Thursday, 7 May 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on the following days and at the times specified: Monday, 11 May, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, 12 May, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, 13 May, at 10 a.m. Thursday, 14 May, at 10 a.m. This motion reflects the great demands I have had from honourable members on both sides of the House to sit more hours and more days. The Government is making another week available-next week-which was not originally scheduled to be a sitting week so that we can deal with all our business and give honourable members plenty of opportunity to debate the major issues that come before the Parliament. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.02) —The Opposition welcomes the opportunity to sit for more days. This is the second occasion on which the number of sitting weeks has been extended, as the Leader of the House (Mr Young) says, to help us out. We are always glad to be helped out by the Leader of the House when he sincerely intends that we have a better opportunity to discuss things. But we must understand that the reason why this motion has been brought forward is that the Government's legislative program has gone off the rails. The Leader of the House wrote to me recently; I was glad to get from him information concerning the likely future program of the House. In the next two sitting weeks, the week 11 May to 14 May and the sitting week following that, we will have some very important legislation for debate. We will have the resumption of debate on the imputation package and debate on the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill, as well as, of course, the May statement. In the draft program that the Leader of the House has been kind enough to send to me, perhaps six May statement Bills are referred to. The Government, which has had to come along to the House after being told by the Opposition for months that it should have a mini-Budget, finally conceding that the Opposition was right and proposing a mini-Budget, now says in its draft program that to implement its mini-Budget perhaps six Bills-maybe not; perhaps three, four, five, six, seven or eight Bills, who knows-may be necessary. Is it not a striking illustration of the confusion this Government finds itself in in regard to its fiscal policy when it does not know how many Bills it will have to introduce in a couple of weeks time for the purpose of giving effect to its May statement? It still has not made up its mind. That does not surprise anybody here, because we look across the table and we see the faces of the Ministers who sit on the Expenditure Review Committee. A more gaunt and haggard collection of faces outside of the cemetery would be hard to find. It is rather like Madame Tussaud's famous London waxworks come to life, but instead of the Ministers themselves being here they have put their waxworks effigies here. We understand the reasons why. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has been fighting to maintain his Budget. We know that, because every day another leak comes out of the Government about what is taking place with the Government's expenditure cutting exercises. Other Ministers, such as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), are fighting to defend their territory. They are all fighting; but we know certain things. First, we know that the Government's Budget strategy has collapsed, and that is the reason why the May economic statement will be presented. That is bound up in the reasons why we need the extra sitting weeks. We know, secondly, that Ministers are desperately striving to defend their own programs. Thirdly, we know that it is as plain as it could be that the Government will have to make massive cuts to try to keep its Budget under control. That tells us very simply that the whole Budget strategy which was worked out and proclaimed with such confidence in August last year has collapsed. We know as well, with it, the view that the Government has had of the way in which the Australian economy was going has also collapsed. We remember not so long ago the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) coming into this House and telling us that everything was in order. That everything was on track, that the Budget strategy was on track. We know what that track was-we were on course towards a very large rock, and we hit that rock. We will now sit for extra weeks; we are glad to sit those extra weeks and we will be particularly glad to have the opportunity to debate the May Statement in detail. However, we will be sitting those extra weeks largely because the Government's whole Budget strategy has failed. In responding to this motion, I shall refer to one or two other matters. The Leader of the House, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), in sending the draft forward program to me-and as I say, I am very glad to have that-- Mr Young —I was hoping you would keep it confidential. Mr SPENDER —Well, Mick, had you said that on the letter I would not have referred to it. Is that serious? If in future-- Mr Young —No, it is not confidential. Mr SPENDER —Just so that we have that quite clear. There was one paragraph, in a short letter, which I read with a certain amount of interest. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs said: The Senate has adopted a motion by Senator Macklin to defer until the Budget sittings debate on any Bill reaching the Senate after 1 June. This obviously affects the Government's legislative program and may necessitate limited debate on some items coming before the House. Without any personal reflection on the Minister at all, I say that that statement is absolute nonsense. It does not effect the legislative program because it has been laid down for some time. This is not the first time that the Senate has adopted that course. It has adopted that course on other occasions, and the Government has had a very considerable amount of notice of it. One would hope that the Government could organise its affairs to deal with these sorts of matters. After all, it has had, I suppose, more than a year's notice of this. With a year's notice a government should be able to organise its legislative program. If the Government cannot so organise its legislative program, it is not the fault of those on this side of the House. It is the fault of the Government, and in large measure it is the Government's fault because, when one gets down to the question of the Bills that will be required to implement the May statement, apparently, it still does not know what its legislation program is. Lastly, I should like to refer to the difficult issue of Question Time. I am glad that you are in the Chair, Madam Speaker, because, as you know, the Opposition has expressed concern at the way in which the Government drags out Question Time-that is, the questions themselves. On this matter I refer to the figures published in the third report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure. It is pointed out that in 1981 the average time for answering a question was 2.8 minutes. In 1985 that had increased to 4.1 minutes. In 1981 the average number of questions answered was 16.2; in 1986 the average number of questions answered was 12. So we have an increase in the time required or used to answer questions from 2.8 minutes to 4.1 minutes and a decrease in the number of questions from 16.2 to 12. At the same time we have had an increase in the numbers in this House from 125 to 148. That means that back benchers from both sides, particularly from the Opposition, who wish to ask questions have a very tough time getting any questions up at all. We understand that management of Question Time is no easy event, but it is perfectly plain to us that the Government deliberately spins out Question Time in that the answers are filibusters. Questions are asked for the purpose of getting information and, as we all know, scoring points. Nobody would say that Ministers simply have to get up and say yes or no to a question that can be answered yes or no and then sit down, but we do say that the Government can do a great deal more for this House and for the people of Australia who listen in to Question Time if the questions are answered more shortly. We could get more questions up, and that is the purpose of Question Time. The Minister is far too experienced, I should have thought, to say that what takes place at Question Time from the Government side has not been given some thought. The thought behind it is to go on and drown out the Opposition by making it difficult for the Opposition to get up the kinds of questions that we should be able to get up. Mr McGauran —Unethical behaviour. Mr SPENDER —No, I do not say that. I think the Minister is making some efforts, and I hope his efforts are successful in getting the Government to answer more questions. In this House, if we are to make it a real debating chamber-we all know how limited that opportunity is-let us have a real Question Time with Ministers answering directly the questions that are put to them. I think we would find that questions become shorter, the answers become shorter and the number of questions dealt with would, of course, increase very greatly, and that will put just a little bit of relevance, a little bit of point, back into the affairs of this House. We all know that, by and large, what takes place in this House is not what it should be. It is not a debate over public issues of the kind that I think most of us would like to have; it is a debate upon party lines. Debates on party lines impose great restrictions on what can be said; hence the need to bring back some life and some meaning into Question Time. We support the motion. I simply add that we see no reason to change the sitting hours. With proper organisation of Government Business the sitting hours can remain as they are. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.13) —I wish to make a brief inquiry of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) in relation to this motion and make one other point, because I realise that the House is anxious to proceed with its business. It is important that in this motion, in effect, the Minister has reconfirmed the Monday to Thursday sitting pattern for the third week, which means that, in each of the three-week groupings of sittings which we have on this occasion and the one coming up late in May, in two of the three weeks we will be sitting from Monday to Thursday and in the first week we sit from Tuesday to Friday. That is getting closer to the concept put forward by the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure that the House should proceed on a stabilised sitting schedule basis-that is, Mondays to Thursdays and never on Fridays-as a permanent pattern of sitting so that members can plan ahead for the Budget session and beyond. We are asked by organisations and Ministers particularly to allocate dates even early next year, especially with the bicentennial year coming up, to do something. We cannot safely do so because we never know on which Mondays or Fridays the House may be sitting in, for example, the first half of our bicentennial year. I made a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, as did other members. Its report was debated on the floor of this House. It came down very strongly in favour of the stabilised sitting schedule pattern of Mondays to Thursdays-never on Fridays. I understand that the Leader of the House is investigating the matter and finalising a Government response to the Procedure Committee's report. I wonder whether he would be good enough to tell the House what stage he has reached and whether he has finalised that Government response to the suggestion of the stabilised sitting schedule pattern. I say with some disappointment that already the projected sitting pattern for the Budget session is out which, once again, destroys the concept of the stabilised sitting schedule pattern. Perhaps the Leader of the House could enlighten us today in relation to that. I am pleased to note that the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, is in the House at this time. Once again he is certainly looking unhappy, following the collapse of that factional deal in Queensland. Finally, what this motion does is create four extra days of sitting for the House of Representatives. That is most welcome, as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has pointed out. I will not canvass again the reasons that the honourable member for North Sydney advanced, but certainly members of the National Party of Australia welcome every opportunity to debate the economic agony of rural Australia and the economic agony of this nation, with its huge gross national debt, and to debate in detail the mini-Budget coming down at 7.30 on Wednesday night, 13 May. It is time that a whole lot more reality was injected into the proceedings of the House. It is time that we took the opportunity to look in detail at some of the crazy things which are happening at this time. For example, some well paid Australian Broadcasting Corporation drongos are dishing out this Dingo Principle nonsense to the disadvantage of our great export industries. Who do they think pays them their money to go ahead with their work on the Dingo Principle program? It is the Australian taxpayer. Also, just briefly, Madam Speaker, who generates that tax revenue? To a large extent it is our export industries. Yet the ABC is cheerfully knocking off one country after another in its program. I do not for one moment advocate censorship. Mr Cohen —You are advocating censorship. Mr TIM FISCHER —I stand by what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said on this matter, and I would be very surprised if my good friend the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is at the table, would go against the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself said that it is time the ABC had some sensitivity on this matter. It has no right to track progressively through our export trading partners and destroy export markets for Australian export industries, particularly primary industries. Madam SPEAKER —I am hesitant to interrupt the honourable member for Farrer, but I suggest that he is straying well away from the matter before the Chair. Mr TIM FISCHER —Madam Speaker, I am always guided by your ruling. I was mentioning this matter in the context of the need for greater debate on these sorts of matters and on the economic agony gripping so much of Australia. It is for those reasons that I support the motion before the Chair. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.17) —in reply-I woke up feeling very well this morning. I was in a good mood and I had a lovely cup of tea just before the House began sitting. I have had to come in and withstand this vicious attack from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Now I am upset. The honourable member for North Sydney said that this motion comes about as a result of confusion in the government ranks. I would have thought that at the moment the experts on confusion sit on the Opposition benches. One of the Bills set down for debate today is the Wool Marketing Bill. The Liberal Party of Australia, I understand, will support the Bill- or it was supporting it on Tuesday when it met in its Party room. The Nationals, the hill tribes, will now move an amendment to take out the equal opportunity provisions, and now we do not know how the Liberal party will vote. Mr Slipper —We are going to have a division on it, too. Mr YOUNG —We will have a division, and it will be interesting to see how the Opposition spokesman on women's affairs, the honourable member for North Sydney, votes this afternoon and to see whether there is any confusion in the Liberal Party. I should also remind the honourable member that he said we had a year's notice on the likelihood of the resolution of the Senate that it would not deal with matters introduced after 1 June. Notice of that motion was given by Senator Macklin on 28 April 1987. Mr Spender —It happened last year, didn't it? Mr YOUNG —It did happen last year. But I tell the honourable member that it was moved and carried on 29 April, which is just a bit over a week ago. The honourable member should have been aware of what I said last year about his Party room tolerating Liberal Party senators telling the House of Representatives how it should be conducting its business. The Senate is there to deal with legislation that is passed by the House of Representatives; that is its role. It should not dictate to the House of Representatives when, where and how to deal with legislation. The Senate is imposing upon the House of Represenatatives a restriction on debating time. The reason I wrote the honourable member that letter was to make it perfectly clear to all members of the Opposition that they do not have unlimited time to debate major issues because their colleagues have restricted their time. All of the legislation the Government wants passed this session will have to be dealt with by 1 June. If necessary, the Government will move to restrict the debating time irrespective of the importance it places on those pieces of legislation. This will come about as a result of Liberal and National Party senators telling the House of Representatives that they will not deal with any legislation introduced after 1 June. So the Opposition has no one else to blame but itself. The reason I did not expect the motion to be carried in the Senate this year is that I thought the Liberal and National parties would have had sufficient sense to tell their senators that they want time to debate these matters in the House of Representatives and they do not want their debating time restricted. Instead, there is such confusion and such incompetence on the other side of the House that honourable members opposite allow a motion of this nature to be carried thus restricting their debating time. In a fortnight's time when I move the guillotine honourable members opposite will complain: `The Leader of the House has done it again. We do not have enough time to debate all of these issues. We want to stay here longer'. They are like a bunch of kids at a kindergarten. They do this to themselves; it is like slashing one's wrists and blaming somebody else for it. Unless honourable members opposite can straighten out what happens in the other chamber in relation to the way it deals with pieces of legislation-- Mr Cadman —Where is your legislation? Mr YOUNG —The legislation will all be here. There will be time for it to go through the Party room of honourable members opposite and they will have time to look at it. We will not introduce legislation as it is done in the Queensland Parliament-introduce 11 Bills in the morning and pass all of them that day. Legislation is not referred to the Party rooms or committees there; members are not given an opportunity to prepare their replies to it. How would honourable members opposite like 11 Bills to be introduced in the morning and all of them passed in the same afternoon? That is what happens in the Queensland Parliament when it makes laws. Honourable members opposite will be given every opportunity to debate the legislation. The proper processes will be followed. The only restriction has been placed on the Parliament by the Liberal and National parties in the Senate-the B grade-saying that they will not deal with new legislation after 1 June. The honourable member for North Sydney raised some other matters, one of which was about Question Time. I am aware of the Procedure Committee report. Next Tuesday there will be discussion in our Party room about it but most of the matters will be left to open debate in the Parliament. The Government will be quite happy to adopt many of the recommendations of the Committee if the Parliament is happy to adopt them. Some other recommendations will not be adopted. The honourable member talked about permanent sittings Monday to Thursday. He has to take into account that Cabinet must meet. Legislation has to go through Cabinet and legislative committees and at the moment it is a much better procedure for Cabinet to meet on Mondays because it sets in train all of the other things that have to be done for the Parliament. I agree with the Opposition that Friday sittings are not of much benefit to us; there is not very much time to deal with government business. We are virtually meeting for Question Time and the matter of public importance. If one is not careful at the side door at about 4.30 p.m. one gets run over as honourable members show their eagerness to stay in Canberra for the weekend! I draw to the attention of honourable members opposite and the Manager of Opposition Business, who knows this to be fact, that I have told the Committee that the Government will attempt to see that at least seven questions are asked by the Opposition each day. However, that cannot be done if honourable members opposite keep taking points of order. Honourable members should look at Hansard of 22 March, which is just one Hansard which has been handed to me by the Whip, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys); that is about all he has done all year. I congratulate his wife on turning 50. She has done a good job looking after him. On pages 772 and 773 of Hansard of 22 March, the honourable member for North Sydney, who complains about Question Time, took seven points of order. He cannot expect to have 20 Ministers-the most competent bunch of Ministers this Parliament has ever seen-who give up three-quarters of an hour of their time to answer questions, here to listen to the honourable member for North Sydney take points of order. We do have more important things to do. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) can go to the art gallery or something, rather than sit here and listen to that sort of thing. So if the honourable member stops taking points of order, more questions will be answered. Even though on some occasions some Ministers may give answers that are a bit lengthy, we will adhere to the minimum number. But that system-- Mr Spender —That is a guarantee for today, is it? Mr YOUNG —If the honourable member guarantees that he will sit down from 2 o'clock to a quarter to three-I know he cannot speak for the hill tribes because the National Party is running its own race now-- Mr Spender —You tell me: No points of order from me and you will guarantee seven questions? Mr YOUNG —I would like to answer the seven myself, but we will answer the seven questions, if he stays in his seat and members of cockies corner remain quiet. Mr Tim Fischer —No. Mr YOUNG —They should concentrate on the Wool Marketing Bill, today because we are all interested-- Mr Tim Fischer —We are looking forward to it. Mr YOUNG —Yes. When those bells ring we will all come in. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) will think that Jeff Fenech had hit him when he comes through the door. Anyhow, we are doing our best. There is a list of Bills. Because of the resolution passed by the Senate to not deal with matters after 1 June, all the matters that I have indicated to the honourable member for North Sydney shall be passed prior to 1 June. