Monday, 30 March 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr DOWNER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the new consumer surveys report by the Melbourne University's Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. Is it a fact that 43 per cent of those surveyed believe they are worse off financially than a year ago compared with only 28 per cent at the last election? Is it also a fact that only 38 per cent of those surveyed believe it is a good time to buy a major household item compared with 59 per cent at the time of the last election? Are these survey results further confirmation of the community's growing awareness of falling living standards under the Hawke Government and has the Prime Minister brought these results to the attention of the honourable members for Rankin, Chisholm, Dunkley, Barton and other Labor members hanging on to marginal seats? Mr HAWKE —Yes, I am aware of the survey to which the honourable member refers. I would be more than happy to make some observations about the survey. The first point to make is this: The honest point is that there is a lowering of standards in Australia. That lowering of standards is something about which I have been speaking for some time because, as distinct from the Opposition, we are telling the truth to the Australian people and the unavoidable truth is that the world has slashed over $6 billion off the Australian national economic capacity, off our national income. That is not because the farmers, or the miners or the workers of this country are working any less hard or because they are operating less efficiently; it is simply because the world is paying us less now for our primary products, our wheat-- Opposition members-Oh! Mr HAWKE —I notice that my friend the Deputy Leader of the National Party has agreed with me on this. At least he is honest about these matters. He is not denying the problem. In the representations that he has made to the Government he has said: `This is a real national economic problem. Let us have a joint parliamentary delegation to the United States of America'. I pay tribute to the Deputy Leader of the National Party. He does not indulge in the dishonesty of those opposite; he recognises the reality of this problem. I pay him tribute for it. I will at least address myself to those honest members of the Opposition. They recognise the fact that the world, unfortunately-the Deputy Leader of the National Party, like me, takes no pleasure in this fact-is paying us less for our primary products, for our coal and for our iron ore. This Government, as distinct from the other side of the House, will tell the people of Australia the truth, and they will respect that truth. They will certainly not respect a situation where people like the honourable member for Mayo would seek to go around this country and delude them and say: `No, that $6 billion is just a figment of the Prime Minister's imagination'. It is not a figment of the imagination of the Deputy Leader of the National Party and it is not a figment of my imagination; it is the unavoidable fact. If the Opposition wants to take some pleasure from the fact that the world is paying us less and has cut $6 billion off our national income, it is not the members in the seats to which the honourable member refers who will have to worry; it will be the honourable member and people like him because the electors of Australia, fortunately, are significantly more intelligent and straightforward than to fall for the nonsense that the Opposition talks about. Of course I acknowledge that there has been a fall in living standards. The difference between this side of the House and the other is not only that we recognise that fact but also that we adopt economic policies which are calculated to deal with it. If we are to deal with the fact that there has been a loss in this country's national economic capacity, we have to go about the task of addressing that problem responsibly in monetary, fiscal, wages and industrial restructuring policies. That is what this Government is doing, as distinct from what the Opposition is doing. When we put the information to the Opposition last week on the policies it has notched up, it produced the amazing fandango from the shadow Treasurer; the only answer we got was for him to do his little dance around the Opposition and tear it up. He can tear up pieces of paper in his petulance and frustration, but that is no answer to the $16 billion credibility gap. The great tragedy is that if the Opposition were to have its way and impose the $16 billion credibility gap on this country, the drop in standards already suffered would be as nothing compared with the economic devastation that this mob would wreak upon this country. Mrs DARLING —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of a letter which has gone to pensioners in the Brisbane district from the Brisbane City Council claiming that they could lose their rate rebate because the Federal Government has introduced an assets test? Has there been any change in the manner in which the Council rates rebate eligibility is determined following the introduction of the assets test? Will the Minister comment on what is proving to be a provocative and worrying letter for age pensioners to receive? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for Lilley for her question. I have seen a copy of the letter which has now become something of an issue in Brisbane. The facts appear to be that the Brisbane City Council last August asked the Department of Social Security to match its records of pensioners on full pensions, who were therefore entitled to rebates, with our records in the Department. The Department gave the Council that information and only that information. That is, the Council was told either yes or no in respect of each of the names submitted on the computer tape. The Council was not entitled to know any more and was not told any more. Some seven months later the Council sent to some 3,500 social security and veterans' affairs pensioners a letter which told them that they were no longer entitled to their rates rebate because this Government had introduced an assets test. This letter has gone to many eligible pensioners on full rate rebates who are now uncertain of their eligibility. It has caused a great deal of anxiety in the pensioner population. In the first place, I would say that confirming eligibility under the income or assets test was a long-standing practice under Liberal as well as Labor governments and it is misleading to link this exercise to the introduction of the assets test two years ago. I suppose that this is not unconnected with the fact that the Liberal Party leaders in the Brisbane City Council have never accepted that the wealthy aged should be subject to an assets test. I wonder whether they support so enthusiastically the proposition that women over the age of 60 should not be paid the age pension. I am asking my Department to review the matching of those records to ensure that accurate information has gone to the Council. I would suggest that the Council check its list of pensioners with a view to confirming the letters to pensioners no longer eligible for the rate rebate. At this stage I urge all Brisbane pensioners who have been wrongly classified to contact the Council immediately. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister promise the Australian people during the 1984 election campaign that he was determined to keep inflation at or below 5 per cent? Is it a fact that since he made that promise Australia's inflation rate has almost doubled from 5.1 per cent to 9.8 per cent? Is it also a fact that during the same period inflation in the major industrialised countries has almost halved from 4 per cent to only 2.2 per cent? Is it also a fact that prices in Australia have risen faster in the past three months than they have in the past year in those industrialised countries? Finally, what impact has this broken promise on inflation had on the living standards of Australian families? Mr HAWKE —I must say that it almost passes comprehension that the Leader of the Opposition could ask a question such as this because it is based upon the assumption that the economic circumstances of post-1984 are exactly the same as in the time-- Mr Howard —Ha! Mr HAWKE —Let me patiently-if the honourable gentleman can turn off the giggleometer and just listen-and calmly go through the factual situation. The first fact to note is that the Leader of the Opposition walked out of the Treasury office after having, in his five years of economic stewardship of this nation, no external crisis imposed upon him and no massive fall in the terms of trade. His contribution in that situation was an inflation rate of 11.2 per cent. That is fact one. I said to the people of Australia in the election campaign of 1983 and again in 1984 that we were about the job of reducing that rate of inflation. Madam Speaker, the fact is that I delivered on that promise. By the beginning of 1985 the inflation rate, under the influence of this Government, had been more than halved. We inherited 11.2 per cent and by the beginning of 1985 we had brought it down to 5 per cent. Even the distorted arithmetical incapacities of the Leader of the Opposition will understand that is more than a halving. In the last two years this country has in fact suffered a fall in its terms of trade, of the best part of 20 per cent. I think even the Leader of the Opposition can understand that that of course has brought with it an associated massive depreciation of the Australian dollar. In case the Leader of the Opposition does not understand, I inform him that a very significant proportion of what is consumed in this country is bought from overseas. If the value of the Australian dollar declines in those circumstances prices in Australia rise very considerably. But still, the fact is that in this country, in the circumstances of a decline in its terms of trade of the order of 20 per cent, with the associated massive depreciation in the Australian dollar, the inflation rate has still not yet reached the inflation figure bequeathed to this country by the Leader of the Opposition. Those are the facts and it is a measure of the hopelessness of the Leader of the Opposition that he should ask such a completely stupid question. Mr BRUMBY —Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether there is likely to be a continuation of the decline in the Budget deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product in the forthcoming financial year? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Bendigo for his question and, yes, I can assure him that there will be a further decline in 1987-88 of the proportion of the gross domestic product that the deficit represents. I think the honourable member for Bendigo will recall that we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition a deficit which represented 5 per cent of the gross domestic product. In fact in the last Budget the deficit for 1986-87 was brought down to 1 1/2 per cent of gross domestic product. I can inform the honourable member that for 1987-88 the deficit will be an even lower proportion of the gross domestic product. The honourable member will obviously compare that record of fiscal management and fiscal responsibility with what is happening on the other side. From the dramatic events of last week we know that the Opposition does not know how to handle the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has racked up a credibility gap of $16 billion. If that produced a frenzy in the shadow Leader of the Opposition-- Mr Sinclair —Poor Bob. You said there would be no capital gains tax. How do we believe you? Mr HAWKE —We are getting some interjection from the Leader of the National Party. All that needs to be said about the Leader of the National Party is that he has been properly described by the President of the National Party in Queensland as someone who cannot tell the truth. They are not my words. That is what Sir Robert Sparkes has described him as-a man who cannot tell the truth. So that is how much notice we should take of the Leader of the National Party. The credibility gap of the Leader of the Opposition was $16 billion as we spoke in the House last week. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. You have endeavoured to be fairly strict in relation to people being accused of being liars, et cetera. Has the Prime Minister introduced a new means of denigrating somebody as not being a truthful person? In future, are we to be allowed to stand up in this place and say that some outside source has described someone as dishonest or as a liar and that therefore it is valid to use that language? Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister made it clear that he was quoting and that the words were not his own. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I realise that it is the Prime Minister you are dealing with and that that presents its own difficulties. However, are you saying that from now on we can stand up and say, `Jimmy Smith said that the Prime Minister is a liar' and get away with it? Is that what you are saying we can do from now on? That is what it boils down to. Madam SPEAKER —The quotation has been used in this House and approved by preceding Speakers. Mr HAWKE —As I was saying, when we were dealing with this matter last Thursday the credibility gap of the Leader of the Opposition was $16 billion but, as a result of what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, as quoted in the Australian Financial Review last Friday, it looks as though we may have to add another $2 billion. Under the byline of Mr Steketee in the Sydney Morning Herald of 27 March we have the following headline and statement: Chaney diverges from the Howard line on taxation The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, has held open the possibility of dropping proposals to broaden indirect taxes and relying solely on spending cuts to fund large income tax cuts. So there is another $2 billion we may have to add to the existing $16 billion credibility gap of the Leader of the Opposition. We also find that the Leader of the Opposition is not quite sure now where he stands on the assets test. I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition protested last Thursday that the Opposition's only commitments-I ask the House to note this-which carry, as he puts it, a quantifiable cost, are the abolition of the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the lump sum superannuation tax, which he calculated amounted to $800m. In fact they amount to over $1 billion. But it is interesting that he did not include the abolition of the assets test in his quantifiable figure. We want to know, and I think some of the people behind the Leader of the Opposition would want to know, where the Leader of the Opposition now stands on the assets test. Has he finally come back to his original position? His original position was that he approved of the principle of an assets test. It looks as though now the Leader of the Opposition has come back to it. I am reluctant to have to refer again to the Deputy Leader of the National Party but on the weekend the Deputy Leader of the National Party also made a very significant commitment. I know, as we all know, that the Leader of the Opposition was following the proceedings at the Lakeside very closely on the weekend. Honourable members will remember that he had a celebratory champagne drink-but he had it too early. This is what the Deputy Leader of the National Party had to say- Mr Reith —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is on two grounds. Firstly, I ask you to rule on the question of whether the answer is relevant. Secondly, my point of order rests on the grounds of previous practice in this House-I can give you examples-where previous Speakers, when Ministers have continually abused Question Time by taking, as the Prime Minister has in this instance, in excess of five minutes to answer a question, have asked Ministers to wind up their answers. Madam SPEAKER —I ask the Prime Minister to draw his answer to a close. Mr HAWKE —I will certainly do that, Madam Speaker. I just want to draw your attention to the commitment made by the Deputy Leader of the National Party at the weekend. He said: We cannot go on taxing fuel, now costing consumers $5.6 billion a year . . . Removal of fuel excise . . . would require an expenditure cut of $5.6 billion to compensate for the loss of revenue. So I also ask whether the Leader of the Opposition endorses that position of the Deputy Leader of the National Party. In conclusion, I repeat to the honourable member for Bendigo: Yes, this Government will go on, as it has in the past four years, responsibly lowering the deficit absolutely and as a proportion of gross domestic product. That responsible attitude of this Government will stand in stark contrast to the possibly $18 billion credibility gap of the Leader of the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Further to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Moreton, I have looked at page 459 of House of Representatives Practice and I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the quotation that he made. I read to the House the advice given in House of Representatives Practice which states: A Member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of putting them in somebody else's mouth . . . or in the course of quotation. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw. Mr HAWKE —I withdraw, Madam Speaker. Mr BEALE —Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware that some major savings banks have stated that, unless they receive a $200m subsidy as from next Thursday, housing interest rates for new loans are expected to rise from their current level of 15 1/2 per cent to 16 per cent or higher or that alternatively they will ration funds for home lending? What does the Minister intend to do about this further financial imposition on Australian families? Mr WEST —As far as the 13 1/2 per cent interest rate on loans made before April last year is concerned, the Government and the Prime Minister have made it perfectly plain that that rate will remain. As to the subsidy, the Government is considering its position and will make known its decision in due course. As far as the attitude of the savings banks is concerned, I make this point to the House: The banks do not seem to be acting in accord with each other. They do not seem to have a measure of unity on the issue. It is true that some savings banks have been making reference to what might happen in the event of the 13 1/2 per cent regulated rate remaining in place, as indeed it will. If, in tandem with that, no subsidy were offered, some banks have been making statements about what might happen in regard to both interest rates and lending levels. But my attention is drawn to the point that the banks are not acting in accord on this issue. I draw the attention of the House to the statement by Mr Bob White, Managing Director of Westpac Banking Corporation, on the World Today program, made today, Monday, 30 March. The announcer said: Yes, so Westpac would continue its current level of lending without a subsidy? Mr White said: Yes. We see no problem in continuing our current level of lending and we see no need, at this stage, to increase the rate that we're now charging those new borrowers. So the point that I make is quite obvious: The banks are not in accord with regard to what might happen in certain eventualities. I just conclude my answer by drawing attention to the total lack of integrity and credibility in the housing and economic policies of the Opposition. It seems to be in total confusion, in total disarray. For instance, it has promised $16 billion worth of tax cuts and has made other promises, but at the same time it demands a lower deficit. The Opposition would abolish the public housing program-that is, abolish Federal funding to the States for public housing-and yet at the same time members of the Opposition weep crocodile tears for those who are on the waiting lists. They complain about the number of housing starts in a year. Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable gentleman is responding to a question relating to the subsidy for home loan interest. I suggest that his answer has nothing whatsoever to do with the question and therefore should be ruled irrelevant. Madam SPEAKER —I have found the Minister to be in order. He was concluding his remarks, and I ask him to do so. Mr WEST —I was drawing attention to the fact that everyone in Australia knows what our housing policies are, but we cannot say the same about the Opposition. As I was saying, members of the Opposition complain about the number of housing starts and yet they would abolish public housing. They have raised a question mark over whether or not they would continue with the first home owners scheme. They are unbelievably bad. They cannot agree on any policy whatsoever; their policies are in confusion. They are divided. The National Party is split, the Liberal Party is split and the coalition is probably about to split. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. Once again this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the question. The question related to the failure of the Government to maintain the subsidy for home loan interest rates. The answer is entirely irrelevant and I suggest that the Minister be ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —I have found the Minister to be in order. I presume he is now finishing up. Mr WEST —Yes. It is perfectly obvious that the Opposition has no policy. It is split on its economic and housing policies, it has a lame duck leader and members of the Opposition hate each other with the most unbelievable intensity and ferocity. They will never be accepted by the people of Australia. Mr BEDDALL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. In view of the need to increase Australian exports, can the Minister inform the House of the effects of transportation costs on Australian exports, and on the Australian economy in particular? Mr DAWKINS —It is a fact that the cost within Australia of transporting our exports is a vitally important matter. As many honourable members know, the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation, along with the Government, is seriously addressing these questions. We have already announced policy changes in relation to air freight, we are looking continually at the question of shore based shipping costs and seaborne shipping costs, and of course we have the inquiry into the handling cost of wheat. I particularly want to take this opportunity to refer to some of the attitudes and practices of the State governments, particularly Queensland, where there is an increasingly alarming situation as far as transportation costs are concerned. We have seen the Premier of Queensland presenting himself as a candidate for national office, apparently, despite the best efforts of the Leader of the National Party of Australia to stop him. We have observed, I suppose with a certain curiosity, some of his remarks on taxation. I think that in order to examine carefully his record and his credibility on the question of taxation it is worth while looking at what he does in his own State in this area of vital interest to the whole nation. I suppose what any individual Premier does in relation to taxation is something about which he or she should be responsible to or held accountable by the electorate, but this particular area, where we have disguised taxation in relation to the cost of transporting coal to ports, is of great importance to the whole of Australia. Coal continues to be one of our most important exports and Queensland in that context makes a very important contribution. At a time when we have seen prices received by coal miners slashed it is all the more important for us to look at the cost structure confronting that industry. A hidden tax of some $394m a year is collected by the Queensland State Government in the form of revenue collected by the railways. It is important to recognise that the coal mining companies have to provide the finance-the cost of providing those rail services. Yet, in addition, they have to pay a freight which involves a surcharge-a profit for the railways. This has two consequences. Not only does it represent a preparedness on the part of the Queensland Government to disguise tax raising activities, but also it undermines quite directly one of our most important export industries. We hear many claims about the Queensland Government's taxation record, about whether it is a low or a high tax government. Yet, we cannot make that comparison without accounting for this surcharge, this profiteering, that it has in relation to its railway system. If we were to add that $390m-odd, which is collected quite clearly, quite unambiguously, as a taxation on transportation services, and if we were to spread that across the Queensland population, we would find that the per capita taxation in Queensland was significantly higher than that in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. So much for the claims of Queensland being a low tax government. When we look at the consequences on a particular company, we find that, in the six months to November 1986, the largest coal mining company in Queensland paid $136m in freight charges to the Queensland Government of which $91m was estimated as pure profit for the Queensland Government. Mr Ian Cameron —What is wrong with that? Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member asks: `What is wrong with that?'. We are trying to ensure the competitiveness of this great industry. We are trying to ensure that the industry has the capacity to play its part in circumstances which are very harsh internationally. There is enormous competition for the coal markets of the world. If members of the National Party had a real interest in the security of that industry and its future, they would want to see a greater profitability for that industry so that it could continue to invest in its efficiency and future competitiveness. This is a matter of great importance to the nation. We do not want to see our important export industries milked in this way in order to support the expenditure policies of the Queensland Government. Mr SHARP —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that in Sydney the number of rental properties available for rent fell to only six in every 1,000 in February-the lowest level ever? Is it also a fact that the rental vacancy rate in every capital city in Australia is now below 3 per cent-the rate considered by the Real Estate Institute of Australia as necessary for a balanced market? Given that rents have already risen considerably faster than the consumer price index over the past year, what impact will this further tightening in the rental market have on rent increases in the coming year? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for his question. It is the case, quite obviously, that in a number of capital cities, most particularly Sydney, increasing difficulties are being experienced in the rental markets. I understand that. I can assure the honourable member-I think that he will understand-that it gives us no pleasure to see that position. What I would quietly ask the honourable member to consider are the facts about what the Government has done in the area of housing and also to look at the constraints-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I think that the honourable member wants to hear the answer, even if some of his colleagues do not. I ask the honourable member to do two things: Firstly, to look at the record of achievement-what we have done in the area of housing; and, secondly, to look at the constraints that exist upon doing more at this time. I remind the honourable member that there has been an enormous real increase in funds for public housing under this Government. There has been a 42 per cent increase in real terms. The honourable member would appreciate that that is a very significant increase. I ask him also to compare what happened in regard to public housing commencements in the last three years of the previous Government with the first three years of our Government. In the first three years of our Government public housing commencements were 41 per cent higher than they were in the previous Government's last three years. The honourable member was not a member then; so he does not get tarred with that. That is the record and we are proud of it. I put to the honourable member that it would be pleasant to be in a situation where economic circumstances would allow us to do more, but the major thing that we can do to help the people in this country in general and in regard to housing in particular is to recognise the economic constraints and try to shift the burden from monetary policy by exercising greater stringency in the area of fiscal and wages policy. That is what we are doing. We believe that in those circumstances there will be a gradual downward movement in interest rates through 1987. If we can restore solid economic growth in a lowered interest rate regimen you can be assured, Madam Speaker, and so can the honourable member, that this Government will move to resume the very substantial improvement in housing policy which characterised our first three years of government. Mr HUMPHREYS —Has the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism as the Minister responsible for Expo 88 seen recent Press reports about Expo 88? I specially refer him to the report on the front page of today's Brisbane Courier-Mail headed `Expo documents show lack of world awareness, concern about funding'. Is this report factual? If not, what does the Minister intend to do to ensure that the people of Australia and the people of the world know the facts? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for Griffith for his question. He has shown a great interest in Expo 88. It is a pity that many other people do not share his enthusiasm. The facts about Expo 88 are simply these: We have not had an international exposition in Australia since 1888. To some extent it is a pity that it is occurring in our bicentennial year. I will go into that matter more fully. The previous Government agreed to the staging of Expo 88. We have quite gladly accepted, in fact embraced, our responsibility to sponsor Expo 88 which will be a major part of our bicentennial celebrations. One of the difficulties that we have at the moment is that the States are quite reluctant to appear at the Brisbane exposition. I must say that that is despite the best efforts of the Prime Minister, me and-- Mr Connolly —All the Labor States. Mr JOHN BROWN —Not only the Labor States; the Northern Territory is not appearing. As I understand it, the only State with a firm commitment is Tasmania. The Northern Territory has withdrawn. Despite the best efforts of the Prime Minister and myself in our responsible role and those of Sir Llew Edwards to encourage the States to appear, they are showing great reluctance. To be perfectly honest, it is no wonder that that is the case, given the outlandish attitude of the aged and decrepit Premier of Queensland. No matter what effort we make to get the States to go it is immediately countered by stupid statements by the Premier of Queensland who seems to claim that Expo is simply a Queensland function. It is not. It is an Australian function for which the Australian Government shares responsibility. It is a pity that he keeps making statements such as `All the States are too broke to come here. The socialist States will not appear', et cetera. We will continue in our efforts to get the States to appear despite the attitude of the Queensland Premier. Some statements in the Courier-Mail in the last couple of days have been quite misleading and, in fact, quite mischievous. I have today spoken to the editor of the Courier-Mail to correct some of the impressions that have been given that there is a political argument being waged between the Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority and the Commonwealth Government. That is not the case and Sir Llew Edwards is the first to agree publicly that there has been great co-operation between this Government and the Expo Authority. I cannot say the same about the Queensland Government. In fact, the Prime Minister reminds me that Sir Llew Edwards said that quite publicly on the lawns of Parliament House just a fortnight ago. In the presence of the Leader of the Opposition, he was very laudatory about the Government's involvement. This Government fully supports Expo 88. We consider it to be a showcase for Australia around the world. It will attract something like three quarters of a million international visitors and we are very concerned that Australia put on its best face. As far as the Australian pavilion is concerned, the Government has agreed to a budget of $18m, which is quite generous in the present economic climate. The Australian pavilion will be world class. I assure members of the House that later this week I will be able to announce the result of the Committee's investigation of the concepts for the Australian theatre. When the previous Government agreed to stage Expo 88 it made a firm commitment to fund an Australian pavilion, and to use its best offices overseas to encourage other countries to come here and to publicise Expo 88, which we are doing, but it also very clearly stated that its financial commitment did not go beyond that and that the financial responsibility for staging Expo 88 belonged to the responsible Authority, which is BESBRA and the Expo Committee. That is still the case. Sir Llew Edwards knows that quite clearly. He is quite confident that Expo will be staged successfully and that it will be a financial success. I can assure him, all members of this House and the Australian public generally that this Government looks upon Brisbane Expo as an international event worthy of the consideration and support of the Federal Government, which it is being given in full measure. Mr COBB —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that since the last Federal election in December 1984, savings bank home loan interest rates have risen from 11.5 per cent to a record 15.5 per cent or higher, Bankcard interest rates have risen from 18 per cent to a record 22.5 per cent, prime interest rates for large businesses have risen from 13.5 per cent to 18.25 per cent, and small overdraft rates have risen from 14.5 per cent to a record 20.5 per cent? What effect has this record high interest rate structure had on Australian families, businesses and farmers? Mr HAWKE —The repetition of this type of question at the end of Question Time shows- Mr Tim Fischer —Very damaging. Mr HAWKE —It is very damaging; we feel deeply wounded. For the benefit of this honourable member I will try to explain to him-I hope he is capable of understanding-the economic circumstances within which these movements have taken place. If the honourable member insists on asking this question after the previous exposition I have given, it is necessary to ask him to understand, if he can, what has happened within Australia as a result of decisions taken outside this country in regard to the prices that people pay for the commodities that we sell. If he does not understand this-- Mr Tuckey —I rise on a point of order. On the matter of relevancy, the questioner asked about the impact on Australian people, not for a mob of excuses and blaming the foreigners. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister is answering the question. Mr N.A. Brown —Blame the foreigners. Mr HAWKE —An indication of the depth and quality of economic understanding and political responsibility of this Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia is his intervention: `Blame the foreigners'. That is about the level of competence and relevance one would expect from this fellow here. It is not a question of blaming the foreigners; it is simply a case of pointing to the facts. Those opposite will one day be prepared to accept that the actions of those people overseas-they can blame them or not blame them; it is irrelevant to the fact here-have wiped more than $6 billion off our national income. The Government in those circumstances has had the responsibility of conducting all elements of economic policy in a way which is calculated to protect this country. Unfortunately one element of economic policy-monetary policy-has had to be conducted in a way which necessarily had interest rates in this country at the levels to which the honourable member refers. The honourable gentleman seems to believe that there is some perverted reason which would lead us to have interest rates in this country higher than is necessary. He seems to believe that we got some sort of perverted political pleasure out of having interest rates higher than is necessary. There is no government, including any government that in 20 years time might be formed from the other side of the House, which for one day would have interest rates higher than necessary. It has been necessary, when we have lost that amount of our national income, to protect the economy, to have a tight monetary policy. That is what has happened-- Mr Cobb —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I clearly asked the Prime Minister what the impact was. I have heard nothing about the impact yet. All I have heard is about the causes. Madam Speaker, I ask you to rule that the Prime Minister be relevant under standing order 145. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HAWKE —I am obviously perfectly entitled to explain the reasons for the high level of interest rates because implicit in the honourable gentleman's question is that this Government probably does not know what the impact of these policies is. I have already indicated in answer to a previous question from the honourable member for Mayo that we are aware of the fact that it has had an adverse impact upon the living standards of this country. If the honourable member has not got the level of economic understanding to know that the loss of $6 billion is going to impact, there is no chance for him at all. I ask the honourable member whether he thinks we can just say: `Oh, here is a magic wand. The $6 billion has not happened. Here it comes and we get it back'. The poor, uninformed idiot. Does the honourable member not understand- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will withdraw that comment. Mr HAWKE —I will withdraw the final word. He is a poor, uninformed fellow. It is a fact-do you not understand, dear chap?-that if $6 billion goes out of the country people within the country will be affected by it. It will mean a drop in standards. That is the fact. What we are doing is ensuring that we will bring about the conditions in which there can be a fall in interest rates. The honourable member may have noticed that in the last couple of weeks there has been a move downwards in interest rates. That has not happened by accident; it is the beginning of the evidence of the impact of the economic policies being followed by this Government and gives substance to what the Treasurer and I have been saying-that because of the application of rigid fiscal, monetary, wages and industry policies we will see through 1987 a gradual reduction in interest rates. That is the fact. Current conditions have been brought about by factors beyond our control. We will have the relevant economic policies. May I ask: What do those opposite think would be the impact on interest policies if the Leader of the Opposition had his $16 billion credibility gap? We would have interest rates at 50 per cent. That is why the Leader of the Opposition will never have the chance of being in a position to implement his policies. The very people the Leader of the Opposition talks about see through him and the rest of the members of the Opposition when they try to peddle their voodoo economics around this country. The members of the Opposition are a pack of frauds, obvious frauds, and will be seen as frauds. Mr Downer —I raise a point of order. Madam Speaker, I think you would agree that an expression such as `pack of frauds' brings this House into disrepute. The Australian public has had enough of that sort of language from the other side of the House. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will withdraw. Mr HAWKE —I withdraw `pack of frauds'. I will allow the facts to speak for themselves. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of statements by the Opposition to the effect that the rural sector problems are mainly due to domestic cost factors and not to the international market situation? Can the Minister inform the House of the measures of assistance and actions taken by him and the Government to address the rural cost question? Mr Tuckey —This will be a short answer. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will remain silent. Mr KERIN —I set out the facts the other day in a discussion on a matter of public importance raised by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia-I think it is still the National Party. The situation has been well researched and analysed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. If we look at the downturn in the real value of rural production in this country-- Mr Brumby —The honourable member for O'Connor should be quiet. Mr Griffiths —He'll get more than 28 days if he is caught out on this one. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable members for Bendigo and Maribyrnong will cease shouting across the chamber. Mr KERIN —Let us look at the decline in the real net value of rural production. This follows on very closely from what the Prime Minister has been saying and the Opposition's incapacity to understand. The effect of the world price for wheat means that average income for wheat farmers is down by $67,000. That is the reason why the real net value of rural production is down. It is a factor such as the price we receive for our goods overseas that explains 80 per cent of the drop in the real net value of rural production. If we look at domestic costs and costs overall, it so happens, because of the withdrawal of inputs into primary industries, that the cost factors have not had such an effect. Let us just accept that about 20 per cent of the decline in the real net value of rural production is due to cost factors. Then we have to take into account that people in the rural sector and honourable members opposite have been saying that a lot of this is due to wages or the excise on fuel. We have taken the excise off distillate and that is worth about $260m. Mr Ian Cameron —It was never on. Mr KERIN —With that and a range of other measures we have taken, it is now worth a net $320m-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa has no licence to just keep talking in this House. I refer him to standing order 55. Mr Ian Cameron —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The excise was never on fuel. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I refer him to standing order 55. Mr KERIN —We have taken measures that have assisted the cost side of the ledger for the farm sector, amounting to about $230m. Now everyone is saying that interest rates are high, as if they have discovered a new fact. Of course they are, and it is all interrelated. The next big hype will be on wages. If we look at the cause of inflation, none of that is coming from wages; it is mainly coming from inputs, where they are imported, because of the devaluation. That is why we must have time for the effects of the devaluation on both sides of the ledger to wash through the system. All that the Opposition seems to be able to focus upon is the fact that times are tough. Of course times are tough-we know it and understand it, but the Opposition does not. All that the Opposition can do is nitpick and put up these nonsense solutions. The National Farmers Federation wants to wipe out the excise on petrol, worth $5.6 billion. It would be impossible to quarantine that to the farm sector alone, and to chop $20 billion from the deficit. That is what people in the farm sector are saying. As opposed to this, what we have from the other side of the House is that it wants to spend $16 billion, but at the same time wants to have it both ways. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-section 9c (5) of the Fisheries Act 1952, I present a variation agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Seanorth Pty Ltd dated 20 February 1987. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement relating to progress the Government has made in implementing the recommendations of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, which inquired into lighthouses in 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Speaker, it is not because we are fascinated by lighthouses but rather because this is the text of a statement which should be made by leave that I move: That the debate be adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) claimed that the Opposition's commitment to abolish the assets test was in doubt. That claim was completely incorrect and I will inform the House of the way in which it was incorrect. The Prime Minister based his claim on a personal explanation that I gave in this House last Thursday. On page 1599 of Hansard, in that personal explanation, I was recorded as drawing attention to the inaccuracy of his claim about a $16 billion expenditure commitment. I said to the House then-this is where the misrepresentation occurred-and these are the words the Prime Minister quoted today: . . . the only precise commitments of the Opposition which carry a quantifiable cost are those which were outlined . . . in the reply that I gave to the Budget Speech last year. I went on to say: They are the commitments to abolish the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and lump sum superannuation tax. I further said I have also said-- Hansard records that I was then interrupted by your good self, Madam Speaker, in relation to a procedural matter and I was therefore prevented from going on to say, as I did in my Budget reply of last year, that I have also said that the Opposition is committed to the abolition of the assets test. This is but the latest example-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now going on to debate the issue. Mr HOWARD —Of the lengths this Prime Minister will go to to distort the policies of the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: any proposal to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs would be of grave concern to ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because it would renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your Petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House urge the Parliament to ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department, servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Nehl and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia re-respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many post office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that The House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia humbly sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr Cleeland. 