Wednesday, 29 April 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Fife had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the passage of the Bill, this House- (1) expresses concern that the establishment of this statutory authority may not best address the housing needs of service men and women; (2) regrets the failure of the Government to allow adequately for private home ownership requirements of the Australian Defence Force, and (3) urges greater delegation of financial responsibility to base and area commanders for the acquisition, repair and maintenance of defence housing, with appropriate audit controls'. Mr Young-Madam Speaker, are the leaders of the Opposition parties going to tell us who the shadow Ministers are? Is there to be any announcement? Who is the manager of business for the National Party? Who is going to speak on behalf of the Opposition? Madam SPEAKER —I imagine that the Leader of the Opposition will speak on behalf of the Opposition. Mr Spender-We will sort that out, Madam Speaker. If the Minister has any real worries, we will sort them out for him. Just leave it to us, Mick. Mr Young-I understand that the honourable member for North Sydney is now Manager of Opposition Business. Is that right? If so, I would like to congratulate him. Mr Howard-Madam Speaker, I understand that the effervescent Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs wants to know who the Manager of Opposition Business is from today. I am very happy to inform him that the honourable member for North Sydney is the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Young-But I understood there was to be an announcement about five new shadow Ministers. Mr Howard-Well, if you can contain your effervescence, that will be revealed too. Mr Young-Will that be coming out before your tax policy? Mr Spender-Sit down and let's get on with the business of the day. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Moore. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.04) —Last night before the House adjourned I was speaking about the poor quality of defence forces housing. I was pointing out to the House that many of the homes in which members of the defence forces live were built in the 1950s and were allocated from the State public housing programs. Often they lacked amenities available in privately owned homes. I pointed out that it was no wonder that this situation has not encouraged some former members of the defence forces to remain in the Services with a consequential loss to the nation of skilled personnel which takes time and money to replace. It is because of the poor quality of the housing stock available that many service personnel are renting or buying their own homes. Of course, if they purchase their home in Perth they are disadvantaged compared with their service colleagues in other capital cities who purchase homes in those cities. As the cost of housing and land is much cheaper in Perth than in other capital cities, when it comes to selling their properties because of an eastern State posting they get less in resale value for their property and thus have less capital to purchase a home on the eastern seaboard. On the other side of the coin, those buying in, say, Sydney or Melbourne have more capital to purchase a home in Perth. The frequency of postings aggravates the problem of housing defence personnel. Whilst one accepts that the exigencies of service life require postings from one part of Australia to another, I consider that these postings are often far too frequent and do not take into account sufficiently individual circumstances which should negate the postings. I have had a number of representations made to me on this issue and I am sure that most honourable members in the House would also have received such representations. I am not alone in this criticism of too frequent postings. Between September 1982 and April 1984 the Armed Forces Federation of Australia conducted a survey of 459 officers who resigned from the Army in an attempt to identify reasons why officers were resigning. The most cited reason given which had some influence on their resignation was that they wanted to live in one location. Of those interviewed 67.5 per cent gave this as a reason for leaving the service. This is a lesson which must be learnt by senior officers responsible for postings. There is a strong argument for longer postings in peacetime. Obviously wartime creates a different ball game; we all accept that. Longer postings allow a person to develop his professional skill or trade and a team spirit to develop. As well, it allows his family, his wife and children, to establish themselves in the community in which they are living. As the Armed Forces Federation has pointed out, frequent postings result in frequent changes of schools by the children of service personnel. It cites one case, admittedly extreme, of one child who had been to 13 schools in seven years and required specialist counselling because of that. There is a need for additional funds to schools in defence areas for extra tuition and counselling of children of service personnel to assist in removing some of the trauma of posting. I trust that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) will take the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) so that the issue can be addressed. If those living in rental homes under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement service personnel scheme are transferred to rental accommodation in another State they have a better than even chance of getting inadequate and inferior accommodation. Of the current stock of service homes about 8,000 were built pre-1966; 5,200 were built post-1966 and pre-1972; and 1,500 were built post-1972. One can see from those figures that, in terms of the total percentage of Defence Force homes, very few were built post-1972. According to the task force report, 62 per cent of CSHA service personnel houses are classified at least as significantly deficient in standards. The task force has commented, in the main, that they do not warrant upgrading. The establishment of a Defence Housing Authority, coupled with the Government's plans to spend $750m over the next 10 years on new housing for the Australian Defence Force, show that this Government is prepared and determined to overcome the neglect. It is for these reasons that I strongly support the Bill before the House. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.10) —I wish to take part in the debate on the Defence Housing Authority Bill because a great number of Defence Force personnel live in the electorate of Gilmore. I have a number of bases in my constituency, HMAS Albatross at Nowra being the largest. A large number of my constituents live in Defence Force housing. Consequently, I am aware of the failings of existing Defence Force housing and the need to improve such housing so that we may have a viable, useful and successful Defence Force for the future. Opposition members are happy to support the Bill, although we have some reservations. We are concerned to see yet another authority being created by this Government. I do not think that the people of Australia want to see any more government-based authorities, or indeed any more public servants, bureaucracy or red tape being created by any government. We all believe that we are already over-burdened by such things. We are also concerned that the legislation does not give sufficient emphasis to the private sector in its involvement with Defence Force housing. It is ludicrous that with so many capable and well-proven builders, particularly large scale builders, who can put together project-styled homes throughout Australia at minimum cost within an optimum period of time, we are not seeking their assistance and co-operation to carry out works on behalf of the Defence Housing Authority. There has to be greater emphasis in this legislation on the private sector. The National Party of Australia is also concerned that not enough autonomy is being given to local base commanders to carry out necessary repairs, maintenance and upgrading of Defence Force housing in their command areas. One logical step to take would be that where a Defence Force local commander can see the need for repair work, he should have the authority to authorise the carrying out of that repair work by local contractors. If that were done, it would save the taxpayer a great deal of money. It has been brought to my attention that under the existing arrangements any repairs or upgrading work on Defence Force housing has to be carried out by the Department of Housing and Construction. That can be a very expensive arrangement. I am told that even the installation of a power point in a Defence Force home can cost anything up to $200, when a local contractor could carry out that work at substantially less cost. We are all aware of what a local contractor would charge to install a power point. Yet the Department seems to overlook these realities and insist on having the bureaucracy carry out these works at great expense to the taxpayer. It also ignores the services of obviously capable people who are already situated in each Defence Force area and who have the ability to determine what is needed and who can undertake the work and how it fits within a budget. I believe it is right to put forward these reservations on this legislation. We are not happy about the fact that local base commanders are not being given additional autonomy in relation to Defence Force housing. We are concerned that the private sector is not being involved enough in this Authority, and are also concerned about the establishment of yet another government authority placing a burden of bureaucracy and red tape on the community. The facts are clear in terms of Defence Force housing. The great majority of existing accommodation is below standard. Certainly it is below a standard that any public servant would expect of housing for his or her own use. Of the 22,000 houses under the control of our Defence Force some 15,000 are considered to be sub-standard. Defence Force personnel have the right to expect at least accommodation that is of a standard equal to that of the rest of the community. For that reason I believe our Defence Force personnel are losing their morale. That loss of morale is being exhibited every day in the record levels of resignations from our defence forces, resignations which now leave our active service personnel numbers at their lowest level since the Vietnam war days. It is evident from those resignations and the loss of morale in our forces that the conditions under which our Defence Force personnel are operating are substandard and we must act now to ensure that those standards are raised. That is why we can see a role for the private sector in the Defence Housing Authority. It would be very evident to honourable members that the private sector can very quickly construct a home of a very high standard for much less than it costs the Government to construct Defence Force houses. For example, project home builders in the private sector can put together a very comfortable three- or four-bedroom home with all the modern facilities for around $35,000. Yet Defence Force people are continuing to spend $35,000 and more on upgrading existing homes rather than removing those homes and building new modern homes which would require less maintenance in the future. The reality of the situation today is also evident in the fact that the Government decided in February this year to increase rents on Defence Force housing by 7.5 per cent. It increased those rents on the basis of tying Defence Force housing rents to those of the commercial sector of the rental market. Whilst on the surface that may be laudable, it has to be remembered that Defence Force housing is, firstly, substandard and, secondly, located in areas that are not necessarily convenient for people to live in. They are not convenient to the local school or to the local shops. Also, people who live in Defence Force housing do so, quite often, not of their own free volition but because they are directed to do so, and that factor has to be taken into account. Therefore, it is not entirely appropriate to apply rates in the private rental market to defence housing rents. That is a mistake that the Defence Force people are now starting to understand. They realise that it has been adding to the level of officer and other ranks resignations over the last few years. One of the other matters about which I am also concerned with the establishment of this Authority is that there is no firm commitment to the necessary funding that will be required to ensure its success. For example, the Government states `We will aim to give funding' and it uses other words such as `there will be proposed investment of $750m' and `there will be some supplementation from annual Budgets'. In the parliamentary language that we know and understand, which can be so tricky and so deceptive, that is not a firm commitment. What the Government has to do to ensure the success of this Authority and to ensure that defence personnel of Australia have proper accommodation is to give a 100 per cent firm commitment on the funding issue. If the Government does not I am afraid that this Defence Housing Authority will not get off the ground. It is indicative that in the 1986-87 Budget the Government allocated only $64m for Defence Force housing, which was much less than was recommended by the task force that this Government established to look into the needs of Defence Force housing. Over the last year or so the Government has indicated that funding will not be as available as one might think. For example, not so long ago a commitment was given by this Government that Defence Force funding would be increased by one per cent in real terms. Already we have seen that commitment whittled away to an increase, in real terms, of zero. So the Government has already reneged on some of its funding commitments to the defence forces of Australia and I think that that backsliding approach will be seen further down the track in a withdrawal of a commitment to proper funding for this Defence Housing Authority. One of the other areas which are not touched by this Bill is the barracks housing situation for our Defence Force personnel. At present barracks housing is completely inadequate. Single people in the defence forces with no dependants constitute about 45 per cent of overall personnel levels in our defence forces. Thirty-five to 40 per cent of those people choose to live off base because they find that the accommodation offered them in the barracks is not of a suitable standard and they are not prepared to live in that accommodation. Despite the fact that living off base can cost them substantially more, they are prepared to put up with that because the accommodation that is offered on base is completely below the sort of standard that people in this day and age are prepared to accept and, indeed, should demand. Another thing that concerns me is the recent commitments by this Government to have a two-ocean Navy and also to locate a large section of our Army in the Northern Territory. As a result of these commitments we will see a great need for more Defence Force housing to be constructed on the eastern coast and the west coast of Australia and also in the Northern Territory. In the future, rather than existing accommodation being upgraded to a standard we can accept, most of the funding that will go to this Authority will be spent on the construction of new accommodation facilities in these new areas in which the Government has indicated it wishes to emphasise defence activities. I have a fear that the rents that Defence Force personnel are currently paying will not go towards the improvement of their own accommodation but towards providing funding for this new and additional accommodation requirement that the Government has placed on Defence Force housing authorities. Once again, that is something that will weaken the morale of our Defence Force personnel and further increase the number of resignations we are seeing in the defence forces. The non-inclusion of the private sector in this Authority to what I and the other members of the National Party of Australia would see as a proper level will cause problems in the future. One must take into consideration that there is a need to increase the standard of Defence Force housing. If we do not, morale will be weakened, resignations will increase and, as a result, the overall effectiveness of our defence forces will be weakened. I think that everybody in this Parliament would recognise that the greatest responsibility that this Parliament and this Government have is to defend this nation. Without an ability to defend the nation, we have no nation. What the Government has been doing in terms of Defence Force housing over the last few years is, I believe, and I know my colleagues in the National Party also believe, completely inadequate. For example, total expenditure on housing assistance under the Defence Service Homes Corporation dropped from $160m in 1981-82 to $126m in 1985-86. The Defence Force housing loans scheme still has a limit of a maximum loan of $25,000 and the waiting period for those loan applications is now about 10 months. New recruits who joined the Defence Forces after 1985 have not been eligible for assistance under these housing loan assistance schemes. A maximum loan of $25,000 under a housing loan assistance scheme is totally inadequate in this age. Unfortunately, the Government has not seen fit to raise this assistance level to what is necessary in today's real estate market to be of any real benefit to our Defence Force personnel. So there is a need to increase that assistance level. Mr Gear —Spend more? Mr SHARP —It is not a matter of spending more, as the honourable member for Canning interjects. He must remember that these loans will be repaid with interest. Therefore, they will not impose a burden on the taxpayers in years to come. It is a commercial activity of this Government and not a straight-out drain on the resources of the taxpayer. I believe that the Senate also has investigated the expenditure of housing money over the 1986-87 funding period. Honourable senators tell me that about half the funding for Defence Force housing will be spent on new construction and the other half will be spent on the upgrading of the existing available accommodation. There is a great need to spend more of that money on the upgrading of our existing Defence Force accommodation. If we take into account the contribution that the private sector can make to that upgrading program, we will see that it can be achieved at a far cheaper cost than the Government anticipates. I constantly remind the House that Defence Force personnel have little choice in where they live. The Defence Force has the ability to direct its personnel to live on base in Defence Force accommodation. So this requirement is placed on our personnel. They cannot withdraw from it. If we compel Defence Force personnel to live in particular houses, we have to have a standard of accommodation we can all be proud of. I hope this Bill will achieve an improvement in the quality of Defence Force housing right across Australia. I fear that the non-inclusion of autonomy for local base commanders will hamper that and the non-inclusion of the private sector in this Defence Force Housing Authority legislation will not enhance that goal. I also believe that the establishment of yet another government authority will not help in the overall battle to improve conditions for our Defence Force personnel. Taking all these things into account, many people are quite within their rights in saying that the Government is not seriously addressing this issue as it ought. It should also be addressing other service conditions such as wages and the usage of the time of people in our defence forces because many people join the defence forces to be actively involved in them, not to be tied up behind a desk or to be unable to sail ships because there is not sufficient funding for those ships to go to sea. We have to look at the full range of conditions for Defence Force personnel if we are to address seriously the problems and needs of our defence forces and if we are to address seriously the need in the future to protect this country. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.28) —I am sure that all members of this House will agree that I am amongst the most amiable of people. In fact, I am full of bonhomie and goodwill. As a politician, I have done my bit. I have always voted at my Party's call and I have seldom thought of thinking of myself at all. But the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) tries me too far. The best that can be said of his contribution is that it was not very sharp. Defence Force housing is a problem in Australia. For a long time it has been in a considerable mess. It is in a considerable mess because it had been in the hands of a coalition government of which the honourable member for Gilmore was a part. As of yesterday, he is no longer a member of that coalition. Defence Force housing did not suddenly deteriorate and run down. The houses did not suddenly become obsolete. It has happened over time. It happened because insufficient attention was paid to the conditions under which servicemen live. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). In this area he has been very diligent. This concept which he has brought in is quite brilliant. I wish that the Minister had paid the same attention to capital purchasing and capital equipment but in this area, at least, he has done very well. The Defence Housing Authority Bill, for the first time, puts Defence Force housing on a coherent basis. If the honourable member for Gilmore had bothered to read the Bill he would have realised that while the defence forces have to pay commercial rents they do not necessarily have to pass them on. I am sure that in some cases they will not because commercial rents would be most inappropriate. But this gives a basis for the continuing funds which are needed if we are to upgrade Defence Force housing. I note that $750m has been committed over the next 10 years to do just this. I believe that there are plenty of places where the defence forces can trim some fat. As I said recently, the defence forces in this country should be lobbying hard to be allowed to build some of their own infrastructure. It seems to me an absurdity that the defence forces rely on the private sector, for example, to construct airports in very remote areas where undoubtedly the private sector holds them to ransom. The defence forces have very good facilities of their own and would be much better placed doing this work rather than simply practising building things and then pulling them down. I note that in the United States, the home of free enterprise, military engineers are used in the construction of many marginal civil construction works and I believe that this would be a big area of savings for the defence forces. The structuring of the new Defence Housing Authority is good. It has a general representation, brings in expertise from all fields and has the potential to make substantial improvements in the existing situation. I suggest to the Minister that he looks at widening the basis of the Authority slightly and adding someone from the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses. In the main, these people have borne the brunt over time of the very low standard of much of the service accommodation and I think that they could make a very valuable commitment. I wish to pay tribute to Mrs Val Lawrence, who is the interim chairman of that organisation. She has done an excellent job and it is unfortunate for the group that she has been posted, I understand, to London. Her work should not be allowed to go unrecognised and I hope that the good work she has started is carried on. I also suggest that it would be a very good investment if the Department of Defence were to make an allocation to this organisation to pay for its secretarial services. It is in the interests of the defence forces of this country for an organisation such as the consultative group to be active and representing the interests of defence service spouses. I hope the Minister will take this suggestion very seriously. I believe that it has merit because an organisation such as the consultative group can bring a lot of real knowledge and understanding to the area of service housing. I hope that the Defence Housing Authority, which will be able to call on the private sector to build its accommodation where necessary, does not limit itself to the private sector. Far too little work has been done by housing authorities throughout the country on cutting the cost of housing. I am sure that the potential exists in Australia to reduce the cost of housing dramatically. If we could halve the cost of the construction of housing, interest rates would of course become irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. I believe that there is ample evidence that transportable housing constructed in factories can be delivered at half the cost of brick and tile. Brick and tile is a fetish with which our society has grown up. We believe that brick and tile presents a solid and well-insulated house. That of course is nonsense. Brick and tile is probably more prone to cracking than most forms of construction and its insulating factor is significantly worse than that of many other forms of construction. For instance, I would say that the new brick veneer houses today are better insulated than the average double brick house. I urge the Authority to use some imagination and look at ways of reducing the cost of the construction of houses. The very good Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) sent me some material from his Department but I was not convinced by it. I think that it only touched the periphery of the problem of reducing the cost of construction. Another matter that I believe needs attention in defence housing is the archaic principle adopted in the past of making room or square footage available to individuals on the basis of rank. I cannot understand why the colonel's lady should require a bigger room than the sergeant's lady or why the colonel's kids require more or larger bedrooms than those of other ranks. I believe we should see a more egalitarian approach to the standards that are applied to Defence Force housing. After all, the mining companies do this. In mining towns the manager of the mining company lives in exactly the same sort of house as those of the work force. That is something that ought to be addressed. Also, we ought to recognise the part that housing will play in bringing stability to the Services. I have seen a lot of Defence Force housing which I consider to be inadequate. There is no doubt that if we can upgrade housing, we can induce some stability into the Services by having a greater retention of personnel. This would be very valuable to Australia in the long term. If we can retain in the Services people who have cost a lot of money to train, it will obviously be to the benefit of the defence budget and to the overall efficiency of the armed services. It is my earnest hope that this Authority succeeds in upgrading the standard of housing so as to attract and retain for longer periods servicemen and women. The honourable member for Gilmore alluded to problems. Listening to him, I became very depressed because his speech was a mixture of motherhood, platitudes and old National Party rhetoric. It reminded me that few years ago one of my supporters came to me with a glossy brochure. He said that it was terrible that servicemen may be called on to pay market rents. I have already said that that is not the case and that that is at the discretion of the military services. Then he said that many servicemen were opting to live in outside accommodation and pay market rents. They really cannot have it both ways. I do not believe that we will find any opposition to people paying more for better services. If the standard of housing is dramatically increased, servicemen will be prepared to pay more. They object now to paying not insignificant rents for this very sub- standard accommodation. That needs to be borne in mind. I was talking about one of my supporters who came to me with a glossy brochure. He said: `This is the sort of defence policy you want. This is a National Party policy'. I said: `Let us look at it'. It was a double page paper; it opened like a broadsheet. The front of it showed tanks leaping over banks, planes flying over water, and soldiers with bayonets, dripping, rushing everywhere. I opened it up and there was more of the same. The headline was `The National Party believes in defence'. It was very convincing, but somewhat superficial. I think that really underlines the level of understanding that we have had from honourable members on the Opposition benches during this debate. As I said earlier, they are the people who were responsible for running down the standard of military housing. They had that responsibility for many years and failed to address the problem. The fact that that nettle has now been grasped by the Minister should be greeted with support and admiration by those opposite. The fact that they have not done so says more about their narrow outlook than about the reality of the situation. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.39) —The Defence Housing Authority Bill is an indication of the concern of the Government, and I am sure of many people, with respect to defence personnel housing. I have listened attentively to those who have spoken on various aspects of their concern in relation to the problem. I suppose that for many years there has been a feeling both within authorities and maybe in the community that, to some degree, defence personnel, together with members of the police forces, are undertaking a particular duty within the community and that over the years many of these people have perhaps been underpaid. This perhaps does not apply so much to recent times but may certainly have been the case in years gone by in relation to the duties that they undertake on behalf of the people for whom they are responsible. We must appreciate that those people who are involved in the Services are continuously moving from place to place. In fact, the Royal Australian Air Force base at Williamtown is situated in my electorate of Lyne, and I am very conscious of the fact that whenever one visits the base, when one is invited to do so, one always meets new faces. That is an indication of the degree of transfer and large turnover of both men and women who are involved with that arm of the Services. Undoubtedly, that which applies to the RAAF also applies particularly to the Army and maybe also to the naval services of Australia. For approximately four years I was a member of the Public Works Committee of the Parliament. Accordingly, I had the opportunity to travel around Australia to assist in the conduct of hearings that took place in respect of the installation of various defence establishments throughout the country and Defence Service housing. I recall in those earlier days that very little reference was made to the actual design of homes and those extra little necessities that are important to the housewife. There was very little reference to the people who were going to live in the homes, that is, the men and women and their families. It was our policy and wish at the time that, on each occasion when we were to investigate the provision of housing, at least the wives of the servicemen should be represented. I note that the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) is in the House. He is the Vice-Chairman of the Public Works Committee and I know that members of the present Committee have interested themselves along these same lines. Interested parties were able to appear before the hearings and they were able to say to us: `Well, these are the little changes that we want to see made to the houses that are to be built by the Defence Department and the Department of Housing and Construction'. They were able to point out to us many important small features, such as a laundry being situated downstairs, the provision of a playground for the children, the situation of power-points within the house, the size of the bedrooms, the provision of adequate cupboard space, the design of the kitchen-and many other factors that make life much more comfortable for the servicemen and women and their families. I think that that was a great step forward. Whichever authority or department is in charge of the provision of housing, it must be prepared to confer, first, with the private sector and, secondly, with those people who are going to live in those homes. I know that the second reading speech of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the explanatory notes of the Bill indicate that this has been allowed for. I hope that it does occur, as it is a very important to servicemen. I think I am correct in saying that service personnel have very much larger families than those of other Australians. I do not know why this is so-perhaps they feel a responsibility to their nation and to the monarchy and want to ensure that they provide sufficient personnel for the future development of Australia. I think that they are very loyal citizens indeed, and I give them great credit for that. Therefore, this country, no matter which government is in power, has a great responsibility to its service men and women to see that they are adequately housed in the community. My mind goes directly to areas within my electorate. I think in the one town of Raymond Terrace there would be 700 service families. Many face great problems because their rentals are reasonably high. Some are paying off homes. Some of the servicemen's wives have to go to work, yet they have three or four children to keep. They are very dependent upon day care and they believe that pre-schools and day care centres should be established to help them so they can live a normal lives and meet the growing cost of living generally in this country at present. It is important that the Authority, when it is established, has a realisation of this. Not only am I very concerned about the design and efficiency of the proposed Authority; I also sincerely hope that it will not be instrumental in having service people pay additional rentals. Of course, as the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) said, there has been a recent rise of 7.5 per cent in the rentals for these homes. Let us keep in mind that service salaries are not very great. If one looks at the salary that a serviceman or woman receives and compares it with other industry salaries around Australia, and maybe those in the Public Service, one sees that it is rather inadequate. Yet these people are fulfilling an essential purpose for this nation. I therefore want to give the warning that we do not want to create a monster that in time will produce a situation in which the government of the day says to service personnel: `The Authority is not raising sufficient funds either through the disposal of existing property or by the income that it is actually receiving in rents. Therefore, these rents have to go up'. In such a situation we would see a continuous rise in rental costs for service personnel. All of us know very well that today the morale of the services is not as good as we would want it to be. I believe that one of the reasons for that is simply the accommodation aspect. I know that we have suggested certain amendments to the legislation. I hope that some of the issues I have raised do not become reality and that over the years we do not see arising the position I have outlined. I think I am right in saying that the Labor Government in New South Wales set up a Land Commission whose responsibility was to purchase and develop land and to sell it at low cost to young home buyers. That has been an absolute calamity for that State and certainly for those young people who wanted to purchase land on which to build a home. They have found that there is no competition by private developers in the development of land; the Government has taken that away. But the cost of providing the services to these Landcom areas is very high. I have been told that it costs $9,000 to put on water and sewerage in the western suburban areas of Sydney-it might be well beyond that now-because the local authorities have said that they have to do that work. One could get a private plumber or some other person to put those services on for $2,000, $3,000 or even $4,000. All these extra costs are adding on to total costs. I hope I am correct in what I say. I believe I am from the observations that I have made. What I am telling the Parliament is this: Once we establish an authority such as this it becomes a little bureaucracy of its own, no matter who is on it. This pushes out the private enterprise side, including the private builder. Do we wish to do that? I know that the Bill stipulates that there can be some co-operation so far as joint ventures are concerned, but this does not always work out. We do not want to see another authority established that eventually will not be efficient, that will have a large staff and that will push private enterprise into the background in providing accommodation. We do not want a situation in which the servicemen, the people at the end of the line, will not be able to receive the facility that I know the Government is honest about trying to provide at this time. Furthermore, every Australian has the ambition to own his own home. Of course, it is not possible always or practicable for service personnel, particularly in their younger years, to own a house if they are transferred from one area to another every 12 or 18 months. Mr Nehl —Very difficult. Mr COWAN —As the honourable member says, it is very difficult. The children of service personnel have to leave their local schools. Service personnel have to arrange for furniture to be moved. Very serious problems exist in the living conditions of these people. This is why it is important that their accommodation be adequate for their demands. It must be in line with the standard of accommodation that ordinary people who live in the suburbs or little country villages would expect. These problems have to be addressed by the government responsible. They should not be treated just as a matter of course but as a matter of great responsibility to the people concerned. Mr Millar —And with urgency. Mr COWAN —As the honourable member for Wide Bay says, this matter should be treated with urgency. I said earlier that the Public Works Committee had looked at housing in Darwin and Townsville. Even at the Williamtown Royal Australian Air Force base in my electorate the Committee saw great problems in respect of accommodation provided by the New South Wales Housing Commission. However, once there is a complaint, whether it be about a power point, or a gate that has fallen off, it takes so long under the present machinery to get the most minor problem attended to. So I hope that efficiencies will be created by the setting up of this new authority and that these sorts of problems will be overcome. Members of the National Party of Australia, who represent country areas, sincerely hope that great freedom and flexibility will be given to the little builder around the place who employs three or four people and to the little developer who can provide 20 or 30 blocks of land at a reasonable price, carry out a subdivision in accordance with the wishes of the local council and see that the work is done properly. I hope that these people will be free to manoeuvre so that they can provide the essential requirements of defence personnel. I believe that we must encourage the private ownership of homes as much we possibly can. We have to ensure that people who want to purchase a home-even though they know they may have to sell it again within a few years-are given the opportunity to say with pride that the houses they live in are theirs. I am sure that that is what we want to see. I have spoken about the fundamentals of this problem. As I said earlier, I appreciate that the Government is making an honest attempt to address the problem. I have raised a few simple matters. I have pointed out that paramount in the minds of people who are going to occupy homes is the peace of mind that the homes are livable, that the rentals will not be too high, that wives will not be forced to go to work and that a serviceman will be able to come home after his day or night's duty and know that his wife and family are happy in their accommodation. These are the fundamental responsibilities of government, no matter which party is in office, and it is our duty to provide such accommodation. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.54) —Before turning to the Defence Housing Authority Bill, I will respond to some of the points that were made by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan). I noticed in his contribution to the House that he did not criticise the Government's legislation even though the Opposition has moved a meaningless amendment. The honourable member indicated that certainly members of the armed forces have been underpaid, although he was gratuitous enough to say that that has not been the case in recent years. I take that as an endorsement by the Opposition that at least this Government has put some policies in place to remedy the longstanding policy of the Opposition, when it was in government, of not paying the defence forces what they were due. He also alluded several times in his speech to inadequate accommodation. Certainly, I do not think anybody on this side of the House would disagree that in many cases accommodation is inadequate. By bringing in the Bill we are debating today, this Government is acting to make sure that the defence forces have adequate accommodation. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) made the interesting point that the Government was changing members of the defence forces around quite substantially-that is, as a result of having a two-ocean navy and of moving defence forces into the Northern Territory; in other words, getting the defence forces away from Sydney and Melbourne out to where they might do the most good. Certainly that will place a strain on servicemen when there is no accommodation in those areas. By bringing in this legislation we are looking at remedying that situation. I do not think it should be a constraint on the defence of this country that we should not adopt those relevant policies just because we do not have houses to house the defence Services personnel. The honourable member for Lyne also talked in his contribution about the costs of servicing land. He made some reference to the situation in New South Wales. I can report to the House that, as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) said, the Department of Housing and Construction is looking at ways of putting up more affordable accommodation. That relates not only to the houses themselves but also to the way in which we can site houses to make more efficient use of both the land and services such as sewerage and drainage and electricity supplies. We are looking at ways of minimising the cost not only of defence housing but also of housing across the private sector. This Government is moving in those areas and the cost of servicing land will drop as a result. The honourable member for Lyne also talked about minor irritating repairs such as painting, and power points which in the past have taken so long to remedy. As a result of this Bill at least one authority will have responsibility for those repairs. I am sure that the minor repairs that have caused some inconvenience in the past will belong to the past as a result of the legislation before the House today. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) talked of the three essentials of the Bill. The first was the guaranteed level of funds. We all agree that that is an essential. The second essential is the bringing in of business enterprise and expertise. The Government has moved to take that into account. I think we all appreciate that the expertise is out in the private sector where people have to make a quid. They will know how to put up defence housing in a way which can save the Defence Housing Authority a significant amount of money. The third essential the Minister spoke about was the need for a single organisation dedicated to the management of defence housing, free from bureaucratic controls. I alluded earlier to the minor repairs as one of the symptoms, of the bureaucratic controls which in the past have hampered the maintenance of Defence Force housing. This policy continues this Government's rational overhaul of Australia's defence under a person who I believe is Australia's best Minister for Defence. One of the essentials which are central to the purpose of this Bill is the need for a guaranteed level of funds. I will take up that point in some detail. This Government has committed $750m over 10 years which will mean a contribution in this financial year of $66m. Mr White —Can you guarantee that? Mr GEAR —It is guaranteed in the legislation. Let us have a look at the alternative. The divided and confused Opposition shattered itself yesterday after trying to keep the corpse of a coalition alive. What does it promise on the front page of today's papers? It depends on which Opposition we are talking about, whether it is the National Party of Australia, which is out on its own, or whether-- Mr White —Don't you worry about that. Mr GEAR —The honourable member who interjected would be worried about that because, as was pointed out yesterday by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), the Nationals are after his seat. It does not matter whether it is the National Party or the Liberal Party of Australia; the Opposition is saying that it will have lower taxes. The other side of the coin of lower taxes, of course, is lower spending. When we are talking about the Defence Force housing situation, if we do not have the funds to contribute to that policy we cannot carry it through. I have asked in this House time and again, and it has been taken up by other speakers on this side of the House, where the money will come from. In the past, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has put out Press releases, quite often, calling on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to explain where he will find the money to make up the substantial deficit that he would incur if he were to institute his policies. Let me just read a few of the Opposition's taxation policies to the House. The Opposition proposes income splitting of $2,700m and a flatter tax system by dropping the 49c tax rate to 40c, with the loss of $1,600m revenue. The Opposition proposes to abolish the fringe benefits tax with a loss of $325m of revenue and, at the same time, to give back the taxpayer-funded Mercedes Benz cars to company directors. The Opposition proposes to abolish the capital gains tax, which would result in a loss of $5m of revenue, and it proposes to reinstitute entertainment expenses so that we would have the taxpayer subsidised business lunch. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. We are debating a Bill which deals with the Defence Housing Authority. We are not dealing with any other matter. Although relevance in this House has been very widely construed there is no basis on which the honourable member can go down this track that has been so well worn by others in relation to the issue and the Bill which is before the House and he should be brought back to the path of rectitude. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I uphold the point of order. I am sure that the honourable member will be returning to the subject matter of the Bill and was illustrating a point that he wishes to make by the matter that he was referring to. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It seems as though I have touched a raw nerve in the Opposition by exposing some of the ludicrous policies it is putting up. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you have pointed out, I am certainly speaking to the Bill. In fact, as the Minister for Defence pointed out in his second reading speech, we have to have a guaranteed level of funds. I am talking about the way in which the Government raises those funds and I am pointing out to the House that if we do not raise those funds, we cannot commit them. I am pointing out that the Liberal Party is going down a certain track and all the measures that I have been reading out are firm commitments by the Leader of the Opposition. On the taxation side, the measures I read out, plus others, add up to $5,900m. Other measures, such as repealing the assets test, add up to $600m. On the spending side-- Mr White —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for North Sydney has just pointed out that the speaker is ranging fairly widely from the Bill. Everyone in this place wants a fair go. I do not think that we on the Opposition side mind some deviation, but it is quite clear that when we get too far off the Bill, we get pulled up-I suppose rightly so-and I would expect your request to the honourable member to get back to the Bill to be observed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As I said when the earlier point of order was raised, I am sure that the honourable member for Canning was illustrating a point and that he will be quickly returning to the subject matter of the Bill. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will. I was pointing out all the measures which lead to a credibility gap of $16 billion on the Opposition side. The Opposition has also said that it will not have a Budget deficit-currently running at $3,500m. The Minister has said that we have to have a guaranteed level of funds. I have indicated to the House that we have said that we will commit $750m to defence housing over 10 years with $66m being contributed in 1985-86. We have made that firm commitment and it has been costed. Can we believe that the Opposition would contribute those funds to this very worthwhile Bill, given the fact that it has no fiscal discipline at all? In fact, if we add up all the Opposition's promises, we arrive at a combined deficit of $16,000m. The Opposition has no tax policy, so we do not know whether it will raise this $16,000m somewhere else. Honourable members opposite are getting twitchy. We can understand their discomfort, because every time it is pointed out that fiscal rectitude is an essential part of making promises, they get twitchy. They cannot hold their heads up and talk about any Bill with credibility, let alone the Bill before the House today. Mr White —Defence housing is the subject. Mr GEAR —For the benefit of the honourable member for McPherson, let us have a look at housing. What is the Opposition's policy? We certainly have not heard one. None of the speakers on the other side has spoken in any detail about the Opposition's policy because it does not have one. But certainly one policy that we should have a look at and view with some alarm is the policy of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who is on record as saying that he wants to privatise all Commonwealth-owned housing. If we include in that rather sweeping statement not only housing by government instrumentalities but also defence housing, the effect would be to raise the rents paid by defence service personnel to $70 a week. At present they are paying somewhat less than $50 a week. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will understand that when that commitment was made the Opposition was about to privatise everything. We have not heard a lot about the Opposition's policies relating to privatisation ever since it was decimated in the South Australian election when it ran very heavily on privatisation. Honourable members on this side of the House and indeed the people of Australia have a right to know whether the commitment made by the honourable member for O'Connor to privatise all Commonwealth-owned housing is still the official policy of the Opposition. Mr White —Airport terminals? Mr GEAR —The honourable member is going outside the scope of this Bill and I know that he wants me to stick to it. Airport terminals do not house defence personnel-except when they are travelling between postings. So I think the reference to airport terminals is irrelevant. I think we have one more speaker on the Opposition side. If he gets up to speak, he may be able to illuminate this House as to whether the honourable member for O'Connor still speaks for the Opposition when he says that it wants to privatise all Commonwealth-owned housing. The Bill before us today also means that the new Authority will, in due course, streamline the existing arrangements for repair and maintenance. I have mentioned that before. Paragraph (3) of the amendment moved by the Opposition reads as follows: Urges greater delegation of financial responsibility to base and area commanders for the acquisition, repair and maintenance of defence housing, with appropriate audit controls. All I am saying is that the Bill before us allows for that streamlining because it is under one authority. That authority will have business enterprise and expertise within it to ensure not only the construction of housing for defence services purposes but also that the maintenance of those houses, which was alluded to a couple of times by the honourable member for Lyne, will proceed in a manner in which it has not in the past, and that has drawn criticism. The Government has also been criticised for the annual update of rents based on changes to commercial rents. Some of that criticism has come from the Opposition. It is just like the Opposition to criticise a policy which was once its own. That policy was introduced by the former Government. It was not opposed by this Party when we were in opposition because we believed that it was a fair system. Obviously, if we are to charge rents they should be based, at least in part, on commercial rents available elsewhere. If there is to be competition between those defence service personnel who wish to stay in defence service housing and those who wish to take advantage of private housing, I believe that there should be some link between the two. The Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion is meaningless. I have spoken on other occasions about the fact that Opposition members have no policy. Are we to believe that what is set out in the amendment is the policy of the Opposition parties? The Opposition says that it does not oppose the Bill, but the first paragraph of its amendment states: expresses concern that the establishment of this statutory authority may not best address the housing needs of servicemen and women. It is fair enough too for the Opposition to say that, but it should spell out to the House and to defence service personnel what it would do in government. Last week we saw the promotion, if we can call it that, of some back bench Opposition members to the front bench. The one common thread that ran through those promotions, if I may call them that, is the fact that those promoted are all members of the Waste Watch Committee, the mental midgets who, apart from making a name for themselves by putting the boot into a number of worthy organisations, did not bend their minds to the real task of opposition, and that is coming up with alternative policies. I allude to the absence of policies in respect of not only the matter that is before the House today but also taxation. We have been waiting for an Opposition taxation policy for quite a few years. The Opposition's taxation policy will impinge directly on the subject of this legislation. One of the three essentials put forward by the Minister for Defence in the Bill was the guaranteed level of funds. The Opposition's taxation policy will be central to the funds necessary to make sure that the objectives of the Bill can be pursued with the backing they deserve. The Opposition members I have referred to have not bent their minds to the hard task of coming up with that policy. We are still left wondering where all the money will come from. The promises that are being made around the country by Opposition members, in the light of the costings that we have carried out, lead us to believe that the Opposition will not be able to afford to provide adequate housing for defence service personnel. I take that one example, but if one looks across the broad spectrum at pensioners or any other group, there is no way that Opposition members can hold up their heads and promise those people anything. At the same time as Opposition members talk of slashing taxes, they talk of spending more. The Opposition has no credibility whatever. This Bill continues the Government's objective and rational approach to looking after the defence forces and our defence. This is being done under the guidance of the Minister for Defence, who eclipses all previous Ministers for Defence, not only in looking after the personnel but in making sure that they are effectively used in the defence of this country. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(11.14) —I wish to take a few minutes of the time of the House to say a few words on the Defence Housing Authority Bill. As somebody who lived in 26 different houses when I was in the Services in a period of some 15 years, I have a certain amount of experience of defence housing. I wish to clarify one point that arose out of the remarks of the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). Did he say that he wanted to see the Authority charging commercial rents for all of its houses? Mr Gear —No, that was not what I said. Mr WHITE —I am glad to hear that. I would like to see him put commercial rents on the houses in some of the areas in remote parts of Australia and expect anyone to live in them. It was disappointing that service personnel, both in the second reading speech of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and in his statement in support of the Defence White Paper, received very little mention. There was a lot about equipment and the general thrust of defence policy, much of which I agree with-it was a job well done-but none of the policies will work if personnel continue to leave the Services at the rate they are leaving now. I am sure that the Minister for Defence is aware of this enormous problem, and no one is trying to score political points. We are talking about the manning of Services for the defence of Australia. There is a continual plethora of inquiries and scratching of heads as to why the resignations are happening. One reason is the low standard of service housing. This has gone on for many years. Unfortunately, successive governments have failed to do much about the situation, and I hope that this Authority will come to grips with the problems. The problem is that for years it has been seen that service men and women somehow are different from the rest of the community and will put up with anything. Perhaps in time of war that it true to a certain extent. For the man who is overseas or who is training to go overseas accommodation is merely a place to sleep, but it is somewhat different for his wife and family. In times of peace accommodation becomes even more important, because personnel have time to look around and to compare their conditions with the civilian conditions that surround them. They find that they are being grossly disadvantaged. They say: `What the hell am I doing here, putting up with poor pay, poor housing and poor conditions, moving every couple of years or more, when everyone else seems to be enjoying a much higher standard of living?'. The fact is, as I am sure the Minister is aware, that times have changed and defence personnel will not put up with such conditions any more. There are more and more working wives who will not put up with such conditions. It is imperative to come to grips with the low, second rate standard of housing that has been offered to servicemen and women for years and years on end. One has only to visit Darwin, for example-I am not sure whether this matter has been resolved but it was the case when I was there a year or so ago-to see two houses side by side, one occupied by a public servant and the other by a serviceman. The one occupied by the public servant has air-conditioning, but the scales and standards, as they were once referred to, do not allow for the serviceman to have air-conditioning in his house. It is no wonder that he feels himself to be a second class citizen. Not so long ago I visited a friend of mine in Townsville who is in a responsible senior position. He had just fallen through the floor of his bathroom because for months he could not get anyone to come to fix it. I understand from the figures tabled that 15,000 out of 22,000 houses owned by the Commonwealth for servicemen are below standard. It is too much to expect that this Authority will fix that accommodation overnight, but I wish to highlight the fact that the standard of service housing has to be improved. I very much hope that the Government's attempts will be successful. It is not only the standard but also the places where such houses are built. I refer to the enormous ghettos of such houses where those who live in them are almost outcasts from society. The scales that exist have led to houses in tropical climates being built without verandahs-boxes on stilts which do not even have cement under them. However, people are expected to be grateful that they are given that accommodation, which is probably their tenth, twelfth or even twentieth house in their service career. The movement of personnel in and out of these quarters also causes much concern. The husband is usually posted off, probably sent to the bush; the wife comes later with the children. In many cases there is no one there to meet her, and she is dumped in a house and told to get on with it. I hope that we get from this Authority some recognition of these problems and of the fact that service men and women are not second class citizens. If they continue to be treated in such a way in their housing, they will continue to leave the Services in large numbers. All their training will have gone to waste and we will have a continuation of the present situation, of units being undermanned, not enough pilots to fly our aircraft and not enough sailors to man the ships; the personnel position will continue to deteriorate. I congratulate the Government on the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. There seem to be two fatal flaws: One is whether the Government can guarantee the funding necessary for the implementation, not so much of the Dibb report, but of the recommendations in the White Paper. That is a flaw and we wait with interest to see what happens in the Budget this year. The other flaw is in personnel. It is no use having grand plans and modern equipment if one does not have the men and women to operate that equipment. Unless we do something serious about housing, pay and conditions, the general attitude of governments to servicemen and the recognition of their role in this country, we will continue to lose them from the services. In conclusion, I must say that I was delighted to see at last some recognition from this Government of the role of Vietnam veterans in the Vietnam war which for too long was ignored and neglected, in particular, by certain members of the then Government who actively encouraged the enemy while service men and women were still fighting in that country. That is something that many of us will never forget. Last Saturday-Anzac Day-I was delighted to see at least one government Minister give some recognition to the role those men and women played. I hope the Government will now turn its attention not only to the bigger aspects of our defence policy, which it has done successfully I believe, but also the men and women who make it work. In this regard I very much hope this authority will be successful. The big challenge will come not only in trying to make the existing housing better but also when the Government starts to plan and put in place, as is happening now, defence force housing in remote places such as Tindal. It will also happen in Darwin when elements of the regular forces are moved there and to the west so that we can have a two ocean navy. Let us see what imagination the Government uses in looking after people who have to move constantly and who deserve more than they have received in recent years. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(11.23) —I thank those who have participated in the debate and welcome to debates on defence the new Opposition spokesman on defence, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) who, on the change of government, I followed in the aviation portfolio. Unfortunately for him, there will not be an opportunity for him to follow me in the defence portfolio because we will not be losing the election. There was some doubt about that some time ago but after the events of last night I do not think there can be too much doubt about it, at least in the foreseeable future. I think the Opposition's amendment slightly contradicts some of the aspiration that it will seek to make through amendments of the Defence Housing Authority Bill at the Committee stage. I will deal with that matter a little later. Understandably, the Opposition's participants, and indeed the Government's participants, in this debate have broadened, as they can in the second reading phase of a debate, the issues slightly beyond those questions that are contained directly in the Bill to more general propositions concerning personnel questions in the defence forces and broader aspects of defence as well. Certainly, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), the previous speaker, did that as did the one or two speakers I was able to hear on the broadcast system and while I was in the House. I want to make a couple of points about their contributions; the first one relates to the affordability of the policy because that issue directly impacts on whether we will be able to achieve objectives in relation to the $705m program we have got going for housing. I want to say this about it: We devised the White Paper time schedules basically to ensure that they could be implemented in a situation in which we anticipated very little real growth, if any growth at all, in the defence vote for about a decade. We on this side of the House are thoroughly apprised of the fact that there is now a call on outlays of such dimensions, and contradictory calls on the revenue base of such dimensions, that any politician who meanders around this place saying that his plans in any area of expenditure are predicated on real growth is completely irresponsible. Any honourable member on either side of the House who suggests that more money ought to be spent on this or that must always accompany such a statement with a financial caveat stating exactly what she or he intends to see dropped in order to pay for it. We are still getting wish lists from the Opposition but we are not getting an appropriate and equivalent set of cuts, not just on taxation but on outlays with which the Opposition is beginning to deal. For example, it was interesting to hear one Opposition member ask a question the other day on massively increasing the spouse rebate. In the circumstances in which the Opposition finds itself-it is talking about huge tax cuts-that question must qualify for the loony question of the week. We will see what happens in Question Time today when all the loonies will be cut loose as the Opposition tries to work itself out. That prize may be taken off the honourable member but at the moment he stands with the loony question of the week prize. The point is this: I am at least as aware as any Minister that there are vulnerabilities to the possibility of cuts in my portfolio. I would be a dopey Minister not to be aware of this. The way I approach this matter is to protect what is necessary, to establish efficiencies where possible and to ensure that defence is adequately provided for even in tough times. The decisions that we have been taking in the factories are causing enormous pain in a number of areas and, quite surprisingly, very little appears in the media, given the extent of the pain being caused. The redundancies have been massive and much greater in proportional terms than those in just about any other sector of industry. It has not had much publicity. The savings in this forthcoming Budget year will be equivalent to somewhere between 1 1/2 and 2 per cent real growth. Defence is presented with a global budget; it is not like other areas of the Budget where there is only a very limited intervention by Cabinet which says yes or no about whether one can have that item of equipment or yes or no about whether one can have those personnel numbers. Defence, unlike other portfolios, is not micro-managed by the Cabinet; one gets global amounts. The fact is that by efficiencies one can inject into one's situation circumstances in which one can do without an element of real growth. In other portfolios it does not matter much one way or the other; the money is likely to be taken away. In defence that means a very great deal indeed because moneys saved can be transferred to equipment, personnel or whatever. Money saved in other portfolios simply tends immediately to come off the obligation on the Government for outlays and that particular department does not necessarily see a cent of it. So those efficiencies are meaningful and they create circumstances in which one can eliminate a requirement for 1 1/2 to 2 per cent real growth which has real meaning in the defence area. This leads me directly to home ownership. Even though for some time we have had to operate in straitened circumstances in the defence portfolio, there have been quite massive increases in those restraint circumstances in respect of the funds which we allocate to defence housing. Nobody can look at our record of a 19 per cent increase in outlays last year, for example, and compare that with a situation in which for three years defence funding was frozen under our opponents and suggest that there is any comparison at all in the record which behoves, in any way favourably, the protestations of the Opposition on this issue. I am glad to say that the previous speaker was appropriately humble when it came to considering his own record. Egg Industry Research Bills Mr Spender —And qualified. Mr BEAZLEY —He qualified his position. Not all Opposition participants in this debate could have that same assessment applied to them. The reason why there are 15,000 substandard houses, 7,000 of which simply have to be got rid of because it is not worth doing anything about them, is in no small measure due to that three-year period in which very little was done. He also mentioned in his contribution the standard of housing being provided in those new areas. In fact, one of the pleasing features of current requests that are coming in for postings to those areas is that there is an understanding that the standard of housing in those new areas-Tindal in the Northern Territory and the submarine base in Perth in particular-is very good and volunteers are being attracted to them in numbers which are greater than we expected. Many factors are entailed in the above average wastage rates in the Services at the moment. Many of those factors relate to the purposes for which the Government would seek to utilise the defence forces and the lack of clarity of such purposes for some considerable time. Since the White Paper has been brought down that can no longer be said to be the case. There are two developments which have become obvious over the last two or three months which are very encouraging in that regard. The first is that the Army now happens to be oversubscribed. It now has nine personnel above its required level. That has been due in large measure to a sudden drop in the wastage rates over the last month or so. Mr Spender —Nine! Mr BEAZLEY —Most of the time it operates with four or five hundred under that level. That is the normal circumstance all the time, irrespective of what is happening. It now happens to be nine over that level, when normally it would be several hundred under that level. I will no doubt have to explain that to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) at some point. That is nevertheless an encouraging development. There may be many factors involved and the situation may change. But the estimates that we had on wastage rates have clearly been overdrawn in the case of that particular service. I want very quickly to assure members of the defence forces who have an interest in this debate that this simply represents one of the number of initiatives that the Government has taken to improve the situation with regard to their conditions. There is no doubt that there must be a responsibility on government to ensure, particularly in peacetime when the situation is not urgent, that a peacetime career in the armed forces does not damage the lifestyle of the person who chooses it. Housing is quite critical in that area. We believe that a greater degree of protection can be afforded the housing program and a greater degree of sensitivity and expertise applied to it if it is taken out of the normal departmental framework and placed in the hands of an authority which has a substantial private component on its board. In regard to the bureaucratic politics of the defence vote, as we sit down and look on an annual basis at the global amount which is given to defence and all the chiefs and others are consulted on where the cuts should be made, far too often in the past this has been an area in which it has been determined that those cuts should fall. When one has bureaucratic players, and there is an assigned amount, with a guaranteed revenue base, which this Authority will have, a totally different situation emerges. The bureaucratic politics of the situation becomes a fixed point, not a fluid point. Being a fixed point, the capacity for it to be trimmed disappears, so that percentage of the defence budget is not available for manipulation in the way in which it was in the past. Service personnel can look forward over the years, as the Government gradually addresses that program, to their housing conditions being ameliorated. I have noticed a change when I have gone around the bases. Whenever I visit the bases I always make a point of trying to talk to the senior service personnel-senior other ranks-and to the wives, because from both of them one gets shirt fronted, the real situation tends to emerge, and one gets a bit of an understanding about how people really feel. The complaint has changed from being a complaint about nothing being done to a complaint relating to speed and access. Now, on all the bases, service personnel can see houses being built and houses being refurbished. One could not have spent $66m last year and $45m the year before without it actually having some obvious physical impact. They are big sums of money. We will spend more than that, in even tougher circumstances, in the coming year. I have said to them, `You can see the houses going up. Only a few of you are able to move into them now, but over the years, when about $250m to $300m of that $750m program is in place, I expect you will start to see a fairly substantial decline in complaints'. The focus then will be on the quality of the housing and the flexibility and management of the housing. The Housing Authority will have a very important and substantial role to play in this area. A great deal is expected of it. We have good, knowledgeable people on the Authority. They will significantly expand the expertise of the Department and the Services, in which it cannot be said a large amount of expertise in this area, understandably, resides. I think that in the long haul this absolutely critical area of service conditions will move from being what is now a very negative factor in regard to retention and recruitment to being a very positive factor. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.39) —An amendment has been circulated by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), who is not well today. He has a virus and cannot be present. I therefore move: Clause 12, page 7, omit paragraph (e) of sub-clause (1), substitute the following paragraph: ``(e) 3 members from the private sector, 1 of whom shall have experience in housing finance and another of whom shall have experience in housing project development.''. It is an amendment to clause 12, sub-clause (1) (e) which, in place of the paragraph that appears in the Bill, seeks to substitute these words: . . . 3 members from the private sector, 1 of whom shall have experience in housing finance and another of whom shall have experience in housing project development. In order to explain briefly to the chamber what this amendment would achieve, it is necessary to go to clause 12. That clause sets up the Authority. There has already been debate about the Authority and what it is to do. I do not think anything more needs to be said about it. The Authority is to consist of a number of persons who are identified in the sub-paragraphs of clause 12 (1). As clause 12 (1) (e) now stands it would provide, in addition to the various particular individuals who are identified in earlier sub-paragraphs, three other members. It does not say what the qualifications of those members should be; whether they should be, for example, members of unions, retired members of the defence forces or anything else. What the honourable member for Hume seeks to achieve by his amendment is perfectly plain. He seeks to inject into the Authority a private sector component which would otherwise be missing. In his speech on the second reading, he said: in Committee, on behalf of the Opposition, I will move an amendment to the effect that the board should comprise at least three members from the private sector, one of whom shall have experience in housing finance and another of whom shall have experience in housing project development. I ask the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley): Is that not a perfectly sensible proposition? Is it not sensible that we should provide that persons with those qualifications be specifically included on the Authority? We address this clause and the Bill as a whole in the circumstances of a deplorable and catastrophic drop in the number of defence personnel. The Minister has just told us that the Army is nine personnel over the level that is desired to be achieved. But all of us know that for months there has been a departure at levels that cannot be sustained of experienced non-commissioned officers and middle-ranking officers who make up the core of any fighting force. We need to look at this Bill in the context of four years of this Government and the collapse of its budget strategy. The Minister, in winding up the debate on the second reading, said one or two things which are of particular interest when we look at this Government's record in economic management. He talked about meandering around the place. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member for North Sydney to the word `meandering'. Mr SPENDER —Yes, but the point is that we are dealing with the Bill as a whole. The CHAIRMAN —We are dealing in Committee with the Defence Housing Authority Bill, not the Government's economic policy. Mr SPENDER —Yes, but the Minister referred to the Government's economic policy and extolled it. It seems to me, and it must be the case, that if the Minister when addressing the Bill on the second reading-- The CHAIRMAN —A second reading debate is normally a little different from a Committee stage debate where one is dealing with the minutiae of a particular piece of legislation. The honourable member might take on board my proposition. Mr SPENDER —Mr Chairman, I take on board your proposition and I note it as it passes by, with all deference to the Chair. But we are, of course, dealing with the whole of the Bill. The CHAIRMAN —And we will deal with this Bill. Mr SPENDER —We are dealing with a government which has been in power for four years and whose economic policy has collapsed. That is the reason why we will have a mini-Budget in a few days. We are dealing with proposals to spend money on housing. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member will relate the mini-Budget to the Defence Housing Authority Bill. Mr SPENDER —I will, indeed, Mr Chairman. If we are to build houses for defence forces we need money. One of the things this Government is doing is looking around for money that it is not going to spend. It needs savings. We see daily in the papers reports of rumours of what the Government is going to do and just how much it is going to slice. Now it appears-it has not been denied so far but, who knows, perhaps we will get a denial today-that a major cut will come out of defence. From where will it come? I do not know. I do not sit around the Cabinet table although there are very good prospects that I will be doing so within 12 months. But the Minister sits there and he knows what has been looked at. I would take a fair shade of odds that one of the things that have been looked at is the allocation on housing and anything that can be cut from the defence budget. When the Minister said that there is the possibility of cuts, I thought it was quite delightful. It is not a question of the possibility of cuts; it is a question of the reality of major cuts. The odds are that major cuts will be felt in housing proposals for the defence forces. I hope that is not so. The Minister, as he addresses the House, can assure us that that will not be so. We understand that housing plays a crucial role. The Minister has pointed out the reasons for that. The shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) who is one of the very few people in this chamber with a long, distinguished and gallant career in the forces, was able to speak with great personal knowledge of the problems of defence housing. Obviously, if these days we cannot provide adequate housing-and anyone who has visited a defence base knows the standard of housing-it will be extremely difficult to attract people into the defence forces and keep them there. Therefore, we put to the Minister and the Government that the proposal which is advanced by the amendment which was prepared and was to be moved by the honourable member for Hume is sensible. We need as much private sector housing and financial expertise as possible on the Authority because it will obviously play a crucial role. Instead of leaving this matter wide open so that we could have, for example, as the three other members three retired members of some favoured trade union, we should nominate in the Bill three members from the private sector, one of whom shall have experience in housing finance and another of whom shall have experience in housing project development, to bring the private sector and its efficiencies into the operations of this Authority. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(11.47) —The amendment is not agreed to but the motives behind it are not despised. The intention has been-and it is part of government policy-followed up with the appointments that we have made. We have an interim board which will become the full board. The areas designated for those three members include having qualifications in the following fields: Housing operations; property development or management; business management; real estate management; finance; building or construction management; or social planning. Indeed, the people from the private sector who have been appointed as the private members of this board all come into one or other of those categories of involvement in real estate management and development, property development or whatever. Leaving the appointments open is a little more sensible I believe than actually designating one of those specific areas as opposed to any of the others as an area from which a board member might be drawn. When governments are setting up statutory authorities they sensibly usually leave themselves open to appointments from the widest possible range of people and do not place themselves under the sorts of constraints that the Opposition is suggesting. In some areas of government patronage it might be said that the circumstances which the honourable gentleman said might arise do arise under all governments. With the Defence Housing Authority I have not noticed, and would not anticipate, a mad scramble from people who like to go on such boards to get on this one. This is very much a working body-a body on which kudos comes not from one's membership of it, but from the satisfaction of a job well done. I do not think that there will be any requirement to constrain this or any other government in the way in which the amendment suggests because only people from the various categories associated with the building and housing industry will have the desire to serve on this body. Only people from those categories will be of any interest to this or future Labor governments. I do not think that the Opposition needs to be concerned, either about our appointments to date or the achievement of the objectives that it seeks in its amendment. On the question of whether funds will be more readily made available by this Government or any of its alternatives in defence and other areas, I can only say this: We on this side of the chamber do not have to explain a $16 billion revenue shortfall because in our promises we are not aiming to achieve in some way or another such a revenue shortfall. Therefore we do not have to worry about the way in which-- Mr Spender —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Leaving aside the repetition of something which is a fabrication-but I do not hold him guilty for that-the Minister has moved on to precisely the kind of matters that you said I should not move on to. You pointed out that the debate should be more constrained; I accepted your injunction, but the same rule should apply to the Minister. The CHAIRMAN —With all deference to the honourable member for North Sydney, the reason I drew his attention to that matter was that I did not want this situation to occur. The honourable member for North Sydney does not seem to take all that much notice of me and seemed to feel that discussion on government funding was somehow or other germane to the Government's finding money to fund this Authority. The Minister is now talking about the Government's money and funding the Authority. The honourable member is only in this position because of his own activities. Mr BEAZLEY —The point having been made, I shall leave it. Suffice it to say that our objective will be that within whatever outlays are permitted for defence, we will seek a situation in which the housing area is protected and, as a result of the establishment of this Authority, that will be easier and easier. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.56) —The Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill 1987 and the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Bill 1987 are important to the egg industry and consumers generally. This Parliament is dealing with legislation governing millions of dollars. The Bills apply new rules to industry research valued at some $6m over the past two decades. Honourable members will be surprised and dismayed to learn that the Government did not advise the peak industry body representing egg producers that these Bills had come into this place. The Australian Council of Egg Producers did not know the Bills were in this House until my office contacted it. It seems incredible that the coalition, not the Government, is breaking the news to industry bodies that are affected by legislation. I do not know who is to blame for it, but I hope that the office of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), or at least the Department, will make sure that in future there is proper contact with the industries concerned. I must say that I am tired of watching legislation come into this place, often with major implications for farmers, only to find that the industry leaders are being kept in the dark. I must say that that has not happened to the wool industry. Co-operation between the Minister, his Department and the industry itself has been very good. I have heard only good reports about the negotiations taking place there. I think that someone in the system needs to make sure that that applies in every case. I have been asked to raise this matter on numerous occasions on behalf of industry organisations and I have done so. Therefore, I have suggested in a positive manner that the Minister consult more adequately with the people he serves, or at least his Department should make sure that that is done. By late last year I felt that the attitude was changing and that farmers were getting more of a hearing. But now it seems that we are going back to the bad old days of treating farmers as what is sometimes called `a mushroom club'. The snubbing last December by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of the National Farmers Federation President, Mr Ian McLachlan, when he tried to put a positive, constructive economic submission to the Government to try to bring down interest rates and inflation was a very bad example for the Prime Minister to set his ministerial colleagues and the departments generally. I think that it is a very unfortunate state of affairs and I hope that bridges are built, because those people whom I and others represent in this place are concerned about the state of the economy in so many of our rural areas. The Government cannot go on ignoring the voice of representatives of those groups which are so badly afflicted at present. In the case of these Bills I point out that some talks were held earlier last year between Government and producer representatives to iron out details of commendable research initiatives. Yet when it came to parliamentary action, the Minister, his office and the Department could not find the time to make that telephone call. With millions of dollars riding on these Bills, the Government's action is quite unacceptable. The farm industries should be kept informed of progress with such Bills, but they are not getting the consideration they deserve. The National Party-indeed, the Opposition-does not oppose this legislation and offers it prompt passage through both chambers. But the Bills raise a number of questions, and I would seek the Minister's response before debate is concluded. The chief purpose of the legislation is to continue the hen research levy beyond its sunset date of 30 June this year. Honourable members will recall that two years ago the old Commonwealth hen levy was divided into two components-a levy for equalising losses among producers from the disposal of surplus eggs; and a research levy. The equalisation mechanism is no longer required in view of industry rationalisation and is being phased out, having been cut from $1.95 per bird in 1984-85 to $1.30 in 1985-86. The research levy is set at a maximum of 10c per hen per annum, and I anticipate a recommendation shortly from the Australian Council of Egg Producers to set the initial levy at 3.25c. Payments will be made every six months instead of fortnightly, reducing Federal administration costs, which is an admirable idea, and sharply cutting State egg board collection costs. Special arrangements are made for the Northern and Australian Capital Territories, which do not have egg boards, to administer a quota system. By gazettal notice producers will be deemed holders of a quota licence for the purpose of striking the levy. One matter of concern is planned `fall-back' legislation expected later this session. These Bills suspend the levy across Australia should one State withdraw. The foreshadowed legislation would provide an alternative levy on chickens hatched for egg production, but this would be left unproclaimed until activation was needed. Producers are increasingly concerned over the degree of control they would retain over their levies, given the recent consolidation of the processing sector into two main companies. In view of the uncertainty among producers I wish to place the Minister on notice that, unless he negotiates this matter with all sectors of the industry to a satisfactory conclusion, he cannot expect ready passage of such Bills. He would be aware that in March 1986 the ACEP rejected the standby proposals but subsequently rescinded this objection on the basis that the standby Bills remain unproclaimed unless specific instruction is received from that Council. In view of the $250,000 levy contribution each year, this would seem a reasonable stipulation. No such `safety valve' has yet been guaranteed. Again, it is up to the Minister to promptly settle the issue. I seek leave to table a message from the Council to the Department of Primary Industry, dated 20 May 1986, outlining the producers' request. Leave granted. Mr HUNT —I would like to read from that message to Mr G. E. Pettit, Assistant Secretary, Department of Primary Industry, Canberra, from David Dean, Executive Officer, Australian Council of Egg Producers. It reads: Re your telex Y85/143 concerning egg industry research funding arrangements. I wish to advise that I have requested State organisations to reconsider their objection to standby arrangements regarding collection of the levy. On the basis that it be written into the Act that the unproclaimed legislation could only be enacted upon the recommendation from this Council, together with the rate of levy, then this Council rescinds its objection to the standby legislation. Could you please advise that the Act will incorporate this request and if so could you please forward relevant copies of the Act when they become available. I turn to a further matter of growing importance-use of the Torrens Island quarantine station as a transit point for imported breeding stock. A healthy industry will require access not only to domestic breeds and genetic material but also to a range of foreign bloodlines. It is anticipated that such imports will be exclusively in shell form, for hatching in Australia. There is uncertainty over government plans for such imports, especially costings. Fees must be set in a way which does not shut Australian producers out of the import market, leaving them dependent on a relatively few domestic breed suppliers. My view is that domestic stock is of excellent quality and well worthy of support from our producers-but I strongly defend their right to choose the source of their breeds and to import genetic material that they think is necessary to improve the overall efficiency of their operation. As any livestock farmers are aware, bloodlines are critical in building up quality farm stock. Fears over costings are no doubt generated by increases announced last September for sheep and goats held on Torrens Island. Fees rose in one hit from $75 to $311 per head, with further rises anticipated this year. Whilst these charges were introduced on the basis of cost recovery, I find it difficult to justify such sharp rises over a brief period. I hope some questions are asked in the various Estimates committees about why these costs are rising so quickly. Are there any ways and means for the Government or the Department to improve the efficiency of these operations? There is no justification for increases of that magnitude, from $75 to $311 a head in one year, with further anticipated rises in this year. I hope that when the opportunity arises in the Senate Estimates committees members of those committees will really go into this in a big way. I will certainly be asking some committee members to pursue this issue and get information as to why these increases are taking place at this rate. Any action by the Government with regard to egg industry breed stocks must not be so severe that they prevent fair and reasonable competition between domestic and overseas suppliers. The producers must have `ground floor' access to talks over the future Torrens Island services, and I call upon the Minister to ensure their interests are fairly heard. The Minister deserves a word of commendation over the spin-off effects of introducing the permit system for stockfeed wheat. This has reduced the cost of wheat feed to egg producers by as much as 20 per cent, and feed is of course a major production input. The price has dropped further in light of the disastrous world market price structure, affecting seriously our export oriented wheat growers and grain growers, although I am sure all in our community would wish a speedy recovery to a more profitable market price before we lose thousands of efficient producers from the wheat and cereal industries which are so necessary. I hope that the delegation that will be leaving Australia some time in May will be able to get the Australian message across once again to the United States congressmen that any extension of the export enhancement program-any extension of its duration or any extension of the funds available to it-will have only a very serious effect upon the trading relationships between our countries and the economic capacity of this country to make a worthwhile contribution towards the stability and the security of the Pacific Basin. Having said that, I know there has been a spin-off benefit to the poultry industry and certainly to the pig meat industry and so on, but it has been at a very high price to the Australian wheat growers. By easing feed costs we have seen a marginal improvement in profitability, despite the fact that retail prices have on average remained virtually static over the past four years. The egg industry makes an important primary contribution to the national economy, with annual production now running at 178 million eggs valued at just under $200m. Export opportunities are interesting. In recent years they have been marked by sharp fluctuations in the small but significant export volumes. Previously exports have been no more than a way of disposing of surplus production, usually at a net loss, and for this reason the levels of domestic production have contracted over recent years. There are growing opportunities to develop an export trade, highlighted by the recent negotiation of a viable contract with Japan. Regrettably Australia's trade in coal and iron ore has been contracting as a result of several factors, not the least of which is the present industrial rationalism taking place throughout Japan. There is no doubt that industrial rationalisation will continue. Very substantial sections of the heavy manufacturing industry will be closed down or phased out. If Australia wants to maintain its present trading benefits with Japan, clearly we will have to do more to try to sell Japan other products, including agricultural and poultry products. It is important that we now take full advantage of the demand for increased purchases of Australian farm products. I believe the opportunity is there if the quality is right, if our promotion is good, and if our contacts with the Japanese authorities are maintained at a high level. Although the principal commodity we discussed when I was there was beef, I have no doubt that, now we have achieved this viable export contract for eggs, more can follow if the right approach is adopted. These exports concentrate on manufactured egg product and therefore are not restricted by the shelf life of shell egg. Whilst there are positive signs on the horizon for a continued increasingly profitable egg industry, it should be borne in mind that these producers, along with most other farmers, rely heavily on capital investment. Almost 500 Australian poultry farms, many of them in my electorate, have a flock size of more than 5,000 birds, while some 86 farms each carry more than 20,000 birds. This requires heavy capital investment and it involves high operating costs. Once again, we find the chief bugbears are excessive inflation and sustained high interest rates. These two factors-the twin devils-of interest rates and inflation are bearing heavily on the egg industry, the poultry industry and, indeed, the farm sector generally. I reiterate what I have said before in this House, namely, that the Hawke Government cannot expect any credit for measures such as these research Bills if it continues to slug farmers where it hurts most, and that is on the costs lines of the balance sheet. With inflation four to five times the average of other Western nations, the prime interest rate now 10 per cent or more higher than the United States prime rate, and with wage rises running 60 per cent faster than the rest of the field, any export advantage gained from the crash of the Australian dollar will be quickly eroded. Our nation as a whole will continue its disastrous economic slide and accumulate immense debt with no real prospect of improving our balance of trade position. Unless our export industries are able to operate in a competitive environment and unless farmers and others in those industries are able to obtain loans from their lending institutions at competitive interest rates and to operate in a market-place in which our inflation rates are no greater than those of our competitors, we will see our export industries languish and the Australian living standard slump. One can quarantine the effects of Australia's economic situation away from the wage earning sector for a limited period, but no government and no economic device yet known is able to quarantine the whole community from the economic statistics that are bugging Australia at present. These matters must be redressed if the egg industry and other industries are to survive in a competitive and profitable manner. It is up to the Minister for Primary Industry to ensure that egg producers are fully briefed on Government actions affecting their industry. To do otherwise would be an unacceptable slight on these producers. The National Party-and the Opposition-endorses these research Bills and offers them uninterrupted passage through both chambers of Parliament. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(12.15) —I am very pleased to speak on these primary industry Bills. I very rarely do, but the matter of production of eggs is of great importance throughout Australia, particularly in my electorate where not only do we eat them but also we produce them. I would like that situation to continue. That is one of the things that I want to discuss today. I first took an interest in the egg industry, as a consumer issue, in 1984 when eggs in the Australian Capital Territory cost more than they did in New South Wales. When I investigated this, I found that it was not a wholesale price rip-off at all but rather a retail price rip-off. It is one of the things that led me some months ago to establish a price watch campaign, which I have done fairly successfully in my electorate, and we are having a serious look at prices. We did not have a great deal of competition in the market-place in Canberra. We are now finding that, with information available, consumers are using that information to shop around, and I think that that is impacting on prices. We have actually seen that in the consumer price index. In past years, Canberra always seemed to be a pace-setter; it was always well ahead of the States in CPI increases, but I was thrilled to note that in the final quarter of last year we were the lowest. So it may be that our price watch is having some impact. It is also helpful to have a bit of a shakeup in the market with some of the big chains coming in. Mr Hunt —I'll have to get you up in my electorate. Mrs KELLY —I could do one in the honourable member's electorate. However, in the Australian Capital Territory we have only one egg producer, Parkwood Eggs Pty Ltd. Although ostensibly that company has been in a monopoly situation, it has charged the same price as that applicable in New South Wales and it has not been making monopoly profits. Currently, a bit of a retail war is going on; but it is not related to the eggs. The problem is that where there are eggs there are also chickens, and the deregulated chicken meat industry is causing this war between producers. It is affecting their eggs and their orderly marketing. I have found that there has been some attempt to flood eggs into the Australian Capital Territory to stir up Parkwood Eggs, principally because there is one particular producer of chicken meat which I think would like to have a monopoly situation and currently does not. We are now in a position to want to protect our egg producers because they have provided-as I have said in a monopoly situation-eggs for the local market at stable and reasonable prices for many years. The producers here in Canberra employ 60 people and they have been very good employers. I support this legislation basically because it lessens regulations pertaining to egg production by removing the Commonwealth tier of regulatory authority, although the Commonwealth will remain the guarantor of research continuing in this industry, and I think we all welcome that. We are very pleased that some co-ordination will occur in relation to research. Effectively, the main benefit is to ensure orderly marketing and prevention of overproduction, which is a major component of egg prices at present. This is because overproduction is exported at high levels of Government subsidies. These subsidies are ultimately met, of course, by the Australian consumer. This, then, is a rare case of discouraging exports in order to keep local prices down; and by exports we are talking about exports interstate. I must say that I do support the theme developed by the previous speaker in this debate, who referred to looking for new egg export industries outside Australia. It does seem that we are fairly effective producers of eggs and it is important to explore that prospect. I am glad that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) was in the House when the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) was discussing this matter. The net effect of this Bill is to make each State's production match its consumption and thus guarantee the orderly marketing of eggs and free the Commonwealth from participation in the price support scheme. To the consumer it might seem superficially attractive to encourage a price war, but these wars, like most wars, and like the problems currently occurring with milk-not in the ACT but outside it-are usually all about territory. The problem with such wars is that usually the biggest company eventually wins, gains control, and sets about recouping the losses it has sustained during the conflict. I am very concerned that that might happen with chicken meat. On a local level, this legislation should stop the fight between Barter's-that is, Parkwood Eggs Pty Ltd-and Ingham's Chickens, occasioned by the chicken meat competition, and that really has been causing a local egg problem here. Overall, the regulation of eggs is necessary to maintain quality control and to get production and consumption to levels as equal as possible and to oversee the fair territorial limits of producers. The fairness of pricing has now been guaranteed, particularly, I think, here in Canberra by our price watch schemes. This legislation will guarantee the research funds and their collection will be simplified. I am very pleased that the Opposition also supports these Bills. It is no wonder then that this is fairly uncontentious legislation. It has been worked out in a spirit of accord between the Commonwealth, the States and the producers. The general agreement of those concerned with egg production and with regulation and marketing with each other should be greeted enthusiastically by consumers, whose experience of warfare in the egg industry should give them no motive for wanting to see the war continue or revive. It is therefore in the interests of consumers throughout Australia-particularly in the Australian Capital Territory and those of the employees of our egg producing company, Parkwood-that this legislation is before the House. I welcome it and urge all honourable members to support it. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.20) —These pieces of legislation-namely the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill and the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Bill-are not opposed by the Liberal Party of Australia. Nevertheless, as has been said by a previous speaker, the Liberal Party is concerned about the failure of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to consult with this industry group on any action the Government intends to take in that regard. As far as I am concerned it is imperative, particularly in legislation of this nature which is not particularly contentious, that the Minister does not forget that the constituency of Australian farmers, in this case Australian egg producers, is entitled to proper representation on these issues. It is frequently misunderstood what costs of even half a cent per hen might mean to the economics in these days of very large-scale ownership of hens and hen quotas and things of that nature. Although apparently there is still to be some consultation in that area-the Minister in his second reading speech has told us that the levy, which can be up to a maximum of 10c per hen, will be more of the order of three to four cents-these matters are all part of the consultation process that, quite simply, should be taken prior to legislation of this nature being brought before the Parliament. It is only recently that, again, quite simple legislation which is beneficial in general for the wheat industry was brought into this Parliament. When I sent urgent copies of the Bills-faxed them in fact-to the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia Inc. and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia they were stunned to find that printed legislation could be brought before the Parliament without any consultation with their industry on a matter which, although in this case appeared to have a positive effect in terms of dollars for them, nevertheless involved a substantial amount of money. Maybe it could have involved even more money for them had they had the opportunity to consult. The Liberal Party does complain about the Minister's failure to consult and we will ensure that under a future government that sort of situation does not occur. The Bills themselves are necessary because of change in the industry. The original hen levy was intended to equalise amongst producers for the disposal of surpluses. But, as the Minister advised in his second reading speech, it is now quite clear that the State governments have managed to reduce the amount of surpluses that occur through changes to hen quotas and funds are now required only for research. We support all activity for research. We know that in this very competitive world today it is only through research and the increased efficiency of animals' ability to produce-whether it be eggs, beef or whatever else-that we can remain competitive in world markets where, of course, there is no regulation. There is no international egg board, no international wheat marketing board and no international beef marketing board. Once goods leave our shores we are in the wilderness; we are there to fight for our market share. Might I add in that regard that the market share that the Australian Wheat Board currently manages to achieve for Australia-some 16 million tonnes per annum-has to be protected at all costs. It is ridiculous to think that in Australia we can let the international market influences affect the amount of wheat we produce while expecting that at some time in the future our current buyers will come wandering back to Australia when they have got into the habit of buying from someone else. Although in many areas market influences are good because they have the result of forcing the price back up to reasonable levels when a substantial quantity of product is removed from the market, unfortunately in international terms Australia does not produce a substantial quantity of product, and there are such huge surpluses in other subsidised countries that the removal of even 50 per cent of Australia's export production of grain would have no effect on world prices. It is imperative that this Government and future governments ensure that mechanisms are available to maintain our wheat production and current markets. I have been in many areas of retail marketing and when a competitor down the road dropped the price I had to meet with him. It sometimes was painful. In this case it would be far too painful for our individual producers of grain to do this and so it must be the case that `Australia Incorporated', takes an interest in the welfare of our wheat growers who, of course, are providers of the major food product for the egg producing industry. Unless we are prepared to ensure that `Australia Incorporated' can keep its market share during these difficult cyclical times we will face great difficulties in the future. That is one of the points that needs to be made. Apparently, the levy-if set at around 3.5c per hen-will collect about a quarter of a million dollars per annum from the industry. The Government proposes to match that amount dollar for dollar, giving us some $500,000 per annum of research expenditure. This effort on behalf of the industry is to be commended. I understand that since this legislation has been in force-since about 1965-some $3m has been contributed by the industry and this amount has been matched by government to ensure the development of this industry. The industry is essential to Australia. We are well aware of the benefits of a regular supply of eggs, and of the benefits of eggs in the family diet. I mentioned a little while ago some of the circumstances of the costs for this industry. Naturally the cost of feed is significant. To most egg producers feed means wheat processed into pellets of one sort or another with other additives. As I have just mentioned, the wheat industry is in dire straits and this industry is primarily responsive to world market prices. This has given some benefit to the egg industry because there has been a fall in price, particularly now as recent legislation has allowed for direct negotiations with farmers in many areas. The international situation has to be recognised for what it is. On the world scene, in recent years fuel prices have dropped to almost half their previous level. Also on the international scene, interest rates have dropped by around 20 to 25 per cent. I remind the House that when interest rates were last high in Australia, of the order that they are today, they were high all around the world. This time world interest rates-the world price for money-have dropped to about a quarter of what they were a couple of years ago. These costs are affecting the ability of nations to buy our exports. The big purchasers of grain around the world, Russia and China, are quite dependent on fuel exports for foreign exchange. As I have just said, fuel costs to the egg industry-for parts of the year egg producers have to heat their sheds-on an international scale have dropped to half of what they were which has had an effect on the ability of other countries to buy the products we want to sell them such as grain. I just ask the House to consider that, if this Government had been able to pass on to Australians a reasonable cost for fuel and an international cost for money, how easy might it be for our producers, with just those two areas of saving, to be able to meet the market-place internationally-particularly in regard to the international price of grain which has slipped so dramatically. Primary industry is carrying the burden of government policy in these areas because of the extravagance of this Government in expenditure and its consequent borrowing which has put the pressure on the interest markets and created this international aberration whereby only we and the banana republics have interest rates in excess of even 10 per cent. Ours are still high, even with the falls. I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) boasting yesterday of falls in interest rates. My goodness me, it is like his boasts whenever the trade deficit drops below $1,000m; it is something to celebrate! The reality is the numbers. When a trade deficit is still of the order of $700m, that is nothing to crow about, and when interest rates in Australia are double and triple what they are to business people, home owners, hen producers and others in other parts of the world, that is a disgrace, whether they are falling or not. These issues must be addressed. It is fine to see the Government come in on the minor issues of delivering some research funds to an industry. We are not opposed to that in any way. We just want the macroeconomic issues to be addressed so that our primary producers in whatever area-whether it be egg production, chicken meat production, wheat production or all the others-have the opportunity to compete. The reality is that they must have the cost structures of their competitors if they are to meet the international market price on those issues. I say again, were fuel to be at the international price in Australia and were money charges or interest to be at the international price, so they would. I do not have anything to add. We do not oppose these Bills. We sincerely hope that the Government will recognise its responsibility to this area and to farmers. The fact that farmers occasionally bother to tell the Government the truth in some of the areas I have just mentioned is no reason to ignore them; it is no reason to blindfold them on issues. I made some remarks yesterday about the membership of the Wheat Board and how the Government had created a situation that would have been intolerable for farmers; it was only through the efforts of the Opposition that this matter was resolved in the farmers' interest. They can rely on our interest and their welfare will be guaranteed by future governments from this side of the House. I am determined, bearing in mind my responsibilities, to see that is so. We certainly will not allow them to operate in an environment where their cost of money, the interest charges, are four times the national rate and where, accordingly, their fuel prices are greater. Whether it be eggs or anything else, farmers are subject to freight on an inwards and an outwards basis. They must freight in their feed and they must freight out their product. Of every $7 spent in Australia, $1 is spent on freight. Of course, that expenditure is affected at every level by the cost of fuel and the cost of interest, because the industry today consumes large quantities of fuel and is capital intensive. I close on those remarks and thank the House for its time. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(12.32) —The Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill contains arrangements for the collection of levies from producers. This levy is to be imposed under the Egg Industry Research Levy Bill 1987. The levy will be determined each year for a producer. The most important change with the collection process. This will mean that the levy is collected twice a year, in January and July of each financial year. This will improve the cash flow for each producer. Under the present system, collections are made every fortnight. As a result, there will be modest savings to the Commonwealth clerical costs. I am pleased that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is responding to concerns from rural areas about the cost of public service to producers. Any savings brought about by greater efficiency will be welcomed by the producers. The levy will be based on the number of quota hens which a person is licensed to keep as at 1 July each year. The rate of the levy per hen is to be prescribed but is limited to a maximum of 10c per hen. The measure involves no new financial commitments for the Commonwealth or the industry. The Minister still has to negotiate provisions for the collections of this levy with the States and Territories. Because the costs of collection incurred by State egg boards will be lower than for the existing hen levy, I expect that the levy will have the support of the State governments. The levy in this Bill is based on hen quotas because the levy is the cheapest way to collect producer contributions for egg research. All States and the Australian Capital Territory impose hen quotas and issue quota licences to producers. There is a ready mechanism to calculate producers' liability. There is also no scope for evasions of a hen quota levy through unreported hens or egg transactions. At the State level, the levy simplifies collection arrangements and reduces costs. It can be combined with collection of State charges for marketing or administration costs of State boards. From the producers' viewpoint, the hen quota levy avoids the need for investigation or inspection mechanism to check producers' books, records or operations. The need to have books opened for inspectors is one of the points of contention for any small business operator. Poultry producers are one of the important rural small business people. For those reasons, I believe that a levy on hen quotas is vastly superior to a levy on egg production. A levy on egg production means a higher cost for producers as inspection and investigation staff are needed to verify producer returns. Not all production passes through State egg board control on marketing channels. There is scope for producers to avoid or evade payment because there is an incentive to seek to sell outside normal marketing avenues. If there is one lesson from Australian history in recent years, it is that all Australians are tired of paying taxes for other people. Ordinary Australian wage and salary earners who are honestly meeting their tax obligations have for years watched while others have walked around the tax system. Just as the taxpayers have grown tired of subsidising the friends of the rich, so too, egg producers do not want to see a levy on egg production because of the scope it would allow for tax avoidance. There are arguments in favour of deregulation of markets from groups like the National Farmers Federation. The Farmers Federation always suggests this will achieve greater efficiency for wage and salary earners and for manufacturing industry. I have not seen what the attitude of the NFF is regarding hen quotas. However, in keeping with all the policies of the NFF and the New Right, my guess is that the Federation favours the stopping of hen quotas. This Government has shown a willingness to deregulate markets and industries when it is in the public interest to do so. Egg production control through hen quotas is exercised by State governments. Given the New Right stance of the Queensland Premier, I would be interested to see what his policy is on hen quotas now that he is running for Federal politics. So far in his run, he has abandoned every economic line he has had in Queensland. He would need to tell the egg producers what his policies will be in this regard. It is open to any State to abandon the hen quota system if it chooses to. If the Queensland Premier truly believes in free enterprise, I have no doubt that Queensland will be the first State to abandon it. We are always told that the Premier is a man of his word, that he always does what he says he will do. I challenge him to face the egg producers after he gives them a decent dose of this type of free enterprise. The likelihood of any State abandoning the quota system would have a varied impact throughout Australia. Abandonment of the levy in the Australian Capital Territory would not cause much of an impact in New South Wales because the production volume would not be sufficient to force New South Wales into a major change. In Western Australia, transport costs may negate any incentive to market product in eastern States. According to media reports, Tasmania was at one stage recently thinking of seceding. According to the Budget Papers, Tasmania receives a freight subsidy. I would hope that if Tasmania decides to secede, the Commonwealth will no longer pay the subsidy. In that case, Tasmania would not be in a competitive enough position to threaten seriously the eastern seaboard States. My guess is that if the hen quotas were removed in other eastern States, it is likely that other States would also remove them to prevent increased production flooding into their States. The state of the poultry industry for the future is relatively optimistic. The production of poultry meat is expected to rise because of rapid improvements in technical efficiency in both production and marketing. The money raised from this levy will go into research. This research is already showing results in the industry. Poultry production is projected to rise to a peak in about 1991. Profitability should be maintained because of lower feed costs and increased hen productivity, although lower feed costs are unfortunately a result of the depressed world wheat market. Total egg production is expected to increase in 1986-87 to take advantage of a rise in export demand. Production is forecast to rise by about 3 per cent to around 183 million dozen. In recent years, State boards have had to take measures to reduce surplus production. This has included cutting hen quotas, imposing conditions of licence, acting against illicit producers and varying wholesale prices. To meet the expected increase in export demand, boards may have to vary these restrictions. Total domestic consumption of commercially produced eggs is expected to increase by 1 million dozen in 1986-87 to 172.5 million. Exports are expected to increase from 7 million dozen in 1985-86 to 9 million dozen in 1986-87. Most of this increase is expected to be in the form of egg product for a recently negotiated sale to Japan. Further increases in exports of Australian eggs seem possible because of the current favourable exchange rate. A floating exchange rate is a deliberate instrument of government economic policy. It reverses the policies of the previous Government which robbed farmers of millions of dollars in export earnings. One of the fundamental aspects of the Bill is that it will keep the costs to the producers to an absolute minimum. I am pleased to note that many of the pro-farmer policies of this Government have been directed towards reducing the costs for farmers. Many taxes and charges to farmers have been reduced by the Government. The decision to eliminate tariffs on grain harvesters saved farmers $4m; the elimination of tariffs on cultivation machinery saved farmers $17m; and the diesel fuel excise has been fully rebated to farmers at a cost to the taxpayer of $260m. A 2 per cent revenue duty on agricultural chemicals has been removed and the other tariffs on agricultural chemicals have been halved at a saving to farmers of between $5m and $12m. The net effect of keeping these levies to a minimum means that farm cost inflation will again be lower than under the previous Government when the National Party held the Primary Industry portfolio. The annual rate of farm cost inflation of 7.6 per cent is well below the 11 per cent inherited from the previous Government. Farm cost inflation is well below the overall inflation rate as measured by the consumer price index. The leaked former coalition document on government expenditure is an horrendous document for farmers. The Queensland Premier's flat rate of tax will cost farmers about $300m dollars a year. The Liberal Party decision will mean that farmers will pay more than $83m a year for fertilisers. The decisions to sell off Telecom Australia will mean that all rural subscribers will have to pay more for their heavily subsidised telephone services. All policies of the previous coalition, which are probably being renegotiated now, and which were supported by the factions in the National Party, contrast strongly with the attitude of the pro-farmer Hawke Government. In this legislation the levy will not add any cost to the farmers. The efficiency in the collection will mean that clerical costs will be reduced. The Minister for Primary Industry, as a former poultry farmer, has done a marvellous job for this industry. As a Minister, he can hold his head up high. By contrast the National Party certainly has nothing to crow about when it comes to its poultry policies in rural Australia. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.41) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your considera-tion in calling me. I am pleased to rise to address the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill and the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Bill which are before the House. I want to reiterate the statements made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who discovered, in their conversations with the Australian Council of Egg Producers, that the Australian Council is anything but happy with the negotiations and consultations that it has had with the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). It is a matter of considerable concern to egg producers across the nation that the Opposition was aware of this legislation and that the egg producers were notified of the presence of the legislation in the House only when the honourable member for Gwydir happened to ring them to ask for a response to it and he realised that they were not aware that it had reached that advanced stage. If we consider what was said in this House by the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) on 31 March this year it is hardly surprising that we should find this scant regard for egg producers. I quote from the Hansard of that day: When we look at what we have coming up next week we find on the Notice Paper the Egg Industry (Hen Quota) Levy Bill and the Egg Industry (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Bill. Certainly the case is that many of the functions of this House are unnecessary in respect of that sort of legislation. I would contend, the Liberal Party of Australia would contend, and the Opposition parties would contend, that the egg producers in this nation-who, as we have already heard, produce 170 million dozen eggs per year at a value of $200m-are as entitled to legislative protection and assistance in this House as anyone else. A debate in this House on the egg industry and egg levy collection Bills, such as we are having now, is entirely appropriate and should not be seen merely as a waste of the time of the House. But that was the clear perception of the honourable member for Perth about the debate that we are engaged in and it is reflected in the way in which the egg producers of Australia had been largely ignored by the Minister until this legislation was brought to their attention by the Opposition. I want to place on record the fact that the egg industry in Australia has experienced major rationalisation. I point out to the House that in 1980-81 240 egg producers, barely a tenth of the 2,510 egg producers, held 58.5 per cent of the national hen flock, producing eggs valued at $46.26m. One year later, in 1981-82, the number of egg producers had fallen to 2,277 and 237 of them still had 58.6 per cent of the national flock, producing eggs worth $42.1m. All of those 237 people held flocks in excess of 20,000 birds. If we look at a similar period we discover a fall of over 60 per cent in the number of farms which had flocks of under 2,000 birds. So there has been a dramatic fall-off in small egg producers in Australia over that period. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The honourable member for Wakefield will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will be absent from the House for the remainder of this week. He is on Government business in the Torres Strait area. Any questions normally directed to him should be addressed to the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). Mr HOWARD —Can the Prime Minister give Parliament an assurance that his Government will not seek in any way to weaken the operation of sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act either by amendment or by transfer of the jurisdiction of the Trade Practices Act out of the operations of the Federal Court of Australia? Mr HAWKE —On behalf of the united Government, I can say to that part of the Opposition which the honourable member for Bennelong purports to represent that I do not intend to reveal details of the proposed industrial relations reforms before the introduction of that legislation by my friend and colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I assure the House and the country that the reforms that will be introduced in that legislation by the Minister will be such as to ensure the effective operation of conciliation and arbitration in the industrial relations system. I intend to say no more on that subject, other than this. This country has now had the opportunity over a period from the end of 1975 into 1987 to compare and contrast the Australian Labor Party's approach in government to that of what was then a Liberal-National Party government. The facts are clear, stark and unarguable. The approach of the previous Government brought to a fine art form the concept of confrontation, of trying to conduct the affairs of this country as though the people in unions and those on the employer's side should be regarded as natural enemies to be pitted one against the other. It tried that approach and brought about an unprecedented recession. We brought in a system which said that there should be an attempt so far as possible to proceed by way of consensus and conciliation. One test that is always made in comparing approaches to industrial relations is to see what happens to the level of industrial disputation. In the period since my Government has been in office the level of industrial disputation has been less than half of that which existed under the Liberal-National Party government. We have been tested and have been found to be infinitely superior in our approach. The reforms that will be brought in by my colleague will continue that experience. Mr SIMMONS —I direct my question to the Minister for Communications. How does the Government intend to carry out its policy of providing additional television services to regional Australia in the light of the Opposition's rejection of the Government's equalisation legislation? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Calare for his question. He is one of the long list of Labor members from rural electorates who have shown a long and continuing interest in the provision of extra television services to their constituents. The Government's position on this matter is quite clear. We have made a commitment that in southern New South Wales as one approved market, northern New South Wales as another approved market, Queensland and rural Victoria there will be the same services in television in the sense of diversity of choice as people receive in the capital cities. In those areas where the markets are of the order of a million people which will sustain those competing services, we as a government intend to correct the inequity that has existed for people in rural Australia for far too long. The fact that the legislation was rejected yesterday in the other place is an interesting reflection on the attitude particularly of the National Party. It has purported to represent the people of rural Australia and in fact has not been representing them. It may well be that, having thrown off the shackles of an economically dry, urban-dominated Liberal Party, it will now be able to go back to representing the people of rural Australia, at least to the extent of supporting this Government in its efforts to bring about services in country areas with populations which will stand it equal to those in the cities. Mr Beale —Issue new licences. Mr DUFFY —That was the opening kick from the new shadow Minister for Communications. He is the fourth in 4 1/2 years. Mr Hawke —Bring back Macphee. Mr DUFFY —Bring back Macphee, as the Prime Minister says. I think that the chances of that are not highly likely, because he did have some well thought out views in this area. It is our intention to take back to the Senate the equalisation Bill in the form in which it is now-that is, in a form which will provide competitive television services to rural Australia. We will then see where some people in this place really stand. I was looking for the Leader of the National Party, but he has moved from centre half forward to the back pocket. I think that the Leader of the National Party and those who at least temporarily sit behind him had better have a good look at the position when this legislation goes back to the Senate. I assure the House that between now and the next election and right through that election campaign the reason why people in rural Australia, if it happens, will not be receiving those services will be the Opposition's ineptitude in supporting the people it purports to represent. That will be spelt out absolutely clearly for them. Mr CADMAN —I address my question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. As exit permits from Libya are usually only granted to pro-Gaddafi student activists, is the Minister aware that his Department issued 10 Libyans with overseas student entry visas last year? Is the Minister also aware that a Libyan student who studied at the University of Sydney, and whose name I can supply, threatened Australia as a target for terrorist activity? Have Libyan students in countries like the United Kingdom been linked to terrorist activities? Will the Minister give an assurance that none of the Libyan students in Australia are activists who support Colonel Gaddafi or who are involved in activities associated with his South Pacific power push? Mr YOUNG —I am not aware-or I was not aware until the honourable member for Mitchell just said so-of the number of visas issued to students last year, but I assure the House that in giving visas for any controversial visitors the best advice is taken from all agencies and departments associated in giving that advice and from my colleagues who have the ministerial commissions in those departments. A collective decision is taken in the best interests of Australia. Mr GORMAN —What is the attitude of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to Aboriginal groups which seek funds from international sources with known terrorist connections? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his question because it gives me an opportunity to inform the House and Aboriginal organisations generally of the Government's position. Its position is clear, it is unequivocal and it is simple. Any Aboriginal organisation which seeks overseas funding from a terrorist organisation or any Aboriginal organisation which is an affiliate of an organisation which makes such an application and is privy to the making of such an application will have all Commonwealth funding cease forthwith. Historically, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has encouraged Aboriginal leadership to participate in conferences of indigenous people. A representative of the Indigenous Peoples Conference is an Aboriginal person based in Sydney. We believe that it is perfectly appropriate and legitimate for Aboriginal people to use international tribunals and conferences to voice their aspirations and hopes. But there is no way that some of the recent actions of a person from Tasmania acting on his own behalf will be-- Mr Goodluck —Name him. Mr HOLDING —We all know that I am talking about Mr Mansell. Mr Goodluck —What about the Young Labor Party? It supports him. Mr HOLDING —The Young Labor Party is as entitled as the honourable member's Party is to have some wets and dries. The honourable member for Franklin would be better advised to concentrate on some of the internal divisions within his Party. The other point I want to make-it ought to be noted by the House and the media-is that at this stage no Aboriginal organisation has been prepared to support Mr Mansell in his utterances and he has been very substantially condemned by representative Aboriginal leaders from around Australia. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the National Party. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr SINCLAIR —It is nice to know that honourable members welcome me. I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Given the belligerent attitude of many Americans to trade difficulties with Japan, which is reflected by the sanctions imposed by President Reagan on Japanese semi-conductors and mechanical goods, the Prime Minister would be aware of the significance of this week's meetings between President Reagan and Prime Minister Nakasone. Has his Government brought to the attention of the United States Administration at the highest level Australia's serious concern that any sweetheart deal giving preferred market access to United States exports into Japan would be to the serious detriment of Australian exporters, especially Australian beef producers? In order to guarantee a full understanding in Japan and the United States of Australia's serious concerns at the implications of the present trade war, including continuing problems with the European Community, will the Prime Minister personally take up these issues by seeking a meeting with President Reagan and Prime Minister Nakasone before the Venice economic summit in June? Mr HAWKE —I thank the leader of whatever it is for his question. I say that with no disrespect to the Leader of the National Party of Australia because it is an important question and I thank him for it. I assure him that the issues he has raised are occupying the constant attention of the Government through the relevant Ministers and me. I, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Trade have taken every opportunity to convey our concern to the President. I think the right honourable gentleman would acknowledge and agree that we have augmented the facilities at our embassy in Washington in regard to the whole continuing question of the attitude of the United States to trade. We recognise-this is involved in the right honourable gentleman's question-the very significant implications of the growing dispute between the United States and Japan. There are two aspects to it. Firstly, the possible resolution of the dispute between those countries, as the right honourable gentleman implied, could be at our expense. The growing corruption of international trade, for which both countries are responsible together with the Europeans, is causing our farmers particular problems. We are aware of that and are making representations. But, as the right honourable gentleman suggested, another aspect of the problem is that if the United States attempts to resolve its problems by sweetheart deals, which may have the effect of closing to us our legitimate opportunities in Japan in particular, we will pay another price. So we share the very proper concerns of the right honourable gentleman. We will continue to put our concerns strongly. The United States should not assume, upon the depths of the friendship and commitment that exist between Australia and the United States, that we will just cop sweetly any action that it takes in pursuit of its perceived interests in its dealings with Japan. The right honourable gentleman asked whether I would seek a personal meeting with the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Japan before the Venice meeting. I will think about that but I do not think it will be necessary. However, I give the right honourable gentleman a firm undertaking that we will constantly put the legitimate concerns of Australia to both of those gentlemen as we have to this point so that when they go to the Venice meeting they will be in no doubt at all as to their responsibility both one to the other in the settlement of any dispute between them and also-this is very important-their overwhelming responsibility to play a strong and constructive role not only at Venice but also in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade round and the fast track mechanisms that are being addressed. They have an overwhelming reponsibility to understand that it is not only against the interests of Australia that this corruption in international trade should continue but, even if they look at it only in terms of their own self-interest, in the end the United States, Japan and the citizens of those countries will pay a very high price because they cannot continue indefinitely to presume that they have a limitless exchequer into which they can dip to meet, in a short-sighted way, the particular pressures which they perceive to have upon them. I conclude by, again, quite sincerely thanking the right honourable gentleman for his question and assuring him that this Government will continue to put the highest pressure we possibly can in those representations, which I am pleased to know, go with the full backing of the Party which he leads. Mrs DARLING —I refer the Prime Minister to the statistics released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicating that the entry of Australian women into the work force has gained momentum. Will the Prime Minister comment on those statistics and on the momentum so indicated? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Lilley for her question. I preface my answer to her by saying that, as she knows, when we are talking about women in the work force this Government also recognises that the perception of many women in Australia of what their best interests are and the things they want to do is that they should remain in the home, to be the mother and wife in a full time sense. The concern that we have in ensuring that Australian-- Madam SPEAKER —Would the Prime Minister speak into the microphone? Mr Goodluck —I can't hear a word you are saying. Mr HAWKE —All right; the honourable member is missing something, I can assure him, so I will not deprive him for any longer. I assure the honourable member that what I have to say about women in the work force is important. This Government recognises that for a significant proportion of Australian women the concept of being a full time wife and mother represents their perceptions of what their major interests are. Nevertheless, we recognise, and indeed we welcome the fact, that an increasing number of women wish to work and are now entering the work force. Some statistics as to what has happened over the last four years are of interest. As you know, Madam Speaker, and as the honourable member for Lilley knows, one of the matters of great pride for this Government is the record increase in employment that has taken place in the period that we have been in government. In fact, over three-quarters of a million people have entered the work force. To be precise, there have been 760,000 new entrants into the work force, and it is interesting to note that 58 per cent of those new entrants are women. We have, of course, provided increased child care places to enable mothers who wish to work to do so. We have also sponsored legislation to ensure that women are not disadvantaged in the work place. Of course, in that respect, landmark affirmative action legislation was passed last year. Interestingly, that legislation that was passed last year was passed with the support of the Liberal Party. We welcome the fact that we received that support from the Liberal Party. Of course, there have been further developments since then. The Commonwealth equal employment opportunity legislation has been passed by this House and will be debated in the Senate later this week. It is unfortunate to have to note the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, in opposing that legislation in this House, prevailed upon his Liberal Party colleagues to bury their principles for a coalition that he could not save. There is absolutely no argument amongst analysts in this country that the Liberal Party agreed with the legislation, with the principle and the fact of it, but the Leader of the Liberal Party, desperately trying to save the coalition, said: `We cannot support that legislation because, if we do, that will offend the National Party'. So the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party, sacrificed the rights of women, he sacrificed Senator Peter Baume, and now he is asking his colleagues in the Senate to sacrifice their principles for a coalition which is now dead and buried. Mr WHITE —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who had a bit of trouble answering a question yesterday, so he has another opportunity. Is the Minister aware that an Australian resident sportsman who, after 1 July, wins a major tournament overseas and pays tax in that country will then pay additional Australian tax? What will the Minister do about the sportsmen and women who are contemplating leaving Australia and basing themselves overseas because of Australia's high taxes, together with the new foreign tax credit scheme that will operate after 1 July? Mr JOHN BROWN —It strikes me as strange that at last I have been asked a question on sport; I cannot believe it. Professional sportsmen in Australia will not be surprised to find that this Opposition, when it was in government for so long, ignored them in every sense of their profession and career as sportsmen or sportswomen. I think it is fair to point out to the House that this Government has introduced legislation that has been absolutely craved by professional sportsmen and women in Australia for generations. The legislation gives them the ability to average their income over a certain number of years in order to even out the imbalances that a professional sportsman has during the fluctuations of his career. As far as the honourable member's specific question is concerned, it involves a very technical point. I will refer the question to the Treasurer. Mr Porter —Oh! Madam SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member for Barker stop interjecting. Mr JOHN BROWN —Does the honourable member want a proper answer or does he not? Any professional sportsman performing in Australia is better off under this Government than he has been in his life. There have been some changes to the tax laws that have been brought to my attention by a couple of overseas sportsmen who have raised queries about them. I will take up the matter with the Treasurer to check the fine detail of the honourable member's question to see whether, for once in his life, he might be accurate, and I will furnish him with an answer. Mr SAUNDERSON —I ask the Minister for Communications whether he is aware of public disquiet in Melbourne relating to action being taken by representatives of the Fairfax Corporation Pty Ltd at HSV7. The disquiet centres on the abandonment of local programs and the dismissal of some 80 staff, as well as an apparent desire by the Fairfax Corporation to close down program production at HSV7. Does the Minister believe that, because the Fairfax Corporation is operating under the act of grace provisions allowed under the current Broadcasting and Television Act, parties who do feel aggrieved on this question should take their grievances to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal under section 92m of the Act? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of the matters of concern mentioned by him-firstly, dismissals of staff and, secondly, the problem regarding local programming in Melbourne or, more correctly, loss of it. The licensee, in this case Channel 7, is, of course, accountable to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for any actions which may be seen to adversely affect its services. The Tribunal may consider staffing arrangements in the course of deciding whether it should approve the takeover of HSV7 by the Fairfax organisation or, as mentioned by the honourable member, the matter can be considered under section 92m of the Broadcasting and Television Act. It is also, of course, an issue which could be considered at the time of the station's next licence renewal in the context of whether Channel 7 is providing an adequate and comprehensive service to Melbourne. I think the reference by the honourable member to section 92m is worth noting. That section was inserted in the Act in 1981 at the time, I think, of the stewardship of the Leader of the National Party of Australia. It was difficult during that period to follow who was the Minister for Communications at any particular time, but I think it was during his period of responsibility. That section introduced a new approach of allowing applicants, after takeovers had already occurred, a period of six months grace which could be used to put any breach of the Act in order. Concern was indicated at that time by broadcasters, the Government and the Senate that things could take place which could be irreversible by the time a retrospective Tribunal inquiry was held. As the honourable member indicated, that is one of the matters that the Tribunal could consider. I understand that at least one of the unions involved in the dismissal of staff has approached the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and asked the Tribunal to consider action in accordance with one or other or both of the provisions that have been mentioned-that is, the question of the adequate and comprehensive cover or the section 92m provisions referred to. Mr ROCHER —Does the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations endorse claims by building industry unions for a $20 per week so-called severance pay loading? Does the claim fit within the Government's wages guidelines? Was the Minister consulted by his opposite number, the Victorian Minister, when Mr Crabb drew up the heads of agreement which proposed the $20 loading, and did the Minister approve the proposed agreement on behalf of the Commonwealth? Mr WILLIS —The claim of the building workers unions for $52 represents in part the application of the two-tier wages principle to their industry, as does the severance pay matter which the honourable member referred to. In regard to the parts of the claim which refer to the first and second tiers of the wages system, the Government has no overriding concern except, of course, to ensure that they fit within the principles, that they are endorsed by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and in particular in respect to the second tier increases that there is adherence to the principles so that there is an adequate increase in work place productivity to justify the up to 4 per cent in the second tier. The Government has considerable concerns about the severance pay issue. In two decisions-that in relation to the termination change and redundancy test case and that of the recent national wage case-the Commission has made it clear that it is uncertain about the application of the redundancy test case to the building industry. It said that that matter needs to be resolved in the future on its merits. The position of the Government on that issue, which has been made clear to the parties, is that we believe that it is a matter which ought to be taken to the Commission, that the application of any such redundancy severance pay issue in the building industry, particularly in the light of the follow-the-job loading which is already in the award, should be decided by the Commission, and that there should be no agreement which at this stage gives support to that until it is endorsed by the Commission. The Government has made it clear to the parties that this is our position. It has also made that position known to the Victorian Government, in particular to the Minister for Labour in Victoria, Mr Crabb. The heads of agreement to which the honourable member refers which incorporate a possible agreement in Victoria were drawn up without consultation with us. I was subsequently informed of those heads of agreement. I have since advised Mr Crabb of the Government's position-that we believe this issue should be settled on a national basis with all elements of the claims accepted by the Commission, and not on any other basis. Mr BILNEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Have any requests been received from the Leader of the National Party for additional staff or other facilities to enable the right honourable member to cope with his new and significantly altered responsibilities? Mr YOUNG —I am informed by the Special Minister of State that the only request the Department has received-not the Minister but the Department-is from the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong. Concerning reshuffling staff, there is a bit of a grab on for the Liberal Party to get more than its share. I should reiterate what happened after the election in 1983 and that is that the Prime Minister made available to the Opposition parties a more generous allocation of staff than any government had previously given an opposition. One can only wonder what all those staff have been doing for four years. One of the major tasks of the Opposition is supposed to be that of preparing itself for government. The fact of Australian political life at the moment is that only one party can govern Australia-the Australian Labor Party-because the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, can no longer espouse any policy. It will all be just piffle. He will not have a majority in the Liberal Party in the House at any time to be able to tell the people before the election about what he is going to do, because as soon as he makes any announcement about his consumption tax Joh will be on the phone and will say: `It is not on'. As for the hill tribes, they can never govern in their own right. The gall of the honourable member for Bennelong and the right honourable member for New England in getting their parties into the state they are in and still holding their positions means they have more front than Taronga Zoo. How can they still sit where they do after dragging their parties down and humiliating their colleagues, the honourable member for Goldstein, Senator Peter Baume and the honourable member for Kooyong, to appease all the extreme right wingers? They humiliate their own colleagues, yet the honourable member for Bennelong tells us that he is going to become the Prime Minister of Australia. What with? He has to win 30 seats. The harsh reality of going into the next campaign-as he will see if he looks through the book-is that the Liberal Party has to win 30 seats. It cannot win them so it does not matter what the honourable member for Bennelong says. There is a very good case for taking all the staff back. Those opposite do not need them. They do not need any policy research. Whilst they were together we asked them to tell us what they would do with taxation and they kept telling us to hang on and it would all come out. It does not matter what they say now, because they will not be able to do anything they say. They cannot do it; they have split parties. The truth that has to be understood in Australian politics is that this is the only party that can govern Australia-the Australian Labor Party-because if the country votes for the mob opposite it will not know what it is going to get. Fancy having children like Downer sitting on the front bench while the honourable member for Goldstein is sitting up the back, as is the honourable member for Boothby. Mr Spender —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. We may as well observe the ordinary rules. We know that the Minister will get up as the Government jokester once a day but there is a rule about referring to members by their names and there are also rules about relevance. I know that they are rather flexible in this House but he is way away from any relevance to the question. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will do well not to reflect upon the Chair. Mr YOUNG —I will call him the honourable member for Mayo. But the other disturbing feature about the development this morning is that at 10 o'clock I was rung up. I dropped my cup of tea. I was told that the Great Gatsby was now the Leader of the House. He takes three weeks to think of anything. He has asked the Attorney-General one question in 12 months. He used to get $5,000 a brief-fair dinkum. It has to be understood clearly by everybody in Australia that the Labor Party contains the only people who can govern. Those opposite can humiliate their colleagues, sack them, dismiss them, and argue over seats and offices, but now they have isolated themselves. Their talent is up the back. Some of their yes men are down the front. The Liberals were going to stick with Sinkers. They have done well with him. He has one more move and then he is sitting on the step. Actually, we do not want him to leave because in an election campaign it is good to have him around. He is a good target. Those are the facts that have emerged. People have been telling us for the last three or four months that the coalition would survive. What nonsense that is. They told us what agreements they were going to reach and how they were going to do things. So now there is a policy-we do not know for sure yet but now those opposite have split they can come down to the 25c tax rate-which is a great millionaires' taxation policy and the 8 per cent consumption tax will be back again. What will happen to Senator Peter Baume, the honourable member for Goldstein and the honourable member for Kooyong-the people the Liberals have humiliated in their own Party? Are they going to sit there up the back or will the honourable member for Bennelong bring them back to the front bench? If the honourable member had any decency or any guts at all, he would walk into his Party room, submit his resignation and see whether the Party wanted to re-elect him. The right honourable member for New England will not do that-he is too old and too cunning, and the last time he signed his name he got into a heap of strife. At the moment the Opposition crew is an absolute joke. It does not matter what honour- able members opposite say about their policies in future; everybody in Australia will know that they cannot carry them out. Those are the bare facts of Australian political life. Opposition members are an absolute joke. They should send all their staff on annual leave because they do not need them to waste time researching and writing policies for them. Mr PETER FISHER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the economic and social problems evident in rural Australia, with many families being forced for their survival on to the social security system. As a major cut in fuel excise would reduce inflation and bring about a substantial drop in interest rates, will the Government change this high taxing policy on fuel thus giving efficient, productive people an opportunity to pull this nation out of its economic mess and this Government a chance to govern? Mr HAWKE —It is very strange that a question of this sort should come from that quarter because the Opposition had a very long period of opportunity when it was in government to pursue a mix of macroeconomic policies which would be in the interests of not only the people it purports to represent but the people of Australia as a whole. I remind the honourable member that as a result of the Opposition's economic policies there was an inflation rate of 11 1/2 per cent when we came to office. That was the rate of inflation which the Opposition inflicted upon the community as a whole. It could have had any range of policies which could have produced much better results, but it did not have any idea of how to achieve the appropriate outcome from its monetary, fiscal or wages policies that would protect the interests of the rural community as well as those of the rest of this country. As distinct from the Opposition's ineptitude and its failure properly to protect the interests of the people it represents, we have pursued policies in every area which, as far as is within the power of this Government, have resulted in a better economic situation. We reduced inflation from 11 1/2 per cent to 5 per cent by the beginning of 1985. That is what we did and despite the massive devaluation of the Australian dollar and the 20 per cent decline in the terms of trade the rate of inflation has not reached the peak that we inherited as a result of the policies that the previous Government followed. In the areas of wages, monetary and fiscal policies we will continue to produce an outcome which will bring the rural community and Australia as a whole out of the serious situation created for us by external circumstances, part of which has been properly referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. In regard to industrial relations in particular, when we go to the next election the people of Australia will have the chance to judge the record of this Government against the record of the Opposition, which held office for seven years. The people will reject the Opposition on that test alone, but if they have any further thoughts about the matter they will, as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has already said, also test the successful policies of this united Government against the mishmash of opposing, contradictory sets of proposals coming from two sets of the Liberal Party of Australia and two sets of the National Party of Australia. In both rural and metropolitan Australia we are quite prepared to give the people the test of judging us against the Opposition. I can tell honourable members now what the outcome will be: This Government will be returned-and returned with an increased majority. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports of the South African Government's account of its raid into Zambia on 25 April? Are these accounts regarded as accurate? Has the Australian Government taken any subsequent action following this violation of Zambian territory by foreign military forces? Mr HAYDEN —The Government is aware of reports of this raid. The violation of the sovereign territory of Zambia is not justified and has been condemned by the Australian Government. The incursion took place on 25 April. Elements of the South African Defence Force were involved. Four Zambian civilians were killed and two were wounded. No African National Council officials or South African refugees were encountered. The South African Defence Force unit used a helicopter and motorbikes for mobility and the attack involved six white SADF members. They attacked the Zambian National Provident Fund Building, killing two watchmen; they shot up a vacant building in which there were no ANC members, indeed, no people at all; they attacked and destroyed a house, killing two Zambians and wounding the wife of one of those people they had murdered. There are reports that the vacant house that they destroyed had been empty for four months and that there had been a prospective buyer. In carrying out this raid the South African Defence Force violated the sovereign territory of Zambia. The soldiers killed and wounded innocent civilians. It was a major military blunder which was obviously based on untrustworthy intelligence. This is an indication of how shakily based is any assertion made by the South African authorities. It has been labelled as an election stunt by the South African Government and has all the hallmarks of such. The Australian Government extends its sympathy to the Government of Zambia for the way in which its territory has been violated and in particular it extends its sympathy to the bereaved and wounded. The Australian Government formally condemns this raid and any cross-border raid in either direction. It regrets very much that this action sets back any prospects of a negotiated and peaceful settlement. Mr MacKELLAR —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Was an investigation into the administration of generic pharmaceuticals carried out in his Department late last year? Has he seen the document detailing the results of that investigation? What has happened to it and will he make the document publicly available? Dr BLEWETT —An investigation was carried out towards the end of last year into problems within the Therapeutics Division of the Department. In consultation with my officers in the course of that investigation it was decided that we would set up an independent inquiry, which is now under way, supported by an expert brought in from overseas to make a fully impartial study of the problems in the Therapeutics Division. 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 the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to show restraint with equity. In particular, the decision to defer the November pension adjustments has resulted in a loss of $25.62 for a single pensioner and $21.36 for each married pensioner. The prospect of a further deferral of the May adjustment will result in the loss of another $35.10 for a single pensioner and $29.10 for each married pensioner. When you are scrimping to make ends meet, as is the case with many pensioners, you can't afford such a cut in living standards. Pensioners are looking for a new deal from politicians-more of the same is not good enough! Your petitioners request an immediate return to payment of May and November C.P.I. increases, and as in duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Langmore and Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt and Mr Sinclair. 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 Ms Jakobsen and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependant Spouse Rebate to $1,851 per annum, and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income earning spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shack and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many post office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of post offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That, as a consequence of the Hawke Government's decision to introduce a two dollar coin in 1988, Whereas the introduction of a one dollar coin was only a two-fold increase in the maximum value of coinage, the elimination of the two dollar note represents a five-fold increase before a note can be used. It will have taken eighteen years from decimalisation to go from the fifty cent piece as the highest value coin to a one dollar coin, but only a further four years to replace the two dollar note with a coin. The lowest value paper note will be five dollars, forcing a dramatic increase in the weight of coinage carried and dislocation of the retail industry. Many people, particularly the elderly, will mistake the value of the coin for that of another lower value coin just as many now confuse a one dollar coin with the ten cent piece. That the addition of two new coins in four years creates the biggest number of coins in circulation at any time in Australia's history and will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins; this will accelerate the cost of living, particularly the cost of food where numerous items are involved and future price rises would need to be five cent increases on every item on every occasion. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the proposed two dollar coin not be proceeded with by the Hawke Government, and no future government proceed with this proposal for several years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That 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 Connolly. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war 4. They recall that millions of native born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community Your Petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will at an early date discuss and give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum of the people. by Mr Hurford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the 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 pray 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 humbly pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to reconsider its deportation order on Mr and Mrs Heer. Ranjeet Singh Heer and his wife Parmjeet Kaur Heer are facing deportation from this country. They fear that their lives are in danger should they be forced to return to India. They are also the parents of two Australian-born children. Ranjeet and Parmjeet are a hard-working, dedicated couple whose main concern is obviously for the welfare and safety of their family. They have a house, work and friends here in Australia and regard this country as their home. Because of the danger to their lives and for the sake of their Australian-born children, they should be permitted to stay in this country: With their children, where they belong! We, the undersigned, wish to show our support for Ranjeet Singh Heer and Parmjeet Kaur Heer, and ask the Government to show compassion in their case, and allow them to remain in Australia and we, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that Raoul Wallenberg was arrested by the Russians in Budapest on January 17th, 1945. He has been sighted on numerous occasions since, the last in 1986. Your petitioners pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should approach the Soviet Foreign Minister to seek the release of Raoul Wallenberg and his return to Sweden. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; and, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilising nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government-(a) take new initiatives to encourage all Member States of the United Nations-especially the Governments of Nuclear Weapon States-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all Nuclear Weapon Tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all Nuclear Weapon States to declare an immediate moratorium on all Nuclear Weapon Tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong Representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representative in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Benefits of War Widows have been altered, and they no longer receive Pharmaceutical Benefits from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This is causing great concern and hardship, as quite a lot of their medications are no longer available, and nothing to replace them on National Health. They are now required to pay large amounts to obtain their medications, just to stay alive Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Honour its commitment to these War Widows by: Returning their Veteran Affairs Pharmaceutical Benefits to them immediately, and to refrain from worrying these ageing widows any further by tampering with our Veteran Affairs Act and breaking all promises made to our husbands And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully: Condemn the Hawke Labor Government's high tax policies and state our total opposition to the introduction of any new taxes including a wealth tax on the net wealth of individual Australians and Australian business. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Not introduce an investment destroying wealth tax into the House of Representatives. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax evasion 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 Porter. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need to restore incentive and hope to Australian families whose living standards have declined under the disastrous policies of the Hawke Government. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.53) —As much as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) and other people in the Government would wish that the time of this House and the time of the media were consumed on other matters, the reality is that the issue that concerns and affects the Australian electorate and Australian families at present much more than any other is what the Hawke Government has done to the living standards of Australian families. That issue, more than anything else, will dominate the attitudes of the Australian electorate between now and the next election. The Minister for Immigration and the Prime Minister can make all the wisecracks under the sun, but Australian families are not interested in wisecracks; they are interested in what the Government's policies and Ministers have done to the living standards of Australian families in the last four years. Three basic questions that increasingly the families of Australia are asking themselves after four years are: Am I better off? Is my family better off? Is my business better off now than it was four years ago? The resounding answers that they are getting to each of those three questions are: No, I am worse off; my family is worse off; and my business is worse off. The standard excuse, the great Australian Labor Party alibi, is: `It is not our fault. It is either the fault of the Fraser Government or the fault of all of those wicked foreigners, all of those people who exported their problems to us'. After four years of office those excuses will no longer wash. The fact is that more poor families are waiting for Housing Commission dwellings now than when the Fraser Government was voted out of office. The Housing Commission lists in Australia now are double what they were when the Fraser Government was voted out of office. Will this Government blame the Fraser Government for that? Will it blame the Fraser Government for the fact that something like 160,000 low income families, the little Aussie battlers whom its Party is supposed to represent, are on waiting lists now-double the number that there was when the Fraser Government went out of office? Mr Reith —You ought to talk to the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr HOWARD —So the alibi does not wash. Even the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the leader of the left wing faction of the Labor Party, said that the number of poor and underprivileged in Australia has multiplied in the four years of the Labor Government. It is no wonder that in Question Time yesterday my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) asked the Treasurer (Mr Keating) whether it was a fact that the average family paid $65 a week in tax in March 1983 but now pays $102 a week-a rise of $37 a week. This is an average family, not one of those millionaire families and property developers with whom the Treasurer associates. It is an average Australian family that he has long since left for dead in the western suburbs of Sydney from whence he came, the area of Australia that he is supposed to represent and empathise with. Such a family is $37 a week worse off. Will the Government blame the Fraser Government for that? Will it blame the foreigners for that? Will it blame everybody rather than accept the responsibility of its own rotten policies? Will it blame the Fraser Government for the fact that its Prime Minister has broken the promise that he made four years ago that nine out of 10 Australians would have cheaper and better health care under the Medicare system? Will it blame the Fraser Government for the 100,000 poor Australians who are on the waiting lists of the collapsing public hospitals system of Australia? Will it blame the foreigners for the fact that Medicare has inflicted dearer health care on most Australian families? Will it blame foreigners for the fact that the people whom it is sworn to represent are being disadvantaged much more by Medicare and the effects of its health system than any other section of the Australian community? The reality is that, no matter where one goes, living standards and values of Australian families have fallen significantly under the Hawke Government. No group in the Australian community has suffered more under its policies than average low income families. The Government has presided over a decline in the real value of the family allowance. It has presided over a decline in the real value of the dependent spouse rebate. If the more left wing feminist elements in its Party had their way, they would abolish the dependent spouse rebate. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, knows better than anybody else in the Parliament that if in the mini-Budget the Government applies a means test to the dependent spouse rebate it would not be cutting expenditure, as it dishonestly asserts it would be doing; it would be increasing taxation on Australian families. I say on behalf of every member of the Liberal and National parties that if, on the night of 13 May, the Treasurer gets up in this Parliament and parades a means test on the dependent spouse rebate as an exercise in reducing expenditure I can promise him that he will be nailed as a big taxer of Australian families. He will be nailed as a person who tries to disguise increases in tax on Australian families as reductions in expenditure. The truth is that in March 1983 when the Fraser-Anthony Government went out of office the average Australian family was paying 17 1/2 per cent tax on its income but in July this year, after the introduction of all of the so-called great tax reforms of the Hawke Government, after the final flowering of the September 1985 package of Treasurer Keating, that average Australian family will be paying a tax equivalent to 20.5 per cent of average weekly earnings. In other words, the average Australian family will be paying something like 20 per cent more in tax than it was paying in March 1983. This Government cannot blame the Fraser Government for that. It cannot blame foreigners for that. It has only itself to blame. I say to members of the Government, on behalf of all members on this side of the House, that between now and the next election they will hear a lot from us on what their policies have done to the living standards of Australian families; they will hear a lot from us about the fact that they cannot blame foreigners or former governments for the inevitable tax consequences of their Government's own policies. It was their Treasurer, their Cabinet and their Government which decided to increase expenditure in the first two Budgets that were brought down. The four Keating Budgets have been the biggest spending budgets in Australia's peacetime history. The Treasurer is the biggest taxing Treasurer, the biggest spending Treasurer and the biggest borrowing Treasurer, and the only Treasurer in Australia's history, peacetime or otherwise, who has managed to squander both our AAA credit ratings. They are the policies that the Government has followed and they are the policies that have produced this catastrophic fall in the living standards of Australian families. At the conclusion of the last sitting of Parliament some three weeks ago, the Opposition raised a matter of public importance which dealt with one of the most inglorious aspects of this Hawke Government, and I produced in this Parliament a document called `Labor's top ten disposable promises'. These represent only the tip of the iceberg. When it comes to broken promises, the present Prime Minister of this country certainly represents an enormous iceberg, and at the tip of that iceberg are the ten most disposable promises of his Government. Virtually every single one of those promises has had dire consequences for Australian families. The one which has done the most damage to average Australian families and which will cost the Government most dearly in electoral terms concerns what the Government has done to the interest rate bills of Australian families living in the suburbs, the provincial cities and the rural areas of this country. Members of every Australian family, no matter where they live or where they vote, by the time of the next election will have echoing in their ears a reminder of the promise that the Prime Minister made in Adelaide in November 1984. He promised that under his policies interest rates would fall through 1985 and 1986. The Prime Minister rejoices in the fact-and I am pleased-that there has been some reduction in certain commercial interest rates, but those reductions are a long way from providing any benefit to average Australian families. Average Australian families are paying $152 a month more for their mortgages than they were paying in December 1984, when the Prime Minister promised to reduce their interest rates. This is one of the most dishonourable examples in recent political history of how a Prime Minister has dishonoured a solemn promise. After having said that interest rates would come down, the Prime Minister, in his inimitable style, went on to say: `We pledge ourselves to bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australian families'. The Government has dishonoured that promise. It is right at the top of the top ten list and is more significant than any other commitment that the Government has made over the past few years. The Government has not only sent the mortgage bills of Australia skyrocketing, but its stupid, insensitive and unwise policies on taxation have had disastrous consequences. The abolition of negative gearing, done in the name of levelling the tall poppies, has had disastrous consequences on the renting poor of the Australian cities. That policy has done more to drive the rental accommodation market in this country to disaster levels than any other policy decision that any government could possibly introduce. But do members opposite have a whit of conscience about that? The Minister for Social Security, the Treasurer and their mates on the front bench get up and say: `Oh well, this was done in the name of stopping tax avoidance'. Do members opposite not understand that if the tax advantages are not available in the rental accommodation market the fast developer and investor will put his investment somewhere else? Do members opposite not understand that? Do they not understand that all they have done with that stupid, ideologically perverted decision is to destroy the rental accommodation market? They have multiplied the rental bills of thousands of low income families in this country. It is the renting poor who suffer when rents go up; it is those at the low income end of the community who suffer most. Even Frank Walker, one of the factional mates of members opposite-he attends meetings of the broad socialist left, along with the Minister, and is one of his soul mates-gets up in the New South Wales Parliament and says time and again that the Hawke Government was wrong to introduce a capital gains tax, that it was wrong to abolish negative gearing, its policies have driven up interest rates and that Keating will rue the day that he followed those policies in his own natural constituency in the suburbs of Australia. However, the Minister for Social Security does not take any notice of that, and he will talk about all the reports that his Department has produced. The Minister will say how much he cares about average Australian families, yet out there in the constituency that members of the Labor Party were always supposed to represent far better than anyone else, many families have been affected. Members opposite are very good at Question Time lecturing the National Party or the Liberal Party about their representation of their constituency, but what have they done for the constituency of the battling Australian families? The Australian Labor Party used to parade itself as the great defender of the little Aussie battler, of those people living in the suburbs of Australia with young families and with one income, and a low income at that, but what has it done? It has left those families in their thousands bereft of hope, bereft of choice, bereft of incentive, and what they will do in return is to leave the Government bereft of electoral support. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.08) —The speech made yesterday by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the speech made today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) were both on the question of family living standards, and both occasions provided some opportunity for the Opposition to state, at least in principle, what the thrust of the Opposition's policies are. However, on both occasions we heard not a single word about the policy direction of the Opposition; not a single thought was offered as to why, after having been in Opposition for four years-after leaving government, with this country in ruins-and having had the opportunity to develop policies, we have not heard clearly enunciated a single Opposition policy in the area of families. Today, the Leader of the Opposition-he did not have time to stay for the remainder of the debate; he has now left the chamber-enunciated a whole list of aspects of life, as he saw it, in Australia under the present Government. However, he offered not a single position or a single idea in terms of in which direction members opposite might go if they were to achieve government. I remind the House of what I said yesterday when I referred to Andrew Hay, a very significant figure in the New Right and a significant figure behind at least the driest elements in the Opposition. He was asked yesterday when the Liberals would release their taxation policy-clearly, quite crucial to the debate about the welfare of families-and outline its significance. He said: `I do believe that the Party will suffer, because if you are going to come up with radical proposals, which in themselves entail very significant future change, then you want to be able to persuade the community of their validity'. That seems to me to be a very reasonable point. If the Opposition has a tax policy, we should not be presented day after day with a litany, a rag bag of comments, most of them without foundation, about living standards at present. We need to hear what it is that members opposite would do. What would honourable members opposite do on taxation policy? What is a single element of their taxation policy that we can be clear about? Are honourable members opposite-the Liberal Party at least-going to go ahead with the concept of a consumption tax? Surely that is a clear enough question. We ought to know the answer to that. We have considered that proposition; we have rejected it. Where does the Liberal Party stand and when will it tell us? What is the Liberal Party's policy in relation to wages and what are the implications for family living standards? In 18 of the last 20 national wage cases honourable members opposite opposed increases and argued for a freeze. The average family would be $100 a week worse off if their policy, put at those wage cases, had in fact been adopted. Is their policy essentially to have a continuing wage freeze? What is their housing policy, to which reference has been made? How would they proceed to resolve the problems associated with high interest rates, which are related essentially to the very difficult economic conditions which this country is going through? How would they address that question of interest rates? Surely they have supported the deregulation of interest rates for new loans. Is it their policy that deregulation should extend across all housing interest rates? What are the implications of that policy for the average family? What do they intend to do with the first home owners scheme, which has helped more than 200,000 young families into their first home? Why is it that the Opposition day in and day out can carp, criticise, squeal and go on about what they do not like about the conditions that exist in this country while never telling us the foundation of their policy? That the Opposition does this is, I think, quite clear in terms of what we heard both yesterday from the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar, and today from the Leader of the Opposition. Another important point that needs to be made about the Opposition relates to its obsession with tax cuts. It knows-as I guess any party in opposition has known, since Federation-that to offer tax cuts is likely to be attractive to the voters. No one likes paying tax. Always people would like to see taxes reduced. A number of commitments and promises have been made by the Opposition on taxes that it would remove. Will the average Australian family be better or worse off if honourable members opposite remove the capital gains tax? Will the average Australian family be better or worse off if honourable members opposite restored tax deductibility for entertainment expenses? Will the average Australian family be better or worse off if honourable members opposite remove the fringe benefits tax, or if they remove the resource rent tax? Of course it will not, because the average Australian family does not pay those taxes. Those taxes produce some degree of progressivity enabling us to fund the various social programs with which this Government has been associated. The Opposition is incredibly divided. There are two parties on the one side, the wets and dries, and on the other side, within the National Party of Australia, there is the Queensland National Party, the lemons, and the rest of the National Party, the oranges, as they were referred to yesterday. So we have the oranges and the lemons and the wets and the dries. There is no coherent policy on the other side of the House. But there is that commitment to reduce taxes. I read from a speech by Senator Peter Baume, who was removed unceremoniously from the shadow Cabinet. He said: It is a sad commentary on the motive power of greed and self-interest that many of those who most criticise cash provision for others through the social welfare systems in Australia are the same people who are to the forefront in advocating the extension of benefits for themselves, payable through the taxation system. What Senator Baume was saying, essentially to people within his own Party, was: `What you are most concerned about is giving money back to your mates'. Honourable members opposite are concerned about making sure that we go back to the terror of taxation as it was under the Fraser and Howard Government, when the fastest growing industry within this country was the tax avoidance industry. Let us not have this rubbish about the circumstances that we inherited from the previous Government. We inherited a situation in which the tax rort had become a celebrated element of Government policy under the Fraser and Howard Government. We inherited a situation in which inflation was running at 11 per cent. We inherited a situation in which unemployment had doubled within 12 months, and in which the Budget deficit looked like being $9 1/2 billion. We inherited a situation in which thousands of young people in young Australian families had been thrown on the scrap-heap by this mob that never committed itself to do anything for anyone who was not part of its own group, network or range of interests. Who in the Australian community will believe that there is any commitment on the part of working class people and people on low incomes to the policies advocated by this group? Was it the Australian Labor Party that during its period of office reduced the payments to the very lowest income families by 60 and 70 per cent, driving pensioner and beneficiary families into poverty? We inherited a situation in which one in every five children in Australia finished up as part of a pensioner or beneficiary family. Does that indicate any sense of compassion, responsibility or social justice? Does anyone believe that the power and the interest groups behind this Opposition-behind John Howard, Ian Sinclair and Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen-have any interest at all in delivering any fairness to the Australian community, in ensuring that in difficult economic circumstances at least a fair wage is paid for a fair day's work and that, whatever else is said about the taxation system, it is at least a bit fair? Does anybody really believe that they are interested in ensuring that people are required to pay their taxes and that we are run on the basis of need and not entirely by greed, as indeed has been advocated by people on the other side of the House? As we see in this national Parliament the greatest crisis in the Liberal Party since Federation-as we see that once great Party, formerly committed to small `1' liberal principles, move further and further towards the extreme Right-surely we will not risk the traditions in this country of rough justice and egalitarianism, of a fair go for families, of a fair go and a leg-up for people trying to make their way into a decent standard of living. Does anyone believe seriously that the white shoe brigade in Queensland is interested in ordinary working people and giving them a fair go? Does anyone believe that the interests associated with Andrew Hay are interested in a fair go for Australian families? After all, they have advocated again and again the abolition of family allowances and of basic income support. Let us not listen to this rubbish about the decline in family allowances under this Government. Let us recall the fact that under the previous Government family allowances declined by 23 per cent. That was the great reform of 1976! Family allowances became worth a quarter less by the time that Government left office in ruin in 1983. That is a reality. I turn to this Government's record. We have spent more than $400m on the very lowest income families. In terms of our priority, we have said that the first step is to attack the problems of child poverty within the Australian community. We have heard nothing today from the Leader of Opposition but a kind of whingeing, griping, carping criticism-nothing constructive. That is why the Australian people do not like John Howard. They have nothing to say for John Howard because John Howard-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister will refer to the honourable member by his title. Mr HOWE —The Australian people have nothing to say for the Leader of the Opposition. It is not because he lacks charisma, although he is not the most charismatic figure. It is because the Leader of the Opposition is not really game to tell the Australian people what he is about. Remember when he was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He was very willing to tell the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) exactly what he should do, but when he got in the hot seat himself he was destroyed by it. Day in and day out we are seeing a man who cannot handle the hot seat, who cannot stand being in the kitchen. He is not able to handle his job. That is the problem. That is why we are seeing this disintegration occurring; it is because there is no leadership. There is no leadership because structurally there are deep divisions. We are not simply talking about personality conflicts. We are talking about something much more serious that is occurring in the Australian community. Once business and industry spoke with a few united voices. Once there was a time when the interests of business and the interests of the Liberal Party of Australia were as one. But this is no longer the case. There are now many voices, many factions and many interests on the other side of the House. We know one thing, and we know it clearly: When thrown together, all of those interests and all of those factions are not interested in a fair deal for Australian families. They are not interested in giving a leg-up to the people who are on pensions and benefits, the people who are unemployed and the sick and the invalids. They are not interested in a fair deal for Australian pensioners. They are interested in maintaining the quality in the distribution of wealth and power in the Australian community. That is why whenever we hear a commitment in relation to tax it is ultimately a commitment to remove those taxes which gives some fairness and some equity to the Australian taxation system, which ensure that the people who have the greatest capacity to pay taxes-the wealthy in the Australian community-meet their responsibilities so that we can do something to ensure maintenance of the real standard of living of people who are reliant on pensions and fringe benefits. When we talk about the average Australian family, we are not only talking about young people. We are also talking about the elderly. We are talking about people who have seen their living standards rise under this Government despite the most difficult economic circumstances. The Leader of the Opposition has returned to the chamber. He was not even interested enough in the debate to remain to hear what I might say in reply to him. That kind of attitude reflects his inability to sustain his leadership. He simply is unable to concentrate on his job. He is unable to do so because of the knives at his back. He cannot be trusted because he does not trust. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.22) —I noted that a large proportion of the speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) was taken up, as we are unfortunately becoming more and more used to in this House, with a personal attack. In this case a personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was sustained during the majority of the Minister's speech. I think this is a measure of the personal standards to which many members of the Government have reduced themselves. Personal attacks do nothing to add to the exchange of views and ideas which should take place in this House. However, they seem to substitute for any rational thought. The Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, made no mention of what he in government was doing. I need to remind him that in fact it is the Government that is responsible for the administration of policies which affect the people of Australia. It is not the Opposition but the Government which has the responsibility to administer those policies. Let me quote back to the Minister what he said at the very end of a speech he made on 17 February this year. He stated: The bottom line is that . . . this Government has delivered a range of measures which have improved the standard of living of the average Australian family . . . That was what was said by the Minister at the table. Only six days later the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) stated in the other place: I cannot give any sort of statistical information on the relative decline in living standards of people with young children and so on. But I can concede that those families are probably worse off, as other sections of the community are probably worse off. The Minister's own colleague, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, was honest enough to say to the people of Australia: `Yes, under the administration of this Labor Government, you are worse off'. The Minister at the table did not say anything about the subject of this matter of public importance until the very end of his speech. He slipped in very quietly-almost sotto voce-the claim that the programs the Government had implemented had made people better off. What a lot of nonsense. He knows, if he is honest with himself-occasionally I have to concede that he is-that in fact people are significantly worse off in this country. He mentioned, for instance, health. He should ask the people who are queuing up to get into hospitals for elective surgery-- Mr Howe —State responsibility. Mr MacKELLAR —State responsibility! The Minister tries to slough off-- Mr Rocher —Why do we have a Minister for Health? Mr MacKELLAR —Exactly. Why do we have the Minister for Health? Why do we have relationships between the Commonwealth and the States which have a very great bearing on what the States can achieve in these areas? The fact of the matter is that people are queuing to get into hospitals in a way which has never before been seen in this country. People are dying before they can get into hospitals simply because of the maladministration in the health area by this Government and its State cohorts. The Minister mentioned his concern for people on benefits. I wonder how many Anzac Day marches and functions the Minister attended. I wonder whether he went to as many as I did. I went to seven and I have no doubt that other members would have done the same. At every function veterans came up to me and asked: `Why can't we get into veterans' hospitals? Why is access being denied to returned diggers who have given their health to the defence and security of this nation? Why can't we get into hospitals? Why is this Government, which alleges that it looks after our particular well-being, making it so difficult for us?'. Pensioners and war widows have come to me and asked: `Why can't we get the pharmaceuticals and the medicines that we used to be able to get?'. That is the sort of real life situation which the Minister and his Government are imposing on the people. The Minister talked about people being better off. He should go and talk to people who have overdrafts. He likes to talk about ordinary Australians. He should go and talk to people who are lucky enough to have an overdraft and see what interest rate they are paying on them. They are paying 19 to 22 per cent. People are also relying on Bankcard. The Bankcard interest rate these days is 22 per cent. That is the sort of real life that the policies of the Minister's Government are imposing on the people of Australia. Let us not talk about these broad areas; let us talk about life as it affects the people living in the real world out in the suburbs of Australia. As the Leader of the Opposition said, people should ask themselves: `Am I better or worse off under this Government? Is my family better or worse off under this Government? Is my business better or worse off under this Government?'. The Minister should talk to the farmers. On a trip through some of the rural areas on the way to Adelaide the other day I found that farmers were literally walking off their properties simply because they cannot service the debts that have been brought about because of the policies of this Government. The Minister should talk to the people in the bush about the high cost of petrol and all the inputs that they need to make their businesses a success. If he is worried about how people are getting on in Australia, he should talk to small businessmen and see how they are getting on servicing their loans with the deliberate high interest rates of his Government. The Minister is responsible, as a member of Cabinet, for making these decisions. He cannot escape that responsibility. He should have a look at the number of bankruptcies that have occurred in recent times. There have been record numbers in the last year under his Government. Yet he tries to tell me and the people of Australia that people are better off. That is simply not true. Whether the Minister likes it or not, he is part of the Government; he is a Cabinet Minister and his policies are the ones which are being administered. Mr Howe —What are your policies? Mr MacKELLAR —The Minister keeps asking: `What are your policies?'. I say to him: `Why don't you accept your responsibilities? Instead of trying to blame everybody else, why don't you accept that you have a responsibility to administer this country in a way-and this is the subject of the matter of public importance before us today-that will give people hope and some incentive for the future?'. I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has advised his Treasurer (Mr Keating) to go to the supermarkets. Indeed, it was very good advice. I wonder when the Treasurer was last at a supermarket. He would probably turn up in his special car with the tinted windows, so that people could not see who was inside, and with the obscure number plates because he would not want to be recognised-and one can understand that. I wonder whether the Treasurer has taken the advice of the Prime Minister and gone to the supermarkets to see what has happened in the real world to the sorts of commodities that people need. I am referring not to large income earning people but to ordinary Australians trying to make a go of it in this Australia of today, administered by this Australian Labor Party Government. How are they getting on trying to pay for the increased costs of groceries-the simple items, not the exotic items? If they are contemplating buying a new car he should ask them why the cost of an ordinary car has risen by 50 per cent under the administration of this Labor Government. Ordinary Australians, not so much interested in politics and not so much interested in the rhetoric, are aware of where the real hardship is starting to bite. Honourable members opposite should ask young people trying to raise the money to buy their own homes and young people setting out on married life trying to rent accommodation what they have to say about their real living standards-whether they are rising enormously or whether their hopes and incentives have been depressed because of the policies of the Government. Mr Howe —Tough times. Mr MacKELLAR —The Minister says: `Tough times'. He shrugs it off. Who is he blaming for the tough times? Does he not have any responsibility for dealing with the tough times, or is it all the fault of Malcolm Fraser's Government four years ago? It is time that the people in government realised and accepted their responsibilities. They are the Government of this nation for the short period that is left to them and whilst they are in government they have to accept the responsibility. They can accept the praise for the good things, but they have also to accept the blame when things go wrong. Everybody knows, and the Minister for Social Security knows deep in his heart, that things have gone badly wrong and that every Australian who seeks to own a home, who seeks proper medical care, who seeks to pay back loans, who seeks to buy a car and who seeks to have the ordinary utilities of life available to him is being disadvantaged by the policies of this Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(3.32) —I am very pleased to follow the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in this debate. Unfortunately, the Opposition has an incredible cheek and this is simply shown by the way it has brought this matter of public importance before the House today. At first glance, it seems incredible that an Opposition which is in such a shambles could have the unmitigated gall to raise a matter of public importance along the lines proposed today. On second thought, however, it is obvious that honourable members opposite have no option but to adopt this tired tactic in order to draw attention away from the hopeless mess that they have created for themselves and among themselves. Today, newspapers and public affairs programs across the country are exposing the divisions within the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, as well as the official division between the two parties themselves. There is no way that Bjelke-Petersen will allow the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) to formulate policy or to remain in control of the National Party members of Parliament in this place. Attempts to put forward a contrary view are no more than a sad sham of the moment, much like the recently destroyed coalition agreement. Nobody really believed that such a farce could survive one day of real life politics. It was cosmetic surgery performed during the parliamentary recess in order to save face for Ian Sinclair and John Howard. The Leader of the Liberal Party, John Howard, will certainly-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Cowan will refer to other members by their titles. Ms JAKOBSEN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Liberal Party will certainly have to watch his back from now on. The sacking of the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) from the shadow Cabinet compounded his previous error in dismissing the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). Power has been restored to the arms of these two members and to Senator Peter Baume as a result of the coalition's demise and a marital dispute within the Liberal Party is now imminent on the equal employment opportunity legislation in the Senate. I remind honourable members in this House that women are also members of families, so raising this matter of the equal employment opportunity legislation is hardly irrelevant to this debate. How can the people of Australia have any idea of what these ineffectual Opposition parties propose to do when the Party leaders do not have a clue themselves and when the Party members do not know who the leaders really are? Contrast the chaos in the Opposition with the stability and the achievement record of the Hawke Labor Government. We are not strutting around arguing amongst ourselves on a vulgar ego trip. We are getting on with the serious task of governing this country in the best interests of all Australians and all Australian families. On all meaningful economic and social indicators, this Government has performed better than the previous Liberal-National Party Government. For instance, our performance on employment creation speaks volumes and is an important consideration, given the terms of the matter of public importance before the House. A job is the single most important factor in determining a family's economic security and sense of optimism and hope for the future. As a direct result of this Government's policies, more than 700,000 unemployed Australians now have jobs. That means that more than 700,000 families are more financially secure and can face their futures with greater confidence. Contrast this positive achievement with the unemployment disaster presided over and caused by the clumsy and insensitive ministrations of the Fraser-Howard clique when it was in power. The National Party need not think that it can divorce itself from responsibility for the unemployment policies of past coalition governments either by hiding behind the imaginary independence bestowed by its recent defection from the coalition. The coalition was alive and well in the black days of the last Liberal Government as National Party hacks were included in the Ministry in responsible portfolios. For those who are inclined to cling to the prospect of a Bjelke-led resurrection of the National Party's power base in this country and an associated political recovery for the conservatives, I caution them to examine carefully the Queensland Premier's record on most social and economic indicators. Beware! His rhetoric is not to be believed. The Queensland economy is in a real mess and an unkind observer might even conjecture that the Bjelke-Petersen push for Canberra has been masterminded by ambitious young, or not so young, National Party turks who are trying to rid themselves of the dead hand of the Ayatollah on the Queensland purse strings and the political power base. That remains to be seen, but Sir Joh may well find himself out in the cold politically in the very near future if the so-called white shoe brigade has machiavellian leanings and a hidden agenda of the type alluded to. The Hawke Government is the most caring and compassionate government that Australia has seen for many years. This Government's economic policies have placed Australia on a secure footing in the face of the commodities price reduction which impacted so drastically on our export earnings. The devaluation of the Australian dollar has ensured that our primary and secondary industries can now be more competitive on the world market. The necessary process of reconstruction of Australian industry has commenced and private enterprise businesses are its primary beneficiaries. Although the Government has had to take some tough decisions and ask the Australian people to share the burden of restraint imposed by the terms of trade downturn, it has not singled out the poor and the needy or the average Australian family. Statistics can lie. The bleatings of the Leader of the Liberal Party over the alleged plight of families and home buyers ring hollow in the face of his actions when he was Treasurer. Many home buyers are protected by the 13 1/2 per cent ceiling on their interest rate repayments. The Opposition had advocated the removal of this ceiling. Where would that leave the home buyers? They would be out in the cold. Other home buyers are paying quite high interest rates on their home purchases but they feel secure in their jobs. They are not facing a wages freeze as advocated by the Opposition. Their children still have access to free secondary and tertiary education and their families are protected from crippling health bills by the universal buffer of Medicare. The first home owners scheme has recently been revised by the Government to make it more accessible to ordinary Australian families. For the first time its eligibility criteria will recognise children in a family and temper the income test accordingly. This Government also has a proud record in the area of child care. We have done more for child care than all previous governments since Federation. Mr Dawkins —Put together. Ms JAKOBSEN —Put together, as the Minister for Trade says. We recognise the importance of child care for the social development of children and the needs of women and families. By June 1988 this Government will have established over 60,000 new child care places, taking the total number to some 106,000 or 152 per cent more than were available when the Hawke Government first came to office. As a result of our initiatives, an additional 85,000 children now have access to government-funded child care services. Let me draw the comparison once more between this Government and the previous Government. In the last year of the Fraser Government only $65m was spent on child care. In 1985-86 our Government allocated $165m on children's services and has set aside some $195m for child care in this financial year. In 1983, when the Hawke Government was elected, child care was available to only 4 per cent of Australian children but by 1988, as I said earlier, some 16 per cent of children whose parents work will have access to child care as a consequence of the dramatic expansion of these facilities under this Government. The Hawke Government cares about families and their welfare in every possible way. We care about jobs, health, education and access to housing. Australians know that the Labor Government cares for them and the Opposition's trivial attempts to discredit our achievements are fruitless. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(3.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 provides grants to the States and the Northern Territory for financial assistance to universities, colleges of advanced education, institutes of tertiary education and for technical and further education for the 1985-87 triennium. The purpose of this Bill is to adjust and supplement for cost increases these grants in accordance with the Government's agreed procedures. The supplementation takes account of the recent national wage decision for all but the university academics who are currently seeking an amendment to their award with the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Provision to cover changes resulting from this will be included in the next round of legislation. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $78,281,000. I commend the Bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(3.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984 to supplement grants to government and non- government schools in the States and the Northern Territory, in line with the Government's policy of providing retrospective cost supplementation for the Commonwealth's program for schools. This Bill also reflects the Government's decision to streamline the distribution of capital grants for non-government schools from 1988 through allocation as a block grant for distribution by approved block grant authorities. It is expected that in most States, Catholic schools will form one block authority and most other non-government schools a second authority. Non-government schools not electing to join an authority will still be able to apply directly to the Commonwealth for capital grants. This Bill also implements the Government's decision that full fee paying private overseas secondary students will not be eligible for general recurrent grants. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $18m in 1987 and $9m in 1988. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(3.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983 to supplement for cost increases the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the participation and equity program in 1987. The Bill provides new schedules for 1987 showing the allocation of funds to the States and the Northern Territory in the education sectors. The cost supplementation proposed is in accord with the Government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost supplementation for this program. The adjustments are consistent with those being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bills which I have just introduced. The financial impact of this Bill will be to provide an additional $1,097,000 in 1987. Total provision for the participation and equity program is $45,819,000 in 1987. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(3.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942 in order to repeal the thirty-year-old two-station rule governing the ownership of commercial television and replace it with firstly, a 75 per cent reach rule which will allow persons to hold prescribed interests in any number of commercial television licences so long as the combined population of their service areas does not exceed 75 per cent of the Australian population; and, secondly, limits on cross- ownership between television and newspapers; and television and radio within the service area of the related commercial television licence. The Bill includes other provisions which maintain the two-station rule for persons who hold prescribed interests in commercial television licences utilising multi-channel service-(MCS)-permits in regional areas specified as approved markets pursuant to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1987, the equalisation Bill. That Bill has, I regret to say, just been rejected in the other House. That does not mean, however, that the Bill needs amendment. It just means that those clauses which are dependent upon clauses of the equalisation Bill will remain passive until such time as the equalisation Bill is passed. It is the Government's firm intention to introduce the Bill again to give effect to its equalisation policy. Equalisation is complementary to the ownership and control changes included in the Bill currently before this House. The Government does not intend to sit back and let the viewing public of Australia, and the viewing public of regional areas in particular, suffer a poorer level of service-a poorer level of service maintained by legislation which will keep smaller monopolistic markets. Such a regional market structure can only inhibit the growth of Australia's television industry to maturity. It is surprising-might I say curious-that those opposite-those who purport to advocate free enterprise-can, in relation to the television broadcasting industry, adopt such a protectionist and monopolistic attitude. Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987 There is to be no provision in the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987 which will require forced divestiture of interests legally acquired under different rules on or before 27 November 1986-the date of my announcement of the Government's intention to introduce the new ownership and control limits provided for in this Bill. The Bill therefore includes provisions to `grandfather' interests acquired on or before 27 November 1986 which would otherwise have contravened the new cross-media rules. The Bill also provides for other consequential amendments to the licensing, share transaction and directorship limit provisions. The provisions of this Bill together with a further Bill to put in place the Government's equalisation policy are part of a package designed to put in place the Government's policy objectives of a restructured, mature television broadcasting industry. There is, at present, a fundamental structural imbalance in Australian television. The imbalance is between metropolitan and regional television. It arises from a regulatory regime which has outlived its usefulness and is now counter-productive. This inequitable situation is quite unnecessary. The imbalance has been brought about by the two-station rule. This effect has been exacerbated by the current regional television market structure of comparatively small monopolistic markets which are unlikely to be able to facilitate, let alone encourage, new ownership groups able to take a significant role in program decision making. Are we to condemn Australian viewers to the strait-jacket of the current imbalance-a system with little room for growth-or are we going to give broadcasting sufficient elbow room to prosper and mature? The proposed 75 per cent reach rule will allow structural changes to take place and so encourage ownership by new groups able to take a role in program decision making, and thereby enhance competition in program commissioning and distribution; and encourage greater investment in the television industry. Networking-that is, the central production and/or acquisition of programs for distribution to affiliated stations-has its role to play. Networking has been part of metropolitan television from the early days. There has also been a considerable amount of de facto networking in the regional areas. It is the Government's belief that this Bill and the complementary equalisation Bill, when reintroduced, will promote a trend to more balanced and competitive networking arrangements in this country. This will facilitate an evolution towards a greater number of competitive television organisations to the benefit of all Australia. Honourable members will recall that the policy issues associated with this Bill have been the subject of considerable public debate. In 1984, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, in its satellite program services report, drew attention to the lack of opportunities for new television enterprises, and for expansion of television licensee companies based outside Sydney and Melbourne. The ABT, as is well known by now, identified structural imbalance in the system caused by the television licensees based in these two largest metropolitan areas dominating the program purchasing and distribution arrangements. This in turn was seen as a function of their greater financial resources arising from the size of the market served by the licence. In its 1982 cable report, the ABT had previously identified the inequity in the operation of the two-station rule which treated all licences alike-regardless of the population served. Because the rule ignored variations in market size, a licence in Mount Isa or Broken Hill had the same weight as one in Sydney or Melbourne. The rule consequently took no account of the real financial strength of licensees or their power within the system. My Department's 1985 report, Future Directions for Commercial Television, analysed these structural problems arising from the present ownership or control rules for commercial television and concluded that what was needed was rules which allowed for the expansion and growth of commercial television interests outside Sydney and Melbourne. The findings of the report pointed to the need for a review of the heart of the system-the two-station rule-with the object of achieving a more open-textured framework for regulation of ownership or control-one which takes full account of the economic realities of commercial television in the 1980's; includes a clear statement of policy intent; takes account of the size of commercial television markets; provides opportunities for growth for commercial television interests outside Sydney and Melbourne; avoids the detailed, costly and complex regulatory processes of the current scheme and takes account of the Government's general deregulatory stance; and is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the introduction of new technologies. Subsequently, on 28 August 1985, I announced that my Department would undertake a full scale study of the ownership and control rules for commercial television. That report, `Ownership and Control of Commercial Television: Further Policy Directions', was tabled in Parliament on 22 August 1986. Its findings suggest that the current rules are no longer adequate and badly need updating; that despite the complex net of interrelated provisions there are fundamental flaws in the current system of ownership and control regulation. In particular, the report suggested that one approach to correcting the inequity of the two-station rule could be to allow persons to hold interests in any number of licences so long as the population served did not exceed a specified maximum limit, expressed as a percentage of the total Australian population. Another major defect in the current regulation, as my Department's report identified, is that the Broadcasting Act 1942-the Act-contains no cross-media ownership rules. The Government addressed these two major defects last November. Announcing the new television ownership policy on 27 November 1986, I stated that under the new rules, the effect would be to limit the reach of any one television licensee, or substantial investment, to 75 per cent of the Australian population. Also it is the Government's intention that licensees will face competition in their markets. They do so at present in metropolitan markets and, under the Government's equalisation program, which remains this Government's policy, they will in regional markets also. The extension of the one-to-a-market rule to regional areas will occur. While that restriction formed part of the equalisation Bill, it is seen as an essential complementary provision to the new rules to be put in place by this Bill. The delay to the one-to-a-market rule caused by the rejection of the equalisation Bill in the other House will not be allowed to affect the eventual outcome of the application of these rules as a package. The Government is particularly concerned to inhibit the perpetuation of existing monopolies. The existing regulatory regime for television is protectionist. It limits the provision of additional services, and it limits investment opportunities. The Government wishes to remove these protectionist, monopolistic bulwarks of a bygone era. If competition is to be enhanced, an essential part of the reform program is to limit cross-media ownership, that is, the common ownership of television-newspaper and television-radio interests within television services areas. Cross-media ownership has a long history in this country going back to the 1920s when newspaper interests decided to become involved in the new broadcasting industry. It is of concern because it can limit public access to diversity of opinion, information, news and commentary. It can inhibit competition, produce monopolies, and affect employment opportunities. For these reasons, the Government has decided to regulate cross-ownership of the media within television markets in order to facilitate better access by the public to diverse sources of news and information. The present Bill accordingly prohibits the cross-ownership of commercial television and relevant newspapers or commercial television and commercial radio which has a monopoly anywhere in the related commercial television service area. Persons who hold prescribed interests in a relevant newspaper and/or a monopoly commercial radio licence will not be able to continue to hold a prescribed interest in the associated commercial television licence-subject to the grandfathering provisions already mentioned. On 22 January 1987 I confirmed the Government's intention to introduce this Bill in these sittings and foreshadowed a later Bill to address the supporting provisions and administrative arrangements. The present Bill interweaves the new 75 per cent reach rule and the cross-media ownership rules into the existing structure of the Broadcasting Act 1942. There is a need to review the procedural and administrative provisions supporting the ownership and control rules in the Act with the objective of making them more efficient, effective and understandable. I have accordingly asked my Department to review these provisions of the Act with a view to having a further Bill introduced in the next sittings. The 75 per cent Reach Rule The Bill provides for an amendment to paragraph 92 (1) (a) of the Act to repeal the current limitation which prevents a person from holding a prescribed interest in more than two commercial television licences throughout Australia. This is known as the `two-station rule'. Clause 22 of the Bill replaces this rule with a provision which will allow persons to hold prescribed interests in any number of commercial television licences so long as the combined population of their service areas does not exceed 75 per cent of the Australian population. The Bill will, however, provide for one exception to the new 75 per cent reach rule. The two-station rule will be retained for persons holding prescribed interests in commercial television licences using multi-channel service-MCS-permits in approved markets which will be provided for in the reintroduced equalisation Bill. Such persons will be prevented from benefiting from the relaxed ownership rule. In essence, this is an incentive to encourage the move to aggregation on a competitive basis. Honourable members should note, however, that interests acquired by persons in MCS permit holders outside of approved markets will be grandfathered, that is exempted, from application of the two-station rule. This is to cover the situation where the area served by an MCS permit is outside an approved market and where a new approved market is subsequently specified which encompasses the service area of that MCS permit. The proposed amendments will permit major adjustments in the structure of the commercial television industry. Although some television groups have the financial capacity to expand into program production activities, the existing structure has limited their ability to obtain outlets for their product. The 75 per cent reach rule will encourage the growth of new ownership groups able to make a substantial contribution to program making, acquisition and distribution. The consumer will benefit from the provision of more services and more sources of news and commentary. A key reason for consolidating television licences into ownership groups with wide population reach is the economies of scale associated with buying programs for distribution to multiple outlets. Another is the ability to offer advertisers a mass market in a number of cities. In the longer term the proposed amendments should produce a more balanced commercial television industry less reliant on Sydney-Melbourne based interests for their programming. Television is a capital-intensive industry. A proliferation of small owners, cut off from expansion capital, inhibits the development of services. There are presently 15 capital city commercial television licences. There are 36 regional licences, each in a monopoly market. Entry into the commercial television industry is limited by the licensing process. Under the 75 per cent reach rule it is likely that some existing small owners will be brought out. The industry may eventually shake out into a smaller number, possibly five or six, stronger ownership groups able to operate competitive services. Administration Administration of the new national limit on television ownership requires provisions to take account of measurement of the population in: (i) Australia as a whole; (ii) the service area of each commercial television licence; and in (iii) the area of overlap between service areas. Accordingly, the Bill includes provisions to the effect that measurement of the Australian population will be determined on the basis of the most recently available census count as published by the Australian Statistician. The Minister for Communications is required to publish the figures in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. Similarly, the population figures and the relevant percentage population figures for the service areas of each commercial television licence will be gazetted as soon as practicable after publication by the Australian Statistician of the results of a census count. When a service area is varied or a new licence granted the population figures for the new area will be gazetted. The gazettals will include the percentage of population in any area of overlap for the purpose of administering the 75 per cent reach rule. Service areas can, and do, overlap. The area of overlap can be readily identified by reference to the statistical collection districts contained within it. For the purpose of determining whether a person has breached the 75 per cent reach rule, the area of overlap will only be counted once. On the other hand, the whole of the population within the relevant service area will be taken into account in assessing the population reached by a person who has a prescribed interest in only one of those television licences. Cross-media Ownership Cross-media ownership rules are an integral part of this legislative package. The Government considers it critical that such rules be introduced in tandem with the 75 per cent reach rule in order to curb a major expansion in television by existing newspaper or radio interests which already have considerable influence over the formation of public opinion. Raising the national ownership limit without placing limits on cross-media ownership would produce an unacceptable level of media concentration in local television service areas. Cross-media ownership rules have therefore been introduced in order to: (a) Support competition policy; (b) discourage concentration of media ownership in local markets; (c) enhance public access to a diversity of viewpoints, sources of news, information and commentary. The cross-media ownership rules will provide safeguards for the future. The sources of news and information in each local market will not be able to become concentrated in the hands of one owner. As I foreshadowed on 27 November 1986, the Bill therefore includes provisions to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942 in order to prohibit a person holding a prescribed interest in a commercial television licence from also: (a) Holding a prescribed interest in a relevant newspaper, 50 per cent of whose circulation is in the service area of the associated commercial television licence; or (b) holding a prescribed interest in a commercial radio licence which has a monopoly anywhere in the service area of the television licence concerned. Cross-ownership interests held on 27 November 1986 which would be in conflict with the new rules will be grandfathered. However, pre-existing interests will be exempted only as long as they are not increased. An increase in an existing interest after 27 November 1986 would cause the grandfathering to cease to apply. Consistent with previous amendments to the Act, an increase by way of a bonus share issue and the like would not invalidate the grandfathering as long as the issue was common to all other persons holding shares of that class. `Monopoly' Commercial Radio The Bill provides that the prohibition on the holding of cross television-radio interests will be triggered when there is an area of overlap between the service areas of the radio and television licences concerned and the service areas of other commercial radio licences do not, either alone or in combination, completely cover the area of overlap in question. Where a person has a prescribed interest in each of two or more commercial radio licences the service areas of which have a common overlap within the service area of the related television licence, this will be treated as a monopoly within the ambit of the cross-media rules. Associated Newspapers For the purpose of the limits on holding cross-media interests, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will be required to maintain an associated newspaper register of newspapers that are published in English; sold as newspapers; published four or more days per week; and have 50 per cent or more of their circulation in the service area of the associated commercial television licence. The register is to be updated quarterly and will be available for public inspection. The Bill also provides for the publication by the Tribunal in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of those newspapers which are to be taken as associated with the service areas of commercial television licences as at 27 November 1986. This will provide a certain basis for determining whether a person is grandfathered under the new cross-media rules. Honourable members will note that clause 18 (j) of the Bill provides that ostensibly `separate' newspapers will be treated as part of the same publication if it is reasonable to conclude that this is the case having regard to the ownership, editorial control and style of those newspapers. Prescribed Interests in Newspapers The Bill includes detailed provisions to take account of prescribed interests in newspapers. A person has a prescribed interest in a newspaper if he or she: (a) is the publisher of the newspaper; (b) is in a position to exercise control either directly or indirectly, of the newspaper; or (c) where the newspaper is published by a company (i) is in a position to exercise control of more than 15 per cent of votes that could be cast on a poll; or (ii) is the holder of more than 15 per cent of the paid up capital of the company. Other provisions define when a person is deemed to be in a position to control a newspaper. They follow the existing provisions in the Act in relation to commercial radio, adapted to cover the situation where a newspaper publisher may be a natural person, a member of a partnership, or a joint venturer. Enforcement For the purpose of enforcement of the new 75 per cent reach rule and the cross-media rules, contraventions of these new provisions will be treated in the same way as the Act treats contraventions of the existing two-station rule. Persons contravening the new ownership and control limits will have a minimum six months period of grace, or longer with Tribunal approval, to dispose of excess interests. I am confident that the Tribunal will take all reasonable measures to expedite its inquiries into the important media transactions which have already occurred since the date of my announcement on 27 November 1986. A person holding a prescribed interest in a commercial television licence will be required to notify the Tribunal within 28 days of the acquisition of a prescribed interest in an associated newspaper. Persons who have acquired cross-media interests between the 27 November 1986 and commencement of this legislation will be deemed to have contravened the Act from the date of commencement. Consequential Amendments to Licensing and Directorship Limits The Bill also provides for consequential amendments to licence grant, renewal and transfer provisions in order to take account of the cross-media limits. Consequential amendments have been made to the directorship limits in section 92c to bring them into line with the 75 per cent reach rule. However, the present limit on directorships under 92c is retained for persons who are directors of companies in a position to control a licence utilising an MCS permit in an approved market. This is consistent with retention of the two-station rule for persons who hold interests in licences utilising MCS permits. New section 92fad incorporates directorship limits for cross-media ownership. The Bill provides that a person who is a director of a company in a position to control a commercial television licence may also not be a director of a company in a position to control an associated newspaper or a `monopoly' commercial radio licence in the same television service area. Since some persons may have contravened the cross-media directorship limits since 27 November 1986, the Bill provides for a six months period of grace, starting from the commencement date of this legislation for persons to take the necessary action to cause these contraventions to cease. I want to include, at this point, a clear warning to licensee companies or associated interests about the strength of the Government's resolve to enforce these new arrangements. I believe I made it abundantly clear as to the arrangements which the Government seeks to apply with effect from 27 November 1986 when I first announced the proposals. Over the last few months some clever corporate schemes have been devised which, it is suggested, could be used in an attempt to frustrate the intent of the ownership and control provisions in the Act. If there is any attempt to try to circumvent the clear intent of these new provisions, through an artificial avoidance scheme, the Government will consider the introduction of retrospective legislation. Financial Impact Administration of the new rules will entail some extra work load for both the Department of Communications and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It will be necessary for the Department to arrange for gazettal notices of service area populations and percentage of population figures for all commercial television licences and variations to these notices from time to time as appropriate. The ABT will also need to maintain up to date data on associated newspapers for the purpose of administering the cross-media rules. It is also expected that the ABT will be involved in additional share transaction inquiries arising from the new rules. Conclusion This legislative package will provide the basis for the first real reform of the ownership or control rules in more than 20 years. It addresses the problems covered by concentration of ownership at both the national and local level; it provides for the emergence of competitive interests; it restructures the traditional relationship in the media industry and exposes them to market forces. This legislation is essential in removing the barriers to competition which have long deprived the public of additional services. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 which is now before the House contains a wide variety of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Two clauses in the Bill contain actual amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 but the main amendments are contained in the Bill's 12 Schedules. Schedule 1 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 April 1986, provides for changes in the duty treatment of certain goods of New Zealand origin. The operative date of this Schedule was selected to give the maximum period available, under customs regulations, for the payment of refunds of customs duty on the goods involved. Agreement has been reached between the Australian and New Zealand governments that child safety and booster seats used in motor vehicles are not covered by the provisions of the furniture arrangement or the interim arrangement on motor vehicles under the Australia New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement. Accordingly, such seats should have been subject to the normal liberalisation provisions of Article 4 of the agreement. The applicable 10 per cent tariff should therefore have commenced phasing from 1 January 1983 and have been removed on and from 1 January 1984. The relevant change in this Schedule totally removes the duty. The current 5 per cent duty on ball point pens and parts therefor of New Zealand origin is also being removed. This change follows consultation under ANZCERTA to provide liberalised arrangements for these goods. Schedule 2 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 October 1986, contains a number of changes associated with the Government's sectoral policy for passenger motor vehicles. This Schedule extends the validity period for 1986 base quota for motor vehicles by two months to 31 March 1987 while the validity period for all new motor vehicle quotas is being extended to 18 months. The 18-month period for new motor vehicle quotas permits three months anticipation before the calendar year and a three month carryover after the conclusion of that year. The 1987 single period tender scheme commenced on 1 October 1986. As the successful tender premium rate was zero, the general tariff rate to apply is 57.5 per cent-the base quota rate. The 1987 multiple period tender scheme operates for each of four periods of 18 months commencing on 1 October in each of the years 1986 to 1989 inclusive. Vehicles imported in each of these quota periods will attract a general tariff rate of 60.5 per cent, three percentage points higher than the base quota rate. The final change in this schedule involves the rate of duty to apply to under-quota imports of passenger motor vehicles qualifying for developing country preference. In accordance with the principles of the revised Australian system of tariff preferences for imports from developing countries which formed part of the Customs Tariff Amendment Act 1986, all new quotas are to have a margin of preference of five percentage points. This is a change from the 7.5 percentage points applying to quotas in existence at the time of implementation of the revised developing countries preference scheme. Schedules 3, 7, 9 and 12 to the Bill, operative on and from 16 October 1986, 17 January, 14 February and 14 March 1987 respectively, alter the rates of customs duty applicable to certain refined petroleum products. In each instance the customs tariff rates are varied in line with changes to the rates of excise duty applicable to equivalent locally produced goods. Schedule 4 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 November 1986, contains the first steps in the implementation of the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the chemicals and plastics industries. Duty free entry is provided for fertiliser grade phosphoric acid. This will enable Australian manufacturers to increase their output of high analysis phosphatic fertilisers in response to the changes in subsidy arrangements announced in the Budget, and to maintain supply to farmers at competitive prices. In addition, an item is inserted into the concessional Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act to enable the issue of a policy by-law to permit the importation of high density polyethylene resin for use in the extrusion of film for bag production, at a general tariff rate of 20 per cent. This by-law is necessary because of a serious shortfall in the production of this resin in Australia. In the absence of the by-law, high density polyethylene bag manufacturers would have had to pay a general tariff rate of 45 per cent until the end of January 1987 and then pay a rate of 25 per cent until the end of December 1987. This would cause serious disruption to employment and investment in the industry. The by-law will only be necessary until the end of December 1987 as on and from 1 January 1988 the general tariff rate for the relevant provision in schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act will become 20 per cent. I will provide greater detail on the new assistance arrangements for the chemicals and plastics industries when I come to schedule 8 to the Bill. Schedule 5 to the Bill, operative on and from 17 December 1986, implements the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's interim report on citrus fruit. The Government has decided to re-introduce the rates of duty which applied to citrus fruit juices of tariff sub-item 20.07.2 in Schedule 3 to the principal Act, prior to 10 December 1986, until 9 December 1987. The rates will then phase down on and from 10 December 1987. The Industries Assistance Commission's final report on the fresh fruit and fruit products industries is due in early 1988. Schedule 6 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 January 1987, contains a variety of amendments. The first set of amendments provides for the phased reduction of duty to free on certain rubber goods of New Zealand origin. This action follows mutual determination by Australia and New Zealand under the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement. This Schedule also implements a decision taken in the context of the Government's consideration of the post-1988 assistance arrangements for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. The general tariff rate of 25 per cent on knitted fabrics laminated with expanded or foam rubber is reduced to 2 per cent. A series of amendments made in the context of the current textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy is also included. These cover variations to the developing country exclusions from preference which are made annually; the insertion of the 1987 tender quota rates of duty following the settlement of the relevant premium tender quota rates; the extension of the validity of the 1986 quota allocations; the phased duty reductions in certain items for goods of New Zealand origin which are made in accordance with article 5 of ANZCERTA; and changes providing special provisions in relation to footwear from New Zealand and hand-made footwear from developing countries to avoid large variations in duty rates which could occur because of currency fluctuations. Amendments of Schedule 3 and Part II of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act regarding passionfruit products also form part of this Schedule. These changes complete the implementation of the new forum island countries preference scheme which came into operation for all other goods on 1 July 1986. The final amendments in this schedule cover phasing arrangements under article 4 of ANZCERTA and the deletion of redundant phasing rates in Schedule 3 and Part I of Schedule 4 to the principal Act. Schedule 8 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 February 1987, commences the implementation of the main part of the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the chemicals and plastics industries. The amendment in clause 4 of the Bill is consequential on a change in this schedule. Schedule 8 provides the first step in the phasing-in of the long term rates to apply to the chemicals and plastics industries. Most general tariff rates above 25 per cent fall to 25 per cent. Rates on certain basic chemicals are, however, reduced in the first phase to 20 per cent. Also included in this schedule are new provisions in the Customs Tariff Act to enable the implementation of policy by-laws: To permit the duty free importation of caustic soda for use in the production of alumina and for use in the processing of specified rare earth compounds and metals; and to continue the duty free entry of certain films and plates used in educational, religious and related activities. The final change in this schedule is the amendment of the definition of refined glycerol. Mr Blunt —What vintage? Mr BARRY JONES —I bet that this has not been considered by any of the Opposition parties. In its decision on new assistance arrangements for the chemicals and plastics industries, the Government accepted the Industries Assistance Commission's major recommendation that a maximum long term tariff rate of 15 per cent be implemented. This and the related tariff changes contained in these arrangements will be phased in over three to five years. In reaching its decision, the Government recognised that Australia's chemicals and plastics industries have recorded a relatively strong economic performance over many years. This decision should encourage the establishment or expansion of efficient manufacturing facilities and of higher value-adding activities in Australia, thus providing the opportunity for our chemicals and plastics industries to become successful competitors in the international market place. If there was one significant thread running through the evidence gathered during the inquiry into these industries, it was the general acceptance of the need for change. The combination of the new assistance arrangements and the recognition of the changes necessary to achieve and sustain growth should underpin the process of restructuring and provide a sound environment for new investment. Schedule 9 to the Bill, operative on and from 14 February 1987, contains a change to implement the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on electric lamps. The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendation that all electric lamps and parts therefore under reference be dutiable at a general tariff rate of 15 per cent. Schedule 10 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 March 1987, implements two tariff changes on which decisions were taken in the context of the Government's decision on the textiles, clothing and footwear industries post-1988 assistance arrangements. The general tariff rate on knitted towelling and knitted towels increases from 35 per cent to 60 per cent while the general tariff rate for interior textile blinds increases from 2 per cent to 25 per cent. These changes are being made to remove anomalies which permit the goods involved to be entered at rates lower than those applying to substitute products. These changes were deferred from their earlier operative date of 1 January 1987 in order not to penalise importers who were irrevocably committed to overseas purchases or who had goods `on the water'. Schedule 11 to the Bill, operative on and from 10 March 1987, implements the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the power electronics industry. The Government has decided on a uniform general tariff rate of 20 per cent for most power electronic goods under reference. Static converters, rectifiers and rectifying apparatus become dutiable at a general tariff rate of 25 per cent for one year and then phase to the long term rate of 20 per cent. All programmable controllers become free of duty and subject to bounty assistance. The Government has decided not to change the tariff rates on electro-mechanical relays and switch gear as it believes that these goods are not ordinarily considered to form part of the power electronics industry. The 20 per cent rate for the power electronic goods industry aligns its assistance arrangements with those of other electronics-based activities, particularly the communications industry. The last amendment in the Bill is contained in clause 3. This amendment merely corrects a drafting error which was contained in the Customs Tariff Amendment Act (No. 3) 1986. Financial Impact The decreases in refined petroleum product excise and customs duty rates effective from 16 October 1986, 17 January and 14 February 1987 are expected to result in decreases in revenue of about $85m, $5m and $176m respectively in 1986-87. The increase effective from 14 March 1987 is expected to result in an increase in revenue of about $30m in 1986-87. These changes exactly offset the changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty. It is very difficult to quantify the financial consequences of a decision as complex as the one on the chemicals and plastics industries. Nevertheless, it is likely that as the new tariff rates are phased down the loss of revenue, assuming unchanged import levels, will be of the order of $35m to $45m a year. Part of this loss of revenue is likely to be compensated for over the longer term through growth taking place within the industries. The Government's decision on electric lamps is likely to increase revenue by approximately $3m in a full year. This increase takes into account a reduction in revenue of about $0.5m caused by the lower general tariff rate of 15 per cent on fluorescent lamps. The net impact of the power electronics industry decision is expected to be an increase in revenue in the order of $10m in a full year. This additional revenue is largely attributable to the new general tariff rate of 20 per cent on goods such as variable speed drives which were previously duty free. It is estimated that the direct financial impact of the decision on citrus fruit juices will be an addition to government revenue totalling approximately $235,000 during 1987. The reduction in duty on knitted fabrics laminated with expanded or foam rubber will result in a loss of revenue of the order of $0.7m in a full year. The changes on knitted towels and towelling and textile blinds will result in increases of approximately $1.3m and $1.5m respectively in a full year. The duty reductions for rubber goods, child booster and safety seats and writing implements of New Zealand origin are expected to be modest. There is expected to be minimal financial impact caused by the other amendments in the Bill. A summary of amendments for each schedule to the Bill has been prepared and copies are available from the Tables Office. I table the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill proposes amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to incorporate into that Act all excise tariff proposals tabled in this Parliament as at 1 April 1987. The majority of the amendments at clauses 5 to 11 of the Bill involve alterations that have occurred since 1 October 1986 to the excise duty on certain refined petroleum products and naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas. The alterations to the excise on petroleum products have been made as a consequence of the policy since 1 March 1986 of fully offsetting changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty by corresponding across the board changes in excise duty on petroleum products. The net result is that, as crude oil prices change, Government revenues remain the same overall and petrol price changes are kept to a minimum. Consistent with this policy, the proposals in this Bill reflect that on 1 October 1986, 1 January 1987 and 1 February 1987 the import parity prices of indigenous crude oils were increased in line with upward movements in world oil prices and changes in the Australian exchange rate. Corresponding reductions to the excise rates on refined petroleum products were subsequently made with effect from 16 October 1986, 17 January 1987 and 14 February 1987 respectively. On 1 March 1987 the import parity price of indigenous crude oil was decreased in line with a downward movement in world oil prices and an increase in the Australian exchange rate. Corresponding increases to the excise rates on refined petroleum products were made with effect from 14 March 1987. I should mention that customs duties are also levied on imports of most petroleum products at a rate equivalent to the rate of excise levied on the same products. The alterations to the excise on naturally occurring LPG at clauses 5, 7 and 11 of the Bill are made in conformity with the Government's LPG excise policy which provides for the excise rate on LPG to be calculated on the basis of 60 per cent of the amount by which the average realised wholesale price for naturally occurring LPG exceeds $147 per tonne. Other excise alterations at clauses 3 and 4 respectively of the Bill involve a reduction in the top marginal rate of excise on old oil and the introduction of a mechanism to permit the collection of a duty differential on certain manufactured goods. The top marginal rate of excise on old oil was reduced on 1 August 1986 from 87 per cent to 80 per cent of the Bass Strait import parity price. This reduction was made at that time to offset a substantial decline in world crude oil prices which had severe ramifications for the cash flow and financial viability of all Australian crude oil producers. When reducing the top marginal rate we indicated that the position would be reviewed if world oil prices recovered to $20 per barrel. The price has in fact recovered beyond this level but we have decided to leave the arrangements in place for the time being, pending the outcome of a major examination of the revenue measures applying to the oil industry generally. We expect to make an appropriate announcement on this matter shortly. The only other proposal in this Bill is the mechanism to collect a duty differential on certain manufactured goods. Under section 24 of the Excise Act permission may be given for the use of imported goods upon which duties of customs have not been paid to be used in the manufacture of excisable goods. For example, it is common for imported tobacco to be used in a blend with Australian tobacco in the manufacture of cigarettes. If the rate of customs duty that would have been payable on the imported product exceeds the rate of excise duty payable on the mixed goods, as is sometimes the case, it is our not unreasonable policy-in fact one may go even further and say it is our reasonable policy-to collect the duties of excise on the mixed goods plus an amount of duty on the imported component equal to the difference between the rate of customs that would have been payable on the imported component and the rate of excise duty on the mixed goods. The provisions of clause 4 of the Bill propose to implement this policy. Financial Impact Statement The decreases in refined petroleum product excise rates effective from 16 October 1986, 17 January 1987 and 14 February 1987 are expected to result in decreases in revenue of about $85m, $5m and $176m respectively in 1986-87. That is consistent with what I said in my second reading speech on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987. The increase in refined petroleum product excise rates effective from 14 March 1987 is expected to result in an increase in revenue of about $30m in 1986-87. As I mentioned earlier, these changes are expected to offset the changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty. The alterations to the LPG excise at clauses 5, 7, and 11 of the Bill are expected to result in a net reduction in revenue of about $50m in 1986-87. At the time of our announcement in July 1986, the reduction in the top marginal rate of excise on old oil to 80 per cent was expected to reduce excise revenues by approximately $67m in 1986-87. However, we were confident that this reduction would be outweighed by net revenue gains flowing from increased production and a resumption of exports of crude oil from Bass Strait. This confidence has proven to be well founded. Exports of Bass Strait crude oil resumed in August 1986 and to date have exceeded 25 million barrels. These exports have contributed more than $300m by way of excise revenues and more than $500m to our balance of payments, a very important contribution at a critical time. Finally, collection of duty differentials pursuant to clause 4 are estimated to be in the vicinity of $200,000 in a full year. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.36) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987 proposes amendments to the provisions governing the valuation of imported goods in the Customs Act 1901. Those provisions are designed to give effect to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Valuation Code, to which Australia is a signatory. The measures in this Bill are the first stage of the Government's two-pronged legislative attack against certain avoidance and minimisation practices used by importers in valuing goods imported into Australia. By way of background, I should mention that the Australian Customs Service, with the aid of the Attorney-General's Department, has been conducting a comprehensive examination of the effectiveness of the valuation provisions in the Customs Act. That examination has brought to light a number of apparent loopholes and avoidance practices being exploited by importers. I should emphasise that we are not accusing all importers of engaging in avoidance practices. However, experience has shown that some importers have entered arrangements that are designed solely to reduce assessable Customs value and thereby reduce duty liability. The Government is therefore of the view that any opportunity for abuse must be removed as soon as it is discovered. Because of the need to protect the revenue and ensure delivery of correct tariff assistance to local industry, we have decided to correct the inadequacies in the Act that have been revealed to date. Because of the complexity of some of the arrangements, it is necessary that the amendments be done in two stages. The first stage is covered by this Bill. We expect to introduce the second stage during the next sittings of the Parliament. The Government cannot tolerate deficiencies in the law which permit practices resulting in the erosion of the revenue and existing assistance levels. This ultimately places an undue burden on the Australian taxpayer, who has to make up the difference, and it substantially affects local manufacture and employment. Let me demonstrate the known avoidance practices by several examples. One is a practice commonly known as transaction-splitting, whereby the importer pays part of the purchase price to an associated company of the vendor, ostensibly for services rendered in relation to the goods. Clause 4 of the Bill extensively redrafts key definitions of the Act designated to eliminate this practice. Further, it has been discovered that in cases where a price threshold affects the duty rate, some importers are combining transactions for two different types of goods. By price-averaging the two, some importers are succeeding in deliberately understating the true value of one of the goods, thereby minimising or avoiding duty. Clause 5 of the Bill is designed to stamp out this practice. As another example, the examination has revealed that the deduction normally allowed for commission paid to the importer's buying agent is being manipulated by the misrepresentation of an alleged agency relationship, whereas the true picture is that the middle-man is in fact the agent of the vendor, or, in some cases, the vendor himself. Clause 6 (c) of the Bill will close this loophole by allowing only commissions paid to genuine buying agents acting solely for the purchaser to be deducted from the Customs value. Incidentally, the deduction of buying commission from the Customs value of the goods is required by the GATT Valuation Code. Other amendments in the Bill tighten and clarify the existing provisions to ensure certainty in the valuation process. Clause 4 (d) proposes to restrict deductions from Customs value allowed in respect of purchasers' rebates, to those rebates which have actually been received at the time of entry of the goods. The Customs Act currently permits interest and any other cost or charge pursuant to a financing arrangement to be excluded from the value of imported goods. Clause 4 (f) amends the Act to provide that only interest paid under a finance agreement is to be an allowable exclusion, in accordance with the GATT Valuation Agreement to which Australia is a party. Finally, the Customs Act provides for duties to be recovered as Crown debts. However, the current provisions restrict the time limit for the redetermination of values to 12 months. This Bill seeks to remove this limitation to facilitate the recovery of any duties owing through the use of schemes which misrepresent the true value. To arm the Australian Customs Service with the capacity to deal with the kinds of avoidance practices revealed by its examination, the Bill proposes at clause 9 the removal of the 12 month limit. The Bill also proposes certain other machinery amendments which are set out in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. As indicated earlier, I give notice that the examination of valuation legislation is continuing and, as a second stage in the Government's strategy, we intend to introduce further amendments in the Budget sittings this year to eliminate any opportunity for avoidance or minimisation of the value of imported goods. Financial Impact Statement The financial impact of the practices I have just outlined is considerable. For example, by claiming a deduction for a buying agent's commission in respect of what is essentially the agent of vendor, it is estimated that one of the major importers has saved about $4m a year. If all the major importers adopted the practice, there would be a revenue loss of about $90m. Deductions allowed in respect of interest under a finance agreement already amount to about $40m. If the provisions are not tightened, the loss to the revenue could involve an additional $40m. By closing these and other loopholes in the existing legislation to eliminate known avoidance and minimisation practices, it is estimated that at least $146m will be saved on an annual basis. This figure includes an estimate of the sales tax component on goods collected by the Australian Customs Service on behalf of the Australian Taxation Office. The effect of these practices on local industry has not been quantified, but it is obvious that any erosion of assistance levels by avoidance and minimisation practices can only be detrimental to local industry and employment. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Before I call on the honourable member for Wakefield to resume the debate on this legislation, I remind the House that it has been agreed that there should be a cognate debate on these two Bills. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(4.48) —Prior to lunch, I was referring to the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill and the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Bill and explaining that it was a matter of some concern to the Opposition that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) had shown such scant regard for the industry and that in fact the member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) had had the audacity to indicate that these two Bills scarcely warranted debate in the House. I went on to point out that what has been a characteristic of the egg industry, and extraordinarily so, is the measure of rationalisation that it has undergone. I pick up the threads of my speech by pointing out that in 1978 in fact 809 people in South Australia were involved in the process of keeping hens for the purpose of producing eggs but that by 1986 that number had fallen to 335 participants-representing a fall of 60 per cent. However, over the same period the flock size-the term that egg producers use-had grown from 1,080 to 1,567 birds, indicating that, in fact, while the number of producers had fallen-- Mr Barry Jones —Did you say the average size? Mr ANDREW —The average flock size-thank you, Minister. This indicated that, while the number of producers-those who own the birds-had fallen, the number of birds, the size of the flock, had increased quite dramatically. This rationalisation is also reflected by the fact that in 1970 the industry produced some 19.4 million dozen eggs in South Australia, while by 1987 the figure had fallen from 19.4 million to 12.6 million dozen eggs. The other characteristic of the egg industry that is worth placing in Hansard is that the producers, by reason of better feeding techniques, better caging techniques and generally improved husbandry, are now producing more eggs per bird. On the introduction of this legislation it is worth reflecting that, while many of us would regret the degree of regulation that currently binds the egg industry, we have to acknowledge that egg producers have themselves been quite efficient in the way in which they have gone about egg production. In fact, in 1979 egg producers in Australia received 73.1c for every dozen eggs they produced. But by 1987 this figure had gone up to $1.06 per dozen, an increase of 45 per cent over that period. I raised that figure because it makes an interesting comparison when one looks at what the retailer was receiving for his efforts in the egg industry in making the eggs available to the consumer. In 1979 eggs retailed in South Australia for $1.01 per dozen; but in 1987 this had gone up 60 per cent to $1.62 per dozen. Compare that with the 45 per cent increase to the egg producer. That seems particularly significant because the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) was in the chamber earlier today saying that she had noted an increase in the price of eggs in Canberra. She said that she hoped that the Price Watch Committee-over which the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, has some surveillance-would exercise some sort of control over the price of eggs in Canberra. I have to point out to the honourable member for Canberra that in fact, while the rise in the retailers' price may be significant enough, the particularly significant thing in the debate is that the producer has had a far smaller increase in his return than the retailer has had. It is a matter of real concern to members on this side of the House that, while the Government has been so concerned about retailers' levels of price increases, there has not been the same measure of concern about the falling returns that are currently going to primary producers whether they are producing eggs or other essential primary products. The legislation before the House provides the mechanism whereby egg producers can contribute towards research. For the information of the House, I point out that presently when the Commonwealth hen levy is collected a small proportion of it is used for research. But most of the Commonwealth hen levy is in fact used for an equalisation scheme which was designed to spread equitably among all egg producers the losses incurred through egg surpluses. The significant thing is that, given the level of rationalisation that has occurred in the hen industry, we now have a situation where the Commonwealth hen levy is no longer applicable and no longer necessary. In order to ensure that there is still some research into egg production the Commonwealth is introducing this legislation so that there is a means of collecting money from producers for research purposes. The Opposition wholeheartedly supports that step. I have alluded to the fact that the Opposition has some reservations about the measure of control currently exercised over the hen industry. We recognise that because of various quarantine provisions there is in fact no import of fresh eggs into Australia; so there is a measure of protection in that respect alone. I am sorry to say that the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) suggested in this debate that the Opposition was less than consistent in supporting this legislation while claiming to advocate deregulating industry generally. I want to say that that was scarcely fair of the honourable member for Rankin and that in fact the Opposition recognises the egg industry as it is and supports this legislation as a means of addressing problems currently facing the egg industry as it is. One of the encouraging things about this legislation is that, whereas the existing Commonwealth hen levy has to be calculated by each egg producer on a fortnightly basis depending on the number of hens he has been holding over that fortnight, the new levy, the research levy currently being debated in the House, will need to be paid only twice yearly. Those two payments are estimated to collect a total of about 3.25c to 3.5c per hen. In fact, the legislation currently being debated provides for a maximum collection of 10c per hen, and that cannot be exceeded. In those areas where the existing Commonwealth hen levy has been collected there has, of course, always been a quota system in place controlling the number of hens that individual people can hold. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) have both alluded to the fact that in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, where the quota system is not rigidly in place, notional quotas will in fact be made available. I point out that the Opposition is not seeking to amend this legislation; as the honourable members for O'Connor and Gwydir have already said, we are happy to co-operate with the Government in giving it speedy passage. What we long for is the opportunity to be equally co-operative with the Government in giving speedy passage to the sort of legislation that will relieve the economic dilemma facing the nation, and we long for reasonable policies that we could also support. The Australian egg industry produces 178 million dozen eggs, with a value of $200m. I commend the Minister for Primary Industry for the fact that the permit system currently existing in the wheat industry has allowed feed wheat to be made available to egg producers at even more realistic prices. This has been of real benefit to them. I want to conclude by relaying three particular requests that came to my office from representatives of the Australian Council of Egg Producers. I point out first that the Council has also commended the Minister for the fact that he has shown that he is prepared to be flexible in the method that he will use for the selection of the research panel-more flexible, I must say, than was originally planned. The representatives from the ACEP have also indicated that they want the Minister to know that they are willing to accept some of the secretarial and administrative responsibility for supervising egg research in South Australia. Additionally, and finally, the ACEP hopes that should existing provisions fail and the optional levy on chickens be invoked this will happen only at the request of the Australian Council of Egg Producers. The success of the Australian egg industry largely depends on successful research. Successful research leads to more eggs per bird. In its enthusiasm for a more efficient industry the Opposition is pleased to give passage to these Bills. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(4.58) —On behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) I would like to thank all those honourable members who participated in the debate. Mr Cadman —You have paid rapt attention to them! You were here for 30 seconds of the last speech. Mr DAWKINS —I actually was paying rapt attention to them. I am not sure whether he was the Opposition's main speaker, but I heard the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt). His was a fascinating contribution. Opposition speakers raised a number of questions and referred to a lack of consultation with the Australian Council of Egg Producers. This point was particularly alleged by the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I am advised by the Minister's Department that the Council, along with the Australian Egg Marketing Council and the States through the Australian Agricultural Council, were involved in drawing up the levy arrangements embodied in the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill and Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Bill and that departmental officers attempted to contact the Executive Officer and advise him that the Bills were being introduced. Through unavailability, or absence, of that officer from the Council's offices, it was not possible to convey to him the message until after the introduction of the Bills. I will arrange with the Minister, on his return, for him to supply answers to the other matters raised by speakers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. 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 Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(5.01) —I am responding to the Social Security Amendment Bill 1987 on behalf of both Opposition parties. This Bill can truly be described as a machinery Bill. It proposes to amend a very large number of sections of the Social Security Act. The legislation was rushed into this place during the last sitting period of this Parliament when the Government was of the opinion that it might go to the polls. There was a need to do some housekeeping within the Department of Social Security and to make some changes to the mechanics of the administration of the Government's welfare policy. Unfortunately, the Government received the wrong news from its Party opinion polling and decided that it really could not afford to go to the Australian people because it would not be re-elected if it did so. For that reason the Bill was not proceeded with during that sitting period. It has now been brought into the House. As I said, the Bill is extremely comprehensive in terms of the changes it proposes to make to the Social Security Act. On behalf of the Opposition parties I formally advise that we will not oppose this Bill. We believe that the Government has an entitlement and a right to change the mechanics and the legislative basis on which it operates its social welfare policy. We do, of course, have grave reservations about the effectiveness of that policy and its consequences both to the Australian taxpayer and the people the Government purports to be helping. As I said, this Bill is comprehensive. It proposes many changes to the Act. For example, it requires that a formal request be made to apply the hardship provisions of the assets test. Of course, we all remember this Government's record on the assets test-the beginning of what can only be described as a litany of offences against the aged and the retired members of the Australian community. This legislation also provides for the index- ation of the threshold limits on the assets test, and we support that. I reiterate on behalf of both Opposition parties our commitment to repeal the Labor Party's assets test when it is replaced as the government of this country after the next election. The legislation proposes several other changes relating to what could be described as double dipping into the social welfare system by students on allowances who may seek to obtain the unemployment benefit. The legislation requires all decisions of the Department of Social Security either to be in writing or be recorded on computer. It also provides that all decisions should be able to be appealed against or reviewed. This is a very important provision which I am pleased to see has been codified in this amending legislation. The legislation also seeks to make changes to the secrecy provisions of the Act and brings the requirements for officers of the Department into line with the current secrecy provisions of other Commonwealth legislation. It makes changes to the supporting parent's benefit extended to the spouse of a person in custody. It changes the waiting period for the availability of rent assistance. It distinguishes the young homeless allowance from the special benefits for under 16-year olds. It changes the provision for the recovery of payments from compensation claims. That is a very significant change. Under the present arrangements, it is difficult for the Government to know exactly who is receiving compensation. A person who is injured at work or in a motor vehicle accident and who is unable to earn an income is eligible for sickness benefit, the invalid pension or a special benefit. If, as a result of a claim for compensation, a lump sum payment is made, it is important that the Commonwealth be able to recover the value of the income support payments made to that person during the time that he or she was waiting for compensation payment to be made. The legislation imposes penalties on financial institutions involved in the direct credits payments system for not complying with notices from the Department of Social Security. It increases those penalties significantly from $1,000 to $10,000. It also makes significant changes to the penalties, both monetary and in terms of imprisonment, for clients of the Department-that is, people receiving benefits from the Department of Social Security. I will have more to say about the bona fides or perhaps the attitude of the Government in this area. There is a significant increase in the level of penalty that is proposed. However, in other areas of the Government's activity we wonder whether it is genuine in requiring people receiving benefits from the Department actually to provide the information that the Act notionally requires them to provide. As I said, this Bill increases significantly the penalties for clients. Fines in respect of notification and review requirements are to be increased from $500 to $1,000, or six months imprisonment. The fine for a body corporate will go up to $5,000. In the context of that amendment, it is interesting to note the agreement that the Department-that is, the Government-has reached with the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, the union that has jurisdiction within the Department of Social Security. The Government is undertaking a review of people who have been unemployed for a long time-that is, over two years. It is interesting to note that under this Government's administration the number of people unemployed for over two years has ballooned dramatically. In fact, the possibility of the long term unemployed gaining employment under the administration of the Hawke-Keating Government has declined significantly. The Government has introduced what it describes in its Budget update as a review of the long term jobless-interviews for long term jobless. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) frequently makes statements about his initiatives in this area. Part of that review process relates to the package of paper I have before me which contains the Government's initial proposal in this area. The Government sought to undertake a review of the status of both the personal and financial positions of people receiving the unemployment benefit. This was announced with great fanfare as part of the Budget measures. Numerous Press releases were put out by the Minister saying: `This is the end for the dole cheats. We are going to take a hard line on fraud and overpayment'. When this was introduced by the Minister, the ACOA said: `No you don't; we are not going to do it. There is a work ban on it. It is not going to happen'. Nothing happened in terms of the review of the long term unemployed. Work bans were also placed on the review of the supporting parent's benefit. That was part and parcel of this Government's so-called crack down on social security fraud. As a result of that industrial action by the ACOA, the Department sat down and did a deal. This deal amounts to a sell-out-a sell-out on the policy of cracking down on people who cheat the system and a sell-out on the Australian taxpayer. What it really comes down to-and this is summarised fairly clearly in the social security bulletin put out by the ACOA-is that the interviewer, an officer of the Department, will decide which questions will be asked. The only actual requirement is for the client to sign the declaration. It is very important to note that he has to sign the declaration only once. The original proposal of the Government was that each page of this declaration would be signed by the person receiving the benefit. This very comprehensive and detailed questionnaire was the linchpin of the anti-fraud measures. However, what it comes down to is this: The interview officer will decide what, if any questions, are to be asked. The person receiving the benefit is required to put one signature on the questionnaire instead of signing every page. That is the sum total of the Government's review of the long term unemployed. The Minister has put out a statement in which he tries to put on a brave face. I take the view that the Minister is quite happy to do this deal because he really did not want to have these review processes anyway. He was forced into doing something because of the pressure applied by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and, of course, community opinion which regards his administration of the Department of Social Security as nothing short of disgraceful. After four years of the Labor Government, overpayment and fraud within the Department is at record levels. For the past three years the Auditor-General, in report after report, has said that the management and administration controls of the Department are not being applied; that there are serious breaches; and that there is a significant problem. Some people-not me-have extrapolated the degree of overpayment and fraud. The degree of overpayment and fraud is $1 billion. Total expenditure of the Department is around $18 billion, give or take a few hundred million. But if we extrapolate the degree of overpayment and fraud in the Auditor-General's findings we discover that the amount is up to $1 billion, perhaps more. No-one knows for sure. The Minister and the Department do not know-and I will go on to prove why they do not know-whether the figure of $1 billion is high, low or spot on. But it really does not matter. There is overpayment and fraud. The Auditor-General is telling them that there is something wrong with their administration. Every member of the community knows that there is something wrong. When we go and talk to the welfare groups they say: `People do cheat on the system but we turn a blind eye to it because we think they need the money.' People come and see me as a person interested in this area. They go and see their local members and talk to them about the problems. We all know that cheating is going on. For the Minister to say that cheating is not going on and to suggest that the measures that he has supposedly introduced are doing something about it is not accurate and I believe that it is a quite misleading position for him to take. The reality is that there is a high degree of fraud and overpayment within the social security system in Australia. Only the other night on the way home from the airport the local taxi driver told me that the majority of his colleagues driving taxis on the Gold Coast are also claiming the unemployment benefit. Let me tell the Minister, who is in the House, that the overwhelming majority of professional fishermen in some parts of Australia are also claiming the unemployment benefit. In case the Minister does not understand how the system works, people who work as professional fishermen go out fishing when they can, when the weather is appropriate. If, for example, they are catching mackerel they get $50 cash for each mackerel that they catch. But that does not prevent a fisherman from going into the local office of the Department of Social Security and saying: `No, I am not working. I am available for work'. These fishermen have to show up at that office once very 14 days but that does not stop them from catching these fish which bring in $50 a time. They get paid cash for these fish, they put that money in their back pockets and they collect payments from the Department every 14 days. That is the reality of the social security system that this Government is administering. It does not enforce the work test. Only the other day the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in Victoria: `There needs to be a tougher work test'. It was my belief-I believe that the Minister's statement should be taken at face value-that he had toughened up the work test. I have on file copies of his Press statements that go back a year which state: `The easy time for the dole cheats is over. The work test will be enforced. We will crack down on them'. But only a month ago in Victoria the Prime Minister was saying: `We need a tougher work test'. I come to one conclusion: Either the Prime Minister does not believe the Minister or the Minister has not told him that he has toughened up on the work test-one or the other. It could be inferred that the Prime Minister knows what we all know; that is, many people are cheating on the social security system and the work test is not being enforced because the Department of Social Security does not get on very well with the Commonwealth Employment Service. The reason it does not get on very well with the Commonwealth Employment Service is that the information that it gets from the Commonwealth Employment Service is not accurate. Of course, that is addressed in the agreement that the Minister has made, through his Department, with the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. The ACOA has said: `Most of the information we get from the Commonwealth Employment Service is inaccurate and we refuse to process it. We refuse to do anything about it. We want you to take the responsibility for even looking at this information away from the regional officers into some central location. Maybe you can decide whether it is worth doing something about it'. Notwithstanding the fact that there is almost a breakdown in communication between the Department of Social Security and the Commonwealth Employment Service the Minister has made statements saying that it is very important for officers of the Department of Social Security to stress the close working relationship between the DSS and the CES. What utter rubbish! He negotiated an agreement, to which he has linked the imprimatur of his Department, which is entitled `Agreement between ACOA and DSS'. If the Minister has not read this agreement perhaps he should because this is the deal. Section 3 of the agreement talks about DSS-CES liaison and that is what it really comes down to. Let us get back to the two-year review of unemployment beneficiaries, for which this Bill changes the penalty provisions. If a person provides misleading information under this review that person will pay a higher penalty. But he will not have to provide any information at all. As I have said, this is a multi-page document which asks a whole stack of questions but, under the deal done with the ACOA, there is absolutely no requirement to ask any questions. The other day the Minister put out a statement which said that, after a review of the form, it was found that it would be expedient and perhaps more efficient to drop certain questions. It would have been more accurate to say that it was expedient to agree to the union demand that no questions at all be required to be asked. The only requirement imposed on officers of the Department of Social Security is to obtain one signature on the questionnaire-not even a signature on every page, although every page contains a provision for a signature. Of course, there is also some significance in this lack of signature. There is a provision in this Bill that imposes a higher penalty for providing misleading information. If the questions are not asked it will be very difficult for people to provide misleading information. But if the page is not signed I wonder whether it will be possible for the Department to take any action, even if the information is misleading, because there is no acknowledgment by the beneficiary of the Department that the information has been provided by him and that it is, prima facie, accurate. That is the sort of administration we have; a complete sell-out. If the Minister had any commitment to stopping fraud and overpayment he would not have done this deal with the unions. It totally undermines any hope he may have had of stopping the rip-offs and the rorts that go on within the Department now in terms of the unemployment benefit. It is an absolute disgrace. What compounds the disgraceful behaviour of the Government in this area is the fact that it continues to purport that it is doing something about social security fraud and overpayment. It is doing nothing. It has prepared this expensive and complex form and, as soon as the union puts some pressure on the Government, it walks away from it. There has been no attempt by the Government to enforce its policy. The whole exercise was one of window dressing. It had some factional politics in it because, as I have said, the Minister was forced into it by his colleagues within Cabinet and there was a need to be seen to be doing something. He is desperately hoping now that people will forget that this proposal will not be implemented. No action will be taken. I said that there was an increased penalty for providing false and misleading information. I also said that there was no longer a requirement for beneficiaries of the Department even to sign information. They have to give only one signature and they probably will not even be asked any questions because the ACOA news bulletin states, under a fairly bold heading, that the only requirement on an officer is to obtain one signature and what questions will be asked will be at the absolute discretion of the interviewing officer. If the Minister put out a Press release the other day stating that he had deleted 12 questions and he believed that that was the situation, he was very badly advised by the officers of his Department. They did not show him the bulletins coming from the ACOA. For the benefit of members of this House let me take a moment to go through the ACOA Social Security Bulletin. It is headed `Urgent. Breakthrough in Negotiations on New Initiatives'. It states: A major breakthrough has been achieved in negotiations around the introduction of new initiatives. An offer from DSS was made on Friday which includes the following concessions to ACOA's claim: office closures-from 1.30 pm each Wednesday. I do not know what happens if a client of the Department of Social Security has a problem after 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday because the Department does not answer its telephones. The overwhelming majority of people who receive a benefit from the Department are in genuine need. They have crises from time to time in their lives and perhaps they need to talk to the Department, but after 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday they cannot talk to anyone. Initially, when this concession was agreed to, the phones just rang. No one even picked them up. Now, someone will pick them up and say: `I am sorry, we cannot do anything for you. Ring us back tomorrow'. Many people who get benefits from the Department of Social Security do not have their own phones at home: They have to traipse some distance and perhaps catch a bus to use a public telephone, if they can find a public telephone that works. Mr Tim Fischer —And they miss out on the telephone concession too. Mr BLUNT —And they missed out on the telephone concessions too, perhaps as a result of this Government's policy. But after 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, no one can help them; they must ring back tomorrow. This is very interesting: No action on the backlog of inaccurate CES advices. There is to be central, not regional, processing `to eliminate incorrect and excess information'. Notwithstanding this, the Minister says that there must be a close working relationship between the DSS and the CES. Let me tell the Minister that in some places they do not even speak to each other. There is absolute animosity between the staffs of the two offices and the ACOA has refused to do anything to clear the backlog, as this orange paper says. I hope that the Minister is aware of this. Point three relates to the discretion of the interviewer in the two-year unemployment reviews to determine the format and length of interview. There is no mandatory use of BC20, which is the form, and there is the removal of the counselling function regarding employment. Yesterday the Minister, in response to a question from me, said that the purpose of the review of the long term employed was not only to stop fraud-and I have demonstrated that it will not do anything about stopping fraud-but also to provide counselling services. It says in the document that the ACOA has achieved a concession from the Minister that there is no longer any counselling function. What exactly is the Minister on about? There is no fraud, the Minister has given away the obligation to ask questions, and he got up in the House yesterday and said that there is to be a counselling function. Yet he has done a deal with the ACOA which says that there is no longer any obligation to provide a counselling function-so there is nothing left in the review, no anti-fraud, no counselling function, just a whole stack of paper and a stack of press releases trying to convince the Australian people that the Minister is doing something. He has sold out completely. Maybe he did not sell out. Perhaps it is what the Minister proposed to do originally, but he has sold out on what the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance expected him to do because they also happen to know that there is a problem within the administration of the Department, just as every member of the community knows that there is a major problem. Let us go to the national agreement of the ACOA's claim on POI-proof of identity. What it comes down to is that under this agreement with the Department there is no longer a requirement in the review of the long term unemployed to ask any questions about proof of identity. The Department is not even intending to ask persons to prove who they are. We are about to have forced on us again, when the Government has the nerve to pursue it at some later stage, an ID card. Identity is so important to the Department of Social Security that it does not even require people to prove their identity when it reviews the long term unemployed. That proves the point that I have been arguing for some considerable time-that the degree of fraud within the Department of Social Security related to false identity is not very high at all. The Minister has de facto acknowledged that by conceding the point about proof of identity in the deal he has done with the union. It would be honourable of him to stand up and say that the ID card will do nothing for the Department of Social Security in proving identity because identity is not a problem. If it is a problem, why has the Minister conceded to the union that it does not have to ask these questions on proof of identity? They are simple, basic questions about proof of identity. The Minister has said that the Department does not have to ask those questions, and yet he is going along with the right wing Labor Party line about ID cards. It is about time we had a consistent, forthright, honest and principled answer on the question of identity within social security and what bearing it has on fraud. This agreement also extends to the sole parent review. The short 12-week review form is to be used for the interview. There is no mandatory use of the longer, more comprehensive form, the form that gave some potential for uncovering those people who are rorting the system. The interviewer is to determine the length and depth of interview, and there will be an extended period before cancellation. One talks about the bona fides of this Government in doing something about social security fraud and overpayment. Without even reading the details of this bulletin which goes out from the ACOA to its members, attached to which is a detailed copy of the agreement, I have proved conclusively that this Minister and this Government have no commitment whatever to doing anything to stop fraud and overpayment. All we see are a number of Press releases from the Minister saying that he intends to do something about fraud. But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, when the Minister gets the opportunity to say to officers in his Department `This is what we shall do to stop the rip-off merchants, bring some integrity back into the social security system, and start to reel back the billion dollars worth of fraud in overpayments', what does the Minister do? He sells out. He says that there is no requirement to ask questions. Nothing is to be done about processing CES information. The Department does not have to get people to prove their identity-that is not important-but the Government intends to have an ID card which costs taxpayers a billion or more dollars. The Minister has the nerve to come into this place and to go around the community saying that he is doing something about fraud and overpayment. Press release after Press release has been issued saying, `We are going to stop these things and we have caught all these people'. Let us look at the history of this matter. The Treasurer said in Parliament last year that there are 10,000 people getting unemployment benefits who should not be getting them and that the Government intended to do something about it. I agree that at least 10,000 people who are getting unemployment benefits should not be getting them and that something should be done about it. The Government announced that it was to have flying squads, hit teams, that would go around the country catching the cheats. I think that the Government set up about six teams. They came to my electorate on the north coast of New South Wales, they came to the Gold Coast, and to the northern beaches of Sydney and they say that they have caught 1,800 people who were getting unemployment benefits they should not have been receiving. What does the Government intend to do with those 1,800 people? Will it prosecute them? It has caught 1,800 of the Treasurer's figure of 10,000 people, which is a pretty conservative figure anyway. I figure that if people are cheating on the system, particularly after the Government has run an amnesty suggesting that those who are cheating and who tell the Government will be let off, and after that amnesty is over the Government has caught 1,800 people, the Government should prosecute them. I do not think that it will prosecute, because last year for every cheat caught within the Department of Social Security, not just in unemployment benefits but in every benefit category, the Government bothered to prosecute only 1,800 people. The Government has now caught 1,800 unemployment benefit cheats, and I wonder whether it will prosecute them. The Government has caught 1,800, the Treasurer says there are 10,000 and it is now nearly the end of April. On the Treasurer's estimate, he was to catch them all by the end of this financial year. I wish the Minister luck in catching another 8,000 cheats in May and June. It cannot be done. The Minister says that there will be another 15 flying squads or hit teams around the country, but they will not catch 8,000 people in two months. They will be lucky if they can talk to 8,000 people in two months. The reality is that the only way to stop fraud and overpayment within the social security system is to look at the basis of the system and start changing it. Unemployment benefit should be a benefit of last resort. It is essential that we go back to a needs basis, that we enforce the work test on a daily basis, that we require service or work in return for benefit; that we stop paying unemployment benefit to under 18-year-olds and get them back to school, enabling them to get an education; that we rationalise the level of income support paid to students and the unemployed. It is time that we stopped paying 16-year-olds to leave school and sit in milk bars and on beaches, and that we crack down on people who are cheating the system. When we catch cheats we should penalise them. If somebody steals one's motor vehicle, he or she should be penalised. If people steal from the taxpayer's purse, they should also be prosecuted and penalised. Under this Government there is no commitment to return integrity to the social security system. The Government's attitude is that it will continue to pay out money because it is a lot easier to do so. What the Government does not recognise is that the taxpayers have just about had enough. There is a hardening of community attitudes to cheating within the social security system. Unfortunately, all people who are on benefit are tarred with the one brush, unfairly, but until the Government acts to stop the cheating and penalises the cheats, everyone on benefit will wear and continue to wear the community's opprobrium. The Government should act for the benefit of fair dinkum people who need help, to clean up the system and do something about it. The Government should not sell out every time a union puts on a bit of pressure because the union does not want to ask the questions. There should be a genuine commitment to providing more manpower resources to enforce the eligibility requirements for all benefits. The basis of the union's objection is that the Government will not provide a reallocation of manpower resources within the Department to ask the questions. Under this Government the Department has reduced the number of field officers and has transferred those field officers who remain from investigative work to payment work. Until there is a reordering of priorities, until we have a genuine commitment to making sure that the social security system is dedicated to helping those who are in need and stopping the rip-off merchants, we shall have a continuing decline in community attitudes. It not only has been an impact on people in genuine need; it also has an impact on the attitudes of our community. There is an attitude that social security is a fair cop; that if a person holds out his hand someone will drop some money into it and that is good. If a person can get a bit more on the side by working, he should go to it because if he does not he will only be a mug because everybody else is doing it. The damage that is doing to incentive and attitudes within our community is absolutely horrific. Until Australia recognises that we have to work to earn our income, that no one owes us a living and that we cannot hold out our hand and get money for doing nothing, we have no hope of competing in this rapidly changing world. Unfortunately, the philosophy of administration that is being fostered under this Government's administration of social security is perpetuating the attitude that people can get something for nothing. Let me tell honourable members that people cannot get anything for nothing; they should have to work for it. People should get welfare only when they are in need and we should have a needs based welfare system in this country, not a system that pays benefit to anyone who asks for it. As I have said, the unemployment benefit should be a benefit of last resort. We should not encourage our young people to leave school and get a benefit; we should be encouraging them to stay at school. I repeat that the Opposition parties do not oppose this Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(5.31) —It is normal that the Opposition's task in this chamber is to criticise constructively any proposal put forward by government and also to present some alternatives. I have just listened to a 30-minute speech in which the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) defamed thousands of fishermen. I remind honourable members of what he said. He said that the overwhelming number of professional fishermen were cheating on unemployment benefit. He did not substantiate this statement in any way and I challenge him to do so; otherwise he ought to apologise publicly for such an outlandish statement. In Queensland alone there are 2,300 fishermen. So the honourable member for Richmond is saying that the overwhelming majority of those 2,300 fishermen who belong to National Party electorates as well as Australian Labor Party electorates are cheating the system. The honourable member for Richmond should substantiate that claim. He also said that we have found only 1,800 people who have been rorting the system. In fact the number is more like 25,000. One does not have to be a mathematician to realise that one does not save $100m in unemployment benefit alone if one has stopped only 1,800 people from getting that benefit. So his mathematics certainly do not add up. He also talked about trying to keep people at school. Let the House be reminded that under the Liberal and National Party policies the unemployment benefit was always greater than the allowances paid to students, whether it was the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance or secondary allowances. It has been the Hawke Government that has brought about a new system whereby within a two-year period the unemployment benefit will not be more than student allowances. Already in some categories one gets more money by going on to higher education than by going on the dole. But that was not the case under the Liberals and Nationals. Yet the honourable member for Richmond said that we ought to be encouraging students to stay at school. I often wonder why the Liberal and National parties never bothered to do any of these things when they were in government. The honourable member also talked about the need for a means tested welfare system and he ended his comments on that point. He said that we must be paying people on their need and that we should have a means test system. Yet at the beginning of his speech he said that one of the first things the Liberals and Nationals would do if they ever got back into government would be to repeal the assets test. The honourable member for Richmond cannot have it both ways. He cannot on the one hand recognise the need for a means test system, a need for paying people based on need rather than greed, and on the other hand say that he will give back the $140m that this Government has rightly saved from people who did not need the pension-people such as the 13 millionaires who had houses in the Riverina and the `pensioner' in my area who had something like $750,000 in the bank but was not caught up because no money was being earned on that $750,000. He said that the money was placed in a trust fund so that his relatives could borrow it at a low interest rate. The honourable member says on the one hand that benefits should be means tested but on the other hand that he would support the repeal of the assets test. Obviously, one cannot believe much of what the Opposition says. I realise the honourable member is probably in difficulty because today he came into the House virtually as the Opposition spokesman on social security but we know that as a National Party member he no longer holds such a position. The facts are that it is this Government that has cracked down on the rorts and rip-offs about which he talked; it is this Government that saved the taxpayers of Australia $100m in one area alone and at the same time it is this Government that has had a sensitive approach to the needs of people. I do not think people understand just how significant are the responsibilities of social security in our Commonwealth. People do not realise just how huge the number of beneficiaries is, those who are deserving. We can only understand this by first looking at the number of social security beneficiaries and, secondly, considering the actual dollars being spent in providing those social security benefits. This morning I took out some figures that showed that as at 9 January this year 1,321,027 age pensioners plus another 24,402 wives and carers were receiving pension benefits. Another 282,499 were invalid pensioners and attached to those were another 87,594 wives and carers pension recipients. Some 10,442 people were getting the sheltered employment allowance-the sheltered employment allowees-and this figure included wives. Another 3,651 Australians were receiving rehabilitation allowances; 154,217 people were widows and that figure covers all classes, A, B and C; 179,843 people were receiving supporting parents benefits; 67,897 people were on sickness benefits; 19,186 were on special benefits; 2,174,947 families were receiving family allowances; and 29,021 families were receiving the family income supplement. One can add to these figures another 623,079 unemployed people who were receiving benefits. As at January this year the number of pension beneficiaries totalled 2,063,675. The number of unemployed, sickness and special beneficiaries totalled 710,162. This is a cost to the ratepayers, taxpayers and all those who are paying their way in this nation. In 1985-86, the latest year for which figures are available, total expenditure under the Social Security Act-this is just for people receiving those benefits-was $15 billion. It is almost 20 per cent of the total Commonwealth Budget, a budget that is spent on helping and caring for people and providing much deserved retirement income for Australia's citizens. Like all other members I accept that it is important that the system not be abused; it is important that fraud be countered; it is important that there be emphasis on those in need rather than those who are simply greedy. But that is what this Government has done. It is this Government that has given the emphasis to the aged and it is gradually working towards pensioners receiving 25 per cent of the average wage. It is this Government that has cracked down on fraud. As I mentioned earlier, some 25,000 people previously receiving the unemployment benefit have been cut off. Why? It is because they were not meeting the rules. The honourable member for Richmond accused 2,300 of my fishermen and thousands of other fishermen of rorting the system and said that some sort of rort was going on within the Department of Social Security. He accused Social Security officers of-I use his words-being part of a rip-off and rort within the Department of Social Security. That is not the way to address these problems; nor should he make outlandish claims in a supercilious way. He even accused this Government of tarring everybody with the same brush. I suggest that that is exactly what he has just done in his contribution to this debate. The Hawke Labor Government has acted to stop the abuse; it has acted to limit the fraud by detecting and prosecuting offenders. The honourable member for Richmond says that this has not happened, but it has happened. People from all over my State have been caught. They were dobbed in or found out; they were detected and prosecuted. I appreciate that in some cases one cannot prosecute; it is not worth prosecuting. If a person is taken to court, it may cost $1,500 for one day in court. That is the sort of money it costs for a day in the Supreme Court today, and to get what back? To get back $30 or $40, or $300 or $400? Administrative judgments must be made as to what is best, because it is of no use throwing good money after bad. This Government has acted against the worst rorts. Last year I went to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and put to him my concerns about the number of New Zealanders who were bludging off the Australian welfare system. Cases were cited to me by officers in three different places in Australia. I realise they took a great risk in doing that. They did not give me actual names, but they cited cases of people who had got off the plane in Australia and received benefits straight away. An estimate was given that this was costing the Australian taxpayer a million dollars a week or approximately $50m a year. That was the amount paid to New Zealanders alone. Thousands of New Zealanders who came to this country for a holiday were abusing the system. There was one case of a person who made his first claim in Adelaide, the second in Sydney, the third in Brisbane and finally the person was tracked down in Cairns. This person's holiday was paid for by the Australian taxpayers by way of benefits. But this Government acted. This has been going on for years and years. But did the Liberals and the Nationals do anything about it? They knew it was going on. They had received complaints from within their own political parties. The members knew about it, but nothing was done. This Government did something about it. It readjusted the reciprocal arrangements that we have with New Zealand and also with the United Kingdom, in order to put an end to it and to make it impossible for a New Zealander to land here and receive benefits. There is now a residential requirement. Before that such people went to National Party members and insisted on their rights. There were cases in Brisbane of people going along to the Valley Social Security office and threatening that if they did not get their benefit they would see Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen, because she would make sure that they did get their benefit. So a National Party member of this House has said `We were going to put a stop to it', yet the facts are and the reality is that National Party members were encouraging a situation whereby people who did not deserve benefits were getting those benefits. As I said, it has been going on for years. But it is this Hawke Labor Government and this Labor Minister for Social Security that have finally acted. In doing so, they have saved the Australian people tens of millions of dollars. I think it is important to realise that there has not only been a crackdown on New Zealanders and some of our British counterparts, but it has been across the board. At the same time, this Government has wisely strengthened the privacy provisions under the Social Security Act. We want to make sure that people are protected. We want to make sure that if a person is in receipt of a benefit, that is his business. We do not want that information to be used all over the place. I want to use the last few moments I have to express some concern about what I see as a planned public campaign against the welfare system of our country. I, like other members, do not want to see a system in which those who do not deserve to get benefits receive them. But the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron)-again, unfortunately, a National Party member-has made it very plain that it is the National Party's policy or philosophy to cut pensions. There is a National Party policy to introduce a 25 per cent flat tax. Everyone realises that if pensions of $5,000 a year, or $106 a week, are taxed, pensioners will have to pay tax of about $1,000 a year, which at the moment they do not pay. There is also pressure coming from the so-called new extreme Right. It has put out some booklets saying what it wants to do. It wants to cut the Commonwealth Budget by $15 billion. This proposition has the support of the National Farmers Federation, top business people and the National Party. I think it is time that they started to realise exactly where the money goes in the Australian welfare system. If they did that, they would have a hard time telling us exactly how to cut $15 billion from a total government outlay of $74.76 billion. If one looks at the figures, one will find that $14.3 billion goes to other governments. Are National Party members advocating that we simply cut out all the moneys to local authorities, totalling $580m? That is the sort of thing that is being said. Sir Alby Abbott, the head of the Local Government Grants Commission in Queensland, is most concerned because he believes that that is the sort of thing that could happen. Does this mean that extra funding given to all the States will be cut out? That is the component-$14.3 billion of that $74 billion goes to the States and other governments. An amount of $1.5 billion is spent on housing. Are they advocating that we cut out housing money? As most people realise, whilst public housing is paid for by the public purse, it is private enterprise that builds the houses. It helps the local economy. In the city of Rockhampton in my electorate it is the local private enterprise builders who are building public housing. Will they cut money from the education allocation? They are looking for cuts of $15 billion, but the total amount spent on education is only $5.2 billion. Does this mean that they will slash $2.5 billion from tertiary education? Will they cut out the money allocated to independent schools? If that is the policy of the National Party members, let them say so, instead of telling us that they will slash welfare benefits and cut government spending. We also spend $7.4 billion on defence. I ask again: Will they slash part of the $15 billion from that area? We spend $1.2 billion on assisting industry to carry out research and development. This benefits private enterprise. I have not heard National Party members advocate that that be cut out. Another $1 billion is used for training and job creation. Again, it is private enterprise that benefits, because it offsets the cost of employment. Will National Party members cut this out? The list goes on and on. It seems that they will focus on the welfare area. That was what the honourable member for Maranoa talked about. That was what the honourable member for Richmond just hinted at when he started to talk about bringing in this new approach of granting no benefits to anyone under 18 years of age and bringing in a day by day work test. I wonder what the administrative costs of that would be. If we look at the cost of running the social security system now, we are talking about many hundreds of millions of dollars. What would be the cost if there were to be a day by day work test? It is an unbelievable concept, yet it is proposed by the honourable member for Richmond. Do National Party members intend to attack the $15 billion paid to pensioners and beneficiaries? If that is what they are advocating, let them clarify it. Let them specify it. Will they attack the $2.77 billion that we give to veterans? I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that $74 billion is a lot of money, and it is almost an impossibility to work out where the money could come from, especially when one realises that this Government has had to cut expenditure programs. We have had to try to cut back in so many areas because of the poor financial management of the previous Government. However, this Government is prepared to spend where the needs are. I am pleased that the Deputy Government Whip, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), gave me some figures that show that this Government is spending more than $9 billion on Australians over 65 years of age. Honourable members should think about that for a moment: Of that $74 billion $9 billion goes to people over the age of 65 years. Another $3.5 billion goes to Australians under the age of 4 years-the pre-schoolers. So where will cuts be made? Let us hear from the National Party in particular, because this Government has already set about making sure that only those who deserve benefits get them. This Government has fought the frauds, the rorts and the abuse of the system. Yet this Government has tried to accept its responsibility to the disadvantaged, the aged and the low income groups. We have introduced a system whereby pensions are increased twice a year. We have regularly raised the threshold so that it is now $5,100, so that all Australians, particularly low income families, pay no tax on the first $100 per week that they earn. This Government, again, has understood the need to tighten expenditure in such a way that there is no waste. It is an impossibility to bring about the sorts of changes that the honourable member for Richmond suggests and to overcome the sorts of things that he alleges take place unless one spends a lot more money, which this nation does not have. I put the case today for the 1.3 million pensioners, because I believe they deserve every cent they get. If economic times were different, I would like to see funeral benefits increased. I would like to see the installation of telephones made free of charge. I would like to see the pension increased. But we cannot do all of these things at once. This Government over a four-year period has changed the whole quality of life for our aged people. I believe that they commend this Government for what it has done. They understand that it must have a controlling system and an assets test. People in the branches of the Australian Pensioners League are the first to say that they support the assets test because they believe in helping the needy, not the greedy. I welcome this legislation and the action that has been taken by this Government to stop the rorts, fraud and abuse. I welcome also the sensitive approach that has been taken to those hundreds of thousands of Australians within the welfare system in this country. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.51) —As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has indicated, the Social Security Amendment Bill contains amendments to the Social Security Act. The amendments that we are looking at cover a very wide ambit: Changes to the reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom and New Zealand; changes to the penalty provisions for security breaches; and alteration of appeal provisions for the assets test-amongst others. The entitlements affected concern the rate of unemployment, sickness benefits, veterans' entitlements, unemployment benefits and disability legislation. So this Bill does cover a very wide ambit. Because the Bill does this we need to look at some of the more general questions-questions of a philosophical nature which underline the prominence and significance of the Act which is submitted here today for amendment. The huge outlays on social security have, in a very real sense, turned public attention to the need to seek limits to the presumption that the duty of modern government is to find more and more money to support more and more social security schemes. Whichever way we look at it, the administration of the schemes is a most costly and complex business. This legislation makes that clear. Oral decisions will no longer suffice. Administrative decisions will no longer suffice. Administrative decisions will be in writing unless recorded on a computer. That is correct but there certainly will be a testing of administrative quality as a consequence. Paper work generates paper workers and increases the intensity of administrative activity. Probably for the first time in the history of our nation, the costs of the social security system have come under very broad-based criticisms. I do not believe that the Government has heeded the basic thrust of the concern so widely felt throughout the community. Too often, the critics have been met with the proposition that critical thinking is not motivated by compassion. Too often it has not been seen that the critics are recipients who have to deal at times with a very cumbersome administration. The fact is that administration of this complex system is always going to be a problem. Changes in the rules for administrators basically will not deal with the thrust of the critique. Newspapers and the Government like to imagine that the critics draw their strength from the so-called dry economic theories. I have found that most people find it difficult to know what the media is talking about with its classifications of `dry' and `wet'. Those who indulge in the use of those labels never seek to explain them. So the Government makes sport with labels. In doing so, it is merely setting up smokescreens to draw public attention away from its own factional differences. Those divisions often reflect the same concerns on social security issues. Honourable members on this side of the House are absolutely as one on the need to support our nation and the international security system. We are not compromised by having a section which supports Soviet policies at the expense of the United States. I point out to the House that that is the situation which characterises the Australian Labor Party. Nobody on any side of this Parliament would argue about the basic necessity of meeting human need, whether arising from old age, poor health, misfortune or even lack of forward thinking. The issue is to make judgments about the meeting of social security needs in a way which enables the nation to thrive and prosper in conditions which ensure the basic economic health of the nation. Social welfare specialists, who spend their professional lives dealing with the problems of the disadvantaged, cannot be expected to do other than articulate the needs, anomalies and problems of individuals. Businessmen who are concerned with the viability of businesses and farmers in the business of making farms viable or facing problems of falling prices and higher costs, are not to be expected to carry the torch for defining the problems of social security. That is the business of government-getting the balance right between creating national incentives for people to be effective contributors to the national wealth and helping those who for whatever reason of misfortune or by unfortunate necessity are non-productive. Income producers have a claim on government loyalty and government concern as much as the income spenders. Of course, the task of government is to bring about a practical balance between the two streams of interest. In this context of producing a better economic performance, there is considerable debate about the impact of the welfare system. It affects all nations in the Western world. Annexed to this legislation is a social security agreement with the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The agreement, which is a remarkable one, makes possible social security payments to residents of Australia, formerly resident in Britain, on a basis equal to the Australian beneficiary who has lived his life here. When the Australian dollar goes up and down the transfer payments are adjusted without disadvantage to the pensioner. It illustrates the general status of the social welfare system as an integral part of the democratic way of life. No one challenges this arrangement but there is much debate about the point at which the costs of social security become so out of kilter with the capacity to pay. There is some real interest in this area. That capacity to pay is attested by the ease or difficulty which confronts governments in the taxation system. Taxes can be raised only from those in the national work force producing income. Their prosperity is a function of the vitality of the economic system. This is pretty obvious, on reflection. But we are all too ready to ignore the issue when examining the pro and con arguments. We tend to talk of welfare as something self-contained, when welfare spending is possible only because there are resourceful people working and earning income. We have had very considerable debate about the processes of national economic management. A growing number of people take the view that national morale in income production is at a dangerously low ebb. It is in these circumstances that we look at the balance between welfare spending and the viability of the economy. Very considerable opinion argues that the economy under this Government has been made inefficient by the loss of incentives generated by the mistaken policies of the Government in handling the economy and in particular the taxation system. The legislation before us attempts to tighten up on the assets test hardship provisions which require a formal request but we are left uninformed by the Minister as to just what the requirements are. The Minister, in his second reading speech, does not mention this issue at all. One could even suppose that the Minister is running scared because he does not mention assets tests. That fact emerges from the outline distributed with the Bill-an outline which was authorised by the Minister. At first glance we might think that the Minister, in describing the scope of the legislation, would have used the outline in the explanatory memorandum. Why does he choose not to mention the assets test changes? Why does he not explain them to the House? Are we expected to engage in a guessing game? Why does he not like to tell us what has prompted the change in section 6ad of the Act relating to the assets test? Why does the Minister pretend that members of this House have no interest in knowing the reasons for the change? The Minister opens up the issue which we have debated hotly-the reason for having the assets test in the first place. This was a measure which, with the capital gains tax, was designed to ensure an improved public funding arrangement. But because these ideas are lacking the support of a broad-based and fairly-administered taxation system we are still struggling to find adequate funding for social security. Because there have been such negative effects on economic incentives there are continuing pressures on the welfare vote. The fact is that the Government has had a poor attitude to people in the private sector whose whole endeavour is to produce income and to honour their obligations to the system by paying taxes fairly imposed to provide income for welfare payments. The incentive for people to produce income has been hit by all the loadings that have been imposed on initiative. The Government is in two minds. It was very quick to introduce a policy to index wages, a policy which has created great tensions in the productive sector of our economy. Trade unions now feel that they have been deceived by the Government and employers feel that the Government has taken little heed of economic realities. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that there is an attack on the welfare system. The Government has been very slow in addressing the issue of balance. Every member on this side of the House has shown concern at the cavalier way in which the Government has treated the income producing sectors of Australia. The mistaken policy of wage indexation has created problems of survival for employers and has sent Australia into anguished debates on the issue of government welfare spending. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Minister avoids mentioning the provision of section 6ad. It makes a laughing stock of the second reading speech and the parliamentary process when the Minister plays games like this. A second reading speech is an important element in legislation. This is becoming more so, as I understand there is a trend developing which favours the use of the second reading speech in eliciting the intentions of the legislation. So we can say that the Minister appeared to be deliberately avoiding the issue of the debate-the underlying issue in fact-by avoiding reference in his second reading speech to amendments to the assets test provisions. He, like all of us, is caught in the reality that it is unwise for governments to write a blank cheque for social security. Every Australian receiving social security benefits should be aware that the income that he or she receives is derived from the income generated by the productive sections of the economy. As I have indicated, the great question being asked is: How much can the nation afford to pay for social security benefits? That is a question that this Government finds itself reluctant to ask and that reluctance has placed a heavy burden on the national budget and has strained the economic system. In this context we on this side of the House have all agreed that there is a serious problem which cannot be avoided. So it is not surprising that judgments will vary as to the impact of the system, as to priorities within the system and as to balance between budgetary priorities and the other priority claimants, such as defence. There is a view that it is a contradiction inherent in the attitude of successive governments which offer more innovative additions to social security outlay, while at the same time calling for cuts in national administration. Now the electorate has seen the error of those ways and there is very genuine competition on all sides of politics to strike the balance. Another element in the whole situation is a growing resistance electorally to the shift of power to Canberra. This induces considerable questioning of the necessity for the sizable administrative apparatus which has been set up in the Australian Capital Territory. Even State Premiers share the fear that the policy direction of this Government is not to question this accretion of power to Canberra but to retain and enhance it. It is this philosophy of centralisation which places obstacles in the way of more efficient State government. The simple reality is that State governments are close to the people and take it as their responsibility to do political sums on the most pressing needs. By Federal arrangement it is not easy for a member of parliament from Western Australia to understand the problems in Melbourne or Sydney and, of course, vice versa. This mania to build up power in Canberra is now being electorally resisted. Hence we on this side of the House are prepared to look at a realistic dispersal of decision making to the State governments, which have a crucial job in ordering social priorities. Again, one would have to point out that there are difficulties of emphasis on our side about how far we should go and this is not unreasonable. This legislation opens up a wide ambit despite the obvious effort at non-disclosure in the second reading speech. I believe it is opportune for all members of the House to address this issue on the broadest terms. If we are to do this effectively, we must get away from the silly labelling that has been going on by media oversimplification. Whilst the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) may abuse members on his side of the House, he really should address these very basic problems in a more considered way in order to get away from the labelling and get down to what this Parliament should be about-a reasoned and serious debate about very serious balancing questions. Mr GEAR(Canning)(6.06) —We have just heard from the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), one of the Opposition back benchers, who made a contribution which I had a lot of trouble following because it had little to do with the matter we are discussing today-the Social Security Amendment Bill. However, a number of the points he raised should be commented upon. He spoke of the economic capacity of the country to sustain social security provisions and I am sure that anyone who runs a thumb over the current economic indicators will realise that since we became the government of this country, these provisions have been substantially better than they were when the previous Government, of which the honourable member was a member, was thrown out in 1983. Those who can remember back to 1983 will know that we had the first negative growth rate since the Depression with 700 jobs being lost daily and a big blow-out in the last Budget-the `family Budget'-to try to buy back votes with the taxpayers' own money. Everyone will remember that Government for what it was-a failure in economic management and a failure at putting policies that mattered in place. We have been waiting four years now to hear the Opposition's policies relating to major areas of government and the most significant of those policies, the tax policy, is still unknown. We are still waiting for it after four years. Mr Duffy —The Opposition could be in better shape. Mr GEAR —As the Minister points out, the Opposition could be in better shape, but it is not. Can one wonder why after the events of the last couple of days? We have a fragmented Opposition and we do not know who to believe. Is it the Nationals or the Liberals? Even among the Nationals we have the `old Nats' and the `new Nats'. We have the `wets', the `dries', the `damps', the `wimps' and the `squibs'. The Opposition covers all factions on its side of the House. There is little wonder that we cannot get any common sense out of it. The honourable member for Warringah also spoke about the assets test. We will always remember the shameless way in which the Opposition went around scaring pensioners about the assets test during the last election campaign. Of course, we had old empty head leading the Opposition then and he did not really have any fiscal competence. Mr White —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the phrase used by the honourable member for Canning. He used the words `empty head'. I am not sure to whom he was referring, but that remark is certainly not parliamentary and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —If the honourable member was referring to a member of this House I ask him to withdraw. Mr GEAR —I was referring to the then Leader of the Opposition and I withdraw my remark. The assets test was a classic example of a government having the guts to put a policy in place which needed to be put in place. Even the pretender to the Liberal throne, John Elliott, agreed with this Government's putting that policy in place because he knew, as did the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), that this policy was necessary so that social security payments actually went to people in need and not people with greed. After we had looked at the applications for pensions it did not surprise us to learn that 12 millionaires had reapplied for a pension they were already getting. Twelve millionaires were getting the pension under the previous scheme. Many more people were getting it; those 12 were just dumb enough to apply for the pension again. I have often asked the Opposition a particular question which has never been answered. In fact I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). It took me six months to get an answer to that letter but when I got the reply he still failed to answer the question so I will pose it again: If the Opposition intends to abolish the assets test, will it put taxes up or bring pensions down? It cannot have it both ways? This year it is estimated that the assets test will save the Government $160m in payments to millionaires. That is money we cannot afford to give them. As the honourable member for Warringah said, and I agree with him, there is limited money to go around. This Government has targeted that money. Central to the argument of the payment of social security benefits is the capacity to pay and I will raise this matter again and again. The Liberal and National parties are making promises around this country which cannot be substantiated. I shall mention a few of them. I mentioned a few earlier today but they bear repeating because they are central to the argument. On the taxation side the Opposition has promised the institution of income splitting which will cost $2,700m. It has promised the abolition of fringe benefits tax, costing $325m. That will allow people of substantial wealth to have their taxpayer-funded Mercedes Benzes. It has promised to abolish the tax on lump sum superannuation which will allow double dipping. It has promised the reinstitution of entertainment expenses so that once again taxpayers can fund people who go to restaurants and book their meals up to their companies-and the taxpayers. The Opposition has also promised to reinstitute negative gearing so that those people of affluence can make substantial profits for themselves at the taxpayers' expense. Those promises add up to $5,900 million. There are some other measures. As I have said, the assets test amounts to $160m. The net cost to government revenue of the wage freeze is $400m. They add up to about $600m. Spending adds another $1,000m. The grand total is $7,500m. If one adds up all the other promises, it leaves a credibility gap of around $16,000m. Pensioners and anybody else who rely on the Government to fund their social security provisions or to conduct the business of government must start to wonder where the money will come from. Without the benefit of having the taxation policy of whichever part of the Opposition is putting it, we do not know where the money will come from. All we know about the National Party is that the ayatollah from the north tells us that he will have a 25c flat rate tax. It is known as the millionaires' tax because the millionaires will get the benefit. The top 27 per cent of wage earners will get the benefit, and the bottom 73 per cent of wage earners will pay more tax. At least we have an inkling of the National Party tax policy, but even that will cost revenue about $4,800m. Pensioners must start to wonder where the money is coming from to sustain their pensions in real terms and even to increase them, as this Government has done. The honourable member for Warringah also talked about incentive. We do not hear that wonderful word `incentivation' any more. They ran that one up the flagpole, had it shot full of holes, and we have never heard of it again. If the honourable member wants to talk about incentive, what about this Government's moves to drop the top tax rate of 60c in the dollar to 49c? The bottom rate, which, under Treasurer Howard, stood at 30c, has been dropped to 24c. Does that not give a bit more incentive to people on high and low incomes? Also, if we are talking about the investors of this country, the ending of double taxation on dividends must be a great incentive for people to put their money into productive enterprises rather than high-rise buildings on the Gold Coast. Mr White —All except sportsmen, who get double taxed. Mr GEAR —Is it any wonder that the honourable member for McPherson is jumping up and down? He knows that all those high-rise buildings on the Gold Coast, in his electorate, were put up by speculators. There was no productive investment for this country to build an industrial base because it all went up there. Is it any wonder that the Queensland Premier is being backed by those concerned? They know that this Government has tidied up the taxation system and ended all the rorts. No wonder they want Joh here in Canberra; he will give all the rorts back to them. At the same time he will make sure that this country does not have the capacity to pay for its social security provisions. When we talk about numbers-the amounts of money that governments spend and raise and the taxes that are paid-we always forget, in relation to social security provisions, that we are talking about people. When we talk about increasing the pension we talk about increasing the spending power of people in real need. Not too many people in this House know how pensioners have to skimp and scrape to make ends meet week after week. This Government has not only looked at providing increases in those pensions but also it has acted in other areas, such as the use of the Prices Surveillance Authority as a watchdog on prices. We know that when prices go up the people who are affected most are the people on low incomes, because they spend a much higher percentage of their incomes in the supermarkets than do people such as us. Therefore, this Government is trying to keep those prices down by using the Prices Surveillance Authority, by setting up the prices task force to monitor prices in supermarkets and by looking at outmoded business regulations that add to the cost of goods. The Government has acted on all of those. The Opposition's policy is to abolish the Prices Surveillance Authority. That is, it would let prices go unchecked. It would freeze wages; it reckons wages are too high. Also, it would stop the pension increases. I will allude to some of the achievements of the Hawke Labor Government and contrast them with some of the proposals that are being put forward by supporters of the Opposition. The DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! If the honourable member for Canning is to do that, I ask him to make sure that his remarks refer to the Bill. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. These are the social welfare achievements of which this Bill is but a further extension. You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the people in this country with the greatest need are those without jobs. This Government has created 772,000 new jobs. We have allowed those people at least to have higher incomes, to get away from the social security provisions and to get off the dole and back into the work force where they are productive and paying taxes to help pay for the social security provisions to which this Government is committed. In line with the Labor Party philosophy, there has been greater targeting of assistance towards the needy and significant progress in the alleviation of poverty traps, because that is where the real need is. The real need is not for pensions for millionaires-those 12 millionaires who used to get the pension under the coalition Government. The job of government is to make sure that those people who are in need get the assistance. A few figures are pertinent. For a sole parent with two children who is not renting privately, under the coalition Government income declined by 9 per cent in real terms; under this Government it has increased by 10 per cent in real terms. If such a family had been renting privately, income declined by 8 per cent in real terms under the coalition Government, and it increased by 11 per cent in real terms under this Government. The long term unemployed single adult-the person in our community who is the hardest hit, the person who is without a job and has not had one for a long time-under the coalition Government had a decrease in income from social security provisions of 17 per cent in real terms, but under this Government his income has gone up by 19 per cent if he is not renting privately. If he is renting privately, under the coalition Government his income went down by 17 per cent; under this Government it has gone up by 31 per cent. I use those examples to illustrate the difference in the provision of social security to those people in real need under this Government compared with provision under the miserable mob who were in government before. Under the Fraser-Howard economic strategy we saw unemployment treble. In its last three years, 1980-83, it doubled from 311,000 to 635,000-an absolutely scandalous result. I will show that the social cost of the coalition Government's economic incompetence was measured in great part by those unemployed. This Government, as I said, has created over 775,000 jobs and there are more to come because we have the right economic policies in place for Australia. A lot of crocodile tears are cried on the other side of the House in relation to the age pensioners. Under the Hawke Government the standard pension has creased more than 6 per cent in real terms compared with 1 1/2 per cent over the seven years of the previous Government. Another measure of that is that in March 1983 the pension was 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. By December last year we had increased that to 24.1 per cent of average weekly earnings. Rent assistance has been increased by 50 per cent. The separate income test for rent assistance is to be abolished in July 1987, which will give about 300,000 people up to $15 a week extra. They are the people who are in greatest need, not the millionaires who used to get the pension under the coalition Government. Certainly this Government has never shirked the hard decisions of giving the Social Security Act the power to direct that assistance where it is needed. When we look at the poverty traps which are addressed in this Bill, a series of changes to the pension income test will come into effect in July 1987. The free area will be increased from $30 to $40 for single people, and from $50 to $70 for married couples, and from an additional $6 per child to $12 per child. As an illustration of the effect of these changes a single pensioner in rental accommodation will receive part pension until income from other sources reaches $290 per week compared with $185 per week when this Government came to office. Once again, we can look back on our record in social security and compare it with anything that the coalition Government ever did, just to show that this Government takes its responsibilities seriously in relation to the social security provisions. Not only that, but we will act to end the rorts in the social security provisions where they exist, which is something that Opposition members never did. On the other side of the coin, in the absence of a policy from the Liberal Party and the National Party, and all the factions that they represent-- Mr Lindsay —Which `they'? Mr GEAR —My colleague rightly asks: Which National Party? Is it the `old Nats' or the `new Nats'? He might also ask whether it is the wets or the dries, or the damps, the wets or the squibs. There are so many factions over there it does not really matter; we could have a policy from each one. However, I doubt whether we will see one policy from any of them. Their colleagues, those in the Australian Chamber of Commerce, have released their demands for budgetary action, and they make interesting reading for those people who do believe that others in the community require assistance. The Chamber's blueprint for widespread misery would have the unemployment benefit paid out for only 16 weeks a year. Its real intention of course is to scrap it and to have self-insurance. One can just envisage the insurance companies in the private sector lining up to take premiums from people who want to insure themselves for unemployment benefits. Further, it wants to drop indexation, that is, actually to reduce the unemployment benefit over time. It also wants the church and the Salvation Army to carry the burden. I point out, though, that churches, the Salvation Army, and all the groups which do a wonderful job in our community are overburdened with the responsibilities that they have now. If one refers to the New Right bible, the Mandate to Govern, the following statement is made: In principle unemployment benefit should provide an intolerably low standard of living in order to maintain the incentive to seek work. The honourable member for McPherson would agree with that. Honourable members opposite would agree with that. What this espouses is that people should be starved, that if they cannot find a job they should starve, and that if they are not good enough to get a job the state should not look after them. This was alluded to in a speech earlier. Other statements put out by the New Right-- Mr White —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I do not think that anyone minds the honourable member for Canning quoting from a document, but I object to words being put into my mouth and suggestions that I believe something that he quotes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr GEAR —It seems that I have once again touched a raw nerve with the Opposition. Of course, the honourable member for McPherson can repudiate it if he wants to, but obviously he does not want to do so. The New Right has a wonderful philosophy. It says that the poor have no incentive because they have too much money and that the rich have no incentive because they have too little money. So, the recipe of the New Right for getting this country going again is to give the rich more money but ensure that the poor have less money. When one sits down and thinks about it, it is an amazing philosophy. It is about incentive, or what for a week was called incentivation. I have here a copy of a newspaper article entitled `Draft ``horror'' Budget would knock welfare'. This was put out by the New Right. Details of the New Right Budget are: Pensions-an end to indexation of pensions and benefits. As we know from the leaked Liberal Party document, that is exactly what the Liberal Party would do-that is, over time allow the real value of age pensions to go down by stopping the indexation. I have said before that its policy is to end the Prices Surveillance Authority, allow prices to go unchecked, freeze wages and stop pension increases. It is a recipe for disaster, because it would put the boot into the people who can least afford it. The New Right further asserts: Assets test to remain. Pensions to taper off at a rate of $25 a week for every $10,000 over the threshold. So, the New Right is going to toughen up the assets test rather than adopt the wimpish way that the Liberal Party and the National Party have gone about the matter. Those parties have indicated to us that they would knock the assets test out. The New Right further indicates: Family allowances to be taxed at the marginal income tax rate of the `chief breadwinner' and abolished for the first child. It asserts that it can save $600m from that. I would like to hear the Liberal Party's response to that proposal by the New Right. Further details of the New Right Budget are: Disability pensions to be taxed for veterans and dependents, and the assets test to apply. The Department of Veterans' Affairs to be abolished. They are just some of the measures which have been talked about on the other side of politics and which stand in stark contrast to what the present Government has done. The Government will never shirk its responsibilities to those people who rely on the social security provisions. At the same time, as we indicated when introducing the Australia Card legislation, we are out to catch the cheats in the system. The Liberal Party's voting against the Australia Card in the Senate is a clear indication of what it stands for, as the Australia Card is the most powerful weapon that we have against not only tax fraud but also welfare fraud. So, on all fronts the Government will make sure that welfare fraud does not exist, that tax fraud does not exist, that we have the capacity to pay the increased benefits that this Government wants to give to those people in need. This stands in stark contrast to the lack of policy that honourable members opposite have-except for the policies espoused in New Right documents that they endorse by implication. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(6.26) —It is indeed a sad occasion when the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) drags back into this place his tired old arguments on the Australian Labor Party's ID card. Members of the Opposition presented a very strong and effective debate when we opposed, just a short time ago, Labor's ID proposal. We pointed out that we are opposed to tax and welfare fraud. We do not believe that Labor's ID card in any way, shape or form would solve the problems that the Government claims it would solve. It would be a very expensive intrusion into the privacy of every man, woman and child in this country. However, on this occasion we are debating the Social Security Amendment Bill 1987. It is a major Bill which covers many aspects of the social security system. Indeed, as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) mentioned in his second reading speech, provision has been made for renumbering the provisions of the Act so that, in effect, every single provision of the Act is covered by this Bill. This, of course, provides an opportunity for a very wide ranging debate by members on both sides of the House. It gives us an opportunity to take into account the Government's stewardship in this area, to refer to the Government's neglect and failure in this area. The fact that the Minister's second reading speech on this major Bill covers only a mere three pages indicates that the Government has not set out clearly what it intends to achieve. At first indication, the provisions of the Bill might appear to be innocuous, but the Government fails to address very important issues, such as continuing high government expenditure and the blowout in the cost of social security payments made to people in Australia. Further, the Bill fails to address the way in which government policy has led to the development of a hand-out mentality in this country. Of course, the Opposition's position will be misrepresented. The Government will suggest that we are opposed to assistance being given to those people genuinely in need. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are opposed to-and we make no apology whatsoever for our opposition-is the Government's attempt to make the average person in Australia subject to government assistance virtually from the cradle to the grave. This Bill and the speakers on the Government side have failed to address the key issues of fraud and overpayment. Social welfare is costing the Australian taxpayer close to $20 billion every year. That sum is too high. As I mentioned a moment ago, welfare should go to those people genuinely in need but, unfortunately, the Labor Party has handed over social welfare to the left wing of the Party. We find the Minister in dispute with the Treasurer (Mr Keating). We find that whenever anyone comes forward and says that we must clamp down on the rorts and rip-offs the Minister takes a very soft line. The Government needs some steel in its spine; it needs to take firm, decisive steps to reduce social welfare fraud and overservicing. Earlier this year when I was acting shadow Minister for Social Security, I called for a campaign to dob in social security cheats. This, of course, would save Australian taxpayers millions of dollars and it would help to stop the growing instance of fraud. What has the Government done in this regard? Has it accepted this suggestion? Of course not. The campaign could be run along similar lines to the successful anti-drug exercise known as Operation Noah. People would be encouraged to report instances of fraud directly to a special hotline telephone number and trained departmental officers could then investigate each case on the basis of information received. All thinking Australians, regardless of their political views, would, in my view, welcome this direct approach. People are growing increasingly concerned at the number of welfare recipients abusing the system. The cost of this sort of campaign would be easily recouped through the substantial savings which would be achieved. The Government's failure to act on the problem of social security fraud has already cost Mr and Mrs average Australia $2,000m-$2 billion-and the anti-fraud measures announced in last year's Budget simply do not measure up to the current problem. This, of course, was confirmed last November by the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This report said: . . . many serious cases are not being referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions simply because they have not been investigated. The Federal Government has clearly not grasped the enormity of the problem and is fast losing control of the situation. It is our view that all alleged cases of fraud should be thoroughly investigated and the offenders prosecuted. I believe the Minister for Social Security should now look seriously at this Operation Noah style phone-in which I suggested some months ago. There is a desperate need to take firm and decisive steps to eradicate the incidence of fraud and overpayment. The public would participate in exposing those people who are milking the system. Every honourable member would no doubt have received approaches from people in society complaining about instances of social welfare fraud and overpayment. If the Government encouraged people to phone-in to departmental officers, I think it would have a very pleasant surprise. It would find that more welfare cheats would be knocked off the Government's payroll and money could get through to those people genuinely in need. Given the current disastrous economic situation, with inflation running at about 10 per cent, high unemployment and limited availability of funds, it is important-in fact it is a national duty-for the Government to ensure that it obtains the maximum possible return on the welfare dollar. Unless the Government takes this action immediately social security fraud will continue needlessly to cost the Australian taxpayer millions of dollars. My suggestion for an Operation Noah style phone-in received editorial support from the Brisbane Telegraph of 9 March this year. It is obvious that there is a changing mood in society and that Mr and Mrs average Australia have simply had the situation. They will not accept it continuing. Something has to be done and it has to be done now. What is the Government response? The Minister for Social Security says that the Government is going to have a blitz. I suppose the word `blitz' should appear in inverted commas, because it is certainly a Clayton's blitz. I have here an excerpt from the Courier-Mail of 16 March 1987 which bears the headline `Blitz on dole to affect 104,000'. I suppose we thought: `Perhaps the Government is at last realising the enormity of the problem; perhaps the Government will now do something; perhaps the Government will strike a blow for the honest taxpayers of Australia'. But what happened? We found that officers of the Department of Social Security said they would not carry out the Government's intention. Can honourable members imagine that? Paid public servants were prepared to subvert the Government's attempt to reduce welfare fraud and overpayment. It is bad enough when one gets militant trade unions such as the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association saying that it will not carry out the Government's policy. I do not know how we can accept the situation where we have public servants-they are supposed to be servants of the public-refusing to carry out lawful directions. But worse than that, this Government capitulated. It gave in. This Government permitted the union to block dole questions, thereby allowing people who were wrongfully receiving benefits to escape detection. The Melbourne Herald of 20 April 1987 had a very illuminating article. I would like to quote from the first paragraph of that article. It said: Strong industrial opposition has forced the Social Security Department to revamp planned interviews of more than 100,000 long-term unemployed. The department has scrapped at least 12 of 32 questions- more than a third of the questions that the Department initially thought were necessary to be asked- . . . from a package prepared for the Federal Government's crackdown on welfare fraud . . . or the Government's so-called crackdown. That leaves 20 questions, one would think, which would be asked-20 out of the original 32. But this matter does not finish there, because the Government has given to those same officers who opposed the initial proposal the right to exclude further questions at their discretion. Does that mean that an officer who does not in any way, shape or form wish to cut social welfare fraud will be permitted to ask two, three or four irrelevant questions? The Government has left a way out to make its program entirely ineffective. I think those people listening to this broadcast would be interested to know the questions which have been scrapped under the Government's surrender arrangement to the union. The first question is: `Have you worked since your benefit commenced?'. How on earth can the Government accept the deletion of that question? Surely it goes right to the essence of entitlement to receive welfare payments. The next question was: `Do you get any payments from . . . boarders . . . or . . . lodgers?' If people have alternative sources of income, surely that is another relevant consideration. Another question was: `Do you receive income from rented property?' Again, the Government has shirked a question which should rightfully be asked on whether the person receives certain additional income. The next question was: `What efforts have you made to get work in the past four weeks?' Social welfare and dole payments should be given to those people who need them. The dole is a payment of last resort to people who cannot get work. Yet under the Government's agreement-its surrender to the union-the public servants will now not be asking welfare recipients what efforts they have made to get work in the past four weeks. That makes an absolute joke of the Minister's program. Another matter is that those people being interviewed will not have to produce proof of identity-their father's name, their mother's maiden name or their place of birth. Consequently, the Department has handcuffed itself. The Department, by giving in to the wishes of a militant union, has prevented the Government's campaign-if in fact one can call it that-from being effective. I think it is a tragedy that in this day and age when Australia is virtually a Third World country with a First World standard of living-a country where almost $20 billion is being spent on welfare; a country with a national debt of over $101 billion, or about $6,000 for every man, woman and child; which has an enormous trade deficit of over $12 billion or thereabouts for a year; which, as I have mentioned before in this place, is fast becoming the Argentina of the Pacific-this Government is failing to grasp this opportunity to eliminate welfare cheats from the system. Of course, to cheat on welfare is to thieve from one's fellow Australians. The Government's claim that its dole crackdown will be effective-and certainly there have been some savings to date-and that it will necessarily cut 25,000 from the list and save $100m might well be an optimistic forecast. I wish to reiterate, just in case those people opposite would like to misinterpret what we are saying, that we are not opposed to assisting those people who are genuinely in need. However, we are opposed to the Government's complete maladministration of social security matters. Before I close, I draw the attention of the House to the single rate tax policy which was mentioned during this debate by the honourable member for Canning and the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). I must say that they indulged in scare tactics. They failed to note that we are talking about a single rate tax policy and not a flat rate tax policy. They failed to take into account that no person who is currently paying less than 25c in the dollar will pay any more than he is now paying. I assure the pensioners of Australia that they will not be worse off. They should disregard the comments of Labor members opposite which are quite incorrect. Our main policy objectives in the area of social security will attract the support of the people of Australia at the next election. We aim to make the social security system simple and easy to understand. We aim to improve administration and to modernise methods of services and control of benefit payment. We aim to target resources better and to concentrate help where it is most needed. We aim to support and encourage the family structure as the traditional and basic unit of our society. Mr Tim Fischer —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member. We aim to improve incentives to work, save, earn more and study. We aim to give more recognition to the needs of people with disabilities. We aim to ensure that services are delivered efficiently and economically. We also aim to take those steps which are necessary to place social security on a secure financial base for the future. Australia is a compassionate society. However, we are a country with finite means. We are a country which must exercise financial administration in a husband-like way. We cannot afford to squander money that we do not have. Australia once was the lucky country. But under Labor we are now virtually a Third World country. We are a country in deep trouble. We are saddled with a government which has a shocking record of bad administration, a shocking record of neglect and a shocking record of the destruction of our economy. Therefore, in the area of social security, we seek from the Government common sense and a fair go for the average Australian. We seek from the government that it take the necessary steps to stamp out fraud and overpayment so that social security funds can get through to those people who genuinely need them. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(6.44) —I reject the contention of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) that we are a Third World country. I reject the comparison and the somehow odious reference to Argentina which I think is a beautiful country, having visited that nation in 1984. I think it has a lot to teach Australia culturally and in other ways. It is also a very rich and fertile land and now that democracy has been restored I think it is on the road to success. Some of the outrageous things that the honourable member for Fisher said cannot be allowed to pass. It is a shame that he did not attend the talk last night in this House organised by the Parliamentary Library in which Professor Mathews spoke on the subject of taxation. Many of the things Professor Mathews said would have gladdened the honourable member's heart. Professor Mathews said that if we are to have a single flat rate tax, it will have to be accompanied by a wealth tax such as that which is levied in Europe. I have not heard anything about a wealth tax. However, he pointed out that such a tax must be part and parcel of a single rate tax. That is the procedure in Europe. Nearly all of the European countries tax wealth. I am sure that that is something that the National Party of Australia will never agree to. Its single rate tax will be laughed out of court. The honourable member for Fisher talked about improving services within the Department of Social Security. The Government agrees with that. Everybody agrees with improving services. The Department now has 16,000 staff. All the National Party and the Liberal Party of Australia did when they were in government was cut staff. In 1982 the razor gang cut staff in every department. It was impossible to chase up people who were being reported for fraud or overpayment. That was certainly just a hollow statement by the honourable member for Fisher. His colleagues are loud in this House in their desire to revoke the assets test and to give pensions to people who now no longer qualify because their assets are such as to disqualify them. Yet, at the same time, the honourable member complains about the size of the social welfare budget which is about a third of our national Budget. He and his colleagues very foolishly say: `We want to cut welfare but we want to give pensions to everyone who is of pension age'. If they want to do that they need to investigate the desirability of introducing national superannuation. The legislation before the House is of great importance. I feel that I must answer one other point that the honourable member made in his speech. The honourable member is a good friend of mine. However, he put forward an appalling proposal for an operation dobber under which one would have to dob in a friend, a neighbour, the lady across the road or some other old lady who may or may not be doing something illegal under the Social Security Act. I think that is outrageous. I think the Australian people are against the whole notion of pimps. It is against the Australian character. Our colleagues opposed the ID card on the basis of protecting privacy. Such a proposal would be an outrageous invasion of privacy. Let us consider the distress that would be caused if a wrongful or a spiteful allegation were made against someone getting the age pension who was sick and, perhaps, in a nursing home. Surely no member of this House could support such a proposal. That is why it has never been acted on. This is the sort of thing that happens in a totalitarian regime. We hear of children in Russia who allegedly report their parents for going to church and that type of thing. I say to the National Party: Please do not run such a frivolous proposal. Australians accept this type of thing in certain cases. The Operation Noah drug campaign was tolerated, and quite rightly so. The campaign was quite successful in the States. People in the drug scene were dobbed in and I am sure that the police got many leads out of this campaign. If the proposal of the honourable member for Fisher were let loose we would be encouraged to dob in a tax cheat, a teacher who was not doing the right thing or a doctor who was overservicing. Where would we stop? We could be asked to dob in an accountant who gave us advice on how to cheat the Australian Taxation Office. The honourable member must rethink his operation dobber proposal. He must weigh it against the whole area of privacy and public policy. What does he hope to do when he gets all of this information? How many staff will need to be taken on by the Department of Social Security? There are already 16,000 there now. One cannot get a base grade clerk to go out and investigate complaints. One has to have trained personnel who will sensitively, sympathetically and thoroughly investigate all allegations. All of us in this House as members of parliament receive letters and oral complaints from constituents about social security cheats. Some honourable members insist on statutory declarations. But, if members of parliament get letters they are duty bound to send them to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I am sure that every member of this House and the Senate does that. Many prosecutions are made under the Act and this legislation deals with some of them. To get it in perspective we must realise that 1.3 million Australians received the age pension in 1985-86 and of those there were only 1,903 prosecutions. Most of these must have been pleas of guilty. Each of these prosecutions has to be investigated. They have to be prepared, and written up and typed by departmental officers. They then have to be sent to the legal officers, either in the Department or in what used to be called the Crown Solicitor's Office, and people have to go before the magistrates. Of the 1,903 prosecutions, 1,885 resulted in convictions and the amounts involved totalled $8.6m. That seems a lot of money but when one looks at the amount of $15 billion paid out in pensions, which was one-third of the Budget, one sees that it is not a very significant percentage. There will always be problems in any social security system in ensuring that everyone is scrupulously honest. My experience not only as a member of parliament but also in the Crown Solicitor's Office was that people, particularly widows, got into trouble. These hard-working people would get a job, say, at a canteen. They would work for three weeks and be so good that an employer would beg them to stay for a bit longer. These people who would be working to make ends meet would then be dobbed in by somebody. Invariably that is how people are found out. I notice that this legislation is increasing the penalties for employers to ensure that, if required, they give information about people who are working for them. I have never quite understood the matter of a personal liability being listed in legislation in the case of failure to comply. The maximum fine of $500 for an individual is being increased to $1,000 or six months imprisonment, and in the case of a corporation it has to pay a $5,000 fine. This means that individual loses six months salary. Even supposing that he or she is on average yearly earnings of about $22,000, that works out at a fine of about $12,000 plus the $1,000 fine which is not even an alternative; it is cumulative. So if an individual is fined the maximum amount he is looking at a loss of $13,000 whereas a company can only be fined up to $5,000. Of course, nominal fines are often imposed, particularly on first offenders. I often wonder why the draftsmen drawing up these Bills do not work on average weekly earnings when setting the fine to be imposed not just in the legislation which is before the House tonight but also in other Bills. Under section 17 of the legislation there is an obligation, which is extremely relevant, on staff in the Department not to divulge personal information and breach of this also attracts increased penalties. I must say that in my electorate of Lowe I have a very good working relationship with the Social Security office, which is the main office covering 110,000 people in the suburb of Strathfield. I am told that a new office is to open next Monday at Ashfield in the electorate of Grayndler-the electorate held by my colleague the Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay)-right on the boundary of Lowe. The local newspaper is not able to establish how residents will find out what areas of Lowe are covered. But it is a good thing to increase the facilities so that old and frail people, or people who might be ill, do not have to go long distances to obtain information on their pensions, or perhaps apply for a pension or any other service from the Department of Social Security. It also eases the work in the electorate offices of members of parliament. So I am delighted that this new office is opening next week in the electorate of Grayndler. I only hope that the Department will see its way clear to open an office in the suburb of Burwood, which is the main shopping centre between Sydney and Parramatta and the commercial heart not only of my electorate but also of the inner western suburbs of Sydney. I assume it is mainly because the rents are so high in Sydney that there is no office there. The legislation has other important facets. It includes reciprocal agreements on social security with the United Kingdom and New Zealand in the Schedules to the Act. Last year, when I was fortunate enough to visit Italy, it was very encouraging to meet Australian citizens who, having worked all their lives for this nation, had returned to Italy in their declining years and were living up in the mountains at San Fele and down near Potenza. I met one man in the village of San Fele who received an Australian pension. He was literally an agent or an honorary consul for Australia, spreading the word about Australia. He missed his beloved Five Dock back in Sydney and had many nostalgic memories of the good life in Australia. But he had decided to do what the Whitlam Government had allowed people to do, and that was to return to their homelands in their declining years. No one could criticise such a proposal, and I was pleased that the previous Government allowed it. The social security agreements have been cranked up and the Italian agreement is still going through the Parliament. As I have mentioned, other matters in the Bill relate to prosecutions, offences under the Act and a number of miscellaneous matters. Rather than delay the House I want only to touch on the carer's pension, which is reasonably new, and amnesty. The annual report of the Department of Social Security for the year 1985-86 has details of the amnesty which was held during that year and which resulted in about 14,000 persons coming forward and surrendering pensions. I believe that an amnesty is something that Australians tolerate but they certainly do not tolerate an operation dobber. Members of the Opposition must realise that if they promote an operation dobber and they dob in a neighbour who is getting perhaps a bit more than he should in the way of old age pension, there is no holding such a scheme. It would just go into every other facet of public life. I do not believe that Australian children should be encouraged to dob in people and I do not believe that Australian citizens should be encouraged to do this, except in serious criminal matters. We put forward a proposal, which the Opposition could have supported, to defeat welfare fraud. We have had a plea from the honourable member for Fisher to do something about welfare fraud, yet the Opposition totally rejected the Australia Card. The coalition has split up and members of the National Party of Australia can now support the ID card with impunity, because they will no longer be dragged by the Liberals to oppose the ID card. If the ID card comes forward again I hope that we will see members of the National Party cross the floor and vote with the Government. I commend the previous government speaker, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), who spoke on the legislation. He made the point that when we came to government in 1983 the age pension was 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. It is now 24.1 per cent and hovering around 24 per cent of average weekly earnings. I think we have a good case to put to the pensioners in Australia. After all, as I said earlier, 1.34 million people in this nation have to live on the pension. All members of parliament see pensioners who are at the cut-off point who lose fringe benefits when one spouse dies because they have a bit of income. These are all very sad cases and I hope that in the fullness of time this Government will do much to cut out not only the poverty traps but also those areas where old people are worried because of a loss of fringe benefits. The other day I saw a lady who was receiving a small superannuation payment. She had been a nursing sister in child care clinics and she received a small pension but by $1 she lost her fringe benefits. There must be a cut-off point, as everyone knows, for every government pension or service under this Act and under many other Acts relating to Austudy and other things, but it is sad for people to lose fringe benefits when they mean so much to them-perhaps more than is the case in reality because they are all covered by Medicare. This leads to the provision of many State and local government benefits, but mainly benefits ultimately paid for by the States. The situation in each State varies. Some States have pensioner concessions on local government rates and other States do not have such concessions. In the few minutes that remain to me in this debate I wish to pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who has doubled the amount available for pensioner accommodation and for public housing. I also pay tribute to those local groups who work for the aged, not only in my area but throughout New South Wales and in Australia generally. I pay tribute to the unpaid people who run the senior citizens clubs, the Combined Pensioners in New South Wales, the Blue Nursing Service and the Sydney Home Nursing Service, which does so much good work as a scheduled hospital in New South Wales which looks after old people. I also pay tribute to the Council on the Ageing in New South Wales, which is the peak organisation for Meals on Wheels and similar services. I wish to mention Mrs Averil Fink, the director of that service, who retired last week. I was sorry that I could not go to her farewell, but she has spent her life working for old people. I was for some years an executive councillor in the Council for the Ageing. I made a small contribution to that organisation, but Mrs Fink did a lot to create a good feeling towards that organisation. It paved the way to preparing groups and organisations for carers, those people who look after their old mums and dads, or sick wives. Some of those people give up their jobs to undertake this work. Most of them are in their fifties and abandon their employment in order to stay home to care for a frail relative. From time to time members of this House should pay tribute to Australians who are prepared to sacrifice all in nursing their parents or sick husbands or wives. Those carers are saving the Government money by keeping people out of nursing homes. The Government has done a lot to help the aged and is constantly moving towards improving the carer's pension. In this debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill I thought I should mention these matters. I commend the Bill to the House. I am sure that when the honourable member for Fisher takes the opportunity to read my remarks he will appreciate that there are a lot of problems in running a dobbing in service in social security. We must bear in mind not just the implications for social security and the impossibility of recruiting the great numbers of extra staff that would be needed to handle these matters, but also the implications for every other aspect of Australian life. People would be asked to dob in tax cheats. They would be asked to dob in a neighbour with a defective car, or a neighbour's child who is not paying tax on his or her babysitting, or the lady up the street who has a small cleaning job. I think that the Australian people would totally reject such an inhuman and unsympathetic treatment of fellow Australians. I believe that it is an attitude that no government should encourage. I urge the House to support the legislation. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(7.04) —The Social Security Amendment Bill is of great significance in the area of social welfare. It is important to consolidate the present Act and to clarify many of its provisions. This legislation does that. It brings to the attention of members of this House and to the people of Australia some of the important considerations involved in the provision of social welfare and its administration. For some time past it has been unfortunate for the average beneficiary of social welfare that the provisions of the legislation have not been more clearly and more precisely spelt out. People should not be left in doubt about such important issues as the indexing of the assets test, the threshold and a number of other matters in the area of administration. Those matters have not had a proper legislative backing for some time past. I am concerned that the legislation still does not make it possible for the ordinary beneficiary to know exactly where he or she stands. Let me instance payments to those who are also negotiating a compensation settlement, for example. These matters can run on for a considerable time. It is not unusual for a period of 24 months, 36 months or even longer to pass in reaching such settlements. A great deal of money is at stake and it may involve repayments. One can read the legislation and be none the wiser. Some of my constituents have faced these problems, and the only way they can ultimately be resolved is by seeking legal advice-advice that is often not available these days from legal aid because of the stringency that now applies to that area. One finds that after the payment of compensation, the court takes into account certain matters and the Department is reticent in saying how much it expects to be paid back or on what basis. An average person who has sought compensation is placed in the hands of the legal fraternity for excessive periods of time at very high cost. Surely these matters could be spelt out more effectively so that people will know on an ongoing basis where they stand. In New South Wales in recent weeks great arguments have taken place on compensation claims and entitlements. This is very much linked to the problem of payment of social security benefits to enable people to survive while they are waiting for compensation claims to be settled. I hope that some action will be taken to put in a more simple form what is meant by the legislation in matters of this kind. Time does not permit one to raise many of the important aspects in this field of social security. My colleagues have raised issues on which I could comment, but I shall have to be content to leave those remarks to another occasion. However, I refer to continuing statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on unemployment benefits under the general heading `Work for the Dole'. Most misleading statements have been made by this Government in stressful areas of social security. It has made statements and then retracted them; it has proposed all sorts of actions and then nothing has been done. I know that this traverses an area beyond that of social security alone; it also enters the area of employment. But many hollow words have been uttered on this subject. This debate has ranged over the issues of dole cheating, the review of payments, the chaos that exists in the Department of Social Security and the administrative difficulties that have been caused by industrial action and the like. At the end of the day this country is faced with an enormous dilemma. It arises from the fact that in the last decade or so, including periods under previous governments, young people have come to expect benefits and this attitude has become embedded in our community to a worrying extent. We have not structured the incentives, the attitudes and the characteristics of the Australian way that carried this nation to greatness in this area in earlier times. It is certainly a matter that is not compatible with purely the iron fist of control. There is a need for a little of both-the iron fist and the velvet glove. I believe that the investigative actions that have been taken have been worth while but they need to be moulded into some real understanding of how people can be encouraged to follow a better way. Perhaps we should have the stringencies that apply in Canada where a person has to wait 40 weeks before he is paid unemployment benefit. On the other hand, without something that relates to what happens then, it is all a lost cause. In that country there is a range of other social welfare benefits that merely pick up at that point and the outlay is not relieved. The beneficiaries are not aided and assisted to get out of the rut they have got into. The real issue in this whole question is the long term situation of unemployment, the ongoing problem that is created for families and certainly for young people. We need a new approach, an approach that this Government has certainly failed to introduce and an approach that has been hinted at by many from a wide spectrum of interests in this challenging area of need. Certainly we in the National Party have an aspiration to do better. I am sure that when the change of government comes we will find a better way to deal with these problems, a more effective one, one that is to the benefit of each tier-those who pay the taxes, those who need the benefits and those who need to be helped out of the welfare area. I am sorry that time precludes me from speaking further but I will conclude now to give one of my colleagues an opportunity to speak. I very much support the expressions from this side of the House on these very important issues. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(7.12) —I have just a few words to say before a quarter past seven but I intend to say a lot tomorrow about the problems of the elderly in Australia today. It is very good to see my friend and colleague the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) in the chamber tonight as he has been very involved with me in an inquiry that we have undertaken to look at the problems of the elderly in Australia. We found that it was very difficult to bring it all together. When we travel the breadth of Australia we find that problems in one location are different from those in another and that governments have tried to address the problems of the elderly but, regrettably, they have only just touched the surface because they do not understand. I think the word `pragmatic' means practical. I do not think there are enough practical politicians in Australia today who find out the real problems and then bring them back into this Parliament and develop policies that may help. Everywhere we go we hear a lot about the elderly staying in their own homes. Goodness, who will look after the great number of elderly who are in their own homes? We hear the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) talking about people looking after the elderly and so forth, but the Government does not know that thousands of elderly people are living in what could only be called deprivation. They are living alone, they are bitterly disappointed and, regrettably, are just waiting to die. Therefore, governments have to address this problem and I intend to say a lot about it tomorrow. My colleague and friend the honourable member for Cowper will agree with my sentiments. I think we speak in unison because we are both practical politicians. We do not get involved in the rot of factionalism; we just try to bring down recommendations that will make it good for the elderly people of Australia. There are a lot of socialists in the Government who do a heck of a lot of talking but when they try to bring down recommendations, those recommendations do not mean very much at all. I will continue my speech tomorrow. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COBB(Parkes)(7.15) —Tonight I wish to speak about an outrageous strike on the New South Wales waterfront that held up the export of grain worth millions of dollars from farmers in New South Wales. I refer to the strike which finished today at the Newcastle Terminal and the Glebe Island Terminal in Sydney. It was one of the most ridiculous strikes in a long line of strikes that have plagued our waterfront, especially the grain loading operations of our waterfront, in recent years. This strike started last Friday because an employee of the Grain Handling Authority of New South Wales, a Mr Allan Johnson, was dismissed because of persistent absenteeism. As a result, all Australian Workers Union members walked off the job for an indefinite period demanding the man's reinstatement and the GHA stood down all Public Service Association employees at the Sydney terminal. Following this the PSA called out all its members in Newcastle and because the AWU members could not be usefully employed, they were stood down too. So we had this ridiculous situation. I wonder whether the individual union members knew what they were striking for. I wonder whether the individual union members were told why they were striking instead of just being told by their union representatives that they had to go on strike. It is interesting to look at why Mr Allan Johnson was stood down. Each employee is entitled to 10 sick days per year without a medical certificate. However, if he stays in his job for three years he can take 20 sick days a year and if he stays five years he can take up to 30 sick days a year. One wonders when it will end. That in itself is an outrageous work practice. However, this gentleman took 17 days off in 1985 and 30 days in 1986 and he was told several times to produce a medical certificate. He got two more warnings in January and April of this year but he took no notice of them. He was advised that unless he produced a medical certificate he would be dismissed. He still defied the GHA, so he was eventually fired. It is interesting to look at the real reason why the men walked out. Twenty-five out of the 112 AWU members at Sydney have now had more than 10 days sickies and are therefore what is called `on certificates'. Therefore, this dismissal is causing what an organiser and advocate for the AWU, Mr Trevor de Costa, calls a morale problem. That is, the union is concerned that more than 20 or so of its members could be dismissed if they continue to abuse the system. However, the sacked worker about whom I am talking tonight has taken over 57 sickies in all-- Mr Tim Fischer —Shame! Mr COBB —It is; it is outrageous. Some 36 of them were taken without a medical certificate. By any stretch of the imagination, this employee had been given more than a fair go. The situation with the GHA in New South Wales is truly abysmal. In March this year the average level of absenteeism each day was 37 out of the 180 PSA and AWU employees-more than 20 per cent. In January the figure was even worse; 48 on average-27 per cent were absent each day. For the first three months of this year 19 were absent each day and this figure does not include recreational leave or workers compensation. The level of absenteeism on the day shift is four times higher than that of the afternoon shift. The reason for that is that an employee gets paid time and a half for the afternoon shift. I think that fact alone indicates how fair dinkum members' absenteeism claims are. This strike about which I am talking-I have pages of information on strikes to which I could refer-held up three ships at both Sydney and Newcastle, each of which was about 50,000 tonnes. Demurrage ran into thousands of dollars a day. Sales were being lost; markets were being lost and this loss is ultimately passed back to the wheat growers such as those in the Parkes electorate. There is a chronicle on strikes and this is only the last of many. The actions of these men could almost be regarded as treasonable actions against Australia, particularly when this country has an overseas debt of almost $100,000m. Mr Peter Fisher —Was he really sick, though? Mr COBB —I very much doubt it. One GHA employee was recently dismissed. He was off on workers compensation and he was dismissed because some of those in authority at the GHA saw him on television playing football for South Sydney. This is the sort of thing that is going on. It is absolutely outrageous. One ship that came into port on 21 December last year did not get out until 5 January. It loaded 47,747 tonnes and lost $27,000 on the whole operation because of the penalties, strikes, et cetera. The ship was screwed to the limit over the holiday period. That ship will not be back. The whole GHA operation is inefficient and rotten to the core. The National Party and the Liberal Party, when returned to government in New South Wales and in Canberra will clean up this mess, put in private enterprise contractors and place the New South Wales waterfront on a proper commercial footing. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(7.20) —One issue which has caused great concern in Australia was the abduction of Mordachai Vanunu from Rome airport on 30 September 1986 by members of the Israeli Secret Service. Let me make it clear, to avoid any misunderstanding, that my speech tonight is not an anti-Israel speech nor an anti-Jewish speech, but rather it is a speech in defence of human rights based on international law. As a person who visited Belsen concentration camp in 1974 and was profoundly moved by the awesome depiction of mass murder and cruelty of Jewish people which was represented in Belsen and the compelling physical feeling of desolation and melancholy which pervaded the atmosphere of the camp site, it saddens me that the Israeli Government now perpetrates acts which remind one of their nazi oppressors. In 1979 Israel and South Africa tested a nuclear weapon. It is not know whether or not the test was successful but together South Africa and Israel have continued to develop nuclear weapons technology and Mordachai Vanunu's crime was to divulge information that Israel has now got the capacity to build at least 10, possibly 20, nuclear weapons annually. Mr Vanunu had worked for 10 years in Israel's secret nuclear weapons factory at Dimona in the Negev Desert and supplied information and photographs to the international media which led British and American nuclear scientists to eventually conclude that Israel possessed from 10 to 20 nuclear weapons. On the basis of the information the scientists ranked Israel as the world's sixth nuclear power. This nuclear achievement by Israel has been achieved by collaboration in an active military accord signed in 1976 whereby South Africa received weapons and sophisticated technologies from Israel and in return provided funds for the development of Israeli weapons systems and supplied raw materials such as rare metals and uranium. In the following decade Israel has sold to South Africa missile armed patrol boats, anti-tank weapons, radar installations and a range of anti-insurgency equipment. Ultimately Israel licensed South Africa to build much of this equipment and provided plans, technology and advice to help the South African Government to establish a military electronics industry. With the increase of military and economic links there has been a corresponding increase in the political and cultural relations between Israel and South Africa. I find it quite inexplicable that Israel should be prepared to cement its paradoxical relationship with South Africa when that relationship is so detrimental to its relationship with the non-aligned nations, particularly the African nations. Israel has always said that it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Indeed, one would expect that it would be suicidal for Israel to use nuclear weapons to defend its territory as one modern high yield nuclear weapon could destroy the total populated area of Israel. It is of course likely that both Israel and South Africa have settled on small tactical nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons would not destroy Israeli or South African cities which exist so close to their potential targets. For South Africans there will be no future until they are prepared to accept that black Africans in South Africa have the right to be treated as citizens with equal legal, political and social rights to the Asian, coloured and white races in that country. For Israelis there will be no future until they recognise the rights of Palestinians to live in their own homeland in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a separate independent nation. However, let me return to the abduction of Mordachai Vanunu and his present incarceration in an Israeli prison. Many Israelis themselves are deeply disturbed at the policy of utter secrecy adopted by the Israeli Government in all aspects of the Vanunu affair. The mysterious manner in which he was brought to Israel, his clandestine detention and his arraignment in conditions of complete secrecy are all in direct contradiction to the normal judicial process. Mr Vanunu was one of an impoverished family of 11 children who were raised in the southern Israel city of Beersheba. His brothers and supporters have indicated that he is a highly intelligent, morally troubled and deeply philosophical man whose firsthand encounter with nuclear power and its clandestine military use brought him into direct conflict with Israel's security forces. Such a man deserves sympathy and understanding for his moral attitude and I would ask our Government to prevail on the Israeli authorities to restore the rights of which he has been deprived as a person on remand awaiting trial. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(7.25) —I visited Sri Lanka in 1978 with a delegation on population and development. At that time one could only be impressed by the people in Sri Lanka. Of course, they have experienced problems with poverty. Two-thirds of the world's people live in developing countries and about two-thirds of that number live in absolute poverty. I visited Sri Lanka as a young politician who had not previously left Australia. Of course, when I saw poverty, it hit home to me that we have to overcome massive problems in the world. The increasing population will create more problems. I want to speak tonight about the problems in Sri Lanka. I do not know all the answers and I do not know very much about the political scene there, but I do know about the reports of the atrocities that are occurring there. The word `terrorism', of course, puts fear in the hearts of everyone in this Parliament. Of course, when one reads that Michael Mansell from Tasmania sought assistance from Gaddafi, one can only be disgusted that he would hold the Federal Government to ransom and create what I would call a terrorist situation that everybody in this House would find appalling. I would like to say a few words about the tragic situation that has occurred in Sri Lanka during the past 10 days, starting on Good Friday, 17 April. Terrorists who are fighting for a separate state were, I assume, the people who on Good Friday massacred over 120 innocent people who were travelling in three buses in the eastern part of the island. They stopped the buses, herded passengers together and brutally shot them. The passengers included women and children. The killings were atrocious. News reports from foreign correspondents stated that the terrorists had broken the arms and legs of some of the passengers before they shot them, in order to instil more fear into the minds of the average person in Sri Lanka as to how brutal terrorists could be. Two days later, on Easter Sunday, the terrorists-and I assume that they are terrorists-attacked a small village, also in the eastern province of the island, and killed 15 sleeping farming families, including small children and women. They were brutally hacked to death. Human life should not be measured in numbers or in the magnitude of a massacre, but what is worse is that on Monday, 20 April, the terrorists exploded a huge car bomb in the heart of the capital city of Colombo at the most familiar bus and railway centre, from which workers and their families leave for their homes every evening after working in the city. This was the biggest single terrorist atrocity committed since the ethnic problems escalated in Sri Lanka in 1983. As a result of this bomb, over 120 persons, all innocent civilians and breadwinners of families, died instantly. Over 280 are still seriously injured in hospitals. Another 60 bodies still cannot be identified. We often talk of the Sri Lankan crisis in the Parliament. Quite rightly, we have criticised the Government of Sri Lanka for not taking sufficient steps to solve this crisis by reaching a peaceful political settlement. We have also criticised the Sri Lankan security forces for excesses and human rights violations. But, to be impartial, we must also condemn the atrocities committed by the terrorists, especially the recent atrocities committed between Good Friday, 17 April, and Monday, 20 April, when nearly 300 innocent civilians were killed by them. It is a huge toll in human lives-perhaps the largest number of deaths in any one country during the space of three or four days. We recall the bomb that was exploded at Russell Street police headquarters on Good Friday in March 1986 when a police woman was killed. We can also recall other atrocities. I believe that the world should try to overcome these problems; that people should work in harmony. I know it is asking for the impossible, but when we hear the word `terrorist', and when we hear of these atrocities, surely something must be done. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(7.30) —I commend the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). He said a lot of what I wanted to say in condemning terrorism in Sri Lanka. We hear a lot today about privatisation. It seems to be the vogue throughout the world. I would like the opportunity to give a commercial tonight. In Brisbane, Baba's curry place is the place to go at 187 Brunswick Street, Fortitude Valley. It has great curries and the proprietor Baba Sourjah is a very interesting and affable fellow. Mr Sourjah is interesting for one other reason. He is a Malay whose family has lived for four generations in Sri Lanka. The Malays in Sri Lanka constitute about 0.01 per cent of the population. There are about 30,000 of them there. They were taken there originally by the British to suppress the Sri Lankans-they were soldiers-and they have remained there. Mr Sourjah is a member of the Queensland Sri Lankan unity group. He is not Sinhalese, as I have said. He totally refutes any suggestion-particularly suggestions by the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis)-that Sri Lankan unity groups in any way are a product of the Sri Lankan Government. He has been quite critical of the Government on many occasions and says that he will continue to be. He makes the point that he knows about minorities because clearly he is part of one. He also says that during the 1940s the Malays in Sri Lanka constituted over 50 per cent of the fire brigade and over 40 per cent of the police force. Quite clearly, there was discrimination in their favour. He says that that has stopped now. Of the nine members of his family, all bar one have married people of ethnic origins other than Malay. Many have married Sinhalese and some have married Tamils. So it is a very integrated family. He is adamant that there is no connection between his group and the Sri Lankan Government. Mr Sourjah points out that in the Sri Lankan Parliament speeches can be made in any language. On stamps the three languages, English, Sinhalese and Tamil, occur and the different languages appear on the currency. Tamil is accepted as a national language. He believes that there is no real basis for the outrages committed by Tamil terrorists. I believe that we should call them terrorists for this is what they are. It grieves me when I hear people talking about militants because these people are thugs. There is no excuse or rational explanation for what they do. It has also been asserted by the honourable member for Throsby that the bomb that was let off at the bus depot may have been placed by the Sri Lankan Government. This, indeed, is a metaphorical burning of the Reichstag. I recollect that the honourable member for Throsby also said when a plane was blown up at the Colombo airport that this was done by the Government. This is arrant nonsense. It is the work of bloody-minded terrorists who have no compassion and no sense at all of decency or honour. They should be condemned by all civilised people. If these people are allowed to triumph and go unchecked they will threaten the very fabric of society and civilisation as we know it. I also believe that any ethnic group that comes to Australia should leave behind its feuds and the bloody battles of its past. These people should come here determined to be Australians. Mr Duncan —Including the Israelis. Mr CAMPBELL —Yes, including the Israelis. I am a great supporter of the Palestinians. I have told Palestinian friends of mine that if they come to Australia I want to hear nothing of their battles of the past. Any Tamil in this country who sends money back to Sri Lanka for terrorist activities in that country should be deported for, in truth, Tamils in this country are not refugees except perhaps in the economic sense. Most of them have done very well out of this country and it irks me beyond belief that many of them are taking advantage of our hospitality. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(7.35) —One of the difficulties of speaking in an adjournment debate-I say this with all the sincerity that I can muster-is that one is never sure in advance what sort of speech a previous speaker is going to deliver. So I confess that what I rise to say tonight will possibly seem a little frivolous in view of the sincere and most concerned speeches delivered by both the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). I want to remind the House that it is my privilege to represent the fertile and delightful electorate of Wakefield in the centre of South Australia. In that electorate there is of course not only the famous Clare Valley-- Mr Duncan —The Barossa Valley. Mr ANDREW —Also, as the honourable member for Makin has been anxious to interject, there is the Barossa Valley. The Barossa Valley needs no introduction to anyone in this chamber, whether South Australian or not, because it is so well known. The Barossa Valley has in the past week celebrated an event which is held once every two years, that is, its Vintage Festival. As the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) would be pleased to agree, in sunny South Australia, in weather characteristic of that State, where the daytime temperature is anything from 25 to 30 degrees, the Barossa Valley Vintage Festival 1987 has just been a grand success. The Vintage Festival opened at Lyndoch with a crowd of 12,000 people attending the first function. As is the character of the Festival, it then moved on around the Barossa, allowing all of the visitors to experience something of the unique hospitality and character of the Barossa Valley. Mr Downer —Don't forget the art gallery I opened. Mr ANDREW —The honourable member for Mayo has alluded to the fact that, as part of the Vintage Festival, he was invited-with the usual sort of perception, might I say, of the people of the Barossa Valley and my electors-to open an art gallery at Bethany, which happened to be an invitation extended to him just two days prior to his appointment as shadow Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. So the people of Bethany have shown the sort of perception one would come to expect. I am being sidetracked as I want to point out to the House that within the Barossa Valley there are the delightful towns of Angaston, Rowland Flat, Sandy Creek, Bethany, Dorrien, Eden Valley, Nuriootpa, Gomersal, Springton, Lyndoch, Maranganga-my wife and I spent a very pleasant evening during last week at Maranganga as part of the Vintage Festival-Tanunda and a town with which the honourable member for Mayo is already well identified, that is, Williamstown. The Barossa Valley was settled over 100 years ago by a group of German migrants endeavouring to escape from persecution. They brought with them a number of unique skills and characteristics. they are well known across the entire globe for their capacity to make wine. They are well known across South Australia, as the honourable member for Makin I hope will once again be pleased to agree, for their capacity to bake strudle cake. But what they are little known for, and I want to present this to the House tonight, is their capacity to produce a new product-chocolate-coated grape centres. Mr Hollis —Like the honey? Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Throsby has indicated, I once stood in this House and presented the honey that was derived from the grape. Tonight those people have presented me with this product, which is in fact grapes coated with chocolate. A very inventive and diligent group, the Valley Growers Co-op, which is based just out of the valley at Angle Vale, but whose products all come from the valley, has made this product. It takes surplus grapes and coats them with chocolate to make what I am sure you will shortly discover, Madam Speaker, to be a very palatable product. I will be delighted to have the opportunity to share them not only with you but with other members of the House. I say that because the valley has shown the sort of inventiveness and innovation that one might expect would lead it out of what has been a demise in the wine industry. There are 7,000 hectares of wine grapes in the Barossa Valley, producing something like 56,000 tonnes. While all of these are fine quality products, there is a great deal of competition from other areas of Australia which do not produce grapes which vintage in quite the same characteristic way as the Barossa Valley does. These people have shown quite a remarkable way of dealing with what is likely to be a surplus in their industry. I encourage the House to sample in a moment this fine product and to see that, along with honey and wines from the Barossa Valley, it is indeed unique. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(7.40) —Tonight I had intended to speak about the need for a greater percentage of Australia's foreign trade to be carried in Australian ships. However, in the light of the earlier comments about Sri Lanka by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and particularly in the light of the fact that I had an opportunity to visit Sri Lanka late last year as part of a parliamentary delegation, I thought I would say something on that subject because I thought that some of the comments made by those two honourable members were made from a position of lack of information-to put it kindly. I make it clear that I have a long history of abhoring violence. I have been a pacifist for many years and I certainly condemn violence wherever in the world it might occur. I wish to make a couple of points about Sri Lanka. First, the situation in that country is a great tragedy. There are enormous forces at work which will make it tremendously difficult for an adequate and satisfactory solution to be found to the problems of that country and the simplistic sorts of analyses that we have heard tonight do not help particularly. It is true that the Sinhalese people feel under a great threat because they see themselves as a tiny minority in south Asia. For that reason the Sri Lankan Government is, to some extent, in a quite difficult position. It does not have much room for manoeuvre in trying to seek solutions to this problem. Some of the Ministers in the Sri Lankan Government are people of goodwill who would seek a negotiated settlement to the problem. However, it must be said that other Ministers are well known as hawks who would seek to get involved in action against the Tamil minority which would quite possibly amount almost to genocide. One thing needs to be said: In the last few weeks we have seen some gross acts of terrorism in Sri Lanka-- Mr Tim Fischer —On both sides. Mr DUNCAN —I will come to that. There have been some gross acts of terrorism. On the one side the so-called Tamil militants-and I do not care whether people call them terrorists; we all know who we are talking about, and it is not as if this debate is being broadcast and we need to be specific about it-have not only not admitted responsibility for those acts of terrorism, but they have actually denied it. It is not the normal practice for terrorist groups to deny acts of terror. Usually one finds-particularly in Northern Ireland or in the Middle East-that there is always someone around the place who will claim responsibility. In fact, the problem in the Middle East is to determine which group has actually committed the terrorism because every time there is a terrorist act, three or four groups jump up and claim responsibility. That certainly has not been the case in Sri Lanka. On the evidence before us all we can say is that no proof exists as to who undertook these terrorist acts. If these acts were committed by the Tamil militants, then they have been enormously counter-productive and an incredible disaster for the future of their activities and their struggle. On the other hand, some elements of the Government have gained considerably from these acts. I am not attributing blame and I make that clear. However, I do not think that the House should rush to conclusions about this matter. One cannot reach conclusions as easily as that. Anyone who read the Age this morning and saw the proposals of MI5 to try to assassinate Paisley would recognise the fact that state terror is not simply a matter for the Third World or even the Second World. It can be a matter for the First World. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(7.45) —In the aftermath of Anzac Day I pay tribute to all of those who lost their lives in fighting for Australia in World War I, in World War II, in Korea, in Malaya, in Vietnam and in any other conflicts in which Australia was involved. I would like to go a step further and make some specific references arising out of Anzac Day 1987. I felt very proud to see Vietnam veterans leading the parade in a number of centres around Australia, including Sydney. Whilst I was unable to be present there myself because I was attending Anzac Day commemorations in my own electorate at Albury, Moulamein, Balranald and elsewhere, it was certainly tremendous to see the large turnout of Vietnam veterans and the gradual coming together, in a very positive way, of those veterans with veterans from other wars and conflicts. That augurs well for the national welcome home parade in Sydney which has been called for the first Saturday in October this year, 3 October. The parade is essentially being run by Vietnam veterans, by members of the co-ordinating committee. There should be bipartisan support for this parade finally to lay to rest many of the negative attitudes which have existed for too long in the community about Australian soldiers who were sent to Vietnam and who fought in very difficult circumstances. They gave it their best. They showed a great deal of determination and dedication in very difficult circumstances and maintained the high standards arising from, and set by, Australian soldiers in other conflicts and in two world wars. I salute Vietnam veterans for the key part they played in Anzac Day 1987. I strongly support, as a fellow Vietnam veteran-let us be clear about that-and I think the Parliament as a whole should strongly support, the national welcome home parade set down for October this year. I move on to another group which to some extent has been overlooked over the years. I refer to former prisoners of war. This Anzac Day was particularly significant for them because in Thailand, on the Burma death railway, at the remnants of Hellfire Pass along the River Kwai Valley, Sir Edward `Weary' Dunlop, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), Senator Sir John Carrick and a large number of prisoners of war, participated in a dedication of a natural shrine to the 16,000 prisoners of war who, in addition to 90,000 enforced Asian labourers, lost their lives on the Burma death railway in 1942 and 1943. It was most appropriate that the two remaining former prisoners of war in this Parliament-the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) and Senator Sir John Carrick-were at the dedication at Kanchanaburi and Hellfire Pass in Thailand which was carried out by Sir Edward Dunlop. I had the privilege to visit that project earlier this year. I know that many would think that we should let bygones be bygones. It is an integral part of Australian history and an integral part of Thai history; I believe that that natural shrine is a shrine to all prisoners of war who worked and died on the Burma death railway and prisoners of war from other theatres of war. Their particularly difficult circumstances should also be recognised. It was recognised as part of Anzac Day 1987. Finally, perhaps more directly, and sadly in my case, I had the privilege on Sunday following Anzac Day, 26 April, of unveiling a plaque to two young airmen who were killed in a training accident not far from the huge Tocumwal training air base which operated in World War II. The plaque was in memory of Flying Officer Houston and Pilot Officer Levy who were two of many airmen and others killed in training accidents associated with Australia's involvement in World War II. I commend Mr John Sloane and the Sloane family for their action in facilitating this small but tremendously important memorial on the spot of the training accident. I point out to the airmen's families and next of kin, and to the many who lost spouses, brothers and sisters and others in training accidents, that training is an integral part of war effort and they should not think any the less of a death that occurred through training than a death that occurred at the front line and obtained more of the headlines. They should feel in a sense that deaths in training were also part of the war effort. It is appropriate that recognition was given to those two airmen and, through that, to all who lost their lives in training to prepare the Australian war effort. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(7.50) —I join the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) in welcoming the welcome home march for the Vietnam veterans which is to be held later this year. Whatever one may have personally thought about the war in Vietnam-there are a lot of conflicting views on that-I do not think there is any doubt that those Australian soldiers who went there were brave and gallant and performed their duties. Madam Speaker, you should be well aware that Sri Lanka has been somewhat of a popular topic in this chamber this evening. I am very pleased because I often speak on the problems in Sri Lanka. I am pleased that this evening so many of my colleagues have joined in the debate concerning that troubled country. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). I have been very involved with the Sri Lankan question now for four or five years. As most people know, I have spoken on it many times in this House. If they took the trouble to study some of the literature about that country they would not jump to conclusions. I, like all other members of parliament over the last two weeks, have received many documents in my office from the Sri Lankan High Commission and various groups such as the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity putting their cause. I am afraid that my colleague the honourable member for Kalgoorlie and my good friend the honourable member for Franklin have this evening repeated some of the things that came from the Sri Lankan High Commission. In this chamber I have never supported violence. I have not said that the Sri Lankan Government placed bombs on the plane and I did not say that the Sri Lankan Government was responsible for the latest outrage in Colombo. I raised several questions concerning these matters. Last night I asked who placed the bomb at the bus terminal in Colombo. As the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) said, the Tamil groups have not claimed responsibility for that; they have denied it. Why would they engage in that senseless act of violence when they, above all other people, knew that they would suffer most? I was interested in what the honourable member for Kalgoorlie said about deporting or sending back any Tamil who sends money to Sri Lanka. I hope the same applies to the Sinhalese people from that country who are here. I understand that a bank account at the Manuka branch of the ANZ Bank in the Australian Capital Territory is still in operation. Sinhalese people are being asked to contribute to that bank account, and that money is going back to Sri Lanka. As the honourable member for Kalgoorlie always tells us how even-handed he is, he would have to support sending the Sinhalese back as well. I also join the High Commissioner for Sri Lanka and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in making a plea that people should leave at home the problems that they have in their countries. I agree with that, but while many Sinhalese people, especially those in the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity-a misnamed group if I ever heard one-promote and propagate their hatred of the Tamil people they certainly are not leaving their problems at home. The problem in Sri Lanka is very complex. There is no easy solution. One thing that is sure is that the solution is not a military one; it must be a political one. Proposals have been put for settlement, and I welcome them. One thing that we must ensure is that all people in that land are given the opportunity to live in peace and harmony. Unfortunately, given the attitude of the present Government there, the Tamil people cannot expect that. That has been one of the problems. People talk about terrorism and violence, but not about state violence. The government in any state has the instruments of violence and it is the Government of Sri Lanka, through its security forces and through its discrimination against the Tamil people, which has led to the unhappy situation that that country is now experiencing. I hope that my colleagues will continue this sudden-found interest in Sri Lanka. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(7.55) —Tonight I wish to talk about something which is quite different from the problems of Sri Lanka. I am quite honest to admit to the House that I know very little about that country. I once paid a very brief visit to it as a child of four years of age when Sri Lanka was called Ceylon and it was part of the British Empire. I do not know a great deal about the way it changed and developed since then, but I can observe that it has changed dramatically. Instead, I want to talk about the arts, because last Tuesday I was appointed, among other things, as the shadow Minister for the arts. When I was appointed the shadow Minister for the arts I was, naturally, delighted not only from a personal point of view but also because, throughout my life, I have taken a very great interest in the arts-indeed, a much greater interest than many honourable members. I do not say that to be disrespectful to those honourable members but just to ensure that they recognise that I have a very deep and personal interest in the arts. Two of my sisters are directly involved in the arts. One is the manager of the Macquarie Galleries in Sydney which, I think I am right in saying, is the oldest privately owned art gallery in Australia, and it is a great example of private enterprise coupling with the arts and working very successfully. However, very few honourable members would probably ever be able to buy something from the Macquarie Galleries. I was delighted to be appointed to that position, but I was a little disappointed that some members of the Australian Labor Party and one or two people in the arts community expressed some reservations about my appointment. The explanation for their reservations was that the Waste Watch Committee, with which I proudly associate myself as a former member, made some significant attacks on selective examples of community arts boards grants from the Australia Council. I refer specifically to the $52,000 or so that the Builders Labourers Federation received to employ a muralist in residence and the grants given to the Food Preservers Union of Australia for that union to hold ceramics classes. I think that all honourable members would agree that community arts have an important role to play. I want it to be recognised that I support the concept of community arts. I think that it is a great idea and I would like to see more and more Australians become involved in the arts. However, there has to be a limit to the grants that a government gives, even if those grants are given under the cloak of arm's length funding. To give the Builders Labourers Federation-a union that has been effectively deregistered by the Labor Government-a grant to employ a muralist in residence is taking it one step too far for the taxpayers of Australia. But that is not to say that I am opposed to community arts or that I have any antipathy to community artists. The suggestion that appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser that one of my pet hates was community arts and people in community arts was completely and utterly wrong. Many of my friends have been involved in community arts. When they read the Advertiser's comments they were, needless to say, a little bemused and surprised and appreciated that the comment was certainly not right. The same applies to the suggestion that I have some personal antipathy to story tellers. I have no antipathy to story tellers. We all know that honourable members opposite are professional story tellers in terms of the way in which they try to justify the appalling record of this Government. Of course, they fail to do so, but they tell a very tall story in trying to justify the disgraceful record of the Hawke Government. I think that there are many professional story tellers in the community who do an outstanding job. I have only questioned a grant given to the Trades and Labour Council in Australia-the master of the South Australian Labor Party, as we all know-to employ a story teller in residence. As it happens, the person it employed is a particularly outstanding story teller. It is no reflection on him that he should have collected stories for the Trades and Labour Council. However, it is a reflection on this Government that it allows grants to go to its friends in the trade union movement. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Hodgman to move- That, for the first time since Federation, this Honourable House believes it to be its duty to request and advise Her Majesty, Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, to exercise her powers pursuant to section 59 of the constitution by disallowing the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act 1987, and respectfully advises Her Majesty that- (1) the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act 1987 is clearly unconstitutional; (2) more than any legislation Australia has ever previously seen, the Act encroaches upon and extinguishes the right of use of private property in a very substantial part of the State of Tasmania; (3) section 17 of the Act radically and unjustly changes the law in relation to the granting of injunctions; (4) the Act severely limits the scope of payment of compensation and in so doing, contravenes the Constitution; (5) the Act denies any compensation whatsoever to those who suffer loss or damage (including loss of employment) in a secondary or tertiary capacity, and (6) under section 14 (c) of the Act, forcible entry to any private property in any part of Tasmania is authorised where any ``member (of the Commission) or other person'' considers forestry resources may be contained. Mr Scholes to move- That in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the new Parliament House presented to the House on 2 April 1987, namely: (1) installation of standard high intensity lighting at the seven marked pedestrian crossings within the Parliamentary Zone; (2) construction of an additional carpark and the provision of carpark lighting at the National Library of Australia on the basis that this carpark is designated as short stay parking; (3) construction of the east west roads between Parkes Place and the proposed Mall to give access to the parking areas associated with the National Science and Technology Centre; (4) construction of a road north of King Edward Terrace adjacent to the land axis to provide additional access to the National Science and Technology Centre, and (5) installation of the proposed lighting on the land bridge between the provisional Parliament House and the new Parliament House and on the roads associated with the National Science and Technology Centre. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act relating to the export marketing of wool and certain other matters concerning the wool industry. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain legislation relating to the Australian meat and live-stock industry, and for related purposes. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, and for related purposes. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, and for other purposes. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to provide for confiscation of the proceeds of crime, and for related purposes. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to make amendments of various Acts consequential upon the enactment of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987, and for other purposes. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act relating to the provision and obtaining of international assistance in criminal matters. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to make amendments of certain Acts consequential upon the enactment of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, and for related matters. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 April 1987: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to the extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Merit Protection Review Agency-Report for 1985-86. Public Service Act-Determination-1987-No. 19. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1987/6-Principal Member, Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and holders of public offices on other bodies.