economic loss. There are over 50 economic enterprises associated with the airport. They include 22 airline corporations, 21 commercial enterprises and 12 public infrastructure organisations. In 1984-85, Qantas Airways Ltd paid $63.7m in taxes on its operations out of Sydney airport alone. Because of the multiplier effect, the total economic impact on the Sydney region in 1984 was $4,662m. That is calculated on the basis of an expenditure of $731m by the aviation industry and related business expenditure of $1,532m, with a multiplier factor of 2.06. Of course that excludes any government input. I want to conclude in order to allow a few minutes to my colleague on the other side. I just make the point that, whereas we have a total multiplier effect of over $4.5 billion coming from Sydney airport, in comparison our major copper exporter, Mount Isa Mines Ltd, earned $670m from the sale of copper overseas, or 45 per cent less than the revenue produced by Kingsford-Smith Airport. If the airport is to remain viable, to go ahead and serve Sydney and Australia, that second runway has to be built. Mr GEAR(Canning)(1.56) —One is always amazed, upon coming in here to debate matters of some importance, to note that when honourable members of the Liberal Party and their National Party colleagues are in opposition they possess unlimited vision. They can stand over on the other side of the chamber and tell us what should be done but when they have to come over here and actually do it they are mortified. Nothing illustrates that more, apart perhaps from taxation policy, than the Opposition's aviation policy. Honourable members opposite had, in relation to the new Sydney airport-which they have spent a lot of time talking about-seven years in government in which to pick out a suitable site. They could not do so. The reason was that they thought they would lose a marginal seat. They talk now about the congestion at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and say that this Government should do some planning. It has done so. At least it has picked out a site and got the whole system going in order to ensure that there will be a second Sydney airport. That decision should have been made 10 years ago. Opposition members come in here and start criticising this Government for allegedly not making decisions. We have made the necessary decision. It is a pity that they did not make it 10 years ago. I would like to talk about some of the achievements of this Government and, in particular, to go across to the other side of Australia and talk about Perth airport. Those of us who used to fly to Perth airport on international carriers had to feel very much ashamed of that airport. The impression left with our visitors from overseas, when they had to line up for hours to get Customs clearance and go through the other procedures necessary on entering Australia, must have been a very poor one. This Government took a decision to construct a new international terminal at Perth and the terminal was finished in September of last year. It is the most up-to-date terminal in Australia and was opened by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the local member, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) who, as my colleagues point out, is a top Minister. Moreover, I believe that the design of Perth airport is to be used for the new international terminal in Beijing. That, I think, speaks volumes not only for the design features incorporated by the Department of Housing and Construction but also the Australian craftsmanship that went into building that international terminal, which was so ably opened by the Prime Minister last year. The Prime Minister spoke in very glowing terms about the new Perth International Airport and so he should. It is one of the great achievements of this Government that it has taken its aviation and transport policy seriously. In the present Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation, (Mr Peter Morris), I believe we have the most able Minister to have held the portfolio. It is clear from the acclamation of my colleagues that they agree. In regard to not only aviation but also roads and all other aspects of transport, the Hawke Labor Government can run rings around its predecessors. I go back to the point that I made before: It is great to have vision when in opposition-which this mob always tries to espouse. The trick is to have it when in government. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It now being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence of General Business has expired. The honourable member for Canning will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford), will be absent from Question Time on official business today and any questions which would normally be directed to Mr Hurford should be directed to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). Mr SINCLAIR —Is the Prime Minister aware that the figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Monday showed that petroleum exploration spending dropped by 54 per cent from July to December in 1986 from the figures from January to June in the same year-from $342m in the first half of last year to $157m in the second half? Is he aware that at the end of February 38 of Australia's 43 on-shore drilling rigs were idle, three of four off-shore drilling rigs were idle and 19 of 20 seismic crews were idle? In light of these alarming statistics on petroleum exploration-of course, with its effect on Australia's self-sufficiency and the problems that we have already with Australia's chronically adverse balance of payments-and given the continued instability in world oil markets, why is the Prime Minister proceeding with the resource rent tax? Mr HAWKE —I am aware of the statistics to which the right honourable gentleman referred. The whole question of getting an appropriate balance between the incentive for exploration, the appropriate return for producers and the interests of consumers is under constant attention. It is currently being particularly investigated by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans. I am totally confident that the Minister will be able to recommend to the Government the policy mix which is appropriate to take into account those varying and, I concede, at times conflicting considerations. I think the right honourable gentleman would concede that, if we were to undertake a decision which took into account solely the interests of those concerned with exploration, in fact that could have adverse implications in respect of other quite legitimate considerations. Insofar as the right honourable gentleman included in his question the reference to the resource rent tax, I make the point that I think he would understand-I am not too adventuresome when it comes to talking about what he understands-that by definition the resource rent tax is a profit-related tax. That is, if there are no profits then, by definition, there is no tax. Relating the right honourable gentleman's question to the broader issue, which he did, of our external position, I think he would appreciate that we as a Government are very acutely conscious of the need for us to shape our whole mix of macroeconomic policies in a way which is calculated to narrow the gap between what we earn by way of exports and what we pay for imports. Indeed, I hope the right honourable gentleman will appreciate that it is precisely the mix of policies that we have adopted which is directed to achieving that end. We are confident, as I hope the right honourable gentleman would be, that the evidence which is becoming increasingly available in this regard should give us all-not just in the Government but in the Opposition as well-cause for confidence. I quickly refer the right honourable gentleman to some of the more important elements of recent statistics. For instance, the most recent figures show that in the last seven months of this financial year exports of manufactured goods were some 35 per cent higher than in the corresponding period last year. We have had the fifth successive quarter with a reduction in the imports of consumer goods. The right honourable gentleman would understand that our competitive position is now the best it has been for some two decades. We are confident, with both the policies that we have and the most recent statistics, that fortunately for Australia the situation is improving. Unfortunately for the Leader of the Opposition, the times are decreasingly becoming his times. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. In view of the fact that recent Press reports have indicated that the Opposition plans to raise the age pension eligibility age for women to 65 years, can the Minister give the House some details of the implications of such a decision? Mr HOWE —Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for-- Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was false in its context and related to a matter for which the Minister is not responsible. As it is false in its context-there is no intention by the Opposition to change the age pension entitlement-I suggest the question is out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The question would have been out of order had it continued to deal with the Opposition policy. However, the effects on the Government's policies I think are a quite legitimate question. Mr HOWE —Madam Speaker, I am not sure which particular Opposition the right honourable member is speaking for. It is interesting though that the question was raised not within the context of any serious policy consideration but as part of the frenetic first days of duumvirate that would lead the planned Howard government. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has in fact considered this question and the chairperson of the Commission, Dame Roma Mitchell, has suggested that there are grounds for equal opportunity. I thought that was an issue not irrelevant to today's debate. She has suggested that the age of 63 years is an appropriate age. Let me just give the House information on this. I am sure that the Opposition, even if it is considering it as only an option, would be interested to know what the savings would be on such a proposition. The abolition of age pension for women aged 60 to 64 years would affect 165,000 current age pensioners but would result in relatively small savings on social security outlays. The current cost of providing age pensions to women aged 60 to 64 is about $740m per annum. However, if the age pension for those women were abolished the majority would be forced to rely on some other form of social security payment such as the wives' pension, the invalid pension, the widow's pension or the unemployment benefit. As a result, the Opposition would no doubt be disappointed to know, the net saving from immediately abolishing the age pension for women aged 60 to 64 is estimated to be around $15m per annum. There is still a major credibility problem. There is no quick fix in this area. If the age pension age for women were to be increased it would also be reasonable to introduce the higher qualifying age gradually to allow people sufficient notice to adjust their retirement plans. Of course, if the sudden death option was not chosen-one might call it the stuck pig option-of course that $15m saving would very likely evaporate. As this proposition has come up other than in a policy context it has not been thought through. There are, of course, relatively few older women in the work force. Few in fact would be able to obtain employment and therefore many would have to rely on unemployment benefit for income support and would suffer a reduction in rate and loss of pensioner fringe benefits. They would also be required to meet unemployment benefit work test requirements. This is an important issue but it has not been posed in any serious policy context. Indeed, there is very little in the sense of policy that comes from the other side of the House. Mr BEALE —I refer the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices to the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems and in particular to recommendation 19 which, if implemented, would result in the end of the sub-contracting system in the Australian building industry. In view of the Government's intention to introduce legislation implementing the recommendations of the Hancock report, what action does the Minister intend to take to prevent the inevitable resulting increase in the price of houses, estimated by the Housing Industry Association to be in the vicinity of between $7,000 and $15,000 for each house? Mr WILLIS —The question relates to the implementation of the Hancock recommendations, which is my responsibility. The legislation regarding the Hancock recommendations will be coming forward shortly, some time in April. That legislation will continue the Government's very proud record in the area of industrial relations. We have seen a 60 per cent reduction in the level of industrial disputation and time lost in industrial disputes from the average rate of time lost under the previous Government, and the level of money wage increases are well below those operating when the previous Government was in office. In terms of an effective industrial relations system this Government has much to be proud of. That record will be improved by the amendments involved in the legislation coming forward which will be based on, but will not necessarily implement, every aspect of the Hancock recommendations. The question related particularly to recommendation 19 regarding independent contractors. I am not going to say now what the Government's response to that is. That will all become clear when the legislation is introduced shortly. Mr MILDREN —I direct my question to the Minister for Science. To what extent has the growth in international trade in recent years been in goods and services which are essentially brain based, involving invention, research, development, design and other elements depending on intellectual skills? Is Australia's scientific capacity sufficient to meet the challenges of the 1990s? Are there any threats to developing this capacity? Mr BARRY JONES —Over the past 20 years by far the fastest growing areas in world trade have been in brain-based manufactured goods and services which are completely dependent on scientific skill. As commodity prices have fallen Australia has had increasing difficulty in paying for the computers, communications equipment, aircraft, medical technologies and so on on which modern societies depend. In the past four years the Hawke Government has raised the levels of public understanding of these issues as Australia moves into `the age of information'. In fact, I think one of the greatest achievements of this Government has been to turn around the direction of the nation's industrial base, to turn Australia away from being `the lucky country' with an economy totally reliant on chance factors and market forces towards being an `intelligent country' where we make the most effective use of our greatest resource, human capital. However, our prospects for making this country scientifically, technologically and culturally relevant have come under sustained attack from this philistine Opposition which is totally lacking in intellectual curiosity and in intellectual energy. There was a striking illustration of this in the Liberal Party's secret agenda for restructuring government which appeared in the Australian Financial Review for 23 March. The common factor in these proposals was a total failure to refer to Australia's skill base, to its intellectual and technological resources generally and to the need to develop a productive culture. All these elements of government, connected with the redevelopment of Australia, were marked for abolition: The Department of Science, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the technology part of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, the Department of Education, the Schools Commission, the participation and equity programs and the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. The Department of Communications is lumped with the Department of Transport as if they would provide identical or analogous services, which presumably would have very serious implications for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Also included in the list are the Australian Film Commission, the Australian Sports Commission and the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. It is no coincidence that all these elements of government are concerned with raising the skill base, improving the quality of life and trying to raise the long term policy considerations for community debate. The list of omission confirms that the Opposition is not only bereft of ideas but also does not understand them. It does not grasp that the countries with the fastest rising living standards and industrial performances are those that put the heaviest investment into quality of life, into quality of education and into research and development. The Opposition is totally preoccupied with immediate economic self-interest. It has no regard for the long term or for intellectual, scientific or cultural activity. This Opposition is intellectually impoverished and its proposed restructuring confirms that abundantly. Mr CONNOLLY —Has the Treasurer's attention been drawn to an article in the Australian Financial Review of 19 March referring to the Western Australian Government's Exim Corporation's alleged financial difficulties, including an unexplained interest payment of $2.8m? Will the Treasurer confirm, firstly, that he signed an instrument transferring $6m from the Commonwealth to the Western Australian Government; and, secondly, that the funds were for the purchase by the Exim Corporation of part of the Emanuel cattle leases for the Kimberley Aboriginal community? What conditions did he attach to the grant? Were they accepted by the Premier, Mr Burke, in writing prior to the transfer of funds in June 1986 and have the conditions been met? Mr KEATING —I am not aware of all the issues raised in the honourable gentleman's question. This is typically a question for the Notice Paper, where he might put it. Mr CHARLES —I ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment: Has he seen media reports related to the suggestion that the Australian Film Commission be abolished? Mr COHEN —The recently leaked document of the Liberal Party that fell off the back of the bus, indicating where cuts would be made to reduce the deficit, indicated that there would be a closure of the Australian Film Commission. I hope the honourable member for Wentworth has something to say about this. If such a thing happened-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. This question is hypothetical. Madam SPEAKER —I found the question in order and I am listening carefully to the Minister to ensure the answer is in order. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, on a further point of order: The question must be hypothetical if it deals with something that is not happening. It cannot be dealt with. If the Minister wants to state how he would save money by closing down the Film Commission he may, but his answer will be hypothetical if he addresses it to the decision of anybody else, which is not his responsibility. Madam SPEAKER —I understood that the Minister was getting to how the film industry would be affected. I hope that is what he is doing. Mr COHEN —If this were to happen it would end the bipartisan support for the film industry that covers the period of John Gorton, Sir William McMahon, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, and now the Hawke Government. It would be the end of direct government involvement in one of the outstanding successes of the past 15 years. It is particularly unusual that it should surface in the year in which the industry has come of age. It seems to me to be a knee-jerk reaction to the current upsurge of philistinism, particularly on the other side of the House. It shows a great deal of ignorance of the vital role that the Australian Film Commission plays in co-ordinating the activities of the industry-the role it plays in script development, equity investment and back-end guarantees. Many of the great films of the last 15 years would never have got off the ground without the financial support of the Australian Film Commission. The abolition of the Australian Film Commission would mean an end to the marketing and promotion that has been done by the Commission to promote Australian films overseas. It would mean an end to any possibility of future co-productions we are now planning with Britain, France, New Zealand and the United States, and an end to the thousand and one other activities which support an industry which has done more than any other industry in Australia to give Australia a high profile overseas. That is reflected, as I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism will agree, in the enormous increase in tourism to this country. It is sad that the success of this Government in bringing about stability in this industry will be undermined if the Opposition ever gets the opportunity to abolish the Australian Film Commission. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that, to achieve the Government's Budget forecast of 2 1/4 per cent economic growth in 1986-87, requires growth in each of the next two quarters in excess of 2 per cent? Will the Treasurer concede that such an outcome is highly improbable and that economic growth is, therefore, likely to be little more than one per cent? Given the weaker outlook for economic growth and the Treasurer's own admission last year that economic growth in excess of 3 per cent is required to prevent the unemployment rate from rising, does he endorse the prediction by the National Institute of Labour Studies yesterday that the unemployment rate will blow out to 9 per cent by Christmas this year? Mr KEATING —I should have thought that the honourable gentleman would have noted what I have said on a number of occasions, including when the national accounts were brought down by the Australian Statistician last week, which is that the Government expected that growth would be of the order of 2 per cent and could be slightly under that figure. I have indicated in the House on a number of occasions the compositional elements of growth this year. While at Budget time we forecast most of the growth coming from net exports and some contribution from demand we now think demand will make a negative contribution to growth and that any growth or all the growth that occurs will come from net exports. That was confirmed by the December quarter national accounts which indicated that domestic demand and consumption were down, exports were up by 13 per cent in volume terms in the quarter or by 14 per cent in the 12 months to December, that imports over the same period were down by 5 per cent and that all the growth was coming off net exports and none from demand. The other thing which the national accounts indicated and which I have referred to was that there was a very high number for equipment investment. What was significant about that number-10.6 per cent for the quarter-was that it is the equipment investment we need to rebuild the capital stock to replace imports and lift our export performance. That is all notwithstanding the fact that we had a further 3 1/2 per cent decline in the terms of trade in the December quarter alone. The fact that the trend decline in the terms of trade from the 1950s has been about half a per cent a year and that the terms of trade have declined by 18 per cent in two years and by 3 1/2 per cent in one quarter should have led, I would have thought even the honourable member for Mackellar to believe that the performance of the economy was, in the circumstances, pretty reasonable. The other point I made was that we are still experiencing employment growth. Despite the fact that this Government is dragging Australia through a trading holocaust, the kind of which we have not seen since the Second World War, we are achieving employment growth. We are not pushing this country into a recession with the brunt of the adjustment falling on the unemployed. We are not only holding our gains on unemployment; we are bringing unemployment down. Therefore, the impact on the domestic economy of whether the growth rate is 2 1/4 per cent or slightly below 2 per cent is immaterial to the employment forecast in the Budget which is being met. Not only is it being met for this financial year but broadly we see that kind of performance continuing over this calendar year. I do not accept the forecast about unemployment by the body the honourable gentleman mentions because I do not accept many of the premises in its review. All the question reveals is, again, a lack of comprehension on the part of the honourable member for Mackellar of the real influences on growth and activity at the moment, the record on employment, the performance in terms of a reduction in real unit labour costs over the last year or so and what that has meant and will mean for employment over the course of calendar year 1987. I notice, by the way, that there was not a comment from the honourable member about the national accounts. When one number comes out which is anything on the down side it is doom and gloom-the world as we know it is going to end. When a decent number comes out he hides for a couple of days. Not only does he hide, but he cannot even read the numbers. Perhaps he will go back and make an elementary reading of the national accounts. On that basis he might understand that basically the national accounts indicate that the Government's growth forecasts are on track, employment is on track and the change in export and import volumes is also on track. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The Minister for Foreign Affairs would be aware of the serious plight of the 270,000 refugees on the Thai-Kampuchean border. Will he inform the House of recent trends in the crisis in Kampuchea and, in particular, what role Australia can play in achieving a political and just solution? Mr HAYDEN —Madam Speaker-- Mr Howard —You ought to go there again, Bill. Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member should not talk. I saw him on television at a national meeting of all his supporters making a phone call a fortnight ago. A number of suggestions have been made about the processes which might be adopted in an effort to bring about dialogue between the parties directly involved in the conflict on the border of Kampuchea, proposals such as cocktail parties, third party engagement, proximity talks and conferences of various types. So far there has been very little progress. One of the major reasons is that, on the one hand, the Vietnamese authorities and the Government of Kampuchea have declared that if there are to be any such engagements the Government of Kampuchea, that is, the Heng Samrin Government, has to be represented. Its assertion is that it is the legitimate government of Kampuchea. On the other hand, the coalition government forces of democratic Kampuchea, as they are called, the Khmer resistance forces, of which there are three distinctive units, have declared that they will not talk with the representatives of the Government of Kampuchea, that it is a puppet government and that it will speak only with Vietnam about the future of Kampuchea because it is the occupying force. Australia has made some contributions in this area in an effort also to try to help dialogue. There has not been any major, perceptible improvement as a result of anyone's contribution, but people continue to try. Our conditions have been laid down and are similar to those which have been put forward by the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. We will continue to try. A document the honourable member has prepared on the plight of the Khmer refugees on the border of Kampuchea in Thailand as a result of his visit to the area reflects a humane, compassionate and informed concern about this matter. It helps to develop an understanding of the issues involved by its analysis of the situation there, of the consequences of what is taking place and of the power play which is, quite evidently, central to developments there. For my part I have appreciated his providing me with a copy of that working paper which has been analysed carefully by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I believe that some of the positive suggestions he brings forward deserve further attention. Dr WATSON —I refer the Treasurer to the well known and fundamental relationship between expected inflation and long term interest rates. Given the statement in Economic Planning Advisory Council paper No. 26 that the market expected continued higher inflation in Australia and todays reported comments by the Managing-Director of the National Australia Bank, Mr Nobby Clark, that he expects inflation to rise to 10.2 per cent next year, how are long term interest rates going to record a significant and sustained fall from their current levels? Mr KEATING —If the honourable gentleman had been studying the markets in the last day or two, he would have found the 10-year bond rate declining over the last week or so as conditions over the year are starting to unfold. But this is just simply a question about inflation. The Government has made it clear why our inflation rate at the moment is where it is. I remind honourable members again that when this Government came to office the inflation rate was 11 per cent. We succeeded in bringing it down to 5 per cent for the year to March 1985. It has risen temporarily as the result of a major depreciation of the dollar, which lifts the price of imports. The price of those imports is being measured as they leave out economy to surrender their market share to local product. For a decline in the exchange rate and a lift in competitiveness, there is an unavoidable price to be paid with a temporary lift in inflation, which then must be addressed by broader anti-inflation policy. The difference between this Government and the Opposition is that this Government has an anti-inflation policy and it has in place a wage policy which will track Australian inflation down so that not only will we emerge from a major depreciation with the most competitive economy that we have had since 1969-well able to export and import compete for the first time in memory-but also inflation will abate as a result of the Government's policy. The only policy that the Opposition would have to deal with inflation would be monetary policy. The Opposition rejects all forms of wage policy. It says that it is not interested in discussions with the unions. It rejects any notion of an accord. It would simply try to squeeze inflation out of the economy by squeezing growth or, in other words, by ramming the economy into a recession to cut the inflation rate, as it tried to do and in fact succeeded in doing in 1982 when it shoved us into the first domestic recession, the first negative growth, in 30 years. By contrast, this Government succeeded in getting the inflation rate down to 5 per cent. It would have been well below 5 per cent now but for the depreciation. But, in the wake of the depreciation, we now have a very competitive economy. Given that we have broken that link between wages and the indexation of the inflation rate, we will see with the decline in real wages a decline in the inflation rate and with it, of course, in the long term bond rate. So, perhaps my friend on the back bench, who is interested in economics, might study the performance of the coalition through the 1970s and try to come to terms with its inability to run an anti-inflation policy and a growth policy at the same time, which gave us an 11 per cent unemployment rate and an 11 per cent inflation rate on terms of trade massively more advantageous than those we have today. The honourable member might ponder how the previous Government got into that mess in 1982 and why the coalition in government would not be in the same mess in the future if all it had to rely on was fiscal and monetary policy. Following his naive question about the long term bond rate and inflation, the honourable member should address his mind to the underlying policy issues. It is only this Party that has the capacity to drag inflation down. It is only this Party that has been able to restore the basis of Australian competitiveness. It is only this Party that has an accord with the unions. That is why it will be this Party that will get returned at the next election because the public will not want another recession from John Howard. Mr O'NEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I noted recently in the Minister's White Paper on defence that the Government acknowledges that the joint defence facility at Nurrungar near Woomera in my electorate is a potential nuclear target. In light of this, and to allay the fears of people within my electorate, I would like to know what steps the Minister has taken to provide appropriate civil defence in the event of a nuclear attack. Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. He has in fact raised the issue with me several times, as befits an effective local member concerned with the situation of his constituents. I have noted his concerns and I am happy to take his question on board. The first point that I ought to make in answer to his question is that there is virtually no likelihood at all, of course, of global nuclear war. That is the first thing that needs to be said, and it also needs to be made clear to his constituents. The damage that both sides would suffer in such a conflict massively outweight any conceivable gain. There is no intent on the part of either of the super-powers to introduce nuclear war as a rational element of policy. That is the first point I want to make. The second point is that it is true that the Government has acknowledged that, in the extraordinarily unlikely event of nuclear conflict, there is a finite possibility that the three joint facilities-the two classified joint facilities and North West Cape-may be nuclear targets. We cannot be absolutely certain about that because we obviously do not have access to the Soviet target list. But that seems to be at least a finite possibility. In those circumstances the Government believed that it was necessary to do several things. The first was to acknowledge the types of functions that those joint facilities perform. The honourable member, who has a very considerable capacity to convey accurate information to his constituents, should do this-that is, point out that the functions that the facilities perform in terms of early warning and arms control verification are absolutely critical to ensuring that the favourable circumstances that would prevent any likelihood of the outbreak of nuclear war are maintained. Those are critical functions performed by the joint facilities. Without them, there would be a materially less stable world. To call for their removal is to make a serious contribution to the possibility of that less stable world being created. However, having decided that there is that finite possibility that they may be targeted, the Government has decided that it is fitting that we should enter into discussions with the emergency authorities-in the case of the honourable member's constituency, that is, of course, the South Australian Government-to plan for the protection of the population in civil defence terms. A paper to that effect has been prepared. That paper will be discussed with the relevant State authorities and appropriate plans developed. We are confident that, given the early warning that we could anticipate of that very unlikely conflict, very substantial measures could be taken to ensure that the interests of the honourable gentleman's constituents would be fully protected. I must again thank him for raising the question. I take it as a very serious one on his part. He is well motivated in asking it. Mr IAN CAMERON —I direct a question to the Minister for Aviation. As his Government subsidies from consolidated revenue the bus services of Canberra to the tune of $18m a year, as well as the Commonwealth railways at a cost of $47m and the Tasmanian ferry service at a cost of many millions of dollars, I ask the Minister: Why is he not prepared again to help maintain Australian Airlines air passenger services within inland Queensland by returning the subsidy of $2m that his Government has withdrawn? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for Maranoa for his question. A similar question was asked of me a few days ago by the honourable member for Kennedy. I understand very well his keen interest. I am a little puzzled by the comparisons made by the honourable member for Maranoa. Just to set the record straight, payments in respect of Australian Capital Territory bus services are directly comparable with the general revenue grant made to each of the States from which the States then fund their urban public transport services. So Queensland already gets a benefit comparable to the services provided to the Australian Capital Territory. They are not comparable to air services. In respect of the Tasmanian ferry service there is no subsidy paid by this Government but, far better still, this Government provided Tasmania with a new service. We said to the Tasmanian Government: `Who best understands the needs of Tasmania? Who best understands the potential of the Tasmanian tourist industry and who is in the best position to provide that service?' The resounding answer was: `Tasmania'. We gave Tasmania the money and it runs that service. A freight service subsidy is provided under the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. The Tasmanian Government and most of the Opposition agree that that subsidy is desirable. I note that the honourable member for Bass fully supports that policy. In respect of air services in western Queensland the facts are that Australian Airlines is seeking to rationalise those services and the services of Air Queensland with a view to overcoming the substantial losses that are being incurred. Similarly, Australian Airlines has had detailed discussions with the Queensland Government because, as the honourable member for Maranoa will recall, on the one hand Queensland has an open skies policy for aviation in Queensland and on the other hand licenses the services. The licensing of those intrastate services is a responsibility of the Queensland Government. Mr Hollis —Where does Joh's plane come in? Mr PETER MORRIS —I will come to Joh in a moment. Don't you worry about that. Mr Howard —It is not all that original. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is not meant to be original, my friend. It is not meant to be original at all. Australian Airlines and Air Queensland are seeking to put arrangements into place to provide for services from which they are withdrawing. The Government supports that initiatives on the part of Australian Airlines. I did mention the other day to the honourable member for Kennedy that there is another airline in Queensland-Joh's airline. It has an HS125 jet. To replace that today would cost about $10m. At the time I did not know the operating costs but I have done a bit of research since then for the benefit of the honourable member, which is why I thanked him for his question. The maintenance cost of that aircraft is $580 per hour. It fuel consumption is $545 per hour. Crew cost is about $80 per hour. So the direct operating cost is some $1,205 per hour. If one adds to that the indirect operating costs of some $1,595 per hour, one gets the grand total of $2,800 per hour. That aircraft is beloved by the Premier of Queensland. I will explain why in a moment. Over recent weeks in the course of the Premier of Queensland's jaunt around Australia on the `Joh for PM' campaign that aircraft has been to Wagga, Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin-- Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The aircraft of the Queensland Government has nothing to do with my question. I asked about Australian Airlines. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Minister. Mr PETER MORRIS —The aircraft has everything to do with the question asked by the honourable member because the costs of that aircraft are being borne by the taxpayers of Queensland. If the honourable member has a genuine commitment to his constituents, he would want to see the money that is being squandered in running this aircraft around Australia spent instead on providing services to his constituents. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that the money should be spent on a jaunt around Australia for politicking by the Premier of Queensland and on the other hand say that we should pick up the bill at Federal level for a subsidy of air services for his constituents. In addition, there were trips to Tokyo and to Ankara. I just want to get things straight because when the Premier arrived in Tokyo-- Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Chair, Turkey is not in Maranoa and nor is Japan. I have asked a question about the inland routes of Queensland. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Minister, I think, is displaying where the money is available. Mr Ian Cameron —I am not interested in where the money is going; I want to know about Australian Airlines and inland air routes. Madam SPEAKER —Sit down. I call the Minister. Mr PETER MORRIS —As I was about to say to the honourable member, I am sure he will be interested in this because this is a Press statement from the Queensland Government's Press Office in Tokyo. In introducing the Premier it said this: He is a strong advocate of free enterprise and is extremely pro-Japanese in regard to investment and migration. . . . . Sir Joh will be flying to Queensland in the Queensland Government jet, piloted by Captain Beryl Young, who is the only female flight captain- you missed out on this, Prime Minister- to command an aircraft flying senior Australian politicians on international air-routes. There are very few doing that, but then Joh loves this aircraft and this service. To explain why Joh cannot find the money to fund air services for the constituents of the honourable member for Maranoa but he can for this jet, one should look at the Bulletin of 31 March where there is a very good article by Paul Bongiorno, who refers to a visit to the sumptuous reception rooms of the Premier in the Executive Building in Brisbane. The article says: . . . we were ushered into a bigger reception room, reminiscent of the foyer of the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo. The walls were lined in Queensland timber. Objects d'art were displayed in exquisitely lit alcoves around the room. Mr Ian Cameron —Honest to goodness, what has a hotel room in Tokyo got to do with the air services in inland Queensland? That is what I want to know. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Minister. Mr PETER MORRIS —As I was saying: Objects d'art were displayed in exquisitely lit alcoves around the room. In the centre alcove- just try to picture this- a terra cotta bust of Bjelke-Petersen himself done in the style of a Roman emperor. Can honourable members just see that? A beautiful alcove, and there it is as one walks in. When Paul Bongiorno-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. May I point out to the honourable member for Maranoa that I find the Minister in order. I ask him to resume his seat. Mr Ian Cameron —I haven't spoken yet, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I am sorry; I assumed that you had raised the same point of order and that I had not heard it. Mr Ian Cameron —Obviously you are not listening because I have not said anything yet, but I tell you what, I am going to. Madam SPEAKER —Will the honourable member raise his point of order? Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Speaker, I would like you to refer to standing order 145. What the Minister is answering here is quite irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the people of western Queensland who are going broke and who wish to have a decent air service put in place. I want him to answer the question properly. Madam SPEAKER —Please resume your seat. I call the Minister. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member would not have asked this question if he had not wanted me to answer it. I am doing my best to give him the facts. The Premier, in talking with Paul Bongiorno, the author of this article, and I recommend it to the honourable member for his reading-- Mr Hawke —It is very good, actually. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is an excellent article, Prime Minister. The journalist said that the Premier was explaining to him, how he was going to become the Prime Minister of Australia, and was setting out on this crusade, all the sacrifices that he would have to make. The article stated: He says the move will demand huge sacrifices. ``I've got to forgo my staff, these rooms, these lovely rooms . . . I've got to forgo my jet- Mr Keogh —Beryl Young? Mr PETER MORRIS —Yes, he says that- and pilot- that is, Beryl Young- my car and driver and policeman. I've got to forgo, in other words everything,'' he says. That is why the Government of Queensland does not have the money to pay the air subsidy to provide the services for the honourable member's constituents. I hope that the honourable member will join with the rest of the honourable members in this chamber, certainly those on the other side, who would like to see that money that is being squandered on jaunts around Australia spent, instead, on providing a service to the people of western Queensland. Mr PUNCH —My question is to the Treasurer. Can he advise the House of what measures the Government has taken to relieve the tax burden of small business? Is he aware of any evidence that the community, and in particular the residents of my electorate of Barton, have been misled about these measures? Mr KEATING —The Government has, in the course of its tax reform measures, introduced what is by far the most revolutionary changes to the business tax system since its inception, and that is the introduction of a system of full imputation to relieve dividends of double taxation. In the course of doing that, Division 7 tax on undistributed profits will be abolished. The two major appeals by small business organisations over the past 20 years were to abolish Division 7 tax and to relieve the double tax on dividends. The Government is doing both in the course of its tax reform process. The honourable member for Barton asked about misinformation on these things and whether I was aware of misinformation within his electorate. The answer is that I am aware of misinformation put about by the official Liberal Party of New South Wales in a pamphlet headed `Taxation'. It contains a picture of the Leader of the Opposition and was authorised and printed by Graeme Starr, 234 George Street, Sydney. Mr Starr is the Secretary of the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party. The pamphlet states: The Liberal Party will introduce- optional income splitting for families with dependent children to reduce their tax burden tax rebates for child care expenses where spouses choose to work gradual and predictable change towards a reliance on indirect tax rather than personal income tax full tax exemption of pay earned by the Defence Force Reservists tax relief for small companies transferability of losses within 100%-owned company groups repeal assets test on pensions and lump-sum superannuation tax Improve current system for taxing dividends. The first thing to say about this fraudulent and dishonest document is that four of the last five items have already been accomplished by the Government. Full tax exemption of pay earned by Defence Force reservists has been completed by the Government. Tax relief for small companies will come by way of imputation and the abolition of Division 7 tax. Transferability of losses within 100 per cent owned company groups was introduced in the Budget 2 1/2 years ago. The improvement of the current system of taxing dividends will be accomplished by the abolition of the double taxation of dividends with imputation on 1 July. In this dishonest document there are measures which have already been put on to the statute book, or wiped off the statute book and changed. However, a further measure of the dishonesty of all this can be seen in the first promise, which states, without any qualification: optional income splitting for families with dependent children to reduce their tax burden . . . It does not say `maybe' or `partial'; it says `optional income splitting'. We know that the cost of that is $2,850m in a budgetary year. The second promise was: tax rebates for child care expenses where spouses choose to work . . . That would cost $115m. So from our friendly neighbourhood macho generalist sitting opposite, we have the macho generalist of yesterday who said that what was wrong with Australian politics was the duplicity of politicians talking, in macho general terms, about expenditure cuts and promises and not being specific about them. There is a specific commitment of full optional income splitting for families in a marginal seat in this country. It is one of the seats which traditionally decides where elections go. Yet, a document bearing a picture of the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party logo, on the full authorisation of its State Secretary, virtually gives a specific election commitment which, when questioned upon, the Leader of the Opposition chooses to run away from at every opportunity while his staff push out stuff on the Australian Association Press screen and everywhere else to state that the Liberal Party will cut expenditures. Then it leaks documents saying where the expenditure cuts will be-such as the non-indexation of pensions-and then, when asked, it states: `No, that is not on the agenda'. However, Liberal Party candidates run around and shove such pamphlets in letter boxes. Anybody with a bent to being gullible would believe, from honest John, that optional income splitting for families was a full, solid promise of the Opposition which would cost $3 billion. The Prime Minister and I have indicated on a number of occasions that the cost of the Opposition's commitments to date is $16 billion. We have given the Opposition the annotated references of each reference it has made. We invite it, again, to write to the Prime Minister and to me-- Mr Howard —All dishonest talk. You are a liar. You are telling lies again. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition says that we are telling lies. I ask him to answer the references that we have given him in writing. You answer them, Honest John. Madam SPEAKER —Order! If the Leader of the Opposition made such a comment, I ask him to withdraw it. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, in-- Madam SPEAKER —I am just asking for a withdrawal. Mr Howard —I withdraw that remark, but I do not withdraw-- Madam SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr Howard —I will not resume my seat. Madam SPEAKER —I am not asking for any withdrawal from the honourable member. I ask him to resume his seat. Mr Howard —I withdraw out of deference to you. Madam SPEAKER —No. I do not want you to withdraw out of deference to me. I ask you just to withdraw. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, by way of indulgence-- Madam SPEAKER —Under the Standing Orders, an honourable member does not withdraw out of deference to the Speaker. When the Speaker requests a withdrawal, the honourable member heeds the Chair and withdraws. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, can I-- Madam SPEAKER —No. The honourable member will just withdraw. Mr Howard —I withdraw the remark. Could I seek your indulgence at the conclusion of Question Time-- Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer is in the middle of answering a question. Mr Howard —to say something? Madam SPEAKER —We will finish with this first. I have other things on the platter. I call the Treasurer. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —I inform honourable members that what I have on the platter is a personal explanation by the honourable member for Mackellar and a personal explanation by the honourable member for Mitchell. After that I will be quite happy to hear the Leader of the Opposition. The two requests were made before the request of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Standing order 80 states: No Member may refer to any other Member by name, but only by the name of the electoral division he represents. On four occasions the Treasurer has referred to the Leader of the Opposition as Honest John. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Treasurer to refer to the Leader of the Opposition as the Leader of the Opposition. Mr KEATING —There has to be some basis of honesty and integrity on the part of the Opposition. There has to be some restoration of the basis of honesty and integrity to Australian politics for a major party. I remind honourable members that in 1983 the Labor Party campaigned on a specific addition to the Budget deficit costed and detailed at $1.5 billion above what was then assumed to be the Budget deficit. We now have specific references for $16 billion which we have passed over to those opposite in writing day after day. They backslide on those commitments while their flunkeys hand out these deceitful, fraudulent documents to the letter boxes of this country when they know full well that they will not stand accountable in this Parliament for that kind of fiscal policy. The Leader of the Opposition also knows that if such a fiscal policy were to be put down the financial markets of this world would crush Australia into a recession. Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put. That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H.Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.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.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Peacock, A. S. McHugh, J.Andrew, J. N. Young, M. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr KEATING —This issue of the Liberal Party's tax commitment has been an issue in the Parliament now for some weeks. On a number of occasions both the Prime Minister and I have detailed line by line-and gave the Leader of the Opposition an annotated document, a copy of which I have here, which I am happy to give him again on each annotated reference-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. What the Treasurer just said is that this issue of the Liberal Party's tax commitments cannot be part of his portfolio. That kind of an answer has been ruled out constantly by Speakers in the past. It debases Question Time to allow it to continue- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I refer the honourable member to the question. The Treasurer is in order with the question that was asked of him. Mr Spender —The answer must be on a matter which is within the Treasurer's portfolio. Mr KEATING —I have just asked my office for a copy of the tally of the Opposition's tax expenditure commitments and each reference by either the Leader of the Opposition or his shadow Cabinet in relation to each individual item. I again pass it to him and invite him-- Mr Cadman —Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 185. For four days in a row we have had this rat-trap garbage from the Treasurer-the man who has sent broke more businesses in Australia than any Treasurer in Australia's history. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The standing order does not apply. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr KEATING —I again say that this matter can be put to rest by the Leader of the Opposition writing and saying where each annotation is wrong. The Government puts to the Leader of the Opposition all these references to official Opposition spokesmen and asks the Opposition to tell us where those statements are wrong or where that calculation is wrong; to indicate to us where they are and please reply. There we are, the Sir Robert Askin school of politics is in again. The old Ash Street brigade is back. Mr Carlton —By no stretch of Standing Orders could the last remark be in order. Madam SPEAKER —I am sorry, I did not hear the last remark. If the Treasurer has made a comment that is out of order, I ask him to withdraw it. Mr KEATING —I was talking about the Sir Robert Askin school of politics, that is all. There was no reference to anybody. What we just saw in that petulant, stupid, childish, juvenile outburst by the honourable member for Mackellar was the ripping up of each annotated reference to the spokesmen of the Opposition to each particular tax expenditure commitment. Mr Carlton —I find the Treasurer's remarks offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —The House gave the right to the Chair to make decisions on such matters. Mr Carlton —Is it not possible to raise objection to the sort of language we get from this person all the time? Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer did not use unparliamentary language. Mr Cunningham —I raise a point of order. I wish to raise with you the fact that we have just witnessed the Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters destroying a document which has been tabled by the Treasurer. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has no point of order. He will resume his seat. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I remind you of your rulings on previous occasions, when a person's name was sufficient to have someone thrown out of this place. We are complaining that you have different rules. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is getting very close to reflecting upon the Chair. I point out to the honourable member for O'Connor that the statement I made to this House, by which I stand, was a statement that no member of this House will intrude into the private life of any other member in this House. I stand by it and I will ensure that it is enforced. The normal thrust and give and take of political language is accepted by everybody in this House. If it is unparliamentary or abusive, I will stop it and so will the deputies. Mr Tuckey —On a further point of order, Madam Speaker: I have brought this to your attention before, when the former Special Minister of State referred to illegal matters related to that very matter of Sir Robert Askin, and that passed also. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is surely not pointing to that as being an intrusion into private lives. Mr KEATING —I conclude on these points: There is an obligation on the Government to bring down Budgets which add up in their arithmetic and are appropriate for the economic conditions. If the Opposition wishes to curry favour in the community by promising $16 billion of outlays and tax expenditure commitments-- Mr Carlton —That is not true. Mr KEATING —Well, answer each particular reference. The Opposition has the simple remedy available of replying to each reference. If the Opposition gives us the reply, we will understand where it stands, the Parliament will understand where it stands, maybe the public will understand where it stands, and maybe even Graeme Starr, the Opposition's State secretary, will understand where it stands. If we are going to have morality in our political leadership, which the Leader of the Opposition was speaking about yesterday, the Opposition should give us a reply to these references so that there can be a proper basis to our politics instead of these cheap grabs for votes which the Opposition knows the nation cannot afford. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the annual report of the Human Rights Commission for 1985-86. I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to sub-clause 7 (11) of the Schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981, I present a joint report prepared by the Australian National Airlines Commission and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd on air fare consultations held during 1986. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to sub-clause 13 (1) of the Schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981, I present financial statements covering the operation of passenger air services on trunk routes and the total operation of air services carried on by the Australian National Airlines Commission for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to sub-clause 13 (1) of the Schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981, I present financial statements covering the operation of passenger air services on trunk routes and the total operation of air services carried on by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd for 1985-86, together with the auditor's report. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CARLTON —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr CARLTON —During Question Time the Treasurer (Mr Keating) spoke about the national accounts and said that I had made no statement about the national accounts. I have before me a Press release I issued on 19 March, the day on which the national accounts figures were issued. There are two pages to the Press release. I also gave a number of radio and television interviews. This is a pattern of falsehoods put out about the Opposition by the Treasurer. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has shown where he has been misrepresented. He may not go on to debate the issue. Mr CARLTON —Madam Speaker, we are just fed up to the teeth with this pattern of falsehoods about the Opposition which is put forward by this Treasurer. This is just one example of that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has sought indulgence to make a personal explanation. In the personal explanation, the honourable member knows full well that he may not debate the issue. Mr CARLTON —Thank you, Madam Speaker, but I have made the point. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mitchell also sought the Chair's indulgence. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Yes, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CADMAN —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr CADMAN —The House will be aware of the compassion and understanding that the Opposition has for the well-being of the Australian people and particularly for migrant community groups. In today's debate, the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) said that I was not a supporter of migrant community groups. That is not true, Madam Speaker. We well know that the honourable member for Calwell-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will just concentrate on himself. Mr CADMAN —He has been unsuccessful in persuading his Government to adopt any policies which support migrant community groups. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. After I have made the personal explanation I would also seek your indulgence to put a matter to you regarding the conduct of this House. Madam SPEAKER —Would you proceed with your personal explanation, please. Mr HOWARD —Yes, Madam Speaker. Over the past two weeks-in fact, stretching back over a period of a month-the Government, through both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and the Prime Minister has repeated it outside the House, has deliberately, maliciously and dishonestly-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw those comments. Mr HOWARD —I have to withdraw all of those? All of them? So in other words, I can no longer say the Prime Minister deliberately says something. Are there two rules? Madam SPEAKER —You may, with every good will in the world, say `deliberately' did something but not `deliberately, maliciously misled'. The honourable member knows that. Mr HOWARD —With great respect, Madam Speaker, the question of whether something is dishonest or whether something is malicious must be governed by the facts of the matter. I put it to you with every respect and every good will in the world that you are in no position to make some kind of ex cathedra judgment as to whether my assessment of whether something the Prime Minister has said is dishonest or malicious is correct or incorrect until you have heard me on the facts of the matter. Madam SPEAKER —I am, however, in a position to point out to any member of the House, and so is any occupant of this chair, that there is an acceptable degree of language within the House to which all members must adhere. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, I would have to say with all the conviction we can muster on this side of the House that we believe, with great respect, a double standard is being applied regarding language in this House. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is reflecting upon the Chair. Mr HOWARD —If I am reflecting on the Chair, I withdraw that reflection, but I will not withdraw the very considerable feeling on this side of the House that you have not exercised to a sufficient extent possible the very considerable discretion that is available to you and the very sufficient and ample regard to which you are held on both sides of the House to bring to a greater level of decorum and purpose the conduct of Question Time. You constantly invite-- Madam SPEAKER —May I reply to the Leader of the Opposition in this regard: I recognise that he is upset. I am going to pass by what I consider to be a reflection upon the Chair. Mr HOWARD —I do not want any patronising rulings, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —In that case, I no longer hear the honourable gentleman. Mr Lionel Bowen —Madam Speaker, I think it ought to be drawn to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that, while he has indulgence at your discretion, to use that indulgence to cast reflections on you and the position you hold is outside any indulgence. It is no good talking about double standards or saying that you may make judgments that he does not agree with. The issue is very clear. I make the point that the Leader of the Opposition was speaking by indulgence. Mr Howard —What are you doing at the moment? Mr Lionel Bowen —I am trying to protect the Speaker. The Speaker is entitled to protection because-- Mr Sinclair —What are you doing at the moment? Is this a point of order? Mr Lionel Bowen —On a point of order: If one wishes to take any action one does it by substantive motion. That is the point. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, may I seek your indulgence once again? Madam SPEAKER —Yes. I was just looking up a standing order that I think is relevant to what brought this matter on in the first place. When the Leader of the Opposition was using the adjectives about, I am not quite sure now whether it was the Prime Minister or the Treasurer-- Mr Howard —Both. Madam SPEAKER —I draw your attention to standing order 76, which states: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. I am prepared to hear the honourable gentleman but I make it quite clear that if he intends to reflect upon the Chair he should move a substantive motion to do so. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Speaker, could I revert to the personal explanation and then seek indulgence to say something on behalf of the Opposition about the conduct of this House? Madam SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the Opposition on a personal explanation. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, throughout the last few weeks both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have claimed, in my submission, dishonestly-and I would hope that that would not be ruled out of order-and in our submission quite maliciously and quite deliberately, that the Opposition's policies would add $16 billion to the Federal Budget deficit. That particular statement, to use the language of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, contains a credibility gap of $15.2 billion because the only precise commitments of the Opposition which carry a quantifiable cost are those which were outlined-I have said this repeatedly-in the reply that I gave to the Budget Speech last year. They are the commitments to abolish the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and lump sum superannuation tax. I have also said-- Madam SPEAKER —Could I just point out to the Leader of the Opposition now that he has shown the House where he has been personally misrepresented and-- Mr HOWARD —Oh, with the greatest respect, Madam-- Madam SPEAKER —and I do not expect that the Leader of the Opposition will now debate the issue. Mr HOWARD —I have not even mentioned-- Madam SPEAKER —You are debating the issue. Mr HOWARD —I am-- Madam SPEAKER —If you do not mind, I am speaking. The issue is that you claim that you have been misrepresented on the $16 billion or $16m, I am not quite sure-- Mr HOWARD —Sixteen billion; let us be generous. Madam SPEAKER —You have now pointed out that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are incorrect in what they state. Do you now wish to continue to give all the figures? Mr HOWARD —I would have thought that if I gave the figures indicating where they are wrong-- Madam SPEAKER —If you give the figures you are debating the issue; that is obvious. Mr HOWARD —Oh really! Mr Porter —He is explaining where-- Madam SPEAKER —Of course he is explaining and he is debating. Mr HOWARD —Oh, really! So in other words that can happen over and over and over again. The fact of the matter is that I have been misrepresented to the extent that the relevant figure is $800m and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are misleading this country to the tune of $15.2 billion. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Madam Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Madam SPEAKER —I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —On a number of occasions in this House, because fiscal policy is so important to this country at this particular time, I have sought to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition the fact that-- Mr N.A. Brown —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Just a moment. Mr KEATING —I am not to be heard but he is? Is that the idea? Mr N.A. Brown —No. I am just taking a point of order. Mr Tuckey —You talked half an hour of absolute garbage. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The Treasurer will resume his seat. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr N.A. Brown —Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point of order is simply this: Madam Speaker, you have quite rightly drawn attention to the fact that the obligation on a member seeking to make a personal explanation is to do one thing at the outset and that is to say where he or she was misrepresented. The Treasurer is not doing that. You should, with respect, call him to order and require him to state clearly and concisely immediately the occasion when he says he was misrepresented and the manner in which he was misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. As far as I was concerned, the Treasurer had not got about six words out. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Speaker, I would like you to reflect, if you would, on the words used by the Treasurer. He has spoken. He started his statement without asking for leave by justifying statements he has made in the interests of the nation-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member resume his seat while I find out what-- Mr N.A. Brown —and he has not said where he has been misrepresented and he should do so. Madam SPEAKER —If this is not a personal explanation, be sure I will say so. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, I did say I claimed to have been personally misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —He did say that at the beginning. Mr KEATING —He said that-- Mr Beale —Seek leave. Madam SPEAKER —I called the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition said that the Prime Minister and I had both maliciously and dishonestly misrepresented him and referred to a statement he made in his reply to the last Budget which alone scrapped outlays commitments but not tax expenditure commitments. I have since annotated them and invited a reply. This matter can be settled by a letter from the Leader of the Opposition saying-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer must show the House where he has personally been misrepresented. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, I am constantly misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition, and so is the Prime Minister. The claim is that we are dishonest and malicious, but when we invite the satisfaction of settlement of this dispute-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer is not making a personal explanation. Mr KEATING —Yes, I am, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —You are debating the issue. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, the personal explanation I am making-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. He is debating the issue. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that there are other forms of the House open to him if he wishes to take further the matter that he raised in his personal explanation and if he feels that during the personal explanation he did not have full right to debate the issue which, of course, he knows he cannot. He has the avenue of matters of public importance, in which he can debate the issue at some length. I call on petitions. Mr Keating —Squirm! Mr Aldred —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: You have just drawn to the attention of the House certain words that have been used previously here. The word just used by the Treasurer as he left the chamber was far worse than any other word that has been used here today. I ask that you ask the Treasurer immediately to withdraw the word that he used. Madam SPEAKER —I will ask the Treasurer when I leave the chair. Mr Aldred —Madam Speaker, may I have your assurance that you will ask the Treasurer to withdraw that word? Madam SPEAKER —Did the honourable member not hear what I said? I said that I would ask the Treasurer when I leave the House. I thought that was fairly clear. Mr Aldred —A point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I understand that the Treasurer, when he was leaving the House, made a comment that would be unparliamentary. Mr Keating —Madam Speaker, I said, only to the Opposition: `Squirm'. Mr Aldred —Madam Speaker, on a point of order, that is not the way I heard the word. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw the word that he used. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer has pointed out that the word he used was `squirm'. I do not consider it unparliamentary. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Staples. 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 proposals 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 Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Rocher. 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 and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian Community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Ms Mayer. 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 United States 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 and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully 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 Milton and Mr Staples. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned students of The University of Sydney Law School 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 impeded 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 in all forums to encourage nuclear nations to join a workable Nuclear Test Moratorium. (2) 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 Baldwin. 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 every pray. by Mr Punch and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights that the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education that the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate that the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. 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 even more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. 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 Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: (1) limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and (2) consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The introduction of an administrative charge for annual enrolment will restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. Students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The introduction of an administrative charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education.'' Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge for higher education students not be introduced. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: 1. The Education funding cuts released in the 1986 Federal Budget will severely affect the standard of Education in South Australia. 2. Computer Education will suffer at a time when Computers and Technology have a high priority in our schools and the work force. 3. There will be reduced advisory services and resources in areas in which a large number of beginning teachers and staff in their first promotion position are employed. 4. There will be no improvement in class sizes. 5. Existing subject choices for students will not be guaranteed. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will restore all Federal Education funding to the levels of funding existing prior to the 1986 Budget. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: (1) Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. (2) Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. (3) Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we ask the Government to renew the agreement with the USA on the facilities at Pine Gap only on receiving from the US Government a written guarantee that it will take up whole-heartedly and in good faith the phased nuclear disarmament plan put forward by the Soviets earlier this year, for complete nuclear disarmament by the year 2000. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia, residents of the City of Whyalla, in the State of South Australia, hereby petition the Prime Minister as Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Government and humbly showeth that: The voting public of the Grey Electorate did in March 1983 and again in December 1984, vote as a majority for the election of a Labor Government who claimed to stand for a Multicultural Australia. Your Petitioners call on the Australian Labor Government to implement Multicultural Television in the City of Whyalla and other country areas, without any further delays. We declare that the implementation could become possible by: (1) Broadcasting Multicultural Television or the ABC, at morning times; (2) SBS Transmitter to be connected to the Australian Satellite-thus providing a Multicultural Television service all over our Nation. Both of these options have been proposed to the ABC Advisory Council (SA) at a recently held Whyalla Public Meeting. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr O'Neil. 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 La Trobe University, Bundoora, in the Federal Electorate of Jagajaga, respectfully showeth:- That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-1987 (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 Fee and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The disastrous impact of the failed policies of the Hawke Government and their effects upon the well being and living standards of Australia's aged. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.38) —This is the first occasion for some time on which a matter of public importance has been brought before the Parliament regarding the economic and social condition of the aged in the Australian community. It is necessary to do that because, as much and probably more than any other single group in the community, the aged in Australia are suffering the ravages, the loss of living standards and the punishment that have been meted out as a result of the failed economic policies of the Hawke-Keating Government. In a sense, I was prompted to bring this matter of public importance before the Parliament when I saw the so-called Minister for prices, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), on the Sunday television program a couple of weeks ago. He was visibly embarrassed about the way in which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had intended to use the pensioners of Australia, who constitute the bulk of Australia's aged population, in effect to become the watchdogs and the policemen and policewomen of the new prices surveillance mechanism. Anybody who saw that interview will remember Mr Oakes saying to the Minister: But isn't there something just a bit unsavoury about using pensioners to monitor the prices of things that they can't afford to buy? I repeat Mr Oakes's question: `But isn't there something just a bit unsavoury about using pensioners to monitor the prices of things that they can't afford to buy?'. This is what the Minister replied: Well I think, first of all, I think it's wrong to target pensioners per se. In other words, the Prime Minister had embarrassed the Minister by dragging pensioners into his grubby little comedy about putting a greater level of surveillance on prices. The truth is that in just about every area the failed policies of the Hawke Government have hurt the aged more than many other section of the Australian community. They have hurt the aged for one very simple reason, and that is that the aged constitute a larger proportion of those in our community who live on fixed incomes. It is a fact of life that if one lives on a fixed income one is hurt more in times of high inflation and high interest rates than those who have their remuneration dealt with by means of regular adjustments. If we go through each of the areas of economic failure we find the same thing happening time and again. We live with an inflation rate of almost 10 per cent. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) would have us believe at Question Time that it is still only 5 per cent. But I remind him and I remind the House that we have an inflation rate of just under 10 per cent. That is the highest relative inflation rate this country has had compared with the rest of the world for the past 30 years. It is of no use the Treasurer saying that the inflation rate was 11 per cent when he came into office because, although that figure is correct, the inflation rates of other countries were much higher than they are now. The real failure of this Government on the inflation front is measured and is stamped for everybody to see when it is realised that countries such the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan have inflation rates of about 2 per cent. Let me illustrate to the House just how the high inflation rate has conspired with other failed policies of the Hawke Government to put a very severe penalty on Australia's aged. One of the areas of real crisis in the Australian community now is the rental crisis. That rental crisis hits particularly hard at those in the community, particularly in the major cities, who have very limited incomes, who cannot afford to buy and own a home and who are thrown on to the rental markets. Anybody who has read the newspapers around this country over the past few weeks will know of the focus on the rental crisis, particularly in the major cities. In Australia at present there are about 1.324 million aged pensioners. Of that number some 905,000 own their own homes, leaving a total of about 420,000, including people who either rent their own home, live in nursing homes or live with their relatives. Therefore, of that figure of 420,000 a very significant number are forced to rent accommodation. The net effect of the escalation in rents, which is a direct result of the Government's stupidity in abolishing negative gearing, its stupidity in introducing a capital gains tax and its stupidity in following a deliberate policy of keeping interest rates up at a high level, has been a very drastic shortage of rental accommodation around Australia. I remind the House that since this Government was re-elected in December 1984 the standard pension rate has gone up by 15.5 per cent, but that during that same period housing rents have increased by no less than 20.6 per cent. In other words, housing rents in Australia have gone up by more than one-third of the rate at which the standard pension rate has increased in the two years since the Hawke Government was re-elected. That as much as anything is an illustration, and an illustration of suffering, of the way in which the aged in the community have been affected and disadvantaged by the policies of this Government. There can be no more helpless or pathetic group in the community than those elderly people who have no relatives, who are living on their own, who have only a pension to live on and who must pay very high rents. That group is very severely disadvantaged by the policies of this Government. The policy that disadvantages them is the policy which has driven up interest rates to such an astronomically high level. But it is not only policies that have affected rents. Policies have also affected interest rates and government taxes and charges and brought about inflation on savings and fixed incomes and higher and longer term unemployment amongst those who approach retirement. Probably the other great scandal that has affected the aged is the health care scandal in this country. All of us will remember the great promise made by the Prime Minister that Medicare would make health care cheaper for nine out of 10 Australians. What a miserable, cruel fraud that has proved to be. We have 100,000 elderly people in the community. They constitute most of the people who are waiting for surgery because of the scandal in our public hospital system. Almost all of those people, who are the real victims of Medicare, are amongst the most disadvantaged of the aged in the community. Where is the fulfilment of that promise from the Prime Minister that nine out of 10 people would be better off? Why is it that something like 46 per cent of people who are living near the poverty line still have private health insurance? They constitute, in the main, the aged of the community. The reason they have private health insurance is that they find Medicare to be a total and complete failure. So, wherever one goes, one finds a pattern of disadvantaged for the aged in the community. It is a pattern of disadvantage because the economic policies of the Government have hurt them more severely than other sections of the community. The high rent scandal, the failure of Medicare, the high interest rates and the failure of our health system generally have affected the disadvantaged aged in our community more than any other section of the community. Over the past two or three weeks prior to the resumption of Parliament I travelled around a number of the marginal rural and provincial electorates of Australia. In case the Government is under any misapprehension about the continuing and damaging impact of the assets test in rural Australia I would like to disabuse the Government of that fact. The assets test is still very widely resented and repudiated in the rural and provincial areas of Australia. It is not good enough for the Treasurer, the Prime Minister or the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to engage in any populist nonsense about our commitment to the assets test helping millionaires. I can tell them that the farmers in rural Australia, who are cash poor and assets rich, resent the assets test because it means that their standard of living is very severely reduced. It is no good the Treasurer telling them that they can sell their properties because they cannot get any buyers for their properties in the present depressed circumstances in rural Australia. I remind the Treasurer, the Minister for Social Security and the Prime Minister that the assets test is still biting very deeply. We have had a great number of lectures from the Treasurer. I am very glad that the Treasurer has entered this debate. We have had many lectures about honesty and credibility from this man at Question Time. We have had all the nonsense about $16 billion of promises. This man has now been revealed to have a credibility gap of $15.2 billion. If he wants to talk about credibility gaps we will talk about his credibility gap of $15.2 billion. But let us take the Treasurer, the Government and the House through some of the dishonoured promises the Hawke Government made to the aged. Let us remind the House that in the 1983 Australian Labor Party policy speech at the Opera House the Prime Minister said: We are committed to raising over a three-year period the basic pension rate from 22 per cent of average male earnings to 25 per cent. That promise was dumped at the 1984 election. I am not saying that that promise should not have been dumped at the 1984 election. What I am saying is that it is a measure of the deceit and the dishonesty that was perpetrated on the Australian community by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in the 1983 election campaign. Four years on, that promise has not been honoured. In fact, in the 1986 Budget the gap between the pension rate and 25 per cent of average male earnings was increased by the government's decision to defer the normal indexation increases by a period of 6 weeks. Moreover, the Hawke Government promised, both before and after the 1983 election, not to increase tax on lump sum superannuation payments. That promise has been dishonoured. As we go through all of the promises which have been made which affect the retired and the aged in the community we find not only a pattern of where those promises have been dishonoured but also a pattern where the policies of this Government have affected the aged more severely than any other section of the community. Let me give just one other illustration in the health care area. As I said earlier, the majority of the 100,000 people who are trapped in hospital queues caused by Medicare are in the aged section of the community. In Victoria alone 70 per cent of people in queues are over 60 years of age. More than one-third of all people over the age of 65 pay for private health cover because they cannot trust Medicare in their old age. Most of these people are now on low or fixed incomes and they have been hit by the policies, the charges and the taxes of this Government. Let me make it plain to the House that our commitment to abolish the assets test, as I said after Question Time, remains in place and will be implemented when we are elected to government. Let me also say on behalf of the Opposition that I hope that there will be no argument that we on both sides of the House are committed to the automatic indexation of pensions in order to protect, in a tolerable fashion, the living standards of the aged in our community. Over the past four years those on fixed incomes in the Australian community-the aged bulk large in that group-have been hit by an enormous number of failed policies. They have been hit by high inflation which has ravaged their savings and their fixed incomes. They have been hit by high interest rates. They have been hit by new taxes. They have been hit by the rental crisis which has afflicted particularly the major cities of Australia. They have seen rents increase at a much faster rate than have their pensions. They have seen their savings diminished by rip-roaring inflation under this Government. I promise the Treasurer and I promise those in marginal seats, such as the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), who seems to have a real tenderness about anything that is said in his electorate, that not only will we be saying things about taxation in Barton and in electorates such as Lowe, Phillip, Dunkley, Chisholm, Hunter, Eden-Monaro and Calare, but also we will be saying a great deal about the way in which this Government's miserable failed policies have really destroyed the self-respect and the living standards of the hundreds of thousands of aged people in the Australian community. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.52) —It is nice to welcome the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) back to the mainstream of economic debate. We had last Tuesday's balance of payments figures, last Thursday's national accounts, significant declines in bank bill rates-all manner of events-and not a comment from him. But he said last week that he would debate the fiscal policy of the Government-- Mr Carlton —That is rubbish. He is telling lies again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! This is the third time that the honourable member for Mackellar has been cautioned and asked to withdraw for accusing other members of telling lies. The honourable member for Mackellar will withdraw the interjection he just made. Mr Carlton —It is not other members, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is one member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mackellar will withdraw. Mr Carlton —I withdraw. Mr KEATING —By indulgence last week, the Leader of the Opposition said that he would be happy to debate his $16 billion credibility gap. We looked forward to debate on Tuesday's matter of public importance, Wednesday's MPI and even today's MPI. There has been not a murmur about the list of Opposition commitments, which the Government has annotated and handed to the Opposition on a number of occasions, only to see the lists ripped up to date. Today we are back to some synthetic, supposedly tear-jerking proposition about the Government's treatment of the aged-but not to the real issue of the Leader of the Opposition's credibility and his failure to be able to establish a decent fiscal policy for Australia and to articulate one that would not crush Australia into a rapid recession. It is very interesting that this week, on Monday, 23 March, we saw on the front page of the Australian Financial Review and in the Australian reports of a leaked document from the Liberal Party of Australia. The Australian Financial Review had the headings `The Liberal Party's secret agenda' and `Howard's $5bn spending cut plan'. They referred to a freezing and a non-indexation of pensions. In the course of that day we had a denial that that was the Liberal Party's policy. But on the same day a spokesman for the Opposition Leader made a statement to AAP-Reuter, which came up on the Reuter screen as follows: A spokesman for Federal Opposition Leader John Howard has defended the leak of a secret report showing he would make giant spending cuts if elected Prime Minister. It is a case of talking to one audience on the one hand and then shuffling the pack on the other. The Leader of the Opposition has said to the financial markets: `Look, I will cut $5 billion out of outlays'. A document goes out showing how the Opposition would cut pensions, tighten eligibility, abolish all employment programs, et cetera. On the other hand, he said that he would not do that. But on the Reuter screen it shows that he would. Then that night he said: And I have never in my political life been unwilling to do a difficult or unpopular thing. I don't think anybody who aspires to be Prime Minister of this country, if they can't do difficult unpopular things on occasions, then they're not worth the job. In other words, he is not backing off from all that stuff. He is not backing off from cutting pensions and the rest. But then on another program he said: I don't offer pie in the sky. I mean what I say and frankly I see it as a virtue and not a vice in our present economic circumstances to be committed to heavy expenditure cuts. We on this side of the House know that the heavy expenditure cuts can come only from the big programs. That is why the freezing of pensions was mentioned. But, of course, once that became a public issue, we saw a backdown. Can the pensioners of this country feel confident that the Liberal Party's secret agenda would not be the agenda if it became the government-that pensions would not be frozen, that all the other benefits would not be cut? Let us have a look at the Opposition's record. In the period of the previous Government, when the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer-- Mr Wilson —You froze them yourself. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr KEATING —Pensions fell from 25 per cent of average weekly earnings to 22.7 per cent-- Mr Wilson —Which governments have ever cut or frozen pensions? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Sturt will cease interjecting. Mr Wilson —He doesn't reply because he knows that what I am saying is true. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Sturt. Mr KEATING —Pensions fell from 25 per cent to 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. We have brought that figure up from 22.7 per cent to 24.1 per cent. In other words, let me put it his way: During the Fraser-Howard years the real value of pensions fell by 2.4 per cent. Under Labor there has been a real increase of 5.7 per cent. Under the previous Government the figure was minus 2.4 per cent. This is the previous Government's record on the treatment of pensioners. The Opposition keeps talking about pensioners. The previous Government ignored the poverty traps for pensioners. Pensioners could earn only a pittance without losing part of their pension. Yet this Government in its tax reform package has allowed for $200m in 1987-88 to put an extra $30 a week in the pockets of pensioners. In other words, they can earn more because we have opened up the free area in which a pensioner can earn-that is at the bottom end of the work force and the top end of the social security system-so that these people can earn more money without losing their pensions. In the Howard years as Treasurer, if people earned only a pittance their pension was cut. We have these constant crocodile tears about rent and mortgage repayments diminishing the disposable incomes and the pay packets of Australians, while in the same breath the Leader of the Opposition says: `Freeze their wages. Give them no wage increases. Do not add to their pay packets to meet their mortgage or rent payments'. No, he complains about those problems and tries to make capital out of them; but, when the Government and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission say that in the circumstances modest wage increases are due, Mr Howard says: `No. Give them nothing'. What he says to the Liberal Party audiences, to the National Party audiences, to the rednecks, is: `No wage increases; cut their wages'. He says to the financial markets: `We will freeze their pensions'. But if trapped in the House or cornered on the front steps, he says something different. He says: `Oh no, of course we would not cut the indexation of pensions'. Does any pensioner believe, on the Opposition's record, that it would not cut the indexation of pensions? Does anybody believe that it would not do to pensioners what it would like to do to wage and salary earners, that is, cut them down? Opposition members talked about an indirect tax of 8 1/2 per cent. Then when Joh hit Opposition members, they backed off. Now the Leader of the Opposition is talking about some broadening of the indirect tax base, knowing that in those fuzzy words there is no need for a compensation package for pensioners. When this Government considered consumption taxes, we had full overcompensation for pensioners for the cost of the indirect tax. There is no talk about that. The Leader of the Opposition would belt them with an indirect tax and watch their real incomes fall as the prices of all the goods in the supermarkets rose by the amount of the indirect tax. Whenever we talk about funds for hostel accommodation to get people away from the intensive medical services and nursing home care which many people do not need, although they need the accommodation at the hostel, the preparation of their meals and some medical services, we are attacked for it. Yet those opposite funded these moneys to nursing homes in the 1970s because their mates were in the nursing home investment business. Mr Hodges —That is rubbish. Mr KEATING —That is true. Nursing home beds were traded at $5,000 and $10,000 a bed. There is actually a public rent on nursing home beds at $5,000 or $10,000 a head when nursing homes are sold. The previous Government was not interested in getting people into hostels to give them some company in their old age, some dormitory accommodation, some central preparation of food and some general medical attention if they needed it. No. What about the home and community care program? What about this Government's humane service to people to keep them in their homes? What about HACC? The previous Government was never interested in pensioners. It has always regarded them as electoral fodder to be abused, to be played with an elections and to be frightened because those opposite think they are elderly and cannot understand the complexity of the issues. Mr Hodges —I rise on a point of order. I ask the honourable member for Perth to withdraw the offensive remarks he just made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The Chair did not hear any remarks that the honourable member for Perth may have made. Mr Hodges —Mr Deputy Speaker, I request that you ask the honourable member for Perth to withdraw the remarks he just made about me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Perth made unparliamentary remarks he should withdraw. Dr Charlesworth —I withdraw. Mr KEATING —If ever there were parties of high cynicism about people who are either in the working class or have been in the working class, it is the Liberal and National parties. This Government, in the course of its wage discussions over the last three years, has now provided in accord mark 2, ratified by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, for occupational superannuation for the whole work force. The Opposition said about future retirees: `Deny it to them. Give them nothing. Send them out on the pension and try and reduce that. Do not provide any retirement income for them. But we will take the assets test off so millionaires can get a pension. That is okay. We will take away the capital gains tax. That is okay. If people take their income as capital, we do not expect them to pay tax on it'. But if one is a slave, one gets fully taxed. If one is on a pension, one can live on a pension without indexation. But if one picks up $2m or $3m off the stockmarket, or if one has a heap of blue chip stocks and the market goes up by a couple of hundred per cent under Labor, the Opposition says: `Take it away from them. Let those people have their income free of tax because it is capital'. There is no difference, according to the Opposition between income and capital: `Our people are used to getting the capital. How dare you touch the capital. Do not tax it'. But if one happens to work in a railway yard on $18,000 with three kids: `Belt them, give them no wage increase'. If the Opposition was elected, it would say: `Do not worry about the pensioner lobbies'. If they turned up in Parliament House, the Opposition would treat them with contempt. It would freeze their pensions and cut their pensions, like it did when it was the government of Australia. The Opposition has never cared about ordinary Australians. It has always been the party born to rule-the born to rule squad out there to run the rest of us. The only place where the Opposition got into trouble is that a few of us on this side of the House think that we are born to rule the Opposition. And we are doing a pretty good job of it, and we will keep on doing a pretty good job of it. The Labor Party is the only party in Australia that ever cared about the minority groups-about pensioners, the poor, people who cannot protect themselves and children living in rented accommodation with single income parents, in poverty. The Opposition says: `No, do not give them an increase. Never give anyone an even break'. That is the Opposition's attitude. But it will always have all the tax avoidance things in there-oppose all our legislation in the Senate, oppose the Australia Card and oppose the bottom of the harbour legislation. It lets people fall through the tax system. The Opposition never even did anything legitimate for the people it represented. It left the double tax on dividends for 30 years. It treated the legitimate people struggling in business-the small business brigade-with the same contempt as it treated people on pensions. It was interested only in the fat cats of business. The thing about them is that they are mostly pretty smart. They have since given the Opposition away because it ran their businesses into the ground. It watched unemployment go up to 11 per cent of the work force. Those opposite talk about poverty. What credibility have they got at all to talk about poverty when the single greatest generator of poverty is unemployment, together with the way that the Opposition treated the Social Security System? It will take more than some mock indignation and the pull of an earnest face on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to convince the pensioners of this country that they would get any better go under a Howard government than they ever got in the past out of Howard and Fraser, who did nothing but reduce their pensions and their entitlements. The Opposition cries: `Isn't it a shocking thing that living standards in this country have temporarily declined?' It is a shocking thing that we have lost $10 billion off our national income by drops in commodity prices. How in the one moment can the Opposition talk to the financial markets on Reuter screens and say that, yes, it knows that living standards have to temporarily fall in Australia, but then get up on these motions and, with crocodile tears, say that it is a shocking thing that mortgage repayments have gone up and that interest rates are up? The Opposition ignores that we are funding a $40 billion current account deficit. Really! The Opposition has $16 billion of commitments which it will not face up to or repudiate. It expects London, Tokyo, Melbourne, Sydney and the financial markets to say: `Yes, we would have a Howard government back and we would fund its current account at the prices the Labor Government funds its current account deficit'. It will not. Those markets will never tolerate the Opposition, and nor will the Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 267th report of the Committee entitled `Response to Review of Defence Project Management'. Ordered that the report be printed. Ms MAYER —by leave-This report presents the Government's response to the Committee's 243rd report on the management of major capital equipment acquisitions by the Department of Defence. Last year the Committee examined and reported in detail on 16 current or recent major defence equipment projects. Eleven of these projects failed or were not expected to be completed on time, completed to budget or completed to technical requirements. The Committee found that, in large part, this poor record was the result of ineffective project management and inefficient decision making procedures and resource management within the Department of Defence. Against this background the Committee made 68 recommendations for action to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of defence project management and related departmental systems. The Committee report I have just tabled details the Government's response to these recommendations. In general the Committee welcomes this response. Fifty of the Committee's 68 recommendations have been accepted. These recommendations relate to a broad range of project management issues, including: Improvements to the operation of the Defence Department's capital procurement organisation; enhancement of the role, authority and operation of project directors; the development of professional project management skills in the Department; and the strengthening of contract administration and improvement of general relations with Australian suppliers of defence equipment. However, the Committee is concerned that a number of important recommendations have not been accepted, or only partially accepted. These relate to the scrutiny of major defence equipment proposals; contracting matters; the selection of senior project management personnel; and reporting to Parliament on the defence capital equipment program. The Committee believes that the reasons advanced for the rejection or qualified acceptance of the recommendations are unsatisfactory. It strongly urges that the recommendations be reconsidered. The Committee is still seeking progress reports on two measures taken by the Department: Firstly, on action taken to reduce the unacceptably long recruitment lead times for civilian project managers and staff in the Department and, secondly, on the result of the Department's proposed investigation of the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive resource costing system. A comprehensive costing system, the Committee believes, should allow the costs of departmental management resources to be allocated to individual projects and help minimise time-consuming management procedures. The Committee awaits the Defence response to these important recommendations. Because of the importance of the issues raised in this inquiry, the Committee intends to maintain its interest in defence project management. I commend the report to honourable members. Debate resumed. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(4.12) —Before the debate was interrupted to allow time for questions, I was talking about the serious situation that has arisen in the Liberal Party regarding the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill. I mentioned that the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) had better watch out because he was next on the list. The Bill has been used effectively as a weapon to try to get rid of those few remaining small `l' liberals, or moderate liberals, who remain on the Opposition front bench. It is not insignificant that the opposition to this Bill has been led by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies, (Mr N.A. Brown)-a well known dry. In fact, he has orchestrated this situation. I have heard, in this intervening period, that the honourable member for Goldstein, who was not present at Question Time, has been sent home so that he will not be forced into a position of voting against the Bill in accordance with his conscience. That is the kind of absurdity in which the Liberal Party finds itself regarding the proposals before the House. As I have said, the equal opportunity Bills which came forward last year were similar in substance to the Bill before us, and those Bills were supported by the Opposition. Mr Slipper —Not the National Party. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I will come to the National Party in a moment. The Liberal Party has changed its position, notwithstanding the statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) that he would uphold the integrity and the principles of the Liberal Party. Immediately the National Party puts on the squeeze-because there happens to be a very important meeting going on this weekend in which the Leader of the Opposition wants the leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) to emerge victorious over Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen-the Leader of the Opposition abandons one of the fundamental principles of liberalism, and that is, equality of opportunity for people. That is the kind of Liberal Party that is left under the Leader of the Opposition. The Liberal Party is in total disarray on this issue. Is this a sign of things to come? Will the tail be wagging the dog? Is this what the rump of the National Party-what will be left of it when it splits-will be pushing around? The once great Liberal Party has abandoned its principles by opposing this legislation, the kind of legislation which it supported last year. It is no wonder that Senator Peter Baume has resigned from the shadow Ministry. It is no wonder that the honourable member for Goldstein is considering his position and may also resign over the issue. What is to happen to the rest of the moderate elements in the Liberal Party-what is left of them? Are they to be banished right to the back of the chamber, and will they have no say whatsoever in the deliberations of this extremist Liberal Party under the Leader of the Opposition? The Liberal Party is not only extremist but also it has abandoned any pretence of support for women, migrants and minority groups. The Leader of the Opposition does not support in any way a multicultural Australia. On many occasions when he has had an opportunity to make some pronouncement in favour of multiculturalism, he has not done so. Instead, what do we get? We get the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), coming into the House to make a personal explanation. What did his personal explanation consist of? He said: `The honourable member for Calwell has misrepresented me by saying that I was not a friend of migrants'. If the honourable member for Mitchell is a friend of the migrant communities, why did he not fight to support this legislation which is extremely important to the ethnic communities of this country? Instead, he shamefully kept quiet and allowed the Leader of the Opposition to dominate him. If he is a friend of migrant communities, why does he not do the honourable thing and resign from the shadow Ministry, as Senator Peter Baume did? This legislation is not unimportant. It sets a very important precedent to try to overcome the consistent and continuing discrimination against women and the people of ethnic background in this society. We need this important legislation. The various ethnic communities' councils around the country have supported the legislation. They want to see action along these fronts. The honourable member for Mitchell goes to the ethnic communities' councils, pretends to be their friend, and comes into the House and opposes the legislation. Even more disgracefully, the Leader of the Opposition, who has forced the whole issue, has not only abandoned the principles of the Liberal Party but also, more seriously, he has abandoned any support for those people who find themselves consistently discriminated against in their employment. The objections to the legislation that we have heard from the Opposition, particularly from the National Party, are absolute nonsense. The Opposition claimed that the Government was attempting to impose quotas. That argument has been disposed of not only by Government speakers but also by Opposition speakers-people who would like to vote with the Government on the issue. There is no attempt to impose anything. What there is is an attempt to bring justice into the system by ensuring that people are promoted on the basis of merit rather than there being discrimination against them. If we are to overcome this discrimination against women and the migrant communities, we must strongly support the legislation and reject the Opposition's approach. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(4.19) —I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak on the so-called Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. I am not at all pleased that Government speakers used this debate as an opportunity to smear those who stand up and oppose this attempt by the Australian Labor Party to impose a further social engineering Bill on the people of Australia. The National Party of Australia has been totally consistent. We opposed the legislation which was introduced into the House last year; that is, the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. We make no apology whatsoever for continuing our opposition to this so-called equal employment opportunity Bill which is before the House today. I would like to congratulate my colleague, the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), for a most thought provoking and, might I say, statesmanlike contribution to the debate. This Bill is the third part of a trilogy of Bills. We had the Sex Discrimination Act, we had the Affirmative Action Act last year and now we have this Bill. I am opposing this Bill on a number of grounds. I believe that it is constitutionally doubtful. I do not believe that the Commonwealth has the power to enact this legislation. I am also against the Government masquerading in this place as the great proponents of women's rights, coming in here and bringing forward legislation which says, in effect, that affirmative action is what women want. This affirmative action is reverse discrimination and, in our view, is incompatible with true equal opportunity. Another aspect I wish to raise is the cost to business, the cost which this will impose on those statutory authorities to which the legislation applies. The Government will say that the National Party is anti-woman, anti-merit and is anti-equal opportunity. Those people listening will treat what the Government speakers say with contempt because we have made it clear over and over again that we support equal opportunity and promotion and employment on the basis of merit, but we are not supportive of any legislation which forces anybody in Australia-whether it be business or a government instrumentality-to impose a form of reverse discrimination. This Bill is ideological gibberish. It is an attempt by the Australian Labor Party to play up to extremist left wing groups, including some women's groups in our society. This Bill imposes extra regulations on business in contravention of a government pledge, Senator Button's pledge, which was made earlier this year to reduce unnecessary regulations that hampered business activity. This Bill also takes a very positive step in the direction of imposing compulsory quotas on statutory authorities to which the legislation applies. This Bill further covers not only employees of those statutory authorities but also independent contractors, people in small business who are already languishing under the disastrous effects of four years of the Hawke socialist Government. They are languishing under the highest, or almost the highest, real interest rates that this country has ever seen. They are in real trouble. Yet this Government does not hesitate to rope in private contractors and to subject them to the provisions of the Bill before the chamber. Interestingly enough, the previous two Bills in the trilogy of Bills covering affirmative action referred only to women, but when one looks at the explanatory memorandum of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and indeed the provisions of the Bill one sees that other groups are also covered here. I can see that included in the designated groups are Aboriginals and descendants of indigenous Torres Strait Islanders, migrants whose first language is not English and their children and the physically or mentally disabled. So where will it all end? The categories of those who are included have not been closed. It is an open-ended proposition. We do not really know the extent to which this Bill will ultimately apply to instrumentalities to which it is supposed to relate. The Minister has made it clear that bodies such as Telecom Australia, Qantas Airways Ltd and Australia Post and, I presume, Australian Airlines also would be subjected to the provisions of this legislation. We know how long it takes to have a letter delivered from Brisbane to Canberra-up to four days on occasions; we know the difficulties Telecom has experienced; we know the problems that Government instrumentalities have had with inefficient work practices-yet notwithstanding that this Bill is brought into the House to impose even further shackles on those instrumentalities which, in my view, have been trying to be more efficient. The Bill requires those bodies which it affects to have what is called a program. This program has eight elements: Firstly, there is an obligation to inform employees of the contents of the program. Responsibility has to be conferred on a person of sufficient authority and status to be able to develop and implement the program appropriately. There is an obligation to consult with trade unions, to consult with employees, particularly women, or people in designated groups; there is an obligation to collect and record relevant employment statistics and related information; and there is an obligation to review policies and practices which allegedly discriminate against the people this legislation seeks to assist. Then-we cannot let this one pass-there is an obligation to set program objectives as well as quantitative and other measures of effectiveness, and there is an obligation to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the program. So at a time when Australia is sinking, at a time when this country is broke, at a time when we are going down the road of being the Argentina of the Pacific, this Government chooses to introduce legislation which will make it even more difficult for this country and its statutory authorities to be efficient. What will all of these bureaucratic requirements cost the statutory authorities affected? Who will pay this cost? It is obvious that the ordinary men and women in this country, ordinary Mr and Mrs Australia will be forced to pay for the Government's flirtation with ideological madness. Previously the legislation brought into the House in the other two Bills included in the trilogy attracted the opposition of widespread groups in the community. The Country Women's Association opposed the 1986 Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, in your own electorate you would know how respected is the Country Women's Association. The then National President of the CWA, Miss Dorothy Ross, wrote a letter from which I would like to quote. She said: No legislation can alter attitudes and the dangers of efforts to enforce employment of women by private business with threats of punishment if the laws are infringed is seen by us to offer up more problems than the legislation can solve. Miss Ross's comments could well apply to the statutory authorities which are subjected to this legislation presently before the Parliament. The National Party Women's Section is also an eminently respected group of women in this community. They have made it totally clear that they are opposed to the Government's affirmative action legislation and they would also be opposed to the legislation we are presently debating in the chamber today. The Confederation of Australian Industry in its News dated March 1986, stated: CAI has made clear at all times its unequivocal opposition to affirmative action legislation. Legislation of this nature is unnecessary and divisive and in the long-term will be completely counter-productive. It will involve the imposition of further cost burdens and regulatory requirements on industry at a time when the inflation rate is double the level of that of our major trading partners, and when Australia has severe balance of payment difficulties, and excessively high interest rates and levels of unemployment. If anything, since March 1986 this country has gone down and down and is now in an infinitely worse position than it then was. The comments made by the CAI with respect to private business apply just as validly to the instrumentalities subjected to this legislation. We are sad that the ALP chooses to denigrate the woman who chooses to stay at home, the woman who wishes to raise her family, the woman who wishes to be a housewife. There is nothing wrong with being a housewife. Women are entitled to go to work if they wish and the National Party totally supports the right of any woman to have a career. But we also believe that there is a role for the woman who wants to stay at home to raise her children. It is sad that this legislation which, no doubt, is inspired by militant feminists does not take into account adequately the views of those women who wish to stay at home. Margaret Thatcher, one of the greatest stateswomen in history-I said last year in the House that if Margaret Thatcher lived in this country she would certainly be a member of the National Party-recognised the role of women in the home, when she stated: Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country. It is obvious that this legislation will not be supported by the average Australian and will not in any way, shape or form attract the support of people in the middle ground of politics. Mr Cobb —Only in the fringe groups. Mr SLIPPER —The fringe groups indeed. We in the National Party are opposed to social engineering. We are opposed to this legislation, which endeavours to interfere with the efficient running of instrumentalities or business. We are opposed to the Human Rights Commission. The National Party, upon its return to government, will immediately move to abolish this left wing body. Mr Hicks —Hear, hear! Mr Cobb —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I thank my colleagues for their support. I mentioned in the chamber recently a couple of cases which recently came before the so-called Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. One was of an Indooroopilly doctor who was ordered to pay $1,000 for simply asking a woman whether she was married or single. Mr Cobb —It is outrageous! Mr SLIPPER —It is outrageous. It is amazing. It is one of the factors which will ensure that the Human Rights Commission is done away with after the Australian Labor Party is defeated at the next election, whenever that is. The general practitioner said: It's all extraordinary. I have done nothing wrong and I refuse to pay. He was threatened by the Human Rights Commission with a $10,000 fine or six months imprisonment. What was really odd-I mention this for the benefit of those people listening to this broadcast-was that the so-called independent arbitrator wore a women's rights badge. Is that fairness? Is that an impartial approach to the matter that was before the Commission? This shows that the Human Rights Commission is a kangaroo court; a body totally worthy of the complete and absolute contempt of every decent Australian. The Fraser Government stands condemned for establishing the Commission, but the Opposition has agreed that it will be discarded as soon as we return to government. There was a second case, involving a Gold Coast woman. She was awarded $8,000 in closed proceedings-shades of the Soviet Union-before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The woman, who cannot be identified-a secret court-was supported by her union. There were many terms of the agreement which were not to be released to the people of Australia. There was also disciplinary action against the hotel manager responsible for telling the woman that women cannot manage. Would honourable members believe that the Human Rights Commission said that the hotel proprietor had to conduct seminars, at the instigation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, on paid time on the issues of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment? Mr Cobb —Where will it end? Mr SLIPPER —Who knows where it will end? It will certainly end when the Hawke Labor Government is thrown out of office at the next election. Those of us who have been in this House for the past couple of years will remember that the Human Rights Commission tried to bribe school-teachers by offering individual school-teachers $500 to bring in a course to teach `Human Rights' in schools. The Human Rights Commission wanted to introduce its insidious philosophy into the classrooms. In the Human Rights Commission publication it was pointed out that teachers would have to take some time to overcome the influence of parents over their children. The National Party stands very strongly for the family unit as the basic unit in our society. We are opposed to people, who have committed motives against traditional values, trying to influence the family unit in society. I have mentioned that quotas are foreshadowed by this legislation. The terms of the legislation require the setting of certain objectives. This legislation goes further than the previous Bills before the House. The Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill, which was before the House last year, excluded small business. However, we find for the first time now that small business is being dragged in, because independent contractors will be affected. That just indicates to those people who accepted what the Government said last year-that small business would not be affected-that the Government once again cannot be trusted. The National Party does not believe that anyone should be discriminated against on the basis of whether he or she is male or female. We believe in genuine equality of opportunity. I wish to make it perfectly clear to those opposite that we will not stand for the argument which suggests that those people who oppose this legislation are against equality of opportunity. We support employment on the basis of merit, not on the basis of quotas. The National Party is totally opposed to this legislation. Our approach to this trilogy of Bills has been completely consistent. We opposed the legislation last year and we oppose the legislation this year; we will not support bad legislation. The so-called Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 is, by any definition, bad legislation. It should be withdrawn by the Government immediately and previous legislation in the trilogy of Bills should be repealed. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(4.37) —During the cut and thrust of debate in this place one is often tempted to interject to points being made, but I have to say that during the contribution of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) I chose to remain silent because it bordered on what can only be described as sick and pathetic. It was probably one of the-- Mr Slipper —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to take a point of order. I take strong exception to the words used by my colleague the honourable member for Burke. I request that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —The terms used by the honourable member for Burke were not unparliamentary. Mr O'KEEFE —Not only was the contribution in the terms that I described, but also it showed where those who come to this Parliament with the attitudes of the Queensland members of the National Party of Australia really sit in relation to progress, reform and change in this nation. When the honourable member for Fisher talked about the National Party's attitude to women-he said that the National Party is all for progressive developments for women, for women's issues and for all those sorts of things-he failed to mention that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), the de facto leader of the Queensland group who sits beside him in this House, last year made national headlines with his widely publicised statement that the only place for women was in the kitchen and the other room in the house. None of us will forget that that was the bald statement made. The honourable member for Fisher, who practised law before entering this House, had nothing to say about the Queensland Government raiding doctors' premises in Queensland and stealing the files of women who had visited the doctors. No, there is no other way to describe that contribution than as sick and pathetic. This legislation has been developed as a result of a year-long affirmative action pilot program involving consultation between 28 of Australia's largest companies, employer organisations, trade unions, women's groups, higher education bodies and, most significantly in this context, the Federal Opposition. The Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act requires companies and higher education institutions to progress with the reforms of affirmative action for women which, through the review of employment practices, including personnel policies and procedures, will promote equal employment opportunity for all Australians. It also allows for a level of flexibility in implementation which has been called for by private industry and which is recognised as essential for affirmative action to be successful. I believe the Government can take great pride in the steps it has taken to bring about the process of equal opportunity in Australia. The Government has a role of providing leadership and through its public performance and through its statutory authorities it must be progressive. Good progress is being made in Australia as a result. And it is not just a process of achieving increased participation in the work force. We are changing the roles that women have traditionally played in the work force, changing the levels of responsibility which women can achieve or hope to achieve in the work force. They are the areas in which the Government quite proudly is demonstrating that change is being achieved. The continuing consultation process is enabling us to prepare guidelines and develop education and training strategies to meet the needs of employers on affirmative action. Higher education institutions have commenced their programs and will report to the Government later this year. I have one such institution in my electorate, the new Broadmeadows College of Technical and Further Education, which very much is showing the way in the Broadmeadows district with the opportunities that are being created for not only women but everybody in that area to undertake further training and to open up new changes in the work force. The participation rate of women in the work force is a clear indication now of the success that has been achieved. Since the election of this Government almost 800,000 new jobs have been created in the economy, something which we on this side of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, refer to with great pride. Sixty per cent of those new jobs have been filled by women. This indicates that many employers now have a strong preference for women who are either just entering the work force or who are returning to the work force after having commenced their families. These employers recognise that, if one has been involved in the running of a home and has done that successfully, one has developed a number of skills, be they measurable things such as management skills, communication skills, skills of flexibility and adaptability or be they less measurable things such as patience and reliability in the work force. There are many attributes that employers will tell one are demonstrated by the women who are returning to the work force. It is the recognition that women have these capabilities that is causing employers to say: `We need you and we want you and we want to make the changes that have to be made to encourage you to return to the work force and also to provide for equal opportunity and the chance for progress and promotion and all the other things that go with that'. We have had to make the work force more flexible in order to adjust to the needs of women. Many employers are now adopting flexible working hours and shifts. In my electorate one such company recently introduced a shift starting at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and going until 9 o'clock at night because it was specifically looking for a way to accommodate women who could join the work force after having seen to their children after school, perhaps with dad home from work to look after the kids. The company has had extraordinary success with this shift both in attracting labour to it and in the productivity and quality of output. There are tales such as that right across my electorate. I invite any honourable members who are flying in and out of Tullamarine Airport to have a look around at the number of women who are now working at Tullamarine Airport and who provide skilled, pleasant and high quality advice and service. This is a very clear indication that in the manufacturing and service sectors we are providing opportunities and that those opportunities are being taken up. The trends have been good, the participation rate is strong and progress is being made. But now is the time for us as a nation to move further ahead in recognising talent, recognising merit and providing more scope for positions of responsibility and leadership; and that is what this legislation is all about. It is appropriate, I think, even to invite the Parliament to have a look at itself. I certainly welcome the initiatives of the Australian Labor Party, our side of politics. I contrast them with the attitude and approach of the Queensland National Party, as demonstrated here today. Those on our side of politics are going down the road of strong affirmative action within our party, and that in time will reflect itself in more responsibility and increased participation by women in this Parliament and by women in other parts of the political and labour movement with which we combine and relate. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a nation which is coming to grips with change. I believe that this year, 1987, will be the year of the great shake-out of conservatism, a debilitating conservatism that has held this nation back. Currently the disunity that exists among the National Party of Australia, the Liberal Party of Australia and the various groups within those parties is just an indication of the great shake-out of conservatism. Those who have nowhere to go have nowhere to go on this policy either. They are divided on this policy. They have already got people indicating that they are prepared to cross the floor. They know the legislation is correct. On the question of increasing the role of women in the work force, increasing the scope for women to occupy more positions of responsibility, to provide more leadership, I say to honourable members on the other side, particularly the honourable member for Fisher: `Shake yourselves inside out all you like. You can contort, you can distort, you can do whatever you like, but you cannot stand in the way of progress'. Mark those words. Honourable members opposite cannot stand in the way of progress. If they need any more evidence they should look at the trends in the countries that we are now turning to and learning from. In Australia in the last five years we have increased the participation rate of women in the work force by over 4 per cent. The present situation is that 48.9 per cent of the women who could be in the work force are now in the work force in Australia. The participation rate in Sweden is 78 per cent; in Finland it is 75 per cent; in Norway it is 68 per cent; in the United States of America it is 64 per cent; and in Canada it is 62 per cent. Those countries do not have the Queensland National Party and its ilk saying: `Keep the women in the kitchen. Keep the women in the bedroom'. They do not have people in those progressive countries trying to hold back reform and change. These are the countries that we are turning to and learning from. I say to those on the other side of the House, as I said before: `You can shake yourselves inside out, you can distort and contort but the fact of the matter is that you cannot stand in the way of this progression and this change'. I finish by referring to a couple of other small but very relevant points that relate to my electorate and the trends taking place there. I mentioned before the massive participation of women in the courses being provided at the Broadmeadows TAFE College. Mr Hand —An excellent college. Mr O'KEEFE —It is more than excellent. It is fantastic to note that a college that opened 12 months ago with predicted enrolments of 2,500 had 5,000 enrolments at the end of its first year and this year has 7,500 students. It is a brand new college bursting at the seams and with a child care centre. Many of the people taking up the education opportunities at that college are women from the region. Mr Hand —Migrant women, too. Mr O'KEEFE —Right across my electorate, companies such as the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd, as the honourable member for Melbourne points out, are very strong employers of migrant woman from all sorts of community groups in our emerging multicultural society. I refer to companies such as Flexible Drives Pty Ltd, John Brown Hosiery Pty Ltd in Kyneton, Castle Bacon Pty Ltd, and Givoni (Aust) Pty Ltd textiles in Castlemaine, and meat processing companies in Daylesford and other towns. These country and provincial centres are now finding that increased participation in the work force by the women in these regions is improving the standard of living of their families and the quality and productivity of the companies in which they work. I conclude by saying that this piece of legislation is something that the Government must be and is proud of. We have no embarrassment at all at standing in this place and pointing to the nonsense uttered by those on the other side who oppose this kind of legislation. We know that Australia must encourage and develop the role of women in the work force, their participation and promotion and all the other things that go with women playing a true and equal role in this society. I have no hesitation in commending the legislation to the House. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(4.52) —While the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 purports to enshrine the principle of merit for employment or promotion, the reality is that it will encompass a highly unacceptable degree of affirmative action because, in essence, it will lead to prescriptive, positive discrimination. It will not guarantee that jobs will go to the best applicants but, inevitably, will result in jobs going to inferior applicants. Equal opportunity for women is a much valued principle. No women should ever suffer discrimination on the basis of sex, although we know that such discrimination sometimes occurs. However, the question is: Will this legislation attack that discrimination, or will it merely denigrate women through a course of affirmative action? Coalition members believe, as do the vast majority of people in the community, that women are entitled to pursue whatever career they choose to. Equally, it is believed that the factors which should determine whether a person gets a job are the willingness and competence that will be applied to the job and the approval by the employer of the person as not only able to perform the job but also as the best and most suitable candidate from those putting themselves forward-the one with the capacity, competence and overall ability to do the job-irrespective of gender. In 1984 when I first joined the Parliament, the Sex Discrimination Bill was being vigorously debated by both sides of the House. When the vote was taken, the coalition allowed a free vote and a number of members supported the Government's legislation. At that time I was fearful that prescriptive legislation of a social engineering nature would not be in the best interests of women's ability to find opportunities both of a social nature and with employment potential. Personally, I support the view that women in Australia and other disadvantaged groups should have equal access to opportunities of all kinds and should not be restrained by legislation or current attitudes. However, it is difficult to change social attitudes by legislation. The follow-up legislation to the Sex Discrimination Act was the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. Again this provided for considerable debate as to the legislative advantages of implementing affirmative action on behalf of women throughout Australia. The key element of that Bill was the section in relation to the merit principle, which stated: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require a relevant employer to take any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. Those of us on this side of the House who had reservations about the way in which the Bill was drafted took consolation in the fact that men and women could take job opportunities based on their ability to do the job rather than on their sex. I draw the House's attention to the affirmation action program, dealt with in clause 8 (3) of that Bill, which I quote for the record: In sub-section (1)- ``forward estimate'' means a quantitative measure or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time; ``objective'' means a qualitative measure or aim, expressed as a general principle, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reason- ably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time. The key element in proposed sub-section (1) was that it was a general objective which could not be measured or defined. It was not specific. Therefore, in my view, the merit principle maintained a superior status in that Bill. The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 contains a similar clause under the heading `Contents of program'. Clause 6 (g) states: (g) to set: (i) the particular objectives to be achieved by the program; and (ii) the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed; The Parliament should be quite clear that these are definitive and specific objectives which raise the spectre of quotas and numbers. In my view, there has been a substantive change from the previous Bill. Clause 6 (e) reads: (e) for the collection and recording of statistics and related information concerning employment by the relevant authority, including the number of and the types of jobs undertaken by, or job classifications of: (i) employees of either sex; and (ii) persons in designated groups; It is quite clear from these two sections that this Bill will force, in either a legal sense or a practical sense, the identification of quotas and numbers of persons to comply with the legislation and that the merit principle will take a secondary place in the scheme of things. I also note that clause 5 (h) states: (h) to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the program and: (i) to assess the achievement of those objectives; and (ii) to assess the effectiveness of the program by comparing statistics and information collected and recorded under paragraph (e) with the indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. Mr Hand —Come on, Stewart, you don't believe this. Mr McARTHUR —It would be good if the honourable member for Melbourne listened to this, because then he might understand the legislation. My other major concern is the definition of `designated groups'. I quote from the explanatory memorandum setting out the designated group as defined in the Public Service Act 1922: Aboriginals, descendants of indigenous Torres Strait islanders, migrants whose first language is not English and their children and the physically or mentally disabled are included in the definition of `designated groups'. Dr Theophanous —So what's wrong with that? Mr McARTHUR —My personal concern is that these designated groups can be expanded by regulation and their existence in the legislation would make it almost impossible to apply the merit principle ahead of the designated group personnel receiving due consideration. I draw the attention of the House to the community employment programs, which, incidentally, cost the Government more than $1 billion over a three-year period, where the implementation of the particular section of the Act is a clear example of the difficulties to be encountered in practice. All honourable members would be aware of the CEP's requirement that Aboriginals, migrants and disabled persons are special categories to be addressed for those seeking jobs in these programs. On occasions it has been very difficult to meet that criteria and quite often after the first stage of the program has been completed, it is virtually impossible to get a particular person in a specific category to meet the guidelines. If this procedure were extended to the work force in general I am of the view that it would be most difficult to implement the merit principle, especially when some established quotas or figures had been given to the various authorities. There can be no doubt that the application of this Bill in statutory authorities would lead to number crunching in direct contradiction to the notion of equal opportunity and merit principle. Given the very nature of the regulated bureaucracy of statutory authorities under this Bill there would be a move from qualitative assessment of employees and candidates for promotion to a direct reliance on and leaning towards quantitative measurements. Whatever term is used, whether it is `goal', `target', `objective', or `forward estimate', they are all indistinguishable from a quota because of the well known interest and, some would say, obsession of statutory authorities and government bodies in statistical outcomes. The setting of a target must necessarily result in the appointment of some applicants because of an attempt to reach an arbitrary quota rather than the application of criteria based upon the quality of candidates. The setting of a target, goal, objective or forward estimate without the presumption that it is to be met or approximated, such as is the case with the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986, is meaningless and wasteful because if that were the case the merit principle would serve. Clearly, the danger exists under the requirements of the Bill currently before the House that statutory authorities and their departments and sub-components will race to fill their forward estimates, either in an attempt to get a pat on the back or to avoid a perceived backlash which, I am afraid to say, is a very real possibility under the terms of the legislation. Whatever the motive, we will find that the merit principle will be thrown out the door. I support the Opposition's position in rejecting this Bill because it is different from the previous Bill in substance and in thrust. I quote from a Press release by the Business Council of Australia on 19 February 1986 concerning affirmative action legislation. It states: The Business Council believes strongly in programs to eradicate employment discrimination and pursue equal opportunity. Basic to this is the acceleration of attitudinal change in the community as a whole. We believe that programs mandated by government carry a high risk of attitudinal backlash, and make genuine reform more difficult. As a realistic and workable alternative, the private sector Council for Equal Employment Opportunity will contribute more effective and meaningful reform for the cause of women through genuine private sector commitment than externally imposed and consequently resented legislative requirements and official surveillance. Further, the Business Council believes that the approach being taken under the legislation, regardless of its stated intent, could have the effect of positive discrimination in favour of women, thus challenging the notion that all employees should be treated as individuals according to their skills, qualifications, aptitudes and potential without regard to gender. Compliance with legislation and the requirement to justify performance in quantitative terms to a specialised agency can easily become a numbers game rather than promoting qualitative change through a genuine commitment to the ideals of equal employment opportunity for women. This is not in the longer term interests of women or of business efficiency objectives. Mr MILES(Braddon)(5.05) —The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill is inconsistent in content, deceptive in presentation and a charade with respect to genuine equality. This Government has made much of the terms `equality', `equity' and `opportunity'. In nearly every speech dealing with social issues and in many of its taxation statements these buzz words are used with the intention of making people feel secure that the Hawke Government is concerned about fairness, concerned about people and their needs, and that it will address the issues and give all Australians a fair go. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality has been that the Government has targeted groups of supporters and sympathisers, provided them with benefits and then claimed it as providing equality and equity. That is not a correct definition of equality or equity. Honourable members on the other side of the House want to come in here and talk about equality and equity but I point out that there is only one standard by which equality in a democratic nation can be judged, and that is whether people are treated fairly according to the law. This is not the way this Government interprets it. The way this Government treats equality and equity is by dealing out money to groups the Government defines as disadvantaged. That is not equality at all. Equality is to do with justice before the law. This legislation has its origins in the ideas of the late Justice Murphy, a man who came to be regarded by his supporters as the leading proponent of civil liberties in Australia. Yet the coercive power that would have existed in the Human Rights Bill-and thank goodness the Australian people, led by the Opposition, prevented that from occurring-and that which exists in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the equal opportunities Acts 1984 and 1986 and this affirmative action Bill 1987 are all illustrative of the myth of Murphy. Murphy's ideas were not simply to sweep aside so-called unnecessary legal and moral restraints but rather to replace long established values with new, ephemeral values and implementing his laws for old laws with their own inevitable restraints and sanctions. Mr Rocher —Murphy's law. Mr MILES —Murphy's law. We oppose this affirmative action legislation on four counts. The overwhelming majority of members of the Liberal Party and the National Party oppose this legislation. It is not, as Government members have said, something which National Party members have been able to roll Liberal Party members on. That is simply not true. It is just another myth put out by the Government. It would like to perpetuate that myth out in the electorate. The Liberal Party is firmly opposed to this legislation. We oppose this legislation on four counts. Firstly, it would impose extra regulation on business in contravention of the Government's commitment in January to slash unnecessary regulations that hampered business activity, both publicly and privately. Secondly, it would apply not only to employees but also to independent contractors associated with government authorities. Thirdly, it is too woolly and lacks definition as it could be applied to designated groups. Lastly, and most importantly, it crosses the demarcation line between what is equal opportunity legislation to being affirmative action legislation. As I said originally, it is deceptive in presentation. Let us think back to last year when the Government brought in legislation which it called affirmative action legislation but in fact was an equal opportunities Bill. It was about genuine equal opportunity for women in this society. The Liberal and National parties agreed to that legislation. We totally supported it in the Parliament. But this legislation is different. This time, instead of calling it what it really is-an affirmative action Bill-the Government tries to deceive the public by calling it an equal opportunity Bill. That is the deception of the Government-or is it the fact that it cannot recognise what its legislation really is? Maybe it is that. Not only has this Bill crossed the line to become affirmative action legislation; it is also inconsistent. This Bill is inconsistent and fundamentally flawed because clause 3 (4) states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. But then clause 6 (g) (ii) states: . . . the program of a relevant authority shall provide for action to be taken: to set: . . . the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed; One cannot with any integrity state that an authority must set numerical targets-that is exactly what the word `quantitative' means-for the number of Aboriginals, descendants of indigenous Torres Strait Islanders, migrants whose first language is not English and their children, the physically disabled and the mentally disabled or any other designated group, and then state simultaneously that merit will be the guiding principle. It is just not possible to set up targets in a company or in an authority and then say: `We will employ people on the basis of merit'. Ultimately, one has to work one's way towards the target set. This is the real difference between the legislation that was brought into the House in 1986 and this legislation. In the 1986 legislation targets did not have to be set. In this legislation targets have to be set. That is why the Opposition has steadfastly decided to oppose this legislation. Dr Theophanous —Don't women have any merit, you idiot? Mr Peter Fisher —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find that remark made by the honourable member for Calwell offensive and ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I understand that the honourable member for Calwell may have made an offensive remark with reference to the honourable member for Braddon. I did not hear the remark; but, if that is so, I ask the honourable member for Calwell to withdraw it. Dr Theophanous —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr MILES —Let me illustrate what it means when targets are set. Say an authority has to appoint 10 new employees and to meet its quotas, which have been previously set, it must fill the vacancies with 10 non-Aboriginal, able-bodied males because that is what it has to work towards as its target. The Bill says that one has to set quantitative objectives. If, on interviewing the prospective employees, the authority finds that there are better qualified females or Aboriginals, the authority is placed in an invidious dilemma. If it places them on merit, it runs foul of the legislation on the indicators against which the effectiveness of the authority will be assessed. Is that not an incredible situation? If it places them according to the set quantitative indicators as stated, it negates the merit prin- ciple. That is the inconsistency of this legislation. In other words, you are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not. No person employing people in a public authority should have such inconsistent guidelines that will inevitably cause conflict. This legislation has a built-in recipe for indecision, hurt feelings, procrastination and legal battles. On the one hand, this Government prides itself on and beats its breast about deregulating the money markets. But it then brings in legislation, under the guise of providing equal opportunity, that imposes unwarranted and unnecessary regulation on statutory authorities and independent contractors. Why cannot the Government bring in legislation that is internally consistent? Or was the Government hoping to slip this legislation through under the pretext of equal opportunity, knowing full well that it is a genuine affirmative action Bill? We recognise that it is not a full-blown, rampant affirmative action Bill since the authority, not the Government, has the power to set the targets in this legislation. Nevertheless, the writing is on the wall for the Government to use its numbers to march towards full-blown affirmative action legislation that will cover not only statutory authorities but also educational institutions and private companies in the future. The writing is clearly on the wall. We have seen the trend over the last three years. The Opposition highlights to the Australian people that with this legislation the Government has overstepped the mark and gone from opening up equal opportunity for women and other people in our community to having a discriminatory piece of legislation in favour of other groups. The Opposition rejects this trend of regulating, intrusive and coercive legislation. Had this legislation had the same provisions as the equal opportunity legislation of 1986, we would have supported it. It does not have those same provisions and, as such, deserves to be rejected and defeated. The Government says that the provisions in the legislation are the same. But, if that is the case, why did it not put the same words in this legislation? That is the test. The simple fact is that it hoped to slip this in under the table and lock the Opposition into affirmative action legislation. Unfortunately for the Government, it was not quite smart enough to do that. The Opposition opposes any affirmative action program that discriminates against and penalises other people. That is what affirmative action legislation does. It is portrayed as something that will help one group of people. But, in so doing, it discriminates against other people. The Opposition believes strongly in the principle and the practice that all people of working capacity should be given equal opportunity to work, to be promoted and to be placed in senior administrative and managerial positions. We are firmly committed to equal opportunity. Australia, by world standards, is a tolerant, open society with a keen sense of fairness and justice. These values must be practised in regard to all citizens when entering the work force and as they progress through promotion positions. Tragically, this legislation is not about equal opportunity but, rather, about discrimination for certain specific groups, to the detriment of other people. This legislation has moved away from the principle of equal opportunity to one of equal outcomes. It is interesting that in the United States of America-announced only today here in Australia-there is an example of a court ruling using sex, above qualifications and merit, as the basis for putting a person into a senior position. That is full-blown affirmative action-and the track that Australia does not want to go down. It is not the role or the authority of governments or government authorities to design a system that is predicated on making people the same, all fitting into one mould. As a small child put it to her teacher: `Why do you want to make all people equal when they will not remain equal?'. No truer words have ever been spoken. This Government may wish to try to make people equal. The simple fact is that people are not equal and cannot be made equal. Nevertheless, it is true that many women, ethnic groups and disabled people have lost the dignity and self-confidence that are their due birthright. They have endured interpersonal relationships that have been degrading and lacking in sensitivity, concern and understanding. But at the same time people in authority should be free to employ people with undue restrictions. The coalition is vitally concerned about people in the designated groups, in particular women, under this legislation. It is our desire that they be able to make choices and have the freedom and opportunities that will enable them to be fulfilled. No one was created to be a slave, to be abused or to undertake menial tasks with no opportunity of rising above their circumstances. The coalition believes that women and the other designated groups in this legislation should be active and full participants in our culture without discrimination. These groups are to be respected, uplifted and given recognition for their talents and abilities. We do not object to those things. As I said earlier, if this Government had brought in legislation similar to the equal opportunity legislation it brought in last year, and not affirmative action legislation, we would have supported the Bill. If honourable members look at our amendments they will see that we are committed to that position. It is interesting that the Government is making so much about opportunities for women and saying that they are abused in all sorts of ways; yet in the Australian Capital Territory, where it has had an opportunity to act in regard to videos-which is one really latent form of abuse of women and the forming of attitudes amongst people against women-the Government has not acted. It is in such areas in a culture that attitudes are formed. As a parliament we should be making sure that we get some of these things right so that, on the one hand, we do not bring into this Parliament legislation which is supposed to help women while, on the other hand, we allow in the Australian Capital Territory a $25m video industry which has the ability to mould the attitudes of people against women and to degrade them when the Government has control to do something about it. Why is there not some consistency in this? It would be more preferable for this Government to do something about those areas where attitudes are moulded than to bring affirmative action legislation into this Parliament. Lastly, I want to refer to the types of things that occur when governments go down the track of coercive legislation. I refer to the situation of Dr and Mrs Tralaggan who were fined under the New South Wales Equal Opportunities Act because they did not want to have unmarried people renting their house. In other words, people who were practising Christians were not allowed to practice their faith because of this legislation. It is utter nonsense. People in Australia cannot now advertise for a married couple to rent accommodation, because that is discrimination. Where are we going as a nation when we throw out those fundamental values of our society? The Opposition is totally opposed to this legislation because it is not equal opportunity; it is affirmative action. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.25) —In the strictest sense of the term, the title of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill suggests that it is to be complementary legislation to the Public Service Reform Act 1984 and the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity For Women) Act 1986. If it was, it might not normally have attracted as much attention as it undoubtedly has. On 9 May 1984 the then Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, the present Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), introduced a so-called Public Service Reform Bill to amend various sections of the Public Service Act 1922. Included amongst its proposals was provision in section 22b under the broad heading of `Personnel' matters to require departments to develop equal employment opportunity plans for women and certain other designated groups. The Public Service Reform Act came into operation on 1 October 1984 and initially 26 departments and 26 authorities were required to develop equal employment opportunity programs. With the growth in the number of departments and authorities covered by section 22b, this total number had grown to 57 by June 1986. In that month the Public Service Board, by regulation, brought an additional 26 authorities for which the Board has some official responsibility within the scope of this section. I am talking about earlier legislation, but I remind honourable members that the scope and application of this Bill can be extended by regulation. In June last year 26 additional authorities were added. In addition, authorities with more than 100 staff members were required to consult the Public Service Board about developing equal employment opportunity programs by February 1988 and certain smaller authorities were required to do the same by July 1988. As has been mentioned by other speakers, a number of Commonwealth authorities are still not covered by legislation requiring equal employment opportunity programs and this Bill will extend to many major government business enterprises such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, the Reserve Bank of Australia, Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian National Railways Commission, the Australian Shipping Commission, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Limited, the Commonwealth Accommodation Catering Service and the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade. It should also be noted that coverage under the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 is by definition, not by listing. Thus, the Bill covers almost all authorities employing 40 or more staff. Furthermore, a number of significant primary industry boards and marketing authorities are to have amendments made to their established legislation to implement the proposals contained in this Bill during the course of this year. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) noted in his second reading speech, this legislation is in addition to the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act proclaimed on 1 October 1986. That legislation required higher educational institutions and companies employing 100 or more staff to develop affirmative action programs and to report progress to the Government's Affirmative Action Agency. We should not lose sight of the clear implications of that obligation to report. Given that the Minister spent the greater part of his second reading speech reminding the House of what the Government sees as its record of achievement in this area, and only a couple of pages discussing the actual provisions of the Bill, I intend to raise some reservations I have about the concepts of affirmative action and so-called equal employment opportunities legislation. As noted during our consideration of the Affirmative Action Bill in April last year, opposition in whole or in part to measures of this kind usually evokes a somewhat patronising response from certain quarters. Critics such as I are often rather shallowly judged to have failed either to grasp the subtle complexities of the concept of affirmative action as it has supposedly developed in Australia or to fully appreciate the supposedly pragmatic way in which the legislation has been drafted. The argument goes that law is required only after much so-called consultation with all the usual staging posts of bureaucratic manoeuvre, such as discussion papers, interim reports, voluntary pilot projects, working parties, and so on. At worst, it seems to me to be assumed that any critic has an outmoded, if not overtly reactionary, attitude to the role of women in society. While in constructive debate it should be tediously unnecessary, nevertheless let me make it quite clear that my reservations about the Government's actions in this area are based on serious concerns about both the philosophy and the practical effects of this kind of legislation, and not because I am in favour of any kind of religious, political, racial or sexual discrimination. Let me outline some of my concerns. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said that the object of the Bill is to eliminate discrimination against women; migrants whose first language is not English and their children; Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders; disabled persons and others; in unnamed and as yet undefined categories. Quite properly, he said: . . . freedom of choice of occupation is a basic social right which should not be constrained by criteria unrelated to ability to perform the job. I do not object to that objective. Moreover, I look forward to the day the Minister will give his personal support to my private member's Bill which will bring genuine freedom of association to the work place by ensuring, in the Minister's language, that criteria, including membership of a union, unrelated to ability to perform a job, are removed and that freedom of choice of occupation, a truly basic social right, is protected from the arbitrary and irrelevant requirement to belong to some particular organisation, be it a union or an employer body. Honourable members will have noted that, unlike the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act, there is no mention of affirmative action in the title of the Bill. Despite its absence, the simple fact is that the Government has regularly and deliberately confused the two terms in order, I believe, to subsume the fact that the key concepts are mutually exclusive. While this might be good partisan politics, it is bad public policy. The Government must surely be well aware of the serious deficiencies in United States-style affirmative action programs, mentioned briefly in the excellent speech made by my colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). On each occasion the Government has introduced legislation on this subject, it has been at pains, to quote from the Minister's second reading speech: . . . to emphasise the programs are not intended to lead to, and will not lead to, positive discrimination. The Bill expressly confirms that employment matters are to be dealt with on the basis of merit. If merit were to be the sole objective of the Government, law is not needed. The Public Service Board and Commonwealth statutory authorities could be instructed accordingly. The Government could embark on a program to convince private employers accordingly. Surely more law is not required to ensure that employment matters are to be dealt with on the basis of merit. Is not merit already the ultimate criterion in deciding employment matters in the Public Service and statutory authorities? If not, the Government itself has condoned, and practised, discrimination in employment hitherto. But there is no evidence of that. Quite simply, law is not needed to outlaw discrimination that does not exist. We are left to conclude that there are other motives and they are not those stated by the Government. Page 3 of the explanatory memorandum states: Sub-clause 3 (4) states that nothing in the Bill shall be taken to require a relevant employer to take any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. We have to look beyond the Government's words and try to discover its reasons. For example, last year the Chairman of the Public Service Board, Dr Peter Wilenski, wrote to the Australian Financial Review to argue that concern about the United States experience with affirmative action was rather fanciful in the Australian context. Dr Wilenski argues that there was a clear difference. He said that United States-style quotas were a mandatory selection of a certain number of people from a particular group, regardless of merit. To his mind, a target was an estimate of the number that might be selected if so-called barriers were removed and if positive steps, such as recruitment programs, were undertaken. Page 20 of the `Equal Employment Opportunity Report 1985-86' also contains assurances along those lines. The relevance to this Bill is clearly apparent in clause 6 which, according to the explanatory memorandum, allows for: . . . program objectives as well as quantitative and other measures of effectiveness; It is interesting to note that Canada has a scheme similar to the one being introduced here-albeit introduced here in various stages. Like this Government, Canada maintains that its approach is reasonable, flexible and compatible with appointment according to merit. It maintains that there is a sharp difference between its policy and the approach taken across its southern borders in the United States. According to the 1983 annual report of the Canadian Public Service Commission, that Government was committed to: . . . a distinctly Canadian approach to the identification and elimination of discriminatory practices in the workplace. In an address delivered in May 1983, the Canadian Public Service Commissioner, Jennifer McQueen, reiterated the theme of Canadian distinctiveness: Comparing affirmative action in the United States to that in Canada risks making an error. In our country affirmative action does not transgress the Public Service Employment Act nor the merit principle and excludes rigid quotas. That sounds fairly familiar. Let me assure the House that the Canadian experience is compatible with the proposals embodied in this legislation. With that in mind, the opinion of Professor Conrad Winn, writing in the journal `Canadian Public Administration' in the spring of 1985, should be of interest. At page 29 of the journal Professor Winn argues that, in practice, there is little real difference between the United States and Canadian models. Citing a definition of quotas as `a share of goods, assigned to a group or to each member of a group', he said: By this definition, numerical goals are indeed quotas. As Winn demonstrates, the practical effect of evaluating departments according to their achievement in `reaching numerical targets', enforces de facto quotas. He sums up as follows: The view articulated by the Public Service Commission is that American programs are less flexible and more rigid or coercive than Canadian programs, the empirical evidence does not uphold the PSC's portrait . . . Professor Winn's view can be put into an Australian context if we consider the words of Dr Gabriel Moen who wrote to the Australian Financial Review on 28 January 1986 in response to the letter I mentioned from Dr Wilenski a little earlier. He stated: . . . the setting of a target, without the presumption that it is to be met or approximated, is a meaningless and redundant concept . . . It is in this general context, but without making any specific or immediate predictions, that I remind the House that articles 1 (4) and 2 (2) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and article 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women allow for affirmative action on the American model. That is so-called positive discrimination or reverse discrimination but, nevertheless, discrimination in that it gives preferential or compensatory treatment to members of groups on the basis of their gender, racial, ethnic or other qualities. This may include quotas involving preferential treatment in hiring, promotion or even in admissions to educational institutions. Australia has ratified both those conventions. No doubt positive discrimination benefits some minorities, but let me make the point clear that positively discriminating in favour of minorities involves discriminating against the majority; that particularly applies in employment and also where government resources are being used. There are several other important points I want to make if I have the time. Firstly, there seems to be a serious lack of understanding in some quarters about the time it takes for social values that affect the attitudes of many people in the community to change. My colleague, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), made mention of this in his speech this morning. Whilst I did not agree with much that he had to say on this subject on that occasion, he did point to the pace at which the Government is moving with this legislation and with earlier legislation. This is particularly so in the case of representation of women in the highest levels of the Public Service, the universities, business, unions and the like. It is worth recalling that it was just over a decade or so ago that A. A. Calwell, the former leader of the parliamentary Labor Party, could write unflatteringly in his book entitled Be Just and Fear Not: Women's lib or those other way out movements that have developed in recent times. That was not long ago. Much of the so-called underrepresentation of women ignores the data and relevance of years in the work force, relative qualifications and, in particular, views of women themselves and the choices many of them make, particularly with regard to trade-offs of careers and traditional home responsibilities. Secondly, I suggest that all too often the evidence cited in support of claims of discrimination is rather fragile. A good example is to be found in the book entitled Why So Few?, which deals with perceptions and criticisms by a number of women academics at Australian universities and institutes of technology. Summing up the argument mounted in that tome, Geoffrey Partington, senior lecturer in education at Flinders University, wrote: Not one single example is offered in the whole book of any appointments or promotions being made . . . of a clearly less suitable male instead of a more suitable female on grounds, overt or covert, of gender. Using a United States of America example, because the figures are more readily available, the data largely shows that the real difference is not between men and women; it is between married women and all other persons. For instance, let us look at the United States academic situation. Academic women who have never married earn more than academic men who have never married. Thirdly, I remind the House that at the same time that we are prescribing new, compulsory and not insignificant personnel management responsibilities on statutory authorities, we are simultaneously expecting those bodies to perform more effectively in the competitive commercial markets both in Australia and abroad. Despite the Minister's assurance that there are many benefits in its equal employment opportunity proposals, we should not forget that there are also numerous and very significant costs. Certainly the difficulties the departments were having-as reported on page 8 of the `Equal Employment Opportunity Report 1985-86'-in meeting requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of those equal employment opportunity programs that have now been established are not very encouraging. Time is running out. I support the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), for the reasons he gave and because of more general considerations which I have detailed this afternoon. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(5.45) —Before beginning to get on to the main thrust of what I wish to say, I commend the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) for his contribution to this debate. It was extremely well-reasoned, well thought, cogent and most compelling in its argument. On 11 April 1986, nearly a year ago, I stood in this very same place and spoke on the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill. I will just quote two sentences: . . . those who pin their faith on it- I am referring, of course, to the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill- are going to be sadly and sorely disappointed once they see what eventuates from it, unless of course the Government is not telling the truth when it says that there will be no quotas. But time will tell. Time has indeed told because, as has been pointed out in this debate today by many speakers from this side of the House, de facto quotas at the very least are in this legislation. I am totally opposed to discrimination on any grounds, as I am sure is every other member of this Parliament. We are totally opposed to discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, and politics and we are totally against discrimination in any form. Yet here we have the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. All this Bill is doing is promoting unequal employment opportunities. Even though it says that merit should be the only factor, in reality this will be ignored because it says that it is designed to promote equal opportunity in employment for women and members of designated groups by developing equal employment opportunity programs. What are some of those designated groups? The ones that have been named are Aboriginals and descendants of indigenous Torres Strait Islanders and migrants and their children whose first language is not English. The physically or mentally disabled are included in the definition of designated groups. Of course, there can be other sorts of designated groups too which will be promulgated by regulation. Goodness knows what we might end up with at some time in the future. The point that must be made again and again is that merit, ability and capacity should be the only reasons that people get a job or are promoted within that job. What has happened to that old Australian concept of a fair go for everyone? It does not apply any more, not under this Labor Government. It is introducing legislation, socialist claptrap legislation, that is totally designed to give people an unequal opportunity. I cannot agree with this under any circumstances because if people are good enough to do the job they should get the job; but if they are incapable of doing it they should not get it regardless of their colour, language or racial background. I believe this is absolutely wrong because if we are to talk about fairness and equality of opportunity there has to be equality of opportunity for all. Yet once again we have this Hawke socialist Government trying to legislate to change people's thinking. Any sensible person will agree and admit that there has certainly been discrimination in the past. Undoubtedly some discrimination is still being practised. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I abhor it, I deplore it and I am totally opposed to it. We cannot legislate and pass laws that say to the people of the nation: `This is how you will think'. Humanity is not like that. What we need is for the good sense and the good will of the Australian people to continue operating, as they have done now for decades. Progress has been made so that we can get to the point where all Australians have equality of opportunity. All this Bill does is put into law inequality of opportunity for some groups within our community. The logic is unbelievable. All I can say is that we must oppose this motion and support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown), because it is a sane and sensible amendment. Even this morning we had the news coming out of the United States of America about a decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that employers have the right to promote a woman or an educationally and socially disadvantaged person over a better qualified man for any job under affirmative action laws. Out the door go the merit and ability. I cannot under any circumstances agree with or support legislation that seeks to enshrine inequality of opportunity within our society under this false name. We heard the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) only yesterday trying to rename the Australia Card the Moscow Card. How right he is. This Bill should be renamed the Unequal Employment Opportunity Bill, because that is what it is. I appeal to the good sense of the Australian people, the Parliament and the Senate to reject this Bill because there is no way that it is in the interests of Australia. We need to have Australians who are free and able to apply for a job and to take part in society on the basis of their ability. We should give everybody the same opportunity for education, to become involved in society and to participate in employment. I know that the Government has other business to bring on so I will conclude my remarks with one final thought: This socialist claptrap has to be thrown out. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(5.52) —In summing up this debate one must say that the performance of the Opposition has been quite extraordinary and one which, quite frankly, takes us by surprise. Although we know that the Opposition has been in a bit of chaos lately, we expected that, in line with the support given to the affirmative action legislation, where I understand there was no vote from the Opposition in either House against that legislation, we would get similar support for a piece of legislation which seeks to do much the same thing in respect of Commonwealth statutory authorities as the affirmative action legislation did for companies in private industry. It is amazing, at first, that we have heard debate of the kind that has gone on in this House today, where the Opposition has been trying desperately to find reasons why it should oppose this legislation. That has not been true of all speakers from the Opposition. We have heard speeches which have indicated substantial support for the legislation, and we appreciate that. The reason that we have had those speeches from the members of the Opposition, particularly from members of the Liberal Party of Australia, is that they face a situation where the future of the coalition is in considerable doubt. They have apparently taken a decision to oppose this legislation to placate the people in the National Party of Australia and to try to keep them on side before they make their decision on the future of the coalition at the weekend. That is basically why we have had the most amazing convolutions of reasoning going on from the Opposition, trying to find reasons for opposing legislation which is eminently sensible and which is the same sort of legislation-slightly differently expressed, but no differently expressed in effect-which it found quite possible to support last year in respect of companies. We had a pathetic array of excuses for opposing this legislation. The pathetic nature of that is made clear by the fact that some members of the Opposition have made it clear that they do not accept that line of argument. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) has indicated that he strongly supports the legislation and he will vote in favour of it. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) indicated in an interview outside the House that he supports the legislation. Senator Peter Baume has resigned from the shadow Cabinet because of the decision that has been taken to oppose this legislation; and he cannot agree with that. Quite clearly we have a pathetic array of reasons from the other side. When one looks at those reasons, one sees how pathetic they are. A major point, supposedly, that was made was that this matter had not been to the Business Regulation Review Unit; therefore this was some major deficiency in the legislation. It is true that this legislation does not have a regulation impact statement, but this legislation has been not to the Business Regulation Review Unit but to the businesses themselves. All of the statutory authorities which could be conceived to be businesses have been consulted about this legislation. It is not something which will be impacted upon them without their knowing anything about it, which could arguably be the case in respect of legislation for companies. So in those circumstances it is reasonable to look at the Business Regulation Review Unit and get some assessment of what the impact might be on companies at large. In this case we have been to the businesses themselves and they have had a chance to make their input and to tell us what the impact on them would be. The legislation goes ahead after full consultation with those businesses. It is an absolute absurdity to argue that because it has not been to the Business Regulation Review Unit there is some massive deficiency in it. If one needs any convincing that this Opposition is desperate to find a reason to oppose this legislation, this is clearly it, apart from clear misconceptions about what is contained in the legislation. I think that they are apparent misconceptions, because I believe that the Opposition understands what is contained in the legislation but is trying to make out that there are differences. The whole argument about the Business Regulation Review Unit is a nonsense. The businesses themselves have been consulted; therefore there is a full appreciation of their position, and the Government puts this legislation forward to put its statutory authority businesses in the same position as businesses in the private sector. That should be a quite acceptable position for the Opposition, which voted for legislation of this kind to apply to the private sector. The second supposed issue is that this legislation will impose quotas on statutory authorities. It is absolutely absurd to argue that quotas are involved in this legislation. First of all, it was made absolutely clear in my second reading speech on at least a couple of occasions that nothing in this legislation upsets the merit principle. I said that quite specifically. Indeed, it is contained in clause 3 (4) of the legislation, which says: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. So we start off with the fact that we have the merit principle which, virtually by definition says that there are no quotas because people will be appointed on the basis of merit. This legislation is about ensuring that the merit principle properly applies by eliminating discrimination and having people being able to apply for positions on the basis of merit. It does not impose positive discrimination by saying: `You shall have X percentage of positions going to women, Aboriginals, or whoever'. It does say that discrimination should be eliminated and that people should be able to apply for jobs and get them on the basis of merit. It says: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. How one can possibly get up and argue, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) and other people have done in this debate, that there is some imposition of quotas is absolutely beyond me. I am just staggered that that kind of argument can be seriously made. Obviously, people on the other side who have spoken in this debate indicating their support for the Bill also see the absurdity of that. The argument that we have quotas also proceeds on the basis that the wording in this Bill is different from the wording in the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act. It is slightly different. Perhaps that has created some degree of confusion. But I really do not see why that is so. Comparing the affirmative action legislation definition and the Bill's definition, it is exceedingly difficult to argue that there is any discernible difference. Section 8 (g) of the affirmative action Act sets out the contents of affirmative action programs. Remember, this legislation was supported by the Opposition. It states that one of the contents of affirmative action programs should be to set objectives and make forward estimates in the program. In section 8 (3) it defines what is meant by `forward estimate'. It says that it means a `quantitative measure or aim which may be expressed in numerical terms' designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters being a measure or aim which can be reasonably implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time. So there is a requirement for the affirmative action program to set objectives and make forward estimates in the program, forward estimates being a `quantitative measure or aim which may be expressed in numerical terms'. That was acceptable to the Opposition when that Act was passed. Now the Opposition has a piece of legislation before it which says, as set out in clause 6 (g), that the contents of the program shall set: (i) the particular objectives to be achieved by the program; and (ii) the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed; From this it is alleged that there is some movement to quotas. I find it absolutely extraordinary that an Opposition is prepared to accept in the legislation that it is okay to set forward estimates, meaning a quantitative measure or aim which may be expressed in numerical terms, but is not prepared to accept that the program shall set quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. One would really have to be bending over backwards, doing absolute cartwheels, to find any substantial difference between those two definitions. To say that what is in the legislation before us now is in any way substantially different from what was in the affirmative action legislation is an absolute nonsense. To complete this point, in the Public Service Act, in section 22b in the definition of `program'-again, this was acceptable to the Opposition- it says: . . . the quantitative or other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed; Of course, the Bill before us, in clause 6 (g) (ii), states: . . . the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed; That is the same as what is included in the Public Service Reform Act at section 22b, which was supported by the Opposition. One really has to be desperate to try to find a reason to oppose the Bill to say that something that one supported previously in relation to the Public Service Reform Act, which by any standards is the same, will not be supported now. If Opposition members are going to complain about anything they ought to complain more about the affirmative action legislation, which talks, about `expressed in numerical terms', rather than the legislation which is currently before them. But no, that was acceptable. When Opposition members now get something before them which is in the same terms as in the Public Service Act, and no different in effect from what is in the affirmative action legislation which they supported, they say: `No, we have got to oppose it because it means quotas'. Really, I think this is quite an extraordinary performance and one which is not in any way to be explained by the real content of the legislation but rather by the political shenanigans of the Liberal Party in trying to find a means of keeping the coalition with its National Party colleagues together and hoping, by this means, to keep them on side next weekend. I think all that should be exposed and made clear to the Australian people. They have an Opposition here which is playing games and which is really concerned not with this legislation but with its political coalition. In the process of doing that it is stripping itself of a position of principle, putting itself in a position where it is opposing legislation which is exactly the same in its effect as legislation it has supported on two previous occasions. In so doing, I believe, the Opposition is demeaning itself greatly in terms of its standing in the community. Indeed, it is obviously concerns such as this which have led Senator Peter Baume to take his decision to retire from the Opposition executive and other members opposite to express their opposition to what their leadership wants them to do. There are other matters which I should briefly refer to. The Opposition sought to dredge up the issue that independent contractors working for statutory authorities would have this legislation applying to them. That is not the case. Under the definition of `employee' all it simply says is that an independent contractor who was working for a statutory authority would be an employee, but any employees of that independent contractor would not be covered by this legislation. It imposes an obligation only on the statutory authority itself. The other concerns that have been raised relate to the extension of `designated group' to groups other than women and I think those concerns are not such as should lead anyone to oppose this legislation. The fact that this legislation takes account of not just women but also Aborigines and disabled persons is a reason for Opposition members to support this legislation rather than to say that they will oppose it. There is no intention on the part of the Government at this stage to add to that list of designated groups. That is not in our contemplation. We do not exclude the possibility that at some future time there may be a reason so to do, but we have no intention of doing that at this stage. Mr Nehl —At this stage. Mr WILLIS —We will keep the position reserved so that if at some future time it seemed that there was a good reason to do that then we may well do it. It is simply a provision there in a contingent way. Really, one would have to be desperate to find that some sort of reason to oppose this legislation. Finally, there has been reference to the issue of costs and suggestions that this legislation is going to increase them. On the issue of costs I simply say that I do not think that the Opposition is really serious in suggesting that there is some great problem. Clearly, there is not. There is simply a compulsion on the statutory authority to establish an affirmative action program. The pace of that program is one which the authority will set. No substantial additional costs will be involved. Indeed, a number of the statutory authorities are already putting in place equal employment opportunity programs and the development of those programs will involve little in the way of additional costs. This legislation is important legislation which the Government strongly supports. The Government believes that this legislation completes the trio of measures which will ensure that in all areas of Commonwealth Government employment and the private sector, except in the small business area, equal employment opportunity progress will be achieved through this legislation. It is legislation which should have the support of every person in this Parliament. I think it is disgraceful that various members of the Opposition, in their speeches today, have opposed this legislation, some for reasons which I find quite appalling and others I think for the shallow political reasons that I have described. That is the basic reason why the legislation is being opposed by the Opposition. I strongly recommend it to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr N.A. Brown's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. 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. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Shack, P. D. Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McCFife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hodges, J. C. McHugh, J. Andrew, J. N. Young, M. J. Peacock, A. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(6.20) —I move: (1) Clause 3, page 2, line 29, omit paragraph (b) of the definition of `employee'. This Bill is intended to apply to Commonwealth authorities and to employees of those authorities. The definition of `employee' is as follows: `employee' means a natural person appointed or engaged: (a) under a contract of service, whether on a full-time, part-time, casual or temporary basis; or (b) under a contract for services; The amendment is to omit paragraph (b) of that definition of `employee'. It is clear that paragraph (a) of the definition is intended to cover employees properly so-called and that paragraph (b) of the definition is intended to cover independent contractors or those who have entered into arrangements other than a contract of service. If it were the intention of the Parliament simply to have this Bill applied to employees alone and the relationship between Commonwealth authorities and employees properly so-called it would be quite sufficient to have part (a) of the definition. To add part (b) of the definition is to add an additional notion and clearly conveys the intention to apply the Bill to relations between the Commonwealth authorities and independent contractors. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) gave a perfunctory reply to this point in his reply in the second reading debate but I must say, with all respect, that it was a completely inadequate reply. The Opposition does not believe that it is proper or appropriate to govern the employment relations between authorities or, indeed, any employer on the one hand and independent contractors on the other. They make their own arrangements. They determine the fees for their services. They determine what they will charge. Within the price they fix they get compensation or their rights. They get what they want in return for the fee which is fixed or the contract price for their services. It is not necessary to have part (b) of the definition if all one wants to do is govern the relations between the Commonwealth authorities on the one hand and their employees on the other. If one leaves in paragraph (b) of the definition one is endeavouring to provide a regime covering the relationship between contractors and Commonwealth authorities. They are determined not in this case by arbitration and not by agreement but are imposed by statute. That is not appropriate. It is contrary to the view we take of employment relationships. It is contrary to the way in which contractual relationships have always been determined in this country. Paragraph (b) of the definition is unnecessary and should be removed. For those reasons we maintain that our amendment should be agreed to. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(6.25) —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), referred to perfunctory comments from me. We have just had some very perfunctory comments from him as to why he is proposing this amendment. The fact is that if this legislation were seeking to impose some requirement on independent contractors in respect of their own employees, one might say there was something in this amendment. But that is not the situation. All the legislation is saying is that an employee means a natural person appointed or engaged either under a contract of service or under a contract for services. If that person is a person with employees of his or her own, then those employees are not in any way being taken into account by this legislation; it applies only to the natural person who is working for a statutory authority under a contract of services. There is nothing wrong with taking those people into account in determining the process of discrimination and ensuring that we do not have discrimination taken against persons in this position; if those persons are female, Aboriginal, disabled, or are migrants from non-English speaking countries we should not discriminate against them. This legislation seeks to ensure that we do not discriminate against those people in a way which would affect their possibility of getting employment on merit by way of a contract of service with a statutory authority. There is every reason to maintain the definition which is in the Bill. The concern which was expressed by some honourable members in the debate about this issue does not exist. I believe that there is absolutely no reason for us to accept this amendment. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(6.27) —The reply, which is even more perfunctory, from the Minister which we have just heard really does not answer the point. We are entitled to a proper reply. Let me put it in different terms which he may comprehend. Clause 6 of the Bill sets out the requirement for equal employment opportunity programs to be set up or provided. If one takes paragraph (a), which states `to inform employees of the contents of the program and of the results of any monitoring' . . . and if one takes other parts of the program as set out in clause 6 or any other part of the Bill which uses the word `employee', then giving and applying to it the definition which is in clause 3 means quite clearly that by this Bill one is seeking to impose upon a contractual relationship between an authority on the one hand and an independent contractor on the other terms and conditions of employment which the parties may not have agreed upon themselves, which they may not have even considered or thought of or which they may not even want. One is imposing by statute terms and conditions of their employment which is quite contrary to the rights they have to determine their own conditions under the contract. That is what contract is all about. It is so typical of the Australian Labor Party that it takes the view that one can in a statute simply interfere between the contractual relationship between two persons and say to them: `It does not matter what you agree upon yourselves. We, the Government, know better what should be in the contract between the two of you. We know better, and we will impose this by statute'. How typical of the Labor Party to want to impose upon the private contractual rights between two contracting parties what the Government thinks, in its wisdom, should be imposed upon them. It is exactly that which we object to. It is exactly for that reason that we oppose this amendment-so that it will not be within the powers conferred under this Bill if and when it becomes an Act, or within the powers of the authority, to impose those terms and conditions under this statute. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(6.29) —I rise to lend my support to the Government. I was not able to speak during the second reading debate; however, I want to congratulate the Government and the Minister on the legislation. It is one of a series of such legislative procedures we have brought before the House and I am totally committed to it. The great tragedy of why we are engaged in this little exercise tonight by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), is that there is tremendous chaos on his side of the House. Honourable members opposite refuse to have a division. They refused to allow their members to record their names in the vote a few moments ago. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member shall come back to clause 3 of the Bill. Mr HAND —Mr Deputy Speaker, my speech has a lot to do with clause 3. Honourable members opposite are all over there in a huddle. This Bill exposes the differences that exist within the parties on the other side. Tonight up to 12 Opposition members are boycotting this debate. They have gone home to Melbourne; they have gone home to Brisbane. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(8.00) —I simply wish to make a few more comments on this amendment because I really do think that the Opposition has got it wrong. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) made the point again that this is some form of interference in the terms and conditions of employment that apply between an authority and an independent contractor. That is simply not so. All that is being done here is that the definition of `employee' is to include a natural person who is engaged or appointed under a contract for services. It does nothing more than include that natural person, for the purposes of this legislation, amongst the employees to whom discrimination shall not apply. That is all it does. It does not impose anything more on that person, except to include him or her amongst the employees with respect to whom there is not to be discrimination and to whom the program, which is required under the legislation, shall apply. There is no obligation on that person to do anything. It does not interfere with the terms and conditions of employment of such people. It simply includes them in the group from whom discrimination is intended to be removed. I would have thought that was a highly desirable objective. It does not in any way interfere with terms and conditions of employment. The reiteration of that point by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition demonstrates a misconception on his part as to what is involved in this measure. Quite simply, it is a very simple proposition that the independent contractor, the natural person, who is employed is to be covered by the Act but only in the sense that he or she is treated as an employee to whom the program, which is required to be developed by the authority, would be applicable. There is no other obligation on that employee, that independent contractor-or, if that person had other employees, for him to do anything in respect of them-and no interference with the terms and conditions of employment as between that independent contractor and the authority. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 4 and 5-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 6 (Contents of program). Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(8.04) —by leave-I move: (2) Clause 6, page 5, lines 1-4, omit paragraph (g), substitute the following paragraph: ``(g) to set objectives and make forward estimates in the program:''. (3) clause 6, page 5, at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(2) In subsection (1): `forward estimate' means a quantitative measure or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time; `objective' means a qualitative measure or aim, expressed as a general principle, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time.''. The first of the two amendments seeks to amend paragraph (g) to state `to set objectives and make forward estimates in the program'. The second of the amendments seeks to add a sub-clause at the end of the clause. The purpose of these two amendments is to remove from clause 6 of the Bill some provisions relating to the programs and the contents of the programs to be set up under this Bill. As honourable members will be aware, clause 6 deals with the contents of the equal employment opportunity programs and provides, in its opening words, that `the program of a relevant authority shall provide for action to be taken' in regard to a number of things set out in paragraphs (a) to (h) inclusive. One of the obligations imposed on an authority insofar as the preparation of its program is concerned, and which is contained in paragraph (g), is to set two things-the first being the objectives to be achieved by the program and the second being: (ii) the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. Our contention, in the first place, is that those words should be omitted because they take the equal employment opportunity regime being imposed by the Government in this Bill a step forward in the direction of quantitative matters and a step towards what we have called pseudo-quotas. They certainly impose quantitative indicators and they have to be included in the program. The word `quantity' must mean something, and clearly it means the quantity, the number, or perhaps the percentage of employees who will come from the designated groups-that is to say, the percentage or number of employees who will be women, Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders or from any of the other designated groups as defined. We say that, in the first place, that is a very significant departure from the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act of 1986. Secondly, we say that it is an undesirable and quite unwarranted step towards reverse discrimination, positive discrimination, and a very definite step in the direction of dictating to employers-who in this case happen to be Commonwealth authorities-the numbers of employees of different types whom they will be obliged to employ. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in reply to that and in his second reading speech, said: `It is true that the wording is different from that contained in the 1986 Act'. So, he concedes that there is a change between the 1986 Act applying to private enterprise and higher education institutions, on the one hand, and this Bill covering Commonwealth authorities, on the other hand. The Minister concedes that. They were his words-that the wording is different. We have established that. But he maintains that, although the wording is different, there is no discernible difference in the meaning. So, the Government has chosen different words to express a notion or a sentiment-- Mr Slipper —Why? Mr N.A. Brown —But the Minister maintains that there is no discernible difference in the effect of those words. The question, as the honourable member for Fisher asked rhetorically, is: Why is that so? If there is no difference between the obligations imposed in the 1986 Act and the obligations now sought to be imposed in this Bill, why has the language of the 1986 Act not simply been repeated in this Bill? If it had been, it would have gone a measure of the distance towards satisfying our concerns. Because that has not been done, it is clear that there is some different meaning intended in this Bill in contrast to the meaning clearly intended in the 1986 Act. The second matter to which I draw attention is simply this: In the 1986 Act, the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act, one of the requirements of the affirmative action programs, as contained in section 8 (1) (g), was `to set objectives and make forward estimates in the program'. So, it is clear from that part of the 1986 Act that I have just just read out that there was a requirement under the 1986 regime to set objectives. The purpose of the 1986 Act in this respect was to set an objective. The employer had to work towards an objective, the objective being to achieve equal employment opportunity for his or her employees. That was the objective that was sought. We have a further clue as to the intentions of the Parliament in passing the 1986 Act when we read in sub-section 8 (3) that there is a definition of both `forward estimate' and `objective'. Forward estimate means `a quantitative measure or aim'. If those words mean anything at all they convey the notion, especially when linked together with the provision for an objective in paragraph (g), that the Parliament wanted the employer to move steadily towards some achievable objective. It was an aim. That is what the legislation says. We make two points. The first point is that different language is contained in the Bill this year and in the Act last year, and that should lead us reasonably to the conclusion that different meanings are intended to be conveyed by the Parliament with respect to the 1986 Act and by the Government in this Bill. We say that that calls for an explanation. The second point is that we say that, when we look at the 1986 Act and we see these references to objectives and to aims, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that the intention of the 1986 Act was to have private employers and the higher education institutions take the first steps towards achieving an aim, the aim being equal employment opportunity. There is a heavier emphasis in the present Bill on quantitative requirements, quantitative clearly referring to quantity. If we are looking for similar words to describe the notion, percentages, quotas or numbers must surely be the notion that is intended to be conveyed by the use of the words `quantitative and other indicators'. Indeed, the notion is reinforced when we read on in paragraph (g) to the effect that it is the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. The intention is to introduce a program and to see whether it is being applied. The test to see whether it is being applied is to look at the quantity or the numbers and, if the numbers, percentages or quotas have not been met, the conclusion is clearly going to be reached simply that the program is not achieving its effectiveness. That clearly would be contrary to the whole intention of the Bill, and that is the final reason why the view I have contended is correct. We come back to the basic point, a point that requires an answer from the Minister: If the Government intended to establish the same regimen in this Bill as it did in the 1986 Act, why did it not use the same language? It is for that reason that we give it an opportunity now to adopt the language used in the 1986 Act, which we will vote in favour of. That is why we have proposed the amendment. If the Government does not accept the language which it adopted in 1986, we call for an explanation, firstly, as to why it has not used the same language and, secondly, what secret purpose it is now about by changing the language. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(8.14) —We have just heard the flimsiest justification I have ever heard in this Parliament for opposing a major Bill of such enormous significance to this community. It is the flimsiest justification one could possibly imagine. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) had the impertinence to try to put before this chamber and to the people of Australia that the reason why the Opposition is opposing this major step in equal opportunity legislation is some minor difference in wording between this Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill and the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. He expects us and the people of Australia to believe this nonsense. We know what the real reasons are for the opposition to this legislation. Mr Slipper —Come on! Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member for Fisher wants to be reinforced once again. Honourable members interjecting- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Fisher, the Leader of the National Party and others on my left will cease interjecting. The Leader of the National Party, more than any, should know that he should not interject when he is out of his seat. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Mr Chairman, it is very pertinent that they should be interjecting, because it is members of the National Party who have twisted the arms of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Deputy Leader to abandon Liberal principles and come into this chamber and oppose this legislation, as I mentioned before in my speech in the second reading debate. When it came to the actual debate on the clauses, we were expecting something very substantial. But what did we get? The flimsiest excuse I have ever heard in this chamber for opposing a major piece of legislation. Let us look at the differences in wording that the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to. What are the differences in wording? He tried to say that the differences in wording are such that in the Bill this year there is the word `quantitative' and that in the Bill last year there was no reference to `quantitative'. That is not true. In the Bill last year there was a reference to `forward estimate', which means `a quantitative measure or aim'. It even went further to say `which may be expressed in numerical terms'. That was in the 1986 Bill. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has presented the most flimsy excuse I have heard in my six and a half years in this chamber for opposing a major piece of legislation and he should be ashamed of himself for putting up such a flimsy pretence. Honourable members opposite have asked why there are some differences. All equal opportunity legislation is the same to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; he believes it ought to be just rejected. That is the attitude of the conservatives from the National Party, and he agrees with them. Ideologically he is no different from them. He might as well go and join them. He is nodding his head in agreement. What happened to the Liberal Party and its principles? What happened to the Leader of the Opposition's statement about the integrity of the Liberal Party and the integrity of the principles of the Liberal Party? Forget all of that. The Nationals will now be the tail that wags the dog. That is what is going to happen in this Parliament in the future. Mr McGauran —That is offensive. Dr THEOPHANOUS —It is offensive only to the honourable member. I will point out to the Deputy Leader why these changes exist. He might have seen in clause (f) reference not only to that important group of people-women-in the community who happen to be discriminated against but also to other designated groups such as the migrant community and the Aboriginal community, which are very important. They are incorporated in this Bill; they were not in the 1986 Bill. The Deputy Leader has not noticed the difference between the one and the other and he has come in here with this flimsy excuse. If we were to carry the amendments suggested by him, the net impact would be that those designated groups would be taken out of the Bill and we would not be able to say that we are setting targets, aims and objectives in relation to migrants, Aborigines and women. What do we have? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has come into this chamber, as I said before, and has tried to give us the flimsiest of reasons when we know what the very important reasons were for opposition to this legislation. We have seen the reasons exemplified in the House and I am very disappointed with this flimsy excuse that has been brought up here. Why did Senator Peter Baume resign? That is the question the Deputy Leader has not answered. He talked in the House several times on this Bill but he has not told us why Senator Peter Baume resigned. Senator Peter Baume, unlike the Deputy Leader, wants to defend the traditional principles of the Liberal Party rather than give into the National Party to try to save the coalition. Senator Peter Baume, and the twelve other Liberal members who were not in this House when we voted on the legislation, want to stand up for the principles involved. Instead of the Deputy Leader doing that, he comes into this chamber with this flimsy statement which could not be justified anywhere. He ought to be ashamed of himself. At least he could have got up and said: `We oppose equal employment opportunity'. Why does he not state that in this chamber? Why does he not state his true position, which is that he opposes equal opportunity? At least members of the National Party get up and say `We oppose equal opportunity' and that is the end of the matter. However, we have double talk from the Liberals. On the one hand, they say `We support equal opportunity' and, on the other, they want to move amendments which are totally unacceptable to us. We reject the amendments. I say to people listening that we have a minority group discriminating against the majority in the community. If one puts together the various groups-women, migrants, Aborigines, and all those members of groups that have been disadvantaged-one finds that they constitute the majority of this nation. They have been discriminated against. When we introduce legislation into this chamber which would overcome that discrimination, we get a rejection of that legislation for the flimsiest excuse that I have ever seen in terms of the amendments. We reject the amendments. We say to the Opposition: `Get up and justify the actions which you are carrying out in this chamber tonight'. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.21) —Having read the several Bills which impinge on the decision regarding the amendments, I must say that I believe that the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), is struggling with his argument in support of his amendment. Having said that, however, I intend to support his amendment. I do so not because of the logic, or lack of it, in his explanation but because of a desire to be accommodating to everyone regarding the Bill. As I said at the second reading stage, I do not accept the urgency as suggested by the Government. On the other hand, I would not like to see the Bill lost because of any failure of amendments. I have listened carefully to the proposition put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown). I find it rather difficult to follow, especially as there is another Bill which relates to the proposal which provides a basis for the definition regarding quantity. I think that the definition to which the Minister referred was contained in the Public Service Reform Bill 1984. I put it to the Deputy Leader that before last year's Bill, which he now uses as a standard in framing an opinion on the Bill before us, he and the Opposition approved the Public Service Reform Bill. Mr N.A. Brown —That is not correct. I was not here. You check the facts first. Mr STEELE HALL —I am quite happy to resile from that. I do not want to say that the shadow Minister promoted something that he did not. All I can say to him is that most of his colleagues did. Certainly, the Opposition as a whole supported the Public Service Reform Bill 1984, and that has a peculiar relevance to the clause which the Deputy Leader seeks to amend. The relevance is that the clause he wants to take out is a lift-out of the 1984 Bill. I did not hear then the complaints which are now being heard in this chamber about those words. The words `the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed' were passed, I believe, without attempted amendment by those members of the Opposition who were here in 1984. It is true that the complement of an opposition can change significantly at elections, and it is quite right for it to have a different view at any particular time. However, I must say that at that stage there was no particular opposition to that definition. It is interesting, when we talk of designated groups, that there was a very clear definition in the Public Service Reform Bill of designated groups. Section 33 (3) (a) states: discrimination on the ground of political affiliation, race, colour, ethnic origin, social origin, religion, sex, sexual preference, marital status, pregnancy, age or physical or mental disability; I thought that that would cover anything that might be involved in the term `designated groups'. In my speech at the second reading stage I referred to the Liberal Party's platform. The platform contains a description which is almost as wide, if not as wide, as that included in the Public Service Reform Bill. I want to make my personal position clear. In supporting the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the amendment, I do not do so for the logic that he has used in presenting the amendment. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.25) —As the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) indicated, this legislation has obviously caused some concern in terms of its political agenda. I will speak about that in a moment. Firstly, I acknowledge the contribution of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). I think that he reflects what a number of Government members feel-that there ought to be a position within the Opposition that recognises the role that women play, and may play, in the community. It is unfortunate that the Opposition has, to some extent, been pressed into taking a very negative attitude towards the legislation. Today's events amply illustrate that the Opposition is not only out of touch with its own community but also it is out of touch with its own constituency in terms of some members of the Liberal Party. I think that the difficulty that the Opposition will face in handling the currency of the debate on this legislation is not to be seen as specifically anti-women. That will be a major challenge for the Opposition. I guess that the events of the weekend-the National Party meeting, and so on-will, to some extent, provide further pressure on the Opposition. However, I remind those on the Government side of this debate and those on the Opposition side who are thoughtful about women's issues, that we are of the view that there are three particular aspects to which this legislation addresses itself: Firstly, there is the political agenda, about which the honourable member for Calwell has spoken well, which is about providing a recognition of the rights of women; secondly, there is the economic agenda, which recognises the role of women as a resource in its fullest sense; and, thirdly, there is the social agenda which pays some appropriate recognition to the rights of women. I can see that the wide canvass that those agendas place would provide some pressure for the Opposition as it is narrowly defining itself at the moment in relation to Australian politics and the Australian community. Government members are quite comfortable in recognising that that is the way we see ourselves. Mr Humphreys —The National Party is having trouble. It won't vote against it, but it is talking about it. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As the honourable member for Griffith indicates, I think that the problem also lies within the National Party. It is having difficulty about the legislation as well. The issue for it to address as a party is that its inheritance was one of tolerance and one of the recognition of the rights and resources of the Australian community. To some extent, the National Party is denying its inheritance. It is saying that half of the Australian community-the women-do not provide that equal position and that equal role in accordance with our view of good management of the Australian community. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr N.A. Brown) has referred to the question of quantitative expression and designated groups. What we want to say is that this legislation is about intentions-intentions that we would think are important to try to address in the context of our Australian society. It is not one of a narrow view that women are to be shut out of the contribution of the community; it is a positive view that they have played a part, and we want to ensure that those opportunities are provided in future. I place some emphasis on the word opportunity because I think it is important for the Opposition to understand that, when we talk about opportunities, we are talking about opportunities for people in the fullest sense of the word. I say to those Opposition members who are thoughtful on these issues-such as the honourable member for Boothby, Senator Peter Baume and the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee)-that we welcome their involvement in the debate. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) is absent. She is the Opposition's representative on women's issues in this chamber. It is unfortunate that she and the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) are not here. They represent the inheritance of the Liberal Party. The inheritance of the Liberal Party is one of tolerance and openness-not this narrow ideology that it is trying to put to us. It will not wash. It will not wear in terms of both the outside community, and what it recognises as a good society, and it will not wash within this place. We have heard some extraordinary contributions from the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). I wonder how he would address those in terms of his own attitude towards women. I find that extraordinary. I ask members of the Opposition: Will they or will they not vote against the Bill? That is the proposition. We on this side of the Chamber are saying that the issue is that we view this legislation as being very important. We believe it is about recognising that women play a part in this community. We also believe that it is about giving some expression to the fuller role that we think women should play. It is not tokenism; it is not carping-it is legislation that has been developed with proper consultation. It is legislation, I might add, that fits quite harmoniously within the approach of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) about all matters in relation to the work force. For us this debate is quite easy because we recognise that it is the natural and necessary step in advancing the Australian community. The problem for the Opposition is one that is manifest not only in the decision of Senator Peter Baume to leave the Opposition front bench-that really ought to signal to those opposite that they have got some difficulty-but also within the difficulties it is facing to find its real direction. We on this side of the House are pleased to support this legislation. We are opposing the amendments of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), because we believe the attitude of those opposite is one of anti-enlightenment and clearly is very much out of step with the Australian community. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.32) —Clause 6 deals with the program and that, of course, is the substance of this legislation because it relates to the work effort. It lists the sorts of things that these particular authorities must now do to comply with this legislation, were it to pass this Parliament. It is quite interesting to me because in 1985, when there was a Federal Labor government and Labor governments in most States in Australia, the Australian Government passed 3,031 pieces of legislation and regulation, all, of course, built under the old system-`I am from the Government and I am here to help you'. One might wonder how we all managed in 1984 without the assistance of all that legislation and regulation. My recollection is we did very nicely, thank you. Considering that some 49,000 pieces of legislation were created in 20 years, one must wonder how well people managed before all that. I tell honourable members that I am old enough to say: `Very nicely, thank you'. The CHAIRMAN —I trust the honourable member for O'Connor will get to clause 6 shortly. Mr TUCKEY —Clause 6 is about another piece of regulation, another piece of reporting, another piece of doing all these things. I am aware that my constituents have to bear the cost of this particular program, and they will. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) threw a couple of words in. He used the words `opportunities for women'. He says this legislation is about opportunities for women. In my role as a small business spokesman, the one advocate that is properly appointed to look after that sector of the community, I received a call from a female businesswoman the other day. She happened to run a successful business in Sydney until it was attacked by the equal opportunity legislation. She employed 50 women and she was told that half of them had to be men and it sent her business to the brink of bankruptcy. She currently owes $60,000 in payroll tax because when she put the men on they did not do the work properly. The other day I interviewed some people from a government department where a lady is very angry because she has been replaced by a token black person. The black person is angry-I interviewed him also-because he has discovered he has been sent to that job without any training when everybody else in that government department has had training. He knows that himself. He is devastated. He was sent there by the Government as a token black. The man is intelligent and he knows what the Government has done to him. He now has the sympathy of his fellow workers. That lady wishes that she could be somewhere else but she has lost her opportunity in the Public Service for promotion because of the Government's rules and because of its need to meet the quota, and the Government wonders why. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) should not get carried away with his sad face. It is sad enough in the normal course of events. I am telling honourable members about real live cases but the Government does not want to know about that; it just wants to have more regulation, more legislation and more programs. It does not want to work out how they are affecting the community. This is called, in the community, social engineering. The other day I interviewed some public servants who were very angry with the Minister. I think it is time the Minister went and checked how they all feel about it. Public servants knock on my door and show me advertisements for employment in the Western Australian Government Gazette. They say: `We are ropeable about this'. The page contains four to six advertisements for jobs at about $30,000 a year for which year 7 training will be sufficient. In heavy black type across the bottom are the words: `Aboriginality will be a distinct advantage in applying for this job'. The public servants are enraged. They are quite happy for those people to have a chance for the job, but they do not feel that they should have a special chance. Unfortunately, the Government's equal opportunity legislation is doing that to other people who have worked hard and are now anxious to get the promotion they deserve. The Minister knows about his Commonwealth employment programs. He gets letters from local authorities almost daily saying: `Well, you have given us the money. How now do we find the one legged lesbian, the two blacks and the three others that you have dictated we must have?' The Minister knows that that is a slight exaggeration, but the thing is that these people are being told that they cannot have Commonwealth money unless they meet certain criteria and quotas. The Minister wonders why we are objecting to the minor changes, as the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) has said, that the Government has inserted in this legislation. We know all about the unintended consequences. We know the process by which, step by step, like dripping water on a rock, the Government increases the socialist grab on this nation. It does it time and again. I remind honourable members again of the 3,031 pieces of legislation and regulation introduced by Labor governments in Australia in 1985. This is adding to it, and we have good reason to object to it. We have excellent reason to make sure that the Government does not advance it one iota past the position of the last piece of legislation. That is the reason we are entitled to oppose these clauses or to amend them, as we have suggested. The Government would be well advised to do so and it would be well advised to take a little bit of time off and go and talk to the millions of ordinary Australians who are now realising the implications of this legislation. It is no good telling us. I remember the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) coming in here on the sex discrimination legislation and promising this Parliament that this would not lead to any affirmative action legislation and that the business community need not be afraid of that. That is just another of these promises for which there was a use by date. We put a use by date on all the Prime Minister's promises. Let me tell honourable members about the lifespan of that particular promise because I happened to follow the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) out after those words were made-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor might come back to the Opposition amendments to this clause of the legislation. Mr TUCKEY —I am talking to the clause. I know what it is about. It is about programs, and a bit more. The CHAIRMAN —It would help the Committee to hear your opinion on that. Mr TUCKEY —Susan Ryan said as I walked out the door: `Now for affirmative action'. I heard her. She was straight into it. That is so much for the Prime Minister's promise that there will be no capital gains tax. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will deal with the clause here. It is not about affirmative action or capital gains tax. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Chairman, you could have fooled me in terms of the affirmative action approach. As far as I am concerned, this program is about affirmative action. But I point out that it is affirmative action in certain cases. We are attempting to amend clause 6, which is about social engineering. It is about costs to public authorities which will have to spend more money which they will have to raise from members of the community; this will add to the $71,000m tax burden the Government has imposed on them this year. There will be little benefit for employees because all of them-as others have complained to me, and I have evidenced so far-will be disadvantaged. Employers will be forced to accept token people from outside the organisations. Employees opportunities for promotion, which they have worked hard for with their loyalty to those organisations, are now at risk. We want to limit that risk as much as possible. We want to limit it for female employees and for female employers-a class that I am interested in, as many of them are small business people. We want to limit the risk to them. There is every reason for everybody in this Parliament to support these amendments to see that we at least get a fairer system. Mr MILES(Braddon)(8.40) —This legislation essentially goes across the border from equal opportunity to become affirmative action. That is what this clause is all about, which is why we are debating it. We heard the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations say a little while ago that this clause is very similar to the clause in the previous legislation, but he never said that it was the same. Why has the Government changed the wording in this legislation, so that it it is just this little bit different, but goes another step down the track to setting targets in affirmative action legislation? It has crossed over the demarcation line between what rational, logical people would call equal opportunity and what they would distinguish as affirmative action programs, where people in businesses and authorities will be told to set a target and work towards it. This is affirmative action. There has been quite a debate about this clause in the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 and the clause in the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. I want to go back to the 1986 Bill, which states that `forward estimates means a quantitative measure or aim'. There was a choice for the employers to decide whether they implemented a quantitative measure or an aim; whether they expressed it in numerical or general terms. There was that option. It was possible not to set a specific target. The legislation we are debating today says `to set the quantitative' which means to set numerical terms. There is no choice. There was a choice in the last Bill, but there is no choice this time. Secondly, following on from what the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) was talking about, it appeared that the Australian Labor Party had a monopoly on concern for women. That is not the case. The coalition is sensitive to the needs of women and regards the work-place as a place where everybody, regardless of colour, creed or sex, should be able to progress unhindered according to their skills, abilities and personal qualities. We agree that there should be equal opportunity. We certainly desire that women should be able to make their choices freely and should have the freedom and opportunity to be fulfilled as people. That is what equal opportunity is all about. The coalition believes that women should be active and full participants in our culture and society. We do not resile from that. We are concerned about that and believe that it should occur in a natural progression in our society. It should not be something which governments impose upon organisations, whether they be authorities or private business. It is not the role of governments to force employers to take on certain levels of people, whether they be Torres Strait Islanders or Aborigines. These things should occur, but they should not be imposed by governments. Why should the Government have the moral high ground in regard to this matter? Why does it think that it can do this instead of people naturally out there in the work place? I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that Australia is a very tolerant society. It is a society known for being concerned about people having a fair go. I am sure that employers and people in authorities as Australia progresses-it certainly is progressing in this field in a very natural and harmonious way-think it is totally unnecessary for a government to bring down this sort of legislation. As I said, this legislation and the clause we are now debating are quite different from what we had last year. That has changed the nature of this Bill from that of an equal opportunity Bill to that of an affirmative action Bill. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(8.46) —The Government does not accept these amendments. It rejects them for reasons which have already been well referred to, particularly by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). Let me make it clear that this legislation requires no quotas. The point I made in summing up in the second reading debate and which again is relevant to this clause is that there is a quite specific requirement under the legislation, which I will reiterate for those who might have missed it earlier, under clause 3 (4) that: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. So it is quite clear that the merit principle remains and that all that is desired to be achieved by this legislation is to ensure that the merit principle can operate fully. There is no positive discrimination. It simply seeks the elimination of discrimination against people which prevents them getting jobs on merit. That is what this legislation is about. It is a nonsense to argue that it means anything other than that, particularly when there is a quite clear reference, as I have just said, in clause 3 (4) to the fact that nothing in it changes the merit principle. Indeed, as I emphasised in the second reading speech in introducing the legislation, it is designed to reinforce the merit principle. So there is really a non-argument in that sense. Moving from that point, the argument then becomes: `Why have we changed the definition from what was in the affirmative action legislation to what is in the Bill now before us?' Of course, as the honourable member for Boothby mentioned, two pieces of legislation precede this-the Public Service Act amendment of 1984 and the affirmative action legislation of 1986. Both pieces of legislation were supported by the Opposition. In the Public Service Act amendment of 1984 which put the requirements in regard to equal employment opportunity for the Australian Public Service on departments and authorities in statutory relationship to the Public Service Board, it is made clear that there is a requirement on them to develop programs and that programs include the quantitative or other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. As the honourable member for Boothby said, the definition which is now before us in this legislation is a virtual lift-out of what was in the 1984 legislation, which was supported then by the Opposition. The Opposition says: `We voted for two different definitions in the past. Now you have given us the first one we voted for, but we want the second'. What an incredible position to be in. One cannot take those opposite seriously. It shows they are desperate to find reasons to vote against the legislation, for reasons we canvassed earlier in the debate and which I will not go into again. The honourable member for Calwell also made an important point which is that the proposed amendments would eliminate reference to designated groups, which would mean that there would be no programs in relation to Aborigines, disabled persons or non-English speaking migrants. We believe that that would be wrong. The intention of this legislation, as with the Public Service Act amendment of 1984, is to apply not only to women but to those designated groups. The definition of a `designated group' in this legislation is the same as that in the Public Service Act. We would certainly say that such designated groups should be included in this legislation. The fact that the Opposition wants to take them out of this legislation apparently by the amendment-- Mr N.A. Brown —Not so. Absolute rubbish! Mr WILLIS —That is exactly what it does. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says the Opposition does not want to do that. All I can say is that if Opposition members do not want to do it they do not know what they are moving, because what they are doing by moving this amendment would eliminate reference to designated groups. We do not accept that. We most certainly reject these amendments and support the original legislation. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(8.51) —Mr Chairman-- Dr Theophanous —Come on! Mr N.A. Brown —It's all right for you to speak, isn't it? It is certainly not the intention to exclude designated groups. Of course, the Minister was present in the chamber only to deliver the second reading speech and his reply. If he had been here to hear the debate he would have heard me say many times during my speech that if this Bill contained a similar provision to that in the 1986 Act we would vote for it. We have asked for some explanation as to why the language was changed. It was appropriate to use the wording in the 1986 Act as recently as October or November of last year. For some reason, and no reason has been given, the language has changed. There is certainly no intention on our part to deny to the so-called `designated groups' equal employment opportunity. We have said time and again that we support equal employment opportunity. If the Government introduced a genuine equal employment opportunity Bill we would vote for it. We have voted for such a Bill in the past; we would vote for such a Bill in the future. All the Minister has to do is introduce such a Bill. If he is not satisfied with the amendment that we have proposed to achieve that objective, which simply gives the Government a chance to re-enact the same provision that it put into its own Act last year, he should move his own amendment to the same effect. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 7 and 8-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 9 (Annual program report). Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(8.53) —I move: (4) Clause 9, page 6, after subclause (3) insert the following subclause: (3a) Where a relevant authority has lodged a program report with the Board, the responsible Minister shall: (a) if the report fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act, by notice in writing, request the authority to lodge a further report with the Board within such period as is specified in the notice; and (b) if the report or further report, as the case may be, satisfies the requirements of this Act, cause a copy of the report or further report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Board receives the report or further report. This amendment relates to reporting. It proposes the insertion of an additional sub-clause which, very briefly, would require the responsible Minister to table in the Parliament a report on the equal opportunity program in the authority when that report has been given not to the Minister but to the Public Service Board. Clause 9 of the Bill deals with reporting. It contains a series of provisions requiring the relevant Commonwealth authorities subjected to the operation of this Bill to report. That is a good principle and we acknowledge that if we are going to have this law and if the authorities are going to implement equal employment opportunity programs, they should report. The authority is required to lodge its report with the Minister or with the Public Service Board as the case may be, because a choice is given to the authority to elect under clause 8 whether it will report to its Minister or to the Public Service Board. Clause 9, as I have said, goes on to provide that, if they report to the Minister, the Minister has to table that report in the Parliament within 15 sitting days, and then we will all be better informed, even if no wiser, as to what the authority has been up to. That provision does not seem to apply to those cases where the authority decides to report to the Public Service Board. That would seem to call for some explanation, and it is why I inquired of staff members at the office of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) as to the situation in that respect and was informed that they did not know. We ask now: What is the reason? We propose an amendment so that we will all be better informed, even if no wiser, in those cases also where the authority reports not to the Minister but to the Public Service Board. We will give the Government the opportunity of simply improving the reporting procedures, because that is really all that it does. We would like some explanation for this, and there may well be one. If these authorities are to implement these programs, it is appropriate that the Parliament should see the report, and we should not have authorities in a position where they can elect to report to the Public Service Board and then not be under an obligation to have that report tabled in the Parliament. It is for those reasons that we are of the view that there should be this additional provision. It should be remembered that there are some very heavy reporting obligations on private employers and higher education institutions under the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. They have to produce a public report; they really have no choice. They also have to produce a confidential report which has more detail in it, and that of course is not made public. If that is to be the case with respect to private employers, it should be the case also with respect to public employers, including these authorities. There may be some explanation for the difference, but it seems that it would improve the reporting process if this amendment were accepted. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(8.57) —The position of statutory authorities which are in statutory relationship to the Public Service Board is the same as that of departments; that is, they are required to make a report to the Public Service Board by the Public Service Act amendments of 1984. The Board is then required to report to the Prime Minister, and that report is tabled in Parliament as part of the annual report. The situation that we face in relation to the statutory authorities covered by this legislation which are not in statutory relationship to the Board is that they can be treated in two ways under the legislation as it now stands. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) mentioned, they can elect to report to the Minister, in which case the Minister shall table that report in the Parliament within 15 sitting days. Alternatively, they can adopt the same procedure as that which applies to other statutory authorities in statutory relationship to the Board and to Public Service departments, and that is to report to the Public Service Board and then, as I mentioned, a report will be made to the Prime Minister and from there to the Parliament. We gave the authorities that choice because we believed it would be appropriate to give them the chance, if they so desired, to be treated the same as other statutory authorities in relationship to the Board. There is, however, a feeling on the part of at least some of those authorities that they would much prefer to report to their Ministers rather than to the Board. If that were to be the case, we believe there should be some report to Parliament, and the means of doing that is to put a requirement in this legislation that such a report to the Minister shall be brought to the Parliament. Either way there is reporting to the Parliament; the Parliament is not being denied knowledge of what is going on. If the report is made to the Minister, the Minister is required by this legislation to report to the Parliament. Alternatively, if it is a report to the Public Service Board, as with Public Service departments and as with authorities in statutory relationship to the Board, the report will be made to the Prime Minister by the Board and from there to the Parliament. Either way the Parliament remains informed and aware, and is not being denied information about what is going on. Amendment negatived. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(9.00) —I move: (5) Clause 9, page 6, at the end of subclause (4) add `in which case the Minister shall cause a copy of the annual report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the annual report'. This amendment proposes to add words to the end of sub-clause (4), which covers those cases where the authority decides to give its equal employment opportunity report, not separately, but as part of the annual report which it would otherwise make. The effect of this amendment will be to require the annual report in that case to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the Minister receives the annual report. There is no objection on our part to the equal employment opportunity program report being included in the annual report of the authority. That is not the point. It seems on reading the Bill-no explanation to the contrary has been given-that what can happen is that the equal employment opportunity report can be included in the annual report and the annual report follow the leisurely progress which annual reports of authorities in this country so frequently follow. In many cases it may be a long time before there is any report to the Parliament on the equal employment opportunity program of the authority. In other words, it is not enough in our view simply to say, as the Bill does, that the equal employment opportunity report may be included in the annual report. That is fair enough, but we believe that the law should then provide that, if the authority follows that course, there must be some time limit within which the report must be presented to the Parliament so that the Parliament will know what has been going on in this area in the authority. As the Minister has said in his speech on the previous amendment, reports may come forward anyway, perhaps to the Public Service Board and then to the Prime Minister and then eventually to the Parliament but, with respect to the proposal we are putting now and, if I might go back to the previous proposal, with respect to that proposal also, we hope that the Minister will give an assurance that in the case of all authorities by some means or other there will be a report to the Parliament on these programs being implemented for the simple reason that there is an obligation imposed on private employers to report. The same obligation should be imposed on the public authorities. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(9.03) —The Government does not accept this amendment. It does not see the need for it. The fact is that we are talking here about authorities which elect to lodge reports with the responsible Minister and which are required by an Act other than this proposed Act to prepare an annual report to be presented to the Parliament. The clause says that in that situation `the authority may, with the consent of that Minister, include a program report in the annual report if the annual report is lodged with that Minister within three months after the end of the period to which the program report relates'. So a time limit is built into the legislation. Authorities can go down this course only if they adhere to the time limits which are established in the clause. I would have thought that amply meets the point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown). There is no need for this amendment. We should stick with the legislation as put to the Parliament. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 10 (Special report upon request). Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(9.04) —I move: (6) Clause 10, page 7, after subclause (4) add the following subclause: `(5) Where a relevant authority has lodged a special report with the Board, the responsible Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the report.'. This amendment is moved to clause 10 and proposes that a new sub-clause, sub-clause (5), be added to the clause as it presently stands. Clause 10 deals with special reports on the operation of equal employment opportunity programs and provides that the responsible Minister or the Board may require the authority to give a special report. A special report is a report in writing in relation to the development, implementation or review of the program of the authority. Once again the provision in the substance of clause 10 is that when the authority has given that special report to the responsible Minister, the Minister is to table it in the Parliament within 15 sitting days. If we are to have this sort of operation it is desirable that the authority should report; it is desirable that the report should be tabled in the Parliament. However, if the Authority chooses to report to the Public Service Board there is no obligation, as things stand in the Bill, for a report to end up in this place and we say that the Parliament should be informed. The Minister has said: `These bodies report to the Public Service Board. The Public Service Board reports to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister then has the report tabled in the Parliament'. I do not know the whole range of authorities to which this Bill will apply. Certainly, by the definition of authority, it is an extensive piece of legislation and will apply to a very large number of authorities. It would seem that if the Parliament and its members have an interest in seeing the implementation of these programs, as one would hope they would, they would support an amendment to the effect that the responsible Minister must table the report in the Parliament so that we will all know what has been going on in implementing these programs and whether they have been effective. The Minister has said that there is this reporting process already. If the Government will not accept this amendment-it does not seem as though it will do any harm at the very least-we invite it to give an assurance that in every case where a report goes to a Minister or to the Public Service Board a report to the Parliament will end up here in a reasonable time so that we will be able to see the implementation of these programs in the Commonwealth authorities. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(9.07) —The argument against this amendment is the same as that against amendment No. 4. Again we are talking about authorities reporting to the Public Service Board or to Ministers. As I mentioned previously, those that have a statutory relationship to the Board would have to report to it and the Board would eventually report to Parliament via the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the annual report. In relation to those authorities which are covered by this legislation and which seek to go down the path of reporting to the Board, the same requirements would apply. Again there is no withholding of information from the Parliament. The processes of reporting would be the same as in the case of annual reports and there is no need for this amendment. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(9.08) —I am sorry to delay the Committee on this measure but I simply want to reinforce this point by reference to the obligations that the Parliament has imposed on private employers. I do this because the Minister has just said, with the looseness of language that seems to have been the hallmark of this whole legislation: `Eventually'-that was the word he used-`the Board will report to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister will turn up here and table the report'. We say that eventually is not good enough. Last year the Government imposed an obligation on private employers under the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act to lodge their public reports with the Director of Affirmative Action within three months. So within the period to which the report applies, the relevant employer, the private employer, the employer in private enterprise, has to put in his report. No doubt the authorities will be on to him if he does not put his report in within three months. That is the obligation the Government imposes on private employers. The obligation on Commonwealth authorities is to have the report eventually. We say that that is not good enough. If the Government imposes these obligations on private employers with a time limit of three months it should place an equally strong obligation on government authorities and government bodies to report. It is not good enough to say that eventually a report on the implementation of these programs will be put in to this Parliament. I suggested an alternative way of doing it which, apparently, the Minister has not accepted. I do it again for the record. If the Minister will indicate that there will be an assurance given that all of these public authorities will make a report to the Parliament so that members will know all there is to know about the implementation of these programs, we will let the matter rest there. It is simply a matter of getting that assurance. Either we get that assurance or the Bill should be amended to ensure that there is proper reporting on the part of these authorities. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Willis)-by leave-put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A.Blanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brumby, J. M. Keogh, L. J.Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E.Charles, D. E. Lamb, A. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Langmore, J. V.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Cross, M. D. McLeay, LeoCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Maher, M. J.Darling, E. E. Martin, S. P.Dawkins, J. S. Mayer, H.Dubois, S. G. Mildren, J. B.Duffy, M. J. Milton, P.Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Morris, PeterFatin, W. F. Mountford, J. G.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Free, R. V. O'Neil, L. R. T.Gayler, J. Price, L. R. S.Gear, G. Punch, G. F.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hall, Steele 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.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Beale, J. H. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C.Conquest, B. J. Shack, P. D.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. McHugh, J. Andrew, J. N.Young, M. J. Peacock, A. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(9.21) —In considering the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 honourable members would do well to be reminded of two quotations from former Prime Ministers Ben Chifley and Arthur Fadden. Many years ago Ben Chifley told the House: The careers of hundreds and thousands of young men have been interrupted and in some instances partially ruined. There is a break of education, training and opportunity which cannot be repaired. It is perfectly true that experience is gained, but that is not material to an ordinary civil vocation. On this Parliament rests the responsibility of seeing that the right thing shall be done. Former Prime Minister Arthur Fadden told the House: A grateful nation must see that those who are privileged to return from battle areas shall be properly cared for, and that their reinstatement in civil life shall be wisely and expeditiously carried out. It is very much the responsibility of every member of a Parliament to see that the right thing is done by the veteran. The Opposition does not oppose the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill but does take the opportunity to discuss in some detail the four broad thrusts of the Bill, namely poverty traps, Medicare fraud, the review of benefits under the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 and minor drafting errors. At the outset I ask whether the errata in respect of the explanatory memorandum have been circulated around the House. It is relevant that those errata sheets be before honourable members to enable them to follow fully the detail of this quite important legislation. In the course of this debate I will be joined by a number of colleagues-the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who will concentrate on the pharmaceutical benefits as they come within the ambit of this Bill; the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who will look in particular at the totally and permanently incapacitated criteria as they are affected by this Bill; the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), who will discuss the poverty traps aspects; the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), who will look especially at the seamen's provisions among other matters; the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), who will look in his normal efficient and effective way at the assets test matters relating to this legislation; and the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), who will provide an overview. Since May 1985 there has been a wide range of cutbacks and changes in relation to veterans' affairs. In dealing with this important legislation it is my duty to remind the House of the extent of some of these cutbacks and changes. Firstly, the travel allowance was reduced-- Mr O'Keefe —You have got to be joking. The $14 billion kid. Mr TIM FISCHER —I am sorry that the honourable member for Burke denies these cutbacks and changes. He ought to read the communication that has gone out to the Returned Services League sub-branches, which shows that veterans have suffered cuts of more than 11 per cent. They are bearing more than their fair share of cutbacks imposed by this Labor Government, contrary to the commitment given by Prime Minister Ben Chifley. Government members ought to be ashamed of themselves. The cutbacks and changes which arose from the May mini-Budget of 1985 affected the travel allowance, which was reduced by half, to a flat rate of 11.6c per kilometre; the subsistence allowance was reduced sharply; the eligibility of some categories of service pensioners to utilise the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme was terminated; and, of course, limits were imposed on four categories of dental treatment. The Veterans' Entitlements Act contained a number of provisions for a more stringent eligibility, especially in terms of the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner, and the termination of the dependants allowance by way of commutation, albeit on a voluntary basis, as well as a number of other provisions. The 1986 Budget contained an outright attack on war widows. War widows were eliminated and obliterated from the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme, which cut across the very commitment given by Prime Minister Ben Chifley and Prime Minister Arthur Fadden, in a way which I think was very regrettable. That will be dealt with in more detail during the course of the debate. War widows who also receive an age pension had their social security component frozen at a maximum level of $60.05. At least we headed off-in part through the efforts of the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and a number of members on this side of the House-a reducing maxima associated with that decision. Nevertheless, this freeze at $60.05 still applies from last year's Budget. In addition there were provisions in respect of the six-week deferment of the consumer price index related increase for veterans. There was a cutback of 2 per cent to the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme, which caused a great deal of hardship and agony for many retired armed forces personnel. There was the continuation of the assets test, which has affected over 13,000 veterans whose service pensions have been reduced or cancelled. So in examining the area of veterans' affairs, I believe that the Parliament is entitled to look at what has happened over the last two years. That is why I have gone to the trouble of listing the range of cutbacks and changes which this Government has introduced, and which have resulted in the Department of Veterans' Affairs having to carry more of the cutbacks than all but three other departments. Veterans have borne more than their fair share of the cutbacks imposed by the Government. Of course, I must tell the House that veterans are very concerned about the next mini-Budget, whenever it might occur. It is currently scheduled for 14 May, but in fact the timetable for the next mini-Budget might well be altered dramatically, should the Prime Minister go to Government House and should this nation be faced with yet another early election, this time at the behest of the Prime Minister of this moment, Bob Hawke. If that does happen, there will be a new Prime Minister and a new Treasurer, and a much improved, more fiscally responsible mini-Budget will then be produced for the nation. In dealing with the legislation that is before the House, I must highlight the concerns of veterans and war widows in respect of the forthcoming May economic statement. I must highlight that to the House without causing undue concern, because I realise that many veterans and war widows are elderly people who become readily upset. Therefore, one must deal very responsibly with this area of the law. I want to highlight that not only have they borne more than their fair share of the cutbacks over the last two years, but also their assistance, their entitlement, is not welfare; it is compensation. It is compensation for the fact that they went to war and fought for their country in order to defend our rights and our freedom-our very right to have a parliamentary democracy in action in Australia at this time. They are entitled to compensation. That compensation should not be lightly trampled upon by Treasuries, Ministers for Finance or any government, whatever its political persuasion. Before considering the legislation in detail, I want to deal with the explanatory memorandum. I understand that an errata sheet is about to be circulated to assist honourable members. The latest copy of that errata sheet tidies up a number of minor errors. It does not actually deal with an error which I detected on page 95 of the explanatory memorandum, which requires an alteration. The question was raised by me at a briefing, and it concerns the wording in the second paragraph. I am sure that the matter will be explained further in the debate. I compliment the Department of Veterans' Affairs on the detail of the explanatory memorandum. Amendments to this type of legislation can be very complex and it is difficult for us to consider them if there is not an adequate explanation. The Bill will apply in the area of veterans' affairs the poverty traps provisions which are due to come into effect on 1 July. It will also apply the fraud provisions for false information and related matters, as contained in the Health Insurance Act, in terms of veterans who are hospitalised. A review mechanism will be available under the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act. The honourable member for Gilmore will deal with that important amendment in more detail. A total of 219 people still receive benefits under that legislation. In addition, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to alter the way in which the assets test and valuation formula are applied. Those alterations in no way affect the decision in the Williamson case which was brought down last year. The decision was the subject of an appeal, but fortunately, that appeal was withdrawn by the Government. The Williamson formula, which makes allowance for hardship and ensures that primary producers will not have their farms sold in circumstances arising directly from the assets test, will still apply and will not be affected by the amendments. In conjunction with the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), I have circulated detailed information on the Williamson case. That case represented a real breakthrough in easing the hardship which flowed from the assets test. Farmers who are eligible for service pensions will not be forced to sell their property as a direct consequence of the application of the assets test. A degree of flexibility, a degree of consideration, is applied, and that is very important. I commend to those who study the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill, those who may be listening to the debate, and those who may be having difficulty with the assets test in these tight economic times, that they apply for more detailed information on the Williamson case because it has a major role to play regarding the application of the assets test, particularly as far as the rural sector is concerned. Many of the other amendments contained in the Bill flow as a consequence of the sheer size of the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the need to straighten out minor drafting matters in the legislation. I was pleased to note that the Minister in his second reading speech reiterated the commitment to set up an independent monitoring committee which will look not only at the Veterans' Entitlements Act but also at the guide to assessment of rates and pensions, which has now applied for almost a full year and which can now be effectively reviewed through the independent monitoring committee mechanism. I hope that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) in the debate on this legislation in the Senate will provide additional details in relation to that independent monitoring committee and perhaps will spell out its composition and assure us that its terms of reference will be sufficiently wide to allow a comprehensive examination of the operation of the Act and the guide to assessment of rates and pensions. There are many categories of pensioners, including those in the retirement phase of their lives, who under the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act no longer have access to an intermediate or special rate of the totally and permanently incapacitated pension because of the provisions of section 24 of the Act. There have been considerable discussions among the veterans organisations as to how this anomaly might be addressed. I hope that those organisations will make detailed submissions to the independent monitoring committee for it to provide a solution. I hope that, in turn, that committee will responsibly recommend a change or amendment to cover those veterans in the retirement phase who, under the provisions of the Act, are restricted to a maximum general rate pension of 100 per cent and cannot get access to the intermediate or special TPI rate, even though their war disability might further deteriorate, justifying increased pension in those circumstances. Indeed, at present there can be two people working side by side at Borg Warner (Australia) Ltd at Albury, one of whom can be on a general rate pension and suffer a deterioration in his war related condition just before retirement and be granted a TPI pension, which he will keep for the rest of his life, and he might live to 80 or 90. But a slightly fitter veteran who gets through to his normal retirement age and six months after retirement suffers the same deterioration in his war related condition can get only the 100 per cent disability pension, no matter how bad his condition becomes. In a nutshell that is the anomaly which is of great concern to the Returned Services League and to many other veterans organisations, including the Australian Veterans and Defence Service Council in respect of TPI. That anomaly must come within the terms of reference of the independent monitoring committee so that its ramifications and impact can be properly considered and subsequently dealt with by government and parliament further down the track. I do not plan to delay the House unduly on this legislation because the Opposition does not oppose it. However, many World War II veterans are reaching a very critical age and believe that they are entitled to compensation and care during their critical years. They feel that this Government has turned its back on veterans, although the Government has provided some improvements in the Veterans' Entitlements Act and in the repatriation hospitals system. I freely acknowledge and welcome those improvements, but the veterans feel that the range of cutbacks and changes which have been brought forward since the May mini-Budget in 1985, without consultation with veterans, and the Veterans' Entitlements Act itself in part and the Budget in 1986, has led to their being despicably let down by this Hawke Government. They now believe that they should turn elsewhere in seeking to gain real and meaningful support for veterans in future. The commitment of the Liberal and National parties in relation to the veteran is clear cut; it is to provide to the veteran the greatest generosity, recognition and support that responsible government can afford. We stand very strongly by that commitment to look after those who fought for their country; that is whether they served in World War I, World War II or the conflicts-particularly Korea, Malaya and Vietnam-in which Australia was involved. I note in passing that this year will see for the first time a national welcome home parade in Sydney on the first Saturday in October for Vietnam veterans who regard themselves as never being fully recognised in terms of their contribution. They made a highly disciplined and dedicated contribution when they were sent to Vietnam in the most difficult circumstances and conditions. I believe that this Parliament should salute those Vietnam veterans and support that welcome home parade set down to take place in Sydney later this year. The Opposition does not have any specific amendments to offer in relation to this legislation because upon examining it we found it to be keeping with our general thrust for improving and clarifying the Veterans' Entitlements Act, for providing the poverty trap provisions to apply in social security and the other provisions which are transferred from the Health Insurance Act. We believe that in the future, as World War II veterans particularly enter critical years but as all other veterans age, the Parliament does have a responsibility to look after the veteran in a proper, dedicated and efficient way. That is a responsibility for the government of the day. I hope that, as we speak and consider this legislation on the eve of the month of Anzac Day and on the eve of the dedication of the Hellfire Pass on the Burma death railway in Thailand, the Parliament will pause for a moment to look at what it is doing in veterans' affairs and will look, particularly, at the cutbacks and changes which have taken place and will spell out to the Government, to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that enough is enough so far as veteran cutbacks are concerned. To further cut back on veterans will be totally unjust and unfair in all the circumstances, given the fact that veterans have already been subjected to a wide range of cutbacks, that veterans' expenditure is finite expenditure and due to the sad process of natural attrition will sharply decline next decade in any case. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance have no right to come across to veterans' affairs with a series of wide ranging cutbacks as part of some secret agenda held by the Government. For those honourable members who will stand up and perhaps give some assurance that veterans will not be subjected to further cutbacks in the next mini-Budget, if it comes down before the next election, may I remind them that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) told the nation last Sunday that all areas of government expenditure will be subjected to review in terms of the May 1987 mini-Budget. Let us see what happens down the track. One thing I will tell the nation is that if the Federal elections are on 2 May or 9 May, the mini-Budget and economic statement will be coming forth under a new regime, a new administration which will see that the right thing shall be done by the veterans. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(9.45) —As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) pointed out in his second reading speech, the Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill is of considerable significance to the veteran community. Its major purpose is to bring the poverty trap provisions that are already incorporated in the Social Security Act 1947 into the veterans' entitlements legislation. This move was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his statement of 19 September 1985. I will return to this aspect in a moment. The other main thrust of the legislation is to amend the Act and make minor changes to correct a number of drafting errors to ensure that those areas of health fraud which had crept into the system are blocked. The most important provision is that to combat the problem of poverty traps. I suspect that unless people live on pensions or social security benefits of one kind or another or are on otherwise very low incomes, they run the serious risk of not understanding the immense difficulties which face the poor in this country. It gives me no pleasure to listen to those who criticise the poor and in particular those who appear to pass judgment on people who have to rely upon some kind of welfare payments for their living. This criticism is usually directed at those who are social security benefit recipients, such as the unemployed, sole parents and aged or invalid pensioners. It is to the Government's credit that it has recognised the plight of these people and has designed measures to relieve as much of the pressure as possible. Veterans also fall into this category all too frequently. The Government has recognised that what applies to the poor in other categories should also apply to veterans and their dependants. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, there has always been a problem of communication between those responsible for taxation decisions and those concerned with welfare. In my own electorate of Ballarat I have encountered this problem for as long as I have been a member of this House. Mr Tim Fischer —There is a very good RSL down there in Ballarat. Mr MILDREN —I must say that I agree with the honourable member about my RSL sub-branch in Ballarat. They are great fellows. Taxation of incomes is tied to a threshold which, regrettably, always appears to be too low. The low income earner, such as the pensioner and in this case the veteran pensioner, has also suffered from the rapid decline in the pension when his earnings reach a figure above the level which is permitted. To the pensioner this always seems to be a heavy burden to carry. As part of the Government's measures to alleviate some of this burden, the threshold will be raised from $4,595 to $5,100 on 1 July 1987. I am sure that all those who receive a pension will be pleased by this decision. A higher threshold will be welcome and the Government has shown a commendable willingness to make this adjustment. This means that there will be an extra $500 which is tax free. The Government also raised the maximum rebate to $250 so that people who are wholly or mainly dependent on taxable pensions will not pay tax. There are other government measures included in this Bill which are designed to take the pressure off the poorest and most deserving in our community. I have had many representations from people on low incomes, including veterans, asking the Government to lift the amount of extra income that a pensioner-aged or service-might earn before the pension is affected. It must be stated that the loss of 50c for every dollar earned above the allowable level is, to the pensioner, like a heavy tax. When we came into office in 1983 the levels of income that pensioners could earn privately before the pension was affected by an income test was $30 for a single person and $50 for a married couple. This was so whether the person was a civilian pensioner or a service pensioner. These were particularly unrealistic figures. As from 1 July 1987 these sums will rise to $50 for a single person and $70 for a married couple. This is done with some cost to the Budget but the Government is determined that its program, aimed at pursuing relief for lower income recipients, should be maintained even in a period of economic stringency. The plight of the poor grew worse under the heavy heel of Liberal-National Party governments. It is horrifying to think that the recently leaked document of the Liberal Party on its plans for office, should such a chilling possibility occur, includes the removal of the indexation of pensions. It also contained a suggestion that the pension entitlement age for women should be raised to 65. I might add that that would apply to servicewomen as well. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has backed away from this one, but the very fact that some thought had been given to attacking pensioners in this way is disturbing indeed. Honourable members will notice that there is no philosophical commitment to the poor. There is no recognition of the need for social equity as a right. The future of the poor and needy is just manipulable. I find this approach to be totally reprehensible and indefensible. I wonder how truly committed is the Opposition to the time-honoured right of veterans to a service pension at age 60. Given that service pensions and age pensions have always been tied, it would appear that service pensioners would be worse off under a Liberal-National Party government. Without indexation the pensions would fall behind, whereas the Labor Government has been increasing the pensions both in real and relative terms-- Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. My point of order is that no such policy of any sort has been announced on behalf of the coalition. He is completely misrepresenting the position. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr MILDREN —The Labor Government has been increasing pensions both in real and relative terms. Under a government formed by the present Opposition in both ways service pensioners would be worse off, but this Government is determined that service pensioners will not be worse off. Sometimes, and I think it is fairly understandable, people make the mistake of thinking that the service pension population comprises only those who are Second World War veterans. While they form the largest population of service pensioners, there are still those from other conflicts such as Korea, Malaysia and Vietnam where such service took place in a designated theatre of war. Nevertheless, it is to be expected that the number of claims for a service pension will decrease for some time as veterans reach retiring age. That was referred to by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). In the year 1985-86 the number of service pension claims declined by about 20 per cent. This trend is expected to continue for some years. The actual number of service pensioners is expected to peak during the first half of this year. I indicated earlier that I hold great concern for the future of automatic indexation of service pensions under a Liberal-National Party regime. This would seriously disadvantage service pensioners, as was the case during the previous conservative Government. To give the House an indication of what automatic indexation means, I cite the following figures: In May 1985 the service pension for a single person was $94.30 per week; on 7 November 1985 it was $97.90; on 8 May 1986 it was $102.10; and in December 1986 it was $106.20. This is the result of indexation. For service pensions for a married couple, in May 1985 it was $157.30; in November 1985 it was $163.30; in May 1986 it was $170.30; and in December 1986 it was $177.10. That is by way of indexation. Without indexation pensions are dependent upon the whim of the Government, whether it wants to provide it or not. That is the reason why pensions fell behind before. Without automatic indexation service pensioners would always be falling behind. In fact, during the latter part of the Fraser years pensions fell appreciably in relation to average weekly earnings. Automatic indexation also removes from service pensioners the demeaning experience of having to wait for governments to determine whether they will get an increase at all, or just how much it will be. I am absolutely certain that the 406,000 service pensioners in Australia as at 30 December 1986 including the 97,000 pensioners in Victoria, would be appalled should that happen. I indicated that the amount of income that a pensioner will be able to earn will be increased by $10 per week for a single pensioner and $20 per week for a married couple. Even allowing for a loss of pension under the income test, the maximum amount of income a single person can receive and still receive some pension will increase from $242 per week to $252 per week as from 2 July 1987. For married couples it will increase from $404 per week to $424 per week from the same date. The move to reduce poverty traps is in line with the Government's action to encourage pensioners to invest their assets to reduce income. Currently, 19,000 service pensioners in Australia receive rent assistance and, of these, 4,500 are in Victoria. I suggest that quite an appreciable number are in my own electorate of Ballarat in communities such as Ararat, Ballarat itself, Beaufort, Clunes and Creswick and, of course, in the areas scattered to the south-west of the electorate. As a result of this legislation, aimed at reducing poverty traps, single pensioners will be able to earn up to $80 a fortnight and married pensioner couples $70 a fortnight before rental assistance is reduced. This will also mean that a large number of pensioners who are currently ineligible for rent assistance will now become eligible for the first time. Finally, the Bill also makes provision, as from 1 July 1987, for service pensioners to earn $12 a week rather than $6 a week for each dependent child. This is in addition to the $40 a week which a single person is permitted to earn before the pension is affected. I think those pensioners will recognise that as a considerable benefit. Currently this provision applies to approximately 4,000 service pensioners Australia-wide and 900 in Victoria. I believe that this Government has taken firm steps to ensure that the worst effects of poverty traps are reduced. This does not mean that we can be complacent, nor does it mean that there is nothing more to be done. What it does mean is that the Government recognises the existence of poverty traps and also the responsibility that it has as the representative of the people of this nation to address this issue. I am quite convinced that further measures will be adopted over time by this Government to provide a basis for a reasonable standard of living for service pensioners and their dependants. I caution those who are attracted by the temptations offered by the Opposition to bear in mind that its record of assistance to the poor, the needy and the veterans is abysmal. The Opposition's recently leaked list of proposed cuts would definitely reduce the living standards of these low income groups. I have great pleasure in commending this Bill to the House. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(9.58) —We are debating the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. I am very pleased to comment on this legislation because of its importance to the many thousands of veterans and their dependants in the electorate of Warringah and, of course, in the wider Australian community. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) informed the House in his second reading speech that the main purpose of the Bill is to introduce into the veterans' affairs sphere the poverty traps reforms announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his statement on 19 September 1985. The second objective is to introduce measures to combat health fraud which reflect those provisions contained in the Health Insurance Act. Finally, there are what the Minister calls numerous minor administrative changes and corrections to errors which have come to light since the veterans' entitlements legislation came into operation on 22 May last year. Before proceeding to a closer examination of the Bill, I make the observation that this Government has treated Australia's veterans community very badly indeed. Mr Hurford —Rubbish! Mr MacKELLAR —The Minister at the table says `Rubbish'. I will substantiate my statement. The Government has introduced substantial and continual changes. While the philosophy behind those changes can perhaps be lauded, they have been managed so poorly that it is my experience-and I am sure that that experience has been shared-from the representations being received in my electorate office that the process of constant adjustment has subjected the veterans' community to unnecessary distress and a great deal of uncertainty. The result is that there is now a genuine and very understandable discontent towards the administration of veterans' affairs by the Hawke Labor Government. I am sure that my colleagues will not have forgotten the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, which was introduced into this House on 17 May 1985 in order to remove the effects of the High Court decision in the case Repatriation Commission v. O'Brien. To put it succinctly, it was a Bill to remove a definition of `standard of proof' which was considered by the Labor Government to be too generous. I am sure that my colleagues will also recall that it was the coalition parties which were responsible for the insertion into that Bill of a sunset clause so that the changes to the standard of proof would cease six months after the commencement of the Act-a device which forced the Government to address this most important matter in a more responsible manner than it otherwise would have done. Then, in October 1985, we saw the new Veterans' Entitlements Bill, a Bill, it was said, to simplify, consolidate and rationalise the repatriation legislation. Let us see what the President of the Repatriation Commission tells us in his 1985-86 annual report. He said: The new Act is not perfect, but represents an acceptable compromise basis for administration of the various Veterans programs. The experience of this Parliament would suggest that such wording is an ominous portent of legislation that is not really appropriate to today's needs and which will require ongoing adjustments and changes. Surely that process is already occurring in this amending Bill before us today, which contains 83 clauses, the majority of which are to correct errors and other administrative adjustments. This, let me remind the House, is in legislation which is not yet 12 months old. Looking directly at the health fraud provisions in the Bill, we see that there is not considered to be direct financial impact from the changes-a factor which must be gratifying to the veterans community as an indication that they are regarded as a group of responsible people who are not involved in health fraud. It is a shame that the Department of Veterans' Affairs does not show them a similar degree of respect in the manner in which the legislation and the administrative changes are being managed, because that manner is one of total insensitivity. This Government was insensitive in the way in which it attempted to avoid the implications of the O'Brien standard of proof case. It was insensitive in the way in which it introduced the veterans entitlements legislation. It has been insensitive in the way it has amended the pharmaceutical concessions available to war widows. It is insensitive in its current handling of the domiciliary nursing aspects of repatriation health care. The legislation before us today makes a multitude of changes which cause further uncertainty to the veteran community. Let us consider, for example, clause 10 and specifically its definition of a dependent child. Just to remind the House, for many years the repatriation legislation defined a dependent child as one who is in the custody, care and control of an eligible person. Along came the 1986 simplified and rational legislation, which altered and broadened this definition. Now, just some nine months later, in today's Bill we find this definition removed and we are returned to the pre-1986 situation and the much narrower conditions which applied then. Thousands of dependent children are involved in these changes. I repeat, it is this insensitivity to the difficulties that these on/off changes cause the veterans that concerns me deeply, because these people are generally older members of the community. Many of them are suffering from severe war disabilities, and the vast majority of them are heavily reliant on repatriation welfare assistance. As I have foreshadowed, another example of the unfeeling administration of this Hawke Labor Government is its amendment to the provisions which make pharmaceuticals available to war widows. Put quite simply, this will repeal the availability of drugs under a specific repatriation pharmaceutical benefit scheme and make available only the reduced range of drugs listed in the national health scheme. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) might be interested to hear that my electorate office has received a steady flow of representations from war widows, distressed that drugs which they have long had prescribed and received under repatriation concessions must now be purchased and paid for from a pensioner's income. I am sure that the Treasurer would not understand that, because he has not been in his electorate for so long that it is a joke. I dare say that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford), occasionally visits his electorate. He might ask his electorate representatives whether in fact my experience in my electorate office has been repeated in his, and whether these war widows are coming in and saying: `What the blazes is going on about pharmaceuticals?'. What these people think of the Hawke Government's election commitment in 1983-that it would extend liberal treatment to all ex-service personnel disabled as a result of war service, and to their dependants-is not fit to be printed. Another group of veterans who will now believe that that commitment has a very hollow ring about it, is all those who have for many years been receiving excellent and dedicated domiciliary nursing care, and now they find that the system is being cut back by new administrative arrangements hich have as their sole objective, a substantial reduction in the cost of this service. The result, put quite simply, is bureaucracy gone mad with a domiciliary nursing system now having to make assessments, for example, as to how many showers a patient might now receive each week. One might think that it is a bit of an exaggeration. I do not for one moment exaggerate. This is the sort of decision which is now being taken as a result of the decisions of this present Government. The changes now under way in repatriation domiciliary nursing care are, at the very best, a callous expression of budgetary restraint, being regarded as more important than a caring and effective nursing service for veterans and their dependants. I acknowledge that expenditure on domiciliary nursing has increased from $10.7m in 1983-84, the first full year of this present Hawke Government, to $17.9m in 1985-86. While the associated servicing figures have been very difficult to obtain from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, I understand that in 1985-86 some 1,017,000 visits were made by domiciliary nurses. This would suggest an average cost per visit of about $17.50, a figure which makes the domiciliary nursing system highly cost effective when compared with the $17 per visit which will be charged by the untrained personal carers who will replace many of the highly-trained visiting nurses. Therein lies my concern. This Government is severely cutting back on a cost-effective system which offers quality health care by way of trained nurses, and will force many veteran patients into alternative arrangements, including the use of untrained personal carers under its home and community care program. Regrettably, it is clear that the Government is preoccupied with simply cutting back on costs and is prepared to sacrifice quality health care in that process. Nothing I have seen from the Department of Veterans' Affairs indicates a concern with these quality considerations. For example, a departmental document simply states that `costs in this area are increasing rapidly' and that `the Department intends to impose controls on the provision of domiciliary nursing'. Where is the acknowledgment that much of this increase is due to demographic factors which are now pushing the number of aged World War II veterans and their dependants eligible for treatment from 320,000 in 1981 to almost 370,000 at 30 June 1986? There is none! There is no mention of it. Rather, I find only the simplistic statement that costs are increasing rapidly and must be controlled. The departmental instruction I have seen goes on to suggest: The intention is to ensure that domiciliary nursing care is provided only to entitled veterans and dependants for the period where it is essential. Is this to imply that domiciliary nursing has been provided to other than entitled veterans and in the past in non-essential circumstances? Where is the evidence to substantiate that inference? One is left to ponder whether it is merely a departmental smokescreen to justify a penny-pinching attack on a highly successful and highly cost-effective health care system. Another of my concerns is that the iniquitous term `improved controls' will mean in practical terms that there will be a reduction in the nursing care received by veterans; that nurse-patient relationships may be ignored in the interests of meeting bureaucratic standards of servicing; and that veterans will be forced into alternative nursing care systems if-and I emphasise `if'-such alternative care is available and if the veterans can afford such alternative private nursing care. One alarming piece of bureaucratic control within the new arrangements is the establishment of nursing assessment teams to assist in advising on the extent of domiciliary nursing car require. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you are a veteran with an apparent need for extensive nursing care, a decision will be made by a nursing assessment team in consultation with a local medical officer as to the amount and type of domiciliary nursing care you require and receive. Once that is prescribed, heaven help the veteran if his or her condition varies and warrants more extensive assistance-back to the nursing assessment team through the local medical officer for another prescribed formula of nursing care. This in no way is to reflect on the dedication and integrity of the people in these teams. Rather, it is to question whether a committee is the right mechanism to determine the health care needs of veterans. It has been suggested to me that some of these assessment teams are already bogged down with assessment and review cases and that this is causing delays in veterans receiving appropriate nursing attention. We are talking about people sometimes in very great need. Delays may not seem long to those who are in good health but to those of older age and suffering the disabilities caused by war service delays can be extremely distressing indeed. Having just thought about that, can there be any doubt whatsoever that my use of the word `insensitive' to describe this Government's handling of its veterans' affairs responsibilities is-I say this regretfully-both accurate and appropriate? I believe, and I am sure most members of this House believe, that Australia has a commitment to the repatriation and welfare of those who have suffered in war on behalf of this nation. The Australian Labor Party, let me remind honourable members opposite, made a commitment in 1983 to treat our veterans liberally. It has pluperfectly failed to do so. While the legislation before the House will be supported for administrative reasons, it must also be acknowledged as yet another unsettling development in four years of totallly uncaring administration of the Australian veteran community by this Hawke socialist Labor Government. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(10.12) —I am in the invidious position of having approximately three minutes to speak. I am not going to be able to get through a great deal. The Australian Labor Party and this Government have a genuine and continuing deep commitment to veterans and their families. We know that the veteran population and the war widow population are aging. We know that the aging process increases the need for care and treatment. Since coming to office this Labor Government has provided increased funds to satisfy those needs. Despite economic difficulties which are no fault of this Government, despite the need to reduce the $9.6 billion deficit we inherited, we have bolstered the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. Spending in that portfolio has increased by $1.5 billion to $3.8 billion and Veterans' Affairs now accounts for 5 per cent of the Budget. This Government, unlike the Opposition, believes that pensions, treatment and other services should continue to be provided through a Department of Veterans' Affairs that remains a separate entity. The Opposition, of course, wants to downgrade the Department of Veterans' Affairs, to amalgamate it. The Australian Financial Review on Monday confirms the Opposition's policy to amalgamate two departments. It intends to do away with the separate Department of Veterans' Affairs by amalgamating it with the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. They are all to be combined in one big department called Community Services-under a junior Minister. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) may bleat about cutbacks but instead he should refer to a redirection of funds to the most needy. Three per cent of service pensioners were affected by the assets test. But the saving of over $25m did not go on some grandiose scheme conceived by this Government; that saving of $25m has been reinvested in treatment facilities for veterans. I think the wider community is well aware-I know the veteran pensioners in my electorate are-of the wonderful job being done by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and his staff. I pay tribute to the Minister and his staff and to all people working for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I particularly appreciate the co-operation that I have received from the Department of Veterans' Affairs office in Newcastle where Mr Terry Johnson has given wonderful assistance in the handling of problems which I have had. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. I wish to inform the House about progress made in information systems developments for the new Parliament House. For some time, the Department of the House of Representatives has been participating, with the other parliamentary departments, in the evaluation of tenders for the new Parliament House information systems. The selection process has been divided into two distinct stages. The first stage involved the identification of preferred suppliers from among the numerous organisations which have tendered for the business. The second stage will involve the testing of solutions proposed by preferred tenderers in a final evaluation trial which will last some months and will be conducted using a network similar to that in the new Parliament House which has been installed in the East Block Parliamentary Annex. A pilot group of senators has been invited to participate in the final evaluation trial. I intend to invite a representative group of members to also participate in the trial. Contracts will be entered into following this evaluation and only when the preferred tenderers have proven that they are able to meet the requirements of the Parliament. I can now inform the House that at this stage the preferred tenderers are the Australian owned and controlled companies Computer Power, as prime contractor, and Computer Corporation of Australia, together with the Australian subsidiary of Digital Equipment Corporation. Preferred tenderers have been identified by an evaluation committee comprising representatives of each parliamentary department. The solutions proposed are likely to have applications in each parliamentary department, and their implementation will ensure compatibility. This will allow members and senators and other users ready access to all information systems services through the one terminal. Furthermore, substantial savings in support costs should be achievable from such standardisation in equipment and software. It should be noted that some categories of equipment and services cannot be fully assessed until they are connected to the evaluation trial network in East Block. As a result of such assessments, suppliers in addition to those that I have mentioned may be selected. I shall keep members informed of progress in the selection process. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.18) —Tonight again two students from my electorate are in Canberra with me to see first hand the workings of the national capital and the Parliament of Australia. This is the ninth occasion on which I have invited students from senior high schools in my electorate to visit Canberra. The two young ladies, who are in the chamber tonight, are Laura Demaio from Geraldton, a coastal town of more than 20,000 people, located approximately 420 kilometres north of Perth, and Tara Woods from Northam, a town of more than 7,000 people, located 100 kilometres east of Perth. The girls have contributed all the material for this speech and, as honourable members will see, both Laura and Tara are very proud of their towns and the schools that they are representing here today. Both towns were settled within the first 20 years of settlement in Western Australia and are now major centres for their particular districts. Geraldton is a major port and one of the largest fishing ports in Australia and will, during 1988, become a city, whilst Northam is a major rail centre in the Avon Valley and the host town of the now famous annual white water classic, the Avon descent. Both Geraldton and Northam are large agricultural centres for their respective regions, with Geraldton encompassing fishing, including cray fishing, wheat, sheep and mineral sand from nearby Eneabba. Geraldton is located on the north west coast and is a port through which pass many tonnes of our primary exports. Geraldton is on the edge of undulating plains backed by quite interesting mesa or flat-topped hills. Northam, on the other hand, is a large inland town and is situated amidst a rich and fertile agricultural district, with cereal crops, sheep, pigs and cattle being the major industries. Northam is also a centre for livestock markets which are among the largest in Western Australia. Geraldton has several high schools, including Stella Maris College, of which Laura is head girl for 1987. Laura plans to attend university next year, and I am sure, from the time that I have spent with her here, that her determination will be successful, and we will see her going on to a successful tertiary education. Stella Maris opened in 1890. It now has over 400 students and boasts a standard of education amongst the finest in Geraldton and, might I add, Western Australia. The principal of the school is Sister Lucy. Northam Senior High School, where Tara is a prefect, was opened in the early 1920s with 100 students and seven teachers, whilst today there are over 700 students and 55 teachers. This school caters for students from surrounding areas and from as far away as Christmas Island, part of the electorate of the Northern Territory. Tara also hopes to continue her education at the University of Western Australia. The principal at her school is Mr Allen Pritchard. Community involvement plays an important part in country lifestyles and Geraldton and Northam are no exception. Both towns cater for all interests from sport to arts and the theatre. Both towns can boast some outstanding Australians, with middle distance athlete Herb Elliott and author Randolph Stow coming from Geraldton and hurdler Shirley Strickland and naturalist Harry Butler coming from Northam. Since arriving in Canberra Laura and Tara have visited the Regatta Point exhibition, the Australian War Memorial, the High Court of Australia, the National Gallery, the New Parliament House site, Black Mountain, Mount Ainslie, the embassies, the Institute of Sport and Civic centre and have toured Parliament House and attended Question Time in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, plus putting in some time in in my office to gain an understanding of the workings of a member of parliament. Mr Dawkins —Were they here at Question Time today? Mr TUCKEY —They were not here today. I wish to extend my thanks to Ansett Airlines of Australia for its assistance in this project and to Stella Maris Presentation College in Geraldton and Northam Senior High School and their respective staffs for also assisting. It is they who select these students at my request as students who can go back to their respective schools and tell their school-mates about the workings of this Parliament, warts and all. I do not care about that because I find that the great problem in Australia amongst young and old is a complete misunderstanding of this place and the value of this chamber as compared to the value of the work that goes on in our committee rooms and the very important things that happen outside this place. I am extremely happy to have both Laura and Tara in Canberra with me this week. They are great and good ambassadors, not only for Geraldton and Northam and their schools but also for Western Australia. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your assistance in allowing me to deliver this speech which they have written on their behalf tonight. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(10.23) —I wish to speak in this debate on an issue of great concern-the misuse of Federal funds. In my frequent travels around my electorate of Rankin, I have occasion to use the Ipswich bypass which joins the Cunningham Highway to Warwick. This major roadwork was completed in December 1984 at a cost to the Federal Government of $25m. Less than two and a half years later, major sections of the road have deteriorated badly. The project, whilst funded by the Federal Government, was designed and planned by the Queensland Main Roads Department. It was constructed under tender by Thiess. There are serious questions to be answered by the Queensland Minister responsible for main roads, Mr Hinze. Either the design and planning was faulty or the construction was not up to standard. In any case, responsibility lies clearly with the Queensland Minister, Mr Hinze. In a road project of this magnitude, it is reasonable to expect that there should be no major maintenance for 10 years. However, the road now resembles a patchwork quilt due to the large amount of repairs already undertaken. The greatest irony of all is that at the official opening of the bypass the Queensland Premier berated the Federal Government for not providing sufficient road funds. Because Bjelke-Petersen is economically illiterate, he still does not understand after 40 years in politics that it is not how much one spends that is important but how one spends the funds available. I am heartily sick of the way the Queensland National Party continually asks for more Commonwealth funds to cover up its managerial incompetence. The National Party evidently thinks that fiscal responsibility is some sort of Milan Brych wonder drug. The blunders on the Ipswich bypass construction are the symptoms of a Government that has become so arrogant and uncaring that it will spend taxpayers' dollars with no thought of accountability. Queensland motorists, who pay the highest car registration charges in Australia, demand full disclosures on the Ipswich bypass scandal. The Queensland Minister, Mr Hinze, must now have a full and public inquiry into the way that $25m of Commonwealth funds has been apparently squandered. Mr Hinze should immediately release all tender documents, specifications and Main Roads Department engineers reports so that the motoring public of Queensland can see where the blame lies for this ineptitude. I believe that the Queensland Government does not build roads with any thought to economies of scale. I would be interested to see a comparison of the costs of building roads in Queensland rural areas with costs in other States with similar geography. The Queensland Government has an old fashioned, expensive way of putting out a tender. It breaks it up into little details so that all of its mates receive a go at the tender. This is far more expensive than the letting of a major tender. It would be interesting to compare the standard of road construction between the Ipswich bypass and the Oxenford overpass. For honourable members who are unaware of the Oxenford overpass, this is a piece of road construction that conveniently gives Gold Coast-Brisbane motorists direct access to Mr Hinze's drive-in bottle shop at the Oxenford Hotel. This overpass was approved for construction in December 1983 and was estimated to cost the taxpayer $2.36m. All of this was Federal money provided under the bicentennial road program. No one seriously questions the placing of an overpass over the busy Pacific Highway, particularly at Oxenford. However, honourable members may well ask why the same project has a network of roads which virtually direct people into the bottle department of the Hinze Oxenford Hotel. One of the major attractions of this hotel is the Russ Hinze Beer Hall. I can also assure honourable members that this overpass is in far better condition than the Ipswich bypass. The Queensland Government has an appalling record of delivering services to its citizens. This is nowhere more apparent than in road funding. When the Hawke Government was elected in 1983, funding for Queensland roads was shared dollar for dollar with the State and Federal governments. Now, for every dollar the Queensland Government provides for road, the Federal Government provides $1.80. Sixty per cent of all capital works of the Queensland Main Roads Department is paid for by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is spending $5m a week to try to give Queenslanders a decent road system. Quite frankly, it is about time that the Queensland National Party Government either accepted its responsibilities or resigned. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.28) —This evening I draw the attention of the House to an answer by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) to question on notice No. 4563. I asked the Minister what were the reasons for the proposed expenditure of $10.8m on a central aviation training college to be built at Pialligo in the Australian Capital Territory for training air traffic controllers and associated personnel, search and rescue et cetera, all of whom are members of the Department of Aviation. The Minister, in his answer, asserted that there was absolutely no advantage in having the college established near a larger airport, for example, Essendon or Tullamarine in Melbourne, and that the present facilities at Henty House, Melbourne, are neither functionally nor structurally suitable for upgrading. Since receipt of that answer on 10 December 1986 I have received information which, to use the Minister's phrase `fell off the back of a Jumbo' and which throws serious doubt on the accuracy of the Minister's answer and justification for the costly transfer from Melbourne to Canberra. I believe that the Minister for Aviation has been misled by his Department for reasons of its own pursuit of centralisation of power in Canberra. The comprehensive information I have received includes the following: Department of Aviation Central Training College Basis of Planning; Department of Aviation Melbourne-Canberra Transfer Program CTC submission; Department of Aviation submission to LAGE Committee; LAGE Committee report of December 1986; Statement by air traffic control staff at Henty House; CTC relocation industry aspects; and a proposal for provision of professional consultancy services for the review of air traffic services training program. All of these documents clearly indicate that Melbourne is the best place for the college, including the cost effectiveness and ease of upgrading the present building to house the Department's new training simulator purchased at a cost of $8m. What is more, further information which has been given to me by an individual who is obviously deeply concerned with the possible misspending of over $10m of taxpayers' money makes it plain that other proposals currently being considered, such as having the College accommodated in Watson High School in the Australian Capital Territory, are not realistic alternatives. Watson High School would have to be significantly modified, including the possible building of a whole new wing to accommodate the simulator as well as considerable modifications to provide suitable training rooms as well as the essential supply of a large air-conditioning plant for the simulator wing. It would be a purpose built building. It would have many other problems and would be more expensive than upgrading Henty House. In fact there is still a question mark as to the need for a central aviation training college as the Department is still to finalise the new air traffic control plan for Australia, which must surely have a significant effect on the way the Department will need to approach training. If, as the Department states, a significant proportion of training-around 50 per cent of operational training as per part 19 of the Minister's answer-is carried out in the field, it may be more prudent to wait until the new system is in place rather than trying to guess or artificially force a system to evolve. However, assuming that there is a need for a central aviation training college, Canberra is not the ideal place for it. None of the five staff associations linked with the training, nor the Australian Council of Trade Unions, support a move to Canberra, which indicates the opposition to the push by the Department of Aviation for Canberra. If the college is located in Canberra, the trainees will be deprived of access to facilities-- Mr Hollis —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. This matter is before the Public Works Committee. Surely, if there is-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. Mr LLOYD —If the college is located in Canberra, the trainees will be deprived of access to facilities that are essential to reinforce their theoretical training. As an example, the Department's own submission to the interdepartmental committee on the location of Australian Government employment, the LAGE committee, on page 4, admits: Both the air traffic control and flight service schools should be located adjacent to airways operational facilities similar to those at which trainees will ultimately be employed to allow familiarisation visits by trainees. It goes on: As Canberra does not provide a full range of operational facilities, it may be necessary to arrange visits by courses to Sydney operational centres. The truth is that Canberra has none of the following facilities with which trainees will be expected to be familiar: Area approach control centre; operational control centre; area control centre; flight service centre; rescue co-ordination centre; a general aviation aero- drome procedures aerodrome; a major airline training establishment. At present all of the above facilities are available to trainees at Henty House in Melbourne because half day or day trips can be organised to Essendon airport or Tullamarine airport. If the college is in Canberra entire classes will have to be transported at the Government's expense to Sydney-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.33) —I rise to talk about several newspaper reports that have been carried today on the various claims by the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee, which celebrated the first anniversary of the nefarious and dubious research that it has carried out. The Waste Watch Committee sank to its lowest ebb, to the depths of cheap publicity, when it created a `Top Banana' prize for what it claimed was the worst wasteful project. When we look at the newspaper articles, we find that that prize was awarded to the Wild Women Surfboards group which was doing nothing more than developing a surfboard that would eliminate lower back injuries that can be suffered from using conventional boards. Not only does this project create employment, but the Government grant, as well as being used for work on that surfboard, was being used to design wetsuits and to implement training programs for women, the disabled and children to overcome the fear of the surf. When the facts come out-we are talking about only $11,000 and it is a worthy project-the Committee will have earned itself very much a prize, the prize of the raspberry. It is an appropriate award for a group of philistines and narrow-minded people. This so-called Waste Watch Committee is nothing more than a hate committee, pledged not to expose waste but to promote bigotry, hatred and prejudice amongst our community in order to cover up and hide the Opposition's shortcomings. The Committee preys on ignorance. In every case only a title is given-no information, no details and no admission that its so-called expose represents less than one per cent of all the Government grants made. It is the cheapest trick in the book, when people are expected to show restraint, tighten their belts and make a contribution to Australia's economic recovery, for this Committee to go out and say: `It is not your fault; it is these odd-balls that the Government supports'. In short, the Committee is looking for scapegoats. Its attacks on trade unions, lesbians, male homosexuals, artists and other minority groups are nothing more than a modern day presentation of the tactics used by the nazis during the 1930s Depression and leading up to the Second World War. Ordinary people may not be able to relate easily to these minority groups; a few may even detest them. But these people will reject the Opposition's call to deny these people their citizenship rights of participation in government programs. This unpardonable sin lies heavily on the shoulders of the Opposition. Soon the list will expand to include other groups which the extreme right wing people who make up this Committee do not like or agree with. Their prejudice, hatred and political bigotry are such that, if they do not agree with any group or any individual, those people are not worthy of a recognised place in society and not worthy of applying for government grants. This list has already grown to include the long term unemployed, because the Opposition has attacked the community employment program as wasteful, and yet that very program is designed, and operates successfully, to put long term unemployed people off the dole and back into jobs. It has also funded many community based projects in my own electorate. No recognition is given by this Committee that we live in a pluralist society. Let us remember that a democratic society can work only if tolerance, understanding and the acceptance of alternatives are able to flourish. There is no recognition that all these people and groups that members of the Committee call wierdos are citizens with rights, pay their taxes, hold down jobs and are members of families. No, they are picked out as scapegoats in a pathetic attempt to convince people that if only these grants were stopped their own economic hardships would vanish. It is time that members of this Committee turned the microscope on themselves to show the people how much time and effort they have wasted-time which would have been better spent on developing policies and serving the people of their own electorates. For instance, if the Committee members looked closely at themselves they would find that Senator Michael Baume himself-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB —Had a Commonwealth car waiting for him for one and a half hours while he was at the dentist. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Sit down. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(10.38) —On three occasions in this chamber-namely, on 18 September and 24 September 1986 and again on 19 March last-I raised the issue of the deletion of 45 drugs from the pharmaceutical benefits list. Those deletions became effective in November 1986. I mention this because this speech should be read in conjunction with and in the light of the comments I made on those previous occasions. In those previous speeches I was critical of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and, in particular, I was critical of the devious way in which the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) effected his savings of tens of millions of dollars while hiding behind the PBAC. Pensioner and concessional patients are now having to pay for commonly prescribed, yet essential, drugs for many of their conditions, such as analgesics, antihistamines and cough mixtures, et cetera. In defence of his position, the Minister for Health commented that six out of nine members of the PBAC were nominees of the Australian Medical Association, a body which, he said, was not noted for helping the Government. The implication in that statement was that the AMA was backing the Government. Let me point out that that was not the case. I received a letter from the Secretary-General of the AMA, Dr George Repin, dated 24 November 1986, and I want to quote two paragraphs from that letter. I had phoned Dr Repin to discuss the issue with him and this response came as a result of that phone call. I quote: Many expressions of concern about the effects of this decision were received by the Australian Medical Association and at its meeting on October 31/November 1 1986 Federal Council resolved: that Federal Council expresses disquiet at the deletion of safe effective simple analgesics from the Pharmaceutical Benefits list with its consequent significant economic impact on old aged and invalid pensioners. I want to offer some comments to members of the PBAC and to other individuals who are on advisory bodies and statutory authorities. The efforts of individuals on these bodies are appreciated and valuable to governments of all political persuasions. The expertise that individuals bring is essential for the better operation of government in our democratic society. However, I sound a word of caution to these people: `Some governments and some Ministers'-and I emphasise the word `some'-`will use you insofar as you are able to be used, in a less than honest way'. I say to these people: `Do not allow yourselves to be manipulated or to be tricked into being sacrificial lambs. Do not allow Ministers and governments to hide behind you because governments will always find ample opportunities to do this if you let them. Retain your absolute integrity. It is better to say ``I will not have a bar of this or that'' or resign with honour than endure the embarrassment of being compromised by a tricky Minister who has used you to take the heat off himself and his Government. In other words, to a man be your own man; your integrity is all important'. What should members of the PBAC do? That is up to them to decide individually. If I were a member of the PBAC I would resign. The sad part of this whole saga is that individually, professionally the people on this Committee are all eminently qualified to do the job. I am deeply sorry that members of the PBAC have been tricked by the Minister for Health and certain senior officers in the Department of Health. Their reputations have been severely tarnished. They have allowed themselves to be brought into disrepute. A previous Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in 1979-80, faced with similar circumstances where the Government wanted to effect savings, did not allow itself to be manipulated and tricked. The then Minister, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who was an excellent Health Minister, did not seek to abuse the Committee, as has Dr Blewett. I know that the Committee's embarrassment is considerable. Notwithstanding the regrets and embarrassment of the members of that Committee, I believe that to a man they should resign. There is no other honourable course open to them. Likewise, Dr Blewett should resign. He has misled the public and the Parliament on numerous occasions on this issue, stating that deletions were for health reasons. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw the comment that the Minister misled the House. Mr HODGES —Madam Speaker, I withdraw. Additionally, documents I have obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show clearly that the Minister, firstly, tricked the PBAC and, secondly, deliberately set about hiding behind the PBAC. He was not prepared to be honest and straightforward and tell the Parliament and the public that the deletions were for cost cutting reasons. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Could I point out to the honourable member for Petrie that he is very close to going across standing order 76. He must not impute improper motives to any member of this House. His time has now expired. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(10.43) —I would like to take a few moments of the time of the House this evening to draw attention to the scope for local action at the grass roots level to protect important heritage and environment values when they are under threat from undesirable commercial developments. Too often it is thought that Federal Government action on heritage and environment matters is the be all and end all of what is required in this area. As a conservationist, I agree that Federal Government action is important and desirable in certain areas. For example, if it had not been for resolute and high level action by the Federal Government in the case of the Franklin Dam, involving ultimately a High Court of Australia case and a wide interpretation by that court of the external affairs power under the Constitution, the Franklin Dam would now be covering a huge area which our action has preserved forever. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef, now again under threat from the Bjelke-Petersen Government with its proposal to sell off Barrier Reef islands to developers, it took the Hawke Government to declare the great bulk of the Barrier Reef as a marine park and thus preserve all of that priceless natural wonder. Federal Government action over Uluru, or Ayers Rock, as it used to be known, to return it to its traditional owners was a crucial step. The Federal Government's action over Kakadu is yet another example. But what I want to talk about here is the scope for local community action by ordinary people who want to preserve perhaps less spectacular but nevertheless important heritage and environmental values in their own immediate surroundings and neighbourhood. My electorate of Kingston, as the House knows, consists to a great extent of recently developed housing estates on a large scale. For the most part, this development has taken place in a way which has not destroyed the character of the area, which is one of the earliest settled areas in South Australia. There are still large areas of open space, unspoiled beaches, vineyards, a conservation park, and so on. Occasionally a proposal comes along which poses a real threat to the character of a particular area. It is on the local community level that such threats need to be resisted. One of the prettiest areas in my electorate is the village of Old Reynella-named for John Reynell, who was one of Australia's earliest winemakers. In fact Chateau Reynella, which is now Australia's oldest working winery, dates from 1838. It has been meticulously and sympathetically restored by the Hardy family and is now a major tourist attraction. But under a development proposal which has recently come forward from a company based in Perth, the General Corporation of Australia Ltd, which I understand is partly owned overseas, almost all the western half of this historic village would be destroyed, including old church and school buildings which date from the very first years of South Australian settlement. And to do what? To put up another huge shopping centre. The residents of Old Reynella, to their very great credit, have banded together to form the Society for the Preservation and Restoration of Old Reynella. They were prompted by this development to attempt to preserve the character of the quiet and charming place in which they have chosen to live. I want to take a moment to talk about the status of this company. According to information which has come from the Perth Stock Exchange and Western Australian Corporate Affairs Commission, General Corporation of Australia has had a somewhat checkered career in recent times. At present it has been suspended from trading for its failure to present a 1986 annual report, a failure which I understand persists to this day. It is clearly not a company which would be one's first choice to carry out sympathetically an operation to preserve the heritage values of an important part of South Australia's heritage and, indeed, the south. I think what one needs to consider is: For what is this being done? In my area-indeed, I see that the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) is in the House this evening-a number of the older towns have been preserved, such as the town of McLaren Vale, the town of Willunga and the town of Old Noarlunga. I believe that in the future it will be to such places that people will be attracted to live and to look, rather than to huge shopping centres which simply destroy the character of the area. I lend my full support to the Society for the Preservation and Restoration of Old Reynella in its efforts. I wish it well. I believe that once the status of the company which is proposing this massacre, this rape, of Old Reynella becomes known, the proposal will be rejected by the responsible bodies, the Noarlunga Council and the South Australian State Government, which I have no reason to believe will neglect their responsibilities in this regard. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.48) —Consensus government Hawke style is the bane of our life. It is becoming a trademark of our nation. Expanding budgets, unfettered taxation, galloping inflation, ever increasing debt, burgeoning bureaucracy, tireless assaults upon individualism and productivity are the disastrous earmarks of this style of government leadership. The practical application of consensus government is unrealistic. The conspicuous lack of leadership by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has confused the nation and created a political vacuum. The attempted neutralising of institutional critics and organised lobby groups by ad hoc type measures is not the leadership style we need. It was Abraham Lincoln who said: There are few things wholly good or wholly evil. Almost everything, especially of Government policy, is an inseparable compound of the two, so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded. This Hawke Government has exercised poor judgment on many occasions. The MX missile crisis in 1985 was a typical example of cowardice of the highest order. The numbers men virtually determined that the original government decision be reversed. Dante said: The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. I think his words aptly described my feelings about this Government's moral cowardice. This is not to suggest party responsibility is necessarily evil and should at no time influence decisions. However, it is on national issues that the test of courage is presented, and it is on these issues that this Government has failed miserably. Edmund Burke, in his speech to the electors of Bristol, said, inter alia, that government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment and that parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation with one interest, that of the whole, where the general good ought to guide. It might be said that Burke's views were enunciated before members of parliament were elected on party platforms. But even that concession does not absolve this Government or its weakness if we consider but one issue and that is the announcement in the 1986 Budget Speech that the ban on uranium sales to France would be lifted. The inconsistency of this Government is legend and will occupy the minds of political historians for years to come. Australia is a young country and we have problems now that people 20 years ago would not have dreamed would have to be faced. The energies and talents of all of us are needed to meet these challenges. Pleasantries, self-satisfied mediocrity and complacency will serve the nation badly. Lord Tweedsmuir wrote in his biography: Public life is the crown of a career, and to young men it is the worthiest ambition. Politics is still the greatest and most honourable adventure. Notwithstanding the high esteem in which his lordship held public office, the reality is somewhat different. It is fashionable in the real world, in the electorate at large, to look down on politics and on those in government. Regardless of how others think about politics and politicians, the arena of government is where all the decisions are made which affect not only our destinies but the future of those yet to come. If we err, we err not just for ourselves but for future generations. Another quality required in government is that of integrity, which is certainly not the long suit of this Hawke socialist Government. The vanishing credibility of this Government is further demonstrated by some of the promises made and subsequently broken. I wonder whether honourable members remember these quotes: My Government will not lift the ceiling on home mortgage rates. That promise was made on 3 December 1985. On 27 November 1986 the following promise was made: . . . in regard to housing interest rates where we made it quite clear we are not going to be lifting that ceiling. We all know what happened. With the South Australian and Western Australian elections out of the way, the Government lifted the ceiling for new loans. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) justified the about-face by claiming that the Prime Minister had promised not to raise the ceiling on existing loans. Mr Slipper —What a joke! Mr CONQUEST —I am sure that the honourable member for Fisher remembers that. The Prime Minister said in his 1984 policy speech: And now I give this undertaking that, for the term of our next Government, the Medicare levy will not be increased. That was affirmed in February 1986, but in the 1986-87 Budget it was raised from 1 per cent to 1.25 per cent. The first of the Government's nine principles of taxation reform-the tax trilogy-was broken first year up. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.53) —The subject that I seek to raise in the House tonight concerns a further initiative of the Government members Defence Force action committee. It used to be the case in the Australian Parliament that the Liberal and National parties were able to create the impression that they had some monopoly on concern for the welfare of defence personnel and their families. Times have changed. Now, rather than being allies of defence personnel and their families, the Opposition has abandoned whatever interest it once had in that area. Thankfully, Government members, through their own initiative, have formed the Government members Defence Force action committee. It is a group of committed back bench members of the Government who are determined that the just grievances of service personnel and their families will be heard, not just by the Government but by the Department of Defence itself. We know that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is recognised as probably the best Defence Minister in the history of this country. Unquestionably, he is the best Defence Minister since the Second World War. His efforts in administering his portfolio have already, in a relatively short time, become legendary. Our Government members Defence Force action committee is concerned about questions of personnel management in the Department of Defence. I do not purport to have all the answers to what I think is a very complex question. However, our committee is listening to the views of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia, which was set up with the full backing of the Minister. We have began to listen and, we hope, act constructively on the very serious concerns that have been expressed by the Armed Forces Federation on personnel management. Without agreeing in detail with all the views the Federation puts forward, I think it is appropriate that the House at least hear some of the concerns that have emerged through our committee. The President of the Armed Forces Federation, Lieutenant-Colonel Copley, has suggested to us a number of matters that he believes warrant consideration. He suggested that perhaps there should be a review of the Department of Defence structure giving attention to matters such as the number of administration levels, the effectiveness of the military command and departmental functions, centralised operational planning and removal of Department of Defence support agencies from direct departmental control. Lieutenant-Colonel Copley's views caused concern because he suggested that the Australian Defence Force has one of the highest ratios of civilian to military staff of any force in the Western Alliance. If that statistic is correct, I would think that all members would share the concern expressed by the Federation. The Federation has suggested that there should be improvement in the lines of communication within the Department to get consultation down to the level of the individual on matters affecting personnel. As we all know, because our business is to relate to people, if we are to have effective personnel management it should be the individual soldier and his or her spouse whom we particularly care for as a Parliament and as a Government. The Federation suggests-and I certainly agree with this-that we should recognise manpower as an investment in defence capability in its own right and not merely as a labour cost. It further suggests that we should debureaucratise government administrative and financial arrangements, and it suggests a number of other reforms. I believe that these ideas warrant consideration. I am confident that the Minister will examine them but most importantly I can give an assurance to the Armed Forces Federation that for the first time since Federation there is an organised lobby group of members of parliament who care about service personnel and their spouses and that we are committed to deliver justice to those families. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.58) —I wanted to make some comments at length this evening about some of the accusations that were made in the Waste Watch Committee report but time will prevent me from doing so. However, I should like to bring to the attention of the House one episode and next week, if I get the call in an adjournment debate, I shall mention other things that I would have said this evening had I the time. Senator Michael Baume, who chairs that Committee, and who has told us all how we must stop wasting government money, should start by setting an example himself. I understand that last week he had a Commonwealth car waiting for one and a half hours while he was at the dentist. Mr Humphreys —How much did that cost? Mr HOLLIS —That is what I would like to know. How much did it cost the Australian taxpayer? This is a person who is on all the news media telling us how we have to save money and how the Government is wasting it. He is wasting taxpayers' money while he is at the dentist by causing a Commonwealth car to wait for one and half hours. Mr Humphreys —Maybe we should give him the banana award. Mr HOLLIS —He would indeed be entitled to the banana award and maybe we could have a special award for the member of this Parliament who wastes the most government money and costs the Australian taxpayer the most. Surely somebody who keeps a Commonwealth car waiting there for so long would have to be at least in the top 10 in achieving that award. There is another point I would like to mention. Senator Baume criticised a grant to academics, apparently at the University of Wollongong. I might say that there was one at the University of Wollongong and one at the University of Sydney. He spoke of $41,410 as a payment for writing the history of the Australian Labor Party. The ALP did not ask the academics to do this work and in fact the ALP was not even consulted on the matter. This was work done by two academics and a grant was given over a three-year period to carry out the work. One would think that Senator Baume, being a practising politician, would be able to recognise and identify historical research which is likely to be of considerable interest and value not only to the Australian people in general but to his own Party. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday next. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 26 March 1987: Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determination listing fees and charges for purposes of the Health Authority Ordinance, dated 23 February 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 5032) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) How many persons in the Electoral Division of Ryan have been detected by his Department's crackdown on social security fraud. (2) What sum was defrauded by those persons. (3) What sum has the crackdown cost the Government since its inception. (4) Will those persons who have been detected be prosecuted. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Department of Social Security is divided into administrative units which generally do not correspond to Electoral Divisions. Accordingly it is not possible to provide the statistics requested. (3) My Department has introduced a wide range of legislative and administrative changes to improve the integrity of the social security system. While some of these measures have largely involved a restructuring of existing procedures, other have involved additional staff and associated costs. Special teams which are reviewing whether clients are making reasonable efforts to obtain work involve an estimated annual cost of $2.9m. It is not possible, however, to isolate the cost of the entire range of measures which include: improved procedures for proof of identity; personal lodgment of unemployment benefit forms; the regular lodgment of forms by sole parent clients setting out their correct circumstances; and interviews of sole parent clients three months after grant of assistance. (4) All cases of misrepresentation are considered for prosecution by my Department. In a similar way those investigated by the Australian Federal Police are considered by them. Where it is considered that there is a prima facie case to answer, that the evidence available suggests prosecution would succeed and there are no persuasive mitigating circumstances, the case would be forwarded to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions with a recommendation that prosecution proceed. Whether or not prosecution proceeds is determined by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. (Question No. 5047) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the annual report for 1985-86 of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) which expresses concern that welfare fraud is not being controlled effectively. (2) Is it a fact that (a) a significant factor in the lack of control over welfare fraud is that many serious cases are not being referred to the DPP because they have not been investigated, (b) whilst the majority of less serious matters are investigated by his Department and very serious cases are investigated by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), a large group of cases in the middle are not investigated at all and (c) this state of affairs is unsatisfactory and can only undermine the deterrent value of prosecutions in this area. (3) Are the guidelines which will assist his Department to identify cases which should be referred to the AFP for investigation unlikely to have much impact on the overall problem without an increase in investigation resources; if not, why not. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) (b) and (c) It is a misconception to believe that a significant proportion of social security offences is not investigated and that the deterrent value of prosecution is thereby undermined. In conjunction with the AFP, my Department has drawn up guidelines which formalise and clarify longstanding procedures governing whether a social security offence or suspected offence is to be investigated by officers of the Department of Social Security or the AFP. Where investigation is likely to be complex the matter is referred to the AFP. The bulk of cases comprise those to be investigated by DSS. All such cases are investigated. It is understood that the great majority of cases referred to the AFP are also investigated. After due investigation both agencies refer cases in which they believe prosecution action is warranted to the DPP where the final decision on whether prosecution action should proceed is made. The DPP lays charges for serious offences under the Crimes Act (1914). In 1984-85 161 cases were heard under this Act. In 1985-86 this increased to 245 and there is every indication that this number will increase considerably in 1986-87. Where there are convictions, there is a noticeable trend in the court towards more prison sentences and longer prison sentences. Serious cases which attract a severe penalty appear to be receiving adequate publicity and demonstrate to potential offenders how seriously these matters are regarded. (3) The guidelines are intended to formalise and clarify responsibility for the investigation of social security offences. My Department has recently allocated additional staff to review and investigation work. This has been a successful initiative. Questions concerning resource allocation within the AFP should be referred to the Special Minister of State. (Question No. 5103) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) What are the reasons for the suspension of all exemptions concerning the performing of aerobatics by vintage and ex-military aircraft. (2) What is required of aircraft of this type to recommence performing aerobatics. (3) Was liability of his Department or any of its officers a consideration in restricting the performance of aerobatics by these aircraft; if so, why. (4) What caused his Department to announce this restriction when aircraft of this type has been performing aerobatics safely, both in practice and in displays, for several years. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No exemptions concerning the performing of aerobatics by vintage and ex-military aircraft have been suspended. However future applications for these exemptions, which must be renewed annually, will require evidence that the aircraft will still be operated within safe structural limits. This policy recognises that aerobatic manoeuvres have a marked effect on the fatigue life of certain vital structural components. Consideration of this fatigue problem in older aircraft has led my Department to ask operators to provide some substantiation that engagement in aerobatics will not affect the structural integrity of their individual aircraft. (2) Renewal of an expired approval can be achieved in a number of ways, for example, by provision of proof that another aircraft of that type has been involved in a legitimate fatigue program and has safely accumulated more flight hours than the aircraft in question. (3) No. The primary consideration was the safety of the pilot and any crew involved, as well as that of the public audience which could be situated close to the demonstration area. (4) Many historic and ex-military aircraft are now of an age when the possibility of fatigue failure is becoming an important consideration. This possibility increases, rather than decreases, when aerobatics have been performed regularly. (Question No. 5116) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: (1) How many copies of each of the Government's Rural Policy Action pamphlets have been produced. (2) What is the cost of producing each pamphlet. (3) Where have the pamphlets been distributed. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The print run for each of the 5 pamphlets produced thus far has been 40 000. They are as follows: 1. On the right path: policies and strategies to assist the Rural Sector. 2. A helping hand: the Rural Adjustment Scheme 3. Cost control: containing costs on and off the farm 4. Agricultural marketing and trade strategies 5. Innovative approaches: resources, research and planning Demand for No. 2, in the RAS, meant that an additional 10 000 were printed. Nos 6 (Rural and provincial affairs), 7 (Quarantine) and 8 (Export inspection) are in production. (2) The production costs amounted to $10 000 for each set of pamphlets in the series, totalling $50 000 so far, plus $2000 for the reprint of pamphlet No. 2. The unit cost per pamphlet is thus 25 cents. (3) A newspaper advertisement was placed to announce the series and to invite subscriptions. To date, 6178 requests have been received and processed. These requesters will automatically receive other pamphlets in the series as they become available. To date, they have received a total of 30 890 pamphlets (nos 1-5). In addition, the Department did a direct mailing (to organisations such as State departments-a total of some 55 addresses) which accounted for 1079 copies of each pamphlet-a total of 5395. Demand from rural organisations (including that for the reprinted No. 2) accounted for a further 7000 copies. Total distributed thus amounts to 43 285 pamphlets. A co-operative arrangement is in place with the New South Wales Farmers Association, whereby 23 000 copies of each pamphlet in the series are being mailed directly with the Association's monthly journal. In this way, 115 000 copies have now been distributed. (Support was sought from a variety of rural organisations but the Association was the only body to respond with a suggestion for distribution. Distribution arrangements with rural organisations in other States are being canvassed.) The full total of pamphlets distributed so far, of the 200 000 printed, amounts to 158 285. (Question No. 5135) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 24 February 1987: (1) How many copies of the (a) Public Service, (b) General and (c) Purchasing and Disposals issues of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette were produced in 1985-86. (2) What were the costs of production of the Gazettes in 1985-86. (3) To whom are Gazettes distributed. (4) Do Gazettes earn revenue; if so, what sum was earned in 1985-86. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 462,884 (b) 202,024 (c) 219,820. (2) The estimated cost of producing all Gazettes in 1985-86 was $3,897,000. (3) Gazettes are distributed: on a sale basis through Commonwealth Government Bookshops and the Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS) Mail Order service; and on a free issue basis through the AGPS Free Distribution scheme. Under the Free Distribution scheme, the following groups are entitled to receive copies of Gazettes free of charge within certain quantity limits: (a) Commonwealth Government departments and statutory authorities staffed under the Public Service Act, and authorities for which the Public Service Board has some statutory role in relation to employment conditions. (b) Members of Parliament. (c) AGPS Deposit and Free Issue libraries (National Library of Australia and State libraries, University libraries). (d) National Library of Australia exchange partners (on request from the Library). (e) Post Offices (Public Service, General and Purchasing and Disposals issues only). (f) State parliamentary libraries. (g) Departmental Secretaries and chairpersons of statutory authorities with Secretary status, Senate and House of Representatives Table Offices (Special issues only). Note that funding shortages have recently forced AGPS to refuse requests for extensions to the number of copies of Gazettes distributed under the Free Distribution scheme. The Free Distribution scheme itself is also under review. (4) Yes; approximately $1,623,000. (Question No. 5148) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 February 1987: (1) What increases were given to pensioners during the Whitlam Government and what increases have been given during the Hawke Government. (2) How does this record compare with the McMahon and Fraser Governments. (3) What other initiatives to assist pensioners were undertaken by the Whitlam Government and have been undertaken by the Hawke Government. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The table below shows, for all categories of pensioners, the standard and married rates of pension applying during the McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke Governments. (3) Initiatives by the Whitlam Government in the Social Security portfolio included: removing the age limit of 21 years on entitlements to mother's/guardian's allowance and additional pension in respect of full-time dependent students; extension of portability provisions so that pensions granted in Australia could be taken to any country; the introduction of supporting mother's benefit (now supporting parent's benefit); the removal of residency requirements for invalid pension in respect of persons becoming permanently blind or incapacitated for work in Australia; extension of eligibility for the standard rate of pension to class B and C widows; the extension of wife's pension entitlement to de facto wives of age and invalid pensioners without needing to have lived with the pensioner for at least three years; an increase in the rate of supplementary assistance from $4 to $5 a week; three increases in additional pension for children taking the rate from $5.00 to $7.50 a week. Initiatives by the Hawke Government in the Social Security portfolio have included: introduction of remote area allowance; introduction of spouse carer's pension and, later, carer's pension (which subsumed spouse carer's pension); indexation of income limits for fringe benefits eligibility; introduction of a single (higher) rate of mother's/guardian's allowance, which has been extended to pensioners who are living apart from their spouses because of illness or infirmity; extension of supporting parent's benefit to a person whose spouse is living apart because of illness or infirmity; extension of supporting parent's benefit to include unmarried persons who legally obtain custody of a child or student; three increases in mother's/guardian's allowance, taking the rate from $6 to $12 a week; four increases in additional pension for children, taking the rate from $10 to $17 a week; and an increase in rent assistance from $10 to $15 a week. Initiatives by the Hawke Government to come into effect from 1 July 1987 are: an increase in the weekly amount of private income disregarded for income test purposes from $30.00 to $40.00 for a single person and from $50.00 to $70.00 for a married couple; abolition of the separate income test for rent assistance; and an increase in the amount of income to be disregarded for each child from $6.00 to $12.00 a week. PENSION RATES APPLYING DURING THE McMAHON, WHITLAM, FRASER AND HAWKE GOVERNMENTS ($ per week) Government Date from Age/Invalid Pension Standard Married Date from Class A Widow's Pension Class B and C Widow's Pension Supporting Parent's Benefit McMahon Government 8.4.71 16.00 14.25 13.4.71 16.00 14.25 . . 7.10.71 17.25 15.25 12.10.71 17.25 15.25 . . 4.5.72 18.25 16.00 25.4.72 18.25 16.00 . . 5.10.72 20.00 17.25 10.10.72 20.00 17.25 . . Whitlam Government 14.12.72(a) 21.50 18.75 5.12.72(a) 21.50 21.50 . . 4.10.73 23.00 20.25 9.10.73 23.00 23.00 23.00 4.4.74 26.00 22.75 26.3.74 26.00 26.00 23.00 8.8.74 31.00 25.75 13.8.74 31.00 31.00 23.00 1.5.75 36.00 30.00 6.5.75 36.00 36.00 36.00 13.11.75(b) 38.75 32.25 4.11.75 38.75 38.75 38.75 Fraser Government 13.5.76 41.25 34.25 from 13.5.76, the same as for standard rate pension 11.11.76 43.50 36.25 12.5.77 47.10 39.25 10.11.77 49.30 41.10 11.5.78 51.45 42.90 9.11.78 53.20 44.35 8.11.79 57.90 48.25 8.5.80 61.05 50.85 6.11.80 64.10 53.40 7.5.81 66.65 55.55 5.11.81 69.70 58.10 6.5.82 74.15 61.80 4.11.82 77.25 64.40 Hawke Government 5.5.83 82.35 68.65 3.11.83 85.90 71.60 3.5.84 89.40 74.55 1.11.84 91.90 76.65 2.5.85 94.30 78.65 14.11.85 97.90 81.65 1.5.86 102.10 85.15 25.12.86 106.20 88.55 25.6.87 112.15 93.50 (a) Backdated from 16 March 1973. (b) Came into effect during caretaker period of Fraser Government but established by Whitlam Government. (Question No. 5162) Dr Watson asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 February 1987: (1) has his attention been drawn to any pensions or benefits being paid directly into the accounts of banks or other financial institutions on behalf of inmates currently serving in Queensland prisons; if so, how many inmates are receiving benefits and for what reasons. (2) If instances of these payments have not been drawn to his attention is it possible for an inmate to be paid a pension by this method under his or her real or assumed name. (3) Does the Queensland Department of Justice or any State Government instrumentality advise his Department of admissions and releases from prisons as they occur. (4) Does his Department liaise with branches of banks and other financial institutions in areas near prisons to ascertain (a) if accounts used for receiving payments of pensions and benefits are being drawn upon or (b) the balances of accounts used for receiving payments of pensions and benefits; if not, would this procedure be invaluable in cutting down on welfare fraud. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) and (3) When a pension or benefit is claimed strict procedures exist to ensure that the person's true identity is established. Additionally, the Department of Prisons in Queensland provides my Department with details of all persons admitted to or discharged from prison in that State. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a pension or benefit would be paid to a prisoner through the direct crediting of an account with a financial institution. (4) (a) and (b) Such procedures are not used since existing arrangements to identify persons in prisons are considered to be effective. Moreover, since approximately 94% of all pensions and benefits are paid by the direct credit method the suggested procedure would not be an effective use of resources.