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 that 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 divisions 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 National as expressed in a Referendum.'' And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cleeland and Mr Hawker. 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 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 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it 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 taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 prod- uctivity 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 equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives acts to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. Any your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher. 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 ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until 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. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly ask that the Federal Government immediately divert National Highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. 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, who are citizens or residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students as specified in the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987 (Volume 1, page 98) is a regressive step for the education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge would force certain students (eg. Part-time, mature age and full-time students who are from lower income families and who are just above the cutoff level to receive Tertiary Education Assistance) 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 put an end to the principle of free education for all; That the Administration Charge could stop some prospective students from entering higher education and as a result deny them the opportunity of acquiring an award; That the Administration Charge is an additional tax that will be a burden for students greatly. 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 Saunderson. 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 student 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 Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all. We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987, 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. To the Right Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The housing crisis and its effect on Australian families. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr BEALE(Deakin)(3.02) —For some days now, in one of the most hypocritical and flagrantly cynical exercises of recent times, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been floating the idea of an early election. He is apparently under the misapprehension that the current political climate is such as to create a window of opportunity that would enable the Government's electoral opportunities to be optimised. Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to you, to the Prime Minister and to the people of Australia that for this Government there is no window of opportunity. The Opposition is not only ready for an election but we would welcome it. We would welcome it because the people of Australia are sick to death of the Hawke Government. Our candidates in the field tell me that in their doorknocking, in their meeting of community groups and in their shopping centres, there is an overwhelming feeling that the Hawke Government has failed the people of Australia. We would welcome an election because we know that the election would be fought not on spurious an extraneous issues but on the central issues or economic management and the fact that this Government's policies have started to tear at the fabric of Australia's social structures. The election issues will be about taxes. This Government is the highest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history. They will be about expenditure. This Government is the highest spending government in Australia's peacetime history. The election will be fought about the use of coercive power by the trade union hierarchy. This Government has institutionalised that power in the ill-fated accord and proposes to institutionalise it further by implementing the major recommendations of the report of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. The election issues will be about the break-down in Australia's health system, our rigid education structures and the misuse of our social security system. The Liberal and National parties are dedicated to the creation of a just and compassionate society in Australia. We are dedicated to seeing that those truly in need in our community are protected, but we will not tolerate the blatant misuse of our social security system as it has evolved under this failed Government. The election will be about the failure of the Government's economic policies and, in particular, about the housing crisis. That is why today we bring before the House this matter of public importance about the housing crisis and its effect on Australian families. That there is a housing crisis there can be no doubt. I show to the House a four page lift-out from last monday's Sydney Morning Herald. What is the heading? It states: `The Housing crisis'. It is not only the newspapers in this country that are talking about housing; the statistics speak for themselves. In the last two years housing starts have dropped from about 154,000 to a level estimated by the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry in the year to June 1987 of 118,000. This figure of 118,000 has been revised downwards several times by the Indicative Planning Council but may still be optimistic because last week Monier Ltd, a major supplier to the new housing industry, in comments made on that company's recent interim report, said that housing starts for the current year are considerably below expectations at 114,000 units. What a damning indictment of this Government that, in the last two years, housing starts will have fallen by up to 40,000 units! What a damning indictment it is of this Government and of its inability to create an economic environment that will enable young couples to purchase their first home. What a damning indictment it is of this Government that housing starts are running at about 30,000 units a year below the underlying demand. What a damning indictment it is that next year, according to the Indicative Planning Council, the housing situation will hardly improve at all. Will the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who has at last come to the table, tell the House whether he regards the 2 April housing package of last year as a success? Will the Minister tell the House what he, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) are going to do on 2 April this year? On 2 April last year the Prime Minister promised that there would be 135,000 starts this year, and the Treasurer reiterated that promise in September. Now, only a few months later, we learn that the figure may be as low as 114,000 starts-and this, on the Prime Minister's own admission, means a loss of 30,000 jobs from the housing industry. Incidentally, the Government now intends to bestow a wonderful additional benefit on those subcontractors that remain in the industry. By implementing recommendation 19 of the Hancock report, it proposes to bring those subcontractors under the umbrella of the arbitration tribunals, thus diminishing their efficiency and forcing them to become union members. This craven action, taken in response to pressure from the trade union hierarchy, would add, according to the Housing Industry Association, between $7,000 and $15,000 to the price of a house and would further exacerbate the housing crisis in Australia. The housing rental market is also in torment. Rents around Australia are skyrocketing. Only last Saturday came the news that the average weekly rent paid in Perth in the 12 months to 31 December last year increased by 27 per cent, and was worse than in Sydney. Can honourable members imagine that something could be worse than Sydney's rental upheaval? My colleague the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) will be saying much more about the rental situation in his remarks that will follow. Is it any wonder, with dwelling commencements at such a low level and with rents skyrocketing, that public housing waiting lists have increased by over 60 per cent over the last four years? Is it any wonder that an additional 60,000 Australian families have applied for home purchase assistance? Is it any wonder that 400,000 Australians live in caravans-not because they want to but because they cannot afford to move into a house or to rent? Is it any wonder that 40,000 of our young Australians sleep outdoors every night? The Government's vicious, vindictive and deliberate high interest rate policies and its taxation policies have created a housing crisis for Australian families. The fact now is that, as a result of those policies, this Government alone has imposed a limit on the aspirations of middle Australia. The rock solid taxpaying middle class Australian family is going nowhere. What an indictment of this Government. What a savage attack on Australian families. The Anglican Church of Australia's Home Mission Society said last week: . . . crippling home loan mortgages are the major cause of divorce and family breakdown. This Government's deliberate high interest rate policy and its taxation policies are hitting right at the heart of Australian families. No doubt we will have a tired, colourless response on this matter of public importance from the Minister at the table. We will get the usual nonsense about the low level of housing starts in the last year of the Fraser Government. We got it from the Prime Minister in Question Time today. We will get a whinge about the Liberal and National parties' exciting and innovative housing and construction policy. However, I am indebted to my friend and colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) for providing me with some figures which compare the Fraser Government's record on housing commencements with that of the Hawke Government. During the seven years of Fraser-including 1982-83, which I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, was in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression and during one of Australia's worst droughts-there were 8.8 new houses per thousand head of population. Over four years of the Hawke Government, the number of new houses per thousand head of population per year has been 8.6-less than the Fraser Government's 8.8. Furthermore, if we take into account the forecast of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry for the 1987-88 year, the Hawke Government record falls to 8.4 new houses per thousand head of population. So the figure for Hawke is 5 per cent less than that for Fraser. No wonder we have a housing crisis. Despite the recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression, despite the recovery in the years 1983-84 and 1984-85, new dwelling commencements under the Hawke Government are 5 per cent less than under the Fraser Government. As a result of the Government's economic policies-and I remind the House again that it is about those policies that an election will be fought-after tax incomes are falling and yet, for the family on average weekly earnings, over the last four years housing repayments have increased from about 32 per cent to 37 per cent. For a family on three-quarters of average weekly earnings housing costs have risen from 38 per cent to nearly 44 per cent. In these circumstances it is hardly surprising that the Housing Industry Association, in a report released a couple of weeks ago which used the phrase `housing affordability index', has found there has been `a sharp decline in the capacity of many people to buy homes since the middle of last year'. What does the Government intend to do about this? Does it intend to introduce housing package mark 2 next Thursday to replace the failed housing package mark 1? Are we going to have more of the equivocation that we had from the Minister at the table during Question Time today when he said: `Oh, the Government will introduce housing package mark 2 in due course.'? What does `in due course' mean when Australian families are suffering at the hands of this Government's deliberate high interest rate policies? Will it tinker around the edges of this problem yet again and fiddle with minor changes to the first home owners scheme and to the depreciation allowance on rental property? Does it intend to give a new subsidy to the private lending institutions as a further band-aid measure, or would this be too much to ask? Does it intend to take its courage into both hands and introduce policies that will bring down the average level of interest rates, so making housing more affordable for Australian families? There can be no sustained recovery in the housing industry unless the general level of interest rates comes down. This Government is deliberately running a high interest rate policy because it is unwilling to make the tough adjustments needed to bring interest rates down. That is another reason that we would welcome an election. We would welcome an election so that we can tell the Australian people how the Liberal and National parties would implement policies that would bring interest rates down. We would welcome the opportunity to tell the Australian people that we would curtail the growth of government expenditure, thus lowering government demand for funds and allowing the price of those funds-that is, interest rates-to come down. We would welcome the opportunity to tell the Australian people of our plans to deregulate the labour market, to allow employer and employee to enter into contracts-one with the other-and those contracts would be enforceable in the civil courts. That would bring about greater productivity in Australia and enable us to compete more effectively abroad, thus starting the process of bringing our horrendous balance of payments difficulty under control. That is what we would do. We would not fiddle at the edges. We would not take band-aid measures. We would have the political will and the political courage to do what this Government has failed to do, and that is to provide strong, secure economic management for Australia. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(3.17) —Once again we have heard the usual diatribe from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). No doubt his speech was carefully written out by his research officers. As usual, he gave the impression that he does not understand much about what he says. As I mentioned in Question Time today, let us look at the Opposition's housing policy and at the Opposition's performance. The Opposition released a document the other day which said that it would retain the 13.5 per cent ceiling on regulated loans that were taken out from savings banks before 2 April last year. That means that the Opposition endorses our policy, because the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and I have consistently made it plain to the House and the people of Australia that that is the Government's position. So what is the Opposition criticising there? The Opposition has said that it would retain the first home owners scheme, thereby admitting that it is the best first home ownership assistance scheme ever seen in Australia's history. The Opposition admits that it would keep the scheme going, and it admits that it would not want to retain it. I will return to that in a moment, because the Opposition's position is most inconsistent. It has also said that it would abolish public housing-that is, the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which is the mechanism by which Federal funding is delivered to the States for public housing. The Opposition's policy can only be stated as being absolutely confused and in total disarray. Let us look at the Opposition's position on the first home owners scheme, which this Government is committed to continue. Last May, in the Opposition's original draft policy document, it said that it would abolish the first home owners scheme. Several weeks ago, as I have just mentioned, it said that it would retain the scheme. Then we saw the contents of the secret hit list which stated-as I understand it, it still states it-that the first home owners scheme would be abolished. Then the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin and, I think, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) came out of the woodwork and frantically issued denials that, despite what was said on the hit list, the first home owners scheme would not be abolished. However, we can only see what it said last year. The House might also like to take note of the fact that as recently as several weeks ago the honourable member for Deakin-this occurred while the Opposition was busily saying that it would retain the scheme-made an approach to the Department of Housing and Construction and requested information as to how the first home owners scheme could be terminated as from 30 June 1988. He approached the Department of Housing and Construction and sought that information and the cost of that proposal. At the very time when the Opposition was busily trying to deny the statement in the secret hit list that the first home owners scheme would be abolished, in contrast to what it had said in its policy document, the honourable member was making inquiries to my Department asking how it could be abolished as from 30 June 1988. The people opposite are duplicitous in the extreme. We cannot take any notice of what they say; their policy is confused; they are divided; the National Party is split; the Liberal Party is split; when they do bring out a policy, as they did on housing recently, they cannot abide by it and immediately the main elements of that policy are ridiculed and cast into doubt. Let us now compare the performance of the Opposition in government with regard to the industry. Opposition members complain that we keep reminding them of the fact that they had 105,000 starts in 1982-83. They can complain because we will continue to remind them of that fact and to compare our performance since 1982-83 with the ridiculous 105,000 starts that they attained in 1982-83. Our record in the years 1983-84 to 1986-87 is 137,000, 153,000, and 136,000 starts and this year the figure will probably be 120,000. The assessments for next year range from 124,000 to 128,000. I make it plain that the underlying assumptions on which those figures are based have yet to be confirmed and attested. The point is that our record in regard to housing starts is very much better than the record achieved by the Opposition when it was in office. If we look at the savings bank lending figures, which I have in front of me, we will see that in 1981-82 the then Government got from savings banks only $2.7 billion in a total from all significant lenders of $6.5 billion. This year it is expected that the savings banks will lend $7.5 billion from a total of $10.8 billion. The number of loans from all significant lenders went up from 228,000 in 1981-82 to 240,000 in 1986-87. So the House will see that in the number of starts the performance of this Government is better in the lending from savings banks this Government's performance is better, in the lending from all significant lenders this Government's performance is better, and with regard to the total number of loans this Government's performance is better than that of the previous Government. I turn now to our performance in public housing. The House could perhaps be reminded that the Opposition intends to abolish the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement which, as I said, is the mechanism by which we deliver Federal funding to the States. Currently, we are delivering Federal funding in two ways: We are doing it by way of grants through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, and also through a percentage of the State government borrowing programs being provided at a concessional rate to the States of 4.5 per cent, repayable over 53 years. The sum total of those two delivery mechanisms in 1982-83 was a miserable $552m. This year we will have directed to the States by way of grants $693.7m and $582.2m by way of nominated funds-a total of over $1.275 billion. The States weigh in also. They make up the amount which is available from Federal and State governments for public housing to $1.97 billion-the highest total both in nominal and real terms. Mr Beale —It is not doing much good. Mr WEST —The Opposition sits there and says that that money is not doing much good, yet it does not admit that the efforts of this Government and particularly the Labor States in public housing funding have been the best in this country's history. If members of the Opposition like, I can take them further through these figures and compare the situation State by State. There is no question that even their conservative colleagues in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania admit that this is the best government they have ever had as far as funding public housing is concerned and that the effort has never been better. I will prove that by these figures: Back in 1981-82, as a result of the previous Government's miserable effort, there were only 8,500 additions to public rental stock. In 1986-87 there will be 17,500 to 18,000 additions by way of new commencements and acquisitions of existing housing. That is very good. It also means that, as a result of the home purchase assistance program, which I will allude to in a moment, the rental component for new starts and the component of new starts from the home purchase assistance program will together produce 22,000 new commencements from a figure of 120,000 new commencements all up in Australia. The commencements due to public housing funding in 1986-87 as a percentage of total starts will be the highest ever. What about that? The spokesperson for the Opposition, the honourable member for Deakin, just sits there and hangs his head. As a result of people vacating premises, combined with the new acquisitions, about 44,000 low income families and individuals will be placed in public housing this financial year. The Opposition complains about our performance in housing and the strain and hardship that it says we are imposing on some people in Australia as a result of this alleged crisis in public housing-the 160,000 families on the waiting list-yet it does not talk about our record. The Opposition complains that there are 160,000 people on the waiting list, it ignores its own record, and it complains about our record, yet it says that it is going to abolish the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. How ridiculous, stupid and confused can one be? Let us see who the Opposition would harm if it went ahead with its policy of abolishing the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement at the very time it complains about public housing in Australia. At present 90 per cent of those people who are placed in new public housing are on rental rebates, which means that they are either social security recipients or very low income earners. Of the 90 per cent of placements of people who are on rental rebates, 20 per cent are pensioners, 40 per cent are single parents and the remaining 40 per cent are families on very low incomes. They are placed on the basis of need and it is a worthwhile program. The Opposition is complaining about our record, yet at the same time it is saying that it will abolish the program. We care about home ownership, particularly for low income earners. I will deal with the first home owners scheme in a moment-the scheme about which the Opposition cannot make up its mind. As part of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which the Opposition says it will abolish, at least one-third of the $1.9 billion funds is directed towards home purchase assistance. Some 14,000 loans will be made available this year through State lending authorities such as State banks or co-operative building societies. Under the agreement that we forged back in 1984 the loans will be made at rates which take into account the current lowest savings bank rate and the fact that borrowers may have difficulties with repayments. The repayments are pegged to approximately 25 per cent of income and if the borrowers' economic circumstances improve over time, the interest rate subsidy can be recouped and thus that money can be recirculated through the revolving account and lent in future to further home seekers of low interest finance. This is the very scheme that the Opposition says it will abolish-a scheme which we tidied up and made viable and responsible back in 1984. There are two elements to the public housing agreement that this Opposition says it will abolish and that this Government says it will continue-that is, the home purchase side and the public rental acquisition side. I now turn to the first home owners scheme. As I said, those opposite are confused. They do not know whether they are going to continue it. They have made representations to my Department to find out how they could abolish it. At the same time they have said in their policy document that the scheme will continue. Of course, it ought to continue. It will continue under this Government because it makes a lump sum available to help meet the deposit gap. An ongoing interest rate subsidy is also made available to low income earners. Two hundred and thirty thousand households have been assisted in the last three years by the first home owners scheme. It offers a lump sum to help meet the deposit gap and an ongoing interest rate subsidy to assist with repayments. A billion dollars has already been committed through the scheme and members of the Opposition say that this Government has not directed special attention to housing. That is demonstrable nonsense. A billion dollars has been committed and 230,000 households have been assisted through the first home owners scheme. It has not only helped those on low incomes to achieve a home, but also assisted the very small business people whom those opposite say they represent. It has assisted the building contractors, the sub-contractors, the people who manufacture and supply building materials, such as the brickyards, the tile manufacturers, the painters, the sellers of household appliances, furniture and whitegoods and all those associated with the industry. Yet those opposite say that they would abolish public housing and they have also put a big question mark over their policy with regard to the first home owners scheme. I conclude on this particular note because I see my time is running out. As I said at Question Time today, members of the Opposition totally lack credibility and integrity with regard to their economic and housing policies. They whinge about the number of housing starts and people on public housing waiting lists. They say that they are going to abolish the public housing program and have placed a big question mark over whether the first home owners scheme will continue or not. They are extremely divided; they are confused; they are incapable of producing policies; they are split; they are divided. The Australian people, as I said today, will never accept them and they will never return to government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(3.32) —What a desperate performance we have witnessed here this afternoon. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has given us a performance that really and truly indicates why Australia has a housing crisis on its hands. For example, all we have heard from the Minister this afternoon is how much money the Government and the poor old taxpayer are having to pay out for public housing. I put this piece of logic to the Minister: If his economic policies were working as well as he claims they are, the Government should not need to increase its expenditure on public housing. There would be no need for it because the private investor would be able to pick up the tab and provide accommodation at reasonable cost to those Australians who can no longer afford to find it under this Government. If the Minister believes there is no housing crisis in Australia, I suggest he take off his glasses, give them a good shine and look at what is going on under his own nose right in the centre of his own electorate. I refer to a quote from the Illawarra Mercury of 14 March, a couple of weeks ago. It is entitled: `So you thought you were doing it tough . . . Car is home to destitute family'. There is a family of a mother and two young children living in a car in Wollongong, the heart of the Minister's electorate. There is a crisis. Thank goodness, the Salvation Army has picked them up and is now helping them out. Captain Hazelgrove of the Salvation Army pointed out to the people of Wollongong: They cannot afford to continue living in their rented home and felt they had no other alternative but to live in the car. . . He continued: Wollongong has an alarming accommodation crisis. . . There it is, right under the Minister's nose. He should take his glasses off, give them a shine and have a look because there is a crisis in this country. There are people not only living in caravans and cars, but also living on the streets of Sydney and all the other cities of Australia. It is a great shame. The next thing we will see is people living under old sheets of galvanised iron in the streets of the inner parts of our cities. Is it any wonder that this is happening in Australia when we look at the fact that in Sydney the average three-bedroom unfurnished home now cost $267 per week to rent? That is expected to go up to $300 per week by the end of this year. Over the last 12 months the cost of rental accommodation in Sydney has gone up by 25 per cent under this Government's so-called very good economic policies. The facts speak for themselves. Mr McGauran —Who are they kidding? Mr SHARP —Who is the Government kidding? It is not kidding the people of Perth. Perth has also seen a dramatic rise in rental costs. For example, in Perth the average rental has gone up by 27 per cent. In the working class suburb of Tuart Hill the average cost of a unit has increased over the last 12 months by 45 per cent. How on earth are the working class people of Australia expected to afford the policies of this Government? No wonder rent is increasing so badly. I read an article in the paper a few days ago about people in Sydney trying to move into abandoned warehouses and live in those conditions. Is it any wonder? The New South Wales State Government figures show that a family of four on unemployment benefits in an average private three-bedroom Sydney home would currently pay 69 per cent of their income in rent, despite Federal rent assistance given to low income tenants in private housing. This is all happening under this Government. There is a crisis. The Minister should not tell us there is not, because there is. Let us look at the facts for a moment. There are record numbers of home buyers defaulting on their loans. In real terms there are between 19 and 24 per cent fewer rental properties available in New South Wales at present. The normal vacancy rate for rental accommodation should be around 3 per cent, according to the Real Estate Institute. In Sydney alone, only six in every 1,000 homes or units are available for rent at present. That is the lowest availability of rental accommodation that Sydney has ever had-and that under this Government's policies. Mr Cobb —Shameful! Mr SHARP —It is a great shame, as the honourable member so freely points out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Parkes will cease interjecting. Mr SHARP —Not one capital city in Australia has that vital 3 per cent vacancy level at present. In New South Wales the construction of new dwellings has dropped by 30 per cent under this Government's policies. The Government's chief advisory body, the Indicative Planning Council, predicts that interest rates will not fall during 1987. I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) asked a question of the Prime Minister, who again for the one hundred and tenth time told the people of Australia that he expected interest rates to fall during 1987. The Government's senior advisory council says that that is not to be the case. There are 57,000 people on the waiting list for public housing in New South Wales. In States such as Victoria there has been a 21 per cent increase in the numbers of people on housing waiting lists in the last 12 months; in South Australia there has been a 13 per cent increase; and in Western Australia there has been a 31 per cent increase in the people waiting for public housing accommodation under this Government. Why do we have this situation? Mr Tim Fischer —What does Frank Walker say about it? Mr SHARP —As the honourable member for Farrer points out, Frank Walker can throw some light on it. I will come to his comments in a moment. Why is it? It is because of this Government's economic policies-record high interest rates, the capital gains tax that it promised it was not going to bring in but brought in, which has taken the speculation out of the market, and the tax on negative gearing. What a great shame. Interest rates are now 15.5 per cent for someone trying to buy a home. In 1981 they were 11.5 per cent. The cost of a home loan is now equivalent to 46.5 per cent of average weekly earnings. People cannot afford to buy because of this Government's economic policies. Everybody knows, Frank Walker and all the State Housing Ministers agree that this Government is to blame for the housing crisis. The Real Estate Institute and the Master Builders Federation all agree. All the people who are credible in this industry agree as to why we have this housing crisis and they blame it directly on the Federal Government. I will quote from Frank Walker. He states: There is a crisis in the accommodation market . . . of the private rental markets and our housing markets in this country. That is a fact of life, that everyone in politics knows. That is everybody bar the Minister. He goes on to tell us exactly why. He says: `It is due to your interest rate policies, it is due to your capital gains tax and your tax on negative gearing'. Everybody who is credible agrees with that. In Shoalhaven, in my electorate of Gilmore, the value of houses has fallen by up to 20 per cent since this Government has been in power. That means that a $70,000, three-bedroom brick-veneer home in Shoalhaven today should be worth $84,000. That is not the case and home owners have lost $14,000 because of this Government's policies. In Young the value of houses has fallen by 13 per cent and the cost of rent in the City of Goulburn has increased by 15 per cent in the past 12 months. This is indicative of what is going on around Australia. This Government is destroying the value of Australians' most valuable asset, their homes. This Government has reduced the value of homes and it will see the wrath of electors vented on it at the next election. Rents are consuming more and more of the family income. This Government is reducing the ability of the average family, by pushing up interest rates, to be able to save to have their own home. This Government is reducing our living standards and destroying the great Australian dream. It is doing everything it possibly can, with its economic policies, to destroy our standard of living. The Government is forcing people out on to the streets, forcing people to sleep on park benches and in cars, as is the case in the Minister's electorate, or in warehouses, as is the case in Sydney-- Mr Cobb —Under bridges. Mr SHARP —Under bridges, as the honourable member for Parkes points out. People are living in caravans. People are now saying that their great Australian home will be a caravan in a trailer park. That is what this Government has done to the average Australian. In a few months time-the sooner the better-the Government will be flogged by those people who have lost the value of their housing and who have been kicked out on to the streets because of the Government's economic policies. The Government will be flogged by those people and it deserves to be flogged. We can solve those problems with our sensible policies. The Government will deserve to be on the Opposition benches because of what it has done to average Australians by throwing them out of their homes on to the street. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(3.42) —It would seem that the Opposition has brought on this matter of public importance for discussion because it believes that it can achieve some political advantage out of the present high interest rate structure which is affecting home loan interest rates. As the member for La Trobe I have in my electorate one of the fastest growing urban areas in Australia. I know that home owners have not forgotten the abysmal record of the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government in relation to housing and construction. That was only a little over four years ago. The housing industry was in very bad shape when the Australian Labor Party won government, with only 105,000 housing commencements in 1982-83. By 1984-85 we had provided the economic basis for 152,700 commencements, which was a 45 per cent increase on 1982-83 and the highest since 1973-74. I will not attempt to disguise the fact that I am disappointed with the high interest rates. This has arisen because of the need to attract development finance into Australia as part of our strong macroeconomic policy. The consequent reduced activity in the housing industry has meant that there were only 136,000 commencements in 1985-86, but that is still 30 per cent up on 1982-83 when the Liberal-National Party was in office. The housing industry must be well aware that it has been the Labor Party's housing policies of the past four years which have brought prosperity to the industry, prosperity which was not there during the final years of the Fraser Government. The facts are there for all to see, with over 491,000 people employed in the housing and construction industry as at August 1986, which is 70,000 more than in May 1983. Let us look at the Labor Government's record on interest rates and home lending. In the last three years of the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government there were only 735,000 home loans from major lenders, compared with 914,000 for the three years under Labor since June 1983. If we compare the figures year by year, over the past three years our Government has achieved an average of 305,000 home loans each year, compared with 245,000 home loans for each of the last three years that the Opposition was in government. Interest rates are presently far too high, but they were higher when the Opposition lost office, with 10-year bond rates of 16.4 per cent and the 90-day bank bill rate at 18.75 per cent. The signs are there that housing interest rates will ease in 1987-88. Confirmation that housing interest rates will not remain so high has been given by the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry, which comprises representatives of both the housing industry and the building unions. Both groups have no reason to give inaccurate forecasts. For the people of my electorate one of the most important Government initiatives was that taken in April 1986 to maintain the 13.5 per cent ceiling on existing bank home loans, which has protected some 900,000 existing home buyers. This has been a vital support for home buyers in the new housing estates of Endeavour Hills and Fountain Gate in my electorate. As part of the Labor Government's housing package the banks agreed to lend at least $6 billion for housing in 1986-87 and to promote low start loans. The low start loans have reduced initial repayments and have therefore given greater access to home ownership for many families. I move now to the area of public housing, particularly as the Liberal and National parties have stated that they would return to the States the responsibility for the provision of public housing. They intend to do this by terminating the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and absorbing the funds into the financial assistance grants to the States. The consequence of such a complete denial of Federal responsibility in meeting the desperate need of many low income earners for public housing will be a severe cut-back in funding for public housing, as the States will be unable to increase the shortfall arising from the withdrawal of funds by the Federal Government. This is a callous and unfeeling attitude towards Australians in housing need. I regret to say that it is typical of the Opposition's attitude to people in poverty and the unemployed. Its attitude to people in need is: `Let them go out and do more for themselves'. `They are feather-bedded too much' is the constant catch-cry of the Opposition when talking about people in need. It is not the attitude of this Government and never will be to those people who, for a variety of circumstances, often beyond their control, need assistance from the Federal Government to gain shelter for themselves and their families. Our record in office is in stark contrast to the callous and barren policies of the Opposition. When Labor attained office we renegotiated the then public housing agreement to better reflect the Labor Government's approach to public housing assistance. The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement was signed by the Commonwealth and all States to operate for 10 years from 1 July 1984. The 1984 agreement substantially increased the base funding arrangements and broadened the eligibility criteria for assistance; for example, ensuring that all groups in the community are eligible for assistance, including young people and single people. Cost rents for public housing tenants was introduced to replace the financial hardship resulting from the existing structure of market rents. We introduced the concept of home purchase, with repayments based on income, thus making available more finance for new public housing projects. We also introduced programs for rental housing for Aborigines and age pensioners. I also mention the two new programs which were part of the new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement-the crisis accommodation program which provides dwellings for women's and youth refuges, hostels for the chronically homeless, and the family crisis accommodation. I am well aware of the desperate need for such a program as my wife works in a part time advisory capacity for a women's refuge. The provision of safe and secure accommodation is a vital factor for those women and their children to be rehabilitated from the crisis situation of humiliation and violence in what should have been a safe and secure family home. The amount of $14m was allocated to this program in 1986-88 and $44m has been allocated since we came to office. The second new program incorporated into the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement was the local government and community housing program, which involves local governments and community groups in providing housing. An amount of $11m was allocated in 1986-87, with $28m having been allocated since we gained government. This program has been particularly successful as it has drawn over $7m in land, direct funding and other resources from local governments and community groups. Let us look at the total funds available for public housing from the Federal Government. In 1986-87 it was $1,278m. It is worth going into these figures in a little detail because these funds will be no longer available for public housing if, heaven forbid, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) should ever become the Housing Minister. The honourable member represents the rich and powerful in this country but he certainly does not and never will represent the average home buyer or those living in public housing accommodation. Of the $1,278m made available for housing by the Federal Government in 1986-87, $694m was in grants and $585m was available in low interest local council loans. These figures represent a 130 per cent increase on the amounts provided by the Liberal and National parties when they were in government in 1982-83. The result of ALP public housing policies is reflected in these figures in that they will lead to an increase of around 18,000 in public rental housing stock in 1986-87, compared with an increase of only only 8,700 in public rental housing stock in 1982-83. So there we have it: When the Opposition was in government it provided annually about half the stock of public housing that the Federal Labor Government has. In total, public housing funding, with State contributions, will be over $1.9 billion in 1986-87 and this will lead to over 22,000 new housing commencements in both the public and the private sectors. The United Nations has designed 1987 as the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless and the Federal Government has agreed to participate in the International Year programs by allocating to date $1.2m, of which $625,000 has been provided to cover Federal Government activities. The objective of the United Nations is to encourage countries, particularly developing countries, to develop strategies which will improve the shelter and neighbourhoods for the homeless and inadequately housed by the year 2000. The Federal Government has supported such programs. The funding provided in 1986-87 was around $1,500m. One has to look at the Opposition's proposals. The aims of the Federal Government are completely opposite. The housing policies of the Federal ALP Government are practical realities; the policies of the Opposition would be disastrous for the housing industry and those living in private and public housing alike. The Opposition will be rejected by the people when we go to the polls at the end of this year or at the beginning of the next year. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BEALE —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BEALE —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) twice during his reply on the matter of public importance today said that I had been to his Department to seek details of how to abolish the first home owners scheme. The Minister has misrepresented me in two ways. Firstly, the visit to the Department was made before the Liberal and National parties released their policy on housing and construction. The Minister did not make that clear. As the visit was made before the release of the document, any discussions I had were clearly superseded by the release of the document. Secondly, all I did was ask for the financial details if the first home owners scheme were allowed to run down. That had nothing to do with the abolition of the scheme. The Liberal and National parties are committed to maintaining the first home owners scheme and to honouring existing entitlements to that scheme. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating the matter. The discussion is concluded. Mr FREE(Lindsay) —by leave-I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the European Parliamentary Institutions and the Federal Republic of Germany and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr FREE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I present the report. In September 1986, a delegation of both Houses of the Australian Parliament visited Strasbourg to attend the autumn sittings of the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The delegation also made an official visit to the Federal Republic of Germany and visited Brussels to confer with officials of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers of the European Community. Whilst in Brussels the delegation also visited the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The report tabled today records the official activities of the delegation and makes recommendations and suggestions which should be useful to future delegations. The delegation's visit to the Federal Republic of Germany was the first made by an Australian parliamentary delegation for many years. An excellent program was arranged for the visit by our hosts in liaison with the Australian Embassy in Bonn. In the ten days of the visit the delegation travelled widely and saw a great deal of the Federal Republic of Germany-from Kiel and Bremen in the north to Stuttgart and Baden Baden in the south. The delegation's itinerary included meetings with Federal parliamentarians in Bonn and visits to four of the Republic's State parliaments. The delegation also visited the HDW shipyards in Kiel. Honourable members will recall that HDW is one of the contenders for the Australian submarines contract. An official visit was also made to Messerschmitt-Blohm in Bavaria, a company involved in the manufacture of high technology products. The delegation valued the opportunity to meet with many leading Federal and State parliamentarians from a sister democracy. Special mention should be made of the delegation's meetings with Dr Philipp Jenninger, the President of the Bundestag, and with the deputy presiding officers of four State parliaments. The delegation's report includes details of the many discussions held with European and West German politicians and officials. Agricultural issues inevitably dominated many of the discussions held with our European counterparts and with officials of the institutions of the Community. Nevertheless, other important topical issues were also discussed. These included nuclear power, terrorism, the South African situation, the world economy and youth unemployment. Details of these discussions may be found in the report. An issue which assumed major importance during the 1985 delegation's visit to Strasbourg was the culling of kangaroos. This issue was not emphasised during last year's visit. The delegation's discussions on agricultural trade and the European common agricultural policy indicated that European politicians and officials are aware of the adverse consequences of the CAP. The great majority consider that there is a need for reform. There were, however, in September 1986 no grounds for optimism that reform would be achieved quickly. On the many other issues discussed with our European counterparts, there was a considerable amount of agreement. There was, for example, some indication of prospects for increased trade and closer economic relations between Europe and Australia. The delegation wishes to thank our hosts in the Federal Republic of Germany. Particular thanks are due to Dr Jenninger, President of the Bundestag, and the protocol staff of the Bundestag, particularly the protocol officer who accompanied the delegation during its time in Germany, Herr Walter Von den Dreish. The delegation also thanks the staff of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, who so ably assisted the delegation during its visit to Strasbourg and Brussels. The delegation also wishes to thank representatives of the Australian Government in Brussels and Bonn for their organisation and briefings. On behalf of the delegation I also express our appreciation to the Parliamentary Relations Office for its efficient organisation, and to officers of the Parliamentary Library for their comprehensive briefing papers. I would also like to place on record the delegation's thanks to Dr Hans Schauer and Mr Ove Jull Jorgensen, representatives in Australia respectively of the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Community, for their assistance before the delegation's departure and their friendship on its return. Finally, to the delegation itself: I know that all delegates would want me to express their appreciation to the Secretary to the delegation, Mr Terry Brown, whose patient and constant efforts ensured that all the arrangements were made and worked smoothly. To my fellow delegates-Senator David Hamer, who served with distinction as deputy leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths)-I express my personal thanks for their friendship and forbearance during our time away. This was a large delegation drawing its members from both the Labor and the Liberal parties. The fact that delegates were able to support a united Australian position on each and every issue as it arose in the many discussions we had is a tribute not only to their fine personal qualities as parliamentarians but also to the wisdom that their respective parties displayed in selecting them to serve on this important delegation. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga) —by leave-Many delegations from this Parliament go to many places of the world, but I put to the House that the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the European Parliamentary Institutions and the Federal Republic of Germany is a very important, ongoing delegation. It brings Australian parliamentarians into direct contact with very important international bodies-the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, the European Commission and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Whilst we live in the Asian-Pacific basin, a most dynamic area in terms of market growth for many years, our future will be linked very closely to that of Europe, both on an individual country basis and in regard to the European Commission. Obviously, our links will be very much cultural and political but also in trade matters. This delegation provides an opportunity to the Parliament for contact not only as often occurs on a Minister to Minister level, particularly in trade areas, but also on a parliamentarian to parliamentarian level. It provides a face to face opportunity to discuss issues such as those which the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) has just outlined-the common agricultural policy. This opportunity, which is given to parliamentarians on both sides of the House, not only adds to the ability of honourable members on each side to see policies in a different light outside this chamber but also allows us to put Australia's position to the European Community. That is very important and worth while. I certainly encourage individual members and this Parliament to continue this liaison with Europe. As far as our visit to Brussels was concerned, at one stage we were briefed by NATO. I was quite concerned about the level of briefing we received. My education during the 1950s placed a very heavy emphasis on Cold War politics. I was very disappointed to see that so little has changed in that regard in 30-odd years. I hope that the countries of Eastern and Western Europe take the opportunity that has been provided by the somewhat warmer relationship between East and West and the initiatives that are being taken around the world, by both the general communities of non-aligned countries and the less militaristically-inclined countries, to seek solutions to the world's problems and to those that face Europeans on their doorstep. I hope that the forces of NATO and the reactions on some of the issues that were put to us by some representatives of NATO will be tempered. We all hope for a safe and secure Europe and we hope that such safety and security will not be built upon an escalation of arms and confrontation. I congratulate the leader of our delegation, the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free), for his very astute, considerate and elegant carriage of his duties. A finer leader no one could wish for. I recommend that in the long distant future, when he is old and grey and ready for retirement from this House, he be considered for a high diplomatic post, because he carried off his duties so well. The Court of St James, perhaps, would be very fitting; but we will have to talk to former Senator McClelland about that. I agree very much with his statement today and congratulate him again on his presentation of the report. I add my appreciation of the hospitality, cordiality and consideration given by the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Commission in regard to our specific interests in various policy areas and to the discussions we were able to join in with the different policy groups, government groups and political groups. I add my thanks to His Excellency Mr Ove Jull Jorgensen, the Head of Delegation of the Commission of European Communities, and Mrs Jorgensen. I also thank His Excellency Dr Hans Schauer, the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Australia, and Mrs Schauer for their hospitality, friendliness and assistance, which made this delegation a very memorable event for me. Debate resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(4.05) —I am very pleased to speak in support of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. This Bill brings benefits to members of the veteran community-veterans, I might add, who have made a magnificent contribution to the Australian nation and are very deserving of having their benefits improved. I am a very loyal supporter of those men and women who have served our country in times of war. I will fight constantly to see that they are treated justly. I will fight equally as hard for benefits for those spouses who underwent the ordeal of waiting and praying while their loved ones were defending our country. It is perhaps unnecessary to add that the sentiments held by me are held equally as strongly by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and many other honourable members on this side of the House. I particularly pay tribute to the Minister and his staff, who are always conscientious and diligent in assisting with any problems any individual might take to them. I also thank Mr Terry Johnston, the Regional Director of Veterans' Affairs in the Hunter Valley, his staff and all the personnel of the various sub-branches in the Hunter electorate who have extended courtesy and assistance to me. The sentiments shared by many members on this side of the House are also held by many honourable members opposite but, unfortunately, some honourable members opposite try desperately to score cheap political points at this Government's expense. This present Opposition is more dishonest than any Opposition in the history of Australian politics. The present Opposition, which has more divisions than a picket fence and more in-fighting and treacherous intrigue than a Machiavellian court, appears not to know how to handle the truth. The present Opposition is not prepared to be fair dinkum with the Australian electorate. It will not tell the Australian people the truth. It will not admit that this nation's economic problems are due to the reduced prices we are receiving for our export commodities. It refuses to admit that our current economic difficulties are not the fault of this Government. It is not prepared to admit that this Government is handling difficult economic circumstances far more capably than the Opposition would be able to do were it sufficiently fortunate to win office. This Opposition has promised to abolish a whole range of taxes in a cheap attempt to exploit discontent, but, as pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and various speakers on this side of the House, the Opposition has a $16 billion credibility gap. The Australian voter knows that it is impossible for the Opposition to balance its figures. There is no way it could raise the revenue lost if it ever had the opportunity to restore pensions to millionaires and free lunches for the white shoe brigade. No matter how hard it socked the pensioners, no matter how harshly it deprived the non-wealthy and no matter how many Great Barrier Reef islands it sold, there is no way it could provide a humane or rational approach to our nation's economic problems. The Opposition seeks to win brownie points by saying that we should do more for veterans. Yet, by opposing the Australia Card and by seeking to protect tax and welfare cheats, it is denying this Government $4.7 billion of revenue over the next 10 years. No wonder the coalition parties are proving an autumn party and their members are falling like leaves. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) has fallen; Senator Peter Baume has fallen; and half a dozen other coalition names have drifted past my window. This Bill brings all veterans the poverty traps reforms announced by the Treasurer in September 1985. These poverty traps reforms have been incorporated into the Social Security Act and will come into effect on 1 July this year. The Bill gives service pensioners the opportunity to earn extra money before the rate of their service pensions is affected. From 1 July single service pensioners can earn an extra $10 a week before their service pension is affected by the income test, and service pensioner couples can earn an extra $20 a week. Additionally, from 1 July a service pensioner with dependent children can earn double the amount of income. The income a service pensioner can receive will rise from $6 to $12 a week per child. This increase means that a single service pensioner with one dependent child will be able to earn up to $52 a week without his service pension being affected. This is an increase of more than 40 per cent over the existing amount allowable. A further benefit of this Bill is the abolition of the separate income test on rent assistance which is provided to service pensioners who pay rent for private accommodation. These benefits will be of tremendous assistance to service pensioners who are battling to make ends meet. The benefits referred to and other provisions contained in this Bill will involve additional expenditure of $29m in 1987-88 and $28.6m in 1988-89. The legislation provides a sound basis for the Government to continue to improve benefits and services provided to veterans and their dependants. The Australian Labor Party has a genuine and continuing deep commitment to veterans and their families. We know that our veteran and war widow populations are aging and we know that the aging process increases the need for care and treatment, and since coming to office the Labor Government has provided increased funds to satisfy these needs. Despite the economic difficulties which I have mentioned and which are no fault of this Government and despite the need to reduce the $9.6 billion deficit we inherited, we have bolstered the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. Spending in this portfolio has been increased by $1.5 billion, to a total of $3.8 billion, so that now Veterans' Affairs 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 amalgamate the Department, to downgrade it. It is the New Right's policy to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs and to transfer its functions to the Department of Social Security. The leaked Liberal document published in the Australian Financial Review last Monday week confirms the policy to amalgamate the two departments. In fact, under the plan Veterans' Affairs, Health and Social Security are all to be combined into one big department called Community Services, with a junior Minister looking after what are now the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Representatives of the Returned Services League had a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and sought guarantees that the Department of Veterans' Affairs would continue, but unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition was not able to give that assurance. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, has spoken in this House but at no time has he given an assurance that the Department of Veterans' Affairs would not be amalgamated. Perhaps he has been too busy running around organising Joh for PM rallies, generally decrying the level of big government in Australia and spruiking flat tax nonsense. The Opposition's policy so far is only to abolish the assets test, at a cost to the Government of $300m a year. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) has been reported as saying on the 7.30 Report that it is the intention of the Opposition to remove indexing of pensions for veterans. The honourable member for Farrer can bleat about cutbacks in veterans' affairs payments but I believe that he should be referring not to cutbacks but to the redirection of funds to the most needy people. Only 3 per cent of service pensioners were affected by the assets test but the $25m savings resulting from that 3 per cent of pensioners being eliminated from service pension payments has been reinvested in treatment facilities for veterans. So there are no cutbacks; it is just a simple case of taking money from the rich, who do not need assistance, and giving it to those poor people who are in desperate need of assistance. Mr Slipper —Who are you-Robin Hood? Mr FITZGIBBON —More than $20m has been spent on Concord Repatriation Hospital alone; so if the honourable member opposite wishes to decry this Government's practice of taking money from those people who do not need it and spending it in areas where there is a desperate need for finance let him have his say after I finish speaking. I think he would find it hard to justify such a position, just as he finds it very difficult, I feel sure, to justify some of the policies being pursued by the National Party at this moment. In times of great economic difficulty the Hawke Labor Government has kept faith with veterans and endeavoured to shelter them from the consequences now being experienced as a result of the years of mismanagement of the previous coalition Government. This legislation is good, sensible legislation and is not being opposed by the Liberals and Nationals because they find that it has no flaws. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(4.17) —I am very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. As has been mentioned by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), the National and Liberal parties do not oppose the legislation under consideration. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill has four main thrusts. Firstly, it aims to bring veterans legislation into line with poverty traps legislation as it applies to social security legislation. It aims also to bring veterans legislation into line with Medicare health fraud legislation; it contains a review of seamen's legislation; and also it corrects minor drafting errors in the Veterans' Entitlements Act. While the National Party does not oppose the Bill we are debating today, it should be mentioned that the Government's record as far as ex-servicemen is concerned is truly shocking. It is appropriate, in view of the comments of some Government speakers, to emphasise and re-emphasise the words of the shadow Minister last Thursday in this place when he quoted two great former Prime Ministers of this nation-Australian Labor Party leader Ben Chifley, and former National Party Prime Minister Sir Arthur Fadden. Ben Chifley said: The careers of hundreds and thousands of young men have been interrupted and in some cases 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. The National Party fully supports the statement of Ben Chifley those many years ago and it is a matter of sadness for us to note that this Labor Government has repudiated the words of that great former Prime Minister. Sir Arthur Fadden told this 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. The National and Liberal parties in government have followed the fundamental principles set out in the statements by the former Prime Ministers which I have quoted. I am sorry that the Government, since it was elected in 1983, has continued at every opportunity to denigrate those benefits to our citizens who served this country in time of war. We should remember that today our ex-servicemen would be aged, on average, about 68 years. They are at a time in their lives when they need consideration from a nation which owes them so much. After all, if it had not been for those young men and women who offered themselves to ensure that we remained free, who knows what this country would be like today? Who knows what tyranny this country would have been subjected to if it had not been for the way in which so many of Australia's youth voluntarily offered themselves to go forward, to risk their lives for God, king and country? The Hawke socialist Government seems to be ripping up the spirit of gratitude which governments, in a bipartisan way, have offered to the veterans of this nation since the end of the war. We have only to look at the Government's record on chopping benefits to ex-service men and women to see that. The Labor Government introduced the assets test on pensions. At every opportunity, members of the National Party, and particularly my colleague the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), have condemned the assets test. Since its inception in 1985, the assets test, applying to veterans' service pensions, has resulted in over 13,000 veterans having their pensions reduced or cancelled. Thirteen thousand people who offered their lives to ensure that we could remain free have been attacked in this vicious manner by the Hawke Government. Not content with the seriously adverse effect that the assets test had on our veterans, the Government introduced a mini-Budget in 1985 in which the travel allowance was reduced by half to a flat 11.16c a kilometre, with a reduction in government expenditure totalling $3m. The subsistence allowance, including meals and accommodation, was reduced substantially for veterans, resulting in less government expenditure of nearly half a million dollars in that area. A $300 limit was applied to four categories of dental treatment for veterans eligible for treatment under the dental scheme. The eligibility of some pensioners to obtain benefits under the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme has been terminated. This Government has been strong on rhetoric and short on action. When the Veterans' Entitlements Bill was first introduced into the Parliament there was a national outcry. The Returned Services League of Australia and other ex-service people were up in arms because the Bill, as originally introduced into the Parliament, completely failed to meet the needs and the requirements of beneficiaries. I would like to take this opportunity publicly to congratulate my colleague the honourable member for Farrer-himself a Vietnam veteran; he went overseas to ensure that this country remained free-the RSL and other ex-service organisations for the way in which it was possible to obtain amendments in 40 out of 41 problem areas. That record would be unsurpassed. I know, from talking to veterans in my electorate of Fisher, that the honourable member for Farrer is highly respected. After the next election-whether it be an early election or an election when the Parliament is due to go to the people-we will see the honourable member for Farrer as a very effective Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) who spoke earlier will not be a member of the Parliament after the next election. He will be replaced by Mr John Turner, who is already acting as the alternative member for Hunter. The honourable member said that the Opposition opposed the continued existence of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Mr Tim Fischer —Rubbish! Mr SLIPPER —The shadow Minister says: `Rubbish!'. He is quite correct. We ought to recall that it was the Prime Minister, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke), who said, at a meeting of Labor Party factions, that perhaps there should be an amalgamation of the Department of Social Security with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. While Government members have tried to suggest that the Opposition was proposing the amalgamation of the Department of Veterans' Affairs with the Department of Social Security, it should be mentioned that the matter was raised first and foremost by the Prime Minister. The whole issue was horse traded over at one of those sordid factional meetings of the Government Party. The National Party has placed it clearly on record that we are opposed to the abolition of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Government should stand up and tell us its position on this issue. The veterans' community has every reason to doubt the Government's sincerity. I have already stated some of the ways in which the veterans' community has suffered from Government cutbacks. I will shortly outline how the veterans' community has suffered further from the knifing approach of the Labor Party. The honourable member for Hunter should take note of the facts when he stands up in the House and accuses the Opposition of supporting the abolition of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. In my electorate we arrange veterans' seminars so that we are able to discuss with veterans issues of concern to them. Again I would like to thank the honourable member for Farrer for coming to my electorate on occasions to speak to veterans and to reassure them as to where the National Party stands on veterans' matters. Recently we had a meeting at the Pine Rivers RSL. A number of veterans from all parts of the electorate came along. They discussed matters of concern, matters of interest, with the honourable member for Farrer. It is interesting to note that a resolution was carried at that meeting which called on the veterans' community to take note of possible further cutbacks in the Government's mini-Budget in May this year. It also called upon the veterans' community to use its not inconsiderable voting power to work against the Government in the event of the Government not dropping any proposals it has to chop veterans benefits further. On the one hand, we have a government whose attitude to the veterans' community over the last four years has been chop, chop, chop; on the other hand, we have our view, which has been to give to the veterans' community the greatest number of benefits that responsible government can afford. I referred to the Veterans' Entitlements Act earlier. I mentioned that 40 out of 41 problem areas were able to be solved. That Act tightened up the totally and permanently incapacitated pension criteria to the extent that many veterans who thought they were eligible are now not eligible. Provision was made for termination of the dependants allowance by commutation, albeit on a voluntary basis. The Act provided that there would be no further increases in the dependants allowance. Repatriation cover was extended to those who served on HMAS Sydney and other support ships operating between Australia and Vietnam, but recognition by way of appropriate awarding of medals remains undetermined. The National Party would like to pledge itself to the resolution of this matter as soon as we return to government. The Budget in 1986 was another slap in the face for the veterans' community. There we saw the deferment of consumer price index related increases to pensions. The hardship that that creates should not be underestimated. My electorate office has been inundated with letters of complaint-letters pointing out that the veterans' community will not tolerate this sort of chopping mentality by the Government. Mr Sharp —Shame! Mr SLIPPER —As the honourable member for Gilmore quite correctly points out, it is shameful. This Government stands condemned for the callous approach it has adopted over the last four years to the veterans' community. These are the people to whom we owe so much. We can thank these people for the freedom that we have in Australia today. War widows and their dependants, as well as service pensioners with fringe benefits, no longer have access to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. War widows who also receive an age pension will have had the social security component frozen at a maximum level of $60.05 per week. The shadow Minister was largely responsible for ensuring that the alteration in this area was not infinitely more draconian than it ultimately was. Provision in the Federal Budget was also made for the Government to claim from private health insurance funds the cost of a veteran's hospital and medical treatment where a veteran has taken out such insurance. But the key thing confronting veterans today, after virtually 18 months of uncertainty under this Government, is what could be contained, in the May mini-Budget. The Government's record is one that it simply cannot be proud of. The veterans have every reason to be worried at the way in which the Government has treated them over the past four years and have every reason to be concerned that this treatment will continue in the May mini-Budget. In referring to last year's Budget, it is interesting to note some of the areas of-I suppose from the Government's point of view-savings relating to veterans. I am referring to areas where money has been taken away from ex-servicemen and women. There has been a reduction of 0.5 per cent in average staffing levels which saves approximately $1.425m. A reduction of one per cent in administrative expenses amounted to almost $1m. A reduction of access by war widows and dependants to repatriation and pharmaceutical benefits cost those people $3.81m. The restriction of dual pensions for war widows cost $8m. The recovery of treatment costs from health insurance funds has saved the Government $7m, and the deferral of poverty traps legislation has saved the Government $21.2m. That brings me to one matter which I wish to mention in particular, the question of poverty traps. When I commenced speaking on this Bill I outlined one of its main thrusts, which is to bring legislation into line with poverty traps legislation as it applies to social security legislation. The Government stands condemned because it has postponed the poverty traps legislation. I said just a moment ago that this has cost $21.2m. Poverty traps can and have occurred-we are very pleased that at last the Government is redressing this outstanding matter-when Commonwealth programs interact to disadvantage the people they should help by trapping them in poverty. The Minister for Social Security points out that the most obvious way that these poverty traps occur is when taxation and social security interact. This is no less true for veterans' affairs pensions. So the matter is now being resolved, but after a very great delay, and after a very great cost to the veterans community as a whole. I would like to tell the Government that it is about time it took into account what the community owes veterans. It is about time that the Labor Party commenced to honour those very fine words of Ben Chifley so many years ago. It is about time that the Government took into account the significance of what Sir Arthur Fadden said in this Parliament. Mr Sharp —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for his support. We in the National Party are prepared to stand up, to use the forum of this place. We are prepared to go throughout Australia to support the right of the veterans community to reasonable assistance from the Australian Government. The Government said in time of war that it would stand by those young men and women who were prepared to offer themselves to ensure that democracy prevailed in this country. Since 1983 we have had an approach of chop, chop, chop. The Government has failed to take into account the genuine needs of people who require government assistance at this time in their lives. We have had the mini-Budget of 1985; we have had the assets test; we had the Budget last year; and we have coming up the May mini-Budget of this year. The Government has an opportunity in the May mini-Budget this year to redress the damage which its disastrous policies have inflicted on the veterans community. I conclude by outlining in full the resolution which was carried by a meeting of the Pine Rivers RSL held in my electorate on 9 March 1987. It stated: . . . expresses grave concern at reports that the present Government's May mini-Budget- (A) may further reduce veterans' entitlements; (B) may impose tax on certain benefits or pensions presently non-taxable; The resolution went on to say: That this meeting requests that the RSL- (A) makes veterans and the wider community aware of the dangerous proposals which may be contained in the May mini-Budget; (B) makes strong representations to the Federal Government to ensure that the Government reconsiders and rejects any proposals detrimental to the veterans community; (C) encourages the veterans community to exercise their not inconsiderable voting strength against the Government in the event that the Government refuses to abandon proposals detrimental to the veterans community. So the challenge has been made to the Government. The Labor Government now has the ball at its feet. The Government has the opportunity to reject its four years of neglect. The Government has the chance to say that it will do what the Opposition will do which is to treat the veterans community with the greatest generosity that responsible government can afford. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(4.36) —I can assure the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) who has just spoken that the last thing this Government of compassion will do will be to treat the veterans community in a manner like that which we could expect it to be treated if it was to befall this country that we should have a coalition government. Of course, that is quite unlikely. I was rather bemused to hear the honourable member for Fisher saying what `We in the National Party would do'. This little rump that sits in the corner there would have no chance under any circumstances of ever forming a government in this nation in its own right. It is now at war with the Liberal Party of Australia to the extent that when one walks around the corridors of this place one finds National Party of Australia members coming up to Australian Labor Party members and saying: `Psst, psst, do you want to hear the latest bit of gossip on the Liberal Party leadership?'. The hate, the dislike, and the intense competition that seems to exist between the Liberal Party and the National Party pales into insignificance the general differences in politics that exist between the Labor Party and the opposition parties. I want to spend my few moments this afternoon dealing with the substance of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill rather than to spend my time as the honourable member for Fisher did on a whole lot of politicking. The effect of the legislation and of the social security poverty traps amendments which we debated earlier in this Parliament will be to make life a little easier for many Australian pensioners and their dependants. This Government and many individual honourable members on this side have been concerned at the injustices that arise when the social security and taxation systems meet and cause pensioners to be paying tax at an effective rate far above that paid by even the most wealthy in our society. Ever since I came into this Parliament, I have raised the concerns of many of my constituents about the savagery of these unjust imposts. Whilst I am very happy to support this legislation, I do not think that it should be seen as a long term solution to the problem of poverty traps. Not only would I have preferred to have seen these pieces of legislation brought in considerably earlier-in fact I think they should have preceded tax cuts, or should have formed an integral part of the first step of the reform of the taxation system-I would also have preferred to have seen them be more generous to pensioners. I understand and I appreciate why the Government has been unable to do that at present in the current difficult economic circumstances. I must say that at this time, however, at least this Government has addressed the matter. I have very little time for those who sit opposite and talk about pensioners making sacrifices for the good of the economy, who want to remove indexation from pensioners and who want to impose flat taxes which will cause even worse problems for pensioners. Mr Slipper —Single rate tax. Mr DUNCAN —I see; a new definition has entered their lexicon. They are now talking about single rate tax instead of flat tax. Single rate tax is a very different thing and I am glad to see that there has been this significant change in the way that National Party members from the Joh party are moving towards a more realistic attitude. The hypocrisy which is evident in the statements of Opposition members is quite galling. Those statements are ambiguous, contradictory, misleading, confused and confusing. The proposals in this Bill will tackle three areas of concern. Firstly, the amount a service pensioner can earn before the income test is applied to pension payments will be increased from $30 to $40 per week for single pensioners and from $50 to $70 per week for married pensioners. Secondly, the additional allowable income for service pensioners with dependent children will be doubled from $6 per week to $12 per week. Thirdly, the separate income test for rent assistance, whereby the amount of assistance is reduced by 50c for every $1 of income, will be removed. The easing of the income provisions will be of great benefit to many pensioners, and in my view has not come a moment too soon. For example, one of my constituents who came to see me recently was very rightly angry that this measure had been deferred. He also understood quite well that the Opposition offered him no relief whatsoever. I was at least able to show him that he will be substantially better off when the new measures come into effect. At present he receives a service pension for himself, his wife and one dependent child. He also receives a part United Kingdom pension. This means that under the present system, he receives about $167 pension each fortnight. His wife receives the same amount. After July this year, as a result of this legislation both will receive $205 per fortnight, which will make them almost $40 per week better off. Of course, he is only one example. As at 31 December last year there were nearly 406,000 service pensioners in Australia, of whom 42,000 were living in South Australia. Australia-wide 129,000 pensioners, of whom 13,500 live in South Australia, have been subject to pension reductions under the existing income test. The effect of this Bill will be to ease the income test for those 129,000 people and all of them will be better off. It also means that many other ex-servicemen and women will become eligible for part pensions for the first time. The maximum income which will allow payment of part pension will increase from $242 per week to $252 per week for single pensioners and from $404 per week to $424 per week for married couples. The legislation also addresses the problems of those pensioners in rental accommodation and those with dependent children. There are 19,000 people Australia-wide, of whom 1,600 live in South Australia, who at the moment are disadvantaged by the test on rental income. There are 4,000 across Australia, of whom 350 live in South Australia, who fall into the second group of those with dependent children. While the alleviation of poverty traps is important, it is part of the wider reforms that the Government is making to the taxation, income and social security systems. It means that fewer ordinary pensioners will lose pension benefits for earning income on their savings. The other reforms have seen reductions in personal income tax and the taxing of previously exempt income through the capital gains and fringe benefits taxes. The introduction of the assets test is also part of these reforms. Before we hear howls of righteous indignation from honourable members opposite, let them remember that when this Government came to office avoidance of the income test by the wealthy in our community was extremely widespread. For example, some service pensioners had over $200,000 in cheque accounts to avoid income tax-amounts which ordinary pensioners were unlikely ever to see. If members opposite want to protect the wealthy, let them go right ahead, but let them be exposed for peddling hypocrisy. As for me and for this Government, we would much rather introduce and extend the principle of equity which means that those ordinary service pensioners who will benefit from this legislation will not be prevented from doing so because of the greed and self-interest of a very small minority of wealthy people. It is patently clear that most members of the Liberal and National parties are not interested in ordinary Australian service pensioners, but would rather protect the interests of a few of their mates. For all their posturing and for all their rhetoric, they refuse to guarantee the rights of ex-service people and they refuse to guarantee the services which this Government has been improving and providing to assist service personnel. Let us look at the coalition's policy and statements in the veteran's area. Because the coalition does not want us to know what is in its policy, and certainly does not want the people of Australia to know, its policy documents had to be leaked. It is clear that under a coalition government-fortunately an increasingly unlikely occurrence-service pensions would be cut. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) has said outside this House that pensioners should not be given any preferential treatment to preserve the value of their pensions. The coalition policy document proposes scrapping indexation of pensions and benefits-effectively a cut in pensions. As importantly, the coalition gives no guarantee that it will maintain the Department of Veterans' Affairs. According to its leaked policy document, the coalition plans to merge the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which shows a total disregard for the interests of veterans and a misunderstanding of the basic differences between ex-servicemen and women, whose support derives from a quite distinct and different contribution to our community from that of social security pensioners. Last year, senior Returned Services League of Australia officials were unable to get a guarantee from the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is also the Leader of the Opposition, that the coalition would not abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs. On the other hand, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has given a guarantee that this Labor Government will not abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs. So much for the support that the veterans' community has had from the coalition. It is the Labor Government which has provided the armed forces and veterans with tangible benefits and a maintenance in the real value of their pensions, and which remains committed to providing specific delivery of services through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. As I said earlier, I am happy to support this legislation. My only regret is that it and the social security legislation did not come into effect earlier. Nevertheless, this Government has provided the means to ensure that pensions maintain their value and to enable increases in their real value. I condemn the Opposition for the attitude it has had to pensioners and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(4.48) —The Opposition does not oppose the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill that is before the House today. It does not oppose this legislation because it believes that there is some merit in it although, certainly there is need for change in the four broad thrusts of the legislation. I am particularly pleased that there is a review of the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act in the amending legislation that is before the House. I know that many of my colleagues have continually brought to this House the words of Prime Ministers Ben Chifley and Sir Arthur Fadden, but for my own purposes I would like to reiterate those words because I think they are the constant guideline that any government of any political flavour has to work with in order to ensure that it is providing the proper service to its ex-service community-a service that those people were led to believe would be given to them when they provided their great sacrifice to this nation. Prime Minister Ben Chifley said in this Parliament after the Second World War: The careers of hundreds of 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. The crucial words are: `On this Parliament rests the responsibility that the right thing shall be done'. Unfortunately, over the last few years we have seen that the right thing has not been done. We have seen that this Federal Labor Government has not been providing to the ex-service community the content and the intent of the words proposed by Prime Minister Ben Chifley. Former Prime Minister Arthur Fadden also added to the commitment that the nation had towards its ex-service personnel when he said- Mr Slipper —National Party member. Mr SHARP —A good Country Party member, as the honourable member for Fisher points out. He stated: 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. That is a clear commitment that this Parliament, the people of Australia and not only the generations that fought during those wars but also the generations ahead have a commitment to maintaining a proper level of service to the people who have given a great sacrifice to our nation. We on the National Party side of the House are very committed towards ensuring that that service is maintained. Mr Slipper —Hear, hear! Mr SHARP —I personally-I know the honourable member for Fisher shares this commitment with me-am committed to ensuring that the most generous of all services that are economically responsible will be provided by a coalition government. Successive governments have tried to maintain the spirit and the intent of the words of our former Prime Ministers. Unfortunately, a couple of years ago, in May 1985, this Labor Government introduced into this House a veterans' entitlements Bill that was nothing less than daylight robbery of our ex-service community. This Government was trying to rip from the ex-service community the rights and privileges which they had earned as a result of their service to this nation. Because of that vicious attack on our ex-service community, they rose up as one and violently opposed the legislation. Since I have been a member of the Federal Parliament I have not seen a more vigorous attack on the Government, by anybody, than that which was led by the ex-service community. The ex-service community in my electorate of Gilmore was at the forefront of this attack. I have a large number of veterans living in my electorate, particularly in the coastal region-- Mr Slipper —You represent them well. Mr SHARP —I thank the honourable member. They had petitions and wrote hundreds of letters to me personally. I had thousands. I think I had 4,000 or 5,000 names on petitions coming from the coastal portion in my electorate opposing the Government's attempts to change the Veterans' Entitlements Act. I am pleased to see that because of their efforts, because of the efforts of members of the Liberal and National parties and because of the efforts of the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer)-- Mr Slipper —An excellent member. Mr SHARP —Yes, he is an excellent shadow Minister because he is an ex-serviceman. He went to Vietnam and was wounded. He has the whole spirit of our ex-service community at heart. He is doing a tremendous job travelling around all the electorates of Australia telling the people who are interested in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill just what a coalition government will do for them. We will do a lot more than this Labor Government is doing. Since the most vigorous lobbying was carried out by the ex-service community, the Opposition and the Returned Services League of Australia, we have seen the Government pick up the thread of most of the amendments that we proposed, all bar one amendment. I believe it is a great credit to the work that we have done. Over the last year or two 13,000 veterans have had their pension either reduced or completely cancelled due to the assets test. Mr Slipper —A national disgrace. Mr SHARP —It is a national disgrace, as the honourable member for Fisher points out. The assets test is destroying the incentive the work ethic and the ethic of saving money for retirement. Our veteran community has suffered mightily. Some 13,000 people have been adversely affected by the assets test. We have seen the travel allowance for veterans who receive medical attention cut in half. Mr Slipper —Chopped. Mr SHARP —Chopped, cut right in half by this Government to a rate of 11.16c per kilometre. Mr Hurford —Are you adding to the $15 billion credibility gap? Mr SHARP —The Minister fails to recognise the point, as he interjects here, that we have a commitment to these people that goes beyond all the political flavours. It goes beyond anything else that we have in this Government. We have to be able to provide these people with a proper-- Mr Hurford —Do you mean to say that people will not see through your credibility gap? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The Minister will have the opportunity to reply in due course. Mr SHARP —The Minister really must recognise that a person cannot run a car on 11c per kilometre. We all know that. Veterans are being asked to make do on 11c a kilometre. I am just highlighting a cutback that this Government has imposed on the veteran community. My constituents have a long way to travel for their medical services. They are veterans and they are feeling the pinch as a result of this cutback. The Government has reduced the subsistence allowance for veterans when they are away from home for medical treatment for things like meals and accommodation. It has adversely affected the dental scheme. It has terminated some veterans' eligibility to have pensions with access to the repatriation and pharmaceutical benefits scheme. It has changed the totally and permanently incapacitated pension criteria; it has tightened up on that to the extent that many veterans who thought they were eligible are now no longer eligible. It has played around with the dependants allowance to the disadvantage of many people, particularly of people in my electorate, many of whom have contacted me. They are very disappointed and disenchanted with the way the Government has changed the dependants allowance. Whilst the Government has recognised the service that was given to the nation by those who have served on HMAS Sydney and other support ships, it has refused to give those people proper recognition through a service medal. Mr Slipper —How low can you get? Mr SHARP —Yes, how low can the Government get. It really is disappointing that proper recognition is not being given to those people. Last year we had the deferment of the consumer price index related increase to the pension. As is the case in just about every electorate in Australia, that has caused a complete uproar right throughout the community. Many people in my electorate have contacted me-people who are not necessarily dependent upon a veteran's entitlement. These people are just plain upset about the fact that those who were promised something have not been given it. I think that has created a great deal of hardship and disenchantment. It is also worrying the existing service personnel. They are wondering whether their pensions in future will be cut because of the Government's activities and they are wondering whether the service that they are giving to the nation will be properly rewarded in due course. War widows and their dependants, as well as service pensioners with fringe benefits, will no longer have access to the repatriation and pharmaceutical benefits scheme. War widows who also receive an age pension will have the social security component frozen at a level of $60.5c per week. The Government is now trying to claim from the private health insurance funds for the cost of veterans' hospital and medical treatment; that is for those veterans who have private medical insurance. That is a disgrace. That is not what the intent of the leislation should be about. The community has a responsibility to properly provide hospital and medical treatment to our veterans. We should not be adding a burden to those people who are already paying a very high cost for private health insurance. We should not be adding to that burden by trying to pass off some of the commitments this Federal Government has in relation to its veterans. The veteran community is now looking at a May mini-Budget which the Government promises will make substantial cutbacks. I will be happy to see substantial cutbacks enacted as long as they do not infringe on the area of veterans' entitlements, because veterans have already borne the brunt of a great number of cutbacks. It will not be long before the expenditure of the Department of Veterans' Affairs on the ex-service pensions scheme will go into a real decline because, sadly, nature is taking its course. Fewer and fewer people will be dependent upon the veterans' pension scheme because of the fact that they are all getting to a certain age where their numbers will reduce. While that is a sad fact, it is something that the Department must keep in mind. If the Department maintains proper services for the people who are alive today, it will find that it will not have to make cutbacks because nature will take its course. Any further cutbacks to our veterans' budget would weaken our chances of finding committed people to help fight our cause if we ever had to fight off any opponents in the years ahead. If the Government wants to cut back, it should cut back other activities. I could give plenty of examples, but I will not go through them today. In the past few months we have seen many sensible examples of where we could cut back. I want to repudiate the comments that have been made by many members of the Government that the coalition in government would amalgamate the Department of Veterans' Affairs with another department. I heard the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) make that claim earlier today and I have seen comments from the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) in the Press that we will cut back the Department of Veterans' Affairs and amalgamate it. That is simply not correct. I was very pleased to hear the honourable member for Farrer, in his excellent contribution to the House this afternoon, add to that repudiation. It simply is not correct. We have a very strong commitment to the ex-service community and we would maintain the highest level of services to them. I point out to the House that it was the honourable member for Wills, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who brought the whole issue forward at a factional meeting of Australian Labor Party leaders when he said that he was considering amalgamating the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is from that initial statement that the veteran community has been concerned and has been lobbying the Government to ensure that it does not do that. In trying to fend off the bad effects that that might have on the State electorally, the Labor Party has tried to blame us by saying that we will cut back the Department of Veterans' Affairs and amalgamate it. It simply is not correct. The honourable member for Farrer, the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs- Mr Slipper —The future Minister. Mr SHARP —He would be a very adequate Minister, I am quite sure. He has made it quite clear that that will not be the case. I am very committed to keeping the Department of Veterans' Affairs and I have freely told my constituents that that is the case. I believe that we have to do that if we are to provide a proper service. There is one more thing that I would like to bring to the attention of the House. I happen to have residing in my electorate Mr J. McIlvenie, who is the honorary secretary of the Merchant Navy War Veterans Association. I have had discussions with him just recently and he is very keen to see a review of the Veterans' Entitlements Act as it relates to merchant navy war veterans. He believes that this review is necessary because those veterans are not being properly catered for. It was only during the Fraser Government that they became entitled to receive a pension as was befitting all ex-service personnel. Those veterans believe that they should receive a full pension and all of the benefits for which ex-service personnel are eligible because they made a contribution equal to that of those people who served at the war front. Some people might say that merchant navy people did not serve at the war front, but that is totally incorrect. Many of those people served in the most difficult of circumstances during the war. We have all heard the tragic stories of how those people were on ships that were sunk and were thrown into the ocean with oil aflame all over the water. Mr McIlvenie was on several ships that were sunk during the war. On one day he was on board one ship which sank, and no sooner had he got off that and on board another ship than the second ship sank. This is the type of stress that those people underwent. The contribution they made and the stress they underwent deserve proper reward. Mr McIlvenie was also a prisoner of war and there are many ex-merchant navy people who went through the same difficulties that he did. Their cause is just and the Government ought to listen to it and take up some of the points that I am making today, points which Mr McIlvenie has made to me, and try to do something to benefit them because they have made a great contribution. There are not that many ex- merchant navy people left. Substantially fewer than 1,000 of those people are living in Australia today. There were 8,000 after the war. That just goes to show that many of them have died prematurely because of some of the stresses they had to go through during the difficult war years that they served in the merchant navy. Since this Government has been in office it has had a shocking record in relation to veterans' entitlements. I cannot believe what it has attempted to do. The large population of ex-service people in my electorate are very disenchanted with the Labor Government. Many of them are long term Labor supporters, but they have told me that there is no way in the world that they can support the Labor Party in the future because of what it has done to them in relation to veterans' affairs. Mr Slipper —They will vote for you next time. Mr SHARP —Hopefully they will, but I am certainly not promoting this cause for that reason. I believe that these people have a just cause and should be accorded the full respect due to them and the most generous of services that any government can provide. I hope that this Government will stop the drivel that we have heard from Government members in this debate and stop some of the hypocrisy and get on with giving a proper service to our ex-service people. The Liberal and National parties are committed to providing a good service and when we get into government we will provide that service. We will maintain the best of all possible services. The honourable member for Farrer will prove to be an excellent Minister for Veterans' Affairs and we all look forward to the election coming as soon as possible so that the honourable member for Farrer can get on with the job of making good the damage that has been done by this Labor Government. Mr LEE(Dobell)(5.07) —Sometimes when I am listening to a contribution by another member of the chamber I wonder how that honourable member can keep a straight face and not burst into laughter. For the previous speaker, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), to have accused Government members of hypocrisy is really drawing a very long bow. We all know that over the last weekend the Federal Council of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member's Party, held an interesting meeting. One of the resolutions which I understand was carried unanimously was for a flat rate tax of 25 per cent to be introduced. Mr Slipper —A single rate tax. Mr LEE —I am grateful to one of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's greatest supporters, the honourable member for Fisher, for clearing that up. The National Party wants to bring in a flat rate tax on 25 per cent. I often wonder whether the honourable member for Gilmore supports such a flat rate of tax. Mr Sharp —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I fail to understand what on earth a flat rate of tax, a single rate of tax, or whatever one wants to call it, has to do with the legislation before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I ask the honourable member for Dobell-- Mr Conquest —It is a very important piece of legislation, too. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hinkler will cease talking when the Chair is speaking. The honourable member for Dobell will try to remain relevant. Mr LEE —I am glad that the honourable member for Gilmore bit, because the point I was trying to make is that before we can give a veteran a dollar, we have to raise that money through taxation. The National Party claimed last weekend that its policy will be to have a flat rate of tax of 25 per cent. Such a policy would massively reduce a government's capacity to raise revenue. The only way a government could have a balanced Budget or a moderate deficit would be to cut back government expenditure. The only way that the Government can cut back expenditure is to cut back in areas which hurt people, areas such as social security and veterans' affairs. It is hypocritical for the National Party to say that it wants to cut taxes and at the same time increase benefits for veterans. That is just not on in the real world. The members of the National Party have to say either that governments have to take responsible decisions that sometimes are not popular in the community or that governments have no opportunity to reduce taxation. I am pleased to say that this Government has taken a very responsible attitude in seeking to restrain government expenditure in areas where that is possible and at the same time has been able to deliver two rounds of cuts in income tax which will address the community's concerns on taxation. I add my support to that of many other Labor back benchers for the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it seeks to release veterans who are caught in poverty traps. Referring to poverty traps, people often do not realise how veterans can be affected by the different levels of taxation and income tests which apply to veterans' pensions. I think it is interesting to take particular examples of how veterans can be affected by these poverty traps. I shall take a figure of $100 a week as being the amount of non-pension income a veteran is earning. It is possible that for every extra dollar that veteran earns he will lose 50c through a reduction in his Veterans' Affairs pension income test. Depending on his non-pension income, he can also lose other amounts of that dollar. He could lose up to an additional 12 1/2c due to the increase in his taxable income. If his non-pension income is low enough he could also lose his pension rebate under the Income Tax Assessment Act. In such circumstances a veteran could face an effective withdrawal from his income of 68c for each extra dollar that he earns. No one in this community is paying 68c in the dollar in tax but people caught in poverty traps may receive the benefit of only 32c of every extra dollar they earn. This Government is seeking to address this problem in a number of ways. Firstly, we are raising the threshold of non-pension income which veterans can earn before their pension is reduced through the income test. If a single veteran earns more than $30 a week, his Veterans' Affairs pension is reduced by 50c for every dollar earned above $30 a week. After 1 July this year such a veteran will be able to earn $40 a week and still receive the full Veterans' Affairs pension. Similarly, the threshold for a married veteran couple has been increased from $50 to $70 a week. The most important change which has been made is in the area of the income test which has been applied to rental allowance. In the past, veterans have lost $1 a week for every dollar a week of non-pension income. This means that very few veterans who have any non-pension income have received that very small concession, the rental allowance. This Government very properly has decided to abolish the separate incomes test for rental allowance and that will provide very real benefits to veterans who are renting. In addition, we are also increasing the income write-off for veteran pensioners with children. These measures will go a long way to reducing the incidence of poverty traps among veterans. The second area which I wish to address today is veterans' fringe benefits entitlements. At the moment if a veteran's non-pension income exceeds the limits set by the Government he loses his fringe benefits entitlements. While that limit is increased by an indexed amount twice per year, veterans in receipt of superannuation can often be placed over the limit by a small amount which means that they then lose all of their fringe benefits. I have had examples of pensioners whose income has been less than 50c per week over the fringe benefit cut-out level. As a result of earning the very small amount which is 50c a week over the limit, such people lose concessions on council rebates, telephone bills, public transport travel, drivers licences, motor vehicle registration and electricity bills. Veterans who are a very small amount over the limit for fringe benefits face very substantial increases in their costs of living. I would hope that the Government would be looking at some means of introducing a fairer way of phasing out veterans' benefits entitlements. I think it is a problem that fringe benefits cut out very quickly. Some people have suggested that veterans who are classified as having an income a certain percentage over the fringe benefits limit should receive entitlement to a percentage of fringe benefit on a sliding scale. Another idea which I think has a great deal of merit is that we could offer a veteran who is over the fringe benefit limit a fringe benefit entitlement a card at a price. The Government could say: `It is going to cost the Government so many dollars to provide you with the fringe benefits card. Because your income is a certain amount over the fringe benefits cut-out limit, we will allow you to purchase a fringe benefits card for a certain amount'. I think that measure is worthy of investigation. From listening to contributions made by those on the other side of the House, one could have got the impression that this Government has made massive cut-backs in the level of expenditure allocated to Veterans' Affairs. Mr Hodgman —You have. Mr LEE —I refer the honourable member for Denison to page 384 of the Budget Papers of last October. Table 6 of the Commonwealth Government's Budget outlays indicates that in the last full year when there was a coalition government-that is, in 1981-82-the Federal Government spent $1,323m on assistance to veterans and their dependants. If this Government had made cut-backs we would expect that in last year's Budget we would have spent less than $1,323m. In fact, we have more than doubled expenditure for veterans and their dependants. Mr Price —How much was that? Mr LEE —More than doubled because the Budget Papers contain the estimate that it was expected that in 1986-87 $2,778m would be allocated to veterans. That is more than a doubling in a very short time. So claims that this Government has cut back the level of spending on veterans are incorrect. I am very pleased to see the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), at the table because I wanted to make a few comments on his contribution in this debate. I was very interested that there were few promises in his speech. He did not promise that he would undo the Government's legislation which followed the May statement. He did not promise that he would increase the amount that would be paid to veterans for their travelling allowances. The honourable member's speech also did not contain a promise that if the Opposition parties were elected to government they would alter the Veterans' Entitlements Act to allow the old rules which applied to totally and permanently incapacitated eligibility to apply again. There was no promise in his speech that we would go back to the old rules. There was no promise to go back to the old standard of proof which was applied. I think it is quite significant that the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs has not been able to go on the record and promise that he would undo the legislation which we brought in in May 1985. It should not be forgotten that when that legislation came to a vote in this Parliament-it did not come to a vote in this chamber but it was voted on in the Senate-Liberal and National Party senators voted with the Government to pass it. That should not be forgotten. The honourable member for Gilmore described that legislation as daylight robbery of veterans. If it was daylight robbery for us to have brought in that legislation with the support of Opposition senators in 1985, why have the shadow Minister and the Leader of the Opposition not promised that they are going to undo what we did in the May 1985 statement? I will tell the Opposition the reason why it is not prepared to make that promise. It knows as well as we do that some people were rorting the system. Because certain decisions had been handed down by the High Court of Australia people who, under the old interpretation of the rules, would never have received veterans' entitlements were suddenly getting them. The Opposition knows that there were rorts under the old rules and that is why, if it is elected to government, which I believe is only a very minor possibility, for the same reasons this Government introduced that legislation it will certainly not undo it. We simply have to read the statements issued by the shadow Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to know that that is the case. We also have to wonder what the hidden agenda of the Opposition parties is. As I said before, they say they will massively cut government expenditure. At the moment the Opposition has a $16 billion credibility gap. Its promises to cut taxation exceed its promises to cut expenditure by $16 billion-$16,000m. We have to wonder where else the Opposition intends to make cuts. Where are the hidden areas it is not prepared to tell us about at the moment? Mr Price —What are they going to do about the Department? Mr LEE —As the honourable member says, what is the Opposition going to do about the Department? If I have time I will come back to that later. Perhaps we were given a hint about the Opposition's hidden agenda in the draft policy document which was prepared by the Liberal Party Secretariat and was apparently leaked to the media at the beginning of last week. In that draft policy document there is a proposal to freeze pensions, to abolish consumer price indexation of social security pensions. I believe that would also apply to veterans' pensions. That proposal makes up $1,300m of the draft policy secretariat's proposals to cut revenue. It provides the majority of the Opposition's cutbacks, yet the Opposition cannot even tell us where the other $14,000m is going to come from. Mr Jenkins —They don't know. Mr LEE —As the honourable member suggests, the Opposition does not know. One of the other proposals in the draft policy document was a plan to increase the age at which women would become entitled to the age pension from 60 to 65 years. I believe that would have certain consequences for veterans. At the moment veterans become entitled to the service pension at age 60. If the Opposition raised the qualification for the age pension for women from 60 to 65 years, would it not be a very small step for it then to come back to this chamber and say: `We have raised the eligibility for the age pension for women from 60 to 65? We should also raise the age eligibility for male and female veterans for the service pension from 60 to 65.'? So the proposal puts service pensioners who are between the ages of 60 and 65 in a quandary. Do they have to worry about the security of their service pensions? How do they know what the Opposition would do if ever it were elected to government? The last point I wish to raise is the Opposition's attitude to the abolition of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The honourable member for Gilmore sought to suggest that the only people who had considered the abolition of the Department of Veterans' Affairs were honourable members on this side of the House. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs are on record as saying that the Department of Veterans' Affairs will not be abolished under the Australian Labor Party. The honourable member for Gilmore told us that his personal view-I hope that I am not misquoting him-is that the Department of Veterans' Affairs should remain. I am sure that would also be the view of the shadow Minister, because obviously he wishes to become a Minister one day-although perhaps he has a death wish like the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) who wishes to abolish his own Department. The shadow Minister indicates that he does not wish to do so. That is good to see. It is interesting that we have not had a clear cut statement from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) as to his attitude on this question. The Leader of the Opposition has not given us a cast iron guarantee that he will not abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The official Opposition spokesman on Public Service matters, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), has granted various media interviews promoting the concept of a structure of 10 senior or super Cabinet Ministers and 15 junior Ministers. That concept poses very grave threats to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I refer the honourable member for Gilmore to an article which appeared in the Bulletin on 17 February this year in which the honourable member for Bradfield proposed that various departments should be abolished. To lend weight to my belief that John Howard is considering abolishing the Department of Veterans' Affairs-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member will address the honourable member to whom he refers by his position. Mr LEE —To lend weight to my belief that the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs I quote from the transcript of an interview on the Carleton-Walsh Report. The Leader of the Opposition said: . . . the reality is that if you really want to cut personal tax you've got to cut spending in a way it's never been cut before . . . Max Walsh asked: Can you tell me where you'd cut expenditure? The Leader of the Opposition answered: Well, I'll tell you where I'd cut. I'd abolish a lot of departments. I want to know whether the Department of Veterans' Affairs is one of the departments which John Howard intends to abolish. He has put no statement on the record. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member again transgresses. I ask him to be a little more conscientious in the requirement to call honourable members by their correct titles. Mr LEE —I wish to know whether the Leader of the Opposition intends to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Why will he not put out a clear statement to the Press saying that under no circumstances will any future Liberal government abolish the Department? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.27) —The Hawke socialist Government stands condemned as a government which has shamelessly betrayed over one million decent Australians. I talk about Australia's 650,000 ex-service men and women. I talk about their dependants. I talk about our war widows. The Hawke socialist Government is a lying, Judas government which has betrayed the ex-service men and women of Australia. I am proud to be associated in this debate with the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), and members of the Opposition-Her Majesty's loyal Opposition-who are fighting for Australia's ex-servicemen and women and who will continue the fight until they get justice. It is an incredible and disgraceful state of affairs that the Australian Labor Party, once led by a very great Australian, Ben Chifley, has sunk to such a state that it is criticised and condemned day and night in every Returned Services League club in the country as a government which has betrayed the men and women who fought for this country and for its freedom. It has betrayed the dependants of those who died that we might live in liberty. It is now 27 days from Anzac Day 1987, the seventy-second anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli, on 25 April 1915. Never in my life have I been more disgusted with any government than with this lying, Judas, Hawke socialist Government which has betrayed Australia's ex- service men and women. I feel very strongly about this. One of my uncles has died as a result of war wounds. My father is a life member of the RSL. My other two uncles saw service in defence of this country. Every day in my office I receive representations from widows and dependants of Australian ex-service men and women who are being denied justice by a government which took the opportunity to destroy one of the few pieces of legislation ever enacted in this Parliament which came about as the work of two very great Australians on opposite sides of the political fence, the late Hon. Dr H. V. Evatt and the late Hon. Sir John Spicer. It must never be forgotten by those who canvass and work for the welfare of veterans in Australia that it was as the result of a 30-year campaign that Dr H. V. Evatt and Sir John Spicer, on this side of the House, put together the formula for a burden of proof provision which would enable those who were justly entitled to assistance to receive it. That all went following the O'Brien case. This Government has effectively said: `The door is now wide open; we will cut back'. Members of the Government have the hypocrisy to stand in this Parliament and laud this legislation because it clears up poverty traps, but they have created more poverty traps in the ex-service community than any government in the history of Australia. I will come to cases in a moment to demonstrate my point. This is a government which has betrayed, betrayed and betrayed. It is a government which has lied; which has misled and which has misrepresented. It is a government which shamed Australia. On 25 April 1987 members of this Government will attend commemoration services around the nation and utter those historic words `Lest we forget'. They have not just forgotten; they have betrayed our ex-service community. They should check the way they are received in the Returned Services League clubs around Australia this year. The veterans are too well mannered to vent their anger at the dawn service or at services later in the day, but if members of the Government front up on Anzac Day to the RSL and ex-servicemen's clubs of Australia they will be told, in words so strong that I cannot mention them in this Parliament, exactly what the ex-service community thinks of them. The ex-service community has had this Government. This is a government which has unofficially legislated to abolish the totally and permanently incapacitated pension. How so? I will deal in a moment with section 24 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act, which ought to have been the subject of amendment by this Government but, of course, it has now moved to deal with other areas in an endeavour to deflect attention from what it has done with section 24. If an ex-serviceman is over 65 years of age and has worked his guts out and kept going despite his disabilities and he then seeks to apply for a TPI pension, this Government has legislated to make it virtually impossible for him to be granted such a pension. Before honourable members opposite ask `What do you know about it?', let me just say that on behalf of the State RSL in Tasmania I have handled in an honorary capacity nearly 100 appeals before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 25 of which have been dealt with already. In not one case has the decision gone in favour of the veteran. I looked up my notes from when I spoke in this House on 17 October last year. I nearly wept at the reference to the Lockley case. I knew Mr Lockley well; he was a very fine man. He was a man who kept working despite serious war-caused and service-related disabilities. He did not want a pension. He told me once `I am not after anything', but as he was dying it was brought home to him very forcibly that he should have been on a TPI pension years ago, and that in a few short weeks his wife would be deprived of her husband. As I said in this House on 14 April last year, the veteran concerned would not apply for a pension until he was virtually on his deathbed. He lodged an application but he has now died. His widow is in virtually an impossible position because the records of that ex-serviceman, going back 40 years, are incomplete. Parts are missing. A week ago I spent a day and a half, thanks to this Hawke socialist Government, arguing on behalf of a veteran and do you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the argument was about whether he fell forwards, backwards or sideways when he came off a truck in the middle of an air raid at Milne Bay. That man's back is ruined and he should have been on the TPI pension 20 years ago. That is what they are arguing about. Do honourable members want me to tell them about Ron Wilson who is now blind, or Billy Harman who is dying of cancer and has only a few months to live? This Government, to its eternal shame, is saying to those veterans: `No TPI pension for you'. Do honourable members want me to tell them about a widow who came to my office and said: `He won't apply and I am in a difficult predicament because I know he is dying, the doctors know he is dying, everybody knows he is dying but he won't apply'? As in the Lockley case, he would not apply as he had so much pride. When he made his application-not for him, but so his widow would get something when he died-it was too late. We have a cruel and horrible piece of legislation on our hands. I see it day in and day out. It is only ameliorated by those in the Department of Veterans' Affairs with judgment and compassion who can and occasionally do act in an administrative capacity. I hope that the paranoids in the Hawke socialist Government will not fly up in the air and say `Ah ha, this man must be a supporter of Hodgman', but we have a Deputy Commissioner in Tasmania whom I regard as one the finest men I have ever met. I have probably put his career on the line by complimenting him, but I know it is a view held on both sides of politics that John O'Connor is a very fine, efficient, compassionate and humane administrator. I have heard that from my Labor colleagues in Tasmania, as I have heard it from my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and others. You see, Mr Deputy Speaker, the problem is all the injustices that come and go. What justice is there in quibbling or arguing about Army records that are 44 years old? They are nearly as old as me. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal will tell honourable members that in many cases the pages are illegible. They are indecipherable. What do we do with a man who suffered severe and acute headache and pain? There were no doctors available in the middle of a conflict, so the serviceman would have been seen by a sick-bay attendant. He would have been demobilised, but within a short time may have suffered loss of vision. That man may now be blind but the Government says: `Ah ha, you cannot prove it was because of war service'. Under the legislation, before this disgraceful Government changed the burden of proof, the benefit of the doubt went to the veteran. Let me remind honourable members that it said: `The application should be granted unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that there is no causal link between the disability and his war service'. What do we have today? Have a look at section 24, which the Government put on the statute books. It is relevant to this legislation because the legislation talks about the elimination of poverty traps. I too am talking about the elimination of poverty traps for veterans and their dependants who are denied justice by a heartless, cruel and betraying government. I will quote what a veteran has to prove to get a TPI pension today, and members of the Hawke socialist Government should listen to it because they voted for it and made this the law of Australia. Section 24 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, under the heading `Special rate of pension', says: (1) This section applies to a veteran, other than a veteran to whom section 25 applies- that covers the temporarily incapacitated rate- if- (a) there is in force in respect of the veteran a determination under this Act determining that the degree of incapacity of the veteran from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is 100 per centum; A veteran has to be 100 per cent incapacitated now before he can apply for a TPI pension. I have heard of decisions of the Veterans' Review Board where it said `We would have put this man on to TPI but because he was only 60 or 70 per cent incapacitated we can't'. He has to go to 100 per cent and then start all over again. What about the man or woman whose condition suddenly deteriorates and a medical practitioner says: `This person is not only TPI but is going to die in three months'? This wretched legislation says `Oh, that's a bit of bad luck, isn't it?' A person has to have a hearing first to get himself on to 100 per cent incapacitation before he can on to TPI. While in most cases, as the shadow Minister and honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) would confirm, it can be said that that does not cause an injustice, in a very significant proportion it does. The Government should say that in the majority of cases, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the person should be on 100 per cent, but if the Veterans' Review Board or the Repatriation Commission believes that a person should go straight on to the TPI pension why not put him on to TPI instead of making him wait months and months to go before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and months and months for a decision? The Veterans' Review Board in some cases has not advised its decision until after 89 days. The period of right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is 90 days. I have seen the Repatriation Commission lodge an appeal on the ninetieth day. Cop that! A veteran won a TPI pension and he was not notified for 2 1/2 months that he had got it. The time for appealing runs from the date of notification. The Commission appealed on the 90th day-the very last day. The following week the Repatriation Commission moved to freeze the veteran's pension so that he did not get an increase. The $13,000 that was due to him was frozen. He is still deprived of it, nearly one year later. The veteran was given a TPI pension in February last year and he has not received a cent. The matter is before the AAT and it has reserved its decision, so I had better not say anything more about that. Section 24 (1) states: (b) the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the veteran's incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours a week; and (c) the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free of that incapacity. I have spoken with my distinguished, gallant and honourable colleague the member for Farrer about the grave injustice of what we call section 24 (1) (c) cases. Such a case involves a person who may be on a 100 per cent pension. The Commission might well accept that he has been put out of the work force by virtue of war-caused disability or disease alone. But then, because of his age, it says that it is not because of that alone that he cannot go back into the work force. I invite honourable members to listen to the logic of this: The Commission accepts that a person was put out of the work force because of war-caused disability or disease alone, but six or seven years down the track it says to that man: `Bad luck, old son. You are over 65 now. You have been out of the work force too long; nobody would have you back now. Your wife is not too well, is she? You have to stay at home and look after her a bit, haven't you? Bad luck, old son, it is not because of your war-caused disability or your war-caused disease alone'. If the Department can draw up any red herring, it will do so. There are some very fine people in the advocacy section of the Department of Veterans' Affairs against whom I have appeared-free, gratis and for nothing; I have not received one cent. I appear not as a Queen's Counsel but as Michael Hodgman, the Federal member for Denison, and for nothing. I know how acutely embarrassed they are when they have to ask red herring questions. A man lost his TPI pension because he said, quite bluntly: `She's been a damned good wife to me for 47 years and, I suppose, I must admit in one sense that I should spend time at home with her'. The Department said: `Ah, you are not eligible for employment and it is not just because of your war-caused disability or war-caused disease; it is because you are looking after your wife. Your will receive no TPI pension'. The man said to me: `Well, Mike, if it comes to that, I will accept it, but it's a pretty rough way to be treated'. We are arguing on medical records that are up to 47 years old. The doctors involved may be dead. A doctor told a man in 1945 that he had fibrositis. The claim was changed bureaucratically in 1953 to one of spondylitis. In 1986 spondylitis was rejected. Now, in 1987, the man is told: `It is a very unfortunate case. You should have stuck to fibrositis all the way through. You might have got up by now'. I have to tell that man, who cannot walk 25 yards, that that is how he is repaid by the country which he fought to save! A medical mistake by a junior medical practitioner 30 or 40 years ago in putting down the wrong title has eliminated that man from a TPI pension. There is no justice in the system. If I appear frenzied, it is because I hate this disloyal and betraying Government for what it has done to the veterans. I know people in the Glenorchy Returned Services League Club and other clubs in my electorate, dyed in the wool Labor people, who will never vote Labor again because of what the Government has done to them. Mr Cowan —We have all got them. Mr HODGMAN —We all have them. And listen to this one: A Vietnam veteran was granted a TPI pension by the rotten Hawke socialist Government in March last year, and it was taken off him in November. I am going to go into chapter and verse on that case. We have now reached the stage where the Government takes TPI pensions back. The veteran was granted a TPI pension in March last year and it was taken off him in November last year. I have raised the matter with the Department. I have said: `If you do not fix this administratively and put him back on a TPI pension right now, I warn you that I will have this man and his case spread across the front page of every newspaper in Australia'. I conclude by saying that the way to deal with the Government is to show my dossier of the six worst cases. At the appropriate time I will hand the dossier to 60 Minutes. 60 Minutes will interview those ordinary, decent Australians and their dependants who have been betrayed by the Government. I give you good advice, members of the Hawke socialist Government: Do not go too close to too many RSL clubs on Anzac Day; but if you do, pretend that you are Liberal or National Party members, because if the ex-servicemen find out that you are Australian Labor Party members and members of the lying, Judas, betraying Hawke socialist Labor Government, you will not get a glass of beer, you will get a black eye and a very thick ear. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before calling the honourable member for Scullin, I address the honourable member for Denison for his guidance. The Chair was reluctant to interrupt his speech, but in future he might observe the standing order requiring him to address the Chair and not honourable members directly. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(5.47) —It is perhaps appropriate to remind the House what the legislation before us aims to achieve. The first purpose of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill is to introduce into veterans' affairs legislation poverty trap reduction reforms. I do not intend to dwell too long on that point because I believe that it has been adequately covered by my colleagues the honourable members for Dobell (Mr Lee) and Makin (Mr Duncan). In addition, the legislation puts into the veterans' affairs legislation measures to combat health fraud, similar to those contained in the Health Insurance Act. Also, the opportunity is being taken to make other minor changes to correct minor drafting errors which have come to light since the Veterans' Entitlements Act commenced operation last year. Since the creation of the Repatriation Commission in 1920, successive governments have displayed their commitment to the provision of the best possible care for eligible veterans and their dependants. Despite the colourful contentions of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), no government has displayed its concern more than the present Government. Despite the cant and humbug profferred by honourable members opposite and the continued accusations that in some way this Government is anti-veterans, the Government's record demonstrates that that is absolute rot. For instance, in last year's Budget there was an 8.14 per cent increase in the veterans' affairs budget. At that time, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Arthur Gietzelt, said: Spending in Veterans' Affairs has now risen by over $1.5 billion or 65 per cent since we came to office, or by over 37 per cent in real terms after allowing for inflation. What we have seen since the Government came to office is a realistic reappraisal of appropriate treatment and care based on the resources available. The Government's critics have not helped the welfare of veterans by their continual scare campaigns conducted over issues such as the assets test, improvements to the repatriation entitlements determining system, and the consolidation and simplification of repatriation legislation. This leads us to a discussion on where the Opposition stands on veterans' affairs, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and some aspects of veterans' affairs legislation. An interesting document, which was released this month by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the Australian Institute for Public Policy-one of the many think-tanks that are behind the coalition parties-entitled `Mandate to Govern-A handbook for the next Australian Government', contains a very interesting paragraph. Only one paragraph in that document deals with veterans affairs, but its conclusion is to `abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs, transferring its functions to the Departments of Health, Social Security, and Defence'. Even worse, it has this to say about the administration of veterans' affairs: Administration of veterans' pensions should be integrated with ordinary social security pensions, although entitlements should remain as they are, except for new applicants for war widows' pensions. It makes no sense to describe a woman as a war widow if her husband lived a normal life-span and died thirty or forty years after his military service; the legislation should be amended to put the onus of proof firmly on the applicant in such cases. Despite the Minister asking the coalition parties to repudiate such statements by think-tanks and other bodies that give the Opposition policy advice, we have heard nothing from the Opposition. Australians deserve to be told where the coalition parties stand on such proposals. As has been mentioned before in this debate, in last Monday's Australian Financial Review we saw the document that gave certain spending cut suggestions that were being investigated by the Liberal Party. Indicated in this document is the proposal to have a junior Ministry of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs-the amalgamation of the departments. Whilst I am reassured when people such as the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) and, by a nod and a wink here and there, the honourable member for Farrer indicate that they do not personally support this proposal, that they would like to see the Department of Veterans' Affairs continue, I would like to know when the Leader of the Opposition will say that it is not the Opposition's policy. There was some suggestion by the honourable member for Fisher that this was something that had been set running by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). As has been indicated earlier in the debate, both the Prime Minister and the Minister have indicated that there is no such suggestion. I will read part of an answer by the Minister to a question without notice in the other place last Thursday. It reads: The Prime Minister has given a firm assurance not only to me personally but also to the Parliamentary Labor Party that the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be retained. It is of interest that in the same answer Senator Gietzelt made the following comment which related to various suggestions of, I think, late last year by the New Right and others that there should be the abolition of the Department of Veterans' Affairs: As a consequence a deputation from the Returned Services League met with Mr Howard shortly before Christmas. According to the national newsletter of the RSL, Mr Howard refused to give a commitment that the Department of Veterans' Affairs would be retained. I again ask, as did the honourable member for Dobell: When will the Leader of the Opposition set the veterans' community at rest by indicating that he is in support of the continuation of a separate department, the Department of Veterans' Affairs? Those who sit opposite, in the main, failed to acknowledge the need to come to grips with the changing needs of the veteran population, whilst in government. Now in opposition, as these challenges are revealed to them, they are mute on policy alternatives. This side of the House has recognised that the veteran population is an aging population. It is acknowledged that the needs of the veteran community will peak during the 1990s when over half of the veterans and their dependants eligible for treatment and care will be over 75 years of age. In the past, the treatment services of the Department of Veterans' Affairs has been geared to acute care. There is now an ever growing need to cater for the long term needs of individuals who because of age are more prone to chronic illnesses. The Repatriation Commission through its planning for the next 15 years is ready to put in place programs that will make the lot of its clients more comfortable in their twilight years. At repatriation general hospitals, aged and extended care departments, which originally started as geriatric assessment units, have been established. Specialists in geriatric medicine are being employed. In line with current thinking for the treatment of aged persons, programs to assist aged veterans to remain at home are being put in place. Particularly worthy of praise is the veterans home services program which was brought in in 1985. It replaced a pilot program called the aged persons home help scheme. It is interesting to note that the aged persons home help scheme was a very successful community employment program administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The community employment program, CEP, is another policy program the coalition parties are considering cutting out if they are ever fortunate enough to find themselves back on this side of the House. The objective of the veterans home services program is to provide suitable non-professional support to disabled beneficiaries living in their own homes with a view to improving their living conditions either to delay or possibly help avoid acute care in hospitals. It is a program that is indicative of the way in which this Government has gone about dealing with the changing needs of the veteran population. At this time I would like to mention a pilot program which started in the latter years of the Fraser Government. It was targeted at a particular group of veterans. I refer to the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. On 29 January this year the VVCS celebrated its fifth anniversary. It is a good indication of a project which is especially targeted at a special group within the veterans' community. Mr Tim Fischer —It does good work. Mr JENKINS —It is a successful project. It was in recognition of this and after listening to the recommendations of the evaluation committee, that the Government decided to continue the service even though it was temporary at the time the Labor Government came into power. Now, the VVCS is a permanent body with a highly skilled staff, independent of the mainstream of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, although it gets its administrative support from and works directly under the Minister's jurisdiction. It is a good example of the way we need to adapt to the special needs of our veteran population. That is perhaps what caused me a little concern with some of the contributions from those opposite. They say at some stage we will have a peak in the number of veterans and that because of age the numbers will diminish. There does not appear to be a recognition of the fact that as members of the veteran population get older they will need more particular and specialised care, whether it be in trying to keep them in their homes, trying to assist them into nursing home accommodation, or trying to assist them into hostel and and hospice care. It will be very much a challenge for any government, whatever its political complexion, to retain the necessary and appropriate treatment for those veterans, their eligible spouses and dependants. I will run over some of the other achievements of this Government in providing services for veterans. One of its great achievements is the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. I noted the comments of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Farrer, that he welcomed that there would be a monitoring committee. I agree with him that this will be a very important aspect of the way we go about our assessment of how things are going. Hopefully, that will be an appropriate avenue to take up many of those genuine concerns-if, when we chip away the emotive rhetoric of people such as the honourable member for Denison, there are genuine concerns, because if people are in some way being overburdened by the way that the legislation has been reframed, it is appropriate that we give that consideration and that we make the necessary adjustments. I do not think that it is the intention of this Government or that it should be the intention of any government to subject the veteran population to any further wholesale changes in the legislation. As the Repatriation Commission indicated in its annual report to this Parliament, there is a need to get the legislation into place and to have it firmly understood by a veteran population which is aging. We have already seen, when scare campaigns are conducted amongst that population, how easy it is to whip up emotions. That is unfortunate. Another area at which this Government can look with some pride is entitlement determinations. As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) indicated when introducing this Bill in the House, from June 1985 to December 1986 outstanding entitlement matters have been reduced by some 63 per cent and the assessment backlog by some 70 per cent. Even more important is the fact that, I guess as a corollary of making reductions in the backlog, the period for processing entitlement cases has been reduced form 391 days to 112 days and for assessment matters from 328 days to 93 days. It is important that the system has been made to work so that there is a better response time between the making of applications and the final decisions. That is of benefit to the veterans and also to the administration of the cases because, when there are great backlogs, people inquire where their particular cases are and that only further slows down the processing time. Another major initiative of the Government was the Brand Review of the Repatriation Hospital System. I am pleased to see that some 141 of its 230 recommendations have been fully implemented. I note that the Government has adopted a softly softly approach to matters dealing with the rationalisation of hospital services and their integration into the State health systems. In the logical, let alone the emotive, sphere of dealing with veterans' affairs, that is not something that should be developed with great haste. In conclusion, I am pleased that those on the other side in this place have indicated support for the legislation. As I said at the outset, the poverty trap reduction measures are not only very important to the veteran population but also the Australian community in general. It is important that they are put in place and I hope that other aspects will be considered when the legislation is reviewed in toto by the monitoring committee, because I think that is important. It is a pleasure to have been able to speak in support of this legislation. I congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for the zeal and compassion he has demonstrated in guiding his portfolio towards its goal, which is to honour Australia's veterans and their dependants through programs of care, commemoration, income support and housing assistance. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(6.05) —I am very pleased to join in the debate. Opposition members are pleased to support this legislation. We are pleased to see that poverty traps are being attended to and we are always pleased to enter debates that involve our ex-service men and women. Over the last year or so a number of amendments have been made to veterans' entitlement legislation and we have always been keen to debate them. As honourable members may recall, only last year we debated the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. It was necessary that that Bill lie on the table for quite a period simply because of the need to amend the original Bill that was presented to the Parliament by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). I am pleased to say that, due to the co-operation of our shadow Minister, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), the Opposition parties and, I am sure, members of the Government, together with the Returned Services League of Australia, particularly Sir William Keys and the chairmen of the State branches of the RSL, we were able to achieve certain amendments to that Bill. At the time that Bill generally satisfied RSL members, but I think their greater concern has been that they have been deprived of quite a few privileges they had in respect of entitlements. As speakers for the Opposition have very clearly said, this has made veterans very wary of any legislation or form of regulation that may happen to amend conditions of RSL members. I do not want to term the RSL a pressure group, but it is very much aware-more aware perhaps than those of us who have not served the country in wars-of the sacrifices that its members have given over the years. Therefore, it wants to jealously guard very much the privileges that this nation owes to them. Let me make it quite clear that when I speak of privileges, it is compensation that is paid to those who have served their country in times of need. I do not believe that this is a pension. I do not think it ought to be described as a pension. It must be engrossed in our minds all the time that any entitlement an ex-service man or woman receives is compensation for the service he or she has given to this country. As the years pass we want to pass that message on to our children and future generations. I believe that that is the thought of the RSL-that it wants the people of this nation, irrespective of what their political beliefs may be, to understand that the traditions we have and the safeguards within the Constitution of this land of ours which we value so very much are things that have been defended by people who have gone to war to defend our rights and privileges. We need to realise this and to remind our children in our schools of the importance of the Constitution-a Constitution which was based on centuries of experience of the British nation in all those tragedies of war that happened in Britain and in Europe. It was the experience of our forefathers which enabled them to write the 128 clauses of the Constitution which allow us the freedom to be able to speak here in parliament, for the Press to be able to do things it wants to do and for children to go to school and learn what they learn. This is the message that we have to pass on and that must be the foundation of our attitude in respect of any laws or regulations that affect the entitlements of veterans. Every member of the Government who has spoken today has said that when we get into government, which I trust will be very soon, we may abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That is not correct. Let me make this clear because the National Party held a conference over the weekend. I can speak from the National Party point of view because the National Party has been spoken about today. I do not want to be party political in this matter. It was agreed by us over the weekend to maintain a separate departmental responsibility for veterans' affairs, distinct from social welfare, to ensure that the different character of entitlement, including that of war widows, is preserved. That is very clear. Let there be no more discussion and no more challenges from the Government. That is laid down in the official policy of the National Party. That is what the National Party will abide by. We do not want to hear any more about it from the Government. I and I am sure my colleagues around me have never felt any different. This is not a department that one can hand over to a State to administer. It is not housing, education, agriculture, primary industry or anything like that. Mr Tim Fischer —It is a Federal responsibility. Mr COWAN —It is a Federal responsibility to those who have served our nation. We will abide by that responsibility. I do not condemn those pressures that I spoke about earlier and the fundamental issues in the hearts and minds of the people who have served Australia. We have a responsibility whenever we go to schools and other places to pass on the message that we have gained the safety that the people of this nation over the years will be able to enjoy. As has been said here today, certain cutbacks have been made in veterans' entitlements. Travelling allowances have been halved. I know there have been certain changes in the travelling arrangements of servicemen who have to go for medical treatment. I am pleased to see that there have been some constructive savings. The ambulance service has been abolished except in cases where it is merited because of the condition of the patient. Other cars such as taxis, hire cars and government cars are being used to transport people to hospitals for medical care. I think that is very sound. Subsistence allowances have also been cut. There has been a cut to some of the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits and four categories of dental treatment have been cut. Some of us are very concerned about these measures. Although we respect the need to cut back on government expenditure, we were concerned to see the 2 per cent depreciation in the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme. That cut will never be forgotten by those superannuitants. At the time it was calculated that a person receiving a normal superannuation payment, a pension-would lose over $2,000 over a 10-year period. That is a lot of money. Such people do not trust government, whether it be the present Government or whether we are in government. When we start to fiddle with superannuation payments we get into trouble. We do not want to be associated with that. We have made it very clear that we will abolish the assets test when we get back into government. We will do it for one reason. It is unfair on pensioners and service personnel in Australia. We hear the Minister get up in this House time and again and say: `Hear, hear'. We hear the boys in the back say: `Hear, hear'. That there are 12 millionaires in this country and others who are well off who should not be receiving the pension should not come into it. If we apply the assets test we are depriving people. I, like the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), can cite plenty of cases within my electorate. Over 200 people have spoken to me-I have made representations on behalf of many of them-who have been unfairly treated by the assets test. If we implement the assets test we are depriving farmers who want to reside on their land. They might have gone out of dairying or beef because of their physical condition and they might be unable to maintain their properties in a reasonable condition. Parts of the property may have gone back to bushland and pastures may have disappeared. Those people want to live on their properties; they want to die on them. What is the Government doing to them? It says that because a person's next door neighbour may have sold his property for $200,000 that person could probably sell his or her property for $250,000. Although he or she wants to remain on the property, the Government is compelling that person, because of his or her financial situation, to sell the property and to live a lifestyle that he or she does not want to live. We see examples of that every day. This is why the assets test is unfair. A person can sell a property which may be worth $250,000 and buy a three bedroom or four bedroom home, which he does not require, in a choice position in the town, which might be at the seaside. This applies particularly to ex-servicemen. He can then spend the majority of his money which will entitle him to a pension. Is that not a stupid state of affairs? Mr Conquest —There is a loss of productivity. Mr COWAN —The honourable member for Hinkler says: `It is a loss of productivity'. It is a loss of many things. It deprives the ex-servicemen who have paid their taxes and served their nation in times of need in order to protect us. The Government says to them: `You have got to do a certain thing if you want to exist.' There are many sad cases. Do we in this country realise what we owe to the ex-servicemen? Do we appreciate what we owe to them? So often we hear members of the Government talking about nuclear free zones and belittling the Returned Services League-because its members went to war. Nobody should go to war in the eyes of this Government. What does the Government want to do? Does it want an aggressor to take over our nation? Does it want to teach the young people attending our schools that there is no need to defend our nation, our privileges and safeguards? I am sure that that is not in the minds of all members of the Government but it is in the minds of some of them. One only has to hear them speaking to see the direction in which they want to go. I believe that the people of Australia are actually aware of the Government's feeling in this respect. I will conclude by saying a little about our responsibility to care for veterans who are eligible to go into nursing homes and hostels. We must not deprive them of the medical care which they are entitled to receive anywhere within repatriation hospitals or private hospitals wherever those people happen to live. I am sure that every member of this chamber who has a specialist or a private hospital within his suburb or town can instance a case where the Veterans' Affairs Department will not agree to a person receiving treatment within a private hospital. If he does not have private insurance, if he depends on repatriation to pay, he is drafted into Concord Repatriation Hospital, or into a public hospital. Sometimes he must wait because there is no room available at the time. There are urgent cases occasionally when a veteran, upon the advice of his doctor or specialist, needs to enter a private hospital. In such cases, the Department and the Minister must be considerate in assessing the application. It is important that treatment take place as soon as possible. I personally would like to see-this is the reason I have always supported nursing homes and hostels-more of this type of accommodation being made available to our veterans, both men and women. They are the people aged 63 to 70 who fought in the Second World War. The pensions are costing the Government $1.6 billion per year, which is a lot to pay out; but as the shadow Minister has explained time and time again, these people will pass on, so the financial responsibility of the taxpayers will be less and less as the years go on. Let us look after these people now and give them the aged accommodation and care they require. I am pleased to support the legislation, but one thing about it concerns me. Although the amount that single veterans will be allowed to earn will increase from $30 to $40 per week and for married couples from $50 to $70 per week, the means test should not apply to ex-service personnel. It should apply to social security recipients, by all means, but not to the people who have served this country. We should give them the opportunity to earn money. If they want to earn $150 a week or more, if their physical and mental condition will allow them, that is a privilege we owe them. As I said earlier, their entitlement is in the form of compensation, not a pension. I am pleased to support the legislation. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(6.22) —The honour- able member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and I served in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly with a wonderful man named Arthur Wade, who was and is the member for Newcastle. Just occasionally Mr Wade would relax after dinner and on very rare occasions he talked about his experiences as a prisoner of war. I have no recollection of the war-only very vague remembrances of the death of a neighbour or a neighbour's brother-but Arthur Wade told me and other members of parliament of his experiences in Crete when he was taken prisoner of war. Mr Cowan —He is a fine citizen. Mr MAHER —I agree entirely. He was taken to nazi Germany where he was held prisoner and forced to work in the mines. One night when he and other prisoners were returning from their shift one of the Australian prisoners of war was shot in the lift coming up from the mine. He had said something cheeky in German to a guard and was shot dead there and then. These experiences are incredible. Arthur Wade, who was a member of parliament with the honourable member for Farrer, the honourable member for Lyne and me, could tell us first hand about his experiences. He also had a habit of writing `Lang is right' on the outside of railway carriages in Germany-he was an old Langite-and the German high command ordered a special inquiry to be set up into this message that was being carried through Germany. That is another story, but one which is perhaps typical of the attitude of Australian prisoners of war-to see something humorous in a situation of great adversity. Every member and senator is familiar with the problems of returned service personnel, who are now called veterans, and their dependants, as well as war widows. We all have representations from our local Returned Services League sub-branches and district councils and from individuals who want disability pensions, service pensions or a war widow's pension. I, like some of my colleagues, have been instrumental in helping people obtain pensions and disability allowances. I have even been to the Veterans' Review Board with an elderly lady who was 80. Although I was told that I could not say anything because I was legally qualified, I am pleased to say that she received a war widow's pension. Her case is perhaps typical of many. Her husband contracted severe dermatitis in New Guinea during the war. He came back and, although he lived to be 79, he was a recluse thereafter. This lady said in evidence that the dermatitis made his face bleed and he took to alcohol and became dependent upon it. Even though he lived a full life, the tribunal-I thought, wisely-awarded this lady a war widow's pension and she was paid some money retrospectively. I found it a touching experience to see justice not only being done but being seen to be done in the system. I pay tribute to the members of the Veterans' Review Board and other tribunals and to the people in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, because my experience is that the Department does an honourable and fair job for the service personnel who are its customers. I must cross swords with the honourable member for Lyne when he called for a withdrawal of the assets test. There is no assets test on the disability pension or service pension, only on the burnt-out digger's pension. To say that people should be able to get a disability pension when they have, as well as their home, an asset worth half a million dollars, which is apparently producing no income-that a person who sits on an asset, be it a property in the country or a block of flats in Sydney or Melbourne, should still be able to draw a pension-is not realistic. We have a difficult economic situation and an adverse balance of payments and we are spending 30 per cent of the Budget on welfare. Do we keep paying pensions to people who have substantial assets or pay the pensions to people who are paying rent and have no assets? The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill deals with poverty traps and is complementary to legislation introduced under the Social Security Act. The first significant feature of the legislation is that the amount that a service pensioner can earn before the rate of service pension is affected by the income test will be increased from 1 July from $30 to $40 per week for a single pensioner and from $50 to $70 per week for service pensioner couples. The second salient feature is that the additional amount of income that can be earned by a service pensioner with dependent children will double from 1 July from $6 to $12 per week for each child. This will mean that a single pensioner with one dependent child will be able to earn up to $52 per week without any effect on the rate of pension payable. This is an increase of $16 per week, or 40 per cent, over the existing amount payable. I compliment the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) on increasing the rates. A veteran who has married late in life and has a family, who may be ill or may die, may have children who have to be cared for. The spouse may be working at a part time job one morning per week and it is essential that the spouse should be allowed to improve the family's situation by earning some income. The third relevant measure in the legislation relates to the service pensioner who pays rent for private accommodation. The legislation previously discriminated against veterans in that, for every dollar of disability pension or any other income that was received, the rent allowance of $15 per week was reduced. This will be considerably liberalised in this legislation, which will provide for much more income before the income test will apply to the rent allowance. I want to touch on several other aspects of this legislation and to comment on the second reading speech of the Minister, because the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord is in the electorate I represent in Sydney. The honourable member for Lyne referred to some people being forced to go to the Concord Repatriation Hospital. I am sure that he did not mean any slight on Concord, because it is a wonderful hospital. It has 571 beds. Mr Tim Fischer —A number of beds there are closed at present. Mr MAHER —It has 19 wards open at present and six closed. They are closed essentially because there is a shortage of nurses, not only in Australia but in every country. I read in the papers today that astronomical sums of money are being offered to attract nurses to North America. I was at Concord today when the Minister opened a facility there called the digital angiography suite. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Mr MAHER —Before the dinner break, I was about to explain to the House what the Hon. Arthur Gietzelt, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, had opened at Concord Repatriation General Hospital this morning. He opened equipment worth more than $1m, known as a digital angiography suite. In actual fact it is an X-ray process that allows the tracing of dye put through the veins into the brain or any part of the body-- Mr Cohen —I have had it done. Mr MAHER —I do not doubt that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has had this test. In fact I had suspected it for some time. It is literally an X-ray that ignores the bone structure. We all know what a CAT scanner is. It analyses slices of the human body and the make-up of those slices. But this new piece of equipment at Concord, which is for the benefit of the veteran population and their dependants, examines layers of the human body and obliterates bones. When people infer that the Government has not done enough for and is not looking after the veteran population, I give this as another example of what the Government is doing. Concord Hospital, which is in my electorate, was largely a Cinderella hospital until recent years-until Senator Gietzelt became Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Since then about $17m or $18m has been spent at Concord in building 10 new operating rooms. They are not operating theatres in the sense that people were able to go and watch Pasteur or Lister operating, doing their pioneering work with students looking down. That is just not the case any more. Concord is a major teaching hospital for the University of Sydney, and it is about time that it had new operating rooms. Ten rooms will be built there. Three of the existing seven are being closed. When I was first elected as the member for Lowe, the doctors at Concord took me aside and pointed out that in the existing operating theatres there was only one door. That meant that the clean linen had to come through, and the dirty linen had to go through, the one door. That was a potential disaster. There are now two doors in the new operating theatres. One is for incoming clean linen, and the other for the dirty soiled linen. Some of these new theatres will be special ultra-clean theatres for certain types of operation. What is needed at Concord is an upgrading of the 1942 block, the main ward block. If honourable members have been to Concord-I am sure it is similar to Greenslopes and other repatriation hospitals-they will know that there is one multi-purpose block. The same architect designed them all. These multi-purpose blocks have not been upgraded at any of the hospitals since 1942 when they were built. What must be done at Concord is to build a ward block. There are proposals for a 168-bed ward block that will allow for an upgrading of the main central block. Concord takes not only the veteran population for New South Wales; it takes 20 per cent in local patients; so that is a significant input. I mention that the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) made the criticism that some of his constituents were forced to go to Concord, but I am sure that he did not mean to denigrate Concord. I have said that before. The repatriation hospitals around Australia took 66,644 patients in 1985-86, the last year for which there is a report available. Of course, that includes community patients, where they are taken, which is mainly at Concord. A total of 62,000 entitled beneficiaries were treated at non-departmental hospitals. That means that, for every digger or war widow treated in a repatriation hospital, one was treated in a normal public hospital or in a private hospital. While I am mentioning Concord, I pay tribute to Tony Mulvihill, a former senator, who did much to get the public admitted to Concord Hospital. He did some pioneering work there and he got a commitment from previous governments to admit to Concord 20 per cent of local residents, which is how it should be as there is no other public hospital in the Concord area and the local patients permit a good age mix for medical students to study. I do not wish to delay the House tonight because the legislation is quite straightforward and quite simple. Most honourable members have made general speeches about the needs of veterans. There is one smaller part of the legislation that deals with the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 and which relates to the mercantile marines. It just happens that yesterday was the annual Anzac service in Sydney for those who served in the mercantile marines-literally another branch of the Services in the war scene. Mr Kent —They have never been acknow- ledged. Mr MAHER —As my colleague says, these people have never been acknowledged. There is not even a national memorial for them in the whole of Australia. In London, at Tower Hill on the Thames, there is a memorial for the merchant marines. But there is no memorial in Australia to the merchant marines. They have their service in my electorate. I went to it last year and again this year. Mr Cohen —Come and talk to me. Mr MAHER —I have actually written a number of letters to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment about the need for a national memorial. I must say, in all sincerity, that he was less than very helpful. He referred me to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who referred me to another Minister. But it does appear that the merchant marines, from their own resources, will achieve a memorial. All that they want is an acknowledgment of those who died. They do not even know who from the merchant marines died in the First World War. But this legislation will give the merchant marines certain appeal rights similar to those of other veterans so that, if they are not happy with some pension allocation, they have similar appeal rights. I pay tribute to the merchant marines and to all the diggers. It is coming up to Anzac Day when we will all be attending dawn services and marches as representatives of the national Parliament, as we should do. We do this with great humility. We go to our community centres and parish churches and see the lists of those who served in the forces and those who gave their lives for their country. There is no greater sacrifice and no greater honour than to be able to give one's life for one's country. So often those people are forgotten, which is why a debate in this House on the whole notion of veterans' affairs is so important, so that members of parliament can pay a tribute to those who served, those who died and those who came back damaged. We can look at men such as the Hon. Tom Uren who was a prisoner of war of the Japanese-a man who went through great privations and a man whom we all greatly admire. I add finally that the legislation is not without cost to the Government. It will cost an additional $29m in this financial year and $28.6m in the next financial year. I urge the House to support the Bill. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(8.10) —I must say at the outset that the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) are very worthy. It is a pity that over the last four years the Government has not put them into effect and given the veterans the recognition they deserve. The second reading speech on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill draws attention to the claims the Government has made about the reducing of time taken in determining entitlement matters and assessment matters. We are very pleased that this time has been reduced but in many cases the waiting time for appeals to be heard has increased. Unfortunately, it seems to have increased in my home State of Queensland more than in other States. This backlog of appeals, particularly to the Veterans Review Board, is a great problem. In Queensland it takes a minimum of 12 months from the time the appeal is listed until it is ready to proceed but from the time the process starts it could well take two years or more. Unfortunately, with the increasing age of these veterans many of them have died while awaiting the hearing of their appeals. Waiting times for appeals have always been long but it is no excuse for a government, after four years in office, to say: `The waiting time has always been long. We are sorry; we cannot do too much about it'. The Government gives higher priority to other things and can always find the resources and money for them. As the years go on veterans will make more and more claims. Some of them will be approved but some will lead to more and more appeals. It is no use fixing up the bottom strata if the appeal structure will clog up. More resources have to be allocated to the appeal area if we are to give any sort of justice to the veterans who are depending on the Government-whatever government it might be-to look after their interests. Over the years promises have been made by governments that the interests of veterans would be looked after. I find it extraordinary that the Government can say to veterans who are making initial claims `Yes, we will deal with you promptly' but when it comes to appeals against the determination-which are part of the total system-the veterans find that their appeals are being held up for this long time. Twelve months-and in some cases two years-is an extraordinary time for someone who is waiting for his benefit or for his disability to be acknowledged. What really sticks in the guts of these people is that when the Government wants to do something which it believes is electorally popular it can allocate extraordinary amounts of money and resources to fix other problems. For example, it can allocate money, because it thinks it is electorally appealing-God knows why-to the Gay Mardi Gras committee or to some of these other extraordinary causes it gives money to. There is a whole list of them. It gave $15,000 to a study on Roman women; $41,000 for the history of the Australian Labor Party, which I am sure no one will ever read; $19,000 to an analysis of the Irish Parliament; and $28,000 to a study of work relationships in the household. It is an absolute nonsense if a veteran has a real problem and one says to him `I am sorry, the Government says it has not got the resources to fix up the appeal system in the veterans affairs area' and he asks: `Well, what about this money that it is handing out to every other cause except ours?'