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 6 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.27) —Prior to the adjournment last night, I referred to a speech that was made by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) when she opened a Catholic school in the south. She said: `When we in the Hawke Labor Government talk of education in Australia, we talk of a partnership'. She went on to explain this by saying it was a partnership between the Commonwealth Government, State governments, non-government and State school authorities, between parents and teachers, and between schools and the communities they serve. She said further that that partnership is the way that the Hawke Labor Government does business and that we as a government are a very active partner in education activity in this nation. Regardless of people's political attitudes, they would accept that Labor governments have always had a special commitment to education, for we in the Australian Labor Party realise that education is essential to national development and economic growth. That is because the skills, the capabilities, the flexibility and the experience of the nation's work force depends on the quality of the education and the training that that work force receives. It is no wonder that education is an essential element in the Hawke Labor Government's strategy for economic development and social progress. In turn, it is an essential element of this Government's education strategy to raise standards and expand the opportunities for young people. The Hawke Government, unlike our opponents in the Liberal and National Parties, has established very basic but important objectives in education-objectives that in the short and long terms are in the interests of every Australian. The first objective is to increase participation in post-compulsory schooling; in other words, to get young people to stay on at school after they are no longer legally required to do so. When we came to government in 1983 the retention rate-that is, the number of students who continue their education after that compulsory cut-off age-was a very low 36 per cent. So out of every 100 students in Queensland, for instance, who were finishing school at 15 years of age, or could finish then, only 36 were staying on to go into grade 11 and grade 12. In Japan at that time the figure was about 70 per cent, and in America it was about the same sort of figure. The Hawke Government immediately acted on this issue and introduced programs such as the participation and equity program, known as PEP. It has been extremely successful, regardless of the criticism from the other side. It is successful in a way that we can measure. We have seen that that figure of 36 per cent-36 out of every 100 students-has now risen to over 50 per cent. In my State of Queensland the figure is as high as 55 per cent. The Government does not believe that is acceptable. Even though we have improved so well, we want a better result than that. We have now set a target of 65 per cent retention by the early 1990s. This is going to benefit tens of thousands of young Australians. It will benefit not only those who have benefited already but those others who stay on at school will benefit greatly. We have spent tens of millions of dollars on PEP. We have given greater financial assistance to students, particularly at the secondary level, under Austudy. I pulled out some figures the other day and found that the Hawke Government has spent in this financial year some 200 per cent more on financial assistance to secondary school students than was spent in 1982-83 under the Fraser Liberal-National Government. PEP has meant longer schooling, improved skills and better preparation for the work force. I think it has also meant better preparation for citizenship. It is therefore amazing that the Liberals and Nationals intend to scrap the participation and equity program if they ever gain government again. They have no concern for students, they have no concern for the future of these young people, they are oblivious to the negative aspects of low retention rates and they have no real commitment to education for those who need to be involved in broader non-academic activities. It will be up to the electorate to decide who is right in this issue. I believe that people will stick by us. The parents of the thousands of young people who have stayed on at school instead of going on the dole will stand by the Labor Government for its attitude. They will oppose the Liberals and the Nationals for what they are about. It seems that some very negative vibes, all aimed at education, are coming through from the other side, particularly in the market-place and from business, the Liberals, the Nationals and the National Farmers Federation. We find in today's Australian newspaper the headline: `Business backs $12bn welfare, education cuts'. That is, cuts of $12,000m. It is an amazing idea to suggest that education should be cut back to the tune, in one instance, of some $2,500m. Business wants a cut of $1,000m in respect of independent schools. This is the amount that will be taken away from the schools that we are already helping. Can one imagine the plight of the Catholic schools in particular, the schools in the areas in which disadvantaged children live, if this happens? Yet business people are saying in their special program-what they call the national priorities project-that they want to cut $1,000m off the assistance given by the Federal Government to schools. I would like to think that all Catholic parents would speak out and say what they really think about these propositions which are coming from the business world, the National Farmers Federation and the Liberals and Nationals. We know that some of these business people would spend more money on one restaurant dinner and a bottle of wine than most of the low income families, and especially pensioners, spend on food in a whole week. Yet, they have the audacity to propose a $1,000m cutback in the funding to disadvantaged schools alone. They are also suggesting a 50 per cent cut to universities. We heard the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) say yesterday that he is concerned about the lack of university places in Queensland. Yet, business people, whom the Liberals and Nationals stand by, are saying that they want to cut back university and colleges of advanced education contributions from the Federal Government by $1,192m. I ask the honourable member what that will do to Queensland, what will that do to his area and my area if that happens? It will slash the places that already exist. We have been trying hard since the Fraser Government times to build up those places. We see that the business people want to cut student assistance by $308m. Student assistance only goes to those families who need it. It is not given to the rich. It is given to those who, based on a means test, deserve or need that money. These business people, backed by the National Farmers Federation, the Liberals and the Nationals, want to cut assistance to students-including secondary school kids as well-by $308m. It is no wonder that Government members are concerned with the threat to education that are coming from the business areas, from our opponents in the Liberal and National parties and from the National Farmers Federation. They oppose the participation and equity program. They want to abolish the Australian Schools Commission. They want to abolish or get rid of any equal opportunity moves for girls and women. They want to abolish the Commonwealth Education Department. They support the National Farmers Federation scheme to introduce a $5,000 university fee. Can honourable members imagine for just one moment what that will mean? As it is, we have students growling about a miserable $250 fee, or $5 a week, that this Government has put on. But the Liberals and Nationals and their own supporters in the National Farmers Federation and in business are saying that students at university level should pay a fee of $100 a week or $5,000 a year. Yet we here nothing from the Liberals or the Nationals opposing these proposals. We even have some opposition coming from Queensland. I mentioned before the problems that independent schools face. We now have a State government decision in Queensland that will also threaten the assistance given by this Government to private schools. I note that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) points out in a release that she put out: that the Minister for Education, Lin Powell, intends to withdraw the services of the State Advisory Committee from the process of establishing priorities for Commonwealth funding of new non-government schools. That will mean the end of that funding. It will just delay it and put it back into some sort of pigeon hole; it means that the funds will not be forthcoming. The Federal Government and Labor members of parliament will not get hurt; the independent schools, the Catholic schools and those schools that have been waiting on these programs to extend their schools and to build new schools in populated areas will not get the money. Why? It is not because the money is not available but because a National Party Minister, a man whom I respect but a man who has been wrongly advised, has decided not to participate with the Commonwealth in setting down or being part of this priorities committee. It is time that the people of Australia realised that there is an attack on education in this country. There is an attack on our universities, there is an attack on our disadvantaged schools, and there is an attack on our independent schools. Every sort of move is coming from the Liberal Opposition to destroy education in this nation. I am pleased that the Labor Government is standing by its commitment to the people of Australia for the education of Australians. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.38) —I would just like to correct a few statements which have been made by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and which the Australian people would have heard over the radio. It was interesting to hear him expressing the point of view that some people on our side of the Parliament might spend more money on one night's entertainment than people would spend in a week-- Mr Wright —On food. Mr MILES —Yes, on food. Yet only last week the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was at a dinner in Melbourne that cost $460 a double. Mr Slipper —How much? Mr MILES —It cost $460 a double. Mr Wright —He is not introducing cuts in education. Mr Cadman —He is in welfare. Mr MILES —Yes, the honourable member was talking about welfare, and that is the type of hypocrisy we have in this Government at this stage. He then went on to say that the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have a policy that would impose a fee of $100 per week on university students. That is absolute nonsense. It is incorrect and it is an untruth. The Liberal and National parties have no policy as such and it is just rumour-mongering by the Labor Government. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill authorise retrospective payments to the States and the Northern Territory for cost increases. The Opposition does not oppose these Bills as such. However, we strongly oppose clause 8 (4) in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill which prescribes certain projects that will not be funded. However, these Bills represent, in a very important sense, the general thrust of government policy and its approach to educational needs at the tertiary, secondary and primary levels. The approach by this Government to education has been, first and foremost, to make it an instrument whereby socialist goals can be promoted. It is for that reason that the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) said so well yesterday that there is an unprecedented crisis in Australian education. Parents are concerned about the future of their young people and the type of education which they are receiving. The interference and the regulation that this Government imposes on education in Australia is to be rejected. Secondly, this Government has financially leg-roped present tertiary institutions and poured cold water on the establishment of any private university. Thirdly, it has continually dismissed and now rejects any notion that belief in God is a fundamental premise of education for many Australian families. I will return to that proposition towards the end of my speech. I now return to the first proposition, namely that the Government uses the education system to achieve its own socialist goals. The Australian Labor Party 1986 platform states that the Labor Party will maintain the education system `that facilitates the achievement of Labor's objectives'. The honourable member for Capricornia said that that is exactly what the Government is about; so the Government admits that it has objectives that it wants to achieve through the education system of this nation. Let us look at just one of those objectives which states: . . . that the structural and institutional dimensions of education provisions should promote political development necessary to produce an equal society. What are the mechanisms that the Government has or is attempting to put in place to create this flat earth society, a society where everyone is levelled down to the breadline? For certain in the last few days it has been brought home to this Parliament and the Australian people that a great increase in poverty has occurred under this Government. That is the consequence of the levelling down approaches of this Government to create, as it says, an equal society. It is an equal society of poverty where people are on the breadline. In the first instance the Labor Government views society as having a class war. There are government schools and there are other schools. Do honourable members remember the 41 schools with some of the best records of educational success that had funding cut and that that number has increased to 90? In the last financial year the Government denied funding to over 30 new schools. I am not saying this because I come from a private school background. All my education was in government schools and the overwhelming majority of my teaching time was spent teaching in government schools, not only in Tasmania but also under the New South Wales system and in the Australian Capital Territory. Instead of this Government encouraging successful schools in educating our children it has slashed and cut their resources. I will give one example of the types of schools which this Government would like to restrict. It is interesting to note the following results from year 10 students in a private school under a State examination moderation system: In this school the only equipment students had for science was the jam tins that the students brought in. They were the beakers that were used as their science equipment. It is not a well endowed school. The average income of the parents who send their children there is below $20,000 a year. That is below the Australian average. Let us look at the results. At the top level of English, the State average of students in that category was 33 per cent. In this school, which was totally underresourced as a private school, in its first year of year 10 graduates the average was 46 per cent. In its second year, 61 per cent of its students graduated at a level 3 standard when the State average was 33 per cent. In mathematics, the State average was 31 per cent. But in 1985 this school's average was 46 per cent and in 1986 it was 39 per cent. In science, the State average was 33 per cent. The 1985 result for the non-government school was 58 per cent. That was when students used jam tins for beakers because they had no other equipment. Last year the result was 67 per cent, which was double the average achievement of the State. Yet this Government is willing to slash funds from those types of schools-those which are successful. Rather than do that, it would be better if the Government promoted the successful schools. The old socialist syndrome is envy. If someone is successful, innovative, creative or achieving, then the Government cuts that person off at the ankles. It will not let that person get away with it because if it did it would create an unequal society. That is the Government's philosophy. But the Government was not satisfied with just cutting off resources to non-government schools; it then began to pursue all schools. The bureaucratic dampener of the paper war began and schools have been increasingly required to fill out forms. Both government and non-government schools are required to provide comprehensive information in all relevant areas, including sources of income, both public and private, purposes of expenditure, enrolment exclusion policies, details of ownership, policy-making structures and employment policies. I will return to employment policies when we come to the Committee stage later. All these areas represent a totally unnecessary bureaucratic and intrusive approach to an area of education which is the province of State education departments or the responsibility of the boards of management of private schools. Once the information is collected from the non-government schools it is published annually in order to satisfy public interest. Of course the parents who are associated with those schools know what is going on, so it is absolute nonsense for that information to be published. A particular nonsense is the fact that the Government wants an accountability record of money from private sources. The fundamental reason for this standover approach is to develop a dossier on each school so that the Government can mount an argument against the efficient and successful schools in order to deny them taxpayers' funds. This Government has a blinkered, tunnel- vision approach to education and by its discriminatory policies it denies its own platform. Not only does it reject its own platform-for example, tertiary fees-but it also rejects the right of parents to choose. In areas such as the environment and civil and political liberties, the Hawke Government has made much of giving practical expression to international agreements. However, this expression has been highly selective and very ideologically based. When it suits the Government to use international agreements it does so; when it does not, it ignores them. For example, principle 7 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child states: The best interest of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents. Yet even in government schools the Government keeps parents at arm's length. In the Australian Capital Territory, where the Government has direct control of schooling, parents would like both to have greater involvement in government schools and to set up more non-government schools. But because involvement of parents would run counter to the Government's desire to control, monitor and manipulate, it has kept parental participation in government school boards to a minimum and has discouraged attempts to expand non-government schools-even though 50 per cent of parents who now send their children to government schools in the Australian Capital Territory would prefer to send them to non-government schools. The Government is blinded by its assumptions that a class war exists in society and that the state is the only trustworthy authority in education. The Liberal Party of Australia entirely rejects this eighteenth century view of society and the ill-conceived methods adopted by the Government to create a flat earth society. The Liberal Party believes that there is a need for both government managed and parent managed schools in Australia. We believe that parents should be given greater control of the education of their children, and when we are returned to government we will facilitate moves that will give more parents a direct say in the teachers appointed, the curricula used and the values of their schools. Freedom of choice and reduced red tape for parents involved in their child's education will be the hallmark of a Liberal approach to education. The contrast with the control mentality, dossier collecting and the bureaucratic approach of this Government will be marked. The social engineering approach will be out, and parental access and involvement will be in. Secondly, the Government has financially leg-roped present tertiary institutions and has poured cold water on the establishment of a private university. The Government maintains that if it cannot provide the funds to expand places at tertiary institutions, then neither can anyone else provide the money. Why should the universities and colleges not be free to raise extra money? Why should private companies not be encouraged to donate some of their money to improve educational opportunities for our young? Why should a young person who cannot obtain a government funded position not be able to pay his own way if he has met entrance requirements? Why should that not occur? There is no logical answer to that question. The Government, though, does not want to lose control. The only answer to these three questions is that the Government does not want to lose the control that it now has. It recognises that if funds begin to flow from private sources there might be changes that it does not like. The Liberal Party of Australia rejects this regulatory approach and believes that all resources that are possibly available for expansion of places in tertiary institutions should be tapped. This would markedly improve the changes of the 30,000 qualified students who are presently locked out of higher education. The Government allows fee paying overseas students to attend but denies access to our own students. This discriminatory position must end. Not only will the Liberal Party free up access to tertiary institutions but it will restore autonomy thus returning to them much greater freedom to chart their own destinies without the conformist constraints currently imposed on them by the Government. Excellence of achievement will be promoted together with the encouragement of non-government sources of revenue. Along with strong support for present institutions, the Liberal Party will welcome the establishment of new private institutions and an expansion of the existing institutions. The Government has failed to keep pace with the demand and only with the return of a Liberal Government will this situation be rectified. I now turn my attention to the second Bill, the State Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill. I shall make only a few brief points, as I know that time is limited. We have here an attack on the fundamental right, the fundamental belief that many parents in the Australian community hold that a belief in a religion is fundamental to the education of their children. In this Bill an attack is made on funding. A provision in proposed new section 25b refers to the provision of `. . . facilities for use, wholly or partly, for or in relation to religious worship'. That is a very narrow view. It is considered that, in relation to the education of our children in the religious schools in the non-government sector, there is a church down at one end of the playground and that is where the students go to receive their religious education. However, it is not like that any more. In many non-government schools students are taught in an atmosphere in every classroom where there is a belief that there is a God and that they believe fundamentally they are accountable to that divine being. That influences the whole educational atmosphere in the classroom. With this measure the Government is reducing funds to the private schools. Hundreds and hundreds of parents are knocking on the doors of the Roman Catholic schools, the Presbyterian schools, Uniting Church schools, the parent controlled schools-- Mr Slipper —Anglican schools. Mr MILES —Anglican schools, a whole range of schools in this nation. Because children are not being taught values in our government schools parents are concerned. That is the only reason why parents want their children to go to those non-government schools. They do not go there because they are cheaper, as they are not. However, those parents are prepared financially to forgo many other benefits that could be provided to their family in order to send their children to a private school. This is because many of those schools believe firmly that there is a God, that there is a religious basis to life, and they want the children to be taught that ideal. But this Government is taking the first step to deny that fact. Of course, that adds up to the Government's idea that education is secular, that it is nothing to do with one's beliefs. That is fundamentally the problem with education throughout Australia. That is the reason for the low standard of achievement in many of our government schools. I plead with the Government to look very seriously at this aspect of the legislation, because what we do want in this nation are better attitudes and a better standard of values amongst future generations. That is where we must focus our attention. There is so much emphasis placed on knowledge and on obtaining skills, but fundamental to education are the values that are taught to our young people. The Government is set on a course of destroying the values that are being taught in the non-government schools. One might say that that is a long way off, but it is not. It is the first step in the direction of this Government's cutting off the fundamentals to many of our private schools in Australia. I ask that the Government address itself to this situation. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.56) —I was surprised at the remarks made by the previous Opposition speaker. His remarks were really quite hysterical rubbish and nonsensical. The Federal Government cannot give money for establishing any religion. Obviously the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) has not heard of the Commonwealth Constitution, which in section 116 specifically prohibits the Commonwealth from making any law for the: . . . establishing of any religion or imposing any religious observance or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for office or public trust. Our Constitution prohibits grants for a religious purpose. The oath of office that the honourable member took is set forth in the Schedule to the Constitution. Unlike the United States Constitution, the Commonwealth of Australia has always supported religions and we do not have total separation of church and State. The Catholic hospitals and other church hospitals, for example, have always been supported in Australia, and religious schools have received enormous amounts of funding, as they receive today. The actual legislation, to which the honourable member hardly referred, extends the amount of subsidy to the non-government schools, which in this country make up a significant proportion of schools; about 27 per cent of pupils attending school in Australia attend non-government schools. Even in the United Kingdom, where there is no separation of church and state, private schools make up only some 7 per cent of schools. I noted that in an article in the Economist dated 2 May 1987. The points that the honourable member rather feebly made to try to bolster his very uninspiring speech were wrong. He talked about 30 schools not being registered. The registration of schools has nothing to do with the Commonwealth Government. In this Parliament we have no power to register schools in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania or anywhere else. Schools are registered and are supervised for their standards of education by the State governments. That is the responsibility of State governments. I take great exception to the inference of the honourable member for Braddon that state schools are somehow inferior. The state schools educate three-quarters of the children in this country. Any of us who do our job properly visit state schools and see what excellent work they do. The teachers take all comers; there are no selection tests; they are responsible for teaching all the children who are isolated in country areas; they take them all in; and they teach the pupils tossed out of non-government schools because they are unruly. Honourable members who visit state schools will note the uses to which state schools are put. I am astounded at what the teachers and the principals put up with in my electorate. The weekend use of schools is considerable, with every classroom and playground being used for community activities, ethnic language work, and sporting pursuits. State school administrators have to put up with a difficult situation. It does not help their cause to have a member here inferring that there is something wrong with the state schools. I pay a tribute to the people who serve on parents and citizens associations and who do what they can for the state schools. This is coming from a party which is talking about cutting $16 billion off the estimates; it is proposing cutting expenditure in all directions but it wants an open-ended arrangement for new non-government schools to start whenever they like no matter what waste and unnecessary duplication of facilities may occur. Last year an application was made to establish a new school at Homebush in my electorate of Lowe. It was to be a Moslem school, but the application was refused. I talked to the people in the Department of Education. They are not amateurs; they are very dedicated professional officers. They said that they had no guarantee that this proposed non-government school could give young Australian children an adequate education. My friend the honourable member for Braddon was talking about how well a school could operate with jam tins, of all things. What sort of standards does a school have if it is teaching children science by using jam tins as beakers? He said that this is a good thing. He may think that. We have to consider the children, not the people who want to start the school. Someone may want a private school of some sort, a money making school or a community school. The Department is dealing with big amounts of money in funding schools. Some of the schools in my electorate receive Commonwealth funding in excess of $1m. Many of the schools receive between $500,000 and $1m in federal funding. Every secondary pupil attracts funding of $1,300 a year. For a school with 1,000 pupils that is a lot of money. Yet my friend on the Opposition side talked about having no accountability. He says that the Commonwealth has no right even to ask a school to fill out forms. That is outrageous. All the time the Opposition is talking about our giving small amounts of money to community groups, perhaps to create employment. Yet here today we are told that if one is running a non-government school one should have a blank cheque, that no one should ask one to account for anything, that one should be able to start a school anywhere. If one is not happy with the local Catholic school or a state school one should start a school and get automatic funding. I say that that could well be wasteful; it is an irresponsible policy, and I am surprised that the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, or whatever they are, should come forward and put such a proposition to this House and be so foolish as to allege the Government is being anti-religion. I know of no other nation that gives so much support to religious schools. In my electorate more than half the schools are non-government, and they receive very substantial funding. If they were not receiving the great amounts of funding they would not exist. I know the parents, and they could not afford to send their children to religious schools otherwise. Yet today we are told the Government is hurting them. That is the reversal of the truth. I had best get on to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987, having given a few answers to my friend the honourable member for Braddon. The legislation is of great importance. It is amending the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act. The idea is to allow block grants to be made to the different systems. About 90 per cent of the non-government schools in Australia are Catholic systemic schools. They will be given block grants on the basis that they want them and that they will be able to operate in a more efficient manner. The Minister, Senator Ryan, has assured me personally that the old Catholic parish inner-city schools will not be neglected and that the whole scheme of funding will be monitored so that at least 50 per cent of the money given in block grants will go to refurbishing schools that are run down in areas where playgrounds are too small, classrooms are old and there are few facilities. For the benefit of Opposition members I might add that when I took out statistics on government block grants given to the electorate of Lowe over the past 10 or 12 years I found that in an inner city area of Sydney practically no capital grants of any significance were given, except during the Whitlam period. It is appalling. To the credit of this Government, it has allocated large sums of money to refurbish schools in the inner city areas of Sydney, Melbourne and the other capitals and in the older provincial areas. In my electorate two schools have been given very substantial grants. One is St Dominic's School, Flemington, and the other Domremy College at Five Dock, at which about 80 per cent of the girls speak Italian, Greek or Lebanese at home. That school has a building grant of more than $600,000 to allow girls to complete their education by going on to years 11 and 12. That is what the Government has been trying to do. When it came to office in 1983 only 36 per cent of Australian children went into year 12. That figure has been pushed up to nearly 50 per cent so that nearly half of young Australian people at least finish school. If they do that they will have more opportunity to finds jobs and more chances of changing jobs and retraining in later life. That is one of the greatest achievements of this Government. We should have been ashamed when the Liberal and National parties were in government that so few of our youth were completing their education. The legislation being dealt with today will allow the funding of block grants to the government and non-government sectors. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) representing the Minister for Education, in his second reading speech, pointed out that the Government has increased Austudy by $10 a week above the old secondary allowances scheme to encourage young people who are over 16 years of age to stay at school. The States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1987 gives grants to government and non-government schools for the participation and equity program. There is a commitment of $45m for this scheme. The Governments's philosophy and policy have been ones of social justice. I notice that time is getting on and that I cannot develop what I was going to say. I point out that in some of the schools in my electorate teachers have told me that many young people finish school unable to read to their chronological age level. This is where the Government is giving funding to ensure that young Australians-perhaps not the brighter ones-in state schools, Catholic schools and others have the ability to come out of school reading to their age level. The last thing that I wanted to do today on education is to congratulate the Christian Brothers in my electorate who will be celebrating this weekend the centenary of their work in New South Wales. They run two high schools in Lowe and a college of advanced education. They are tremendous men whose order was founded in 1802 by Brother Edmund Ignatius Rice, an Irish merchant in Waterford. They run a teachers college in my electorate-the Sydney Catholic College of Education-and they run excellent high schools, such as St Patrick's College at Strathfield which the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is at the table, attended. There is also a Christian Brothers high school at Burwood. This weekend their contribution to education in New South Wales will be acknowledged. I pay tribute to what they have done in the tradition of their great founder to educate young Australians and young boys all over the world in Christian principles. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(11.08) —In today's debate about the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987 I wish to refer to aspects of technical and further education policy and the allocation of Federal funds to TAFE providers at the State level in their endeavours to provide trained people for Australia's future. On Tuesday in this House the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) acknowledged that the administration of Austudy grants was a disaster. In answer to my question about the delay of Austudy grants to students he conceded that there was a major problem and that considerable hardship is suffered by a number of students not only in Victoria but also throughout Australia. Both the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, and the Prime Minister will be aware that a great number of students have been waiting since 14 January to receive notification that their Austudy grants will be forthcoming, let alone be paid in cash. There is an expectation by these students that the Government will honour its commitment to assist with their Austudy programs. However, in the meantime they are having great difficulty making ends meet. I call upon the Government to overcome its computer foul-up and expedite payment to these students whose studies and standard of living have been jeopardised by the Government's incompetence. Will the Government also ensure that there is a reasonable response to both the students and members of parliament when queries are forwarded to the Department of Education about Austudy student applications? At the moment a blank wall of silence or unanswered telephone calls are the only responses to those students who have not received their Austudy grants. The electorate of Corangamite and the city of Geelong are very well served by two excellent educational institutions. On the one hand there is Deakin University, which has developed an international reputation for its distance education programs involving Victorians and Australians in every part of the country in participating in degree courses using modern techniques of communication while retaining traditional academic standards of excellence. Deakin, being one of the newer universities in Australia, has made splendid progress at a time when funds were a limiting factor. As the local member, I look forward to further close co-operation with the University and its endeavours to serve a wider community. In Geelong we have the Gordon College of Technical and Further Education, better known by the locals as the `Gordon'. It has developed a splendid reputation over 100 years in providing technical training of the highest order. In the early part of the century, the Gordon developed specialty programs that enjoyed a Victoria-wide reputation and built up objectives of skills-based training that were the envy of many other similar providers. I pay tribute to the recently retired Principal, Mr Ray Davey, who has made a major contribution to the Gordon and to TAFE in Australia, notwithstanding the continued interference by government and politicians. I pay tribute also to Mr Geoff Betts, a former chairman of the Gordon council, who embodied the principle of industry-college co-operation which ensured that student training was always based on the realities of the work place. I now wish to move to the problem area of TAFE funding and TAFE programs throughout Australia. Having had a close involvement with TAFE in Victoria, I have some understanding of the complexity of funding arrangements and the development of the range of programs. Unfortunately, there is a misconception in the community as to the role of TAFE and its importance in providing a trained work force for the new technical and space age facing the Australian work force. TAFE programs have emerged from the fundamental concept developed in 1974 by the Kangan Committee on Technical and Further Education in Australia which set out to provide a broad diversity, in national and local communities, both in vocational and recreational training areas. By way of definition, there are six streams in TAFE offerings which help professionals in the area to distinguish the types of courses offered and the training requirements. Stream one is professional; stream two is para-professional; stream three is trade, which is associated with apprenticeship training, which the population at large can understand; stream four, is other skilled; stream five is preparatory; and stream six is adult education. Streams one to four are courses leading to a vocational educational program. It is important for members of this House to distinguish the significance of vocational training in that this form of TAFE training provides a skills-based program which helps the participant to develop a particular trade or professional skill to meet industry demands and hopefully make him or her a more qualified person to undertake a skilled job in the work force. Streams five and six are related to the adult education area where persons with a wide range of diverse backgrounds and skills undertake further education and training to enhance their skills, personal development, and job opportunities. Whilst these definitions appear to be complicated and confuse those outside the TAFE arena, most of the TAFE effort throughout Australia is concentrated in the vocational area, some 76 per cent in 1984. It is this vocational area of training that distinguishes TAFE programs from those courses at universities and colleges of advanced education. All too often administrators and the public alike become confused with the educational jargon and lack the understanding that vocational training is a skills-based concept that leads to particular job opportunities. Other advanced nations in the Western world have placed great emphasis on skills training and Australia has been left behind in the provision of these facilities, curriculae and a philosophy and outlook that enhance the status of skilled people in our community. I certainly support the view that highly skilled technicians-whether they be plumbers, carpenters, bricklayers, computer programmers, dress designers or fitters and turners-are the foundation of Australia's future prosperity. Australia depends upon this section of the work force to build up and convert the new technology that is being developed in this twentieth century space age. Often governments have confused academic education in universities and colleges of advanced education as being a substitute for skills-based training associated with industry, commerce, mining, and transport, where the application of skills will help to maintain Australia's standard of living and be the foundation for any improvements in our standard of living over the next 20 years. At a time when government and community groups are requesting a greater allocation of resources to training, the figures do not support a major move in the direction of TAFE. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, in its review of TAFE funding in May 1986, found that TAFE funding in the past decade had been characterised by: Firstly, a sustained increase in funds but at a declining rate in recent years; secondly, an evolution of State and Commonwealth partnership in the provision of TAFE programs; and, thirdly, an increased use of TAFE providers to find funds from a fee for service basis. That report noted the change in State and Federal expenditure on TAFE from 1973-74-when $532m was spent-to $1,066m which was spent in 1983-84, incorporating recurrent capital and equipment allocation budgets. Whilst these figures show an encouraging trend, the priorities of education funding could be questioned across the three sectors. I turn to the allocation by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, which has a total budget figure of $1,084 billion for the 1986-87 year. For this year $231m has been allocated for training; for job creation and employment assistance, $355m; and $136m has been allocated to community-based training and Aboriginal training programs. The magnitude of these figures indicates the administrative difficulties facing governments to make the distinction between training programs in their own right and TAFE programs presented by TAFE colleges and TAFE providers. The $355m allocated for job creation and community employment programs has been largely a waste of Commonwealth resources. There is some dent in the employment statistics for those persons employed on these short term programs at a massive cost, with little long term benefit. I am advocating a reassessment of job creation programs and recommend that such programs be disbanded and that the allocations be directed towards training opportunities for young people and retraining for other members of the work force. I now turn to the Priority One traineeship scheme. As honourable members would be aware, the Government, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in particular, with great fanfare announced that the Government's goal was 10,000 traineeships in 1985-86 and, would you believe, 75,000 by 1988-89. Whilst it is hard to get exact figures, it would appear that the actual outcome in 1985-86 was 1,000 traineeships, of which the majority were in the public sector. As with all these types of schemes, it is difficult to encourage employers to provide both training and award wages within their company structure, having in mind the bottom line, the profit in the operation. These figures demonstrate quite clearly the importance of a flexible labor market and the necessity of introducing a trainee wage so that employers are able to cope with on the job training and the maintenance of a profitable business operation. Only yesterday Professor Porter was advocating a freeing up of the wages structure especially in the area of a training wage so that young people could be looked after. Any employer can make the ready observation that the employment of young people without the necessary skills is a problem to their business in terms of labour, efficiency and productivity. For the trainee programs to be effective, wages paid during the training process need to allow for the training component that is taking place during the first few months and years of employment. It is ridiculous to suggest that a skilled tradesman of four years training and some years in an industry is not worth a great deal more than a young untrained apprentice on the job. Professor Porter made this point quite forcibly at a meeting in the Parliamentary Library on Tuesday and in his book Spending and Taxing-Australian Reform Options, released yesterday, he makes these comments about labour market programs: The Kirby Report is as much about wages as it is about training. Its recommendations point to a considerable `freeing-up' in terms of the wages payable to young people. Thus, in both cases of the traineeships and apprenticeships, the Committee alludes to appropriately negotiated wages. This is not a bad thing. