Friday, 1 May 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Before the debate is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 1987. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.01) —It is my pleasure today to speak to the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 1987. As is pointed out in the legislation, the Victorian Government-a Labor Government at that-has provided for the vesting and control of two parcels of land to two Aboriginal corporations. There has been a great deal of opposition to this move, as one would expect, because this is the start, I guess, of the Aboriginal land rights movement in Victoria. Unfortunately, as these things go on and on we are seeing that the taxpayers of this country have to pay out $1.3m compensation to the existing landholders to purchase the land. So it is not government-controlled leasehold land that is involved; it is land for which taxpayers have to pay compensation. Aboriginal Land Bill Mr Tim Fischer —Money is not solving the Aboriginal problem. Mr IAN CAMERON —As the honourable member for Farrer says, we are spending billions of dollars on Aborigines these days, but we are getting absolutely nowhere by doing it and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) knows it. The grants to the two Aboriginal corporations will mean that they will have full power of management over the land. I find it quite ridiculous that the communities that will control this land under the Victorian Crown Land (Reserves) Act have been exempted from paying land tax. It is high time that we started treating Aborigines as Australians and stopped treating them as being different. If the taxpayers of this country are to provide $1.3m to purchase the land, I cannot see why we have to continue to exempt these people from the payment of land taxes. That is a ridiculous situation. The legislation provides for the setting up of a committee of elders from both corporations to determine membership and matters of cultural and religious significance to the area. It provides for regulation of mining activities. Minerals remain vested in the State of Victoria. At least that is sensible. It seems that the Aborigines will not have a veto over the mining rights on this land. Across Australia we are seeing that Aboriginal people are treated differently and separately and that they have the power of veto over much of their land, particularly in the Northern Territory. I think that is an anachronism to the rest of Australia, and I am quite sure it is an anachronism to most of them because, having got the land, they find that they have to do something with it. Mining is one of the things that is available to them on some of the vast tracts of land that they have under their control. Many of the more sensible Aborigines find it practically impossible to get the right to allow companies to search for minerals and mine their land to give people jobs and something to do other than sit around doing nothing, which most people on the land reserves that we have set up for them in the last 20-odd years seem to do. Some expenditure is necessary for the establishment of the two trusts. An allocation from consolidated revenue will be made for the payment of an amount equivalent to the mining royalties. Of course, the same sort of thing is done in the Northern Territory. Again, the taxpayer is paying, and it is high time that we stopped that. If these people are going to be responsible at all, they have to make some sort of earning from the land and pay some sort of taxes. They get every other right, as Australians, and they are entitled to all the social security payments that are available. I believe that they ought to be paying taxes and have some sort of responsibility to the system. That is basically the problem with our social benefits system today, in that in many cases people are not paying any taxes on the sums that they receive; they have absolutely no responsibility to the system. We are breeding a race of people who are totally dependent on the welfare system, and that is why slowly, but surely, we are going bankrupt under this Labor socialist Government. Mr Hodgman —There are no unemployment benefits in Papua New Guinea, you know. Mr IAN CAMERON —There are no unemployment benefits in most parts of Asia; I can assure honourable members of that. If one travels right up as far as Japan, one finds that no unemployment benefits are paid in any part of Asia. Australia and New Zealand are the only two countries that are silly enough to pay them-and they are the only two countries in this part of the world that are bankrupt. Dr Theophanous —Ha! Mr IAN CAMERON —It is true. Mr Hodgman —Moscow. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill limits the operation of any Victorian law for the preservation and protection of Aboriginal culture and property. As I have said, for a long time I have taken an interest in Aboriginal affairs that have been brought before Parliament. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs since I first entered this place in 1980. I have only just come from a meeting of that Committee, where we are setting up some terms of reference in relation to some of the continuing problems of communities throughout Australia. I have always had a genuine interest in this problem. The coalition has previously outlined some good policies in this area. On this occasion I believe that our shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), has brought down a very good policy on Aboriginal affairs. Dr Theophanous —He is not your shadow Minister any more, mate. You are a bit behind the times. Mr IAN CAMERON —Well, I am not too sure what he is the shadow for. I also want to refer to the matter of our friend Mr Mansell, a so-called Aboriginal from Tasmania, whom I find rather repulsive as an Australian. I do not know who paid for his trip to Libya. I would like to know. Again, I would hazard a guess that it is the Australian taxpayer, it is we taxpayers in this House who have paid for this bloke's trip to Libya to talk with Gaddafi. Unfortunately, the definition of an Aborigine is apparently someone who associates with that group, but, obviously, from looking at this character on television, he is about as far removed from being an Aborigine as I am. Mr Hand —Not quite. Mr IAN CAMERON —Well, I have been brought up in the bush and I have a pretty good suntan; although I cannot make fire with two sticks, I can assure honourable members that I can do a lot of things that this bloke would not be able to do. He went across to Libya to stir up trouble. The payments for fares that are provided by this country for such people to travel overseas ought to be stopped immediately. Many of us forecast that this is the sort of situation that would develop. We were not believed at the time, but we are giving Aborigines more and more autonomy and they are not being brought under the rein of existing laws of Australia. They are able to travel around the world, to get up on the world stage and damn their own country and damn its government-even the Labor Government. They are able to swear all sorts of oaths against the Government on the world stage, and they have got to the ridiculous stage of talking about arming themselves for some sort of revolution. To my way of thinking, this bloke is a traitor to this country. The Minister has left the chamber, but it is time that he came back in here so I could say a few things to him. I see that he is now returning, so I can tell him, at least, that I support his speaking out against this character. But I would term Mr Mansell's actions as traitorous to this country and I believe that he ought to be taken to task. Mr Hand —What about the legislation? Mr IAN CAMERON —The legislation is to do with Aborigines. This fellow Mansell is meant to be one. That is why I am talking about him. Getting back to the legislation: The land in Victoria has been set aside to give a couple of groups of Australians there some extra privileges. They are getting some land at the expense-$1.3m-of the taxpayers. They will be exempt from paying land tax on it, which is a ridiculous state of affairs. They will be able to mine it. The royalty payments will go direct to them, as usual. That happens across the rest of Australia. That money does not go into Consolidated Revenue to be shared amongst the rest of the taxpayers of this country; it is paid straight back to the Aborigines. Again they are treated separately and differently. I am a landholder with oil exploration going on across my land. Compensation is paid but we have to allow those companies to come on to our land and mine. We have no recourse to the law to stop the miners if we wished to. But if one is an Aborigine one can get a veto and stop them. That is the difference and that is the thing that we object to-and most Aborigines object to it, too. It is an absurd situation that we have developed. I am opposed to it. I do not believe that we should be establishing a separate race of people in this country, and most Aborigines feel the same way. While we are dealing with Aborigines, my good friend Sugar Ray Robinson from south-west of Charleville -- Mr Hand —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I know the honourable member is from the National Party but, Madam Speaker, I make the point that he has yet to refer to the legislation before the House. I think it is important that we obtain from the National Party, through its spokesperson, what its attitude to the legislation is. He has touched on everything but the legislation. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Melbourne does not actually have a point of order. There has been a fairly wide-ranging debate on this Bill, but I do ask the honourable member for Maranoa not to stray too far away from the legislation before him. Mr IAN CAMERON —Well, Charleville is not too far away from Victoria, Madam Speaker. There are many Aborigines in that part of the world whom I have to represent, and this debate gives me an opportunity to speak -- Mr Hand —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Last night in this place the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was asked to move back to the legislation when at one stage he drifted away from it, and he did return to it. I was asked to do the same thing, if I remember rightly. It is only proper that the honourable member for Maranoa try to do the same. If he has not read the legislation, perhaps he ought to sit down and keep his bullets for another day. But he has not yet raised any point on the legislation, and there are two pieces of material he could address. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Melbourne would realise that the Chair is in a fairly difficult position. I did not occupy the chair for the early part of this debate. I was under the impression that there had been a fairly wide-ranging debate. However, I again say to the honourable member for Maranoa: Return to the Bill before you. Mr IAN CAMERON —Madam Speaker, I understand your problem, and no doubt the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) also has a problem because he was not here when I spent the first 10 minutes of my speech covering the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill. Honourable members can see that the Torres Strait Islands are included in one of these Bills. The Torres Strait Islands happen to be a part of the State of Queensland, and I would have thought that I could talk about Queensland and the problems of Aborigines in that State. More than half of the Aborigines in Australia happen to live in Queensland. I have to represent about 10,000 of those Aboriginal people. The Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill is part of this cognate debate. The honourable member for Melbourne does not know what he is talking about. Mr Hodgman —He was over at the Russian Embassy. Mr IAN CAMERON —He does not have a clue what he is on about. He is jumping up and down taking points of order. Mr Hand —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the interjection made by the honourable member for Denison be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —I regret that I did not hear the interjection by the honourable member for Denison who, I might say, should not be interjecting when he is sitting at the table. If the honourable member made an offensive remark, he will withdraw it. Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker, I do not think it was. I certainly said he was over at the embassy, but I withdraw it. We all know where he has been. Mr Hand —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I say again that I have never set foot in an embassy in this country and I object to the honourable member's tone and to what he continually throws at honourable members on this side of the House. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member for Denison that, if he wishes to interject, he should be sitting in his own seat. Then, if he does interject, I will stop him. I call the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr IAN CAMERON —Madam Speaker, I am pleased that I am getting a say in this debate. The Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill which I have been speaking about for the last 10 or 15 minutes cover Aborigines in Queensland. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the problems that Mr Ray Robinson from the Legal Aid Service in my area-- Mr Holding —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I do not want unnecessarily to restrict the ambit of the debate but there are close to 1,400 Aboriginal organisations around Australia. If this debate is to be used-- Mr Connolly —I thought it was 1,200. Mr Holding —No, it is about 1,400. Those are the ones we fund. There are about another 200. To the extent that this debate is allowed to develop along the lines that it is used by honourable members as an occasion to raise some problems which can be canvassed either in the adjournment debate or in other ways - - Mr Shack —Is this a speech or a point of order? Mr Holding —It is a point of order but I have to explain it fairly carefully so that people who know nothing about it, such as the honourable member, might understand the issue. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will resume his seat. I point out to the honourable member for Maranoa that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill is a significant step forward for the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria. It is an amendment to an existing Bill to extend protection to Victoria. It is not about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Mr Connolly —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: If you do not mind my reflecting on you, I think it would be contentious for you to use the words you just did, that this legislation was a significant step forward. I suggest that that is a political judgment and not necessarily an appropriate comment to come from the Chair. Madam SPEAKER —I point out that I was reading from the Minister's second reading speech which I have in front of me. I might tell the honourable member that I have not read the Bill; so I must read the second reading speech. Mr Connolly —Madam Speaker, with respect, that is the job of the Minister; it is not the job of the Speaker. I must make another point. I support the observation that you made earlier that this is a wide-ranging debate because it relates not only to that Bill which covers cultural heritage on an Australia-wide basis, although these amendments are specifically related to Victoria, but more importantly it also relates to the other legislation on land rights which again can be argued from the point of view of both the particular and the general. Madam SPEAKER —I am sure the honourable member for Bradfield realises, as I have pointed out, that it is a wide-ranging debate. However, the honourable member for Maranoa tends to roam far and wide. I suggest that he should not roam so far. Mr IAN CAMERON —Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Maranoa is a good member. I know that my time is running out. Everybody has had a go at speaking except me. I conclude my remarks on these Bills by pointing out the problems in the Goondiwindi area. Mr Robinson represents the Legal Aid Service in that area. We are looking for more housing and more money. I have spoken to the Minister, who is in the chamber, about this problem concerning the Aborigines in my area. I know that he is certainly looking at this problem with this person and others involved in the Legal Aid Service in south-west Queensland and my electorate of Maranoa. Madam Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.19) —Madam Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I will speak about the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill. It is a very sad day when we come into this House and we see the Opposition opposing the granting of the first major land rights in Victoria. Honourable members opposite get up and say: `If the legislation were put in a different way we might support it'. But they do not support the general concept of land rights for Aborigines in Victoria. The shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), presented the most convoluted argument against the legislation that one could imagine. He tried to say that the Victorian Government had instructed the national Government to legislate. Why did the Victorian Government say to the national Government that it should legislate? It is because it was very clear that the Liberal and National parties in Victoria were going to knock this legislation out in the upper House. It became necessary, if this land were to be granted to the Aboriginal people, for that to be done through the powers of the Commonwealth. That is the truth of the matter. The attitude of the Opposition is not new. It is the kind of attitude against Aboriginal people which unfortunately was prevalent in the last 200 years. It was based and continues to be based-one has only to hear the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) to recognise that it continues to be based-on myths and misrepresentation of what Aboriginal culture is about and what the Aboriginal people are about. For example, one white spokesman made these comments about Aborigines in Victoria at the time land was taken from them: The Aborigines of Australia had no property in the soil in the shape of improvements-the labour of their own hands. Priority of occupation gave them a right to the game on the land, but it conferred no right to hold the country against a civilised nation who could turn it to better account. The spokesman also said: . . . the Aboriginal had no clearly recognisable claim to a particular area of land; his more subtle relationship with his country ignored or not understood. He lacked the organisation which could have enabled effective warfare in defence of his interests . . . He had neither the obvious right to a certain area . . . nor the organisation to defend any part of his traditional hunting and gathering area. If we analyse that argument we see that it says that, because the Western concept of fighting over land was non-existent amongst Aboriginals, therefore, it follows that they did not have the same attitude to the land that we have and had no rights to it. But this was an utter misrepresentation especially, I might say, in relation to the Aborigines of Victoria because Victoria was the most populated area, in terms of Aborigines, when the white man came to Australia. Indeed, the Aborigines there were not nomadic as they were in other parts of Australia and there were very significant numbers of them. They used the land very intensively and were agriculturally sophisticated. In fact, they were attached to specifically designated areas-something that was determined later after the white man had taken the land from them. Victoria was more densely populated than any other part of the continent and the people were more highly developed agriculturally and technologically than in other regions. They were certainly not nomadic. Let me quote from a book entitled The Australians. It states: . . . the society, technology and economy of the well-peopled basalt plains . . . challenges the popular European image of nomadic hunter-gatherers, few in number, moving camp every few days and living largely from hand to mouth. The people of south-western Victoria and their neighbours were more numerous, more sedentary and far more ingenious than we ever imagined. What happened to those people? How was their land taken from them? Let me quote from a book entitled Select Documents in Australian History. It states: The Henty family occupied without authorisation land at Portland in November, 1834. Many others followed, similarly without authorisation. John Batman was one of them, and acting as a syndicate called the Port Phillip Association. He devised a contract with the Aborigines to `cede' 600,000 acres to him on 6 June, 1835. This was in exchange for sundry articles of hardware and merchandise. However, as the British Government had long since declared sovereignty over the whole of Australia, this `treaty' was null and void from the beginning . . . the land in Victoria was subsequently parcelled out by the government to so-called `selectors', who paid nominal sums for huge parcels of land, or given away as grants as reward for feats of exploration or public service. Thus, the Aboriginal people of Victoria had their land taken from them. Indeed, as early as 1842 there was considerable conflict over the taking of land from Aborigines. The Portland Mercury reported: The country might as well be in a state of civil war, as few but the boldest of the settlers will move from their home stations. The resistance by the Aborigines to the spread of white settlement was described in 1842 to 1844 as `rising resistance'. We have subsequent documentation of what happened. Numerous massacres took place. For example, on 25 February 1842 at Mustons Creek in the Portland district the bodies of three Aboriginal women, one of whom had been pregnant, and a male Aboriginal child were found, dead from gunshot wounds. In the same year a considerable number of Aborigines had been poisoned at a station near Port Fairy after eating flour into which arsenic had been mixed. In 1846 it was reported: . . . a Government survey party nearly exterminated the Cape Otway tribe, in reprisal for the murder of a white man . . . it is said that men, women and children . . . were shot down indiscriminately, and few escaped. The exact number of Aborigines killed by Europeans will, of course, never be known. However, the 1858 select committee of the Government of Victoria reported to the Government in England that of the original Aboriginal population of Victoria, estimated at several thousands: . . . there were not more than a few hundred remaining, and most of them being in a state of abject want. This had occurred within 25 years of the first white arrivals in the southern part of the country in Victoria. The committee decided: . . . to allow this to continue would be to tolerate and perpetuate a great moral wrong. The committee nevertheless stated: Victoria is now entirely occupied by a superior race, and there is scarcely a spot, excepting in the remote mountain ranges or dense scrubs, on which the Aboriginal can rest his weary feet. This was 25 years after the white man's coming. In 1860 the Government set up a board to watch over the interests of the Aborigines. Victoria was the first of the Australian colonies to set aside reserves for the tribes remaining, and establish missions in order to protect, Christianise and educate them. It was out of this situation that the areas we are talking about, Framlingham and Lake Condah, came into being. In order to protect the Aborigines, an application by the Church of England in Warrnambool for reserve land was considered by the Central Board for the Protection of Aborigines, and on 17 September 1861 3,500 acres were reserved beside the Hopkins River. The estimated number of Aboriginal people remaining in the area by then was little more than 50. In 1876 the board resolved that 73 Aborigines should be moved from Framlingham to Lake Condah where a new station was to be opened. Lake Condah and Framlingham Aboriginal communities retained close links since those days when the missions were established and quickly phased out. The Framlingham settlement was never in favour with the authorities, and the area was sought after by other residents in the area as they wished an agricultural experimental college to be established there. However, Framlingham Aborigines refused to go to Condah. Those who were taken to Condah quarrelled with the Aborigines there and returned home. In 1868 the Aborigines asked for the re-establishment of the station at Framlingham, which was agreed to. In the detailed history of the Framlingham Aborigines by Jan Critchett, entitled Our Land Till We Die, this was seen to be the result of a: . . . long fight by both the Warrnambool residents initially and then by the Aboriginal community. The amount of activity by the . . . community on behalf of the Aborigines was exceptional. There is no record of another case where the establishment of a Victorian Aboriginal station was preceded by so much effort from the local community. The answer may lie in the fact that the Western District was more closely settled than any other part of the Port Phillip District and the Warrnambool areas was one of the last places . . . to be taken up. Despite the horrifying details of the slaughter of the Aborigines which can be found in other accounts of the settlement of the area, it was seen that those who pioneered the Warrnambool area did so without the need for violence and were faced by a large group of Aborigines, obviously dispossessed and living near enough to the main settlement for their plight to be obvious. Framlingham was officially closed in 1889 and no further government support given to the residents, but Aboriginal occupation has continued unbroken to the present day. I mention this because Framlingham is probably unique in Victoria at least in that there is documented history of continuity of residents there which enhances, and indeed establishes beyond doubt, Aboriginal claims to that area. I also mention the matter in this context because I want to nail the argument which has been presented by the Opposition. First, anyone understanding the history that I have presented to this point, anyone with a moral conscience, surely will take the view that we should do something to restore the rights of those people. Mr Hawker —No one is arguing with you on that. Dr THEOPHANOUS —No one is arguing, says the honourable member opposite, except that Opposition members do not want to give the Aboriginal people inalienable rights to the land. What do they want to give them? They say that they should be given a freehold title. That means that it becomes possible that if something goes wrong in the organisation of that community at any given point in history, if its members are tricked by other white men, as the original inhabitants were tricked by John Batman and others, their land would be sold off and they would end up not having any Aboriginal land. The whole concept of Aboriginal land rights, the concept of the relation of the Aboriginals to the land, is inalienable. No individual Aborigine has the right to give away the land of his tribe. That is a central and fundamental concept which Opposition members fail to understand. We well understand what those members are up to. They are saying `Let us give these people this land, but allow the possibility that some individual Aboriginal person might sell it off'. Mr Hawker —Oh, come on! Rubbish. Dr THEOPHANOUS —That is what those opposite are saying. That is what freehold title entails, and they know it. That is the reason why this legislation has been opposed both in the upper House in Victoria and in this chamber. Those members should be ashamed of themselves. This is a fundamental moral issue. We as a nation have an obligation to look back in our history and to think about the culture that we have destroyed. We must think about what we have done to those people and ask ourselves whether it is not time that we did something to restore Aboriginal culture and the rights to land which Aborigines had and their relationship to the land. Opposition members, and in particular the shadow Minister, having attacked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for doing nothing more than bringing into being the legislation which would have been able to go through the Parliament of Victoria, if it had not been for the kind of attitudes reflected by the Victorian Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kennett, and others, including the Leader of the Victorian National Party, who are acting on nothing more than the attitudes and beliefs of the new Right. Mr Hawker —Rubbish. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member says: `Rubbish'. He should read the propaganda and literature of the New Right on Aboriginal land rights. The New Right gives no recognition to the Aboriginal people. He should read its documents. The honourable member and other Opposition members applaud members of the New Right and what it is trying to do to Australia. I say this to everyone who is listening: If they read the documents of what the New Right is trying to do to this country, they would see that it is trying to take away all sense of social responsibility and all sense of moral concern for not only the Aboriginal people but also migrant communities and all groups in this community other than the very wealthy. For Mr Kennett and the other leaders of the conservative forces in Victoria to have given in to the extremists who have been trying to take away these rights from Aboriginal people is a disgrace. It is an even bigger disgrace that the honourable member for Bradfield, the shadow Minister, tried to rationalise and justify the absurd and outrageous behaviour of the Victorian conservative parties. I say to honourable members opposite, especially those who have some moral concern: This legislation could have proceeded uncontested if we had had a bipartisan approach, if as a nation we had finally matured enough to be able to recognise what we have done to the Aboriginal people, to recognise the slaughters that have occurred, the way in which Aboriginals were killed by diseases, and the way in which they were treated when the white man first arrived here-like animals. We should recognise this history and say to ourselves: `We have a moral responsibility and we ought to be doing something about it'. I urge honourable members to support this legislation. I congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward. I look forward to more land rights claims in Victoria in the future so that the Aboriginal people can feel as last something is being done for them. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.37) —The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) has made a significant and rational contribution to the debate, as he has on other occasions when Aboriginal affairs have been debated. His last comment was that he hoped that further examples would be brought forward by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) whereby restitution would be made to the dispossessed Aboriginal people in Victoria. Later in my speech I will dwell on a possible further example of that taking place. This debate provides me with an opportunity to discuss the issue of Aboriginal land ownership, the specific examples of Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest, and to draw parallels with other properties in Victoria which exhibit a similar historical background. Aboriginal culture and way of life is, as we know, extremely old. It is 40,000 years, or more, older than any other culture or civilisation in history. More importantly, the culture is alive today, not only in the outback but on the fringes of our cities and in the very cities themselves. A major part of Aboriginal culture is the Aborigines' relationship to the land. Aboriginal owners see themselves not as owners with speculative and trading rights but as custodians or trustees, responsible to current and future generations for holding and keeping their birthright intact. Traditional owners talk not of rights to exploit the land, to make a fast buck, but of their duty to look after the land. Use of that land which is compatible with care of the land, use that does not offend their culture, use that does not despoil the spiritual side of the land, can be a use, therefore, that provides benefits to the general community-Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. The Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill relate to traditional Aboriginal land which, as the honourable member for Calwell observed, in the nineteenth century was reserved for Aboriginal mission stations. Today, descendants of the Aborigines who were held in these missions still live on the same land. To the examples of Framlingham Forest and Lake Condah can be added Coranderrk at Healesville in my electorate of Streeton. In 1861 the Framlingham Forest formed part of an area of land temporarily reserved from sale and set aside for the use of Aborigines. Despite the wishes of the Aborigines and without regard to any form of recompense for the existing state of dispossession from traditional tribal lands, the land was gradually sold off or leased. The last excision was as recently as 1952. In contrast, Lake Condah reserve originated as an Anglican mission station in 1869. This has been stated by other members in this debate. Just 17 years later a Victorian law required Aboriginal people of mixed race under 35 years of age to leave mission settlements, and the population naturally dwindled. Gradually the reserve area was revoked and officially closed in 1919, many of the people moving to Lake Tyers. The reserve was finally revoked and the area carved up for soldier settlement after World War II, but no Aboriginal returned soldier received land there. That fact should not go unnoticed. Also, around 1861, the tribes living in the Upper Yarra and Healesville area-the Wurundjeri, the Bunurong, the Taurngong and possibly the Yorta Yorta-were moved to a reserve at Acheron, along with other Aborigines from all over Victoria. This land proved unsuitable, so the Watts river reserve was created at Healesville. The Aborigines walked from Acheron to the Watts River Reserve over the mountain range, which has become known as the Black Spur as a result of that march. However, like Framlingham, Coranderrk was also whittled away. In 1883 half the permanent reserve was taken back by the Victorian Government and in 1924 Coranderrk was closed when the resident Aborigines too were transferred to Lake Tyers in Gippsland. In 1948 the Coranderrk Lands Bill was passed, which revoked permanent reservation of the land. The land was disposed of through the Soldier Settlement Commission. However, I understand that as with earlier leases and sites, Aborigines were not allowed to apply for the land which was once permanently reserved for them. Some 90 acres of the original reserve became Commonwealth property in early 1952 and on it was established the Army School of Health. After 34 years of active use, during which the Army School of Health became an important part of the Healesville community, the school was transferred to Portsea. The Government, in its 14 May 1985 statement, decided to dispose of the property. I will speak more on that matter later. I have given this detail to illustrate the parallels between and the similarities of the dismemberment of Aboriginal reserves in Victoria. We can see that Victoria, like other States, had gradually dispossessed Aborigines of all their community owned land. However, in more recent times, the general community has questioned the wisdom and justice of that dispossession and demanded some restitution. The original Victorian legislation-now in Commonwealth form in these Bills-provides for the return of the remainder of the Framlingham Forest to the traditional tribal owners the Kirrae Whurrong. Some 237 hectares had been vested in the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust by the Bolte Liberal Government in 1970 under the Aboriginal Land Act. That Act granted the land in what amounted to inalienable freehold title. Recognising the non-exploitative affinity between the land and Aboriginal people, the current Victorian Government acknowledged that the form of property title chosen by the Bolte Government was the most appropriate and best suited the particular nature of local Aboriginal community ownership. These Bills therefore, give the Aborigines inalienable title, as this satisfies their concern to prevent the land from ever being taken from them again or about being dispossessed of it by any one generation. This point was made most emphatically by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Calwell. The need for a non-commercial form of ownership was recognised by the Fraser Government in 1976 when the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Ian Viner, speaking to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, stated: The coalition Parties' policy on Aboriginal Affairs clearly acknowledges that affinity with the land is fundamental to Aborigines' sense of identity. With such honourable and solid conservative political support behind the concept of inalien- able freehold title spanning some 120 years in Victoria, it is astounding that the State and Federal Liberal parties have opposed inalienable freehold title. They have forced this legislation out of Victoria and into the Federal sphere. They are not challenging the grants, or their size; nor do they challenge the traditional connections between the trust membership and the land. They merely challenge the nature of the title, and in doing so expose their inability to accept that there can be a non-commercial interest in property, that the objective of owning land need not necessarily be exploitative. Their only concept of ownership is personal property, rights over property held, and to deny rights or sell rights in return for payment. Because of this inability to comprehend or accept the cultural affinity between Aborigines and land, they completely fail to see the distinction between use of the land and ownership. The response of the State Opposition, and here today the Federal Opposition, has been obstructionist and backward thinking. Their attempts to persuade members of the general public that Aborigines would be somehow disadvantaged if these Bills were passed are politically irresponsible and have no factual foundation. Today racial discrimination is being replaced by a growing concern and willingness in the wider community to find ways of bringing cultures together and to find ways of acknowledging common benefits. The Opposition however, is seeking to take society as a whole back to an unhappy era of prejudice. That is happening right now in my electorate concerning the Army School of Health property, which I mentioned earlier in this debate had been an Aboriginal reserve declared by the Victorian Government last century. When the Hawke Government decided to dispose of the property I approached the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) and argued successfully that there should be no disposal until the community advised the Government on the best future use of the property for Healesville and the wider community. I was appointed chairperson of a consultative committee which included, appointed and elected local representatives and representatives of local, State and Federal Government. After six months of exhaustive, open public meetings and after discussing 19 well prepared submissions received in response to public advertisements, the consultative committee recommended that the site be used for a post-secondary education centre and/or, as a secondary priority for low cost tourist accommodation. Some land in this former Aboriginal reserve was to be made available to the nearby sanctuary. If these options were unattainable, we recommended that the land be sold. While the consultative committee specifically rejected discussion on future ownership of the land as being outside its brief, it went without saying that the consultative committee's recommendations could be achieved only if the future ownership was compatible with the recommended future use. Much has been said in this chamber today and last night about people meeting and not meeting with Aboriginal groups and others associated with the lands in question. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is at the table, I believe, has an excellent record of communication with various representative groups of Aboriginal people. He is willing to travel around the country, inspect sites for himself and meet with those groups. The Minister, for instance, met with the consultative committee that I chaired and indicated to us: The Army School of Health was formerly part of the old Coranderrk Reserve which makes it an area of great significance and importance to Aboriginal people, not merely locally but throughout Victoria. The Minister then indicated that he supported proposals which would return the land to the traditional Aboriginal owners and which at the same time met the needs of Aboriginal people and related to the broader needs of the local community of which they are essentially a part. The Minister argued that such proposals would be one of the most important and innovative developments for Aboriginal people not only in Victoria but within Australia. A post-secondary education centre could provide cultural and educational training for Aborigines, as well as providing important training and education facilities for the local non-Aboriginal community. The Minister very recently advised the Shire of Healesville by letter of the Government's determined intention to transfer title of this Commonwealth owned portion of the former Coranderrk reserve to the Aboriginal Development Commission. Eventually, traditional Aboriginal owners will gain inalienable title to the land in the same way as the traditional owners of Framlingham and Lake Condah are regaining their land through the legislation that is now before the House. Equally importantly, the Minister indicated to the Shire of Healesville that title would not be transferred until proposals satisfactory to the Victorian and Federal governments were put in place, proposals which, among other things, would contain elements of cultural opportunities and vocational training for Aboriginals. This Government's decision, when it is completed, made final and flesh put on the bones of the consultative committee's proposals by consultants, will have bridged or helped to bridge the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultures through combining wide community use of the land with non-commercial ownership of that same land by the Aboriginal people. Given the good news for Healesville residents, I am very surprised that this month's council meeting, held a couple of days ago, the Shire President did not disclose the letter or the item in it that I have worked closely with the Minister to ensure that the consultative committee's proposals will be implemented. The Government's decision will bring great benefits to Healesville. It will bring education opportunities to Healesville students, who now have to travel long cross-country distances to post-secondary education centres. Victour expects big increases in tourists due to the potential of the property. School students will be able to stay there to enjoy the fauna, flora and Aboriginal treasures which abound at Healesville and in the upper Yarra Valley and ranges, in the very same way as tourists now use the Mount Buffalo Chalet and students enjoy the live-in facilities at Sovereign Hill in Ballarat. The Government's decision will complement the Healesville Sanctuary and the neighbouring Worowa Aboriginal College. The Government's decision will create employment opportunities and increase trade for business, which is already feeling the absence of the Army School. The consultative committee's proposals, when fully implemented, will indeed put Healesville on the map. Just as the Opposition is unable to comprehend the non-commercial, non-exploitative affinity of Aborigines to the land and the need to grant inalienable freehold title to the Framlingham and Lake Condah reserves, so it totally fails to comprehend the fact that the traditional owners of Coranderrk will be able to regain the land, yet be more than happy that the total community of Healesville will be able to enjoy the benefits of that property. But local Liberal opposition to the Government's intention is not based solely on ignorance. Attempts by members of the local Liberal machine to use the Healesville Council for their short term political ends are nothing short of deception towards the ratepayers. They talk of a sell-out of the consultative committee's proposals. At the same time, two members of the Liberal Party on that Council this week pushed through two motions. One motion called for the overthrow of the consultative committee's proposals in favour of another sell-out to an unknown private hotel developer, a proposal already rejected by the Committee. The other motion ordered the Shire Secretary not to meet with the group implementing the consultative committee's own proposals. The deceit is doubled when it is learnt that one of those Liberal councillors was a member of the consultative committee he now pretends to support. The Liberals' call for a public meeting over the Government's decision is nothing short of a put-up job. Any pretence that these actions by the Liberal Party are in the interests of the ratepayers is shot away when one realises that the call for a public meeting to discuss the Government's decision was published in a local paper before the Council met later in the day. Its concern for the public is questioned when we learn that a document about the Government's decision had two pages removed from it before being allegedly leaked to the media. The full document clearly indicated that the land would be returned to the Aborigines only after the consultative committee's proposals were implemented to the satisfaction of the Victorian and Federal governments. The people have a right to ask what good can come out of a stacked meeting orchestrated by the Liberal Party from go to whoa and designed to divide a community along racist lines. It is unlikely that the Liberal councillors will tell the ratepayers that the land will become ratable and return the community thousands of dollars. It is unlikely that the Liberal councillors will tell the ratepayers that their proposal to purchase the property could well cost each man, woman and child in Healesville up to $200-an amount that must be added to their rates. In any case, decisions made at a single public meeting which were designed to frustrate decision making cannot be compared with the six-months long arduous and responsible task carried out by the consultative committee which, in a calm atmosphere, involving the public, made recommendations strongly backed by the general community. Things have been going pretty badly lately for the Liberal Party. It has been forced to manufacture issues to mask its divisions and inadequacies. In Healesville, as at Framlingham and Lake Condah, although the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) did not put it this way, the Liberal Party is attempting to create a land rights controversy where none exists. It would be a tragic outcome for Healesville residents if the Liberals were successful and robbed the community of the educational, social and economic benefits flowing from the Government's proposals to develop the Army School of Health property, held in trust by the Aboriginal people. At the local level and in this Parliament, on matters involving former Aboriginal land reserves, the Opposition has shown itself to be completely out of touch with the people and the Aborigines. It knows only division and deception. I congratulate the Minister and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(10.56) —in reply-As in most debates on Aboriginal affairs and when dealing with the rights of Aboriginal people, the contributions which have come from members of Her Majesty's Opposition are disappointing in terms of an evaluation of the issues, trite in the level of understanding and hypocritical in the way the argument is put. As we approach our bicentennial I would like to read an extract from a letter that appeared in the Standard on 1 January 1889. It says: We have been thinking that the Government ought to give us some land on these stations. They could give it to us this way, that we could never sell it to anyone, but it would be a home to us always . . . . . Yours, et cetera, F. Clarke, F. Murray, H. Nelson, H. Albert, H. Saunders, half-castes. Perhaps it is time to ponder in this House the agony, indeed the tragedy and extent of the deprivation involved. A group of half-castes almost 100 years ago made a plea to a dominant white society-a less caring and less compassionate society-in respect of the very areas of land we are now discussing. I again refer the House to the words they used. They asked for a piece of land. They said: `They could give it to us this way, that we could never sell it to anyone, but it would be a home to us always'. That is what this debate is about; that is what this legislation is about. The Aboriginal people of Framlingham and Lake Condah, almost 100 years later, after four years of negotiation with the State Government of Victoria, have made it perfectly clear that what they want in respect of these areas of land is exactly the same as they were asking for almost 100 years ago; that is, they want an area of land. The definition of that land is not a matter of argument. The identification of the Aboriginal groups who have lived there, died there and endured there is not a matter of argument. What is the issue that brings this legislation before this Parliament? I remind the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), of his own policy statement. When releasing that policy statement he said: . . . the Liberal and National Parties rejected proposals for National Land Rights, but support the provision of land to Aboriginal communities by State Governments. He did not say by State parliaments, but by State governments. The State Government in Victoria has had four years of negotiation with the respective Aboriginal communities. No one from the Opposition side of the House says that Aboriginal people are asking for anything more or less than inalienable freehold title. That means very simply that they want the land in terms which, as a matter of philosophy and policy, were part of the policy of the Opposition when it was in government. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has voted for the concept of inalienable freehold title, as has the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). This was an inherent part of Opposition policy for years-to its credit. Mr Connolly —It still is. Mr HOLDING —The honourable gentleman says that it still is. If so, why does the Opposition not support this legislation? There is a difference between the attitude the Aboriginal people of Framlingham and Lake Condah have and that of the political colleagues of the honourable gentleman opposite in the Parliament of Victoria. The Aboriginal people said, as they have said for more than 100 years: `We do not want to own this land as some kind of commercial property. We do not want to own it so that we can sell it or dispose of it or divide it into suburban building blocks and become real estate developers'. They said, as they have been saying for 100 years, that they belong to that land and they want it in the terms of the letter which I read out to the House and which is almost 100 years old-so that they can never sell it and it can never be taken away. Is that unreasonable? Is it beyond the comprehension or compassion of the honourable gentlemen opposite? The Aboriginals want the land in terms such that none of them at any stage will have to face the responsibility of saying: `We think we will put a luxury tourist motel here. We can run a slide rule over the land and dispose of it to the first white fella who comes along and jingles a handful of dollars before us'. It is all right for the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) to blanch. Well he may, because what has occurred in the party of which he is a member is that the policy and philosophies of the New Right are becoming entrenched on the benches opposite. I will say this for the Leader of the Opposition: In the history of the Commonwealth he is a truly unique Leader of the Opposition; he has more talent on his back bench than on his front bench. In the course of that happening there have been movements away from attitudes which were prevalent among and were the policy of members of the Opposition less than five or six years ago. The Bolte Liberal Government in Victoria, when it gave title to Lake Tyers, virtually gave inalienable freehold title. What has been the cause of the change of mind whereby that action, taken almost 20 years ago, suddenly freaks out members of the Liberal Party and the National Party in Victoria? The pious arguments to which I listened in the Victorian Legislative Council are reflected and reproduced in this Parliament to the disgrace of this Parliament and the honourable members opposite. What is the issue? It is the old assertion of cultural arrogance. Opposition members are not saying that these Aborigines should not have the land; not at all. They are saying: `You can have this land but you must stop thinking like an Aborigine-if only you would think like we do, if only you would tell us that the land belongs to you and you want to flog it off, sell it or redevelop it because you want to think like white fellas.' Then they would have the moral approval of Mr Kennett and his bunch of political no-hopers who pass for politicians on the Opposition benches in the State of Victoria. It is all very well for the honourable member for Wannon to stand up and say `Oh! People should go to Lake Condah and see the achievements there. It is a matter of pride'. How did these achievements come about? It was through the support of the Victorian Government and the imagination and capacity of the Aboriginal people. Some of those people are here in this Parliament today and they will say to any member: `We do not want this land given to us so that we can treat it or dispose of it in the same way as white people. We belong to that land; our ancestors are buried there; we have lived on it, suffered on it, endured on it and we want to have it as an inalienable freehold title.' Shock, horror! What an awful concept! If only the Aborigines would think like the Kennetts of this world and like honourable members opposite, if only black fellas would think like white fellas and take the same moral position in their attitudes to land, if only they would think like us, then they could have it. What a paltry, miserable and disgraceful attitude to have at this time as we approach our Bicentenary. That sort of attitude has coloured the history of those settlements at Lake Condah and Framlingham virtually since they were created as reserves. One only has to look at their history. Their history was one of telling Aboriginal people all the way through, a consistent policy of saying: `If you are a half-caste'-as defined by the rulers of the day-`we will move you off the land.' What was a half-caste? A full-blooded Aboriginal woman could be married to a white fellow yet she was a half-caste and she had to move on. There were two views governing the thinking of those days. One was that Aboriginal people would die out and the second was that they would be assimilated. One of the great and historic achievements of Aboriginal people in my State is that they have survived. They have survived as Aboriginal Australians and they confidently assert both their culture and their tradition. They say: `We have not been assimilated and we will not go away. We want this Government, the State Government of Victoria, to recognise our perceptions as Aboriginal Australians and to make this land available to us.' That seems to me to be a fairly simple proposition. It was a proposition which the Victorian Government accepted yet the Liberal and National Parties in the upper House made it perfectly clear that they would not accept it. Not only would they not accept it, but they would also reject the legislation. Mr Hawker —That is not true. Mr HOLDING —Does the honourable member want me to quote from the debate? I actually sat there in the Parliament. If the Liberal and National parties did not want to reject the legislation, why did they vote against the second reading? If one is supporting the basic concept of legislation one does not divide the House; one does not divide on the second reading motion and the honourable member knows that. Let us be perfectly candid: The problem that exists in the Opposition at the moment is their confusion and division on these sorts of issues. For Aboriginal people that is a tragedy because I agree that this matter should never have come to this Parliament. When I was approached by the Victorian Attorney-General, he said that he could not get the legislation through the upper House but that his Government did not intend to retract from its commitments to Aboriginal people. He then asked the Commonwealth to take up the legislation and put it through Federal Parliament. I told him that I would only do that if I could not persuade the Victorian Leader of the Opposition to look at the matter again. I made no secret of that. I made it clear to the Press that I would contact Mr Kennett and urge him to reconsider his position because we were really talking about a question of time. I rang Jeff Kennett-I have known him since he first went into the Victorian Parliament-and I had a short, friendly conversation with him. He was gracious enough to tell me immediately that there was no way that the Opposition would reconsider its position. Indeed, before I rang him he held a Press conference at which he said there would be no change of attitude or position. I actually went in and listened to the debates in the Victorian Parliament; it was the first time I had been there since I left that Parliament. I sat there and it was perfectly clear to me and to anyone who listened to that debate that there had been no consultation at all with the Aboriginal people whose lives would be affected by the legislation. Had there been any consultation, the Aboriginal people would have told members of the Parliament that they wanted the same sort of title as members of the Liberal and National Parties voted into the national lands rights legislation and the same sort of title as that given by the Bolte Government to the Aboriginal people at Lake Tyers. What is wrong with that? What is so horrific, so terrible about that? We are told by honourable members opposite that they think they support land rights but one only has to look at the record. When this Government made the important and historic decision to give title to Uluru to the Aboriginal people, the reaction was shock and horror. The Opposition supported land rights but it did not think that the Government should do anything as dramatic or radical as that. So Opposition members voted against that decision. We were dealing with land that was the property of the Commonwealth. Oh yes, the Opposition has great compassion for Aborigines, but it never wants to give them a title. If one re-read those earlier debates one would think that by now Uluru should have disappeared. One would have thought that it would be moved. The fact is that that decision has been an historic success and everyone knows it. When, after 10 years of negotiation, we decided to give the Aboriginal people at Wreck Bay an inalienable freehold title, the Opposition said it supported those people. Yet it voted to a man against the handing over of that title as an inalienable freehold title. Mr Connolly —You would not give them a lease to their own houses. Mr HOLDING —Oh, listen to that! The shadow Minister is not a bad fellow but his real problem is that the New Right has a grip on him and he does not have quite the same intestinal fortitude of Senator Peter Baume. He is not willing to stand up and have John Howard sack him. What he does is sit there mouthing platitudes of support for Aboriginal people, but time and time again when he has to put his hand up he votes against any concept of giving Aboriginal people a title in the terms that they ask. That is what this argument is all about. I agree that this legislation should never have come to this Parliament. It is not here because anyone is interested in grandstanding; it is here because we indicated that we would support State governments in the pursuit of the question of giving Aboriginal people a title to their land. The Liberal Party policy states that that Party supports State governments doing that. We have been asked by a State government to assist in this way to overcome a political obstruction. Honourable members opposite and I know that many of their State leaders-they are on record-do not and will never support land rights. Therefore, it will be necessary for the Commonwealth, in pursuit of its policies, to pursue that matter vigorously through this Parliament, and that is what we will do. I commend the legislation to the House, just as I condemn again the disappointing, mealy-mouthed approach of the Opposition which will go on mouthing platitudes about how it wants to help Aboriginal people but when it comes to the crunch it never has the capacity, the willingness or, more importantly, the compassion to see that they receive land on their terms. It wants them to live and think like the Jeff Kennetts of the world. Most of them have too much integrity and too much honour to do that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Amendments (by Mr HOLDING)-by leave- put: (1) Clause 15, page 10, line 10, omit subclause (6). (2) Clause 15, page 10, line 11, omit ``approves'', substitute ``receives a copy of''. (3) Clause 15, page 10, lines 14 and 15, omit ``giving the approval'', substitute ``receipt by the Minister''. (4) Clause 16, page 11, lines 2 and 3, omit ``determining an application for permission to carry on mining operations'', substitute ``considering the making of a declaration under paragraph 30 (2) (c)''. (5) Clause 18, page 11, lines 37 and 38, omit ``if, and only if, a declaration under paragraph (1) (a) is in force in relation to the person'', substitute ``or a body created by the Corporation if, and only if, a declaration in force under paragraph (1) (a) so declares''. (6) Clause 18, page 11, line 40, after ``Corporation'' insert ``or a body created by that Corporation''. (7) Clause 19, page 12, lines 5 to 11, omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute the following paragraphs: ``(a) by force of this Act, that interest in the Condah land is, subject to paragraph (b), vested in the Commonwealth on trust for the benefit of the Aboriginal people of Victoria; and (b) the Governor-General shall, to the extent of that interest, execute a deed of grant of an estate in the Condah land: (i) to another Aboriginal group which is approved by the Minister and is incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 and the members of which are the descendants of the Kerrup-Jmara Clan; or (ii) if there is no group as described in subparagraph (i)-to any appropriate Aboriginal group in Victoria which is incorporated under that Act.''. (8) Clause 23, page 14, line 18, omit subclause (6). (9) Clause 23, page 14, line 19, omit ``approves'', substitute ``receives a copy of''. (10) Clause 23, page 14, lines 22 and 23, omit ``giving the approval'', substitute ``receipt by the Minister''. (11) Clause 24, page 15, lines 9 and 10, omit ``determining an application for permission to carry on mining operations'', substitute ``considering the making of a declaration under paragraph 30 (2) (c)''. (12) Clause 27, page 16, lines 19 and 20, omit ``if, and only if, a declaration under paragraph (1) (a) is in force in relation to the person'', substitute ``or a body created by that Corporation if, and only if, a declaration in force under paragraph (1) (a) so declares''. (13) Clause 28, page 16, lines 25 to 32, omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute the following paragraphs: ``(a) by force of this Act, that interest in Framlingham Forest is, subject to paragraph (b), vested in the Commonwealth on trust for the benefit of the Aboriginal people of Victoria; and (b) the Governor-General shall, to the extent of that interest, execute a deed of grant of an estate in Framlingham Forest: (i) to another Aboriginal group which is approved by the Minister and is incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 and the members of which are the descendants of the Kirrae Whurrong (Pertobe) Clan; or (ii) if there is no group as described in subparagraph (i)-to any appropriate Aboriginal group in Victoria which is incorporated under that Act.''. (14) Clause 30, page 17, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Mining operations ``30. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person shall not, under the authority of a mining tenement that has been granted, renewed or extended on or after the day of vesting: (a) carry out any mining operation on the relevant land; or (b) enter the relevant land for the purpose of carrying out any mining operation. Penalty: (a) for an offence against paragraph (1) (a): (i) if the person is a natural person-$5,000; or (ii) if the person is a body corporate-$25,000; or (b) for an offence against paragraph (1) (b): (i) if the person is a natural person-$1,000; or (ii) if the person is a body corporate-$5,000. ``(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to anything done with respect to relevant land if: (a) the Corporation has granted the necessary permission under section 31; (b) the Minister has declared in writing that he or she is satisfied that the Corporation was given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the relevant Minister of the Crown of the State of Victoria about the conditions on which the grant, renewal or extension of the mining tenement should be made; and (c) if section 34 applies-the Minister has declared in writing that he or she is satisfied that any registered sacred or significant site has been appropriately protected. (15) Clause 33, page 19, lines 19 to 23, omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute the following subclauses: ``(2) If, at the end of the conciliation proceedings, the conciliation is unsuccessful, the applicant and the Corporation shall, within 60 days thereafter, appoint an arbitrator to review the decision of the Corporation. ``(3) If: (a) the applicant and the Corporation are unable to appoint an arbitrator within that period; and (b) the applicant requests the Minister to appoint an arbitrator, the Minister shall appoint an arbitrator, being a person whom the Minister considers to be in a position to deal with the matter impartially.''. (16) Clause 35, page 20, omit the clause. (17) Clause 37, page 21, line 13, omit ``35'', substitute ``30''. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A.Bilney, G. N. Jenkins, H. A.Blanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C.Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Kerin, J. C. Sullivan, K. J.Uren, T. Wilson, I. B. C.Hurford, C. J. Jull, D. F.Kent, L. Moore, J. C.Klugman, R. E. Fife, W. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Holding)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.25) —In his closing remarks on this Bill, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) attempted, rather unsuccessfully, to draw a distinction between the Federal policy of the Liberal Party, the official Opposition in this Parliament, and the Liberal Party in Victoria. In so doing, however, the Minister deliberately omitted some very important factors. For example, he drew attention to the fact that the Bolte Government had given what he described as a similar title to the Lake Tyers community. The question of similarity, of course, may be subject to legal interpretation. However, there is one fundamental difference between the title offered then and the title that has been offered now, and this relates to the whole question of land rights apropos mining on Aboriginal land. The Bolte legislation did not refer to such provisions as contained in this Bill. In Victoria, there is quite justifiable concern that if legislation which contains elements of the question of mining on Aboriginal lands is implemented, the same principle can be applied to other legislation in Victoria. This issue has been brought to our attention; it is a matter which was discussed in the Victorian Parliament. I merely raise it to emphasise yet again the inaccuracies of the Minister in trying to draw the type of distinction which he has. It is a dangerous precedent as far as many people in Victoria are concerned. The legitimate interests of the people of Victoria, as expressed in the Parliament of Victoria, were completely correct at that time. I again refer to the other point that the Minister had tended to ignore. The Minister claims that he agrees with what I have said on behalf of the Opposition-that this legislation should never had been introduced into this Parliament in the first place. Mr Holding —Is that an aspersion? Mr CONNOLLY —It should never have been introduced. It is not a case of its not having to be; it never should have been introduced into this Parliament. I said in this chamber last night, I mentioned it to the Minister privately, and I repeat it publicly: If the Victorian-- Mr Hand —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield, is saying that something should never have been introduced into this Parliament. The Parliament is entitled to discuss this legislation-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —There is no point of order there. Mr Hand —The reason it is here is that his people in Victoria lost it, and the honourable member knows that. So, it is a shallow argument that he is putting to the Parliament. Why can he not be fair dinkum? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will be seated. There is no point of order. Mr CONNOLLY —I will not waste my time or that of the House responding to such a ludicrous proposition. I said, and I repeat: If the Victorian Government was serious about granting title, it did not have to do it through legislation, firstly, and, secondly, if it had the problems, as claimed in the Upper House, it could just as easily have reached the same conclusion by executive means. The Minister is well aware that, under Victorian law, Crown land can be transferred. A specific Act of Parliament does not have to be involved every time someone wants to give a playing field to a local council. The truth of the matter is that the Cain Government has a record of gross negligence in this area since its election. Year after year it has seen other States, both National Party and Labor Party States, going forward and giving land rights to Aboriginal communities. The State of Victoria has the worst record of all. At the eleventh hour, after four, five and in some cases, according to Mr Clark, eight years of negotiation, it has finally decided to make a virtue out of necessity and pass legislation through Parliament. When members of the Victorian Government found that the legislation could not be passed, instead of being men of honour and people of integrity, referred to so often by the Minister and his cohorts on the other side, they did not even bother to take the issue through the upper House. They did not bother to debate seriously the amendments put forward by the Opposition. They dropped their bags and baggage and ran off to Mother Holding for support. I said that last night, and I repeat it for the record: Had they been serious about this matter they could have solved their problems domestically, but they refused to do that. Mr Hand —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: The shadow Minister is reflecting on this House. We have just taken a vote in Committee and have reported to the House, but the honourable member is now suggesting that this Parliament does not have the right to consider the matter, when in fact the Parliament has considered it-and that is a reflection on the Parliament. We have the right to consider anything we so desire. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Bradfield that, when he makes comments such as those which he has made, he must not reflect on the House by making such comments in the context that this House is not able or authorised to consider such legislation. Mr CONNOLLY —Madam Deputy Speaker, had you been here last night for my speech on the second reading, you would have noted that I referred specifically to the fact that we are not questioning the authority of the Federal Parliament to legislate concurrently with the States in relation to Aboriginal matters. That is a constitutional requirement placed on us by the referendum of 1967, and I have said nothing this morning which disputes that. All I have said-and I will repeat it as it happens to be a strongly held view of the Opposition parties-is that this particular set of problems, involving some 12 square kilometres of land, could have been solved in Victoria, through the normal procedures of the Victorian Parliament, without the Federal Parliament having to spend time on the matter. It is not a question of jurisdiction, as we have that jurisdiction. It is a question of judgment, a question of principle, as to who should do what. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is in order in making comments regarding judgment, but not on jurisdiction. His speech last night was before the vote, and the point that he made does not apply to anything that we are discussing this morning. I ask the honourable member to keep along the line that we do have the authority and jurisdiction. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister has made a major issue of the question of freehold title in perpetuity. The question which people ask, and which the Minister did not attempt to answer in his response to the second reading debate, is whether or not the present generation has the right to tie up the opportunities for change which will affect future generations. The question of law is what we are trying to determine. We are talking about laws which are to be applied to Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals alike across Australia. We in the Opposition stand on the belief that the form of title should be arrived at by the State governments in consultation with Aboriginal communities. If they wish to take it to the Parliament they have to argue their case in the normal way. One can only conclude that they could not get it through the Victorian Parliament because they failed to argue their case satisfactorily and because they simply did not have the support of the House-a House elected by the people of Victoria. That is what it is all about. Dr Theophanous —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member is reflecting on the representative nature of the Victorian Government. The Victorian Government was elected to represent the people and the legislation should have been able to go through the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for Calwell will be seated, but I would-- Mr CONNOLLY —The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is well known for his Marxist tendencies. All I can say is that he is not a democrat if he believes what he just said. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! On another point, I wish to draw to the attention of the honourable member for Bradfield that in the third reading debate he may not rehash the points which have been raised in the second reading debate. He may address himself only to that matter which has been referred back to the House from the Committee. Would the honourable member please adhere to that course? Mr CONNOLLY —The Government has made the point that it is meeting the requirements and wishes of the Aboriginal community. One would hope that that is the case. However, I would like to table, and address myself to, a document which was sent to me by Mr Greg Clark, who is the leader of the Framlingham community. He makes a number of points. Mr Hand —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I suggest that the person's name is probably Geoff Clark, and if the honourable member is going to quote someone he should try to get his name right; it might help him. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr CONNOLLY —Mr Geoff Clark said: It has never been agreed by this Community (Framlingham) nor Kerrup Jmara-Condah that the two Bills be enacted as one. He went on to say: This is clearly Clyde Holding's/Jim Kennan's doing. He took exception to the fact that in a Commonwealth Bill the word `Aboriginal' is used when in fact he believes it should be `Aborigine'-despite the fact that it is Commonwealth policy to do so. He resents that change in wording and feels insulted by it. He said: The reason for electing to have Commonwealth legislation other than State was so that the Framlingham Bill would not be further watered down . . . in the Upper House-- Nevertheless, he makes the point that this proved to be wrong because of `Clyde Holding's gutter approach'. He said further: A position of trust in dealing with State Labor government over an 8-year period, and a similar amount of redraft on the choice of words, clauses, and provisions in the current State Framlingham Forest Aboriginal Land Act 1987. This position of trust has now been broken by Holding's and Jim Kennan's secret dealings with each other. He then said: Major points and changes outlined here are the result of closed meetings of the two Ministers mentioned. The Framlingham community has been excluded from this process to the extent that the community has only just received . . . He refers to Friday, the 20th-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member for Bradfield cease that line of discussion for the moment. He is out of order, having gone beyond the clauses as amended. I have just asked the Clerk to show me those clauses. The letter and the matter the honourable member is now debating are out of order. Mr CONNOLLY —If I am out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave of the House to have incorporated in Hansard this document from Mr Clark which points out the difficulties he has had in negotiations with both the Victorian Government and, obviously, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and the objections which his community, the Framlingham community, have to the proposals contained in this legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the honourable member allow me and the Clerk to see the document? If it is in tabulation form it may be tabled. The honourable member may not table a letter. Mr CONNOLLY —It is not a letter. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Now that I have seen this document I rule that it may be tabled but not incorporated. Is leave granted to table the document? Leave granted. Mr CONNOLLY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I regret that you would not let me have the document incorporated in Hansard, although I would be quite happy to read it into Hansard. The point it makes is that there is less than unanimity on various aspects of this legislation which the Government is trying to claim is somehow a trail-blazing operation of intercommunal support. All I am simply stating is that it does not have the support of at least one major elder of one of the communities covered by this Bill. In addition to that, the Government did not have the support of the Parliament of Victoria. Dr Theophanous —Why don't you argue on the principles? Mr CONNOLLY —While the honourable member for Calwell, who is at the back of the chamber-the spokesman for Moscow corner, as my colleague has called him on previous occasions-seems to have some difficulty with the democratic process, the fact of the matter is that the Victorian Parliament does not control the upper House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield is entirely out of order. The first point is that it was not the Chair-or me personally-who would not have the document incorporated; it was the rules of the House. Also, I once again draw to the honourable member's attention that at the time of the third reading debate he may comment only on the clauses as amended. I do not wish to call the honourable member to order again. Will he please adhere to that ruling? Dr Theophanous —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the second time that the honourable member for Bradfield, who has no argument, has tried to reflect on me and throw out various titles, including-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! What is the point of order? Dr Theophanous —He just made a remark to which I take exception. Mr Hawker —What was it? Dr Theophanous —He suggested that in some sense I am some kind of stooge of the Soviet Union. If he knew anything about my record in relation to the Soviet Union, he would not make such a stupid comment. But I can say this to him-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Calwell will be seated. He may not debate the point of order. I ask the honourable member for Bradfield to withdraw the words which reflected on a member of this House. Mr CONNOLLY —May I comment, please, Madam Deputy Speaker? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, I just ask you to withdraw any words that reflected on a member of this House. Mr CONNOLLY —Madam Deputy Speaker, of course, in deference to your ruling, I will withdraw any words which reflected on a member of this House. May I say, however, that the honourable member, coming as he does from the State of Victoria, is well aware that members of the upper House vote on behalf of and represent the people of Victoria-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, you may not. Would the honourable member either debate the clauses as amended or take his seat? Mr CONNOLLY —I wish to conclude my remarks in this third reading debate by just emphasising the fact that the Opposition objects to this legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(11.43) —I wish to take the time of the House to say a few things-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Those things must be, of course, as I have warned before, on the clauses as amended, not on the full thrust of the Bill. Mr HAND —I am talking about how we found ourselves at the end of the Committee report and the fact that the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), called for a division when members of his Party-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Those comments are out of order. Mr HAND —All right. I will continue. We may talk about the amendments to the legislation. Last night I spoke in this chamber for 20 minutes. I just want to make a couple of comments today. Both at the Committee stage and in the general debate on the second reading we heard from the other side of the chamber not one reason of any substance for not proceeding with this legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is referring to the general legislation and treating this like a second reading debate. I draw his attention to the fact that he may comment only on the clauses as amended. We have already completed the second reading debate. Mr HAND —In regard to that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I say that, in terms of the amendments that were put forward and the clauses as amended and reported to you by the Chairman of Committees, we did not hear in the course of that discussion one real argument from either Opposition party-and within those parties both sections of the party-in opposition to those amendments. In the gallery today we have four elders of the Lake Condah community. They must surely have been wondering, when they saw the performance of the shadow Minister, who actually ran out of things to say about 10 minutes before his time had expired. The Opposition did not have an argument. It had no arguments either in this part of the debate or in the earlier stages. The shadow Minister argued that the section of the legislation we are dealing with now should have been put to the Victorian Parliament. The facts of the matter are that the Victorian Parliament considered this legislation and the Victorian lower House passed the proposals. The shadow Minister knows that the bunyips in the Opposition in the Victoria upper House got together and voted against the legislation at its second reading stage and threatened to knock it over if it went to the final stage in that place. That is why the legislation is before us; that is why amendments have been moved; and that is why we are having this debate. The Opposition parties, which are now saying that this legislation is the property of the Victorian Parliament, know full well that their colleagues in the Victorian Parliament would not allow the legislation to proceed. We have the spectacle of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), and the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, roaming the countryside, particularly the western parts of Victoria, where the Bills-- Mr Shack —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Under the Standing Orders as they govern third reading debates, I ask you to rule the honourable member out of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I point out that I have been following closely the Standing Orders relating to the third reading debates. I have drawn the attention of the honourable member for Melbourne to the fact that he may debate only clauses as amended. On this item I am allowing him the same flexibility as was allowed the honourable member for Bradfield who brought this issue up in the third reading debate. But I ask the honourable member for Melbourne now to conclude his comments. Mr HAND —Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude very shortly. The point I am trying to make is that at all of the stages of this debate, particularly the debate on the amendments at the Committee stage, the Opposition in this place presented no argument. The State Opposition, some of the people at a local government level and the Opposition in this place have not presented one argument why the people who are present in this House should not have their land at Lake Condah. Not one argument was presented by the Opposition in the various stages of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is now out of order. He is debating matters relevant to the second reading stage. They have already been debated and he is out of order. Mr HAND —In terms of the third reading debate and the Committee stage-- Mr Connolly —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. There is not the slightest doubt that the honourable member is transgressing your decision. It is equally clearly known, from what I said in the second reading debate, that we are not objecting to the transfer of this title-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bradfield is out of order and the Chair is absolutely out of patience. The third reading debate is not to be used to continue a debate which has already been dealt with. Honourable members have been given every opportunity under the Standing Orders to speak during the second reading debate. I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to confine his comments strictly to the clauses. I warn him that if he again debates matters that relate to the second reading debate, the Chair will have to rule him out or order. Mr HAND —Madam Deputy Speaker, I will hold a copy of the amendments, and I will refer to them as I make my remarks. The point that I am trying to make in response to the shadow Minister is that in all his discussions in the Committee stage he did not put up one argument as to why the amendments should not be proceeded with, other than to state that this legislation ought not to be dealt with in this Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have dealt with the right of this Parliament to deal with this question; so we have clarified that objection. I make the point again that, in terms of the substance of the amendments and the legislation, the Opposition has not presented one argument as to why the people of Lake Condah and Framlingham ought not to get this land. That is the real question. We have not heard one argument in the third reading debate relating to the matters that were discussed in the Committee stage. The Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, the shadow Minister in this Parliament and the honourable member for Wannon tried to stir the people of western Victoria into a frenzy over the sorts of things covered by these amendments. They failed miserably. They could not get people to attend meetings or to discuss the matter because the people to whom the shadow Minister referred support what the Government is on about and, quite frankly, they are disgusted with the shallowness of the arguments of the three people I have referred to. These amendments enhance the legislation and I have no difficulty in supporting them. In conclusion, I take this opportunity to say that the Opposition has been shown up for what it really is. It talks and talks about the rights of Aboriginals, it talks about how it is not opposed to them, but every time legislation comes forward the Opposition opposes it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is out of order. Mr Connolly —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 66. Under that standing order I reserve the right to clarify some serious misunderstandings and misquotations which the honourable member for Melbourne has just introduced into the House. I want to state again absolutely for the record, so that there can be no question of doubt about it, that the Opposition-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I see that standing order 66 gives an honourable member an opportunity to seek indulgence of the Chair to make a personal explanation if he or she claims to have been misrepresented. I suggest that we are debating legislation and this is not the time to do that. Following the passage of these Bills the honourable member may seek indulgence from the Chair to make a personal explanation. Mr Connolly —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence. We have virtually concluded the third reading stage of this legislation. I believe that the allegations which were made about the Opposition's policy are significantly important and quite fundamental to this issue. All I want to say in a handful of words-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sorry, the honourable member is out of order. I have to follow the tradition and the rulings of this House. The time to make a personal explanation is following the passage of these Bills. This has happened to many honourable members but I must uphold the Standing Orders. Mr Connolly —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The problem is that while you quite rightly drew my attention to ranging beyond the terms of reference of a third reading debate, I am grievously concerned at the fact that the honourable member for Melbourne used his time in the third reading debate to make a speech, which had no relevance, to misinterpret the policies of the Opposition. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order and I suggest that the honourable member for Bradfield not reflect, even implicitly, on the rulings of the Chair. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(11.53) —I take exception to some of the points raised by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). He was referring to the-- Mr Hand —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. In terms of your ruling, the honourable member can only speak to the matter before the House. Mr HAWKER —If the honourable member would let me begin my speech he would find out that I will. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is accurate. I again draw to the attention of the honourable member for Wannon, as I have to other honourable members, that he may debate only matters strictly pertaining to the clauses, as amended. Mr HAWKER —Madam Deputy Speaker, I was just getting to that point. But the honourable member for Melbourne seems rather impatient and he does not want to hear about matters when he has been found out. The honourable member for Melbourne made some reference to the Opposition's debate on these amendments. If the honourable member for Melbourne bothered to look back through the Hansard, or even use a bit of recall, he would find that there was no debate on these amendments. So I do not know quite how he was able to bring in all the additional material that he did when he was talking about what the Opposition said about the amendments. There was no debate on the amendments. Mr Leo McLeay —There was a division. Mr HAWKER —There was no debate. We talk about the amendments to this legislation and what they will do. I would like to say to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) that I was very disappointed that he did not take up the point brought up by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in his second reading speech. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is out of order. He may comment only on the amended clauses. I warn the honourable member and every honourable member in this House that if any honourable member again moves from debating the amended clauses in this third reading debate, he or she will be seated forthwith. Mr HAWKER —I just want to wind up very quickly. These amendments still do not get to the point that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) made that the Government is grandstanding on this matter. In fact, the State government could have transferred the title by regulation. The whole thing has been a put up job by the Labor Party to try to get publicity for its failures in other areas. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.55) —in reply-I wish quickly to deal with a number of points which have been raised and I shall comply with the Chair's ruling. I should make these comments in fairness to Mr Clark, and to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) in respect of the letter he tabled. I note that the letter is dated 26 March. I understand that after Mr Clark had expressed some concerns the Victorian Attorney-General and Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Kennan, arranged for him to discuss those concerns with a leading Melbourne constitutional silk who has acted on many occasions for and on behalf of Aboriginal people. I understand from information supplied by Mr Kennan that that resolved many of Mr Clark's difficulties. I shall not deal with the quality of Mr Clark's language because he said some fairly uncharitable things about both the shadow Minister and about the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria. Mr Hawker —He is even-handed. Mr HOLDING —He is even-handed in his disapproval. I am satisfied on the statements that have been made to me by the Attorney-General of Victoria that this legislation expresses the wishes and desires of the Victorian Aboriginal community. Mr Clark previously told me that he wanted a Commonwealth title and not a Victorian title. He told me that in the presence of members of the land councils of the Northern Territory, following the course of events that occurred in the Victorian Parliament. That was then his position. To the best of my knowledge, and on the basis of information I have received from the Victorian Attorney-General, this legislation has the support of the Framlingham community. If any members of the House are in any doubt about the support of members of the Lake Condah community I point out that they are present in the Parliament. They will make perfectly clear their support for this legislation and their knowledge of support for this legislation by members of the Framlingham community. A number of the amendments which have been passed by the House address some of the points raised by the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. They also specifically deal with some of the points raised by Mr Clark. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.58) —I shall be mercifully brief on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill. I wish to emphasise, for the benefit of the House, that we believe this legislation is no more relevant to this issue than was the legislation we have already debated. When the legislation in its initial form, that is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill, was originally introduced we were assured by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and by the Government at the time that it would overcome any problems which may be created in relation to the overlap between Federal and State jurisdictions in relation to the protection of sacred sites and so forth. There is still a considerable degree of argument, as I understand it, in the Victorian Aboriginal community as to what extent these proposals adequately cover that point. Among the various points Mr Clark raises in the letter which I tabled earlier-and I assure the House that these issues have been brought to my attention by other Aborigines in Victoria-he is concerned about the fact that the legislation requires the compiling of a register of sites in the Framlingham Forest. The Minister would say, as he has said on previous occasions-he made this point in his rather testy address this morning-that we tend to make judgments relating to legal matters which may be appropriate to white Australians but which tend to ignore the realities and traditional interests of Aboriginal Australians. In many respects this is a classic example of that. In terms of white law it is obvious and logical to say that one should always have lists, registers and clearly identified public knowledge of as many things as possible, but in Aboriginal law that is a contradiction, as the Minister is well aware. The very act of having a sacred site does not imply that everybody should know about it. This creates both social and economic problems. For argument's sake, a mining company in the wider context of land rights can rightly say `How are we to determine where to put our access roads if there is not a document, a register, which states explicitly what we should avoid?' But the very fact of an Aboriginal community putting sacred sites on a register open to the gaze of people who are not qualified, in terms of the Aboriginal law of that community, to have access to those sites, or even knowledge of them, creates a fundamental conflict, as I am sure the Minister would accept. It is one of the difficulties in trying to relate Aboriginal customary law to European or British legal systems and concepts. This point has been rightly made by Mr Clark in the letter I tabled earlier. He said: There is also an additional point the Community is unable to accept. We are in total disagreement of both Federal . . . and State . . . Heritage Legislation. To declare a site is to endanger it. Freedom of choice should be respected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! I remind the honourable member that this is a cognate debate. Although in a second reading speech matters can be pursued, I intend strictly to require the honourable member's comments to be relevant to the Bill that we are considering and not canvass matters that ordinarily would have been canvassed in the preceding Bill. Mr CONNOLLY —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but obviously you have just arrived in the chamber and have not had the benefit of having heard the debate to date. What I am saying is absolutely relevant to the current debate, cognate or otherwise. We have dispatched the land rights legislation. We are now talking about the second Bill in this series, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill. The remarks I have just made were absolutely on that subject. Mr Clark in his letter is concerned about the implications of proposed changes in the legislation in relation to the protection of sacred and significant sites. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am examining the Bill. Which part deals with significant sites? Mr CONNOLLY —That is what the whole Bill is about-the protection of sacred sites. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will see how the debate proceeds. Mr CONNOLLY —Mr Deputy Speaker, to avoid embarrassment and long turgid delays in this matter let me say that I have said all I want to say about Mr Clark's views on this subject. I simply point out what I said in my speech on the second reading of the earlier legislation. Whilst the Government may claim that it has gone ahead with an administrative package, which has the endorsement in all respects of the relevant Aboriginal community leaders, I simply say that there is considerable doubt in my mind, on the basis of the information I have, that that is the true story. The amendments in the context of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill are related principally to trying to overcome inconsistencies which may appear between Federal legislation and State legislation. Unfortunately, the same problems are being created on this issue as those which were raised in the second reading debate on the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill, and we assert that this legislation could have been more appropriately handled at State government level. The other issue to which I should also refer in relation to this second piece of legislation is the rights which people will have to protect their interests in Aboriginal sacred relics. Because of the effluxion of time and the historical realities of which we are well aware, in parts of Victoria keeping places have now been established in which artefacts of Aboriginal communities that may no longer even exist are being protected. No doubt the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has visited some of these places, as have I. I must say that I am quite impressed with the dedication of the people who are looking after those keeping places and with the manner in which the whole objective of giving the wider Australian community access to, and a greater knowledge of, traditional Aboriginal culture is being preserved. A substantial educative role can be played and it must be encouraged. However, the problem in the context of these amendments is to what extent Aboriginal communities-no one disputes that they are Aboriginal-in different parts of Victoria should have the right of access to relics kept in keeping places and with which they have no direct social association. I make the point-the Minister is well aware of it-that traditional Aboriginal society in Victoria, as is the case in every other part of Australia, was made up of many variations of different tribes, different languages, and with subtle differences in its style of managing its affairs and so forth. Probably it is no more adequate if one relates the matter to a European environment to say that a German tribe should have access to the sacred sites or sacred relics of a French tribe or Flemish tribe in the context of western Europe. For all intents and purposes, they are different peoples. The one thing they have in common is that they have been classified by white anthropologists as being Aboriginal. The important point I am making is this: Those communities which are protecting relics today, usually because no antecedents or communities are left which have a direct link with them, surely have the right to continue to protect them because there is a geographical and historical association with that local environment where those sacred objects or community works may have originated. For example, the Loddon Valley had a community and it has a very good keeping place, and it has been suggested that its artefacts should be moved to Bendigo or Melbourne. People in that community quite justifiably ask: `Why? We are protecting these artefacts. This is part of our history'. It is part of not only the local Aboriginal history-and the community may not even exist now-but also the contiguous history of that environment, society or group. They have been told that they have no right to those artefacts and that they should be transferred. Such problems have created considerable concern in parts of Victoria and I simply draw these matters to the attention of the Minister as being examples of where he may try to overcome a set of problems but often by getting Federal jurisdiction involved with State jurisdiction all one ultimately does is create a whole host of new problems. I will finalise my remarks by simply saying that the Opposition will be voting against this legislation. I do not wish to delay the House any further on this matter. The Opposition will not divide the House, but as was the case with the earlier legislation, the Opposition strongly objects to the legislation on the grounds that it ought not to have been introduced into this Parliament, nor should the issues raised have been handled the way they have been. I reiterate for the benefit of all honourable members that the Opposition has no objection whatsoever to the transfer of title to the Framlingham or Lake Condah communities. It is simply saying that the jurisdiction of that transfer properly lies with the Victorian Government and the Victorian Parliament. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(12.10) —in reply-I want to make some very brief comments in respect of this matter. Again I remind the House that the protection of Aboriginal heritage and culture in Victoria was very seriously addressed by the Victorian Government and the Aboriginal community in Victoria for well over four years. Neither I nor the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was privy to those conversations, although we certainly encouraged them. The reason the Government is putting this legislation through this Parliament is that it was opposed in the Victorian Parliament by political colleagues of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). We were then approached by the Victorian Government, which had the support of the Victorian Aboriginal community, which asked us to legislate in specific terms to give protection to the heritage and culture of the Victorian Aboriginal people. That is the reality. I have been assured by the Attorney-General of Victoria and its Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that this legislation has the support of the Victorian Aboriginal people and I have no reason to doubt that. The fact that one Aboriginal person in Victoria has particular problems with some aspects of the legislation does not alter the fact that it has the overwhelming support of Victoria's Aboriginal people. Mr Connolly —He is an elder of the tribe; he is not just one Aborigine. Mr HOLDING —I realise that. Mr Connolly —He is a spokesman for the people. Mr HOLDING —If I were to make the same sort of superficial judgment as has just been made by the shadow Minister in terms of the structure of the Opposition in Her Majesty's Parliament-in the Senate there is a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who was the spokesperson on women's affairs and who is making it perfectly clear that he does not agree with the position-- Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The matters now being raised by the Minister have absolutely nothing to do with this legislation by any stretch of the imagination, even his. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I caution the Minister that I intend to uphold the ruling I made earlier. This is a cognate debate. The substantive questions, in general form, were canvassed in the first part of the debate. I require the debate to be confined to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill. Mr HOLDING —I simply say that just because one person, no matter how significant that person may be or what particular position he may have, has raised one matter of concern, in what is a quite extensive package of legislation which has been the subject of negotiation and discussion for well over four years, it should not detract from either the veracity of the legislation or the commitment and support of the overwhelming majority of Aboriginal people in Victoria. For those reasons and reasons which have been covered in the cognate debate, I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Amendments (by Mr Holding)-by leave-agreed to. (1) Clause 7, page 4, line 12, omit ``Minister may, by order published in the Gazette,'', substitute ``regulations may''. (2) Clause 7, page 5, lines 29 and 30, omit ``on the advice of the local Aboriginal community''. (3) Clause 7, page 5, line 37, after ``community'' insert ``(if any)''. (4) Clause 7, page 8, line 28, omit ``A'', substitute ``Subject to subsection (3), a''. (5) Clause 7, page 8, add at the end of proposed section 27f the following subsection: `` `(3) Where the decision of an arbitrator results in the making of a declaration under section 21d or 21e, or the variation of a declaration made by the Minister under one of those sections, the declaration or variation, as the case may be, has effect on and from the day on which the decision of the arbitrator is made.''. (6) Clause 7, page 8, after proposed subsection 21g (1) insert the following subsection: ``(1a) A person authorised in writing by the relevant Aboriginal community may at all reasonable times enter upon any land for the purposes of placing a notice under subsection (1).''. (7) Clause 9, page 16, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Injunctions ``9. Section 26 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by inserting in paragraph (1) (a) ``or IIA'' after ``II''; (b) by omitting from paragraphs (4) (c) and (5) (c) ``significant Aboriginal area, significant Aboriginal object or significant Aboriginal objects'' and substituting ``area, place, object or objects''. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(12.16) —As everyone knows, the coalition has ended, but because the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill 1987 was considered by the last joint shadow Ministry meeting, I have been asked to lead the debate on it, and I am happy to do so. I am confident that after the next election I will be leading with legislation on the other side on behalf of a coalition government. The Ships (Capital Grants) Bill provides for a taxable grant of 7 per cent to any ship- owner who upgrades his fleet with new or modern secondhand ships. It is certainly an encouragement for Australian shipowners to improve their fleets with more modern, more fuel efficient and more crew efficient ships. The approval depends on an agreed reduction in manning levels to a maximum of 21 for bulk carriers, container ships and tankers engaged in international trade, and 23 for tankers engaged in domestic trade. The legislation follows an agreement between the Government, the shipowners and the seafaring unions. It includes the requirement to introduce multi-skilled ratings on Australia ships-that is, those who can work in, say, an engine room as well as on the deck; to establish and conduct training and retraining programs to provide this necessary greater range of skills that will be necessary; and, overall, to encourage a greater emphasis on teamwork and break down some of the old demarcations and barriers. It also allows for further crew reductions below the maximum specified as at present. I believe that those further crew reductions will be necessary because without them Australian ships will continue to fall behind those of comparable Western nations. But the important point is that multi-skilling and changes to arrangements for crew amenities and so forth will be possible. The taxable grant of 7 per cent will be paid after 1 July until 30 June 1992 for new ships, and until 30 June 1990 for secondhand ships. It will also be available for significant modifications to existing ships. Although I failed to establish the cut-off date for the modifications, I presume it will be 30 June 1990, the same date as for secondhand ships. By `significant' I understand the modifications must be quite significant. Obviously, changes to crew quarters and other changes must be made to make the new, reduced manning arrangements possible, and also to allow the re-engining of ships so that they can gain some of the dramatic improvements in fuel efficiency which have occurred in shipping over the last few years. I have been told that if one looks at gains in fuel efficiency in, say aviation, automotive vehicles and shipping the greatest gains have been made in shipping. For a ship to be eligible it must be owned and registered in Australia. It must be crewed by Australian residents at the appropriate level and it must be engaged in the carriage of the correct category of cargo. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in his second reading speech estimated that, after tax, the cost will be $18m to $20m or before tax, it will be about double that amount. That will be provided by an appropriation from Consolidated Revenue. Generally, I wish to commend the Minister for his initiative, along with that of the industry, not only in establishing this new incentive but also, initially, in maintaining and developing the Crawford initiative that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the previous coalition Government initiated. If one refers to the report of the earlier review of Australian shipping in 1982-which became known as the Crawford report after Sir John Crawford-entitled the `Revitalisation of Australian Shipping', one will see that the point was made very clear then, as it is now, that capital cost is the most significant and single most important item in relation to running costs of ships in Australia. The items, broken down are: Capital costs, 47 per cent; fuel, 19 per cent; manning, 14 per cent; and other costs, 20 per cent. I am told that port charges are the most significant of those other costs, about 8 per cent. Crawford recommended that to upgrade Australian shipping we must, first and foremost, provide the incentive, and also allow the capital cost to be written off over the life of the ship. In the Crawford days, unless one replaced a ship, it was very difficult to alter the manning structure. Crawford recommended replacement of the then inequitable depreciation rate for ships of only 6.25 per cent per annum and extension of the investment allowance, which at that time was restricted to Australian ships engaged in the coastal trade. He recommended that the 20 per cent investment allowance be made available to all Australian owned and crewed ships, that the 20 per cent depreciation rate replace the 6.25 per cent rate and that the first year of the depreciation be the pre-commissioning year. That is a very important concession or initiative because of the costs that are incurred ahead of the actual delivery of a new ship. To the credit of the present Government and the Minister, in 1984 this Government introduced the enabling legislation for the Crawford recommendations to be put in place. However, it is not to the credit of this Government that it terminated the investment allowance only a few months later, on 30 June 1985. For any Australian shipowner to take advantage of the Crawford recommendations, the ship had to be ordered before 30 June 1985 and delivered prior to 1 July 1987 when the general investment allowance terminated. Only a very short period of about 14 months was available to Australian shipowners to take advantage of what is a complicated procedure of purchasing a new ship. I think it is to the credit of the Australian shipowners that in that short period 12 ships were ordered, and I am told that only one is still to be delivered. Presumably, that will happen prior to 1 July. That new tonnage equalled 10 per cent of the total Australian fleet, including 25 per cent of the tanker fleet. Since the termination of the effectiveness of the Crawford recommendations by the ending of the investment allowance only three ships have been ordered. They are basically ships of a special nature, such as gas carriers, but they come under the new manning arrangements, that is, the Crawford manning arrangements. Meanwhile, other Western nations with standards of living similar to those in Australia have manning rates or crewing levels which are much lower than Australia's were prior to Crawford-levels in the mid-twenties compared with our mid to high thirties in pre-Crawford times. Their improvements inefficiency have continued since the Crawford period. It is now common for countries that have comparable standards of living and comparable attitudes as to what are reasonable requirements for crew members to have crewing rates of 16 to 18. Some of them are now even allowing non-residents to be crew on their flag vessels. In the light of this the Minister established the Maritime Industry Development Committee comprising representatives of the Department, shipowners and unions. It studied the manning levels of the other Western nations in 1985 and reported in 1986 in the document entitled `Moving Ahead'. This report made certain recommendations to the Minister. That is the basis on which we now have this legislation, with only one significant exception, as I see it. It recommended a depreciation rate of 33 1/3 per cent per year for three years, including the first year ahead of commission. In its place, the Minister is legislating for a taxable grant, together with retaining the 20 per cent depreciation on new ships only in the pre-commissioning year. I acknowledge the point that for secondhand ships that is not a great problem because money is not outlaid as an advance payment ahead of the ship being available. Ship owners have said that what the Government is providing is not as generous as what `Moving Ahead' or the MIDC report recommended and that, in turn, even those recommendations are not as generous as those of Crawford, initiated by the previous coalition Government and instituted by the present Government. However, the industry strongly supports the legislation. I acknowledge its strong support for the legislation and can understand that support. The industry is particularly supportive of the inclusion of secondhand ships and the provision for extensive modifications. That is very important. There is a surplus of up to date secondhand shipping around the world. Obviously, there is a saving both in capital outlay and time if someone purchases a replacement ship. Most of the shipping that will be purchased as a result of this legislation will be secondhand rather than new shipping. I would like to quote from a letter I have just received from Dennis Woods, who is Manager, Government Relations of Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd. He sent to me, as I presume he did to many other members of parliament, a brochure on Australia Star-the new Caltex Oil tanker. I wrote back to him with a variety of questions concerning the applicability of Crawford and this legislation and general movements in crewing efficiency. He has given me his approval to quote from the letter which puts into perspective the application of the various incentives to a particular ship over the last few years. He said: The overriding motivation in acquiring a new generation crude oil carrier, was for Caltex to become more cost competitive in an industry which has clearly demonstrated over the years intense, and at time fierce competition, a benefit which all consumers of petroleum products have enjoyed. A substantial reduction in manning levels, together with other operational efficiencies characteristic to the `Australia Star' will enable Caltex to reduce its marine operating costs. There is no doubt that the taxation incentives available under the Crawford package also provided considerable incentive to commission the `Australia Star'. In respect of specific questions I raised, he said the following: The difference between crewing levels of 29 for coastal voyages and 27 for overseas is the provision of one extra mate and one extra SUA. We should remember that we have the continuing provision with this legislation of allowing for two extra crew when a tanker is operating domestically rather than internationally. The letter continued: The logic is that cargo duties are more intensive due to the close proximity of ports. Extended stands on cargo watch, followed by departure duties, then a normal sea watch cycle, can lead to delays if additional people are not available. It is to be noted that the previous generation of Australia crude vessels- that was, pre-Crawford- had manning levels of 34 overseas and 37 on the coast whereas the new MIDC proposition is for 21 overseas and 23 on the coast. Caltex received Crawford benefits for the `Australia Star' after extensive consultations between the Department of Transport and the unions involved. The level of 25 referred to relates to a desired manning level for dry cargo vessels- that was Crawford's idea- whereas for liquid cargoes (crude carriers) an extra crew is an acceptable addition for safety (hazardous cargo) and operational reasons . . . It has also been acknowledged by all parties to the manning committee that a training of skills factor be recognised in the crew levels of these new generation vessels. In the next generation of ships, it is likely that Officers/crew will share common mess and recreation facilities, eliminating current duplication. A manning level in the vicinity of 21/23 is ultimately expected. That, of course, is reflected in the legislation. The letter continued: Major changes will occur in SUA ranks where the introduction of a new integrated rating position will reduce manning. No change is expected in Officer ranks (with the possible exception of Radio Officer or Electrician). Beyond this- and that is beyond the immediate introduction of the MIDC manning levels as proposed in this legislation- we would expect to achieve levels of 18 with elimination of the Radio Officer and Electrician and merging of catering staff into a single category. All this cannot be done at once as hand in hand with these efforts must go changes to Union structures, including the amalgamation of existing unions into only two (one for all Officers and one for all the crew and catering staff). That was the end of the letter. It made the point very well about progress pre-Crawford, through Crawford, to this legislation and, what is equally important, beyond this legislation. Obviously, the 21-23 figure cannot be final because other Western nations already have lower levels. Caltex acknowledges that it is possible to get the number down to 18, within the context of ships that are ordered or commissioned under these new procedures. There are still many other problems associated with Australian shipping in its drive, which I support, to be internationally cost competitive. I have made the point already that we still are behind other countries in the numbers of people required on our ships. If this new incentive enables a further 25 per cent, and I hope it will be a higher percentage, of Australian ships to be replaced, by 1992 we could still have 25 per cent of our coastal shipping-if one considers what has happened with Crawford's ideas and these measures-with crew numbers still in their middle and high 30s, as well as crew numbers in the mid-20s and low 20s. Meanwhile, most of our competitors already have most, or a good percentage, of their crews in the low 20s or below 20. There is a further problem in relation to manning levels for Australian ships; that is, the excessive leave entitlement for Australian crews compared with those in other Western nations. I am not interested in comparisons with Third World countries because that is not relevant. The Minister was quite right in selecting comparable countries which a group of people went overseas to look at. In looking at comparable countries, I refer to the point made in `Moving Ahead' that every Australian ship requires 2.25 crews. Therefore, if a ship has a crew of 21 and that number is multiplied by 2.25 we come up with a total requirement of 46 crew members per ship. Let us consider a west European ship. The ratio is 1.5 : 1 per ship. If the crew number is 18 and we multiply 18 by 1.5, we come up with a figure of 27. Mr Millar —Well done! Mr LLOYD —Thank you. With that sort of authority I can now say confidently that we still have a great disparity; that is, 46 crew for an Australian ship and 27 for a west European ship which has the more common manning ratio. So there will still be a dramatic disparity in ship manning levels between Australia and our major competitors when this legislation is implemented. On-board maintenance is also a problem. I believe, from my discussions with Australian ship owners, that progress is being made in coming to more sensible arrangements so that on-board maintenance, which can sensibly be done during the voyage or at other times available to the crew, is being done more now than it has been in the past, but it still remains a problem. Of course, there are problems not only on ships, but in relation to shipping generally. There are many problems on our waterfront which need to be solved to allow our shipping to be internationally competitive. One of the unfortunate burdens that Australian shipping has to carry in its comparisons of coastal shipping and international shipping is that everything that is carried on the coast has to go through our waterfront twice. That adds immeasurably to the final cost of goods and gives rise to some of the comparisons which are made from time to time-and they are correct-of the cost of transferring goods around the Australian coast and the cost of transporting them from Australia to Japan or anywhere else. There are problems relating to the efficiency of coastal shipping but there is also the problem of goods going through the Australian waterfront twice. It seems to me that better progress is being made with the maritime unions and management than with the waterfront unions and management. I include both groups in our problems on the waterfront. The Minister has a series of committees working on aspects of the waterfront, but at this stage there has not been the progress which has been made-which I acknowledge and which is included in this legislation-with the maritime unions. Unless there is considerable improvement in the waterfront situation as a result of the consensus approach of those committees, by the time there is a change of government the next coalition government will have to use public exposure far more than this Government is using it. I believe that this Government is holding the public exposure threat in reserve at present in relation to the work and management practices which presently inhibit the management of the waterfront generally. Another problem of the waterfront is reliability. We need industrial relations legislation to address that problem more specifically. That will be a necessity for the next coalition government. For its own benefit as a trading nation and to provide employment opportunities for maritime people, Australia should have internationally competitive shipping. However, it must be genuinely competitive and operate at the same level of efficiency whether it be in domestic or international trade. Since the Crawford recommendations were implemented by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd with its bulk carriers, in those ships at least Australia has had almost genuinely competitive international capacity. The particular contractual arrangements have been a help in that case, yet we must still acknowledge that that is a good example of a step in the right direction. We must also realise that competitiveness is not static, it is dynamic. We may talk today about progress being made by certain legislation, but we cannot say that that must be the end of it. The momentum must be maintained and, unless it is, not only will we keep tailing the field in the measurement of efficiency compared with other Western nations, but we will also fall further behind. That competitiveness must be achieved by a genuine efficiency and not by flag reservation. I know that cabotage, or flag reservation, is a vexed issue for the coastal trade. I believe that a coalition government would look at the progress of improvement in efficiency in our coastal trade and I personally would support an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the best way to improve our coastal shipping efficiency from that point. I believe that that would be a positive move. There can be no justification for flag reservation for Australia's international shipping. That applies particularly to the trans-Tasman situation where there is an unjustified extension of Australian cabotage which turns the Tasman into a very expensive Australian and New Zealand lake. As part of the closer economic relations review a study of trans-Tasman shipping is at present underway. In my discussions with the Labor Government in New Zealand before Christmas I gained the impression that if that review recommended the removal, either in whole or part, of the present restrictions on the Tasman, it would support the lifting of those restrictions. I know that there are various options around including allowing the cross traders to make more efficient use of container space between Australia and New Zealand on their way to some third port. I must say that a coalition government would support the lifting of the present unjustified restrictions on the Tasman to just Australian and New Zealand shipping. The phosphate rock carriage to Australia has been another scandalous situation. It costs up to $15 a tonne more to ship rock from Christmas Island to Australia than from Florida to Australia. There has been criticism of the Australian National Line but I do not support that criticism because ANL took over a contract which locked it into a high price situation. I understand that the Government has arranged a far more efficient and competitive new contract and if the Minister likes to comment on that I will be pleased to hear what he has to say. I understand that the new arrangements, which have just come into place, are far better from an internationally competitive point of view. The Opposition is concerned by this type of legislation. It is not unique, as there are industry-specific plans supported by legislation and by government incentives in the automotive manufacturing, heavy engineering, steel and textile industries. I believe that the shipping industry is probably the most specifically productivity linked. In other words, one can see a far more direct relationship between an expenditure of taxpayers' money and improvements in efficiency. However, in general-though I am not referring in particular to this legislation at this stage-the Opposition is concerned that industry is not taking the lead in making the adjustments that it should be making in a commercially competitive environment. It waits for, or goes to government expecting, what I call a bribe. What it should be doing naturally itself is becoming a case of plan after plan after plan. There is this belief that industry should go to the Government and work out a deal. I believe that it would be a very bad precedent for industry in this country to accept generally or have an expectation that, when it should be adjusting naturally to make Australia more internationally competitive, it can go to government and ask what sort of deal can be worked out. By 1992 when this plan sensibly expires-and I believe it is a good feature to have a sunset clause in the Bill-enough of the Australian fleet will have been converted to more efficient crewing and other arrangements with the ability to continue that efficiency to put the pressure naturally on the rest of the Australian fleet to do what should be done without any need for any more special industry plans. In other words, the time must come when the Government says `Enough is enough; you have a good percentage of the fleet replaced so that the position is better for your own survival. If you did not or could not take advantage of the special deal, do not wait for another one. You should get on with it and do it yourself to stay in business'. In general terms that is the reaction to the legislation. The Opposition will not oppose it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being of the hour of 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour this day. Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs to his well publicised visit to New Zealand earlier today. I preface my question by expressing to him and to the Government, on behalf of the Opposition, our gratitude for the briefings that have been made available by the Foreign Minister to me and to the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs. I simply ask the Foreign Minister whether he will assure the House that at an appropriate time this House and, through this House, the Australian public will be provided with any information that is relevant to Australia's security position arising out of the matters that were canvassed during his visit, to the degree that the Government regards as appropriate. I end my question by saying to the Minister and to the Government that matters relating to Libyan activity and any associated matters are of joint concern to both sides of this House. It is the desire of the Opposition, I know-the Liberal Party and the National Party-that, as far as possible, an intelligent bipartisan approach should be adopted. Mr HAYDEN —I welcome the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that there is bipartisan support for concern on this matter. I would have expected it, but the confirmation is reassuring. It is true that the visit to New Zealand was an unadvertised one. All I can say is that to get the sort of response I got from the media when I got back from an unadvertised visit I will be looking for a huge rally next time I advertise a visit to some other place. There was considerably less in the visit than apparently was suggested by some of the more agitated minds that were commentating on it this morning in media outlets-at least according to the reports that I have received. The visit was arranged several days ago. It followed extensive consideration by a Cabinet committee on regional matters and, most particularly, intrusion from outside influences into regional affairs. It was recognised that these would be matters in relation to which New Zealand would have common concerns and, indeed, a considerable fund of information. The New Zealanders have had a much more extensive and much longer experience in the South Pacific than we have had. Accordingly, the opportunity was taken by me to go to New Zealand this morning. The 3 a.m. departure was not one of delightful choice, but it seemed to be necessary if I was to get there, complete talks and get back here for Question Time. I miss Question Time sometimes. When I am in the country I prefer to be here when Question Time is on. Mr Hawke —You would not miss it for quids! Mr HAYDEN —The Prime Minister seems to think it is the best entertainment in town and therefore I should not miss it for quids. Hence the time which was chosen. More than that, I will go on Sunday to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference. It had to be done this week. Other matters, of course, were discussed in New Zealand-in particular, the upcoming South Pacific Forum conference. It was necessary for ministerial discussion to take place because the conference is being held a couple of months earlier than normal and a great deal of work has to be compressed decisively into a very short period. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference, too, came up. Essentially we discussed concerns about developments in the South Pacific, arising from outside intrusions-most notably those of Libya. The New Zealanders and the Australian representatives led by me had an extensive exchange on these matters. Our presentation followed very much the presentation which I provided last night for the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Menzies as the spokesman on foreign affairs for the Opposition. As both would recognise, a great deal of material there is highly classified and at this point it would not be appropriate for me to say any more than that. I assure honourable members that the Government is keenly alert on this matter and is maintaining a constant overview of it. I also assure honourable members that the Prime Minister is maintaining a particularly vigilant attitude on this matter. Ms MAYER —Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the principles guiding the Government's program on equal opportunity for women? Mr HAWKE —From the very wide consultations on the development of a national agenda for women there is, without any question, overwhelming evidence that Australian women want to dismantle the barriers to their opportunities for equal participation in all forms of economic and community activity in this country, especially in employment, education and recreation. So the fundamental principle underlying the Government's policy of equal opportunity for women is for all Australian women to have a fair go, a say and a choice. That, simply put, is our principle. We have stuck to it and we have legislated for it. Having made quite clear to the House what is the principle of the Government in this matter, I suggest that it is rewarding that we look at the question of principle as far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned. I preface my remarks in that regard by reminding the honourable member and indeed the whole of the House of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say on the question of principle and integrity of the Liberal Party on 19 February this year. Speaking on the Schildberger program the Leader of the Opposition had this to say: I have a very clear view of where I stand and what my duty and job is. That is firstly, to defend the integrity and independence of the Liberal Party . . . The point I am trying to make is that the Liberal Party is not going to be dictated to from outside. That was on 19 February. Just a couple of weeks later, on 2 March, on the John Laws program, he went back to the theme and said: Firstly, the integrity and the independence of the Liberal Party come first. I will never surrender the role of the Liberal Party . . . If he were to do it, he said: I would forfeit any right to respect. They are the words of the Leader of the Liberal Party. Now we have revealed for us precisely what has happened on this. We do not have to rely on someone from the Australian Labor Party to reveal what has happened in this issue because last night we had a remarkable speech from Senator Baume, from which I wish to quote very briefly. Mr Hollis —Peter Baume. Mr HAWKE —Senator Peter Baume, of course. Senator Peter Baume on this question last night said: One does not resign easily from a position of responsibility. But one should never resign from one's principles or integrity. That is similar language to that of the Leader of the Opposition. Senator Peter Baume went on to say: One should never resign from one's wider duty to the Liberal Party or to its traditional commitment to issues such as this. He then said this: It was just over eight months ago that I argued in this Senate, as shadow Minister and on behalf of the Opposition, for the precise measure that we are considering today. He said this: I spoke then with the authority of John Howard, and on behalf of the leader . . . We know what happened after that. Let me quote one sentence from today's Age. It stated: But moves within the Liberal Party to appease the Nationals resulted in the Opposition reversing its stand on the bill. That led Senator Peter Baume to say: Loyalty requires, for instance, that those who go out with the message on behalf of the party, a message endorsed by their party, and who sell that message are not then abandoned for the advantage of the moment and in the absence of compelling and credible new argument. Senator Peter Baume has a clear idea of principle and integrity. I simply say that in the very words uttered by the Leader of the Opposition he has now forfeited any right to respect and, indeed, he has no respect in his Party; he has no respect in this Parliament; and he has no respect in the Australian community, particularly amongst the women of Australia. Mr KATTER —I draw the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to a claim by the Queensland Cane Growers Council to the State Industrial Commission for a single time payment on any five days out of seven, with normal overtime arrangements over and above eight hours a day and 40 hours a week. I ask the Minister: In view of the severely depressed state of the sugar cane industry, shown by the continuing slump in grower returns and the recent closure of the Goondi Mill near Innisfail, does the Federal Government accept that such an arrangement is totally justified in order to maximise the number of jobs available to harvesting and general farm workers? In conclusion, may I respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that he give the Minister for Foreign Affairs the rest of the day off? He is the only Minister we have in Queensland in the ALP and we want to look after him! Mr WILLIS —I am not aware of the arrangement referred to by the honourable member for Kennedy. However, I am aware that the sugar industry is going through difficult times. It has been the case that on a number of occasions the Queensland Industrial Commission has delayed the passage of the flow-on of national wage increases in the sugar industry and what other measures have been taken to address the various problems in that industry. I guess that in future considerations of any claims made by workers in that industry, the Industrial Commission in Queensland will continue to have regard to the economic state of the industry, as is possible under the applicable Queensland Act and, of course, as is also possible under Federal awards. Mr JACOBI —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. In the light of this week's unanimous recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, confirming what is widely perceived throughout the business community, that is, that the existing co-operative companies and securities scheme has failed to respond to the need for efficient corporate regulation to meet the increasing international pressure, particularly in capital and securities transactions, will the Attorney-General take steps to legislate nationally in the field of companies and securities regulation and, if so, will he now put in place a joint committee on business regulation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In respect of the latter part of the question, I have no objection at all to putting in place a committee on business regulation. That is a matter for the House to determine, and I am sure that my distinguished colleague would know that that can be the subject of a resolution here at the appropriate time-which I do not have the carriage of. In respect of the national companies and securities scheme, I indicate that it has always been the policy of my Party to have such a national scheme. Of course, this has to be looked at in the light of what one might call the political developments that have ensued for a period of time. For example, in our previous Government of 1972-75, the Australian Labor Party attempted to introduce such a scheme, but it was rejected. I well remember being in opposition during the period following the 1975 election, and attempting to introduce, as shadow Attorney-General, a national scheme by means of private legislation. That Bill was rejected by the Senate on the first occasion and on the second occasion Parliament did not even bother to debate the matter. But at least some progress has been made since then. I am now a member of the Ministerial Council, which was created from what is called the national scheme that was developed in co-operation with the States and which was the subject of legislation in 1978. That scheme provides for all the States to be parties to it and, where there is a Ministerial Council, to decide what sort of legislation should be introduced into Parliament. When such legislation is introduced and passed by Parliament, it becomes the law applying to all the States and the Territory. There is some artificiality about that, and in debates in Parliament objection has been made to the fact that, once the Ministerial Council has agreed, we in Parliament cannot alter the legislation. The argument is that it makes this Parliament a neuter somewhat, because for the first time legislation introduced here could not be altered or amended, as that would be contrary to the legislation introduced in 1978. I have always taken the view that it would be appropriate for the business communities to suddenly realise at last that the national scheme is in their best interests. The scheme relates to one market, one economy. Members would be aware that in recent weeks legislation has been passed to allow for the creation of the Australian Stock Exchanges. The various stock exchanges have agreed themselves that it is important that they get together as an Australian enterprise to deal with the Australian share market. It is an important market. It would have much more credibility and receive much more support from the public if the public realised that there was at least a national support for it. The difficulty that I face from time to time concerns what would be the attitude of other parties in the Parliament. I think I am judging the situation well now in thinking that everyone would agree that there ought to be a national scheme. I must say, though, that when I go to the Ministerial Councils and suggest that there ought to be a national scheme I am usually outvoted, on the basis that they feel that the State instrumentalities are the best way to manage the scheme. Mr Howard —On both sides of politics. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. I said the Ministerial Council. The creation of interest was encouraged at the time when the Leader of the Opposition was taking some interest in the matter. The State instrumentalities want to retain their respective responsibilities and to also retain the income that they get from the registration filing fees. At present there is a profit in it for the States of about $70m. However, it is only the Australian Parliament that is out of pocket, as the scheme was reasonably devised on the basis that we would always pay half the cost-but we get nothing like half the income. So, whilst we are putting up with half the cost, the States are getting the benefit. I know that this will not help my credibility with my State colleagues on the basis that I feel that they are looking at the matter more from the point of view of their State Treasuries than the national need. I want to pay a tribute to the Senate, which established a committee and which recently produced a report. That report is of interest. Evidence was given to the Senate Committee that there is increasing support for the suggestion that the Commonwealth Government should assume complete responsibility. I would be happy to do it. In fact, I am going to the Ministerial Council in May to suggest that I do it. I will ask for its support. I will be very surprised if I get it. However, the issue would be: What does the business community feel ought to be the situation? It appears very clear that the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Merchant Bankers Association and, certainly, the New South Wales Attorney-General, a colleague of mine, support a national scheme. The honourable member has asked a very important and valid question. He has always taken an interest in these matters; it is a very important interest. We are trying to indicate to the Australian people that we can have effective legislation on a national basis. There is no need for the plurality of some seven or eight different instrumentalities trying to deal with the same matter. I think that we would do it more effectively and efficiently than is the case at present. Some 1,400 employees work in the State corporate affairs offices. They have over 300 investigators, and there is the problem of the National Companies and Securities Commission saying that it desperately needs more resources. I will accept that; but the resources are already there, although probably not effectively utilised. Mr Carlton —Why don't you make a statement? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not need to make a statement. I just say that it is a pity that the Opposition, when in government, did not understand the national need. I am delighted to know that it now does, and I am delighted to know that the business community now does. I will do my best to meet those demands. Mr TUCKEY —Does the Prime Minister remember that most sacked workers at Robe River claimed and received the dole during the period that they were sacked, and that no effort was made by the Government to recover those payments when the Western Australian Industrial Commission ordered Peko-Wallsend to reinstate those workers and make payment of $2m in compensation? Is the Prime Minister further aware that Peko-Wallsend deducted pay as you earn tax from those compulsory payments? Is he further aware that, as a result of intense union pressure, the Western Australian Deputy Commissioner of Taxation has now ruled that Peko-Wallsend must refund the PAYE deductions-which range from $200 to $1,800 per employee, and average $1,000 per employee-to approximately 600 workers-- Government members interjecting- Mr TUCKEY —I am pleased honourable members opposite agree. Was that ruling on the grounds that the payment was compensation, not wages? In the light of this triple dipping, what action will the Government take in regard to this act of tax avoidance and welfare fraud by trade unions affiliated with the Australian Labor Party? Mr HAWKE —I am not aware of the details to which the honourable member refers. I give him an undertaking that I will have a look at the circumstances and I will give him a detailed response. But let me say this: We do not interfere in the decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation-- Mr Hodgman —The Treasurer does. Mr HAWKE —Of course, I repudiate entirely-as would any reasonable person-that inane interjection from a person who is not even good enough to get on to the front bench of the Liberal Party of Australia. One has to be very crook not to manage that achievement, I can tell you. For the honourable member for Denison to say `The Treasurer does' is an indication of why perhaps in this particular area the Leader of the Opposition may have made a sound judgment. We do not interfere with the decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation, but it is a reasonable question for the honourable member for O'Connor to put to me. I will look at the matter and I will give him a detailed response. Mr LEO MCLEAY —Will the Treasurer assure the House that the principle behind the forthcoming May economic statement will be to introduce equitable spending cuts and not to hand out new tax breaks to the privileged? Mr KEATING —The very essence of what the Government has done in the past in respect of expenditure restraint, or restraint in public outlays, tax expenditures or tax policy, has been equity and fairness. Whether we are speaking about tax cuts, tax concessions, wages policy or social security policy, they are all, in their essence, equitable and fair. That is how it will continue to be while ever this Government is in office. But I might say that that is not the position with the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. We now see being unveiled in this country by the real leader of the National Party, the Queensland Premier, a 25 per cent flat tax proposal which would cost the revenue $4.8 billion and give a massive tax cut to the wealthy which the Queensland Premier says would be funded by an $8 billion cut in outlays-which, of course, would inevitably hurt the poor. The interesting thing is that the Queensland Premier said on the radio program AM the morning before last, when asked about his position or his involvement in politics or in any possible government: `It is all about getting the right policies'. When a question was put to him about his being Prime Minister, he said: `Don't worry about the PM part; it is all about getting the right policies'. In other words, if forced, he would forsake being Prime Minister-if he had the opportunity-to get his way on policy. Everyone thought: `Well, he will never get his way on policy while John Howard is the Leader of the Liberal Party. John Howard would not deal on policy with anybody he called a wrecker and a thug. He would not allow the National Party to run his policy'. But what do we find today? On the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald we find the headline `Howard: I'd work with Joh'. In other words: `I will do a deal with the devil. All I care about'-that is, the honourable member for Bennelong-`is being Prime Minister'. So the man who gambled on Sinclair and on maintaining the coalition and lost now says to his Party: `I tried to keep the coalition together; I tried to break Joh and keep him from power and I failed. But keep me in the leadership. And just by the way, Joh is basically not a wrecker or a thug. We would negotiate with him if we had the raw numbers on the conservative side of the House of Representatives to put a government together'. If that were to happen we would find that Australian public policy would be run by the lowest common denominator in Australian politics-the Queensland National Party and the Queensland Premier. We would find that, in every fight John Howard had with the Queensland Premier, he would lose-like he lost every fight with Malcolm Fraser. One could sum up, certainly in election terms, the news of this week in the phrase `A vote for John Howard is a vote for Joh', because Joh would be sitting in running the policy of a conservative government if honourable members opposite had the numbers to form a coalition government-if that were ever to come to pass in this country. That is what it is about. Joh has said: `I will break the coalition. I will run the policy. I will smash Sinclair'. He has done all those things. Howard said he would bail him up. He was banking on a coalition. He put his career on the coalition; he lost; but he is still saying: `Oh, no, I've got the credentials'. Then he surrounded himself with his own supporters on the front bench. Any talent has been banished to the back bench and we find-- Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 145. I point out that the question related specifically to the mini-Budget or economic statement and the Treasurer has now gone way beyond the question in his reply. He should be directed accordingly. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will return to the question. Mr KEATING —The clear implication is-I repeat-that if it were ever to occur that there were enough raw conservative numbers in the House of Representatives, the lowest common denominator would run fiscal policy. The implications of the Queensland Premier running monetary and fiscal policy in this country are already a matter of comment in European and North American financial newspapers. It is a matter of very grave concern to them. The fact of the matter is that this country would be in grave economic jeopardy, as the financial markets closed in on it and crushed it under the kinds of policies which would be associated with the Queensland Premier running the honourable member for Bennelong in a coalition government. I am both surprised and disgusted to think that the Leader of the Opposition, who had put his career on keeping the coalition together, did not have the decency to resign when he lost on that. Mr Cadman —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Already a point of order has been raised on the matter of relevance. Madam Speaker, the Treasurer continues to defy your admonition from the Chair. I ask you to call him to order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will resume his seat. I remind the Treasurer that he has already been asked by the Chair to draw his answer to a close. Mr KEATING —I will draw it to a close by making this final point: All the huffing and puffing about position and principle has come down to the fact that the members of the Liberal Party will do a deal with the devil to get their seats into ministerial chairs and put the economy of this country asunder. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer him to his answer to a question yesterday from the honourable member for McPherson regarding his constituent, Mrs Derek, who was fined for a late tax return despite the fact that she was owed money by the Australian Taxation Office. I remind the Treasurer that he based his own escape from a fine on three grounds: First, his record as a taxpayer; second, the fact that he was owed money by the Tax Office; and, third, that he had not received a first demand from the Tax Office. I ask the Treasurer: As it is only with regard to the first demand notice that his case differs from that of Mrs Derek, will he advise exactly what procedure is followed by the Tax Office in issuing first demand notices to 900,000 taxpayers each year and whether this procedure was followed in his case? Mr KEATING —This is all in a tax ruling which I have mentioned in the House before. If the honourable member wants to look it up, he is welcome to. But the essential point to note in relation to this question is that we have had the consumer price index out, we have had the national accounts and the balance of payments numbers, but where is John Howard's Liberal Party? It is back in the gutter in the filth where it belongs. Is it any wonder that members of the Opposition are treated like toadies by business? Members of the Opposition not only have no policies, no principles in policy and no principles in their relationships with one another or between the respective parties but also they are totally disinterested in the major issues facing the nation. When important and timely indicators are published we cannot get one question from the shadow Treasurer about the economy. His sole question is about a tax ruling concerning tax provisions as they relate to me. All I can say to honourable members opposite is: Keep on asking those kinds of questions. Keep it up. The more they do the more they will bury themselves. They lack principles, they lack ideas and they lack any substance whatsoever. They have sat on the Opposition benches for years thinking that they are the born to rule brigade. Their attitude is: `We are temporarily out of power but we are born to rule and we will be back'. The reason honourable members opposite came a gutser is that most Government members think that they were born to rule the Opposition and we will keep it up for a lot longer. Mr CUNNINGHAM —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Trade, has real substance as it relates to the Australian economy. I refer the Minister to the announcement in Washington last night that the United States of America has offered the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics four million tonnes of wheat under the export enhancement program. Will the Minister advise the House of the Government's views of this action? Mr DAWKINS —I am advised that the United States has offered to the Soviet Union four million tonnes of subsidised wheat under the export enhancement program and that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has apparently assured the United States that it will purchase the full amount of the offer in the period up to 30 September this year. The House will recall that an earlier offer was made by the United States which was constrained by a fixed subsidy of $13 a tonne, later lifted to $15 a tonne. The present offer is not constrained by any limitation on the subsidy that would apply. I wish to say something about this matter which we view with some concern. The major reason we are concerned about it is that this sale has been made in the context of a long term agreement with the Soviet Union. Whilst the apparent justification for these subsidy programs is to allow the United States to meet the market, the reality is that, for very minimal extra sales by the United States, the effect of its subsidy programs has been to halve the price of wheat. So it has sold very little additional wheat, but the effect of its policies in halving the world price has had an extraordinary impact on wheat producers around the world, and particularly in Australia. If we aggregate the total effect of the United States farm program on Australian farmers we see that, in the last year, farmers in Australia have lost $1.3 billion as a result of these programs being conducted by the United States. I think the important point is that we have to maintain our efforts to ensure that some kind of sanity is reintroduced into world agricultural markets. Hence we are not only sending a group from this Parliament to Washington but also, later this month, I will be there and I will raise this matter, amongst others, with the Cairns group meeting which will now take place in Ottawa. Let me make a final observation about this point. As a result of this subsidy from the United States to the Soviet Union, which is worth some $120m, households in the Soviet Union will pay less for their bread and wheat products than households in the United States will pay for their bread and wheat products. As this subsidy of $120m represents about a quarter of the value of the total consignment, perhaps it would be appropriate for 25 per cent of this four million tonnes to be shipped to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in United States aid bags marked: `This is a gift of the United States Government and its people to the people of the Soviet Union'. Mr COWAN —Will the Prime Minister now confirm that he intends to introduce a wealth tax? Mr HAWKE —Funny things are happening on the other side of politics. Mr Cobb —Just answer it yes or no. Mr HAWKE —The answer is no, I will not confirm it. Is that enough? Mr MILTON —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that the Australian tour of three Nicaraguan women, including a member of the Nicaraguan Parliament, which was due to commence in Australia on 1 May is now in jeopardy at great cost to the tour sponsors because of inordinate delays experienced by the women in obtaining transit visas from the United States Embassy in Managua? Will he seek assistance from the United States Embassy in ensuring that no further delays occur in the granting of the visas to the women which are necessary for a change of flights in Los Angeles? Mr HAYDEN —I am aware, because the honourable member told me before Question Time. I will make some inquiries of the United States authorities and I will get back to the honourable member. Mr PORTER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Government endorse the fundamental principle of law that one should not be permitted to benefit from the commission of a criminal offence, which is precisely the argument put by the Commonwealth to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the case involving payment of spouse benefits to under age de facto spouses? Will he explain why the Government is now legislating to compel the Department of Social Security to pay married rate benefits to girls as young as 14 years of age who establish a de facto relationship and who are under the age of consent in the various States and Territories? Is this the first time ever that a Commonwealth government has legislated to reward those who breach the criminal law? Mr HAWKE —The pathetic attempt by the honourable member to project from one circumstance, in to which I will go in a moment, to a broad issue of principle is, on its face, quite silly and he should not be taking up the time of the House with his stupidities in that regard. I had my attention drawn to this question this morning. As I understand, amendments will be proposed by the Government to deal with the matter. Mr Porter —Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —This collection which passes for an Opposition seems to regard as surprising that if a government has a problem brought to its attention it should say: `We will deal with it'. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Both the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Barker have been spoken to by the Chair several times. I expect them now to heed the Chair. Mr HAWKE —As I have said, I have dealt with the issue. That will be handled. Not only this House but also the community generally will treat with the contempt that it deserves an Opposition which, on identifiable issues of principle to which I referred earlier in Question Time, is so bereft and opportunistic that it would seek to take up time on a matter such as this which is now properly under the Government's attention. Mr HOLLIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is the Government acting to streamline building regulations? Mr WEST —Yes, the Government is co-operating with the States and the Territories to achieve uniformity and cost effectiveness in building regulations through the Australian Uniform Building Regulations Co-ordinating Council. I understand that both the Government and the Opposition support the work of this Council. It was established through formal inter-government agreement to achieve simplified cost-effective and uniform building regulations. I have identified building regulations as a priority area for business regulation review. The Council has developed a new building code of Australia which will provide a uniform and simplified code to be called up in full by State legislation. It will be more cost-effective and performance-orientated and based on current research. It will remove regulations which are not justified on health and safety grounds. The new building code of Australia has been released for public review now and is being further developed in consultation with the States, local government and the housing and construction industry. Seminars are being arranged by the States and Territories in all major centres to introduce the draft code to industry and to local government. I expect that the code will be available in final form by January next year for adoption by all States and the two Territories. I urge them to adopt the proposed uniform building code of Australia. It is a very important initiative and should lead to significant cost reductions and a more efficient building industry. Mr ALDRED —I refer the Minister for Defence to his answer to me yesterday in Question Time that the cost of Australia's new submarine project would be substantially less than the reported blow out to at least $4.5 billion. How does the Minister explain the report in this morning's Australian Financial Review that, according to official documents sighted by that newspaper, the total project cost could be as high as $5.6 billion, when the initial estimate was only $2.6 billion. Why is the Minister apparently excluding the cost of key elements of the project when, until now, all figures stated publicly by him were based on total-I repeat total-project cost as properly called for in the original request for tender document? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman very much for his question because it saves me having to make an explanation under the standing order relating to misrepresentation. I am indeed grateful for the question and, as usual, will give a detailed answer. Mr Holding —Will he understand it? Mr BEAZLEY —I am sure that he will be able to understand this one. I am not sure what documents the journalist concerned has seen or believes she has seen. I believe her to be a truthful journalist so when she says that she has seen them, I suspect that she has. I do not think that she would persist in misrepresentation on that basis. Documents circulate in the Department of Defence by the bushel, and it has been my experience as a Minister that quite a few of them shake out from time to time and turn up in ways that on occasions I would rather they did not. The simple fact is that whatever document it was does not reflect the position and I shall go through the matter in detail. The figures I gave yesterday hold for the whole project; they are apples with apples. They are the same figures that went into underpinning the estimates on the $2.6 billion. They include all those items that were mentioned, including the berthing facilities, support, spares and all the rest of it which the article suggests must have been excluded from my figures. There is one small discrepancy in that area and that is that there is a higher inclusion in these figures than to the $2.6 billion for Royal Australian Navy costs. In other words, we are in one small area including a larger number of figures than were included in the $2.6 billion. So, far from excluding, we are in fact including a greater number of elements in the total project. It is not, as the article suggests, a matter of my figures being at odds with the Department's. The figures are determined by two processes. One is by departmental committees which review all elements of the submarine project. In this case they are augmented departmental committees so that there is an opportunity for representatives of other departments to review the same figures. The figures that will be presented to the Cabinet, the parameters of which I mentioned in the House yesterday, are a result of that process. It is not a process involving my sitting down and trying to work out the costs of a submarine. Quite clearly I am not capable or competent to do so, nor is any other member of this House. That is the first point I make about those figures. The second point is that the figures are based on a tender on which the four tender parties are willing to sign fixed price contracts variable only by the normal price movements in generalised labour costs and by the normal requirements of extreme force majeure, like a decision by the Government to cancel the project half way through and start it up again five years later or something like that. The figures are not just based on departmental estimates. They are figures on what four tenderers are prepared to build the submarine for. They are prepared to sign their names on the dotted line on the bottom of those figures. In addition, the figures that will be presented to Cabinet are based on June 1986 prices. In doing so, I shall be presenting myself to Cabinet at a slight disadvantage because the dollar is now about 2c, 3c or 4c ahead of where it was in June 1986. But there has to be some cut-off point of time for the purpose of negotiations when one is establishing the base line around which one will permit price movement in the future. We have chosen June 1986 figures in the contract. So whatever figures may have been circulating at any point of time or somebody's idea at some point of time, those are the figures that have come through from the various committees in the Department. They are the figures to which they are prepared to sign on the dotted line. They are all-inclusive of every single category of element that was included in the $2.6 billion, with the addition I mentioned. Not only are they all-inclusive; they also relate to six submarines. It was also suggested in the article that one other way I could get down the figures was to bid for fewer than six submarines. It will be open to Cabinet to determine what number of submarines the country has. I am not pre-empting the Cabinet decision in that regard, but the figures that will be presented to it will be for six submarines. So in every single detail the article is incorrect on the basis of those figures. I thank the honourable gentleman most sincerely for asking me this question on the subject. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, I present a proposal to install traffic control signals in Parkes at the intersection of Kings Avenue with King George Terrace and Macquarie Street. Part of this area is within the Parliamentary Zone. The views of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House are also being sought. When those views are available I will be in a position to take further action under the Parliament Act to seek approval of the work by the Parliament. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the summary record of the first and second meetings of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council held in Hobart on 14 March 1985 and in Launceston on 18 April 1986 respectively. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —by leave-The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure report on Telecom Australia's zonal and charging policies in rural and remote areas-`Poles Apart'-was tabled in Parliament on 20 November 1986. The inquiry was headed by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and received a total of 600 submissions. Public hearings and public meetings were held in many country centres in Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania as well as Darwin, Perth and Canberra. The report forms the second phase of the work of the Committee on Telecom's zonal and charging policies. The Committee's earlier report, `Ringing in the Changes' which dealt with metropolitan and near metropolitan areas, was tabled in the Parliament on 4 October 1984. I tabled the Government's response to that report on 15 November 1985 and, in doing so, pointed out that the new zoning arrangements proposed to be introduced by Telecom would require up to two year's preparatory work. Telecom has now advised me that planning has been substantially completed and the preparatory work is well advanced. Details of the changes and implementation will be announced later this year. Telecom is in the process of finalisation of its consideration of the latest report and I expect that the Australian Telecommunications Commission will come to a final view in May 1987. The Government's response to the Committee's report will be tabled in Parliament as soon as possible after that time. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —by leave-As a member of the Sub-Committee of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure that produced this report, I am pleased to see that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has responded reasonably quickly-albeit a very brief response-to the report. It was a quite large report. The Committee made 33 recommendations to the Government and, I dare say, that could explain why it is taking the Minister some time to get to a substantial response. Nonetheless, it is a very important report as it affects people in the country areas of Australia. These days telephones are considered an essential service and anything the Government and Telecom Australia can do to improve that service would be well received in country areas. Along with all members of the Sub-Committee and this Parliament, I look forward with great interest to the Minister's substantial response to this report. Hopefully he will bring it down before the end of this session, but, if not, certainly early in the next session of Parliament. Mr SHARP(Gilmore) —by leave-The National Party of Australia welcomes the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. One of the great bugbears of rural Australians-particularly outback dwellers who find that many of what they would call local calls are charged at subscriber trunk dialling rates-is the difficulty they experience with telephone services. The National Party looks forward to the speedy delivery of the Government's response to the Parliament on a report the National Party hopes will lead to flexibility in charging arrangements for rural Australians to help them overcome the tyranny of distance from which outback Australians so frequently suffer. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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,Mr Rocher and Mr Slipper. 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 Cohen,Mr Mildren and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 therefore 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 Conquest,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 Ronald Edwards,Ms Fatin and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: We are opposed to the imposition of a capital gains tax. Your petitioners humbly pray: That the honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it, and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain 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 twofold increase in the maximum value of coinage, the elimination of the two dollar note represents a fivefold 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 will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins and 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 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 Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your Petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives acts to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: (a) Aboriginal and Islander languages, which numbered approximately 260 when Europeans first arrived, are even more seriously endangered-already 145 have become extinct. (b) English-speaking population expansion and English-speaking mass media expansion threatens the survival of the remaining languages of Australia. (c) Aboriginal languages reflect an ethos that is truly Australian and, unless steps are taken to implement language maintenance, this ethos will be lost not only to Aborigines but to non-Aboriginal Australians, and to the world. We humbly pray the Government to: 1. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide $300,000 per annum for a guaranteed period of ten years to enable the Aboriginal community of Australia to establish a co-ordinating body to implement steps to prevent the extinction of the remaining languages, and to introduce programs which will enable these languages to continue into the future for the sake of all Australians. This body will enable us to maximise existing financial, material, and human resources, and is the least expensive way of implementing urgently needed maintenance programs. 2. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide finance for the establishment of Regional Language Centres-ten are urgently needed-costing $200,000 each. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purposes for our nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross. 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 Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, wish to register our opposition to the recent introduction of the administrative charge for higher education students because: 1. the annual administration charge will inevitably restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. the charge is ill-conceived and unfairly penalises part-time students, age pensioners and Austudy/Abstudy beneficiaries-who, in many cases, have to wait for months for reimbursement of the charge-amongst others. 4. the imposition of the charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education''. Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge for higher education students be immediately withdrawn and that subsequent funding shortfalls be met from general Government revenue. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever humbly pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We, your pet- itioners, humbly showeth: That Australia has over 2,500 threatened species of native plants and animals. All these species face extinction if their habitats are not properly protected. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House- Call upon the Commonwealth Government in co-operation with the states and territories to urgently institute protective legislation for endangered species and their habitats throughout Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That serving members of the Australian Defence Forces are frustrated and disillusioned at the continuing erosion of their conditions of employment, benefits and entitlements traditionally provided in recognition of the burdens placed on themselves and their families by service in the Defence Forces; 2. That the Government's decision to discount by 2 per cent the retirement benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces has broken a trust that should exist between servicemen and the Government concerning the financial security of themselves and their families in retirement; 3. That the Government's decision to discount the retirement benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces has seriously lowered the morale and commitment of servicemen and will further increase the number of experienced servicemen leaving the Defence Forces. Your petitioners humbly pray that you establish or expedite reviews of conditions, salary, allowances, entitlements and benefits for servicemen and reverse the decision to discount by 2 per cent retirement benefits for servicemen. by Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that 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 geographic location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the 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 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 on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain than any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Spender. 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 Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction by the Hawke Labor Government of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That 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 therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Hawke Labor 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 Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business, anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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 Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia in the Division of Hinkler respectfully showeth: 1. That contributors and pensioners of both the Defence Force and Public Service Superannuation schemes are outraged at the consequence of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation and Amendments Act 1986. 2. That the Government's decision to discount by 2% the benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces and Australian Public Service has broken a trust which should exist between contributors and the Government. 3. That this decision to discount the retirement benefits and pensions has seriously lowered the morale and commitment of servicemen and public servants as well as affecting their financial security and that of their families. 4. That these beneficiaries and pensioners are being called on to suffer a permanent reduction in their pensions from 10th October 1986 until death or the death of their spouses and that this reduction will be compounded over the continuing years. Your petitioners humbly pray that legislation be enacted to ensure that 1987 pension increases be based on the rate of pension applicable between June 1986 and the 9th October 1986. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Mr Porter-Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I understand it is the convention of the House that it not proceed if a Government Minister is not in the chamber. I draw your attention to that matter and wonder whether you would consider the point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay)-I am not aware of any specific provision that a member of the executive Government has to be at the table. Mr Porter-Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps I could assist you-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-Order! If the honourable member will hear me, I will hear him. It is probably not as pertinent that a member of the executive Government be in the chamber when the House is dealing with petitions, which are matters between private members and the Parliament. I take the general view that we might dispose of petitions, and then see where we go. Mr Porter-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to draw your attention to certain conventions and certain precedents of which I am aware. For example, one of my predecessors from the electorate of Barker, Archie Cameron, was the Speaker. I know that on one occasion when there was no Government Minister in the House he considered it was inappropriate for the House to continue to sit. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-I have no doubt- Mr Tim Fischer-Leave the chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-The honourable member for Farrer does not need to provide any assistance unless he at least stands in his place. If he wants to interject, he might do so from his place. I think if one wants to make points of order and interject, one might at least do so properly. While there has been that convention, I think we can deal with the matter. A Minister is now present, and we can proceed. Mr Carlton-Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The House deserves a ruling on the matter even though the Government has come to its own defence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-I do not believe that any ruling from the Chair is necessary. A convention was brought to my attention by the honourable member for Barker. I said my understanding was that that convention was generally so, but I also pointed out to the House that we were dealing with petitions, which were matters between ordinary members and the Parliament. I do not intend to make any ruling on the matter. Mr Cadman-On the same matter, Mr Deputy Speaker: There are matters that cannot be dealt with unless they are moved by a Minister. I do not think the Chair is in a position to know when those matters may arise. I wonder whether you might further investigate this and perhaps report back to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-I would not think it was in order for a Minister to interrupt the Clerk to move a motion while the Clerk was reading petitions unless the Minister wished to move a motion to print a petition. Even the honourable member for Mitchell would realise that, if it were necessary for a Minister to move a motion, he would be in the House to do so. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employees will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens of Queensland call upon all Members to pay due respect to returned Service personnel and cease the constant erosion of entitlements by the Hawke Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not proceed with its intention to further means test Veterans' disability pensions in order to cut Government spending on Australia's Ex-servicemen and Ex-servicewomen. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Caboolture in the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The requirement for people receiving unemployment benefits to present their forms personally every two weeks to the Department of Social Security is causing considerable hardship for those people in the Caboolture CES District. The distance from the Caboolture Shire to the Redcliffe Department of Social Security office imposes an unnecessary financial burden in the form of travel expenses on the unemployed. The time involved in the process reduces the time available for the unemployed to seek work actively. We the undersigned call on the Federal Government to implement measures that would allow unemployed people in the Caboolture CES District to leave completed forms at the Caboolture Job Centre for collection by the Department of Social Security. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. that consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. that unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal educational systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: 1. That we, the undersigned, are totally opposed to substantial Federal Government funding presently being wasted on undesirable, inefficient and incompetently run Government projects that are unacceptable to the vast majority of decent Australians. 2. That Government grants should not be directed toward projects that are of no, or dubious, worth to the improvement of Australia. 3. That public funding should not be used in encouraging lifestyles contrary to the Australian family way of life. 4. That public moneys should not be given to minority groups to support projects that are of a direct political nature. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Halt forthwith the public funding for the abovementioned purposes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth, to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth: That taxpayers with dependent children have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of recognition provided in the taxation system for the costs of maintaining a family, in particular, the failure to index family allowances which has resulted in an erosion of more than 50% in their real value since May 1976; the abolition of family allowances for dependants who have turned 18, even those still at school; the abolition of concessional tax rebates for education and other expenses. That this erosion in tax equity has placed an intolerable financial burden on many large families, particularly those on middle incomes who fail to qualify for means-tested benefits such as TEAS but whose living standards are now well below average due to heavy expenses on necessities such as education, housing, food and clothing. Our petitioners humbly pray that: family allowances be restored to the 1976 value (in real terms), and indexed according to the C.P.I.; the dependent spouse rebate be retained; the Federal Government take urgent measures to restore equitable provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent need to remedy the devastating impact government policies have had on the family and family living standards. 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 PORTER(Barker)(3.05) —It has been said: The major points of Labor's tax reform will be . . . increases in the spouse rebate and sole parent rebate, resulting in additional tax cuts of $2 a week to families. Have a guess who said that! Of course it was the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in 1983. It is yet another broken election promise. Not only has the Prime Minister failed to deliver the promised tax cuts to families, but the real value of the spouse rebate has been cut in real terms by 25 per cent. In addition to reducing the value of tax relief previously provided to families, especially to families with young children, the Government's taxation and welfare policies have discriminated against families because they have totally failed to acknowledge the fact that families with young children have significant additional costs to carry. It is interesting that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, has acknowledged that, as a result of Labor's policies, `Young Families are worse off under Labor'. That is a headline in the Canberra Times. The Government, instead of taking action to remedy the devastating impact that its policies have had on the family, is now looking to further increase the tax slug on families, especially families with young children, by reducing the spouse rebate and the family allowance. The Prime Minister has lost touch with middle Australia. He no longer has the interest of middle and low income Australians at heart. He is much more interested in strutting the international stage. Middle and low income earners see the Prime Minister as a man committed to promoting big government, keeping the big unions happy and trying to get on side with big business. Labor no longer represents middle Australia. It no longer represents the Australian family. It has lost touch with reality. The Labor Government has been in power for four years. As a result of its policies there are 55,000 more families with incomes under the poverty line. Interestingly enough, in a damning indictment of the Government's policies, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), a member of the Government, yesterday proposed a motion calling on the Government to `pursue anti-poverty measures as a major priority of government programs'. His speech was a very clear and frank admission that the Government's policies have had a disastrous impact on Australian families and that its policies have failed to address the issue of poverty. The Prime Minister says that it is all the fault of international markets, but we know that the real cause is the Government's domestic economic policy. The Hawke Labor Government has massively increased the level of government spending, there has been a massive increase in taxes and charges, and there has been a massive increase in the deficit. I refer to just one area which indicates the sorts of increases in Commonwealth government expenditure that this Government has undertaken-the area of health. In 1982-83 total Commonwealth expenditure was just over $4,400m. Expenditure this year will be just under $10,000m, an increases of nearly 225 per cent. The result of this extravagant spending spree was obvious and predictable. Australia has been hit by increased inflation, increased interest rates, higher unemployment and a dramatic slowdown in economic growth. The inflationary impact of Labor's wasteful and extravagant spending has been borne by Australian families. The cost of food has gone up by 28 per cent; transport by 30 per cent; recreation and education costs by 25 per cent. Heaven forbid if the family car packs up because if a person has to buy a new family car the cost has gone up by at least 50 per cent. The cost of a Ford Laser-hardly an extravagant purchase as far as cars go-has increased under Labor from $8,000 to $12,000. The Government's high interest rate policy has resulted in the average monthly repayment increasing by $152 a month, that is, from $508 to $660 a month. The Government's policy on tax, both direct and indirect, has had a devastating impact on the family. The Government's income tax policy has meant that a single income family on average weekly earnings in March 1983 was paying $65 a week in pay as you earn income tax. That family is now paying $102 a week and will still pay $102 a week after the so-called tax cuts on 1 July. The capital gains tax and the removal of negative gearing have forced up rents for families. Of course, the families most affected are the ones who are unable to pay the high mortgage interest rates resulting from this Government's economic policies. Of course, tens of thousands of Australian families are unable to afford this higher cost of rental accommodation. They have been forced on to public housing waiting lists. Sixty thousand more Australian families are on public waiting lists than there were when the Hawke Government came to office. These increasing costs, taxes and charges have undermined family living standards. Families are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. How often do we hear wage earners saying: `I am being paid fortnightly but I am having more and more trouble making my fortnightly wage stretch for two weeks'? Single income PAYE families are finding it especially difficult to make ends meet. They are finding it impossible to save. It is damned hard for them to ensure that they can afford to buy the essentials, let alone the luxuries. Mr White —They are going backwards. Mr PORTER —They are indeed, as the honourable member says. The squeeze which this Government is applying to the family budget is not only having an economic impact on the family; it is tearing at the fabric of our society. Too many of our families with young children are faced with the economic consequences of being unable to maintain their standard of living on a single income. More and more mothers bringing up young children are being forced to return to the work force. Such a decision is no longer a matter of choice. Parents are having to face unparalleled financial stress, worry and uncertainty. Too often children are suffering because of the increased tension at home and because too often mum is forced to return to the work force when she or her spouse would have preferred to remain at home caring for the children. Family life is the very backbone of our Australian community but it is quite clear that under this Government families do not receive the special assistance they deserve. They have not been treated with fairness and equity by this Government. Living standards of Australian families are declining under this Government, day by day. The Government argues that the burden of the fall in living standards must be shared-but it is not. The heaviest burden is being carried by those least able to afford it; that is, families, especially families with young children. The Government's consideration of further reductions in the dependent spouse rebate and family allowances graphically illustrates the extent to which the Prime Minister and his Government have lost touch with the real needs of Australian families. The deep concerns being expressed by the Opposition about the impact on the family of government policies are widely held in the community. For example, the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association has issued a pamphlet entitled `SDA Fights for the Family'. This union clearly is concerned about the impact of government policies on the family. For example, in a section headed `Family Incomes Under Pressure' the SDA union says: Single income families with dependent children are under financial pressure today as never before. Under the heading `The Spouse Rebate' it says: In his election speech in 1983, Bob Hawke promised a substantial increase in the spouse rebate. This promise has never been fulfilled. These comments on a Labor government are made by a union. Under `Family Allowances' the SDA says, after setting out a table of the impact of the Government's policy and inflation on family allowances: The figures show that the larger the family, the greater has been its financial loss. Low income families have suffered the most from the decline in the value of family allowances. The pamphlet has a section headed `The Cost of Raising Children'. The SDA union says: In Australia today, a large number of families with dependent children are living in or near poverty. How right it is. Since this Government came to office, 55,000 more Australian families' incomes have dropped under the poverty line. Most interestingly, a section headed `The Plight of the Single Income Family' endorses everything the Opposition has been saying about single income families. It says: This pressure- that is, the pressure on single income families- has become so severe that many people have been forced into the work force as second income earners out of sheer economic necessity to make ends meet. This places pressure on family relationships and has affected the ability of parents to raise their children in the way they prefer. In other words, the union shares the Opposition's concern about the impact of Labor's policies on the family, especially on single income families with young children. Those people who are in a position to see the devastating impact of Labor's policies on the family are those who deal day to day with children-the teachers. They have also expressed deep concern about the future of the family. The Australian High School Principals Association, representing government high schools in Australia, has adopted a motion in the following terms: That in view of the widespread and serious effects of family breakdown observable in schools and the community generally, the AHSPA urge the Commonwealth Government to develop and implement, as a matter of urgency, an effective policy in support of the family unit. We strongly support the Australian High School Principals Association resolution. Mr Shack —They see the casualties. Mr PORTER —They do, and we support the Association resolution. The creation of the family and community services portfolio by this Opposition highlights our commitment to the implementation of policies to encourage and support the family and promote its role in the continuing development of the Australian nation. The high school principals indicate that they believe the family is very worthy of institutional defence and support because of three major attributes. These are: 1. Voluntary assumptions of obligations 2. The motivation provided by natural affection through kinship 3. The division of labour with regard to weaker members. That is consistent with our own views. The Government not only is failing to address these economic issues but it is also guilty of attacking basic family values. Only last night in this House the Government introduced legislation to enable the Department of Social Security to pay married rate welfare benefits to under age de factos living in an illegal relationship. The payment of such a benefit not only is in conflict with State criminal laws, but also is in direct conflict with the age limits established by this Commonwealth Government under the Marriage Act. We brought that matter forward. We proposed an amendment to ensure that that not be allowed to come to pass. But this Government refused to accept that amendment. When we went to a division on the amendment the Government voted against us. It voted to maintain that part of the legislation; that is, it voted to maintain its ability to pay benefits to under age de factos. It was only because of the heat of public pressure and public opinion that was put upon this Government that this afternoon at Question Time the Prime Minister announced that the Government would back down and accept our amendment. Why did the Government not accept the amendment last night? The Opposition will not stand by and allow this attack on family values and living standards of families to continue. Our policies will positively discriminate in favour of families. Tax and welfare policies will involve a co-ordinated approach to addressing the needs of the family and overcoming the burdens which this Government has placed on them. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(3.20) —I am very pleased to have the opportunity to reply to some of the nonsense we have just heard from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). People on this side of the House who heard the honourable member's comments must have been absolutely amazed at his feigned concern over the welfare of families in this nation. I find it quite extraordinary that someone who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, someone who comes from the squattocracy in South Australia should get up in this Parliament and suggest that he has any real concern for the families of this country. Mr Downer —Labor cliches! Mr DUNCAN —I see that the honourable member for Mayo is now leaving the chamber. No doubt he was concerned that he was not referred to as part of the squattocracy, so he sought to interject. It is worth recording that for Hansard. However, this feigned concern will not go over with the ordinary Australian people. There is no doubt that the people of this country, when faced with difficulties and adversities, have always stuck with the Australian Labor Party and Labor governments during the various periods of our history have always acted in the best interests of the ordinary people. A Labor government is doing so at this stage in the nation's development and will continue to do so. There is no doubt that over the past four years the Labor Government has protected the standards of living of pensioners and defended the standards of living of ordinary Australians. Faced with considerable national adversity, the Government is to be commended and congratulated, not disparaged by the Opposition. Let us look at the reasons for the Opposition's raising this matter. One can have little doubt that the Liberal Party of Australia has been doing a bit of polling out there in the suburbs. It has found that when it asks questions such as: `Are you in favour of freedom, motherhood, democracy and the family?', it gets a big yes response. So what have we had this week? On three occasions when introducing matters of public importance the Opposition has moved motions about living standards and families. When I looked through Hansard today I noted this continuing theme and I was not at all surprised to hear the honourable member for Barker rendering the same speech again today as has been done on two other occasions this week. Those people who listen to the broadcasts of this Parliament will have picked that up and will not be at all surprised by my criticism that the honourable member's concern was completely feigned. The same series of statistics and essentially the same speech have been given in this House on three occasions this week. It was interesting that the honourable member should mention the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, a large union covering shop assistants and teachers. While the SDA has expressed some concern about ensuring that the living standards of its members are protected and, in the case of high school principals, that education continues to receive a fair proportion of the national cake, let me tell the honourable member this: When it comes to the next election he should make no mistake about the way in which shop assistants and teachers will vote. They will not vote for the party that is planning cuts of $14,000m in Federal Government spending, no sir. They will not vote for the Liberal Party. Neither will they vote for the National Party of Australia and the crazy policies that it proposes to implement under the pervasive influence of Bjelke-Petersen. No sir, those people will vote for the Australian Labor Party because they know that in this difficult period the ALP is the party that has introduced and followed through policies which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has described from time to time as showing restraint with equity. This is the party which, throughout history, has been called upon by the Australian people in times of national difficulty. Just as it is steering the nation through this difficult period at present in a competent and effective fashion, it will continue to do so and the Australian people will call on us to form the next government to continue that process. It is interesting to note the way the nation is progressing at the moment and the statistics that have come to light in the past few days. One can see how the Government's policies are working and how we will get through this difficult period. One can see how we will be able to steer the nation to a period of continuing prosperity. As long as this Party maintains its position on the treasury bench, the Australian people need have no fear. The welfare of ordinary Australians will be the prime concern of the Government because that is the driving principle of the Labor Party and it always has been. We will not be in the position of honourable members opposite who must take account of the interests of their wealthy friends. No sir, that will not be the situation. Ordinary wage and salary earners, pensioners and the like can be assured that this Government will continue to look after them. I wish to look at a few of the things that this Government has done recently to ensure that we have restraint with equity, that we look after the ordinary people of this nation. I mentioned pensioners a moment ago. One only has to look at the fact that the age and other pensions are now at historically high levels-proportionately they are at 24.2 per cent of average weekly earnings. We are well on the way to achieving the Government's undertaking that pensions would increase to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. When I have moved around the electorate I have found that pensioners appreciate this. They realise that although the Government has had to deal with a difficult climate, it has protected the standards of living of pensioners. We introduced the indexation of pensions on a six-month basis and although there was a delay in the payment of that last year nothing has been lost in the longer term and pensioner's incomes have continued to increase to the point where they are at the historically high level of 24.2 per cent of average weekly earnings. In the near future wage earners in this country will be substantially better off as a result of the tax cuts which are being introduced. These will average $10 per wage earner and will be of considerable benefit to ordinary families. In addition, there is no greater step that a government can take to assist families than to provide jobs. This Government's record in that regard is second to none. This Government's record is in complete contrast to that of our predecessors, the Fraser-Howard regime. We have provided 750,000 jobs in the four years that we have occupied the treasury bench-an incredible record-and this contrasts quite extraordinarily with the 185,000 jobs that were lost in the last year that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) occupied the office of Treasurer of this nation. A total of 185,000 jobs were lost in one year under the Fraser-Howard regime; under this Government 750,000 new jobs have been created in our four years in office. We have turned the whole situation around. We have led the nation from a period of steep decline to a period of modest growth which has ensured that as young people become eligible to enter the work force they have a reasonable chance of obtaining a job. We have reduced the amount of long term unemployment and certainly the amount of unemployment generally. As I have said, the Government's record in this area is second to none. In contrast again to the Opposition's attitude to wages, there has been some modest wage restraint under this Government. There has been a 6 per cent decrease in real terms recently. I contrast that with the Opposition's policy in this area which is quite extraordinary. In 18 of the last 20 national wage cases the Opposition has urged a wage freeze. It has wanted no increase at all. The result of that would have been that on average Australian wage earners would have been $106 worse off had the Liberal and National Party policies been adopted by the national wage case Bench. The ordinary Australian worker must be thankful that the Opposition's policies have not been implemented over the past four years. If we want to talk about Australian families we need to define what we are talking about. Everybody is in favour of the family, but it does not simply mean the average family of a husband, wife and two children of some age or other. It can mean elderly married couples; it can mean young married couples; it can mean single parent families; it can mean those people described as double income, no children families which are known, I understand, as DINKs. It can include the extended family; it can include de facto families. A great range of people is covered by the word `family'. I suppose the best thing one can say about `family' is that it is best defined, like beauty, as being in the eye of the beholder. When we are talking about family I suspect that most people relate that term to their own families. The Government has a very good record in providing benefits to families. I mention, for example, the first home owners scheme which has set up 230,000 households in the past four years. It has created 106,000 child care places throughout the nation since it came to government. That is a pretty incredible record and it is one of which the Government can be very proud. In relation to the aged at home-this is very interesting and it might interest many people listening to this broadcast-the Opposition has clearly indicated that it does not like the home and community care program which, I might remind the House, is designed to ensure in particular, amongst other things, that elderly people can continue to live in their homes until it is no longer possible for them to do so. It provides support and assistance so that they can stay in the family home as long as possible. We have provided $132m for these types of programs and this support in 1986-87. What has the Opposition done? What has the Opposition proposed? It is very interesting. It has clearly indicated by stating the $14 billion in expenditure cuts it would make if the disaster ever occurred that it got on to the treasury bench that this program would be for the chop. It would wipe out this program. Elderly people who at the moment are able to have home visits from nurses and various other specialists would no longer be able to receive subsidies for those types of benefits. That would be a disaster for those people. The Opposition should not be given the opportunity to endeavour to put those dreadful and dastardly polices into effect. I conclude my remarks by saying something about the matter on which the honourable member for Barker concluded his comments, and that is the treatment of under-aged de facto spouses. If ever I have seen a beat-up this has to be it. This issue, so-called, in my State of South Australia involves seven beneficiaries. Seven people are benefiting at the moment under arrangements by which they can obtain pensions or the unemployment benefit because they are under-age de facto spouses. Mr Porter —What sort of principle is that? Mr DUNCAN —It is front page news. We are talking about it as if it is the biggest issue in the nation. Mr Porter —It is the principle. Mr DUNCAN —I will get to the principle in a minute. From 1970 the Liberal Party in government paid for these people, as we have proposed to do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Debate resumed. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(3.35) —Since I have been representing the electorate of Grey in this House I doubt whether I have spoken in a debate on an issue which is of such fundamental importance for this country, or which typifies so many of our attitudes towards our country, our industries and Australia's position in the world, as the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill 1987. I also doubt whether an issue on the Government's agenda more graphically illustrates this Government's commitment to Labor principles for the development of this nation. This Bill represents the culmination of many years' work on the part of the parliamentary Labor Party, commencing in those seven years of opposition, when the present Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) began drawing his blueprint for transport policy. This Bill represents a watershed for the Australian shipping industry. Never before has there been such an opportunity for a domestic industry, operated by Australians, employing Australians, for the benefit of Australians to grow and play the role to which it is entitled but which it has so far been denied. As an Australian nothing aggravates me more than to see and hear within our society the expressed attitude that we Australians are not capable of looking after ourselves. We suffer a cultural cringe. We suffer a colonial cringe. We have an almighty inferiority complex. Almost daily within the Press we see expressions of opinion from foreigners and their local toadies on what we should and should not do. Some of the ironies are amazing. They apply equally to our shipping industry as to any other industry. We are told by the rich man's club, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the European Economic Community how to manage our economy. The gnomes of Zurich pontificate about our economic health as they plan their next speculative raid on our dollar. Spokesmen from the most protected economies of the world tell us of the virtues of free trade and of the `science' of market forces and we believe them. So used have we become to this patronising drivel that we seem almost incapable of thinking for ourselves. With this Bill, though the rot has stopped-in part any way. We have the makings of a strong shipping industry in this country. It is not very big but it is reasonably healthy and, by world standards, it is becoming healthier. It is, however, an indictment on all of us that our shipping industry should be as small as it is. Let us look, for example, at our coal trades. We are the largest exporting coal nation but, of the 90 million tonnes we exported in 1985-86, Australian flagships carried only an abysmal 1.2 per cent. How pathetic! We Australians are almost totally dependent on overseas owned or controlled shipping. In 1985-86 Australian flagships carried in total less than 4 per cent of our trade. In freight revenue terms in 1984-85 Australian operators earned less than $900m of the total $6,700m generated by the shipment of Australia's imports and exports. How has this come about? Why can we not carry more Australian trade in Australian ships? The history book tells us many of the answers. The genesis of our Australian merchant navy began in 1914, when 26 enemy vessels in our near Australian waters were seized and put into service for national purposes. To these were added 15 cargo ships bought by Prime Minister Billy Hughes in 1916-with much public outcry. The great irony of course is that it was Hughes, the greatest sycophant of all time, who committed us to fight the English battles under English command yet struck a mighty blow for Australia in building a fleet which could survive the greedy hand of the British shipping combines who had, since the days of the First Fleet, grown very fat on the proceeds of their monopoly of Australian trade. The benefits to the Australian economy were immense. The line made a healthy profit and substantially undercut the conferences to the advantage particularly of Australian farmers. So the Commonwealth line prospered and added to its fleet in 1919 five passenger lines which plied the English trade and eventually gave great service in World War II. The line continued to be profitable; it continued to provide freight savings to Australian producers and, accordingly, made a massive contribution to the balance of trade on invisibles. In 1929, though, after 6 1/2 years of Country Party dominated conservative government, effectively the Commonwealth line had been dismantled. It had been killed off by the combined assault of British ship owners, working with the full support of Australian political saboteurs on the conservative side. We had surrendered. From that day we have never regained our position. Our own Australian National Line is but a shadow of its predecessor, and although it might wish to do so, it cannot challenge the strength of foreign ship owner cartels. It can survive only by being part of them and, although it might attempt to keep them honest, it is too small to carry much weight in the general line of trade. That was our legacy on coming to government in 1983. We found that ANL was virtually bankrupt. The history of conservative government and management shows us why that was so. Those attitudes are still there. While it is pleasing to note the grudging support for the Bill given by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), behind him we know that there is a whole band of dries and saboteurs who would allow our shipping industry, now being reborn, to be sold off to the advantage of foreigners. His colleague Senator Hamer, for example, still has on the Notice Paper a private member's Bill to abolish the exclusive right of Australian ships to trade the Australian coast. What is left of that industry, anyway? One might ask where such a policy stops. No doubt the senator and his supporters would be equally happy for every other Australian industry to be opened up to foreign labour. Why is the shipping industry any different? The answer is obvious. Senator Hamer and his supporters are not alone, of course. All foreign operators and owners are watching, no doubt very closely. The bureaucracy in Canberra, too, would have a warm inner glow. I suspect, though, that their record will never be revealed. However, we do know that the ivory tower theorists, breathing the rarefied air of Canberra, are none too keen on the Australian shipping industry. As with all government business enterprises, they persist in running them down, in depriving them of capital and milking their profits. So, too, will they try to run down our shipping industry. No doubt honourable members opposite will recall from their own experience in government the difficulties that they had in managing public business enterprises. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), for example, mentioned the other night on `Carwash' his own experience with the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. As the saying goes, governments may come and go but the bureaucracy goes on forever. Despite all this, we have stood by our policy. We want to see more Australian cargo carried on Australian ships. We believe that Australian flag shipping can compete internationally and can be reliable, despite the difficult market situation that it faces globally. We want to see stronger support for our shipping industry by Australian exporters. For too long Australian shipping has been used as a scapegoat for shortcomings in our trade and marketing arrangements. After we have mined, grown or manufactured our exports, we have found it too easy to leave others to manage, and profit from, our export shipping. We have turned our backs on an enormous deficit in trade and services. Why cannot Australian shipping be treated as an export commodity itself? When shipping and related costs are such a large component of export costs, why should we not try ourselves to do something about it? Again citing coal, I remind the House that in 1985-86 Australian ships carried a miserable 1.2 per cent of our total coal exports. Foreigners carried the rest. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has shown, though, that with modern tonnage and the benefits available from our revitalised shipping policies, we can do it. This year, with the three new BHP vessels-the Iron Kembla, the Iron Newcastle and the Iron Pacific-the figure of 1.2 per cent will double. We all know about our foreign debt, we all know that the imbalance is not just in trade and goods. The debt that we are incurring on shipping costs continues to increase. In 1985-86 it had reached $2,400m. Every dollar of this debt that we can save is worth while. These gains can be made, and that is why we must grasp the golden opportunity presented by this Bill. It has been a long time since we have had a chance to mend our ways. The industry, the unions and the Government have developed a package which is an absolute breakthrough. To all those who sling mud at the workers in Australia, let me say that I take off my hat to the seagoing unions. They have bitten the bullet; they know that to survive our ships have to be efficient. They know that modern technology means fewer jobs. As indicated in the Minister's second reading speech, the Maritime Industry Development Committee has played a leading and crucial role in developing the framework for revitalising the Australian merchant fleet. Leaders of the five seagoing unions-the Seamens Union of Australia, the Merchant Service Guild of Australia, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, the Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia and the Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymens Association of Australasia-have taken a constructive, responsible and realistic attitude during MIDC discussions. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(3.45) —Last week I visited two primary schools in my electorate and saw two particularly effective and fine activities. At Flynn Primary School I was introduced to the reading recovery program, which is a new program begun in Australian Capital Territory schools last year. The aim of the program is to help children who are having difficulty with the early stages of learning to read, and to sort out those difficulties so that they quickly begin to cope with reading before it has become an intellectual or psychological problem for them. For the majority of children, a good classroom program is adequate to get them started in reading and writing. However, children differ widely and in any school system, regardless of the teaching methods used, a small proportion of children do not make satisfactory progress. The reading recovery program aims to enable these children to catch up with their age mates, so that they are able to cope well in the classroom. Children receive daily individual teaching in addition to their classroom instruction. They have a wide range of problems with learning, so especially trained teachers select from a range of techniques ones that are suitable for a particular child. Most children make rapid progress with this daily support and are able to reach the average reading skill of their age within three to five months. At Flynn Primary it was a delight to see the individual care of the teacher and the response of children to this individual attention and encouragement. I was impressed to see the attentiveness of the teacher to every aspect of the skill of reading and the care with which the children were encouraged to address each difficulty as it occurred. For many children this program will be sufficient to ensure that they are able to progress to thoroughly competent reading and writing skills for the rest of their lives. Such a program is invaluable. It is a preventive program. A long delay in achieving success with reading carries high risks of emotional and intellectual underdevelopment. A child who gets further and further out of step with the class in which he or she is a member, loses his or her opportunity to learn effectively. The reading recovery program was developed in New Zealand by Professor Marie Clay, and research carried out there supports the claim that children who have participated in this early individualised program are still maintaining their progress four years later. Two Australian Capital Territory teachers, Margaret Clough and Margaret Olding, studied with Professor Clay at Auckland University during 1985 and are currently providing on the job training for the second intake of reading recovery teachers in the Australian Capital Territory. I would like to congratulate them and all the other teachers participating in this program for the imagination and effectiveness of reading recovery. The program is obviously expensive because a one-to-one teacher-pupil activity, even though it is only for half an hour at a time, is a high investment of teacher time. But it is clearly cost effective if the great majority of those students who go through the program are from then on able to improve their reading skills at the same rate as their peers. Competence in reading is one of the most central skills with which students must leave school, yet a proportion of students, sometimes estimated to be as high as 10 per cent, never completely master reading and writing. If this reading recovery program substantially reduces that proportion to one or 2 per cent, it will clearly be particularly cost effective. The other primary school I visited last week was at Cook, where a peace park was being opened on the day before Anzac Day. The impressive aspects of this opening were that the park had been thought of by the students themselves; much of the money to pay for the preparation of the park had been raised by them, supported by a $400 International Year of Peace grant; and the quality of the opening itself. During the opening, probably a dozen Year 6 students participated, and showed that they had reflected carefully on the nature of peace. They clearly recognised that peace was more than the absence of war and that it involved personal peace, peace within the family and peace within our own community. There was reflection on both the courage of the people who had defended Australia in the First and Second World Wars and, as well, a strong emphasis on the contribution which everyone can make to reducing conflict in the future. The Principal, Jan Laut, and the teacher responsible, Connie Owen, and all the children who were involved are to be warmly congratulated on this fine celebration. These are just two striking examples of the high quality, creativity and intelligent compassion being demonstrated in the education provided through the Australian Capital Territory school system. I would like to put on record my whole-hearted congratulations of not only the teachers involved in these two programs but also all the others who are providing such a fine service to the children of Canberra. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(3.50) —Today is 1 May, or May Day. May Day as we know it today has its origins in the industrial cities of nineteenth century America. In 1884 a conference of United States and Canadian trade unions set 1 May 1886 as the day on which to commence strike action in pursuit of their goal for an eight-hour working day. At that time many workers were working as much as 15 or 18 hours a day-from sunrise to sunset. In Australia, by comparison, we already had the eight-hour working day. This right had been won as early as 1855 by the Operative Stonemasons Society in Sydney, and soon afterwards by similar building trades unions in Melbourne and Sydney. The right was not easily won. It came as a result of strike action and processions, followed by negotiation. Indeed, I might add that, in the entire history of industrial relations, only very rarely have important rights been won by workers through negotiation where that negotiation was not first preceded by some demonstration of worker strength and unity of purpose. Honourable members might be interested in the words of the slogan used by the stonemasons in their struggle for the eight-hour day. It was: Eight hours to work, eight hours to play, eight hours to sleep, and eight bob a day. This slogan became the basis of the American trade unions' call for a just working day when they took up the fight towards the end of the nineteenth century. The main centre of the North American struggle was the industrial city of Chicago. Here too the struggle was not easily won. On that first industrial workers' May Day in 1886, 25,000 workers took to the streets in that city. Employers and government were alarmed and called out the police. On 3 May the police attacked a meeting of striking workers outside the McCormick reaper works. Six workers were killed and many wounded. The following day another four workers and seven policemen were killed in Chicago's Haymarket Square. Eventually four labour leaders were arrested, tried and hanged. They became the unions' martyred dead and symbols of the struggle. The custom of holding workers' demonstrations and celebrations on May Day quickly spread from America to Europe and Australia. May Day was first celebrated by Australian workers at Barcaldine in Queensland in 1891. The early 1890s were years of struggle between unions, who were determined to hang on to their hard won rights, and many employers who spoke openly of their determination to crush the unions, or else replace them with tame ones. In 1891 the focus of this conflict shifted to Queensland. Is it not fascinating how history has a habit of repeating itself? In Queensland, the squatters were preparing to break the Shearers Union by bringing in non-union labour from the south. The Queensland Government sent out police and armed troops. The shearers were arrested and gaoled. In Brisbane at that same time, mindful that shearers were marching in the face of the troopers' guns, Henry Lawson was writing `Freedom On the Wallaby', with its famous lines: So we must fly a rebel flag As others did before us, . . . Sadly, the shearers' struggle was lost on that occasion and their leaders were gaoled. But the struggle for unionism and better working conditions has continued. Today Australian workers face many of the same problems as those faced by the shearers of nineteenth century Queensland. There are many persons, employers and organisations-not the least being the Premier of Queensland and his Government-who would seek to cripple the union movement and to replace unionists with scab labour. This is not the way ahead. This is a recipe for industrial disaster. There is another way to go, and I can say with some pride that there are workers and trade unionists in the Wollongong and Illawarra area who are showing the way. This way is based on greater worker and union participation in industry. Industrial relations today must be viewed within the context of today's world. The ways of the New Right and the Premier of Queensland are the ways of last century. It is time they were forsaken forever. Let me conclude on a note of warning to those antiquarians who refuse to move out of the nineteenth century and learn their lessons from history. What the workers of the world are celebrating today, and on each and every May Day, is their strength, their unity of purpose and their firm resolve to struggle in the face of persecution and adversity. Time and again they have proved that they can be pushed just so far, and no further. They are marching today to celebrate just this. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(3.55) —I have expressed my concern on a number of occasions in this House about the political problems created by the nuclear industry, in particular the problem of radioactive waste management. In the second edition of the radioactive waste and nuclear accidents report, produced in my office in January of this year by Chas Collinson and myself, it is stated: ALP policy must recognise that storage of all categories of nuclear waste will be a continuing problem for all future life forms on earth. It must be recognised that there is currently no operational solution as to how to ultimately and safely dispose of high level waste. It must also be recognised that Australia cannot absolve itself from the high level waste problem merely because we do not have our nuclear power plants. In this respect a report contained in the February-April 1987 edition of the Institute of Trading Standards publication is most disturbing. A Mitsubishi chemical factory known as the Asian Rare Earth factory in Bukit Merah, Malaysia, has been dumping radioactive waste in many public places in the Bukit Merah area. Not only was the thoria waste dumped in places such as adjacent to public footpaths, but a truck driver was told to dump the wastes in any place he could find. There is also the far worse charge that the waste was sold to farmers to use as fertilisers for food crops. Professor Dr Sadao Ichikawa, a Japanese expert in genetics, radiation and agriculture, measured the wastes and found that dangerously high levels of radiation existed in a number of the dump sites, including abandoned dump trucks and the temporary storage site at the ARE factory. At one point outside the factory wall he detected a radiation level 150 to 160 times higher than the average natural background level and almost three times above the safe standard for workers set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Professor Ichikawa pointed out that thoron gas as produced at the ARE factory is unlike any other radioactive gases as it is heavy and it stays at ground level. It will cause lung and skin cancers, leukaemia, birth defects and other ailments. Even more serious is that Mitsubishi Chemicals attempted to influence Professor Ichikawa not to release the results of his radiation measurements. I quote: He claimed that two Mitsubishi officials met him and the Dean of his factory at Saitama University, Japan, following his return from Bukit Merah in December 1984 to ask him about the readings he took. When Professor Ichikawa told the officials that the readings were high, he was requested not to publish them. It is reported that Professor Ichikawa said: `But I refused'. The report went on, quoting the professor: `They went on to suggest that if I could co-operate with Mitsubishi, then Mitsubishi would provide an extra 10 million yen as grant for the on-going research that the faculty and Mitsubishi was jointly undertaking.' However, Professor Ichikawa declined the offer. `Mitsubishi should not pollute Bukit Merah with thoria wastes from ARE. Instead, it should send the waste back and store them at its old mines in Japan,' he said. In the same issue of the Institute of Trading Standards publication there is a Malaysian report about the warnings from a nuclear scientist in relation to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster who is familiar with the testing of food contaminated with radioactivity. I quote the professor again: Because of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, milk and agricultural products in European countries are bound to be contaminated . . . Even if the radioactivity is low and thus the products enter Malaysia, I don't think they are safe because radioactivity accumulates in the body. If we continue taking contaminated products, then after some years the adverse health effects may show up. Taiwan, Singapore and the Philippines have contamination due to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in canned milk products from Europe because of the high radioactivity. In this respect I wish to mention a particularly relevant comment in the radioactive waste report issued by my office. It states; The February 1986 edition of the magazine Soviet Life quoted the Ukranian Minister of Power as saying that the safety precautions at Soviet Nuclear Power Plants were so strict that `the odds of a meltdown are one in 10,000 years'. The fact of the matter is that we can no longer trust the scientists and politicians to tell us that it is safe. The Chernobyl disaster highlights and confirms some of the important points that anti-nuclear activists have argued over the years. This disaster dispels the myth that nuclear power stations are safe. Accidents, whether they be caused by operator, designer fault, or the nuclear process itself, will happen. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(4.00) —I also remind honourable members of the disaster which occurred at Chernobyl a year ago. In fact, on 1 May, a year ago today, I spoke in the House about the disaster of which we had just had the earliest reports. At that stage it was very hard to tell how bad the disaster was. I certainly said that it probably had the dimensions of the disaster forecast for the last 20 years. A year later we can assess some of the dimensions of that disaster. I also said a year ago that whatever details we had and no matter how sketchy those details were, what was certain was that the scope and consequences of this accident would become clearer only as the weeks, the months and the years went by. Let us go back to what happened only the day after I made that statement. By 2 May the radioactive cloud spreading across Europe from Chernobyl had reached Britain 3,200 kilometres away. By 6 May Moscow said that the reactor was almost resealed, only to warn two days later that the resealed reactor was overheating and threatening a core meltdown. It was not until 15 May that Mikhail Gorbachev broke his silence finally and said: `The worst is behind us'. But what was still to come? A year later, we have an opportunity to assess some of the damage. My colleague the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) has talked about radioactivity in products throughout Europe, particularly in milk. Let me give some other facts that we know about Chernobyl. Chernobyl emitted more long term radiation into the air, water and soil than has been produced by the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan and all the atmospheric nuclear tests conducted since then. It caused the deaths of 31 people, exposed many others to serious doses of radiation, forced the evacuation of 135,000 people and left a 30-kilometre wide dead zone around the site. It cost the Soviet Union-and this is only so far-billions of roubles, and led to a notional 2,000 extra deaths from cancer in the next generation-1,000 of them in the 12 countries of the European Community with West Germany, Italy and Greece the worse affected. Three times as many people will contract non-fatal cancers. What of other projections? An American surgeon, Dr Robert Gale, who went to Chernobyl in the wake of the disaster, had warned of a cancer death toll of 75,000 in the years to come. The Russians themselves now talk optimistically-I stress the word `optimistically'-of between 200 to 600 people who are expected to die from excessive radiation doses in the next 40 years. Quite apart from the horrendous effect of this disaster on human health, we have to consider some of the implications for the industry itself. The No. 4 reactor at Chernobyl now lies encased in 400,000 tonnes of concrete and 7,000 tonnes of steel reinforcement. That is the sort of condition that will have to apply to every nuclear reactor, whether or not there has been an accident, because they all have to be decommissioned. The Chernobyl tomb, which is 6 storeys high and designed to prevent the leak of any further radiation, could yet prove the prototype of similar tombs for other reactors, including Britain's Magnox power stations due to reach the end of their planned life in the 1990s. This sort of precaution will have to be taken until the world ends because we now have nuclear power. What are some of the Russian scientists saying? For Vladimir Gurbaryev, the science editor of Pravda, Chernobyl was a case of real life horror overtaking and overwhelming scientific complacency. He has referred to the accident at Chernobyl as one which scientists had said for years could not happen. Another Soviet expert, the renowned physicist Yevgeny Velikhov, who flew to the area the day after the explosion, and who is widely credited with having brought order to the chaos that surrounded the scene, is probably one of his country's most influential scientists and is now one of the group of Soviets profoundly alarmed by the implications of the Chernobyl explosion. The world is alarmed at the implications of that explosion. As I said a year ago today in this House, it is time that everyone involved in the nuclear power industry-and that includes us-must question the involvement in that industry. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(4.05) —It has been well known that, since the time of Caesar, all of Gaul has been divided into three parts. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government Ministry is also divided into three parts: Firstly, former trade union and party officials; secondly, former lawyers; and, thirdly, former teachers. These three groups make up more than two-thirds of the Ministry which is in charge of the Government of Australia in the year 1987. I raise this issue in a completely non-partisan manner, but I ask: Is a ministry dominated by trade union and party officials, lawyers and teachers, an appropriate one for this country at this time? Mr Holding —Better than half-baked millionaires. Mr BEALE —I will get to Fraser. The composition of the Ministry could very well have come from the nineteenth century; yet we are only a decade and a quarter away from the twenty-first century. Being non-partisan on this issue let me, in fairness, refer to the previous Liberal-National Party Government. In its ministries the overwhelming numbers were held by two groups-farmers and lawyers. An unkind person might observe that a government of farmers and lawyers might better belong to the eighteenth century, but I would not, of course, lend my support to that observation. However, I believe that this briefest look at the composition of both ministries in terms of occupational and professional background is a cause of some concern for the future of this country. There is obviously something wrong with the preselection machinery in both parties, and there is obviously something just as seriously wrong with the attitude of many of our occupational groups and professions in their members' failure to pursue parliamentary careers. Parliament has been dominated for many years by trade union and party officials, teachers, farmers and lawyers-so much so that when this Government created a ministry of science it had to appoint to that portfolio a man who was formerly a teacher and a lawyer. The Minister in charge of technology is a former solicitor, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is a former teacher of politics, and so the list goes on. We cannot govern properly because we do not have the people; the pool of talent. We are desperate for exports to improve our balance of trade, but where are the exporters in the Parliament or in the Ministry? Where are the biological scientists, the electronics engineers, the tourist entrepreneurs, the urban planners, the nursing sisters, the transport industry executives and, indeed, the fashion industry designers? Of course lawyers, farmers, union officials and teachers have their place in this Parliament. Some of our finest parliamentarians at present are from those professions and they have made a significant contribution to the progress of our country. However, to confront and conquer our present and future problems, whether they be economic, industrial, cultural, or in defence and foreign policies, we must attract a wider expertise and a greater pool of talent into our Parliament. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(4.09) —As you know, Madam Speaker, I have taken advantage of the adjournment debate on a few recent occasions to detail a number of the abuses, incidents and circumstances associated with political life in Queensland. Many of those circumstances reflect the abuse and the misuse of political power in Queensland. Some have been examples of nepotism, intimidation and corruption. Item 25 is the one to which I now refer. Mr Hollis —This will be good. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It is very good. What I will do on this occasion is identify some of the very special friends of the Queensland Premier, some of the knights of the realm, the pillars of society on whom the Premier has endowed this title. The first one is Sir Roderick Proctor, who was knighted in 1978 for `distinguished and dedicated service to the business community and to the people of Queensland', a very familiar citation. In 1982 his company won the contract for the Gold Coast Jupiter Casino. The next is Sir Leslie Thiess, who is the head of Drayton Investments Pty Ltd which won the contract for the Townsville Casino. He upset Proctor when it was discovered that the tax on his casino would be 10 per cent of revenue, only half of that being paid by Jupiter. Sir Wallace Rae, former Country Party Minister and Agent-General for Queensland in London until 1985, was a director of Jojoba Management Ltd, which went into liquidation owing 3,000 investors up to $10m. Sir Justin Hickey, a staunch supporter of the National Party, admitted in 1982 that he was knighted after he had donated $100,000 towards a nursing home in Sir Joh's electorate of Barambah. Sir Edward Lyons, a very good friend of the Premier, was forced to resign as chairman of the Totalisator Administration Board in 1985, following allegations of betting irregularities. It was also claimed that when Sir Edward was chairman of the TAB it invested $6.5m in Rothwells Ltd, a company chaired by Sir Edward. Sir Edward was the driving force behind the establishment of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation in 1979 to raise $2.5m for the National Party. In his letter to businessmen seeking donations he wrote: Your contribution should be viewed . . . as a sound and very essential investment in the protection of your commercial future. Needless to say, in the face of such an admonition, the money rolled in. Sir Terence Lewis became the first Australian policeman still in service to be knighted. An earlier effort by the Government to have him knighted was knocked back by Buckingham Palace. Sir Joh also ensured that Lewis was promoted to Commissioner over the heads of 16 officers of higher rank. Sir Frank Moore-I do not know whether he is related to our John-Sir Joh's `tremendous friend', is the Chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. The Corporation awarded a $130m tourist project to Pioneer River Developments with which Sir Frank was associated. Sir James Foots, former chief of Mount Isa Mines, is a director of National Free Enterprises which gave $300,000 to the National Party for the 1984 Federal election. In 1984 he was the controversial appointment as Chancellor of the University of Queensland. Sir Thomas Covacevich was one of three commissioners appointed in 1985 to redraw Queensland's electoral boundaries. They cut Aboriginal communities out of marginal National Party electorates near Cairns and placed them in safe Labor seats. He refused to comment on a claim made in the Queensland Parliament that he was another fund raiser for the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. Sir Harold Behan is the father of Michael, the National Party's northern organiser, who received the $145,000 loan forced through by the Queensland Government but opposed by the State Agricultural Bank. To top them all, Graham McCawley rescued Joh's son John in 1985 when he was lost and injured after falling off his motor bike during mustering. In 1986, the following year, Graham McCawley was knighted and became Sir Graham. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(4.14) —One of the greatest privileges a member of this place has is immunity from defamation laws, from any sort of prosecution for the destruction of characters. Any person in this chamber who so abuses that privilege, as the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) has just done, totally betrays the fundamental principles upon which this Parliament is founded. He is an absolute coward and a disgrace to this place. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will not cast aspersions upon any member in this House, nor will he impugn improper motives. Mr Robert Brown —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: That disgraceful child who is now addressing the House should withdraw those comments, to which I take personal offence. He is a disgrace to himself, to Parliament and to his electorate. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will withdraw the comments he made about the honourable member for Charlton. Mr McGAURAN —I withdraw and will allow the words of his baseless, unsubstantiated character assassination to stand for themselves. Madam SPEAKER —Order! When the honourable member withdraws, the Chair simply needs the words `I withdraw'. I now ask the honourable member for Gippsland to say `I withdraw'. Mr McGAURAN —I withdraw. Several names were mentioned by the honourable member for Charlton, all of them knights of the realm. There was a whole list of them of about eight or nine. Against not one was there any charge of impropriety or any allegation of dishonesty made. Instead he raises their names in this chamber knowing he is totally free of any rights they may have to invoke against him. It is one of the most cowardly, despicable attacks anybody could have made in this place. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland has already been asked not to use the language he is using. He will now withdraw his comments. Mr McGAURAN —I withdraw. Madam Speaker, could you please tell me and everybody else in this chamber how a member can, in all good conscience, stand in this place, just list names, link them to the Premier of Queensland and by that linkage alone conclude there is an act of impropriety or that they are unworthy of the Queen's award? It is sickening to my stomach to hear that sort of allegation made. If the honourable member for Charlton has serious allegations to make against anybody whom the law cannot take remedy against, it is his duty to bring it before this place; but he has not done that, he has simply listed names with gay abandon. I, for one, believe that the most important principle of this place has been breached; that is, one does not needlessly, without just and proper cause, bring somebody's name into this place, the very action of which is a slur on his character, a slur that he has almost no remedy against. Where are the alleged charges of improper or wrong conduct? The Police Commissioner was one name the honourable member for Charlton mentioned. Sir Terence Lewis has a distinguished record as a Police Commissioner. In my work on the National Crime Authority I know for a fact that he is highly regarded amongst the police forces of this country. I would like to know where are the allegations against him? There were too many names for me to have copied down. He mentioned Sir Roderick Proctor, Sir Leslie Thiess, Sir Wallace Rae and Sir Edward Lyons. What acts of impropriety are being alleged other than that they know and support the Premier of Queensland? All those men have distinguished records in their respective fields; all of them have made a contribution to the community. In many ways, if the honourable member for Charlton does not know of them, he certainly would not have the honesty to acknowledge them. Does any member on this side criticise the annual Queen's Birthday awards, major trade union officials or card carrying members of the Labor when they are made by the Australian Labor Party Government? Of course not. The mere fact that somebody supports the government of the day does not disqualify him from proper recognition of his community, industrial or trade union contributions made over so long. I, more than anybody else, am disappointed in the honourable member for Charlton. Credibility in this place matters. The honourable member for Charlton has always held the respect of most members on this side of the House because he is recognised as having credibility. He has shot that to pieces, irrecoverably in my judgment, if in no one else's, forever today. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(4.19) —The details that I have given in the few opportunities that I have taken during the adjournment debate in order to detail some of those matters are well documented. If the honourable member who spoke just prior to this contribution of mine wishes to review the Hansard and advise me of any mistakes of fact in any of the matters that I have raised, I will be prepared to acknowledge them. He is one of the few remarkable people in this Parliament prepared to defend-even at the extent of damaging his own youthful credibility-the abuses and misuses of power which are proceeding and which have persisted for years. Mr McGauran —You are all hot air. What are they? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I have detailed them. The honourable member asks me what they are. The honourable member should read the Hansard. I will now proceed with item 26, so he should listen and contain himself. He may be interested in what I have to say. I want to draw attention to some of the more spectacular environmental issues in which Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen has been involved. Firstly, he supported sandmining in the Cooloola dunes north of Noosa. He lost this argument in the 1970s and almost lost the leadership of the Government because of it. The Cooloola beaches issue was followed by Joh's plan to allow the mining of Fraser Island. The Fraser Government-a conservative coalition government-thwarted his plan by refusing to grant export licences for the sand-mining minerals. Fraser Island is recognised as unique. This was another major environmental issue of the 1970s. Sir Joh's support in 1986 for the revocation of the national park's reservation on Lindeman Island was neutralised when the developer-East-West Airlines Ltd-withdrew its application in the face of public opposition. His support for mining exploration in the Great Barrier Reef was defeated by public pressure which saw the Federal Government assume control of the reef waters for the marine park. Unfortunately, the Queensland Government was able to retain control of the reef islands. The Queensland Government forced a road through the Daintree forest in far north Queensland. It supported and funded the local Douglas Shire Council to bulldoze the road and rejected efforts by the Hawke Government to provide alternatives. The road is largely impassable and is now eroding into the waters of the barrier reef islands. Sir Joh also allowed the heavy logging of the Mount Windsor plateau rainforest near Cairns and the Downey Creek rainforest near Innisfail. In early 1987 the Queensland Government demanded that a Japanese company be allowed to mine the Shelburne Bay sand-hills near the tip of Cape York Peninsula for silica. The dunes are one of the natural wonders of Australia. It is estimated that only 13 jobs would be provided and that the mining would earn only $50,000 a year in royalties for the Queensland Government. In early 1987 the Queensland Government proposed to sell some of the barrier reef resort islands to private developers. The Hawke Government declared that it would do all in its powers to protect the islands and the reef. Despite the outburst of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), it is fortunate that we have, at the Commonwealth level at present the Hawke Government, which is prepared to stand up when it is necessary and to prevent the destruction of some of these great and magnificent beaches, parts of Australia's natural scenery and environment. If the honourable member for Gippsland wants to defend the abuses and misuses of power which have taken place in Queensland, let him now repeat what he said and again place it on the record. I was very interested to hear what he had to say. He is one of the new and younger members of the National Party of Australia for whom we held out much hope. His outburst today, his pouring of vitriol on me, occurred when I was simply detailing substantiated and well documented events of the Queensland political scene at present and it reflects very little credit on him. We are disappointed in him. Madam SPEAKER —There is a rule about calling honourable members. Although an Opposition member has risen to speak, if an honourable member has not spoken in the debate, I have to call him. I call the honourable member for McMillan. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(4.23) —I enter the closing stages of this debate on a Friday afternoon to make some comments in relation to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) in particular and the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). It has been quite obvious from Press coverage over the last few weeks that the honourable member for Gippsland has found himself in an invidious position with the National Party of Australia. He has gone out on a limb and supported the present temporary Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). It is quite obvious that the honourable member has received a few phone calls from his area in Gippsland and that he is now trying desperately, in the late hours of the adjournment debate on a Friday, to put in a few words on behalf of Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson in order to try to get back on side. I will just give the House and the public some idea of how far the honourable member is prepared to go in order to do this. Last night he appeared on local television-Channel 8 in Gippsland. He stood in all his splendour being interviewed by the local interviewer and he declared that he will vote against his own Party to block the legislation on the aggregation of television that is before the Parliament. He will vote against his own Party. He knows that on Channel 8 in Traralgon, back in his own little area, he has told the world that he will vote against his own party on this legislation, knowing full well that the dogs are barking in the National Party of Australia, that the new leader that he is not supporting is pulling the strings from Queensland and has said that the legislation will go through. So the mighty honourable member for Gippsland can bravely go on television back in my part of the world, in his own electorate, stand up before the people of his electorate and say: `I will vote against this legislation'. But, then again, he will be resting his case on the fact that when it gets to the Senate the new leader, who is speaking for the National Party of Australia from outside, and the group of faceless men of the white shoe brigade have made their decision in relation to this issue. So the honourable member for Gippsland has got himself into a very nasty corner. He backed the wrong horse, and that horse ran right off the rails. We have had the invidious position in this House for the past two days of having an official Opposition which has not even had an official spokesperson on primary industry. Mr Beale —Wal Fife. Mr CUNNINGHAM —He has been announced this afternoon. It has taken the Opposition a long time to decide who is representing it on primary industry. There was a question that had to be asked in this Parliament today-a question of crucial importance to the wheat industry, to primary industry in Australia. It was a question about four million tonnes of wheat being sold to Russia by the United States of America. We sat here and thought that we would give the Opposition an opportunity. We are still waiting to see which members of the Opposition will go on the delegation to the United States. They are squabbling over that as well, but I am sure that they will eventually straighten out who is going to go. We thought that there may have been a question, but then we realised that we have had two days without an Opposition spokesperson on primary industry. The Opposition is so divided and in such a mess that an issue as crucial as this did not even rate a mention in the thinking of members opposite. In Question Time today they were asking about some poor unfortunate lady who has been fined by the Commissioner of Taxation, and trying to raise issues concerning the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Important issues have been ignored. The Opposition was not even in control to the point where it had a spokesperson on primary industry. How are the honourable member for Gippsland, the right honourable member for New England and members of the Liberal Party going to go out into their constituencies and say that they think that primary industry is important, when for the past two days the Opposition parties have not been able to raise a spokesperson between them? Now where are we? I am told that the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) is now the Opposition spokesperson on primary industry. Strangely, it looks like the right honourable member for New England may yet have to sit on the seat. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(4.27) —Madam Speaker-- Mr Beale —On a point of order, Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member for Deakin that the Chair is constrained in that it has to call from the Opposition and then from the Government. Each side can have two calls, but not three. If someone has not had a go, that member gets the call. Mr Beale —Even though it is the same side of the House? Madam SPEAKER —Even though it is the same side. It is not a new rule; it is a rule that has been in operation for some time. Mr Beale —Madam Speaker, I point out that the honourable member for Gippsland is available. It is not true that everybody has gone home. The honourable member for Gippsland is available to speak. Madam SPEAKER —I have called the honourable member for Griffith. The Chair is also constrained by the Standing Orders. Mr HUMPHREYS —Thank you, Madam Speaker. Honourable members opposite are trying to hinder me putting in my penneth worth in this interesting debate. I want to say just how divided the Liberals and the Nationals still are. It is worth while stating, for the benefit of members still present this evening and the people of Australia, that the Whips are still operating together and we still have a speakers list. It is good to see the Opposition Whip over there. I point out that the National Party of Australia is still running the Opposition, even though the National Party is a minority party and it is not supposed to be any part of Her Majesty's Opposition any more. We have only to look at the vote taken in the Senate on the regional television legislation, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, where they did not support the people they purport to represent. So the National Party is still running the show in the Senate. Also they did not call for a division on the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill, as was the case here. So Joh will be happy to know why the National Party senators did not force-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, 4 May. House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Braithwaite to move- (1) That this House condemns the Government for its laissez-faire attitude to industrial disputation in Australia's export industries, particularly in relation to the appalling industrial record of Australia's coal mining unions and (2) calls on the Government to adopt the Federal National Party's policy of introducing essential services legislation to protect Australia's vital export industries from industrial relations blackmail. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 1 May 1987: Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statute-No. 61-Courses and Awards Amendment 1987. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 27 April 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4818) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 October 1986: (1) On what original data does his Department base its figures for (a) passenger traffic, (b) point of origin of passengers and (c) end to end passenger journeys. (2) Does his Department co-operate with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in the collection and collation of this material; if so, in what ways. (3) Does his Department use figures provided by the ABS or does it use its own. (4) Is data from the ABS or his Department indicative of the actual point of origin, or does it represent only the final stage of international flights; if not, why not. (5) If the figures which his Department uses are not representative of end to end traffic, does he or his Department use any other criteria in establishing whether new international services, to be conducted by either existing or new or proposed operators, should be pursued, refused, or agreed to; if so, what are they. (6) Has he any proposals for the operation of either scheduled or charter, international passenger or freight services; if so, upon what criteria will he base his consideration of these proposals. (7) Since April 1986 has he refused any application for permission to any existing or proposed charter or scheduled international passenger or freight service; if so, why, and did he base any of his conclusions on the traffic flow figures provided by his Department or the ABS. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Data supplied by international airlines to the Department of Aviation, and data collected by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from information provided on incoming and outgoing passenger cards and compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics; (b) The ABS; (c) The Department of Aviation and the ABS. (2) The Department of Aviation has no involvement in the collection and collation of statistics compiled by the ABS. (3) Both. (4) Data supplied by the ABS include point of origin of air passenger journeys; data are also compiled from uplifts (and discharges) supplied by the airlines, consistent with the Department's other scheduled passenger collections, detailing, by direction, the initial point of uplift (and final destination) of the revenue traffic by flight number. (5) Figures used by my Department do indicate end to end traffic. (6) Proposals for both scheduled and charter international passenger and freight services are continually being received and evaluated by the Department of Aviation. Applications for charter flights generally are processed quickly and there are never large numbers of outstanding requests at any one time. Proposals for additional scheduled services by overseas airlines which already fly to Australia come before the Government from time to time and are negotiated with the authorities of the countries concerned in accordance with our bilateral air service arrangements. Such proposals for increases in scheduled capacity, and requests for the introduction of new scheduled services, are examined on the basis of end-to-end traffic. Charter applications are considered on their individual merits. Inbound tourism to Australia is of special interest and tourist charters which are compatible with the Government's objective of promoting the development and maintenance of scheduled services can expect favourable consideration. Sympathetic consideration may also be given to programs of charters designed to test and develop routes on which end-to-end traffic levels are not sufficient to support scheduled services. Proposed flights may not be of a nature and of such regularity as to assume the characteristics of scheduled services. (7) Since April 1986 requests have been received from a number of Governments for the introduction of direct scheduled services. Requests from Poland, the Republic of Korea, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Mauritius and the Seychelles for direct air services have been declined on the grounds that there is insufficient end-to-end traffic travelling between the countries concerned and Australia to support commercially viable scheduled services. Conclusions were based on ABS statistics. The Governments of Sri Lanka, Mauritius and the Seychelles were advised that programs of charters would be approved in the interests of developing traffic levels. The Seychelles have taken up this offer and are operating charter flights. Air Mauritius also operated a number of charter flights over the Christmas/New Year period. Since April 1986, of the 55 applications for various types of charters, including programs, that have been received, only one has been refused. An application to operate a series of charters between the USA and Australia was not agreed on the grounds that the proposal entailed de facto scheduled services. Rejection was not based on traffic flow figures. Two other charter applications during this period were approved for carriage of passengers but not cargo, since cargo space was available on the scheduled carriers at that time. One of these charters was by MAS from Adelaide to Penang in August 1986 and the other was a Singapore Airlines inclusive tour charter program in January/February 1987 between Darwin and Singapore. (Question No. 5081) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Does the Australia Council annual report for 1985-86 show at page 115 that the Council's Visual Arts Board made a grant of $10,000 to the Movement Against Uranium Mining for public sculpture by Anthony Pryor for the Doncaster and Templestowe Civic Centre and Arts Complex. (2) Does the annual report show at page 122 that the Council made a Council Program grant of $14,000 to the Doncaster Templestowe Movement Against Uranium Mining for the commissioning of a peace sculpture. (3) Are the two grantees one and the same organisation. (4) Is the public sculpture by Anthony Pryor referred to at page 115 the same peace sculpture referred to at page 122; if so, why was financial support for this project divided into 2 grants from different areas of the Australia Council. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, they are the same sculpture. The Visual Arts Board of the Australia Council approved a grant of $10,000 in October 1985 to the Movement Against Uranium Mining for a public sculpture for the Doncaster and Templestowe Civic Centre and Arts Complex. This amount was approved from Council's appropriation. When the Visual Arts Board assessed the application it considered the project to be very worthwhile but its Public Art Program only provided for a maximum of $10,000 for this type of project. Subject to eligibility criteria applicants are eligible to apply to the Council under any number of programs of assistance relevant to their artform. In 1986 the Council received a special allocation of $210,000 from the Department of Foreign Affairs for grants for arts activities to mark the International Year of Peace. This was a one-off program of assistance and funding for the sculpture by the Visual Arts Board did not invalidate the group's eligibility for seeking additional funds from this source. When the Australia Council assessed the group's application under the International Year of Peace program it sought the advice of the Visual Arts Board. The Council was therefore aware of the initial grant provided by the Visual Arts Board. On the basis of a favourable recommendation the Council decided on 12 March 1986, to provide a further grant of $14,000 under the International Year of Peace grants category. Both the Visual Arts Board and the Council were advised of the significance of the project by letters of support from local organisations. The Doncaster and Templestowe Council contributed an estimated $10,000 in kind including the site for the sculpture, installation and unveiling costs. (Question No. 5177) Mr Hunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 March 1987: What is the total annual revenue received by the Government following its imposition of a 10% sales tax on ice-cream in September 1985. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Amounts of sales tax revenue derived from particular commodities are not recorded separately. However it has been estimated that collections of sales tax on ice-cream in 1985-86 were of the order of $25m-$30m. (Question No. 5024) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What word processing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so, what have been the costs of the additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. (6) What has been the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) in the Minister's Department since 1982. (7) How many lost working days have been caused by RSI related illnesses since 1982. (8) How many persons have been forced to retire from the Minister's Department or statutory authorities responsible to the Minister as a result of RSI and what have been the compensation costs of this early retirement. (9) Has introduction of the equipment (a) saved money and (b) improved efficiency in the Minister's Department or the statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (9) The details sought by the honourable member would require a substantial commitment of resources to collect and collate the information needed to fully answer the question. I am not prepared to authorise the use of resources to provide the detailed information sought. (Question No. 5079) Mr Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Is the Minister able to say whether the Australian Union of Students held a National Student Convention at the University of New South Wales between 16 December and 19 December 1984. (2) Is the Minister able to say whether the Convention passed a resolution to the effect that in the event that no national student organisation was formed within 2 years, the assets of the Australian Union of Students would be returned to the campus constituent organisations. (3) Is the Minister able to say whether the Australian Union of Students still exists as a legal entity. (4) Is the Minister able to say whether the Australian Union of Students had any assets as at 19 December 1984; if so, to what approximate value. (5) Is the Minister able to say whether the Australian Union of Students currently has any assets; if so, to what approximate value. (6) Is the Minister able to give the location of the records and files of the Australian Union of Students. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) to (6) The information requested is not gathered by my portfolio. I am therefore unable to advise the honourable member on this matter. (Question No. 5121) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: (1) How many students at post secondary and tertiary institutions will be required to pay the $250 charge in the 1987 academic year. (2) How many exemptions have been given to students and what categories of students have received exemption from the charge. (3) What is the estimated total cost of educating a student for 1 year at tertiary level. (4) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to concerns amongst external students that they are required to pay the same administrative charge for studying 1 subject during the year as fulltime students are required to pay for a fulltime course. (5) Will the Minister give special consideration to the inequity of this situation as external students can make only limited use of university facilities and are already required to pay special fees for postage and other administrative costs due to their geographical location. (6) Will the Minister review the scheme, with the objective of giving partial exemption to the charge to external students, based on the number of subjects being undertaken. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Latest advice from institutions indicates that 388,352 students will be required to pay the charge. An estimated 110,300 students in receipt of an allowance under AUSTUDY, Postgraduate Awards and Abstudy schemes will receive a supplementary payment of $250 to cover the cost of the charge. A further estimated 13,600 overseas students will have had their Overseas Student Charge reduced by $250 on account of the administration charge. (2) Exemptions are now estimated by institutions at 15,268 comprising 7798 pensioner/beneficiaries; 3151 scholarship students; 2690 students attending other institutions; 1629 full fee-paying overseas students. (3) The estimated average cost per equivalent full-time student for higher education is $9,500 per annum; this figure includes a component for the investment in buildings and equipment at universities and CAEs. (4) Yes. The charge is an administrative one and is not related to the costs of teaching a particular course. Every student enrolment whether full-time, part-time or external generates administrative costs and it is therefore considered appropriate that a single level of administration charge be imposed for all enrolments. (5) and (6) The Government recognises the important role of external studies in providing opportunities for many students who would not otherwise be able to participate in higher education. A monitoring committee has been established to oversight the impact of the charge on the various categories of students. The committee is expected to report shortly. (Question No. 5126) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 23 February 1987: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to claims by the Queensland Minister for Education that Queensland is still being disadvantaged in the number of tertiary places in that State. (2) What change has taken place in the tertiary places available to Queensland since 1977. (3) What action has been taken by the Government to rectify any anomaly in the number of tertiary places in Queensland. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) In the period 1977-83 the number of higher education places in Queensland increased by 5,795 places. For the period 1983-86 the increase was 6,201 places to 43,111. (3) Since coming to office, the Hawke Government has taken steps to increase access to and participation in higher education in all States, but particularly in those States such as Queensland where participation rates have been relatively low for some time. For example, the number of Queensland higher education places is expected to grow by around 22% between 1983 and 1987, compared with the average national growth of 14%. Amongst the measures taken were those which allowed additional places in engineering and science courses to be provided at Queensland Institute of Technology, Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, Queensland Agricultural College and Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education. Other measures allowed for increased opportunities to be made available in business and computing courses at these Colleges and at Brisbane College of Advanced Education. Additionally, provision was made for the University of Queensland to increase its intake into engineering and for a significantly increased intake into a range of courses offered by Griffith University. Funds were also provided to assist in planning a new tertiary institution on the Gold Coast. In October 1986 Senator Ryan and the Queensland Minister for Education, Mr Lin Powell, announced that a joint Commonwealth/State working party had recommended that university or advanced education courses be made available in TAFE colleges in regional centres in Queensland where no other tertiary institutions exist. The working party gave highest priority to the areas of Cairns and Mackay, but anticipated that in future years higher education programs might also be made available through TAFE Colleges in places such as Bundaberg, Gympie, Maryborough, Mount Isa, Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast. TAFE colleges in Cairns and Mackay are taking higher education students from either James Cook University or Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education for the first time this year. These students will then transfer to the main campus of the relevant higher education institution to complete the second and subsequent years of their awards. The initiatives recommended by the working party, and indeed all the measures outlined above, are consistent with or indicative of the Commonwealth Government's policy of seeking to broaden access to tertiary education while at the same time making the most efficient use of available resources and facilities. (Question No. 5172) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a joint publication, issued in 1981, by the FAO, WHO, and the International Atomic Energy Agency entitled Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food. (2) Was Australia represented on the expert committee which drew up this document; if so, by whom. (3) Has the document been accepted by FAO; if so, when, and was Australia represented at the FAO meeting when it was accepted. (4) If it has been accepted by FAO, was the Minister's Department asked to comment on it before it was accepted; if so, when. (5) Is the Minister able to say whether any further documents have been issued by the joint expert committee; if so, (a) when, (b) what are they and (c) what action has been taken on them. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food which convened in Geneva during 27 October to 3 November 1980 comprised experts who were selected by FAO/IAEA/WHO because of their specialised knowledge and experience in the field of food irradiation. They serve in a personal capacity, rather than as representatives of governments or other bodies. The publication indicates that an Australian, Professor M. J. Rand, University of Melbourne, attended and chaired the meeting. (3) and (4) Page 1 of the publication states that the `report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the World Health Organisation'. (5) I am advised that my Department is not aware of any further documents issued by the Expert Committee. As outlined in the introduction to the publication, related meetings sponsored by FAO/IAEA/WHO were held in 1961, 1964, 1969 and 1976. (Question No. 5272) Mr Hodgman asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 April 1987: (1) Has Government funding been made available to a group known as People For Equality Not Institutionalisation (PENI). (2) Is he able to say whether Government funding to PENI has been channelled through the Victorian Government. (3) Does he know whether a person with the surname of Hogg has allegedly been active in obtaining funds and equipment for the group. (4) Has his attention been drawn to claims made by Martin Stewart and Rene Kalwet that they know him personally. (5) Is he able to say whether persons connected with the group are claiming credit for the illegal tapping of a certain private telephone conversation. (6) Does he approve of action of this kind. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) No Commonwealth Government funds have been made available to the group known as People For Equality Not Institutionalisation. (3) No. (4) I am not acquainted with either person. (5) I am only aware of what has been claimed in recent media reports. (6) If the honourable member is referring to illegal tapping of telephone conversations, I do not in any way approve of such action.