. I believe veterans have a very just cause. These are the people who served their country. As the years go on fewer and fewer people remember the wars and the sacrifices these people made. The Government can find something like 2,000 public servants and a billion dollars to administer an identity card that no one wants; yet it cannot find the money to fix up the appeals system for benefits due to veterans who served this country. Mr Tim Fischer —They are transferring VRB typing out of Brisbane interstate. Mr WHITE —I know it is being sent interstate from Queensland to try to get it fixed up. It is not just the transference that is the problem; the problem is that overall the appeals system is gumming up. The Government might be gradually getting the waiting time down but what about the people who have been waiting for two years or for 12 months after the case has been listed to get their appeal heard? Part of the problem is that as veterans get older they simply do not understand the processes that they have to go through and, in many cases, what they have to do to get their appeal heard. In all my dealings with the Department of Veterans' Affairs I have found the staff to be excellent. When one goes to them with a problem they will respond very quickly when they know what the problem is. I say to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is in charge of the Bill in this House, that as the veterans get older and the appeal system bogs down we must explain to the veterans what is happening, why their appeals are being delayed and what the Department can do to overcome it. More effort is required not only in the appeals system but also in the counselling and advice the Department gives to veterans. I believe that the veterans in this country have been under assault for something like four years. In the May 1985 mini-Budget travel allowances and other benefits were reduced. In 1986 there was an assault on widows. Then there was the 2 per cent cut in relation to superannuation. The 1987 mini-Budget is viewed with some trepidation by veterans in this country. I conclude by quoting Ben Chifley. Many years ago in this House he said: The careers of hundreds and thousands of young men- and women- 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. I ask the Government to ensure that the right thing is done particularly in the appeals system in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(8.18) —I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill with a great deal of feeling because-- Mr Cleeland —Don't you be hypocritical. Mr NEHL —I would like to assure you, Madam Speaker, and anybody else listening to this debate, that my father is an 83-year-old totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner who served throughout the siege of Tobruk. I take exception to the smart comment from my colleague on my left-and that is the right place for him. As I started to say, I speak with a degree of emotion on this Bill because I believe very strongly and very deeply that we are not talking about a pension when we are talking about veterans affairs; we are talking about an obligation. We are talking about a national commitment. We are talking about compensation. I would like to direct my comments, only briefly, to the situation obtaining to veterans' pensioners with the assets test. As honourable members are aware, since being elected on 1 December 1984 I have frequently been heard on the assets test and the ill effect it has had not only on veterans' pensioners but on social security pension and benefit recipients as well. At the time of the assets tests being implemented for veteran recipients in 1985, 386,113 people were receiving benefits Australia-wide. Some 12,228, or 3.167 per cent, of them were affected by the assets test. Of these, 6,711 had their pensions reduced and 5,517 had their pensions cancelled. In the division of Cowper, 4,747 people were receiving service pensions. In total, 188 people were affected and, of those, 84 had their pensions reduced and 94 had their pensions cancelled. I know that it is popular in some Government circles to proclaim that a handful of millionaires were caught receiving the pension. To many on the Government side this seems to have more significance than the fact that individuals, who were not millionaires but who were Australians in very limited circumstances, were caught. They were caught, not because they owned a house on the shores of Sydney harbour valued at up to $1m, which would have been acceptable, but because they had, for example, small farms. This applies particularly to the north coast of New South Wales in which my electorate of Cowper is situated. Very often, because of the inflated value of land arising from the tremendous growth in tourism and the small amount of curtilage, even though their land was not productive people were caught and lost their pensions. Many people might say that in my electorate only 84 people had their pensions reduced and only 94 had their pensions cancelled. But for the individual pensioner it would have been disastrous. I can assure the House of this, because I know through my personal contact with so many of these people up and down my electorate that the assets test has created enormous hardship. There is a basic injustice and inequity in the assets test. As I said, if one is in the circumstances I described-if one happens to have a small farm-one can be caught. In many cases the farm may have been owned by a husband and wife who spent their lives together there raising their children. They are caught in the evening of their lives. If they were dairy farmers they would not have amassed a great deal of money throughout their lives. It is only in recent times, perhaps the last 10 or 15 years, that dairying has started to become profitable. I can recall back in 1968 when the average income of dairy farmers on the north coast of New South Wales was only $2,000 a year. It is certainly a great deal better now. Nonetheless, the average dairy farmer was not able to amass a great deal of capital or to earn a great deal of income. Subsequently, all these small farmers have is their old car, their tractor and few cows. These are the real pensioners I am talking about. They have their farms. Because of the curtilage provisions, as I say, in my electorate, 84 had their pensions reduced and 94 had them cancelled. As at December 1986 there were 271,389 recipients of veteran benefits out of a total of 540,000 surviving ex-service men and women. A little later I will show how that total of 540,000 is made up. That figure is a significant reduction in the number of veteran benefits recipients in 1985. Honourable members will recall that in 1985 386,113 veterans were receiving benefits Australia-wide. It is interesting to look to the reasons why the total has been significantly reduced. The reduction is due in part to the, at times, not too subtle prodding of veteran benefits recipients into the social security system rather than have them remain in the veteran welfare system. To what extent the reduction can be attributed to the assets test is difficult to say. It is worth noting that, where the wife of an ex-serviceman receiving a service pension is pre-deceased by her ex-service husband, the wife will automatically be entitled to a special temporary allowance which is the equivalent of six pay-periods immediately following the death of her husband. During this period she will receive the combined rate of pension which they were entitled to during the lifetime of her husband. However, at the conclusion of this 12-week special temporary allowance period, the wife's assets will be subject to the assets test and will be assessed at the single rate which is significantly below the combined rate she and her husband enjoyed prior to his death. So what will happen-I forecast this prior to being elected and also after being elected-is that an increasing number of people in the veterans area as well as in the broader social security area will not receive the full pension. Where the husband and wife have had assets to the extent of being able to receive the full pension, as soon as one spouse dies the cut-out point is reduced. The same assets may be held, but immediately the widow or the widower dies he or she is placed in the invidious position, after the sixth pay-period during which the combined pension is paid, of the pension being reduced because the assets combined, while within the limit for a married couple, exceed the limit for a single person. This puts the survivor into a most distressing situation. The responsible Ministers-the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is also involved in the broader field-should look very carefully at what can be done to assist in this situation. The death of a husband or wife is traumatic enough without one having to suffer a reduction in pension-not just from the married combined rate of pension to the single rate of pension but for the single rate of pension to be further reduced because of a slight amount of assets over and above the cut-off point. A surviving ex-service man or woman receiving a service pension can, upon the death of his or her spouse, go on to the single rate of service pension. In that case the single rate of assets test is applied. It should be noted that, as half the married rate of service pension is less than the single rate of service pension, a surviving ex-serviceman is demonstrably better off than a surviving war widow. Mr McGauran —Inequitable. Mr NEHL —It is inequitable, as my colleague says. Where the surviving spouse-for example, a widow-would be entitled to more benefits from the Department of Social Security than the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Department tends to push survivors in the direction of the Department of Social Security by suggesting that they should seek to meet the qualifications for social security benefits. I believe that is totally wrong. This nation has an unswerving commitment and obligation to our citizens who were prepared to risk their lives to defend this country to preserve the democracy we enjoy today. These benefits are not a pension. They are compensation. These people were prepared to risk the ultimate and to make the absolute sacrifice for their fellow Australians. I cannot, and never will be able to, go along with anyone who suggests that we should not keep the bargain and maintain the commitment which was made by politicians and parliamentarians of all political parties. Mr Tim Fischer —Ben Chifley and Arthur Fadden. Mr NEHL —Ben Chifley, Arthur Fadden and Menzies-the greats, the giants, among the politicians of prior decades. We made an unbreakable commitment which must never be backed away from. Before I finish I want to raise just one other point. I did say earlier that I would refer to the total of 540,000 surviving ex-service personnel. As at December 1986, there were 5,700 survivors from World War I, 448,900 from World War II, 31,900 from Korea and Malaya during the period 1950 to 1973, and 53,500 from Vietnam-a total of 540,000 Australian men and women still surviving after risking their lives in serving this country. Not only must we be absolutely certain that we do nothing to diminish their benefits, but also we should have a bipartisan commitment that the assets test should go and these people should not be penalised by it. Mr McGauran —Absolutely. Mr NEHL —That is absolutely correct. Further, there is a great deal of fear, disquiet and concern in the veterans' community about the frequently rumoured proposal to amalgamate the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Social Security. Mr Lee —What is your view? Mr NEHL —The lad opposite should not get excited. Senator Gietzelt has advised me and other members that that is not his intention. I know, though, that the Minister for Social Security has been challenged to say what he thinks about it, and I know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been challenged also. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has been promoting the kite that the coalition when back in government would be prepared to amalgamate both those departments. I do not believe that that will happen. I do not speak for the coalition or for the Liberal or National parties but for myself and, I believe, a great many other members on this side of the House. I am prepared to stand up here tonight and say in a figurative fashion that over my dead body will these two departments be amalgamated. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr NEHL —As you can see, Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of support from my National Party colleagues sitting here with me. Mr N.A. Brown —Not only the National Party. Mr NEHL —Not only my National Party colleagues; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also supports me. If any government seeks to amalgamate these departments the whole veterans' community, which comprises 540,000 survivors at present, will put up a great fight. I made some reference earlier to my father. My mother is also alive. I am an only child so ours is not a big family, but my parents, me, my wife, my two sons and one son's wife add up to seven voters. If we multiply the 596,000 survivors by seven we come up with a huge number of voters who are directly affected by this legislation. Any government that seeks to do away with the Department of Veterans' Affairs does so at its peril. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(8.34) —I appreciate for many reasons the opportunity to conclude the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. Mr McGauran —Well say something sensible. Madam SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Gippsland wishes to interject he will return to his own seat. Then I will stop him from interjecting from his own seat. Mr BEAZLEY —I wish to pay tribute to my colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, who has introduced a number of excellent reforms in the veterans' affairs area during tough times. He is probably about to become unique because I do not think we will ever again, after he has finished this time, have as a Minister for Veterans' Affairs a person who served in World War II. Probably the age bracket that that group has entered into now precludes, under the selection processes of just about all political parties, a person with that background serving in that portfolio again. Of course, that background has given Senator Gietzelt a special sympathy and expertise in this area as he has come to deal effectively with his ex-service colleagues. Generally these debates raise, rightly, a considerable amount of bipartisan feeling and the odd point is made to Ministers about particular areas about which honourable members are concerned. A number of those issues have been raised from both sides of the House today and I will make sure that they are referred to Senator Gietzelt for his attention in due course. There generally seems to have been bipartisan support for this Bill, so apart from raising those specific issues of concern honourable members have tended to canvass general areas of government policy. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), who spoke immediately prior to me, made the impassioned plea not to eliminate the Department of Veterans' Affairs. So far as I am aware the only document circulated in this place that has suggested that the Department of Veterans' Affairs should be abolished is one that emanated from the other side of the House. The impassioned pleas do not need to be delivered to us on this side of the House; they need to be directed towards the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Again, so far as I am aware, the Leader of the Opposition has not repudiated the statement that appeared in the working paper which suggested that amalgamation should take place. As one looks at the various Opposition promises to slash anywhere up to $7 billion off expenditure, it becomes hard to work out where those slashes will bite unless they are to apply very much in the social security area. Indeed, the social security area has been indicated as an area to be dealt with. If those sorts of funds are to be released, essentially from the social security area, it is impossible to see circumstances in which that could occur without such action impacting on the veterans community. Again, the assets test was raised. Until recently, the Opposition has made quite clear its intention that it is prepared to perpetrate an injustice in extraordinarily difficult circumstances by placing the repeal of the assets test ahead of any other social security expenditure priorities. Given that in the areas of veterans' affairs and other social security areas there are so many who live in poverty it seems an awful tragedy that, when the Government has the resources available to it to address that poverty, concerns of poor veterans should be so dishonoured by being placed behind those of the wealthy in the general social security area. That would happen should the assets test be repealed. Of course, there will not be the opportunity for the assets test to be repealed because no government would do it. Even in the unlikely event of those on the other side of the House securing the Treasury bench, we note from recent indications by the Leader of the Opposition that the assets test is beginning to slide from his list of those issues that will be addressed. Well it might, but it ill becomes now members of the Opposition, given the Opposition Leader's unwillingness any longer to indicate publicly a commitment to that course, to keep lambasting this Government as though that was now still a matter of partisan concern. I want the next speech I hear from any Opposition member on the assets test to clarify the Opposition Leader's stand. When we have that clarification I guess we on this side of the House will be prepared once again to enter into debate with members of the Opposition in that regard. This Bill, which enjoys general support, is just one of a substantial number of measures that Senator Gietzelt has placed effectively before this chamber to be considered by members. Of course, his record will be stamped with the Bill which introduced a rationalised framework for veterans' entitlements. It contained many long overdue reforms back in 1986. Those important changes were made to put a stop to excesses that had arisen under the repatriation system in recent years and to overcome the shortcomings of outdated systems of disability assessment. The changes were made in the interests of ensuring consistent treatment for veterans in similar circumstances in the interests of responsible economic management. In particular, the Veterans' Entitlements Act incorporated changes which had already been made to the repatriation legislation to clarify the eligibility criteria for payment of pension at the special TPI rate. The new criteria made it clear that, for a TPI rate to be granted, the applicant had to be prevented from continuing in full time work by the severe effects of war-caused incapacity and not for any other reason. That was the intention of the TPI provisions when they were first introduced in 1920. Over the years, the imprecision of the repatriation legislation had given rise to TPI decisions which made a mockery of the original intention of the pension, at an ever-increasing cost burden to the taxpayer. In the Veterans' Entitlements Act the Government also introduced a new guide for assessing rates of veterans' disability pensions. The new system has gone a long way to ensuring that every assessment now made is in accordance with objective and comprehensive tests of both medical and social effects of any given disability. Application of the new guide has been made mandatory since 1 December 1986. As at February 1987, over 8,000 cases have been determined using the new guide at the primary level. I am sure that an evaluation of the new guide will be undertaken by the Veterans' Entitlements Act monitoring committee. As we are all aware, that legislation significantly enhanced existing entitlements to veterans' pensions and benefits but in a much simplified form which has greatly helped both beneficiaries and administrators alike. It has been drawn to my attention that the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) has pointed out an error on page 95 of the explanatory memorandum. That error will be covered in an errata sheet to be issued as soon as practicable. I thank him for his diligence in that regard in pointing it out to us. As I indicated earlier, for very good reason veterans' affairs matters have generally been debated in this place in a good bipartisan spirit, and so they should be. There is a common recognition in this place that we owe a considerable debt to our returned ex-service personnel, particularly those who served in wartime theatres but also those who have given lengthy periods of service in peacetime. We are one of the most generous nations in the treatment of ex-service personnel. That is no small tribute to the governments of the day that have had cause to consider veterans' affairs matters; it is also a product of the excellent work done by organisations such as the Returned Services League. This piece of legislation, in a small way, falls into the category of the attention that has been given by the House to matters which improve the benefits extended to ex-service personnel. I conclude by saying, as Minister for Defence, that along with the desire to see our veterans community properly honoured by generous treatment, there goes the certainty that unless that treatment is provided to our veterans' community recruitment, both in peacetime and perhaps subsequently in wartime-we hope that that will be avoidable-will become that much more difficult. It is to be said about the Australian character that there is a very considerable willingness to serve, irrespective of the cost of so doing. I do not believe that people join the armed forces for the sorts of benefits that accrue to them if they see active service. Nevertheless, it is important to indicate to our future soldiers, sailors, airmen and air women that they can expect that should they find themselves in similar circumstances as their forefathers-- Mr Tim Fischer —When will we see the defence compensation scheme? Mr BEAZLEY —That is proceeding through-they can expect an enlightened parliament to treat them just as well. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 November, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill with the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill (No. 2), the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.46) —The legislative package which we are debating tonight is not only of fundamental importance to the future welfare of the Northern Territory and the long term protection of one of Australia's greatest, if not Australia's greatest, national parks-namely, Kakadu National Park-but it is also of profound importance regarding the approach which this Parliament and the Government ought to take on the development of Australian resources. I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), in his second reading speech on the legislation, observed: We are not `locking up' Australia's resources in this area as some have misleadingly claimed. On any reasonable analysis of the legislation by anyone who wants to examine its history over the past year or so or by anyone who wants to bother reading of the Minister's activities regarding the manner in which he drew up the conservation package which was introduced into this Parliament in October last year, he would find it very difficult to conclude other than that it is the Government's intention to lock up this substantial area of land against any worthwhile minerals search in the foreseeable future. It is worth noting that exploration activity virtually ceased in stage 1 and what is now stage 2 and soon to be stage 3 of the Kakadu National Park area; in other words, the entire area affected by the watershed of the Alligator Rivers region. In 1973, when the Whitlam Government's Minister for the Northern Territory, Dr Rex Patterson, advised companies which were operating in the area that a park would be created, they were assured that once the park was established legislation would be put in place which would permit them to carry out further exploration activities in the region. Since 1973 there has effectively been virtually no worthwhile exploration activity in place. In July 1975 we had the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, which continued for two years. That further limited exploration activity until 1978. In that year, companies accepted a request by the then Fraser Government that exploration be terminated until outstanding Aboriginal environmental issues were resolved. The House will recall that out of that we saw the declaration of stage 1 of the National Park, which is an outstanding area in terms of not only its geomorphological formations and so forth, and the splendid natural flora and fauna, but also the magnificent Aboriginal cave paintings which are found in much of the escarpment area. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that the escarpment area also happens to contain probably the world's richest deposits of uranium oxide. The attitude taken by the Hawke Labor Government on the whole question of uranium mining has been somewhat ambivalent. We were told that the Australian Labor Party's policy was that it would not permit the milling, mining and export of uranium except from the mines already in place which had been excised from Kakadu stage 1-the Nabarlek deposit and the Ranger deposit-and, more recently, a further deposit in South Australia. The most extraordinary thing about the last one is that it was developed for other minerals. The mining of uranium was seen only as a mere sideline of the major objective, which was to mine copper and a range of other ores. In many respects that demonstrates the perfidity, the duplicity, of this Hawke Government in the manner in which it has tried over the years, on the one hand, to pander to the almost irrational fear which the left wing of the Labor Party has on the whole question of uranium mining while, on the other hand, to claim that Australia's economic circumstances are so parlous that, to use the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), we are now in a warlike situation. We still find in legislation such as this an emotive attempt once again to close even greater areas of land in Australia to any worthwhile mining development, with the notable exception of parts of what will be stage 3, which the Minister euphemistically called a conservation zone. The regulations which relate to the conservation zone are part of this package of legislation. I would like to go through the names of the Bills once again to place them on record. We are debating four different Bills. They amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill will cover some 4,000 square kilometres of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. It is proposed under this legislation that these two pastoral leases, which were purchased by the Commonwealth some years ago, should be included in Kakadu National Park. They are, in fact, the last element of the entire region which is now covered by the Alligator River catchment area. It appears that that is the only reason why they have been included in the area to be affected either as part of the national park or the southern section which will be part of the conservation zone. It is relevant to place once again on the record that when these issues were debated in the Labor Party Cabinet, and presumably before Caucus, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) made the observation that in his view much of Kakadu stage 3-as it will be called-was nothing more than clapped out buffalo country. They are his words; not mine. Having visited the area and having driven through it and seen as much of it as I possibly could, I would say that it has been the subject of leasing, cattle and buffalo activity for a long period. No one would dispute that there are some areas, especially in the river catchment area and along the edge of the cliff faces, which need to be fully protected. No one disputes that, certainly nobody in the Opposition. We are questioning the rationale behind the Government's decision to add such a vast additional amount of land to what is already a most substantial national park by any international comparison without adequate analysis, without serious attempts being made to determine which areas of stages 2 and 3 were, shall we say, of primary environmental importance as distinct from other areas which may be of secondary or tertiary importance. We dispute the whole approach which the Government has taken on this matter because, unlike the Government, we do not believe that it is appropriate to apply a uniform conservation regime over such vast areas of territory without identifying the relative degree of importance. If that is not done it means that we can talk about single use environmental protection. That is precisely what the Hawke Government talks about. But it does not try to define what single use means. For example, we are told that extensive tourism is not inconsistent with environmental protection. We only have to go to see parts of the Great Barrier Reef after half a million or a million visitors have walked all over it to blow that proposition sky high. Obviously, there is a significant impact by tourist activity. Roads, motels and telecommunications and so forth will have an impact. But the Government will say that that is part of the price it is prepared to pay. Is it not extraordinary that, having identified that single use environment protection is really not worth the paper it is written on, we now find that this Government claims that mining-any mining, or all mining-is by its very nature anti-conservation and therefore anti-environmental protection? It is a matter of great concern to me and to many other Australians that this Government, even when it was in opposition, went out of its way to try to make more and more Australians believe that mining was a dirty industry. One does not need to go very far into the deserts and other parts of Australia to find examples of the old gold rushes of the 1860s, or the Northern Territory in the 1880s, or in parts of Queensland-- Mr Tim Fischer —Or Queenstown. Mr CONNOLLY —Or Queenstown, to demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that there are significant examples of serious environmental decay because of very stupid short term decisions taken by various mining interests in the past. It is precisely because of that that governments today are perfectly justified in setting in place regulatory machinery which requires the maintenance of appropriate standards. But what we see, and we are seeing it in this particular case, is the unwillingness of this Government to face the fact that Kakadu, as a total land area, probably contains the richest mineralisation on this continent. It is not just uranium. If honourable members opposite wanted to be honest with themselves they would have to admit that we really do not know what is in Kakadu. The reason we do not know is that since about 1974 no one has been allowed to find out. Yet we know from the little evidence that has been gained, from the research that has been carried out by the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy and by various companies, including Peko Wallsend Ltd, which is apparently anathema to everybody on the other side of the House, that the mineralisation is very intense. I draw the attention of the House to a question I put on notice, No. 4752, to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy on 10 October 1986. I asked two simple questions: Firstly, what mineral deposits are known to exist within Kakadu National Park stages 1, 2 and 3; and secondly, what is the estimated size and value of these mineral deposits? The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) in his response said: My Department is aware of about 150 mineral occurrences, prospects and deposits in the Kakadu region, which are shown on geological maps published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Published resource estimates are available for nine deposits in the region. None of these deposits is in the Kakadu Stage I or II areas, although Park surrounds some of them. He referred to Coronation Hill gold and platinum deposits in the Gimbat pastoral lease and to lead and zinc deposits within the Goodparla pastoral lease. The important thing is that he said that an indication of the value of a mineral deposit could be obtained by multiplying the quantity of obtained mineral by its price at any specific point in time. On that basis alone the Minister claimed in his response: Assuming the 1985 unit export value for Australian uranium oxide, 1985 unit examine value for gold, lead and zinc, and 1985 refined metal values for platinum and palladium, the value of deposits listed above is about $32 billion. The figure of $32 billion is an estimate-and a very inaccurate estimate, as the Minister pointed out-because we just do not know what is there. I have seen some other suggestions that the wealth of the region is more likely to be $400 billion. I do not know. The Minister does not know. Nobody knows because this Government has made a determined decision that no one will ever know. I find it quite extraordinary that, considering the circumstances facing Australia today, this Government can be so cavalier about Australia's future that it does not even want to find out. Part of the legislation before us is a somewhat lame attempt to appear to be conscious of the economic realities facing Australia, which is why in Kakadu stage 3 a proportion of the southern area-the area such as Sovereign Hill containing known mineralisation-is to be excised from the park at this stage and called a conservation zone. The legislation before us goes to substantial lengths to set in place a control mechanism which will determine-we are told for a period of five years-who can use the resources in that area and when they can be used. We are told that the Office of the Supervising Scientist, which has been responsible up until now for observing the effect of the mining of uranium in Kakadu stage 1, will also have responsibility for the remainder of this conservation zone. We are told that the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill will enable exploration and mining rights to be granted in the conservation zone after the lodgment of a land claim. This is interesting because the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment did not really explain to my satisfaction a possible contradiction, namely, that the effect of the Northern Territory Aboriginal land rights legislation is to give Aboriginal traditional owners, after the land has been granted to them, the right to apply a veto on any further mining activity. In the Minister's second reading speech there are suggestions that somehow or other mining leases which were permitted and granted in years gone by will not be affected by the fact that this land may be granted through the normal judicial process to Aboriginal land holders if they are able to establish a claim to it. It is quite extraordinary because one cannot have it both ways. If this land is to be under the existing legislation, as one would assume that it is, surely the provisions of that legislation must apply. If those provisions do not apply, the Government is effectively applying a degree of retrospectivity to the granting of leases and exploration rights to companies in years gone by. We are now told that companies have to get the agreement, of the Aboriginal owners, in the event that the land is transferred to Aboriginal ownership and then leased back to be part of the park or part of the conservation zone. As I said, before, I see a fundamental problem there. In fact, I see a contradiction. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either it will respect the previous rights of owners to mining rights or it will say that those rights will be submitted into the overall right of the local Aboriginal land owners in the event that they are successful. The record in the Northern Territory over the last 10 years or so leads one to assume that there will be claims placed on most of Kakadu stage 3 and that there is a real possibility that those claims will be successful under the Northern Territory Aboriginal land rights arrangements. Therefore, where does the Government draw the line? It claims it is trying to maintain maximum environmental purity. It has virtually opted for a single use land management whereas the Opposition believes most strenuously that much of this area-we have never suggested all of it-could well be utilised for multiple use land management, while at the same time granting an appropriate level of long term environmental security, especially to those areas which need to be protected. But that is not the approach that this Government has taken. Kakadu is undoubtedly a major park, as the Minister rightly said. He also said that he was determined to see its values permanently protected. When the Kakadu National Park management plan was debated in the other place in October last year, as we debated it here, it was pointed out to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) by my colleagues Senator Collard and Senator Puplick that at no stage have we ever questioned or doubted the terms of our commitment to the protection of the wetlands, the escarpment areas and the Aboriginal rock galleries. Nothing would be done or advocated by the coalition parties that would put any of those three elements of Kakadu National Park or the Kakadu region in any jeopardy. We made an explicit commitment to protect those absolutely fundamental areas of Kakadu for all time. That is one thing, but to suggest that no exploration can be carried out in this vast and extraordinarily rich region is entirely another thing. Yet that is the approach taken by this Government because once again it is terrified by the evidence it has already received in the polls that the environment movement in Australia is in no sense satisfied with the approach taken by the Minister or by his Government in recent years to the long term protection of Australia's traditional environmental values. In this particular proposal the land will be managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, as is the case with other national parks in the Northern Territory. Again this is something which the Opposition believes time will change. As the Minister is well aware, the Northern Territory has a very good record of environmental protection in its own national parks. We are only talking about some semantic division here because it is only a question of time before the Northern Territory like every other State in Australia will assert day to day management control over the national parks within its own boundaries. The Government has not only refused to accept that as a legitimate future objective but also it has gone out of its way to make absolutely sure that the Northern Territory is not involved in the management of Uluru or, for all intents and purposes, in the management of Kakadu. All it has done is establish a duplication of administrative services at substantial additional costs which have not got us very far at all down the road. The Minister said in his second reading speech that the Government recognises the importance of fully assessing the mineral resources of the proposed conservation zone. How can he sit there and make a statement like that knowing full well that he has ignored the substantial wealth of mineral resources contained in the remainder of Kakadu National Park stages 1 and 2? How can he seriously say in his second reading speech that he recognises the importance of fully assessing the mineralisation of what is in fact something like 4,000 square kilometres of stage 3 but that he ignores the realities of what the Bureau of Mineral Resources, the Northern Territory Government, the mining companies and every other committed interest group have put to him, namely, that there are, undoubtedly, substantial resources elsewhere in the park which, at least for the benefit of future generations, we ought to know about. As I said before, the Minister, the Minister for Science, in referring to an answer to a question, told us that his Department is aware of about 150 mineral occurrences. Mr Cohen —Barry Jones? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes; 150 prospects and occurrences. I am happy to pass the answer to the question to the Minister so that he can see it written down in black and white. The simple fact of the matter is that the Minister is, as usual, speaking through both sides of his mouth at the same time on this particular issue. The opportunity was there for the Government to carry out a legitimate investigation of all areas which it proposed would be included in the national park and it ran away from it. Once again, it abrogated its responsibilities to the Australian people because at some stage in the future there will be enormous pressure on the governments of this country to find out what resources we have across our nation. Mr Hodgman —Different rules for Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Mr CONNOLLY —No. The honourable member for Denison-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It may be helpful if everbody behaved. The honourable member for Bradfield should address his remarks exclusively to the Chair. Mr CONNOLLY —The point is worth taking that the Hawke Labor Government applies environmental controls to both the Northern Territory and Tasmania which it would not have the courage to apply to Queensland or to any other State in Australia. That is the reality. The Government knows that as well as we do and so do the Australian people. The Government seriously suggests in terms of Kakadu stage 3 and only part of it-I emphasise that point-that it will allow a five-year exploration and resource assessment program. It does not say by whom. Its earlier releases suggest it was going to be by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. What about the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy? What about the private sector? What rights does it have to enter into this exercise of resource assessment? Until the Government can sort out the problem of Aboriginal land rights which I have been asking the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) time and again to face and until it goes away once and for all with the concept of an all time veto on mining on Aboriginal land, how can it possibly come here and move amendments to existing legislation which simply ignore that fundamental fact? The Government cannot ask companies to enter into extensive and expensive exploratory operations if at the end of the day there is no guarantee that they will have the opportunity to exploit the mineralisation which they may well find. Unfortunately, the regime the Government has put in place has, if anything, created more problems than it has solved. The Government has convinced no one. It has done nothing for the long term protection of Australia's economy, an economy, incidentally, which must have the resources to protect our national estate in areas such as Kakadu. Until we have the wealth to do that we are in very real danger of placing most of our environmental areas in substantial danger in the future because in desperation we will be looking for resources which under better circumstances we could have developed in a scientific and environmentally sensible manner. Instead of that, the Government has fallen for this three-card trick of the one level of environmental protection. It had the chance to go down the road of multi-land use. It could have done that. The Government hides behind the belief that it can have tourist development ad nauseam and somehow or other that does not affect the environment but if it allows anybody to even carry out seismological experiments and so forth that does affect the environment. I find it very difficult to understand the logic which this Minister has applied. I find it even more difficult to understand how this Government can say that it has made decisions in relation to Kakadu which are in the long term interests either of the region of the Northern Territory or of Australia as a whole. I think it is a matter of the gravest concern. The only exception the Government has made has been to the question of Coronation Hill. Coronation Hill will be mined principally by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The Government has obviously been able to make a deal with BHP which it finds satisfactory. But what about all the other companies which may also be interested in developing resources elsewhere, not just in that part of the conservation zone but also on the land to which they thought they had some title in years gone by, land on which they thought they could get some compensation, in the event of the Government making a decision that mining should not continue, for the undoubted expenses that they have gone through to develop those resources? But in this legislation compensation is explicitly excluded. If anybody has made investments in that part of the Northern Territory and Kakadu stage 2 or Kakadu stage 3, under this legislation the Government has now abrogated for all time any responsibility to give these people a fair return for the decisions they made when the land was under direct Commonwealth jurisdiction and when they were advised by a Labor Minister, Dr Patterson at the time that they could expect compensation in the event of these lands being closed. He also said that they could expect to get access to the lands once the final settlement had been reached as to what the boundaries of the Kakadu National Park would be. That is the situation and it is most unsatisfactory. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(9.16) —I rise to support the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill which are the subject of a cognate debate. These Bills are interrelated and interdependent and thus need to be addressed together. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has tried to draw out some specious arguments about locking up the land. I will address that specific point later in my speech to the House. The honourable member also made play of the fact that it is proposed that the management of the Kakadu National Park will be a single land use approach rather than a multi-purpose land use approach. It is important to realise that it is often easier to establish a single use management process in an area of land rather than a multi-purpose land use approach because in that case one interest competes against another interest. I will concentrate my remarks on two of the Bills in particular, the first being the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987. This is just one of a number of Bills required to give effect to the Government's decision to extend the present Kakadu National Park to include the pastoral leases of Gimbat and Goodparla. The Bill, in part, allows a conservation zone to be declared over part of Gimbat and Goodparla and permits Aboriginal land claims over the areas declared as part or conservation zones and permits the declaration of park and conservation zones over areas subject to a land claim. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1987 provides for an Aboriginal land claim to proceed over all land within the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases which is declared part of the Kakadu National Park or as a conservation zone under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. It also provides for an arrangement whereby the relevant Aboriginal land trust is to lease back any successfully claimed land required by the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for the purpose of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. The Bill also provides for arrangements in relation to the operation of exploration and mining rights granted over Aboriginal lands under the Land Acquisition Act 1955 in the conservation zone. I remind the House that the national park movement, as was pointed out by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) in his second reading speech in November last year, was born more than 100 years ago in Yellowstone in the United States of America. The Yellowstone National Park was dedicated in 1872 and was set aside for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States of America. At the same time, regulations were invoked for the preservation from injury or spoilation of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities and wonders which were to be retained in their natural condition for the benefit of posterity. Australia was the second cab off the rank when seven years later the then New South Wales Government proclaimed the world's second national park, the Royal National Park. This country, therefore, has a long association with the ideals and philosophies of the national park movement. In a very dry continent it is very important that that has occurred. One hundred years after the establishment of the Yellowstone National Park the second world congress on national parks affirmed that national parks must be strictly protected against efforts to exploit their natural resources for such purposes as commercial timber cutting, mining, hydro-electric works and other dams, public works, commercial fishing, sport and commercial hunting, and farming and grazing of domestic animals. That is a long list, it is true, but in my opinion it is an essential list if we wish to retain part of our natural heritage. Fortunately, this Government recognises that national parks deserve the best protection, conservation and management it can give. Kakadu National Park stage 1 was proclaimed in April 1979 by the Fraser Government. This followed the 1977 Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry which had recommended that a major national park be established in the Alligator Rivers region. Stage 2 of the park was proclaimed by the present Government in February 1984. In December 1985 both areas were proclaimed as a single park. Credit must be given to the Fraser Government for acting on the recommendations of the Ranger inquiry. It is a great pity that the present Opposition is being negative in its opposition to the present Bills. I am sure that some of my colleagues on this side of the House will wax eloquently on the spectacular and varied scenery of the Kakadu National Park. What is important to me is that the area, as the honourable member for Bradfield said in his speech, has a wealth of ancient and recent Aboriginal art-one of the priceless heritages of this continent. This heritage cannot be lost; it must be preserved for future generations. The management of the Kakadu National Park is to be carried out in consultation with the Aboriginal traditional owners. The cultural and other traditional values which are of so much importance to Aborigines in these parks will receive maximum consideration in the management process. This is in marked contrast to what is happening in the Northern Territory. Despite the comments of the honourable member for Bradfield, the situation there is not as he painted it. The local management committee at Watarki (King's Canyon) Park will become a mere advisory body. It possesses no veto of exploratory mining; it has only restricted powers to protect sacred sites; it has no veto on the establishment or location of capital works; it has no absolute say, as originally promised by the Northern Territory Government, in decisions about concessions in the park; and it has only consultative rights on educational and interpretive programs. There are a number of other areas in which it has only limited rights. While the Northern Territory Government has been regressive in moving to emasculate the powers provided to local management committees and to reduce them to mere ciphers, this Government and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service are proceeding to substantially improve the rights of Aboriginal owners in national parks and to embody these changes in legislation. It is no wonder that many traditional owners consistently express a preference for Federal management and involvement. Certainly in my perambulations in the Northern Territory, in speaking to large numbers of Aboriginal groups in the past two years, I have found this expression of interest to be quite strong. They know that they will get a fair go, which they are not getting at present from the Northern Territory Government. Unless the Northern Territory Government changes its stance, they are unlikely to get it in the future. We could all learn a lot from the Aborigines. Their culture was based upon co-operation and conservation, rather than competition and exploitation. They kept in balance the natural food supply of the continent; they were true conservationists. Digressing for a moment, Alvin Toffler wrote a few years ago that modern man suffers shattering stress and disorientation because he is subjected to too much change in too short a time. The result is what he called `adoptional breakdown'. We must remember that the shock suffered by modern man is minor compared with the shock to Aboriginal people of the white colonisation of Australia. The entire structure of their culture, built up over thousands of years, collapsed within a short time. I mention that because we must learn from our past mistakes. If we do not, we are on a sorry path indeed. We must also understand and recognise that the Aboriginal people have a special spiritual relationship to the land. These Bills will allow Aboriginal land claims to proceed over all land within the Gimbat-Goodparla pastoral leases, which are declared part of the Kakadu National Park. If, as I anticipate, the land claim is granted, we can be assured that the traditional owners will be worthy custodians of the land granted on behalf of all Australians, black and white. The argument has been raised in this debate by the honourable member for Bradfield that these Bills are against the interests of the mining lobby and thus are against the national interest. That is a nonsense. The argument that land rights in some way inhibit mining exploration and development is a furphy. The miners seem to think that what is good for the miners is good for Australia. Bob Challen of the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines recently stated that the actions of conservationists and land rights protagonists have been to prevent mining. This is just not true. The downturn in mining activity over the past decade has been due more to declining commodity prices than to any impact of land rights legislation. Unfortunately, on the economic front, market analysts in Australia and overseas do not foresee much improvement before the end of the century. The mining interests want to lock up the land to prevent its use by other miners and other land users, including Aborigines. For example, Mount Isa Mines Ltd has mothballed a minimum work program at the giant lead zinc deposit at McArthur River at Borroloola which it has carried out for over a decade and is highly unlikely to commence production this century. The mineralisation in question is difficult to work with and not economic, given current technology or prices. Leaving aside MIM's commitment to mine its Mount Isa deposits, its strategy of sitting tight on this deposit has effectively frozen out other companies seriously competing for the base metal prospects reputedly available over much of southern and central Arnhem Land. Furthermore, MIM's original interests were powerful enough to cause serious disadvantage to Aboriginal claimants over Borroloola Common and the Sir Edward Pellew island group. Since that time, MIM's pastoral lease holdings in the mine area have effectively locked out the aspirations of the Gurdanji and the Binbinga people for living areas in the region. The latter people have missed out completely on benefits others have received through the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. This Bill will allow traditional owners to pro- cess their claims over all land within the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral lease areas which is declared part of the Kakadu National Park or a conservation zone under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. I agree that it is a Bill worthy of support in this House and I therefore support it. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(9.31) —It was difficult for me to get the drift of what the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), who spoke immediately before me, was referring to in relation to the McArthur River land claims because, as someone who took part in the negotiations there over quite a period of time, my recollection is that Aboriginals secured a very substantial area of land in the McArthur River area, including a number of islands in the Sir Edward Pellew group. Indeed, part of the land that the Aboriginals succeeded in gaining was occupied, as I mentioned in this House some weeks ago, by another Aboriginal family that had been living on that island for quite some time. It reminds me of a biblical story. This particular Aboriginal family could not succeed in negotiating to get any sort of long term tenure from the new traditional owners, so they are now frozen out in the cold. Frankly, as to the McArthur River deposit held under lease by Mount Isa Mines Ltd, if any reputable company approached the Northern Territory Government or the Department of Mines and Energy with a proposition to develop that deposit, I think the Northern Territory Government would be extremely interested. I kept putting salt on the tail of Mount Isa Mines for over seven years in relation to the deposit. We had independent consultants assess the work and the reports were furnished to us by Mount Isa Mines which operated a pilot project there for many years. Our independent consultants were unable to fault Mount Isa's contention that the type of mineral, although it is there in large quantities, is simply currently unable to be processed economically because a technology has not yet been found that can handle the treatment of the minerals in an economic way. How that project could freeze other companies out of central and southern Arnhem Land I am not quite sure; that completely escapes me. As to Kakadu stage 2 and the honourable member's comments that the Aboriginal people would much rather deal with the Federal Government in relation to claims for land and claims over national parks, I can well understand that because the Aboriginal traditional owners lodged a claim over Kakadu stage 2 which was contested by a number of parties. The Aboriginal land claim was unsuccessful as to 90 per cent of the area claimed, but, nonetheless, the Federal Government went ahead and gave the Aborigines title to the land anyway. So it is no wonder that they prefer to deal with the Federal Government because it takes absolutely no notice, when it suits it, of the recommendations of its own land commissioner. I do not think the Opposition should be seen as negative in relation to Kakadu and the economic potential of the Kakadu and Alligator Rivers region. Recent surveys have shown that the majority of people surveyed-I believe it was a substantial number, in excess of 2,000, in all States and carried out by, I think, the Morgan group-were in favour of uranium being mined provided it was mined subject to a satisfactory regime of safeguards-and that is certainly the case at the moment. So I think we can infer from the result of that survey that the majority of our fellow citizens think that the Government's attitude to the whole thing, especially in this time of economic difficulties for Australia, is a negative one. But let us look at the most glaring issue of these Bills. That is, of course, that we are asked to debate the package, with nothing more than an assurance from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) that the acknowledged `unintended' effect of the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill, which will close down all existing and future mining operations outside Kakadu, will be tidied up in the Committee stage. To date the Minister has tried to pass off this mammoth drafting error as though it was an inconsequential slip-but in fact it is a matter of tremendous potential consequence both to the mining industry in the Territory and to Australia's future export earnings. Yet we are expected to place our faith in the Minister to correct this legislative foul-up in the Committee stage-with billions of dollars resting on the outcome. Even now the Minister has given his commitment to correct the error only insofar as it affects existing transport arrangements for current mining activities. We have no commitment from the Minister on future mining operations outside the park-mines like Koongarra and Jabiluka, both of which are due to play a very big role in Australia's future economic prosperity. In fact, judging by the Minister's own statements, we can be sure that there is nothing he would like better than to vandalise future earnings from these mines. He is on the record as saying that those mines are `unlikely to go ahead', adding `we would not be prepared to see Kakadu National Park as a mass of mines'. That is the sort of emotive nonsense that we have come to expect from this Minister-an attempt to represent a total mining area of no more than 10 square kilometres within 17,000 square kilometres as `a mass of mines'. This is the Minister we must rely upon to ensure that present and future mining operations are not closed down overnight by accident. It gives one plenty of confidence. The legislative package extends the present Kakadu National Park to include the pastoral leases of Gimbat and Goodparla. We must conclude that the use of the existing pastoral lease boundaries is for administrative convenience. It can hardly be argued that there is any rational conservation purpose in adopting these boundaries. In fact, there is little of conservation value within the leases that is not already well represented within the existing park. Both Gimbat and Goodparla have considerable potential for multiple land use. Tourist and recreational developments within both leases, impossible under national park status, could alleviate pressures on the park itself. We also know from experience that there is potential for both animal and crop production on both leases. Yet the Government pushes ahead with its ever expanding political park, with no in-depth ecological or economic appraisal of land use options undertaken. The Minister's description on the leases as `an area of outstanding beauty and grandeur' is simply untrue. Let us remember that this is the same area that his fellow Minister, Senator Gareth Evans, described as `clapped out buffalo country'. The use of such words as `outstanding beauty and grandeur' debases both the English language and the Minister's flagging credibility. Thirty-five per cent of the leases forms this new zone. The other 65 per cent, or an additional 4,000 square kilometres of the Northern Territory, is to be locked away, giving Kakadu a total area in excess of 17,000 square kilometres and the doubtful status of being the world's biggest political park. No doubt we are expected to be eternally grateful that the comparatively small area of 2,500 square kilometres is to be kept as a conservation zone. The Minister states: The Government recognises the importance of fully assessing the mineral resources of the proposed conservation zone- these words of his, I think, are important- which is part of one of the most highly prospective, unexplored mineral provinces in the world.' Congratulations, Mr Minister. It has finally penetrated his cerebellum that that is exactly what Kakadu is-a fact often repeated by the Northern Territory Government but till now strenuously denied by this Government. And yet the Minister blithely presses ahead, locking away 17,000 square kilometres, including areas of equally or surpassing mineral prospectivity, without any assessment whatsoever. I ask the Minister: Why can the same principles which he is now seeking to apply to the conservation zone not be applied to the park as a whole? Why can a responsible program of resource assessment, subject to stringent environmental controls, not be carried out? I will save the Minister the trouble of responding. The answer is that this is a political park, a park created out of Labor Government fears that it has lost the greenie vote and the ambitions of a Commonwealth Government instrumentality that should not even be there. The only fig leaf which the Government can offer to hide its shame is a piece of pure geological fiction. That fiction is that minerals in the park are Labor's nemesis material, uranium, while minerals in the proposed conservation zone are the ideologically pure substances, gold and platinum. Even the resource assessment in the conservation zone is hedged by conditions which may well deter mining. We are led to believe that mining is an evil from which the Australian people must be protected at all costs-and I mean at all costs; certainly at the cost of their economic well-being. A five-year time span has been placed on the assessment program, showing how little this Government understands the exploration process. A bureaucratic monster is being created by the Government to monitor the proposed regime, meaning that those five years will have expired before the industry even gets on to the ground. With overall responsibility to be vested in the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, which has a reputation for raising obstructionism to an art form, plus an interdepartmental committee including the Office of the Supervising Scientist, I hold little hope for any mineral explorer's chances of getting a look in within the zone. Moreover, not only will mining companies have to satisfy their own commercial judgment that a mineral deposit should be mined; they will also be required to persuade the Government that their discovery fulfils the criterion of `major economic significance'. In addition to environmental controls, mining companies will also face the often intractable problem of negotiating with the appointed representatives of traditional land owners, since the legislation allows for land claims over the zone. The only purpose in making the Gimbat and Goodparla areas available for land claim can be to prepare the ground for mining companies to be held hostage to interminable negotiations with land councils. That is because any part of the zone which is successfully claimed and required for park purposes is perforce immediately leased back to the Commonwealth. This unique arrangement simply affords Aboriginals such fleeting ownership as will allow them to lay a claim on mining companies. That is a right not possessed by any other Australian citizen, it is exclusive to Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. Particularly in the light of the Government's outrageous decision to expropriate without compensation the existing rights of miners in the park, which forms part of this package, it will be a brave company indeed that will commit funds for further exploration. The legislation alters the rights of existing lease holders in the zone, imposing additional terms and conditions. If a company does not accept these new conditions its operations will be prohibited. The Minister gives an assurance that this is not to be taken as a precedent for the treatment of existing mining rights on Commonwealth land generally. But, a precedent is a precedent is a precedent. Miners across Australia should be aware. In summary, this is a package designed to shore up Labor's greenie vote, a legislative follow-up to the Prime Minister's much derided and taxpayer funded brief appearance before television cameras in Kakadu last November. The irony is, of course, that as recent polls and surveys have shown there are more votes to be won by a government that adopts a rational approach to Kakadu-one that acknowledges that a multiple land use policy is not just environmentally responsible but also the proper responsibility of a government concerned with the economic future of Australia and all Australians. More in sorrow than in anger I say to the Minister and this Government: Do your worst, and the next government, a coalition government, will try to pick up the pieces. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(9.46) —It gives me great pleasure to speak on the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill, which are being debated cognately. These Bills relate to Kakadu National Park. It seems remarkable that for a second time within a week I find it necessary to rise to speak for another area of wilderness under threat. Kakadu National Park is an Australian place of national and international significance and it is, of course, a very special place. Speaking on these Bills is a duty that gives me a great pleasure for it gives me an opportunity to share with my fellow human beings wonders of the Australian environment which are an integral part of the wilderness experience. However, it is also a task that dismays me for it reveals that in certain circles of the Australian community ignorance of and prejudice over the true worth of this treasure are rife. As a consequence, misguided perceptions are breeding moguls who cry out for fast track legislation that will rip and tear the face of the landscape and inject hazardous elements into the soil, creeks, plants, atmosphere and eventually animals. Quite unequivocally, this must be halted. Kakadu National Park is characterised by an unrivalled combination of spectacular and varied scenery, a diversity of native plants and animals and a wealth of ancient and recent Aboriginal art. It is truly a unique possession of the heritage of this country. Indeed, it is a treasure that deserves to be protected in such places of the world as the Tower of London or the Louvre. Whilst such an idea may be incredible, it is not unreasonable to suggest that should the mining companies of this world be left to their own devices they would gleefully welcome the opportunity to smudge the Mona Lisa or desecrate the Crown Jewels. The records show that the Ranger uranium mine which is excised from the park, has an abysmal safety record. The reports of leakages from a pipe carrying waste to the tailings dam and various accidents at the mine have been far too frequent. I have spoken on this before and have recorded the mine's disregard for accepted engineering practices. The report in last weekend's Times on Sunday is yet another example of the mine's lack of responsibility. The headline reads: `New charges of contamination from Ranger uranium mine'. The article goes on to state: On the eve of a Federal Cabinet decision on whether the Ranger uranium mine can release contaminated water into Kakadu National Park, the Times on Sunday has new evidence that a recent discharge of Ranger water infringed environmental requirements. . . . According to documents obtained by the Times on Sunday, an infringement involving the discharge of water from Ranger occurred on March 19, and officials of the Northern Territory Government are investigating a further breach. . . . Preliminary investigations revealed a valve in the Ranger pipeline had malfunctioned, causing the water release. My office spoke to the management of Ranger today, which said that the valve was 5 per cent open. It was claimed that these valves are usually locked. I remember that when we inspected the mine-I believe I saw the valves in question-these valves on the pipeline to Magela Creek were hand operated. Surely only deliberate tampering with the valve or bad work practices could have allowed this to happen. The water release was from the RP4 pond. I am also very pleased to hear that the Government has taken into account some of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and announced today that it will refuse permission for release of any water from the mine this year and will proceed immediately to require Ranger to deepen the existing retention pond-that is, RP2 by the end of 1987. Also it will not permit any water presently in RP2 to be discharged into Magela Creek. I would like to thank the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who I know were greatly involved in this decision-a very good decision. The Environment and Conservation Committee of this House, of which I am a member, has indicted Energy Resources of Australia Ltd for the lack of regard it has had for the environment. Yet the Government of the Northern Territory and the mining companies claim that mining and the environment are not incompatible. These accessories to the destruction of the environment ask this Parliament and the people of Australia to believe that they have the expertise entirely to obliterate all signs of exploration work and rehabilitate sites to conform to their natural surroundings. I find it very hard to believe that any official of a mining company or member of a government, from the cleaner to the managing director, has the expertise or the touch of time to reconstitute 25,000-year-old Aboriginal paintings or a landscape that is millions of years old. I can only examine the record of one of these supposedly unpretentious mining companies, Peko-Wallsend Ltd, which has a 42.4 per cent stake in Ranger, and conclude that a company which gives only 30 minutes notice to a work force with which it has had no complaint has no interest at all in the welfare of the past or the present. Companies such as EZ, Peko and Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd seek only the multi-billion dollar haul to be reaped from Kakadu. They endeavour to justify their ruthless mining techniques with a fanfare which allegedly protects jobs and provides Australia with the means to gain relief from her national debt. Their very callous methods include the striking of the always rousing chord of States' rights and the tiresome labelling of conservationists as dangerous and pernicious. So, as the mining companies leapfrog one unfortunate victim and the next, true compatibility becomes clear. Mining and Kakadu equal multinational profits. However, this Labor Government is not prepared to allow such a disaster to occur. Kakadu will remain one of the world's greatest treasures, despite a massive media and political campaign to create a climate to permit mining. The declaration of stage 3 of the park will ensure that landforms and flora and fauna species which are not represented in the other two stages will be preserved. Kakadu National Park will be recognised for its natural and cultural values. Indeed, it will be truly worthy of World Heritage listing. Thus, this Bill seeks to prevent exploration and mining on land proclaimed as the Kakadu National Park, including mining interests which existed prior to the proclamation. No compensation is to be payable by the Commonwealth as a result of the amendment. It is difficult to know which piece of evidence should be advanced as the most pressing in the preservation of the Kakadu National Park. Each reason presents such a valid claim that one alone would justify the cessation of mining. Understandably, personal evaluations differ over subjective matters, such as the beauty of the landscape or the national importance of Aboriginal paintings. Less understandable are the apparent misunderstandings and misrepresentation on non-subjective matters, such as the threat to rare flora and fauna. Whatever happens, it is imperative that Kakadu is not processed into a giant piece of Swiss cheese with mining sites littering the environment of the Alligator River. The third stage of Kakadu consists of the Goodparla and Gimbat pastoral leases. These two leases, in concert with stages 1 and 2, will create a park of some 19,000 square kilometres. What a triumph this will be for today's Australians and for future generations of mankind. The new park will preserve a relatively large area of beauty where several ecosystems which have not been materially altered by human exploitation and occupation are found. Furthermore, plant and animal species and geomorphological sites and habitats of special scientific, educational and recreational interest will find a salvation that no mining company compromised plan could ever guarantee. Whilst stage 3 of Kakadu National Park may not be painted as picturesquely as other Australian national parks, its conservation value may be more important than was first thought. The Gimbat and Goodparla areas not only have great importance to the effective preservation of the Alligator River watershed but also include a large proportion of undulating and lowland areas to open forest and woodland occurring on skeletal soils. Whilst these areas have been dismissed as boring scrubby stuff and clapped out buffalo country they exhibit a greater diversity of plant species than other forest types in the Alligator River region. There are nine land systems present in Gimbat and Goodparla that are not represented in stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park. A further five land systems are poorly represented in stages 1 and 2 but well represented in stage 3. These land systems represent areas of tall open forest, woodlands, mixed scrub, sandstone monsoon forest, mixed open forest and spinifex grasslands. Undoubtedly, these open woodlands are a rich habitat area and have as great a conservation value as the monsoon forests, spectacular escarpments and floodplains that predominate in the existing Kakadu National Park. Recent biological studies of the Gimbat and Goodparla area have indicated the presence of a number of new species-species not represented elsewhere in Kakadu. Perhaps the `cheese-scaping' of Kakadu by the mining companies would delight a new but as yet undescribed species of mouse discovered in Gimbat. However, such activity would positively harm the infrequently recorded northern nailtail wallaby, a rare cryptic gecko species, a new identified lizard species, the Oenpelli python, an endangered hooded parrot and peregrine falcon, the white-throated wren, and several rock-dwelling mammal species that are found in the Gimbat and Goodparla areas. Again, it should be emphasised that the value of one large park, which represents less than 2 per cent of the total Northern Territory, is to ensure that the integrity of the area is maintained. This fact is fundamental to the Aboriginal people of the region who believe that stage 3 contains sacred sites capable of releasing enormous destructive powers if disturbed. Possibly it is Joh. In particular, the heritage of the Coronation Hill area, the home of Bula, an Aboriginal spirit from the Dreamtime, is perhaps unequalled elsewhere outside of Kakadu. Certainly Kakadu is an area of great cultural Aboriginal significance. It represents the meeting of coastal and inland influences in the art of the area. Already rock paintings at Christmas Creek in the upper reaches of the South Alligator have been badly damaged by buffaloes and human visits. It is estimated that there are over 1,000 discrete art sites in Kakadu. As one of the world's major art sites the sequential scale is of great value and must be preserved for all time. Thus, if it is not to be a fear of Bula's revenge that blocks mining in Kakadu perhaps a realisation of the consequences of mining will serve to thwart further exploration and development. The Australian Conservation Foundation has warned: Mines in Stage Three would threaten the entire wetlands of Stage Two, with the monsoon climate creating an impossible management situation. Mining is not seen as compatible with national parks. Apparently, the mining companies view Kakadu with an eye for adventure. The threat of it being locked up, together with a touch of gold fever, has stimulated a multinational interest that could have dire repercussions for the park. Again, notions of compatibility must be questioned. The treatment of ore during the process of gold mining requires the use of large quantities of dangerous chemicals such as cyanide. In the process contaminants such as sulphide are produced. The slurry of waste from the process would be stored in an engineered dam which, according to assurances, could not be breached by monsoonal weather. Unfortunately, similar guarantees at the Ranger tailings dam have failed to prevent endless problems and near disasters. Engineers have been known to make mistakes. Gold mining also requires large amounts of water. In the dry season this will dramatically affect the flow of the South Alligator River and cause ecological side effects throughout the catchment. The most conclusive stand of evidence against mining is provided by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which states that uranium mining threatens the park's fragile environment. The scientists of the CSIRO have prepared an horrific scenario. It is one that must never be allowed to occur. Can the mining companies deny that the effect of a collapse of structures built to confine low level radioactive mill tailings and the possibility of long term future changes in the climate or sea level affecting those structures built for present conditions will be anything but catastrophic? Of course, they cannot. Mining also creates other problems. For example, access roads lead to erosion, sedimentation and weed dispersal. Pollution and loss of wilderness quality soon follow. National Park management has also found that the presence of mining company workers presents a number of difficulties. The CSIRO has also warned against the large scale promotion of tourism, which poses special problems particularly as a result of vehicles which could spread dangerous weeds throughout the park. Australians must realise that the estimate of Kakadu's mineral potential is being made by a few self-interested miners. There is no basis on which to despoil an area of world significance. The Australian Mining Industry Council has recognised that there are a number of spectacular scenic areas, environmentally fragile zones and sites of Aboriginal significance that should not be disturbed in Kakadu. The AMIC also accepts that the park is justifiably famous for its spectacular escarpment and wetland areas. Such a profound statement cannot be reconciled with a machiavellian desire to relieve Kakadu of its numerous resources. Dare I say it, the mining industry and its supporters want to have their yellowcake and eat it too. This is just not on. In conclusion, I believe that there cannot be a compromise between nature and mining in Kakadu National Park. I emphasise that the total worth of Kakadu can never be weighed against the loss of an environment that is full of precious flora, fauna and landscape. The mining companies claim to offer significant opportunities for conservation aligned with the opportunity to milk substantial economic benefits from responsible resource utilisation. In essence, one could be easily fooled by this proposal. However, this Government will not sanction the subtle destruction of a wilderness paradise. It will not be intimidated by economic threats nor bought by irrational lobbying. The Government stands firm in its resolve to preserve Kakadu for all time. It is a legacy, virtually free from European influence, that all Australians have inherited from the Aboriginal Dreamtime. It is essential that it remain this way, and it will if we have the support of the Australian people and a Labor Government in power. If this divided Opposition were ever in government, the words of John Paul Getty would come true. Getty said: The meek may inherit the earth but not the mineral rights. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.05) —My purpose in joining in this debate on the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill and cognate Bills is a fairly simple one. I would like to bring a sense of bipartisan balance to a highly emotional subject and, irrespective of what my colleagues, in or out of coalition, from this side of the Parliament may have said in the debate, I want merely to say at the outset that I support the general thrust of the legislation. I have one or two comments to make which I trust the Minister for Arts, Heritage and En- vironment (Mr Cohen) will accept in a spirit of honest endeavour to establish certain principles. Surely the preservation of the environment is a matter on which we can reach general agreement. I endorse the Minister's final comments in his second reading speech when he basically said that the idea of the legislation is to preserve some parts of Australia not only for the enjoyment of the present generation but also for the future use of people. Many sections of the Australian community can plead guilty to adopting a highly emotional, unfair approach to the environment. Typical of this is an article by Mike Taylor in the Australian of 17 December. It states: No one was pleased with the Cabinet decision-not the conservationists, not the miners and certainly not the Northern Territory Government, spokesman for which said High Court action would be taken to stymie the Commonwealth. At the other end of the spectrum, conservationists made it clear that any political points the Government had scored on Tasmanian logging had been eroded by the decision. It is about time that journalists forgot about writing that type of destructive comment. It ill becomes them to try to make political capital out of every situation. It appears to me that we have nowhere near enough land set aside in Australia for national parks. It is rather depressing to note that only 5 per cent of our total land mass is set aside for all national parks. There have been critics of what has been done in the Northern Territory, and only 2 per cent of Territory land has been set aside for national parks. I think all of us can associate with the words of the quiet stockman of We of the Never Never fame. He did not say very much; he was like members of the National Party-what he did say was always quality. He said, in a moment of unguarded speech, that unless something was done there would not be enough bush left to bury him. I want to be gracious enough to compliment the Federal Government for what it has done, but unless more is done we will not have enough land in which to enjoy our leisure. It is very good that we do have governments, both State and Federal, that are prepared to take the tough decisions and ensure that parts of Australia that have not been destroyed will be available for those who follow to enjoy. I say that as someone who comes from some of the oldest farming lands in Australia. It distresses and displeases me to note what man has done to the environment. For example, I refer to vein-like scars all down the mountains and the hillsides, where land is no longer able to be ploughed. We are not 200 years old yet we have destroyed such land. Let us also remove from our minds some of the myths that exist. I happen to be a conservationist on my own farm and I am proud of it. I will not accept that white men are the people to blame all the time. I am not seeking to criticise the Aborigines, but they were very fond of using the firestick so they also have to plead guilty in many instances to not being great environmentalists. I just say that to put the record straight because many people are only too quick to criticise the white man without also criticising the original settlers of Australia. I want to make it quite clear that any activity which jeopardises the natural integrity of the land needs to be carefully examined. That is where I support the general principle of the Minister's legislation. That is fundamental to environmental legislation in Australia. One must be careful and one must move slowly. One must not destroy overnight what has taken nature many millions of years to build up. People will criticise the legislation, but let them be fair when they do so. People have visited the two pastoral leases-Gimbat and Goodparla. I have had the opportunity of flying over those areas in years gone by and I have had personal inspections. Over two decades there have been very poor returns from that land. It has been overgrazed, causing soil erosion within the South Alligator River catchment area. The current debate touches on issues of mineral development, pastoral activities, residential development, expansion of the tourist industry, commercial and recreational fishing, Aboriginal land rights, protection of sites, and Commonwealth and State rights. Again, I want to inject a sense of balance into this matter. I have tried to convey my interest in and concern for the environment. I am not that much of an environmentalist that I do not believe in chopping down trees. How else are we to build buildings? However, if I chop down one tree, I plant 10. That is important. But I am opposed to those pseudo-environmentalists, as I see it, who object to the establishment of a town like Jabiru in the area. I had the privilege-one did not have to have a union ticket in those days-of driving the grader when it made its first move to develop the road system of Jabiru. We cannot have people if we do not have buildings. So let us bring a sense of balance into the debate. It is nonsense to say that only people are important. In building town sites and tourist areas, it is necessary to impose conditions that ensure that the environment will not be destroyed. I can understand why the Minister seeks to widen the scope of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Commonwealth funds are to be spent. I do not know whether those funds will come from the increased tariff on uranium exports. When I was responsible for the area I was very keen to move the operations of the Supervising Scientist from Sydney to the Northern Territory. I leave the issue for the Minister's consideration. I know that personalities are involved. With the additional responsibilities outside the Alligator Rivers area regarding uranium mining-that was touched on by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth)-there may be a possibility of transferring the whole operations to the Northern Territory. I am concerned that there is to be no compensation for mining rights. I ask the Minister to have a further look at that. We are not talking about clapped out buffalo country. Previous speakers have indicated the wealth of historical significance in the area. I conclude on a personal note. Too often a great Australian, Professor Derrick Ovington, is criticised unfairly and unjustly. I am proud to number him among my friends. I will not stand idly by and have people from my side of the Parliament criticise him outside. This man is a world authority. He is highly acclaimed and well recognised. It is about time that Australians approached the history and achievements of a man based on a sense of his achievements and fair play. Derrick Ovington is a tough advocate for something in which he believes very strongly-something that is a personal outpouring. I have absolutely no fear for the development of national parks in the Northern Territory, irrespective of a personal desire to see greater involvement by the Northern Territory, when the person in control of that is Professor Derrick Ovington. I salute the man. I acknowledge his worldwide status. I want everyone to know that I have the utmost trust in him. I will not stand idly by and see a great Australian, a great world authority, criticised unfairly by people who neither know nor understand environmental issues. The main reason I wanted to become involved in the debate was to let all people know my personal views of Professor Ovington. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.15) —On Wednesday in the Senate the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) responded to a question from Senator Black. In the course of the answer Senator Walsh said: . . . one Brian Ray, who was acquitted a week or two ago of a charge of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth, an acquittal which says a great deal more about the difficulty of getting a conviction on conspiracy than it does about Mr Ray's guilt or innocence. Mr Brian Ray is a well-known supporter of the Queensland Premier. He has never denied that. It is somewhat ironic that I find myself speaking in this place in support of someone who has assisted the Queensland Premier, who, over the years, has set out to destroy my Party and has spent thousands of dollars in trying to unseat me. Mr Barry Jones —Successfully in one case. Mr WHITE —Yes, to the great benefit of this Parliament. Fortunately, he succeeded in neither objective. As each day goes by his chances of success look more remote, which is a good thing for this country. Nevertheless, ironic as that may be, the issue here is a matter of principle. It concerns the integrity of the legal system in this country. Mr Brian Ray faced charges in a Melbourne court and he was acquitted. It seems to me that that should be the end of the matter. It certainly does not seem to me right or proper that Senator Walsh should cast aspersions on that verdict in the Senate. He has cast doubt on the legal system by saying that it is difficult to get a conviction on conspiracy. Senator Walsh is no stranger to vicious and unjustified language. In my opinion, Senator Walsh brings this Parliament into disgrace. Whatever attributes he may have, there is not any sense of fairness-- Mr Barry Jones —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is quite within the Standing Orders to refer to what happened in the Senate. However, he cannot cast aspersions on a senator. Mr WHITE —Madam Speaker, I accept your ruling. I repeat that I believe his remarks were unjustified in that a court had heard those charges and found this particular man not guilty. Whatever attributes he may have as a senator, I do not believe that fairness or justice is part of them. I believe that he stands condemned for what he said. I would hope that the chief legal officer of the Commonwealth-the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)-would look at what Senator Walsh said and take whatever action he thinks is appropriate to defend the legal system of this country. I would very much hope, although I believe that it is a forlorn hope, that Senator Walsh would have the decency to apologise not only to the person he has maligned but to the legal system and the people of Australia for the remarks he made last Wednesday. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(10.20) —This evening I bring to the attention of the House a new concept in leisure and learning-the University of the Third Age or, as it is becoming affectionately and commonly known, U3A. An organisation now called the Yarra Valley U3A was set up in my electorate last year. University of the Third Age is a concept, an organisation, that began in France in 1974. Since that time it has spread across many European countries. Three or four years ago it began to take hold in Australia. Victoria is its home State and from there it is spreading around Australia, principally along the east coast. The Third Age is the age of active retirement, and the University of the Third Age is a means by which people in their retirement, now that they have the time and opportunity, can learn new ideas and skills that they perhaps did not have time to learn when they were working or caring for their families, and so on. It is an extended leisure activity. People can learn and people can teach. It helps to develop the full potential of the community, particularly the older citizens who are now in retirement. The University of the Third Age maximises the resources of the community-the buildings that are available through schools or other community facilities, the resources of the people in our community. The point to be noted is that U3A does not require much from the community. Most of the work is done by the people themselves and most of the buildings are already there-in many cases underused. U3A provides a focus for the attention of people in retirement to take on new initiatives, new studies and hence develop creative leisure and provide useful benefits to society. In my area at the moment U3A has courses running in Australian literature, comparative religion, political theory, computer education, art, history of modern China, getting to know you-a communications subject-and conversational German. Shortly new courses will start in thinking philosophically and conversational Japanese. Approximately 100 retired people in my area are now involved in U3A, as tutors and as students. From my point of view as a member of this House it is quite invigorating to see the enthusiasm, innovation and energy of these retired citizens. I commend John and Dawn Roscholler, Belle Nicholson, the Hon. Gordon Bryant-former Minister and former member for Wills-Max and Mardie Bridgman, Ian Jay, Leslie Claydon, Avis Draffin, Eileen Wawzynkiewicz, Rae Officer, Phil Ryan, Jean Ellis, Noel and Barbara Norman and many others who are involved at the committee level in establishing the University of the Third Age, Yarra Valley. I also acknowledge the support of the Heidelberg Technical School, its principal-Mr Arthur Coates-and its school council for their assistance with office space and their encouragement. I acknowledge the involvement of the Northern Regional Office of the Department of Education in Victoria. I understand that the Latrobe University and other institutes of higher education will be involved in resourcing and aiding this very vital community activity. I am very proud to say that the University of the Third Age, Yarra Valley, has the full support of my office and my staff, particularly my secretary, Elaine Wightman. I am very glad to provide this support because of the valuable contribution that these citizens in their retirement will be making to the community. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.25) —I give my support to the remarks of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples). He has addressed an important subject tonight and I look forward to hearing further contributions from him on it. I want to say something tonight on a not unrelated subject, the care of the aged and in particular residential accommodation for the aged. Madam Speaker, you may well be aware that the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) is shortly to address the question of nursing home bed allocations throughout Australia. That will entail him in making some fairly momentous decisions which will affect communities around Australia and in particular the aged portions of those communities. It is useful to say that the perspective within which the Minister will be making his decisions is one where the Government has announced a policy to place greater emphasis on the provision of hostel beds as opposed to nursing home beds. The Opposition supports and endorses that general policy direction. My particular concern is with those nursing homes and communities which have entered into arrangements for the construction of these facilities on the basis of the previous policy. Basically, whilst understanding the direction in which the Government is heading, I ask it to give particular emphasis to and take particular cognisance of the fact that some groups acted on the previous policy. I have two groups in my electorate which are in this situation. One to which I have referred already is Kooweerup and the other is the Wonthaggi and District Nursing Home. The Wonthaggi and District Nursing Home first made application in January 1985 and approval in principle was formally granted by the Government in March 1986. The approval in principle included a firm statement of Government support, a statement that the organisation would need to raise its own share of the project cost at the time the grant of subsidy was being considered. In other words, the Government said: `We are supporting you, but you go away and organise your share of the funds'. There has been some delay in processing approvals in principle because there was in our region at least one appeal which delayed the finalising of the arrangements for the go-ahead for additional beds. The Wonthaggi community, which is not a well-off community in socioeconomic terms, has had tremendous local community support. In fact, it has raised very close to the sum required-$700,000. It really is a big amount and a great tribute to the local community. The approval in principal is a recognition by the Commonwealth that this is a necessary and much needed project. I say to the Minister, firstly, that the home should be given a six-month approval so that this matter can be the subject of negotiation with the community; and secondly, that no retrospectivity should be applied in view of the Government's change of policy. In this area I believe that the job started by the approval in principle is a job which requires finishing. I hope that the Government sees the importance and the significance of this project for the Wonthaggi and district community. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.30) —I go on record tonight in strong support of the Timorese struggle for self-determination. It is most disappointing that the Federal Government has not taken an active role in support of the Timorese, particularly bearing in mind the 1986 Australian Labor Party National Conference policy resolution which states: Conference regrets that an appropriate internationally supervised act of self-determination has not occurred. Whilst it is true that the Conference also resolved that there should be a broadening of cultural, political and economic ties between Australia and Indonesia, this resolution did not mean that we should provide economic aid which helps Indonesia to continue its current armed offensive against the Timorese people. The Indonesian Government has continually refused to allow Australian and British parliamentarians to visit East Timor. Only recently-in January 1987-the Australian and British parliamentary Amnesty International groups were refused permission to visit East Timor to investigate the claim that a violation of human rights was occurring in the country. The Chairman of the British parliamentary group, Lord Avebury, spoke in the House of Lords on 11 February on the matter, and I quote from his speech: On 1st October last year I wrote, as chairman of the group, to the Indonesian Foreign Minister. Our colleague, Robert Tickner MP, the Chairman of the Australian Parliamentary Human Rights Group wrote simultaneously to the Indonesian Foreign Minister via the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra. Our friend Mr Tickner received an answer after some weeks that it was inconvenient for a visit by members of Parliament from Australia and Britain to go to East Timor because of the preparations that were taking place for the so-called elections in April. We had a reply from the Ambassador here dated 11th December saying: ``We regret to inform you that your request has been unsuccessful''. The Ambassador did not explain why our visit was not welcome but obviously it had nothing whatever to do with the elections. I suspect the Indonesians would like entirely to prevent the outside world from knowing what they are doing in East Timor. Particularly they do not want anybody to observe the military operations that are currently taking place in the territory. It is particularly sad that Australia should appear to be indifferent to the plight of the Timorese people because they gave much needed help to Australian troops during the desperate Pacific battles of the Second World War. Since the Indonesian invasion of 1975, of the total estimated Timorese population at that time of 650,000, up to one-third have been eliminated. One only has to read Jose Ramos-Hortas's new book Funu-The Unfinished Saga of East Timor to appreciate the sense of betrayal which Timorese leaders feel in regard to Australia's official acceptance of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. As Jose Ramos-Hortas points out in his book, which should be read by all members of this House, only 364 miles separate Australia and East Timor. It was because of our close proximity to East Timor and because of the strong ties forged between Australian veterans of the East Timor campaign that the Timorese people and their leaders turned to us for help after the Indonesian invasion in 1975. Unfortunately, successive Australian governments, including the Whitlam Australian Labor Party Government, the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government and now the Hawke ALP Government seem completely obsessed by the need to appease Indonesia in almost all the demands it makes upon us. Of course we should not ignore the fifth most populous nation in the world. Indeed, our Federal policy requires that we should maintain friendly relations with Indonesia. It is my view that the Indonesian Government would treat us with much more respect if we were more frank and open in our criticisms of its actions in East Timor. Surely we have had enough examples in foreign affairs in past years to realise that our refusal to recognise the brutal realities of Indonesian army actions in East Timor is seen by the military government in Jakarta as weakness and subservience by Australia. Noam Chomsky states in a foreword to the book Funu: The torture of the people of East Timor will continue as long as we are willing to look the other way. The Timorese will survive at best ``under arrest,'' in the words of a recent West German parliamentarian delegation, describing what they saw in a country where ``people do not laugh.'' Meanwhile, Western journalists on guided tours will applaud the efforts being undertaken by the Indonesians to bring the benefits of civilisation to the benighted Timorese, who will soon suffer the fate of the people of West Papua, cynically consigned to Indonesia by the West years earlier, now facing obliteration as their territory becomes the site of the ``largest colonisation program in history,'' Survival International informs us. But profits flow, and all is well. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.34) —I am sure that all members of this House know of the reputation of Broken Hill as a great pioneering city and also as a city that has set the traditions not only for the trade union movement but also for the industrial growth of Australia. Broken Hill at the moment is facing quite a few problems. The mining field is 100 years old, so there are problems, particularly in the economic area, facing the people of Broken Hill. I am concerned tonight about the pioneers of Broken Hill. I would like to pay tribute to the Old Age and Invalid Pensioners Association and its executive on the work that they do in trying to care for those elderly citizens of Broken Hill. I have received correspondence from that Association in relation to some of the facilities that Broken Hill does not have. We have to keep in mind that Broken Hill, because of the care and attention that the elderly get there, has a higher number per capita of elderly citizens. Being an isolated location, people prefer to stay in the place where they were born, lived or worked. They want to remain there for the rest of their days. Some of the facilities in Broken Hill for the elderly include the hospital, Aruma Lodge, which is a hostel for the elderly, the Southern Cross Homes Inc. village, which contains units for the elderly, the Broken Hill Centenary Nursing Home and the Home of Compassion Nursing Home. Even with all of these facilities there are just not enough places for the elderly in Broken Hill. One thing that is vital and which is missing is a respite care accommodation centre for those who have to leave hospital, perhaps not as well as they might be, and return to their homes where they have to try to care for themselves under conditions which are at least very difficult. The Old Age and Invalid Pensioners Association spokesman, Mr Byers, has written to me and asked me to approach the Government to see whether there is any way that one of these respite care accommodation centres can be provided for those people who have to leave hospital before they might be 100 per cent fit to try to get them on to their feet and over that period of convalescence. Another problem for the elderly and infirm in Broken Hill is that, as a city, it is fairly widespread. These different facilities I am talking about such as the hospital, Aruma Lodge and the other care centres for the elderly are spread out. The elderly really need some transport to get from one to the other. In days gone past Broken Hill was one of those few cities in Australia that had a steam tram service, but that is going back a long way. It has had a bus service for many years but with the economic problems facing Broken Hill that bus service is no longer as frequent as the elderly and infirm people wish it to be. Mr Byers has also written to ask me if I could approach the Government to find out, firstly, whether there could be some investigation of just what bus services the elderly do need, when the peaks occur and where the elderly and infirm wish to go so that they can have a bus service that will cater to their needs and which will prevent them from having to stay at home all the time where they get very bored and find the quality of life not as it should be. In the House tonight I am asking the Federal Government for assistance, first of all to carry out an investigation of the needs of these elderly people and the infirm. I intend to write to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to see whether something can be done. I believe that the pioneers of Broken Hill have made a great contribution not only to the city of Broken Hill but also to the nation. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(10.38) —One of the areas with which I have been concerned throughout my time as a member of parliament both here and in South Australia has been the position in the community of the underprivileged and the disadvantaged. Tonight I want to extend that to address our treatment of those people in the world community who are not as fortunate as we are in Australia. Regardless of the economic problems that face us, our situation is infinitely better than that of many countries, including some with which we have close relations through our membership of the Commonwealth of Nations and of the United Nations. I raise this matter because I believe that we are failing in our responsibilities to these people. It concerns me that, in the recent Budget, the overseas aid allocation has fallen to a 20-year low in comparison with the gross national product and total Australian Government outlays. The short term reasons for this may well be justified but the folly of the situation in the longer term is also obvious. Australia is situated geographically in the Third World. We have foreign policy aims in the disarmament area and in the north-south debate for which we must have the support of much of the Third World. We are attempting to build up trading relations with many of these countries which are not our traditional trading partners. We have a responsibility to our Third World neighbours, our partners in the Commonwealth and to our developed world partners in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and in the Western alliance to maintain a credible position, particularly in relation to our position in the Pacific. It seems to me that slashing our civilian aid budget runs at odds with the rational and responsible approach to our nation's interest. Australia's aid budget has fluctuated considerably over the past 20 years. Quite clearly, while our wealth has grown our contribution as a percentage of GNP has been falling. There are a few bright spots, but the trend is quite dramatic. We have never reached the 0.7 per cent of GNP which is the goal set by the United Nations. The closest we have come is just under 0.6 per cent in 1967. From then on it has been mainly downhill with a couple of fillips under the Whitlam Government and then under this Government. However, our contribution has now fallen to only 0.39 per cent of GNP, slightly over half of the United Nations' set target. On top of this the depreciation of the Australian dollar has steadily reduced the value of our aid even further. If this were not tragic enough, the military aid budget, which is included in the defence line of the Budget and not in the foreign affairs line, has increased considerably. It seems to me that we have really got our priorities all wrong. While the civilian aid budget fell by almost 13 per cent in a time of massive problems caused by underdevelopment, famine and conflict, the military aid budget was actually increased by 10 per cent. In other words, at the same time as we are promoting disarmament we are encouraging Third World governments to spend increasing amounts on militarisation. In our own region where our civilian development aid was cut by 13 per cent, our military aid was actually increased by 70 per cent. The Canberra Times editorial of 26 August 1986 put the argument very well. It stated: The Australian Government should examine ways to make its aid go further. One method would be to reduce military aid and increase economic aid to its less well-developed neighbours. The welfare of the people should be put before the demands of the armed forces. Australia should use any leverage it has through aid programs to get Third World governments to spend more on the welfare of their people and less on military equipment. There is a self-interest side of foreign aid. The better the economic health of the Third World the more likely it is to buy the exports of western nations. Good- will generated by years of aid could help Australia secure new markets. I could not have put it better myself. I am concerned that we are putting our short term interests ahead of both morality and our longer term interests. I suggest that the Government reconsider our aid contribution in the lead-up to this year's Budget. I hope that notwithstanding the economic problems we are confronted with at the moment we can see a substantial increase in our aid budget in the forthcoming financial year. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.43) —Last year, during the debate on the appropriations for the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, I raised some issues with relation to Commonwealth funding for the Trade Union Training Authority, known as TUTA. Tonight I wish to comment further upon the operations of the Authority, as I am not convinced that the current funding arrangements and organisation of TUTA are affording the Australian taxpayer value for money. TUTA was established by an Act of this Parliament in 1975. Whatever the original validity of the decision, the training of union representatives has been segregated from general tertiary education for well over a decade. Despite this decade of independence not much is known within the broader community about the operations of TUTA. Before discussing changes that I believe should be made, there are a few facts about TUTA I would like to bring to the notice of the House. Funding for TUTA is almost entirely from the Commonwealth. It is $8.3m in 1986-87. The bulk of TUTA's operations are conducted at the Clyde Cameron College, although courses are offered under TUTA's auspices at another 100 centres throughout Australia. Fifteen thousand eight hundred union representatives undertook 721 courses of varying duration during 1985-86. These trainees represented 199 different unions. Since 1982, the number of students participating in TUTA courses has more than doubled; the number of courses offered has increased by 350. Of all the participants in TUTA courses, only 1,552, fewer than 10 per cent, actually attended Clyde Cameron College, which is a residential college. Clyde Cameron College is supposed to be the showpiece of TUTA's operations, yet it soaks up only 15 per cent of TUTA's total funding, an amount of $1.6m. Unions, I believe, must contribute far more to the operations of TUTA than is currently the case. With Australia's top 20 unions having combined assets of $118m, it is ludicrous that trade union training is almost entirely funded by the taxpayer, particularly so when it is remembered that union income is not taxed. Organised labour now has access to superannuation funds, and I believe it would be advised to commit funds to union training rather than rely on continued government funding in the present climate. Within my own State of Tasmania, last year 859 participated in courses conducted by TUTA in Hobart, Launceston, Burnie and George Town. It is interesting to note that while nationally 67 per cent of participants at TUTA courses were from public sector unions, in Tasmania this figure was only 59 per cent. However, since public sector unionists account for only 47 per cent of all unionists, there appears within TUTA to be an over-reliance upon public sector unions for support. This apparent over-reliance can be redressed if the operations of TUTA are brought into the industrial relations field of tertiary education. The 1977 Paine inquiry into trade union training recommended the retention of a separate trade union training operation. Ten years on from that report, the record of TUTA leads me to suggest that there must be a greater integration of trade union training with a more general program of education within the industrial relations field. Furthermore, courses stressing trade union practices, and indeed all industrial relations practices, should be open to all major parties operating within the industrial relations environment. This is not only desirable, I believe it is eminently possible and practicable. For instance, union training at the Clyde Cameron College could be incorporated within the auspices of either a university or an institute of technology. Within the various States, TUTA courses could be offered in conjunction with existing tertiary education centres. For instance, the Tasmanian State Institute of Technology in Launceston could and should be utilised as much as possible as it already offers an industrial relations course of high repute. Many articles, some dating back as far as 1980, have drawn attention to the twin edged sword that the union movement takes by allowing government to fund its union training authorities. I believe it is about time unions started to think about picking up the tab themselves. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.48) —In view of some of the more recent developments in the Australian political scene, I thought it would be appropriate to take the opportunity to detail some incidents that have occurred over a number of years in Queensland. I have detailed and documented almost 30 examples in that State of abuse, indiscretion, corruption, nepotism and preferences of various kinds. The first case to which I refer is the Comalco company shares case. In May 1970 it was disclosed that Comalco had offered share allotments to politicians, civil servants, journalists and customers of the company in Australia and New Zealand. The shares were issued at $2.75 and were expected to sell at about $4. The share allocations included those to the then Queensland Treasurer, Mr Chalk, 1,500; Dr G. Chalk, 300; Mrs Chalk, 500; Miss Chalk 200-all those people living at the one address-the Minister for Industrial Development, Mr Campbell, 700; the Minister for Works and Housing, Mr Hodges, 1,200; the Minister for Conservation, Mr Hewitt, 1,200; the Minister for Local Government and Electricity, Mr Ray, 1,500; the Minister for Health, Mr Tooth, 1,200. Mrs Mollie Isabelle Askin, wife of the New South Wales Premier of the time, got an allotment of 1,500 shares. The Prime Minister of the day, John Gorton, declined his allotment. The Western Australian Premier, David Brand, received 1,500 shares. Most of the company's assets, including its huge bauxite field at Weipa on Cape York Peninsula, are in Queensland. The share allotments were generally regarded as disguised gifts which were not available to the general public. Following the public uproar over the matter, a Comalco spokesman said: It all sounds naive, I suppose. I'm damn sure we won't be doing it again. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's comment was: I know all Cabinet Ministers are responsible men and I do not attempt to dictate to them on such matters. The second case relates to the Joh Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. In 1979 the Foundation was established to raise $2.5m to be used to purchase 10 buildings worth $250,000 each in the State's major regional centres. Details of the Foundation emerged following a claim in the Queensland Parliament in September 1979 that a company had offered a political donation of $100,000 in return for State Government rezoning of land for a shopping centre. The rezoning had previously been refused by the Gold Coast City Council. Cabinet Ministers encouraged people to join committees where they then made donations. Each committee member also selected five prospective donors and called on them personally. The arrangement was based upon the pyramid selling principle. Sir Edward Lyons, the good friend of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in his letter to businessmen seeking donations, wrote: Your contribution should be viewed . . . as a sound and very essential investment in the protection of your commercial future. I emphasise the words `very essential' and `protection'. The third case concerns the Minister. In September 1979 Russ Hinze boasted that his income was about $360,000 a year. This disclosure followed claims that he had given favourable land rezoning decisions to companies which had donated to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. He said that he had been offered a bribe of $50,000 in August of that year. He said to the Press: I told the person who offered it what I would tell them all-I'm not interested. Why should I be when my income is around $360,000 a year. He said he had not reported the bribe to the police because he did not want to waste their time. The offering of a bribe was a criminal offence in all States at that time except Queensland. I propose to continue the dossier of events as time permits. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.52) —In 1938, just a few months before I was born, the Hon. A. G. Ogilvie, KC, Premier of Tasmania, commissioned the State Treasury to prepare a feasibility paper on the possibility of Tasmania seceding from the Commonwealth. It should be remembered that the request for preparation of the feasibility paper was only some seven years after the abortive attempt by Western Australia to secede from the Commonwealth. It is interesting to note that the feasibility paper showed that it was very much a line ball decision-that is, in 1938-as to whether or not Tasmania would be better off seceding. What was particularly interesting was that the paper showed that the Tasmanian economy had declined since joining the Federation. That point was brought back to my mind very forcefully today when I read an article in the Melbourne Age in which the Premier of Tasmania, the Hon. Robin Gray, was interviewed by Gayle Austen. The article appeared under the headline `Gray proposes Tasmania quit mainland' and the sub-headline `Rather they leave us alone and let us get on with the job'. Before I turn to today's article in the Melbourne Age I simply record that in 1969 the then member for Huon, the Hon. Michael Hodgman, MLC, also worked out a feasibility paper on the pros and cons of secession. At that time it was not quite a line ball decision. In fairness, one would have to say that in 1969 Tasmania would have been worse off had it seceded. I also have to say that during the Fraser years from 1975 to 1983 Tasmania received such excellent treatment from that Government that it would have been insane to propose secession. However, in 1987 we have a situation where the Hawke socialist Government has now completely turned the debate around in Tasmania. The action of the Hawke socialist Government in robbing Tasmania of over $202m in Commonwealth funding to our State in the last 19 months has started many Tasmanians thinking about the possibility of secession. We believe in the Australian federal system but we have had a gutful of Canberra centralists dictating to our State. We have had a gutful of Canberra bureaucrats cutting away at the funding for Tasmania and we have had a gutful of the Canberra Government telling us how we should shape our own destiny. In today's article the Premier of Tasmania is quoted in the following terms: Tasmania would secede from the `interfering mainland states if it could,' according to the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Gray. . . . `It would be nice if they just went away and left us alone because they really don't care about 430,000 Tasmanians,' he said. I recall your strong ties with our State, Madam Speaker, and I must say that in our State you are regarded as one of our most distinguished daughters. The Premier went on to say: . . . Tasmania was only just regaining the strength it lost after Federation, and would be much better off economically if it seceded. `We could do a lot down here if we weren't saddled with the rest of Australia,' he said. `We could have duty free arrangements, we could have all sorts of trade agreements. If they would let us have our economic independence, subject to a reason- able period for the transition to take place, Tasmania would be much better off.' In conclusion, the article said: Mr Gray is maintaining a state of near warfare with the Federal Government over its involvement in the state's forestry operations and the nomination of Mr John Devereux, the leader of the ALP state opposition, as a replacement for Labor Senator Don Grimes. . . . As a passionate defender of state rights, Mr Gray has vowed to fight for what he sees as Tasmania's independence, in the courts and State Parliament. I stand foursquare with the Premier on this issue. I never thought I would stand in this Parliament and advocate it, but the time has come to throw down the gauntlet. I believe that we are fast reaching the stage where Tasmania should seriously consider seceding from the Commonwealth because we are sick and tired of what the Hawke socialist Government has done to our State. We are sick and tired of Canberra centralists telling us how to run our State. If they do not get their act in order, we will secede. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.57) —We are used to hearing promises and promises from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I remind him that in per capita grants Tasmania is treated very generously and that generosity is exceeded only by the exorbitant extortion that the Northern Territory applies to the Commonwealth. I want to talk about-- Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr CAMPBELL —Far lower, in fact. I want to talk about speeches made last Wednesday by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who came into this House in some sort of cheerful triumvirate trying to espouse their sympathy with the farmers. It is a cause which I am very aware of because I have the highest farm debt in my electorate. The honourable member for Wannon incorporated in Hansard a table which sets out the plight of two farmers. Then he started to berate us on interest rates. I am very aware of the effect of interest rates on farm viability. The table shows clearly that interest rates are not the problem; the problem is the dramatic decline in land values. In the first example we notice that in 1985-86 the total liabilities were $146,000, against $180,000 for the previous year. The farmer obviously sold some assets to reduce his liability. The fact is, even with the high interest rates, the interest bill will be less than it was the previous year. Land values are clearly what has caused this problem. We should ask ourselves why land values have declined so dramatically. There are many reasons for this. There was an overstated confidence in the rural sector; prices were talked up. Certainly the banking fraternity has a lot to answer for in this respect. The professional advice of the day was to get big or get out. While it is true that the economic advisers have stopped saying this, they have stopped saying it very quietly. Farmers, particularly those with families coming on, were intent on getting in and buying land before the price went even higher. Both of the farms referred to by the honourable member for Wannon suffered a massive loss of equity due to land values. The loss of equity would not be a problem if the terms of trade had not turned so adversely against them. Provided they could service their loan, that was not the immediate problem. They suffered simultaneously a dramatic decrease in the terms of trade. It is rather poor for these honourable members to come into this House and berate the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who has worked so hard in the rural sector, and the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), who would probably know more about the tax system than all the honourable members opposite combined. He certainly has an expertise in this area, which is recognised in his previous profession. We have to look at the way out of this mess. Not all farmers are in this diabolical trouble. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 30 March 1987: Crimes Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 43. Dairy Produce Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 42. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1987-No. 4-Export Control (Fees) as amended (Amendment). Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Regulations-1987- No. 1 (Magistrates Court Ordinance). No. 2 (Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Ordinance). Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 41. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4502) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What are the (a) number and (b) location of the Area Approach Control Centres (AACC) operated by his Department. (2) Have AACC's recently been built in Adelaide and Melbourne, if so, what did they cost. (3) Does his Department plan to continue operating these centres for the foreseeable future or has it plans to centralise the function. (4) Are any additional AACC's being planned; if so, where and at what cost. Mr Peter Morris —The following is the answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) There are five Area Approach Control Centres (AACC's) operated by the Department of Aviation. (b) These are located at Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. (2) Yes. Replacement AACC's have been built recently at Adelaide and Melbourne at a cost of $3.4m and $6.7m respectively. (3) My Department is considering the consolidation of air traffic services functions into a smaller number of larger centres which could lead to a re-arrangement of responsibilities between existing centres for more efficient operation. (4) Yes. My Department is planning an extensive modernisation program of its Air Traffic Service (both Flight Service and ATC) facilities over the next 10 to 20 years. Consideration is currently being given to the provision of a North-Eastern Air Traffic Services Centre in Brisbane and a Terminal Area Centre in Sydney. Costs have not been finalised. (Question No. 4901) Mr Halverson asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) What regulations or guidelines apply to the publication of material included in the ``Emergency Services-Personal'' information guide on the inside front cover of the Melbourne White Pages and Yellow Pages telephone directories. (2) Does the entry for ``Gayline (Homosexual Telephone Counselling Service)'' comply with the regulations or guidelines. (3) It is a fact that (a) ``Gayline'' is only manned between the hours of 6 pm to 11 pm Mondays to Saturdays and 7 pm to 10 pm on Sundays, (b) at all other times the number is answered with a recorded message and (c) most of the recorded message is devoted to providing callers with details of various homosexual groups and their activities. (4) Does the recorded message and the information it provides meet the criteria for, or definition of, emergency or counselling services. (5) What costs are associated with (a) the publication of the ``Gayline'' entry in the telephone directories and (b) the provision of the telephone service. (6) Who is responsible for the payment of the costs referred to in part (5). (7) Did the inclusion of this service result in the exclusion of other personal emergency service agencies or organisations from the personal emergency services guide; if so, which other agencies or organisations were excluded. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Telecom's guidelines currently used in determining eligibility of inclusion in the ``Emergency Services-Personal'' Section of the inner front cover of the Melbourne White Pages and Yellow pages directories are that (i) the organisation could be expected to receive many calls requiring immediate personal assistance in cases where human life may be endangered, or serious damage to property is imminent; (ii) the service should be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days per week by staff suitably trained or qualified to deal with the nature of requests for the service. Referral or diversion to a competent organisation, and or person is permissible should there by any period where the service is not staffed continuously; (iii) the service should cater for a wide coverage of the directory area and would take preference over localised services; (iv) the service should receive calls for assistance in the order of 600 calls per month and additional lines are to be leased by the customer if the volume of incoming calls prevents immediate response. (2) No. Telecom intends to move the Gayline reference to the Help Reference Page of the 1987 directory. (3) (a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) Generally, yes. However, in accordance with the guidelines the recorded message refers callers to other personal emergency service agencies. (4) Not completely. (See the answer to Part 3 of the question for details) (5) and (6) (a) The publication cost of the ``Gayline'' entry is not available as Telecom provides the information on the inside cover as a community service. (b) Standard charges are applied by Telecom and the account forwarded to the ``Gayline'' organisation. (7) No. (Question No. 4956) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: (1) What section of the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) Ordinance 1981 requires the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board to submit an annual report to him. (2) Has he required the Board to furnish information to him under section 15 of the Ordinance; if so, what information has been requested. (3) What sum of contributions were received by the Board in 1984-85. (4) Do employees receive a credit of 1 year's service for each 220 days worked under the provisions of the Ordinance. (5) Does the definition of `days worked' provide for days on strike to be treated as working days for the purposes of an employee receiving a credit for long service leave. (6) Did the Board submit to the Minister in October 1983 recommendations for a review of the legislation; if so, have all recommendations been implemented. (7) If all recommendations have not been implemented, (a) why not, (b) what are the details of the unimplemented recommendations and (c) when does he expect to make the necessary legislative amendments. (8) What was the outcome of the reported discussions between the NSW Minister for Industrial Relations and himself on a scheme to allow the exchange of workers' long service leave credits. (9) Has the proposed portability agreement between SA, Vic. and the ACT been agreed to and introduced. (10) Have the penalty provisions of the Ordinance been invoked since its introduction; if so, how many penalties were imposed for each relevant section of the Ordinance. (11) Is the purchase by the Board of its own strata title accommodation in the best interests of building and construction industry employees. (12) Does Note 11 to the Profit and Loss Statement for 1984-85 show $11,416 expended on consultants' fees; if so, (a) who were the consultants and (b) for what purpose were they employed. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is no requirement within the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) Ordinance 1981 for the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board to submit an annual report to the Minister. The Board does however submit an annual report with audited financial statements which is tabled. (2) No. (3) $1,823,905. (4) Yes. (5) There is no definition of ``days worked'' in the Ordinance. The Board has advised that an employee will not be credited with service under section 42 of the Ordinance for days on strike. (6) Yes. No. (7) (a) The substantial work load associated with the current ACT legislative drafting program has inhibited implementation of all the recommendations. (b) Those yet to be implemented are: definition of ``building and construction industry'' to be clarified; clarify the definition of ``ordinary remuneration'' of a worker's wages on which the employer's levied contribution is based; permit a payment in lieu of long service leave where a worker retires prior to 65 years of age and in receipt of a benefit under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; permit the Board to delegate some of its administrative responsibilities to the Long Service Leave Registrar and Deputy Registrar; review the conditions relating to the termination of appointments of Board members; permit the Registrar to direct an Inspector as to duties to be performed; review the Inspector's powers in relation to the demands on employers to produce documents and disclose information; increase the financial limit above which the Board must seek approval from the Minister prior to entering into a contract; decrease the maximum penalty which may be imposed on an employer for late or non-payment of levies or the submission of periodic returns while adding a penalty interest provision for the late payment of levy contributions; permit the grant of credits to registered workers in respect of any period contributed for by the employer prior to the date of registration of the employee; reduce the qualifying period for payment of a benefit for contributing sub-contractors should they be required to leave the industry permanently; reduce from 5 to 3 the panel required for selection of a medical referee in circumstances where the Board disputes an employee's entitlement for payment in lieu of leave due to total incapacity to perform normal duties. (c) 1987. (8) A reciprocal agreement to allow the transfer of workers' credits between the ACT and New South Wales schemes was signed by the NSW Minister for Industrial Relations and me in September 1986. Legislation to make consequential amendments to the Ordinance is presently being prepared by the Department. It is expected that the legislation will be made soon. (9) The principles of the proposed portability agreement between South Australia, Victoria and the ACT have been agreed and the agreement is expected to come into effect soon. (10) Yes. Five under section 37 (1). (11) A recent valuation obtained by the Board indicates that the market value of the property has increased from the purchase price of $608,413 in November 1984 to $911,500 in 1986. The Board has advised me that it considers this is a very satisfactory result for contributors to the Fund. I am aware that the Auditor General has taken the view that the Board is in breach of provisions of section 63e of the Audit Act in holding title to that part of the property which it does not occupy. The Department and the Chairman of the Board are considering options on how audit criticisms can be resolved. (12) Yes: (a) Darryl J. Sheedy-Business Analyst and Systems Consultant; (b) preparation of tender documents, assessment of tenders and negotiating the purchase of a new computer system. Cost. The estimated cost of preparing this response is $460. (Question No. 5039) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Which States have recorded recent outbreaks of (a) chrysanthemum white rust, (b) potato nematode, (c) mango-bud mite and (d) boysenberry decline. (2) How many outbreaks of these diseases have been recorded. (3) How long has each outbreak lasted. (4) What measures have been taken to eradicate these diseases. (5) What action does he plan to take to overcome any deficiencies in plant quarantine administration. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Recent outbreaks of the diseases referred to by the honourable member have been recorded from the following States (a) chrysanthemum white rust: New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory (b) potato cyst nematode: Western Australia (c) mango-bud mite: Queensland and Northern Territory (d) boysenberry decline: the disease has not been detected in any Australian State. (2) There have been no previously recorded outbreaks of these organisms in Australia. (3) Mango-bud mite was reported for the first time during 1982 and is now established in Queensland and Northern Territory and is not considered feasible to eradicate. Potato cyst nematode is believed to have been in Australia for at least ten years before it was detected during 1986. Chrysanthemum white rust was first reported in November 1986 and it is believed by quarantine officials that it had only been present for a relatively short time, probably less than one year. (4) Procedures have been developed and are being implemented in affected States to eradicate chrysanthemum white rust and potato cyst nematode. These procedures involve surveys, quarantining and treatment of affected properties. Because of its widespread distribution and the absence of effective treatments eradication of mango-bud mite has not been attempted. (5) There is no evidence to suggest that the outbreaks are the result of deficiencies in the administration of plant quarantine. The quarantine system is designed to provide a high level of quarantine security against the introduction of exotic pests and diseases. Quarantine policies and procedures are under continuous review to take account of changing pest and disease occurrences and new technologies for detection and treatment of diseases. There is no known linkage between these outbreaks and the legal importation of plants and plant products. (Question No. 5089) Mr Beale asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) What was the cost to the Government of the textiles yarn bounty in (a) 1986 and (b) what is the estimated cost in 1987. (2) Are the bounty arrangements designed in such a way that extra income could reduce a company's bounty entitlements. (3) Is he or is his Department aware of any cases where export opportunities have been rejected because the income earned from textile exports would reduce a manufacturer's bounty entitlement and, if so, which companies and which export orders have been involved. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Bounty payments for 1986 under the Bounties Textile Yarn Act 1981 totalled $90,856,100. (b) While bounty payments can be calculated for calendar 1986, as monthly payment details are available, all forward estimates for the textiles bounties are made on a financial year basis. The Report on the Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays 1987-88 to 1989-90 indicates that the forward estimate for bounty payments to Australia's textile, clothing and footwear industries in 1986-87 is $68.7 million and in 1987-88 is $71.3 million. (2) The current yarn bounty is paid on eligible factory costs for certain yarns which are used in the local textile and clothing sectors. These arrangements were not specifically designed to reduce entitlements when firms gained extra income. They were designed to provide certain levels of tariff equivalent assistance for production aimed at the domestic market. Exported yarns are specifically excluded from bounty eligibility. Factory costs associated with export production are deducted from factory costs which form the basis of the calculation of bounty. As a result, the situation could reduce per unit overhead costs and hence, a company's bounty entitlement. (3) The Minister and his Department are aware of cases where it has been suggested that some export opportunities have not been realised because of this effect on overhead costs. Accordingly, the Government, in its recent consideration of TCF assistance, decided that, from 1 July 1987, bounty eligibility will be extended to overheads associated with production of bountiable yarns for export.