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to expect employed and to-be-employed young people to bear some (small) burden of moves to improve their employment prospects. The alternative is an acceptance of the growing gap between the employed and the unemployed. As events have panned out, this freeing up process has not eventuated and the future success of the Australian traineeship scheme, especially the kind of universal scheme envisaged by Kirby, is seriously open to doubt. This recommendation makes clear the reality of the market-place in trying to improve modern training in an inflexible, tightly regulated, award negotiated labour market where wages and conditions are considered to be more important than the training programs to be undertaken. The Liberal Party of Australia advocates a more flexible industrial relations system between the employer and the employee so that young people undertaking TAFE training are better able to negotiate a wage and salary set of conditions closer that which the market will bear during that crucial time in their life when they are learning certain skills and developing aptitudes and attitudes that will remain with them for a lifetime. The provision of TAFE programs will require imagination, foresight and a closer co-operation amongst TAFE colleges and providers, students, employers and, lastly, governments. If this occurs, Australia's work force will get the necessary skills to launch Australia into the twenty-first century. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(11.23) —When my colleague the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), the Shadow Minister for Education, opened the Liberal Party's participation in this debate, he drew the attention of the House to the fact that education is high on the agenda for all in our community-parents, students, young people, teachers and the community generally. He pointed out that people are looking critically at the schools, teachers, subjects, policies and the overall philosophies responsible for preparing young people for their future lives. People are also looking at the role of government in regard to education, because today they are confronted with an education system in Australia which is, as the honourable member for Tangney pointed out, in an unprecedented crisis. In this debate it is desirable that we look back to the origins of the Australian education system. The general structure of the education system in this country was established in the nineteenth century in response to the political and religious tension of the times and the changing circumstances in the then colonies. From the beginning, education was conceived as being essentially a service to be provided by the governing authority for communities lacking the concern, physical resources and specialised knowledge to organise their own schools. However, in adopting this role the state did not assume a monopoly on education. It allowed independent schools to continue subject only to their meeting certain standards and finding the money to finance their operations through fees, endowments and other fund raising efforts. We have come a long way since the nineteenth century. At the turn of the century, the colonies were federated into the Australian nation and under the Constitution then adopted the States were left with the responsibility of education. This meant that for many years distinctive education systems were developed in each of the States, but over more recent years there has been an increasing intervention by the Commonwealth Government and pressure for uniformity. But in spite of this, differences in organisation and operation still exist. But it has been through the power of the purse that this Parliament, and the governments formed within the Parliament, have exerted their influence. In this crisis that confronts education people are wanting a change. They are more literate, more concerned and more responsible about the education of their children, and they want greater freedom of choice. I believe that the majority of Australians want an Australia in which, subject to the national interest, governments cease to be owner-operators of anything that the private sector, or, as I would prefer to call it, the people sector, can effectively run-and the people sector can certainly run schools. I also believe that the majority of Australians want an Australia in which taxpayers can opt out of paying tax to the extent that they meet the cost of a standard government school place for their children, to the extent to which they provide themselves with the means of meeting the cost of basic medical and hospital care when they require it, or to the extent of providing themselves with a guaranteed stream of income in retirement equal to the current age pension. I believe that the majority of Australians want an Australia in which those with low incomes can, through cashable tax credits, be given the education, health insurance and retirement income opportunities available to taxpayers together with some degree of personal economic independence. In this debate, therefore, I might well ask: Can children be provided with compulsory education without governments running schools or as many schools as they now operate? If the goals of smaller government, lower taxes and the greater well-being of all Australians are to be achieved, we must develop the means by which this question can be answered in the affirmative. One of the first and most important steps that I see as necessary is the fundamental reform of the Australian taxation system-something that the present Government has failed to do. The way ahead is for the burden of tax to be cut, for tax to be imposed in a way which is fair and for Federal-State financial arrangements to be reformed so that the government which spends the money raises it. The present tax system is unfair to Australian families, particularly those families who have the responsibility of educating children. It destroys their incentive and distorts their economic and social behaviour. The recent tax legislation, introduced with such trumpeting by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), contained no proposals to remove the underlying unfairness in the present tax system as it impacts of families, as contrasted with those who have no people dependent upon them. Most Australians believe that the cost of government should be shared according to capacity to pay, but everyone knows that inadequate allowance is made for the effect on this capacity of maintaining dependent spouses, children or other dependants. Tax rebates and cash allowances available to those taxpayers who have dependants amount to substantially less than the pensions and allowances payable to dependants who are the responsibility of the public sector. Similarly, tax rebates and cash allowances, whether received directly or paid to the schools, currently available to taxpayers who send their children to independent schools equal on average about half the cost of a government school place. If we are to reduce the tax burden, it is government, not `people' expenditure which must be cut. Significant cuts will be achieved only if there is a substantial change not only in the amount spent on services, but in the government sector-`people' sector mix of this expenditure. A worthwhile reduction in the size of government, the extent of government expenditure and the burden of taxation will result only from a radical new approach to government sector involvement in areas such as education. People should be left, or provided, with sufficient resources to enable them to discharge the obligations which society properly compels them to undertake. One of those obligations is the responsibility of ensuring that one's children receive a basic education for a specified number of years. For a long time it has been public policy that school education should be compulsory and available free of charge. But governments have gone down the path of making education available rather than affordable. Governments have raised taxes when they should have cut them. They have run schools when they should have left it to the people sector to carry out this function. Governments must stop doing things which people can do as well or better. Governments should be more concerned with ensuring that parents have the funds to meet the cost of their children's education rather than with running schools. A large public sector involvement in the running of schools is not the only way in which free universal schooling can be provided. The operation of schools by governments is an option which is obviously more attractive to a socialist than to those who believe that greater benefits flow from the effective operation of personal responsibility and freedom of choice in the private or people sector. If governments are to run some schools, those schools should compete on the same terms and be treated in the same way as non-government schools. As parents have exercised the right to choose, the proportion of children in Australia being educated in government schools has been declining for a number of years. The extent of public sector involvement in schooling could be further reduced if the current price of the exercise of this choice were reduced. This could be done by ensuring that all parents have the means to pay for their children's education at a cost which is equal to the standard cost of educating a student in a government school. One means by which this could be achieved would be the use of refundable tax credits which are equal in value to the cost of a government school place. To the extent that such tax credits for school expenses reduce the burden of taxpayers, these credits should be regarded as an integral part of the underlying tax base-the benchmark or normal tax base. These credits should be designed in a manner which takes account of the effect on capacity to pay, not only the size of the taxpayer's income, but also other factors such as the cost of discharging the responsibility for providing for dependants. I say, by way of further interpolation, that the tax models that were given much publicity in today's paper failed very much in this regard. They seemed to indicate that except for some minor adjustments, the tax capacity was merely a function of income. That is not so. Taxable capacity is affected by other responsibilities that taxpayers so often undertake. If taxpayers did not undertake them, they would have to be met by public sector expenditure. Just as the value of the tax threshold, the spouse rebate and tax relief for the payment of union dues are not included in the measurement of public expenditure, so tax credits for the full cost of a standard state school place should be similarly treated. Reduced government spending makes tax cuts possible and the people sector payment for these services affordable. It is up to the people sector to determine whether the overall level of spending on education should be increased beyond a government-specified minimum. Let me hasten to add that in putting forward these suggestions as to the directions in which we should move in the reform of our education system I am in no way advocating a return to the law of the jungle and its heartless application of the principle of survival of the fittest. The Government must change its role in a way which shows it has a strong commitment to compassion. Every Australian must be guaranteed a socially acceptable standard of education. Indeed, every Australian must also be guaranteed an acceptable standard of health care, level of income maintenance and general standard of living. The principle of universal access to such a standard of education should be maintained, firstly, by giving taxpayers tax relief to the full extent of the standard cost of education and, secondly, by giving those whose tax liability would otherwise be less than the cost of education, the right to redeem the unutilised portion of the tax credit. How can society's objectives in education be better achieved? Few would dispute that our objective in relation to education should be to ensure that all children have, free of charge, a good standard of schooling for an agreed period. Currently, school education is free, but only if it is obtained at a government school. The taxes which meet the cost of running government schools are collected from all taxpayers, including those who send their children to independent schools. The many parents who make this choice not only pay a price in the form of school fees, but also, through their taxes, pay part of the cost of educating other people's children. Governments, in running schools, are engaging in activities which private citizens, community groups and religious organisations have shown they can do just as well. All parents should be provided with education tax credits set at the value of a state school place. Through the reduction of tax liability of taxpayers, and the redemption of tax credits by non-taxpayers in the payment of school fees, the universal availability of free education should be ensured. Tax credits for education expenses should be universal. These credits, by providing tax relief in place of government expenditure funded by increased taxation, would preserve the principle of universal availability of free education. There should be an application to the States of the principle that the Government that spends the money should raise it. The States could discharge their responsibility in education by recovering funds as a result of the enrolments that they receive in their schools, by virtue of the fact that parents could then be provided, through the tax changes I am advocating, with the resources to pay for the education they choose for their children. It is interesting to note that in many areas people are clamouring for a greater freedom of choice. It is distressing to parents to find that State governments very often zone schools and prevent children from attending good schools, rather than ask why it is that parents want to send their children to a particular school. The answer very often is to be found in an inefficient, badly organised neighbouring school. It is also interesting to find that, as a result of what might be described as democratisation within the schools, and greater parent involvement, there are parent councils which are seeking from State governments the right to have their schools made independent. Coming as I do from South Australia, where privatisation was criticised but where commercialisation is now accepted by the State Labor Government, it may be it is not appropriate to advocate privatisation of schools. What we should have is greater freedom of choice in schools. We should allow the people to run their own schools. If we do not want to talk about the objective of privatising the education system, let us talk about introducing greater freedom of choice and allow state schools to be established as privately operating independent schools with funding through the tax mechanisms that I just outlined. In this way, parents' aspirations for their children's education would be achieved. The standard of education would be improved as a result of schools being enrolment driven rather than maintained as monopolies established through zoning. Therefore, I think the proposals in some of this legislation are sadly moving education in a direction opposite to that which I am advocating-the direction in which Australians want the education system to be moved. Australians recognise that there should be compulsory education. Australians recognise that education should be free over a given number of years for their children. But they want the choice to send their children to a school of a standard that they would regard as acceptable. Therefore, what governments should do is get out of running schools. Let the community do what it can do best as has been shown by the way in which enrolments in independent schools has been rising significantly over recent years. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(11.43) —in reply-It is my pleasant task to respond to the debate on these measures and to congratulate those honourable members who contributed to the debate. This has obviously been a very wide ranging debate covering not only the funding of schools but also the funding of tertiary education. Of course, I do not intend to take the points that were made in the debate one by one. I just make the observation that some of the speeches may well have been made in the State parliaments rather than here. As far as the government school system is concerned, the Commonwealth has a minimal role in funding government schools and even less of a role in terms of influencing their direction or conduct. There has been a very substantial increase in the amount of total public funding going to the government school system over the last couple of decades. But, the schools remain very much in the hands of State governments in terms of their policy, their direction and their conduct. While State governments have given a greatly increased priority to the government school system-I think that would generally be considered to be a good thing-the Commonwealth has a very small role in influencing what happens in State government schools largely as a consequence of it being involved in a small way in the funding of government schools. Some people might regret the fact that we have such a small role in influencing what happens in state schools, but that remains the fact. So speeches and views expressed in this place about what should be happening in the government school system might well be better directed towards the State governments. I understand that it is the intention of the Opposition to move an amendment to the second reading of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987. This rather absurd motion asks the Government to withdraw and redraft the Bill to provide for certain measures. If the Opposition ever has the chance of introducing Bills as a government, I suppose that it can then introduce whatever Bill it likes. But the Government has given a lot of thought to this Bill and has no intention of withdrawing and redrafting it in a way that might suit the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that that would only delay the provision of funds to government and non-government schools. But, in any event, the amendment has been totally misconstrued. The Opposition is trying to maintain that the provisions of this Bill in some way massively constrain non-government schools throughout Australia. Of course, that is absurd. The Commonwealth is currently providing some $780m a year in recurrent funds to non-government schools and some $50m a year in capital for non-government schools. We do not try to use that very generous funding of non-government schools to influence what those non-government schools do. Quite properly, we have accountability provisions because when one is responsible for the expenditure of those massive amounts it is necessary to ensure that they are properly spent. But we do try not to use those funds to direct the course of non-government schools which continue to have a high degree of independence in terms of the content of their curriculum and their other internal policies. Whilst the amendment intends to make a cheap political point, it is totally misconstrued and the Government has no intention of accepting it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(11.48) —I wish to move an in-principle second reading amendment, which was circulated in this House as early as yesterday by the Clerks, to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for the removal of constraints imposed on non-government schools, or on non-government school communities, which will in any way destroy their independence and opportunities for expansion or interfere with the special character of non-government schools'. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) was able to comment on this in-principle amendment before I actually moved it, because it was circulated yesterday. In fact, it will come as no surprise to the Government, or indeed the House, because this is the fourth occasion that we have moved a similar amendment in these terms. The Minister at the table may describe the amendment as absurd, he may charge us with attempting to make a cheap political point and he may point to the fact that when in government we can legislate as we like. Certainly, when in government we can legislate as we like if we have the support both in this House and in the other place. But when in opposition one has only a few opportunities-- Mr Dawkins —I rise on a point of order. I do not want to constrain the honourable member for Tangney but the normal convention in relation to these cognate debates is that the debate ranges quite freely across the measures that are before the House and then there is the opportunity formally to move any amendments to the second reading. However, the debate on this matter has already taken place. The normal convention is that any second reading amendments are moved formally without there being a repetition of the debate that has already occurred under the cognate arrangements. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Tangney to draw his comments to a close. Mr SHACK —Mr Deputy Speaker, you did not rule on the point of order. I would like to say something about the convention. The Minister has not been in the House on previous occasions when we have debated this legislation because of his quite proper responsibilities overseas as Minister for Trade. But if he reads the Hansard he will see that last year and the year before, I had the opportunity to speak in the second reading stage of the debate and I foreshadowed that I would be moving an in-principle amendment like this, and I want to speak at this final second reading stage of the debate, but not for the full half hour. It is not my intention today to take up all that time; I simply seek to put this in-principle motion in context. It is important from the Opposition's perspective that we move this in-principle amendment because, as I was saying before the point of order was taken, we have limited opportunities to make particular points. The purpose of this in-principle amendment, while it is moved in the context of this legislation, really relates to the substantive Act itself. Over the years since this Government has been in power, it has amended the substantive Act to the point where there are now significant restraints on non-government schools and non-government schools communities which have impacted on their independence, which have restricted their opportunities for expansion, and which interfere with the special character of non-government schools. The importance of moving such an in-principle amendment is that it sets out, very clearly, the differences in attitude between ourselves and the Government in respect of non-government schools. I want briefly now to put that difference in attitude in context. There should be no debate in this chamber or in the other place about the importance of school education not only for the current generation of Australians in terms of their individual futures and in terms of the advancement of our society in the community, but also for Australia's economic future. So there is no debate between us about the importance of education at the school level, and there is probably no debate between us about the importance of education at higher levels. The majority of Australian school children are educated at government schools and probably for my lifetime and beyond, the majority of Australian school children will continue to be educated at government schools. The Minister was right when he said a few minutes ago that the responsibility for government school education constitutionally, legislatively and, in the main, financially, rests with State governments. Commonwealth governments have a fundamental responsibility. In partnership with the States they have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that, through the financial arrangements, Commonwealth to State, State governments have sufficient resources to run strong and viable State school systems. That is principle No. 1 that the Opposition brings to bear on this entire question. Commonwealth governments have a fundamental responsibility, in partnership with the States, to ensure that the States have sufficient resources to run strong and viable State school systems, because that is where the majority of our kids are educated and will be educated in the future. If we are concerned about Australia's future, we must be concerned about State school systems. But we also bring to bear another complementary principle on this whole question of school education. We believe in the fundamental right of parents to choose freely which school and which school system they send their children to. This second principle is alongside the first principle; it is not in conflict with it or in contradiction to it. This is where we begin to depart from the Government, because it has a range of views within its ranks. Some would hold the same view that we hold about the right of parents to choose freely which school and which school system they send their children to. But there are others who have an ideological hostility towards non-government schools, and it is in that vein that we seek to move this in-principle amendment. If we look at some of the changes to the substantive Act that have been brought to bear over recent years, we see that they reflect, in part, the ideological hostility that the Minister especially brings to bear on non-government schools. Increasingly, it is the case that children in Australia attending non-government schools are not receiving Commonwealth funding. At the last allocation another 40 schools which were registered by State authorities did not receive Commonwealth funding. It is the case that it is harder and harder to open new non-government schools. It is harder and harder to expand non-government schools and it is harder and harder, more difficult, more costly and more complex, under the accountability provisions, to run non-government schools. These accountability provisions are not in the name of audit; they are accountability provisions in the name of intrusive control. That is why I take these few minutes, time and again, and I will continue to take a few minutes every time this legislation comes before the House, as it does twice a year, to flesh out and spell out the differences in attitude that we have towards non-government schools. Not only are they important because of the right of parents to choose freely which school or which school system they send their children to, but also they are cheaper than government schools, and it would be an absurd proposition if anybody were to suggest that we should rule out in future years the expansion of non-government schools. As a recent study by the Centre of Policy Studies demonstrated-as if we needed it-it is cheaper from the taxpayers' point of view for Australian children to be educated at non-government schools-not that I diminish in any way our commitment to government schools. Recognising the Minister's own remarks that we can have little to do with the curricula of non-government schools and the way that they are run, their very existence provides a competitive comparison for government schools. In the absence of non-government schools we would be operating in an environment where there would be no external bench-mark by which one could assess the relative strengths, merits and weaknesses of both systems. Parents are making those sorts of assessments. Twenty-five per cent of Australian children are educated at non-government schools. Surveys suggest that more parents would send their children to non-government schools if they had the financial means to do so. So they are important for a whole range of reasons. Let me say this to those who occupy the extreme ideological position on the Government benches: It is a fundamental mistake if they assume that non-government school education is the province of the rich. It is simply not so. Thousands of Australian families are denying themselves a whole range of discretionary expenditure in order to be able to afford to send their children to the school or school system of their choice. Honourable members opposite are making a fundamental mistake if they believe, in some ideological way, that non-government education is the province of the rich, and, on those grounds alone, they should be criticised and attacked. I conclude my support for this in-principle amendment by saying that as long as the Government and especially the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) have this hostility towards non-government schools which is expressed in successive changes to the substantive Act, we will not tire in standing up in this place and elsewhere to move such an in-principle amendment to lay down our very clear commitment to both government and non-government education in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Carlton —I second the amendment. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(11.59) —As I said when I was taking a point of order, it is not normal to revisit these issues at this time in the debate and I will, therefore, keep my remarks very brief. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) is obviously very fond of hearing his own voice. He spoke for some 30 minutes on these measures yesterday and he has just treated us to another 10 minutes of a repetition of what he said on that occasion. It is very lazy of the Opposition to come forward with this kind of generalised amendment. If it had a real concern, and if it were able to establish any part of the assertion in this amendment, the proper course for it to take would be to move proper amendments to the body of the legislation. But, of course, those opposite do not want to do that because they know that the assertions made in this proposal are quite inaccurate and quite misleading. Therefore, rather than having the disciplined approach, the dinkum approach, of actually moving substantive amendments to clauses they might object to, they just make wild assertions about this Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, being in some way a constraint on the proper conduct of non-government schools. I do not need to repeat what I said before. The Government does not intrude into the independence of non-government schools through its very generous funding arrangements. The dilemma that confronts the honourable member for Tangney and, indeed, the entire Opposition is that the non-government school sector is entirely satisfied with the funding arrangements which have been agreed between the non-government school sector and this Government. For the first time the non-government schools are experiencing generosity-a generosity which, I might say, is expanding over the years-in terms of recurrent funding. They also have predictability in funding arrangements as a result of the agreements made a couple of years ago. The fact that non-government schools are very happy with the way this Government has entered into those funding arrangements means that there is really no debate outside this place about the issue. Therefore, the Opposition is trying to whip up a phoney debate in order to try to make some points which are quite unnecessary and quite misleading. There is no substance to the claim that the honourable member for Tangney makes about a massive intrusion by the Commonwealth into the affairs of non-government schools. That is just a fantasy which exists in his mind. It is very proper for the Commonwealth to ensure that funds which are provided for a particular purpose, that is, for the funding of non-government schools, are spent for that purpose and, therefore, there is a very proper requirement for the recipients of those funds to account for their expenditure. Where the fantasy comes in is in the Opposition's claim that through this device we are trying to manipulate the conduct of those non-government schools. That is totally inaccurate. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Shack's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G. Dubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P. Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S. Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F. Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. Snow, J. H. Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R. Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C. Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E. Hand, G. L. West, S. J. Holding, A. C. Willis, R. Hollis, C. Wright, K. W. Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian (Teller) Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Hayden, W. G. Fife, W. C. Uren, T. Nehl, G. B. Kerin, J. C. Coleman, W. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(12.16) —I move: Clause 8, page 3, proposed section 25b, omit subsection (4). For the benefit of the Chamber I will read sub-section (4). This relates to the approval or non-approval of capital moneys for particular projects. It reads: A project shall not be approved under subsection (1) if: (a) the project is in connection with a co-educational school and the Minister is of the opinion that the benefits of, and the opportunities created by, the project will not, as far as practicable, be equally available to male students and female students at the school; or (b) the sole or principal object, or one of the principal objects, of the project is: (i) to provide housing or other residential accommodation for teaching or other staff; or (ii) to provide facilities for use, wholly or partly, for or in relation to religious worship. It is our contention that the Bill should be passed at this stage with the omission of that particular sub-section. We argue in favour of our amendment on the following grounds: Firstly, if the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), who is at the table, is seeking an example of government intrusion into the operations of non-government schools, he need look no further than this sub-section because it provides a direct opportunity for the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), in the allocation of capital grants, to make approvals or non-approvals on her assessment of a school's operations and its use of the money. The provision of facilities for co-education, the provision of housing facilities for teaching staff and the provision of facilities for or in relation to religious worship are, in many cases, central to the operations of non-government schools around Australia. I take the three provisions in turn. Firstly, co-educational non-government schools are as aware as all non-government schools that there is not a surplus of capital funds. These funds are not unlimited, indeed they are hard to come by for any school for any project. Co-educational non-government schools stand in the wider educational market-place, having to satisfy both male and female students in the operation of the school and the way in which they spend the funds that they receive, whether these be recurrent or capital funds. It is not the place of the Minister for Education to enshrine in legislation the opportunity for her to knock on the head funding of a particular project because in her opinion-and her opinion alone-the benefits of and the opportunities created by the project will not, as far as practicable, be equally available to male and female students at the school. One can think of any number of examples where there may be expenditure on a particular project which, for the purpose of that project, may benefit boys or, for the purpose of another particular type of project, may benefit girls, simply because of the circumstances of that particular school. The Opposition opposes this provision because it simply leaves the entire question up to ministerial fiat, or, in the case of Senator Ryan, might I say ministerial whim on this particular article of faith in her makeup, and that is, whether it will equally favour male or female students. We would prefer to extend responsibility to the schools, knowing full well that they are accountable to their parental community, the student community and the wider community. They are better placed to be able to make judgments about how they can spend their money on various projects that they put forward. Secondly, in terms of housing, this Government has attacked non-government schooling through its fringe benefits tax legislation, as it impacts on non-government schools in rural and isolated communities. A central feature of the operation of those schools in the delivery of their educational services is that they be able to attract, and in many cases house, staff. Capital projects which have as one of their principal objects to provide housing or other residential accommodation are central to the provision of educational services at the relevant schools. This clause strikes directly at many non-government schools in isolated or rural area communities around Australia. The last point that I wish to make in this short contribution concerns the provision of facilities for use, wholly or partly, for or in relation to religious worship. The expression of religious worship in respect of many non-government schools in Australia is central; it is the essence of those schools in the delivery of their education. The Opposition objects to and opposes violently any Commonwealth Minister in making a decision in the allocation of capital funding for particular projects to rule out the allocation of funding on those grounds. I am not talking about a certain religion versus another religion but about cases where schools exist, where they are supported by parents because religious worship and the expression of it is not some adjunct to the school-they do not simply go to the chapel or down the road-but is central to the delivery of education provided by that school. The essence of such schools is their religious foundation. The Opposition objects violently and most strongly to the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. Hence, we have moved the amendment in the hope that the Government even at this late stage will accept our argument and support the exclusion of this clause from the Bill. Mr MILES(Braddon)(12.24) —In his reply to the second reading debate a little while ago the Minister said that the delivery of education was primarily a State matter. In relation to the funding of non-government schools covered by this clause, I point out that no funding is provided unless those schools are registered by the State, and yet this part of the legislation deals with the functioning of a school. Why is it necessary for the Commonwealth, once it accepts registration of a school, to then interfere in the activities of that school? The registration aspect should be sufficient. The Minister said that, primarily, the delivery of education was a State function, but in this legislation there is a regulatory approach imposed on those bodies involved. I refer specifically to the provision which stipulates that money should be made equally available for the provision of facilities for both male and female students at a school. I agree entirely with that in principle, but in practice how will one judge that that is the real case? For example, a school might want to build an industrial arts facility or a home science block and, as students are given a choice as to what subjects they want to take, both girls and boys are freely available to go to either facility. However, if over a period the girls, for example, choose home science in preference to industrial arts, does that give the Minister a basis on which to argue that the funds have not really been applied equally to boys and girls? That is the situation in practice: It is not due to the school not offering the opportunity. So, how does one really judge whether a facility is equally available to the boys and the girls? This is a difficult question. Mr Price —As far as practicable. Mr MILES —As far as practicable, as the honourable member said; this really illustrates the point that this provision is totally unnecessary regulation, because schools and communities have applied that sort of pressure already. The social change has occurred and therefore there is no need for this type of regulation to be introduced. My last point relates to the part of the legislation relating to the provision of facilities `for use, wholly or partly, for or in relation to religious worship'. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) pointed out that religious worship is fundamental to many of our private schools in Australia. It is the premise on which those schools operate. I make the point that what the Government is saying here to these schools, the teachers, the parents and the children, is that they can have a belief but that they should not practise their belief. It is saying that they can have such a belief but that the Government will not in any way provide facilities, even those used only partly in the practise of that belief. I think that that distinction is very important, as the people who do have beliefs in life want to be able to practise them. The parents who send their children to religious schools want that opportunity. By bringing in this type of legislation the Government is signifying that one can have a belief but that one should not practise it, that it will not give a person any support to practise a belief. I think it is very important for the Australian community to understand that that is the direction in which this Government is going in imposing totally unnecessary regulation on private schools. The Opposition opposes this; we are firmly opposed to this type of legislation. An important role of these schools is to impart religious values, whether Christian, Muslim or otherwise. By bringing in this legislation, the Government is signifying that it considers that these values, whether Muslim, Christian, Confucian-- Mr Hunt —Jewish. Mr MILES —Jewish, or whatever it might be are not important in those religious schools. That is what the Government is signifying by not providing money for these facilities. I was not able to complete the point that I began to make earlier in debate about how one distinguishes between the facilities that are available nowadays in the schools for worship. However, I point out that some of the schools use the classrooms that they also use to teach science, english, mathematics, and so forth. So, what is the Government really saying? Is it saying that those facilities are used only partly and therefore not able to be funded? This is a very important point, because no longer is worship of whatever religion in those schools just something that occurs down at the chapel. It is ongoing and integrated into the whole program of the schools so that the values, whether Jewish or Christian, et cetera, are moulded into those children because that is what the parents want when they send their children to those schools. This Government is setting its face against what parents desire for their children. I ask the Government to think very carefully again about this part of the Bill and not be intrusive into the beliefs and the practice of those beliefs by people in Australia. I ask the Government to accept the amendments which we are proposing. I am sure that would be greeted with pleasure by many thousands of parents around this country. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(12.31) —Naturally, the Government does not approve of this amendment. I find the contributions from the Opposition in this debate utterly fantastic. There is a very important principle that the state should not get involved in the business of practising religions. We should not support nor should we prevent the practice of religions. Mr Price —Nor should we fund it. Mr DAWKINS —That is precisely the point. As soon as we allow governments to get into the business of supporting-- Mr Peacock —Are you saying we should not fund religious schools? Mr DAWKINS —No; that we should not fund the practice of religion; of course we should fund religious schools. But this measure would have us getting involved in the observance of religions, not in the conduct of the quite proper business of religious schools. The provisions in this Bill has been in legislation since at least 1984 and on no other occasion has this Opposition raised any objections to it. There are really three issues involved. The first with which I am dealing is whether the Government should subsidise buildings for the observance of religious activities. Of course we provide funds for the proper conduct of education within religious schools, but it is an entirely different matter to fund chapels or other kinds of buildings which are predominantly for the observance of religious activities. That is not a proper thing for the state or governments to get involved in. I would have thought that those on the other side would have perceived the very great danger of governments ever getting involved in that kind of activity. There is nothing to prevent the parents of students at any particular school deciding to build a chapel of their own or to conduct their religious observance in any way they like. To suggest that because we do not fund it, we are therefore preventing religious observance at schools is a total absurdity, and it should be perfectly clear to the Opposition that that is the case. This provision says that the funds which the Commonwealth provides for capital expenditure within schools should not be used for projects or for buildings which are predominantly for the observance of religious activities. Mr Shack —That is not what it says. It is `wholly or partly'. It does not say `predominantly'. Mr DAWKINS —All right-wholly or partly. I think it is a very important principle that the clear, unambiguous observance of religious functions should be a matter for the schools, not something for the Government to dabble in, in any way. Indeed, it is a principle which is more or less enshrined within the Australian Constitution, and I am very surprised that the Opposition would now seek to interfere in religious activities in the way in which it is now proposing that we should do. That matter should be kept quite distinct from what governments do in relation to the support of schools conducted by religious authorities or by churches. The other matter which is talked about here is that somehow we should be running around using funds that are intended for schools to provide housing for teachers and other people involved with those schools. Of course, that is a nonsense as well. We want to ensure that the funds that we provide are for the proper purpose of looking after the students within those schools, not for providing housing or residential accommodation within or attached to those schools. I would have thought that particularly the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), who makes at least some claim to fiscal responsibility, would not want to see this kind of runaway new opportunity for new expenditure proposals to come forward. We are trying to ensure that the funds go for the proper purpose of providing facilities for students, and that, of course, is where the matter should rest. That is not to say that a school or school authority cannot provide housing for its teachers or administrators, but that again is entirely a matter for the school, not for us. Then we get to the other issue, this thorny old issue of equal employment opportunity or equal opportunity between the sexes, which has split the Opposition between the parties and within the parties as well. This simple proposition says that in respect of any co-educational school, any project should be available equally to both the boys and the girls within that school. Of course, the Opposition has some kind of real hang-up about any equal opportunity between the sexes. We have seen what happened in the Senate recently. We will see later today that the Opposition will be hopelessly divided about an equal employment opportunity provision in another measure. Here again we see the Opposition unable to make up its mind about this important issue. At least, if it is voting as a block on this issue, we will see the Opposition standing up against equal opportunity for boys and girls within schools. This is a fantastic proposition for the Opposition to maintain-that it is against the equal provision of opportunities within schools for both boys and girls. This is a very simple proposition that any project put forward by a co-educational school should provide equally for the boys and girls within those schools. We understand the dilemma of the Opposition on this question. The Government has a very clear view that there ought to be equal opportunities for both boys and girls within those schools, and therefore we will not be supporting this amendment-which I find an outrageous suggestion-by which Opposition would be seeking to eliminate this quite proper clause from the Bill. As I said, it has existed since at least 1984, apparently without objection from the Opposition. Now it raises these spurious arguments in an attempt to make some feeble points. I want to make another point, and that is that in the provision of funds to schools there is a quite proper function for the Government to ensure that projects meet the guidelines established for the funding of non-government schools. The fact that we want to ensure that they fit within the guidelines is somehow construed by the Opposition as massive intrusion into the conduct of those schools. There is no clear right, an open-ended right, for anyone to have access to the taxpayers' funds. All schools and all those who would seek financial support obviously have to put forward their proposals, which have to be measured against some agreed guidelines. This kind of open-ended approach of the Opposition-it is as if it would gaily throw money at schools for any particular purpose-seems to be quite at odds with what it contends to be its view on responsibility as far as the expenditure of public funds is concerned. It is a very confused Opposition on all these issues. The Government, on the other hand, is quite clear about what it believes is the proper way to fund non-government schools. As I said, we have been very generous in the way in which we have supported them. There are no complaints from them about the way in which we have been funding them and that, I regret to say, is the dilemma confronting the Opposition. Whilst it would like to be able to beat up the controversy that used to rage around government support for non-government schools, whilst it would like to beat up the State aid debate, it is finding it impossible, despite frantic attempts such as this one. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Shack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B. Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Mackellar, M. J. R. Beale, J. H. McVeigh, D. T. Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M. Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G. Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C. Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C. Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Cameron, Ian (Teller) Reith, P. K. Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A. Bilney, G. N. Jenkins, H. A. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. 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. Cleeland, P. R. 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. (Teller)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. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Fife, W. C. Hayden, W. G. Nehl, G. B. Uren, T. Coleman, W. P. Kerin, J. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 29 April, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr REITH(Flinders)(12.52) —Mr Deputy Speaker, this is my first address to the House as the shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism following the allocation of that portfolio to me last Friday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-- Mr McGauran —A very worthy appointment, too. Mr REITH —I thank the honourable member for Gippsland for his support. He, of course, is one of my colleagues in Victoria. It is an honour to be a member of the Howard Liberal team and the portfolio does give me an opportunity to further some of my interests in this area. I, as a municipal councillor for a number of years, was a member and for a year a chairman of the Penguin Parade Committee of Management on Phillip Island in my electorate in Victoria. The penguin parade is reportedly the second or third largest international tourist attraction in Australia and I think that that experience will undoubtedly hold me in good stead. Over three generations members of my family have been actively involved in the tourist industry and so I think that I can claim that my interest has covered many years. The electorate of Flinders also has a tourist industry of considerable significance to my constituents. So the portfolio gives me an opportunity not only to further those interests as a local member but also to make a contribution at the national level. Since 1984 and my election to the Parliament I have been secretary of the Opposition's tourism committee and as such I have been actively involved in the preparation of our excellent policy. There has been a lot of talk about where our tourism policies are. In fact in the tourism area and in many other areas our policies are already out in black and white for people to read, and people who have talked to me about our policy, I can report, have been very solidly in support of the sorts of directions indicated in it. With regard to sport and recreation, I rowed inter-varsity, for my sins, when I was at Monash University, I am one of the Whip's 7.15 a.m. tennis players and, as a family man, my wife and I and our four sons are active members of our local pony club. I mention these things because I think that the Australian electorate is looking to the Liberal Party; it is looking to all the members of the parliamentary Liberal Party and in particular to the front bench members to see what our interests are, what our abilities are, and whether we can be in a position to take the reins of government after the next election. I do not make any claims about having made a lot of money in business, although I have had an involvement in business interests over a number of years including, as a solicitor, running my own small business in that capacity. But I do say that my interests in serving my country have arisen through my experience at the community level and through my belief in the importance of free enterprise, not as an end in itself but as a means to achieve the highest possible living standards for Australian individuals and families. The media like to talk about the simplistic terms of `dry' and `wet' and all manner of other terms, such as `old', `left' and whatever. Mr Howe —It is a bit of a worry, though. Mr REITH —It is no worry. Mr Chynoweth —What are you doing now? Mr REITH —I say to the honourable member for Dunkley that the fact is that no one knows what those terms mean. I do not think anybody in the electorate knows what they mean, and I certainly do not. I put those things aside because, and I know this applies to all of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, our primary concern is to get on with the job, not in any sort of dogmatic or ideological way but to get on with the job to see this country pick itself up by the socks and get going again. In this tourism portfolio we have set down in black and white a policy which is innovative and exciting and which presents a range of practical solutions to many of our country's problems. I do not need to say, because I think many people realise it, that when a country has a national debt of $100,000m it really has some problems. But let me just talk about some of the things in our policy in order to give people just a thumbnail sketch of the sorts of things that we are talking about in the Liberal Party and which I believe the electorate will be wanting to support and vote for at the next election. The policy says that the overriding requirement is to create and sustain an economic climate which will allow the tourism industry to grow and prosper. This incorporates policies designed to, amongst other things, lower personal taxes. Again I would have thought that there was support across the broad spectrum in Australia for the view that personal income tax rates are too high. A second highlight is our aim to work on and reduce inflation and interest rates. No one in his right mind would say that interest rates in Australia are at an acceptable level. They are not; they are too high, and we need policies which have not been forthcoming from this Government to reduce interest rates. We need to restore the rule of law in industrial relations and introduce a more flexible labour market. The term `flexible' is one that even some of the Australian Labor Party spokespeople have picked up in recent times, although of course they have done nothing about it. In regard to specific features of our tourism policy, we start by saying that we need a stronger role for private enterprise, for the private sector. We need to abolish the capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax, and restore tax deductibility for legitimate entertainment expenses. We need to have a more flexible work environment to increase jobs and to reduce on-costs. We will continue strong support for the Australian Tourist Commission. We will look to policies to introduce more competition and services in the air, including more inbound airline services and charter flights. One other policy which I think is very important is better tourism training opportunities in schools and all higher and further educational establishments. Just while mentioning that, I see that the Australian tourism industry and a couple of other groups have been working on the establishment of a chair in tourism at the James Cook University of North Queensland, and that is the sort of measure which I think is important and which we in the Liberal Party support. When one looks at the tourism portfolio and at recreation and sport, one finds that whilst it is fair and reasonable to give credit where credit is due, the fact is that in that portfolio there have been many missed opportunities and we have seen a Minister who, whilst being prepared to put on a friendly face to the respective groups involved with his portfolio, has failed totally to address some of the major issues which affect all Australians, not just the tourist industry but across the board. It is interesting to go back over as I have been doing, having received this shadow portfolio, some of the things that the Minister said and recognised before he was a Minister. There is nothing like the honesty of what a person says before he gets into office. There was an absolute furore in the Labor Party in 1983, when, in regard to an election promise made when talking to the Australian tourist industry, the present Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 22 February 1983 as follows: Labor's shadow Minister for Tourism, Mr John Brown, called yesterday for a reduction in outrageous penalty rates which he said were having a horrendous effect on the Australian tourist industry. I think he was right. He was absolutely right, and he knows it. But, boy oh boy, did he back off when the trade unions came in to sort him out. The Australian newspaper of the next day I thought had a very good editorial because it considered the Minister's statement and said that it would be a test to see whether the Labor Party in government would put the national interest first or whether it would bow to trade union demands. Needless to say, a couple of days later there was an article in one of the daily papers referring to the fact that the Minister had gone bush. He had gone bush; he had been told: `Listen, we do not want to hear that sort of thing. That is not acceptable to our trade union masters. You go and disappear so that the problem will disappear.' Of course the problem has not disappeared and that is one of the many areas left undone. Labor has failed in a situation because the Minister has failed to approach an essential issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(1.02) —I intend to respond at least in part to what the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) has just had to say. He spoke of honesty before one gets in to office. I remind the honourable member and the Opposition just what they have put on the public record about their policies. I will also talk a little bit about the Howard team that the honourable member referred to. Before I do, let me remind the House that we on this side of the chamber are steeped in history. We reflect the views of former Labor Prime Minister John Curtin: You can't get from anti-Labor governments great change in social practice. Their main purpose is to resist innovation, to delay reform, to prop up vested interest, to maintain the existing order. Labor challenges all this. It challenges poverty; it challenges the causes which lead to war; its purpose is paramountly humanitarian; and it seeks to promote the widest possible scope for men and for women, so that they can live happily, and contentedly. The Opposition, regrettably, has abandoned its history. It has abandoned its roots and the views of Sir Robert Menzies and has now become an extremist Opposition, one lacking in compassion and concern and even more reprehensibly dictated to by the faceless men of the New Right, not only outside the Parliament but outside the very Liberal Party itself. That Party, as is the National Party, is deeply factionalised. The differences are not just within the parties; the deepest divisions exist between those two different parties. Moderate members of the Liberal Party have been excluded from the front bench and the Liberal Party has become a marginalised and increasingly irrelevant force. Those are strong words. Let me give them force, not by putting forward my own views but by referring to the public record of what members of the Opposition have said about themselves. Let me first of all tell the House and the people of Australia just what sort of relationship the person who would be Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has with the extremist forces of the New Right. Those forces are on about the cult of the individual. They have abandoned any pretext that governments and society ought to be about community values, about concern and compassion. They are on about making money. They have abandoned all the things that the Liberal Party once stood for. Mr Howard is on the public record as having said on 2 March, on radio station 2GB in Sydney: Everyone who knows me knows that I am the most conservative leader the Liberal Party has ever had. He was confronted with his attitude towards the New Right on the Ray Martin show on 2 September last year. Mr Martin asked about the New Right: Are they political allies of yours? The honourable member for Bennelong replied: Many of them I know; many of them I like; and many of them have views on some matters that I agree with. Mr Martin pressed the point: Would you call people like Andrew Hay or John Stone-- before he could even finish, Mr Howard interjected: `Yes'. Mr Martin continued: . . . or Charles Copeman allies of yours, though? The honourable member for Bennelong said: Well, certainly their broad political views would be similar to mine, yes. And I make no bones about that. Time and again when pushed on the issue the Leader of the Opposition has failed to stand in support of an independent Liberal Party in the mould of Menzies. Time and again, as honourable members would know, the Leader of the Opposition has linked himself with the extremist forces of the New Right. When we come to examine in detail the Howard team referred to by the honourable member for Flinders in his contribution, perhaps we should have some regard to the precise words that members of that happy little team use to describe themselves. When we examine the splits within the Liberal Party, we see that the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) and a number of his colleagues who made their coming out on Four Corners on 4 May put on the public record pretty clearly their attitude to some of their colleagues. Senator Puplick was asked on that program by Mr Olle: Is there a single word, if you had to, that sums up what's lacking in the current approach in the Liberal Party? I mean, is it courage? Is it compassion? Is it sophistication? Senator Puplick responded very frankly: I think it's compassion. The Opposition has no compassion and no heart. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) in his statement on 28 January this year went on the public record in even more extreme terms. He said: The sobering facts are that the extreme of our Party has never been able to win power as a government in its own right. He went on to say: Some in the Party, particularly the urgers from outside the Party, seem to want to appeal in their own right for majority public support . . . He went on to say that the public does not like extremes, and I agree with him. He is a former Liberal Premier and I agree that the public does not like divided parties. The former Liberal Premier of South Australia went on to say-and I am somewhat embarrassed using this language because it is not the way that I would speak-that those people `could dwell even a little longer on the slopes to perhaps justify their actions in risking ripping the guts out of the Liberal Party with a butcher's knife of extremes'. That is what the honourable member for Boothby says about the Howard team referred to by the honourable member for Flinders. Senator Robert Hill gave a number of examples of what the extreme policies of the Opposition would do should, in fact, those policies become the law of this land if the honourable member for Bennelong gained government. If we examine the National Party that used to be part of the Howard team referred to by the honourable member, we see that that National Party is also bitterly divided. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) said of his own Party Leader: Any leader who relegates his party to this position of mediocrity- they are the words of a National Party member, the widely respected honourable member for Wide Bay- should resign. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) has been on the public record attacking his leader on a number of occasions and, in fact, more than anyone else in this House has been the outspoken backer of Sir Joh. The point that I wish to make it that the most bitter divisions have begun to emerge between the parties. In the words of Michelle Grattan, writing in the Age: Name a dictator and Joh's been likened to him by someone on the non-Labor side . . . He has been likened to Gaddafi by the National President of the Liberal Party, Marcos by the current Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) and even Hitler by Senator Peter Baume. The divisions are extreme; they are irreconcilable. Their natural consequence, should the Opposition ever gain government, would be to result in a country polarised, bitterly divided and so unstable that it would be an international laughing stock, particularly in the financial community. The Leader of the Opposition himself has acknowledged this publicly. I refer to his comments on the Sunday program of 1 March. He was asked about the scenario when the Queensland Premier comes to Canberra, as he inevitably will. The question asked of him was: But are you suggesting that even if he ended up with fewer seats than the Liberals, he would still insist on being Prime Minister? The honourable member for Bennelong said: I believe that he would want to have the top job and settle for nothing else. And nobody should be in any doubt that that is his goal. The Leader of the Opposition was asked what would happen in the event of that occurring. Then the questioner said: So we're talking about an extraordinary unstable situation, aren't we? The answer given by the Leader of the Opposition was: If you do end up with an unstable situation it will be his fault. It is untenable that the Opposition could ever become the Government of this country. We believe the only hope for a stable and progressive government for this country is for the people of Australia to support the Australian Labor Party. I began with a quote from a former Australian Labor Party Prime Minister and I finish by referring to the words of Ben Chifley, when he said: . . . it is the duty and responsibility of the community and particularly, those more fortunately placed, to see that our less fortunate fellow citizens are protected from those shafts of fate which leave them helpless and without hope, this is the objective for which we are striving. We will never lose sight of the light on the hill and we are confident our fears will be justified. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(1.12) —Today I want to talk about the forgotten Australians-those individuals, families and small business people thrown to the wolves and totally deserted by the Hawke Government. This Labor Government has lost touch with poor and middle class Australians. It is the low and middle income earners who are being savagely shunned by the policies of the Hawke Labor Government. The founder of the Liberal Party, the late Sir Robert Menzies, said that the middle class was the forgotten class. Under the Labor Government this still holds true. Society has changed but Menzies' principles are still relevant. Menzies defined the middle class as salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on. He said that these people were, in the political and economic sense, the middle class. He pointed out that they were, for the most part, unorganised and unself-conscious. He said that, because they are not individually rich enough to have power, they are taken for granted by each political party in turn. He rightly pointed out that they are the backbone of the nation. Australian families and small businesses are more than ever the backbone of the nation. Their families and family life are under attack. The Federal Government's financial policies are putting pressure on and destroying the family unit. Marriages are failing because of falling living standards resulting from the Government's intolerable tax and interest rate policies. The Government is leaving families with less money in the hand, less disposable income to spend every week. Living standards of Australian families decline under this Government day by day. Families are hit with this as they walk into their shops and their supermarkets. They are being squeezed. Their cost of living rises as their standard of living falls. Families are suffering the brunt of the Hawke Government's massive spending, massive taxing policies. The cost of food has increased by more than 28 per cent; transport by 30 per cent; and recreation and education costs by 25 per cent. Families are being denied the freedom to save, to provide for the future, to put away for the rainy day. Families today can barely afford the necessities of life and the education of their children. Australians are being denied the freedom of choice in health care. Hospital queues have trebled under Labor; 100,000 Australians are on public hospital waiting lists. The queues are long. The public hospital system has broken down. Medicare has failed. The forgotten Australians are being denied hospital treatment and health care. Forgotten Australian families are being hit and hurt by record high interest rates and caught in the mortgage squeeze. The average Australian family pays $152 a month more on its mortgage than when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised a reduction of rates in December 1984. Mortgage bills are crippling families' capacity to cope. Australians face rising rental bills. The price of rental accommodation has rocketed as a direct result of the Government's failed taxation policies. The abolition of negative gearing has meant that there is less investment in the private rental accommodation market, longer waiting lists for public housing and increased rents for private housing. There are 60,000 Australians who live on the verge of homelessness, and 40,000 who sleep in the open. Labor's tax policies have left Australian families in the cold. Low income families are being particularly hit and forgotten by this Labor Government. Small business has also been forgotten. The small family business, so important to the national economy and vital to Australia's future economic prosperity, has been forgotten. Small businesses across the nation are under intolerable pressure. Under this Government, small business interest rates have spiralled. High interest rates, high costs and rising inflation are crippling small business. The Government is killing profits with the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and increased company taxation, all of which do nothing to create the investment climate so necessary for new enterprise and the encouragement of entrepreneurs. The Government has created a high tax, high interest and red tape environment that has stifled risk taking and deterred investment. The trade union movement walks hand in hand with the Government, forgetting ordinary Australians and denying them freedom. They attack the freedom of contractors and sub-contractors at every opportunity. The Government and unions say that the contractors and sub-contractors should be employees and therefore union members, rather then independent small business operators. The individual contractors and subbies, so vital to our economic prosperity in so many industries, are forgotten Australians. Poverty is increasing. Many of the middle class and middle income earners are the new poor of Australia, especially the elderly on fixed incomes in the suburbs. Menzies said: The home is the foundation of sanity and sobriety; it is the indisputable condition of continuity; its health determines the health of society as a whole. He is correct. Under this Government, the home is not healthy and, as a result, we are living in a sick society. This is the direct result of failed Labor policies-policies that are breaking down the family unit and attacking basic family values. Menzies continued: We must give Australians incentive-incentive to save-incentive to work-incentive to encourage their children-incentive for the future. What has happened to encouragement? He also said: We say that the greatest element in a strong people is a fierce independence of spirit. This is the only real freedom and it has as its corollary a brave acceptance of unclouded individual responsibility. Today society has lost this freedom. Families deserve to be treated with fairness and equity. We must create for the future a climate for `the brave acceptance of unclouded individual responsibility'. People must be encouraged to achieve. No goal must be too high for any individual or any Australian. `Incentive' and `encouragement' should be important words in the nation's vocabulary. Menzies also said: . . . for a generation we have been busy getting ourselves on the list of beneficiaries and removing ourselves from the list of contributors, as if somewhere there was somebody else's wealth and somebody else's effort on which we could thrive. He was prophetic. The nation is in as great a mess as ever he witnessed. His message was not received and understood. It is time for a recommitment to that message, to encourage ambition, to foster success, to have independent thought, to get Australia off its knees, to get Australia going. We must have policies that encourage saving, encourage thrift. We have created a society of ever-increasing taxation, and ever-increasing growth of a Public Service, a public sector, on the basis that this is, or was, best for Australians and the nation. In so doing, Australia and Australians have been forgotten. Australia has lost its way under this Government because ordinary Australians have been forgotten. I say give Australia a fair go. There is nothing that we cannot do. There is nothing that we cannot achieve. But the Government has forgotten to give Australians a fair go, and there is no encouragement to achieve. Menzies lit the flame for the forgotten people, for the Liberal Party. He lit the flame for the families and small businesses of Australia. The light now only flickers and is nearly out under Labor. It is time for us-we have the policies and the programs-in the great Liberal Party, founded by Menzies, to recapture this spirit, to rekindle the flame and carry the torch for the future for all Australians. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(1.21) —This is only the second time in the four years that I have been a member of this House that I have spoken in the grievance debate. I use this debate only when I believe there is a very serious problem affecting my constituents. I wish to bring to the attention of the House and the people of Australia a case of gross unfairness against five of my constituents in Dunkley, which has been brought about by one of Australia's major banks-a bank which last year made a profit of $303m. I am, of course, referring to the National Australia Bank Ltd. I want honourable members to remember that profit of $303m because it will demonstrate the unfairness of the National Australia Bank's stand in relation to this most unfortunate situation. On 8 December 1985, Mr and Mrs St Elmo Sonn and their three children arrived as immigrants from South Africa. They later received a bank cheque from South Africa, on selling their property. It was for a quite significant amount. They deposited the bank cheque in the Karingal branch of the National Australia Bank on 23 December 1986. On 16 February 1987, that is, 56 days later, Mr Sonn asked for a National Australia Bank cheque for $7,500. He received the cheque immediately and then paid a deposit on a house in Frankston. On 23 February 1987, seven days after the bank had given Mr Sonn a bank cheque, the manager of the Karingal branch of the National Australia Bank rang and stated that the cheque from South Africa that was deposited with them for three months had been returned from South Africa, as the cheque violated exchange controls. Mr and Mrs Sonn paid the $7,500 to the real estate agent, acting on the belief that their cheque had been cleared by the bank. They have been informed by the real estate agent and the solicitor for the vendor that their $7,500 will not be returned to them. The vendor's solicitors are legally correct in what they have done. However, I would have thought that after they became aware of the situation Mr and Mrs Sonn found themselves in, through no fault of their own, they would have at least deducted expenses they had incurred and returned the balance to them. I have spoken to the solicitors and they have told me that there is no way they will return the money. Mr and Mrs Sonn now find themselves without a house and owing the National Australia Bank $7,500 through no fault of their own. Let me go through this situation step by step. On 23 December 1986, a bank cheque arrived from South Africa and was deposited in the National Australia Bank. On 16 February 1987, Mr and Mrs Sonn went to the bank and received a bank cheque for $7,500. They paid the cheque to a real estate agent. The real estate agent cashed the cheque-the National Australia Bank cheque-and the bank paid the money to the real estate agent and the vendor's solicitor. On 23 February 1987 the bank stated that the cheque deposited with it for 63 days was not legal. The fault in this situation lies squarely with the National Australia Bank. It should not have given out a bank cheque if the cheque from South Africa had not been cleared. This bank has enormous resources and has said that it will fight Mr Sonn if he takes the matter to court. I believe that the National Australia Bank should consider its position particularly in relation to any damages action that could be served against it. The National Australia Bank has approximately 43,000 shareholders and I would like a large number of them who are listening to or reading this speech to write to the directors, including Sir Rupert Clarke and Sir Peter Finley, and the General Manager, Mr Nobby Clark. These are the people who are administering the harsh policies of this bank. In an article in today's Age, Mr Nobby Clark, General Manager of the National Australia Bank, states: If there is money to be made there, big banks will do it. Truer words were never spoken. Is it any wonder that the average person views the large private banks as greedy and avaricious when they make profits of $303m, and when they make a mistake and cause one of their customers to lose $7,500 they have the audacity to demand that he pay for their error? I am exercising in this debate one of the greatest privileges a politician has-that is, to take on any organisation, without fear, on behalf of his constituents. I will pursue this matter on behalf of my constituents who through no fault of their own have been unjustly and unfairly treated by the National Australia Bank. Let me finish by once again quoting that great Labor Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, in a passage just used by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner): We do say that it is the duty and responsibility of the community and particularly, those more fortunately placed, to see that our less fortunate fellow citizens are protected from those shafts of fate which leave them helpless and without hope. This is the objective for which we are striving. It is as I have said before, the beacon; the light on the hill to which our eyes are always turned and to which our efforts are always directed. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(1.29) —In this grievance debate today I wish to highlight the actions of the Public Service Board office for the Queensland region insofar as it has impacted on two of my constituents, a Mrs Margaret Allison Brown and Mr Barry Moulden, both of Bundaberg, who applied for positions as clerical assistants, grade 1. Both undertook the clerical assistants applicants testing in Brisbane on 21 March 1987 believing that they would be included in the Bundaberg order of merit listing for appointment. I say `believing' because, prior to undertaking the test, my constituents inquired on procedure and on two separate occasions phoned the Public Service Board in Brisbane to ensure that the awarding of order of merit for applications would enable them to be listed for a Bundaberg position. On each occasion that was confirmed. Mrs Brown and Mr Moulden have since been advised that this will not be the case and that they will be required to be tested locally in Bundaberg during November 1987 or wait until then and have their respective current order of merit points gained in the Brisbane test transferred to Bundaberg. I had a staff member direct inquiries to the office and unfortunately the problem was summarily dismissed as one of policy and so the best response he could obtain was: You'll have to write here to Head Office about it. It was also suggested that the information my staff member was conveying, in terms of the Public Service Board advice to my constituents, was `very hard to believe'-a rather strange comment in view of the fact that the woman concerned was the officer who had given the advice to my constituents. In pursuing the matter further I wrote to the Regional Director of Queensland. He advised me that it was only possible to transfer scores in certain circumstances, for example, for people who moved from one location to another. I was also told that the Public Service Act imposes a responsibility to manage recruitment processes in a fair and equitable way. However, the Regional Director then said: I can understand, in the face of the very tough competition for jobs, why your constituents would wish to have their results transferred: It may give them a competitive advantage of a non-merit kind over other people in Bundaberg who either did not see the advertisement in the Brisbane Courier-Mail, could not afford the travel to Brisbane or who had inquired and been told by my staff that we would be conducting a campaign in their town later in the year. It would clearly be inequitable for people to travel to sit the test in other centres in order to have their names incorporated in their hometown order of merit months before others from that location. Mr Deputy Speaker, I found it incredible for the regional director to say that their motive was to gain an advantage of a non-merit kind over others. I disagreed with that conclusion and told him so in my return letter. The reason for my constituents sitting for the test in Brisbane was that they had acted in good faith on bad advice, advice which I remind honourable members was given on two separate occasions. If the Act imposes a responsibility to manage recruitment processes fairly and equitably, I fail to see that fairness and equity was meted out to Mrs Brown and Mr Moulden. In my response I raised the matter of the Regional Director's discretionary powers, because of the incorrect advice given by one of his officers, with respect to transferring the scores. Unfortunately, I was later informed that transfer is made in exceptional circumstances only, usually where people shift locations and that, because my constituents did not fall into that category, the Regional Director would not agree to it. Regrets and apologies for incorrect advice and people being put to considerable trouble were expressed, but such responses overlook the reason for seeking the advice and the consequences resulting from the fact that it was inaccurate. Neither of my constituents would have incurred the expense, or gone to the trouble, of sitting for the tests in Brisbane if they had been given the correct advice. There would have been no point to it, given their domestic circumstances and location preferences. Some interesting points are worth raising here: First, is there discretionary power for the Regional Director to transfer the scores? Secondly, given the expenses that have been incurred as a result of incorrect advice, what recourse to reimbursement from those expenses exists for Mrs Brown and Mr Moulden? Thirdly, when does the Board bear the consequences of decisions made by its officers, presumably operating within their sphere of delegated powers? Fourthly, what action is taken to prevent officers from giving advice which is beyond their sphere of delegated powers and, fifthly, is there any requirement for the Board to honour or stand by the advice given by its officers to the public, and acted on in good faith? I appreciate that it would be impractical and virtually impossible to stand by every decision made, or piece of advice given, by junior officers of the Public Service. However, in the matter that I raise now the officer was not a junior and the desired outcome not one which would present any problems to the Public Service Board, given that there are existing discretionary powers available to the Regional Director. With adequate supervision and training, I am sure the likelihood of there being a repetition of this incorrect advice will be minimised. Consequently, the need to set what could be deemed a precedent really does not enter into this debate. What is at stake, of course, is the rectification of a mistake made by an officer of the Public Service Board and not, as was stated by the regional director, the granting of an advantage of a non-merit kind. The fact that he advised me that, because the vacancy-to-applicant rate in Bundaberg is somewhat less than it is in Brisbane applicants in Bundaberg need a higher test result if they are to be competitive for appointment, indicates that there was no advantage of a merit kind. So really there is only one issue: How can the Board rectify its mistake? I would suggest that my constituents be soon transferred to the Bundaberg order of merit. Another matter about which I wish to raise a grievance is in an area which ought to be of concern to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices (Mr Barry Jones). Not having a facsimile machine in my electorate office, I regularly utilise the electronic mail facility offered by Australia Post to have my office staff fax a newspaper clipping or other information down to me in Parliament House. The name of the particular facility seems to change depending on which postal official I talk to, but Intelpost seems to be the one most commonly used. The price for this service to a facsimile machine in Parliament House was $3 for a one-page copy. This was highly suitable because newspaper items generally could be sent on a single photocopy page. Should there be need to send more the fee was an additional $3 a page. Because of the urgent need for some information to be transmitted it was not unusual to use the facility more than once on some days and, of course, the charge each time was $3 for a single page. This week I have been advised that the cost for a single page fax transmission is now $6. That represents a 100 per cent increase in the charge. The explanation given by Australia Post officials is that the cost is $6 for two pages so it is really still only $3 a page. That may be true provided one needs to send two pages at a time, but from my experience that happens rather infrequently. The thinking behind this move seems somewhat akin to that displayed by whoever put the Yellow Pages in the new telephone directories upside down! To get back to Australia Post, what right has it to base its minimum charge for the use of this facility on a number of pages that is greater than one? Is it conceivable that in the future the minimum charge for domestic mail will become 72c for two standard size articles yet still 72c if one wishes to send only a single letter? I appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you no doubt do also by the smile on your face, that such a comparison is impractical. But it does illustrate the stupidity of the new charging rate that is being used by Australia Post. As it constitutes a 100 per cent price increase for me and others who send a single-page copy, I raise the matter in this Grievance Debate so that the Minister charged with looking after this aspect of the prices and incomes accord will be able to do something about it and perhaps at some time soon advise this House as to the outcome of his inquiries-with, I trust, the same serious attention to detail as he would give to something like the supernova! I have raised some questions in this Grievance Debate which I hope the responsible Ministers will reply to. Like the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), I say that this Grievance Debate does give us the opportunity and privilege of raising matters in this House on behalf of our constituents so that some action can be taken upon them. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(1.39) —My grievance concerns the current, intensifying campaign by the New Right to destroy the structure of social responsibility and social equity within the Australian community. The New Right, and those identified with it, are taking advantage of our present economic circumstances to wage a violent assault against fairness and justice. They are seeking a major realignment of privilege, with greater power and affluence going to the most wealthy and greater burdens being shouldered by the most disadvantaged. In today's economic circumstances, when our earning capacity as a world trading nation has fallen, over a period of about two and a half years, by about $9 billion a year-which works out at some $30 a week for every household in Australia-and when we are annually spending about $14 billion dollars more than we can produce and earn, the Hawke Labor Government has accepted the fact that some restraint is necessary in order to remove imbalances and provide a firm basis for the future development of this nation. The Government, in its May economic statement, will attempt to reduce the public sector's claim on resources, including loan funds, and spread the burden of restraint with equity. There is a widespread understanding that this may involve expenditure cuts and other measures designed to achieve a net improvement of about $2,000m. But I use the expression of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when I say that the Government will be seeking to pursue this objective with restraint and equity; and I repeat his assurance that the Labor Government will not abandon its traditional concern for the less privileged people of the community. While our approach might be one of restraint with equity, the approach of conservatives in Australia, and particularly those more closely identified with the New Right, can be more appropriately described as assault with savagery. They have embarked on an obscene competition to lift the level of expenditure cuts to heights which would wreak havoc on the economy and impose enormous suffering on the most disadvantaged in our community. We all recall that when Labor came to government in 1983 it inherited an anticipated Budget deficit of $9.6 billion. We have progressively, each year, reduced the Budget deficit. Last year we budgeted for a deficit of $3.5 billion. There will be an attempt to reduce it further, because we understand that the circumstances we face are such as probably to require that that type of approach be adopted. Last year's Budget, for the current financial year, saw expenditure cuts of $2.5 billion introduced by the Hawke Government. As I have suggested, it is possible that under the May economic statement a further $2,000m worth of cuts will be made. Those on the Opposition benches and those who speak for them in the wider community, before suggesting that cuts should be even greater, that the burden should be imposed more heavily, should recall their own record of achievement in this area. The late Sir Philip Lynch's razor gang of 1981 was charged by the Fraser Government with identifying areas where cuts worth $500m could be made. They agonised over the task for 18 months and finally identified them. Some of the people involved-particularly their privileged and pampered friends-started to scream. Gradually these proposals for cuts worth $500m were in turn cut. The group finished up, after 18 months of agonised effort, reducing expenditure by $170m. Last year the Government reduced Budget expenditure by $2,500m and spread the burden of that reduction with equity. This year we will attempt to make further cuts and will again spread them with equity. But let us not lose sight of all the macho conservatives who are out there in the community. In the light of all these circumstances a fairly responsible proposal was put forward by the Business Council of Australia. It suggested initially that in the course of the May statement we should seek to cut expenditure overall this year by $3,000m and reduce State borrowing programs by in excess of $2,000m. I repeat the Business Council of Australia proposed a reduction in expenditure of $3 billion. The Institute of Public Affairs, not to be outdone, said: `You wimps; $3 billion indeed; let us cut out $5 billion'. The National Farmers Federation was disgusted with such a proposal. Initially it called for cuts of $7,000m under the May economic statement and a further $3,000m under the August Budget. Ian McLachlan claimed that independent research showed that these cuts were possible in just four areas. I invite honourable members to note them-health, welfare, education and employment programs. Of course the Federation was not satisfied with that. It went back to its sums again. Then it called for cuts in excess of $11,000m. The Australian Chamber of Commerce, not to be outdone, said that over the next year we should seek a Budget deficit of only $2 billion-which is okay-and should seek to eliminate the deficit entirely in the following year. But further down the track, in today's money terms, the Australian Chamber of Commerce wants the Commonwealth to cut expenditure by something in excess of $15,000m. Mr Staples —Lunacy. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It is absolute lunacy; socially offensive and obscene-economic lunacy and political lunacy. Mr Ian Cameron —It is a good idea. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It is supported by the great friend of the New Right, the honourable member for Maranoa. Let me take advantage of the opportunity, in the light of his interjection, to remind the Australian people what he said when he endorsed the sort of cuts that were being made. I shall quote his words exactly. He was speaking for the New Right, for the National Party in Queensland, for the Australian National Party, for conservatism. He said: . . . when I say cuts I mean cuts that every Australian is going to squeal like a stuck pig because they are all going to suffer. Then he added: No nothing's sacred. The interviewer said `What about defence?' and he answered that perhaps some things are sacred. He was then asked: `What about pensions?'. He answered that they were not sacred; that they might have to stand still. Mr Ian Cameron —Yes. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member confirms it. Mr Ian Cameron —Right. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Let all of the pensioners of Australia know the sorts of proposals that are being advanced. Mr Deputy Speaker, the final proposal from these outside groups has come to light today. Some $12 billion worth of cuts have now been proposed by that Right Wing think-tank, the Centre for Policy Studies at Monash University. The proposed spending cuts involve the abolition of Medicare; the privatisation of education through a voucher scheme for primary and secondary students; the payment of university fees; the end of government employment programs; the abolition of the unemployment benefit for people under 18; and the freezing of the unemployment benefit after a period-in effect, reducing it. They are the proposals that have been coming out today. Now, of course, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) who has to make sure his credentials are seen to be great by the New Right of the Australian community has, with his Liberal colleagues, developed a proposal which has not been denied. Honourable members need only refer to the front page of the Australian Financial Review of Monday, 23 March to learn the details. Some $5,000m worth of cuts are proposed. Mr Ian Cameron —Good on you. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Maranoa says `Good on you', but let me indicate to him as well what the proposals include: To cut pensions and tighten eligibility-- Mr Ian Cameron —Good. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Maranoa says: `Good'. I hope that the Australian people are listening to that obscenity. The proposals seek, further, to abolish all unemployment programs; to abolish the first home owners scheme; to abolish the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax; to cut the Medicare rebate and end bulk billing; to increase charges for pharmaceutical benefits; to increase the eligibility age for female pensioners to 65; to sell off the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Telecom and Medibank Private. Because the Australian electorate would clearly not tolerate such an obscene set of proposals, the final part of the strategy is devoted to preparing for a general national strike, which these people believe would follow within three months. That is a proposal of confrontation. It is the proposal of our opponents. This campaign of the New Right is taking place in the context of a massive explosion in the size of the personal wealth of the richest Australians; a situation where one person can spend tens of millions of dollars to buy a private yacht and a private jet, where he can think about spending $71m for one painting to go into his private collection-enough to build homes for 1,500 Australian families. While that has been going on, the number of millionaires has increased in one year by 3,000 to in excess of 30,000. Meanwhile, the number of Australians who suffer comparative poverty has reached more than two million. It includes 800,000 children. The number of people without homes, those with nowhere to sleep at night, is 40,000. That obscene comparison is on record. The Australian people need to keep it in mind. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(1.49) —Mr Deputy Speaker, this week we have seen in industrial relations a development which will have serious implications for the Government's wages and fiscal policies and strategies. I refer, of course, to the reported agreement between certain builders and building unions, in the first instance from Victoria but latterly with the support of some industry employer organisations, to approach the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission seeking approval for the inclusion in awards affecting some 200,000 employees in the industry of certain increases totalling $52 a week. The deal so far has been concluded with the active participation, and at the behest, of the Victorian Government's Minister for Industrial Affairs, who prepared the heads of agreement which are to be the basis of the approach, agreed upon by the parties, to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There is every reason to suspect that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), or his Department, or both, were consulted on the heads of agreement fostered by his Victorian counterpart before those heads were first considered by all or most of the employers named as being parties to it. Despite a claim in the statement of intent which accompanies the draft heads of agreement that `The agreement is intended to be consistent with the wage fixing principles of the relevant tribunals', part of the total claim is plainly inconsistent with Commonwealth or any other wage fixing principles. The Western Australian Minister for Labour certainly seems to think so. He has felt the need to write to the parties to the agreement-to ask them to explain how the deal might fall under the productivity guidelines laid down by both the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Western Australian tribunal. It should be said that while there is room to quibble, $32 per week of the claim could very well be acceptable under the so-called guidelines. However, it is the $20 per week component which brings the total to $52 that is spurious to the point of being dishonestly misrepresented by the parties to the agreement and the Victorian Minister alike. That $20 per week component is at best-euphemistically-said to be a `severance pay allowance'. Already in building trades awards there are loadings equivalent to eight days pay for a `follow the job' allowance. That is a severance pay allowance but it seems that, as we have seen happen in the past, it is ever necessary to dig up a new term in order to have something more in there and get past the guidelines. It is no more and no less than a contrivance to get around the much vaunted guidelines that have been laid down by wage setting tribunals and endorsed and touted by this Government as being inviolate. As such, this particular exercise smacks of one that was conducted by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations a couple of years ago. Then he contrived, with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and others, to subvert his own wage fixing principles by converting the illicit building industry recovery procedures allowance or BIRPA, into a 3 per cent productivity increase in the form of a further superannuation payment. Not surprisingly, the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate that there has been negative productivity growth in the building industry. So much for the BIRPA cum productivity cum superannuation shambles which was the brainchild of the Minister and is now flowing on into industry generally and will be in place by 1 July of next year. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, in the best traditions of the quintessential industrial advocate that he is-in common with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I might say-has colluded with others to foster a claim which is completely outside his Government's oft repeated, so-called, wage fixing guidelines. It is about time the Minister normally responsible for the Government's wage guidelines accepted his responsibility and shook off the industrial advocate mentality which so often sees him promoting claims rather than opposing them in the interests of responsible government. In this latest charade, neither the Minister nor the Government has stated an intention to argue in the Commission against what is patently a device, a contrivance, to subvert again the Government's own stated policy on wage claims. In fairness, it should be acknowledged that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was reported last week to have issued a warning against building industry employers making sweetheart deals in this connection. He said: The Government will act to maintain the integrity of the wage fixing system and to prevent phoney settlements. If the building unions and employers propose an agreement which appears to breach the principles, the Government will intervene to oppose such a deal. Good for the Treasurer who, after all, is charged with the responsibility of fiscal and budgetary management and should understand the consequences of a wage flow-out, engendered by contrivances of this sort, into other industry awards. Let there be no mistake. Despite the fine words of the Treasurer, the $20 severance pay claim is now part of a sweetheart agreement. It is a phoney settlement which breaches so-called wage fixing principles. Given the negative productivity growth in the building industry which I mentioned earlier, and the continuing abominable work practices which obtain there, a good argument could also be made out that the deal breaches, as well, the guidelines for second-tier increases. Leaving that aside, as it turns out it seems that the Treasurer has at least for the time being been rolled by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on the severance pay issue. That must be the case, because the Government will not intervene in the Commission or anywhere else. It intends once again to shift all responsibility on to the Commission, and wash its hands of the matter in what is becoming, its time-honoured practice. The Minister and the Government are silent about any intention to intervene, despite the fine words of the Treasurer. They do not even seem to understand-or if they do understand, they are silent-what motivates the building contractors in this matter. If they did, if the Minister was aware of the economic blackmail that wholesale union bans on building sites in fact represent-they would also know how the Government might influence compliance with its tattered and so-called wage fixing principles. Sweetheart deals in the building industry are rife and they have been for years. If the Government wanted to put a brake on them, it could start in its own backyard by deleting rise and fall clauses in all new building contracts let by the Commonwealth. Wage increases which are included in awards presently entitle building contractors to reimbursement for clients and building owners. Quite simply, Madam Speaker, if rise and fall-sometimes called escalation-clauses were not included in conditions of contract, pace-setting sweetheart deals in the building industry would become largely a thing of the past. There would still be deals, of course, because building owners will always make commercial decisions after weighing up the cost of meeting union claims against the cost of financing an extended construction period. But any attempt to incorporate the deals of a few into awards which much be observed by all, as now happens, would be resolutely resisted by those same contractors, if only for financial reasons. The Government has shown that in this case, once again, it does not have the stomach for opposing its masters in the unions. In particular, it will not, under any circumstances, buck its supremos in the ACTU, who have also given official blessing to this. This severance pay contrivance is being inflicted on an industry which already is reduced to a maximum of 249 working days a year. That includes 13 rostered days off; it includes all those public holidays which are observed elsewhere in the country, plus a couple thrown in; but it does not include the practice adopted by the building unions of taking homers and insisting on being paid for that time off while on strike-another work practice which should be adjusted under the second-tier arrangement demanded by the Government. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(1.59) —In the short time available to me, I wish to inform the House that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), has been severely embarrassed following his visit to my local electorate on 10 April last. Asked by the St George Express about the possibility of a second runway into Botany Bay under his Administration, he said that he was less certain about the possibility of a second runway than he was of the curfew. The Paper stated: Mr Howard said that this- meaning the runway- would be introduced only in a way that would not enhance the noise. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that during the Prime Minister's term of office Commonwealth outlays for the Commonwealth's purposes increased in real terms by 5.5 per cent whereas State government outlays during the same period rose by only 2.9 per cent per year in real terms? Is it also a fact that had the growth in Commonwealth outlays for the Commonwealth's purposes been restrained to the same rate of growth as that of the States, Commonwealth outlays would have been some $16 billion lower over the past four years and this year's Budget would have been in surplus? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that this year the Commonwealth will begin practising what it preached to the States? Mr HAWKE —I make these points in answer to the honourable gentleman's question: Firstly, it is evident from any examination of the budgetary outcomes of the last four years that the Commonwealth has exercised an unparalleled restraint which has brought, as the honourable gentleman would know, the position in which the deficit, as a proportion of gross domestic product, has been reduced from the 5 per cent which we inherited from the honourable member's vandalism to 1 1/2 per cent in 1986-87. As distinct from the honourable member's puny and irrelevant efforts of earlier days, we will continue in the May statement the task that is necessary to exercise further restraint. I make the further point that when this Government exercises restraint, as distinguished from anything the honourable gentleman did, it ensures that any restraint asked for from the community is a restraint with equity, not a restraint-as was the case under the honourable member's administration-which was imposed only upon the lower income sections of the community. As far as relations with the States are concerned, we will continue to meet and treat them fairly. Mr Howard —Ha, ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —Giggles are no substitute for policy. He is long on giggles but totally short on policy. I suggest that he turn off his giggleometer and that he do some hard work. If he did some hard work he might see an end to the position in which the Federal President of the Liberal Party is now passing the same vote of no confidence in the honourable member as he did in respect of his predecessor. We will expect a considerable degree of restraint from the States of the Commonwealth. The honourable gentleman should know that outlays by the States are governed not only by what this Government grants to them but also-he would know this if he had been paying any attention to matters fiscal and the area of government expenditures-by what the States have been doing, which is to draw considerably upon their reserves to finance their economic activities. If he looked at those matters he would find, in terms of the contribution to movement in the public sector borrowing requirement, that the outcome of what the Commonwealth has been doing has been to reduce the movement in the public sector borrowing requirement. But the downward pressure from the activities of the Commonwealth has been more than offset by the way in which the States have circumvented, to a considerable extent, the fiscal intentions of the Commonwealth by so drawing on their reserves. The Government will ensure in its discussions with the States later this month that they will play their proper part in exercising the economic restraint and responsibility which is necessary to safeguard the economic interest of this country. Mr JACOBI —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What is the Government's attitude to yesterday's actions of the South African authorities against Mr Richard Carleton of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and his team? What do these actions tell us about the nature of the apartheid regime? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Hawker for his important question. I hope that all honourable members will join me in condemning the actions of the South African authorities in censoring Richard Carleton's broadcast from South Africa for last night's Carleton-Walsh Report, in searching him and his team and in confiscating their material and expelling them from the country. Until recently the South African Government's long protracted maintenance of a state of emergency had enabled it to use stringent censorship laws to ban any kind of protest against the Government or any reporting of such protest. In the weeks immediately prior to the election some of the scenes of township protest and some reporting of massive black strike action have again been getting through to the world media. The South African Government's response has been to expel a number of journalists who have not followed official dictates on new presentation. In Mr Carleton's case, over recent months he has-as we all know-provided a number of high quality, well researched programs on South Africa which have enabled many points of view, including those of the Pretorian authorities, to reach audiences in this country. The disgraceful behaviour of the South African Government towards Mr Carleton underlines the very point he was making in the report which led to his expulsion and that is that South Africa is increasingly being run like a totalitarian state rather than a democracy. It also puts into stark relief the true value of the election, so-called, which Mr Carleton was covering in which the vast majority of South African citizens were banned from voting. That election will do nothing to halt the slide of South Africa into totalitarianism and violence. In the light of these events, I believe honourable members will be particularly disgusted to learn that today the South African Ambassador is being feted in Wagga Wagga at the instigation of individuals associated with the so-called Grass Roots 2000, the same organisation which is concerned to bring Pretoria's friend-the apostle of apartheid, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen-to Canberra. I am very pleased to note that the honourable member for Goldstein, Senator Robert Hill, Senator Haines and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser have joined members on this side of the House, including me, in sending messages of support to an anti-apartheid group in Wagga Wagga protesting against this event. I conclude by saying that when the South African Ambassador returns from Wagga Wagga he will be called to the Department of Foreign Affairs to receive an official protest over the disgraceful and unjustified treatment meted out to Richard Carleton. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, on indulgence, could I say on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia that I have already publicly indicated that the Liberal Party shares the Prime Minister's-- Mr Hand —What about the National Party? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOWARD —I have already publicly indicated outside this place and I take the opportunity under indulgence of repeating here that we regard with complete contempt the expulsion of Mr Carleton from South Africa. We believe that it violates an elementary principle of fair reporting and freedom of the Press and does nothing to encourage those who hope for a more rational peaceful solution in South Africa through a coalition of liberal whites and moderate blacks. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer. At a meeting a few weeks ago of the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes was the Minister told by the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bill Kelty, that the Prices Surveillance Authority had achieved little, that he, Mr Kelty, considered its publications were ridiculous, and that it should be abolished? At the same meeting did Mr Kelty, along with South Australia's Minister for Labour, Mr Blevins, and the New South Wales State Treasurer, Mr Booth, inform the Minister that the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes on which they sit is a monumental waste of time, with its only achievement, according to Mr Kelty, being to provide extensive travel to its members? Did the Minister advise the Treasurer following that meeting that these two bodies had lost the confidence of the trade union movement and State Labor governments, as well as that of business, and that they should be scrapped? Mr HURFORD —The proceedings of the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes are not made public. I will, however, in response to the honourable member's question, say this: The Treasurer has been fully informed of what took place at that private meeting. Mr O'NEIL —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, concerns the Government's skilled migration program. Can the Minister respond to recent media coverage, similar to that in one of my local papers, the Eyre Peninsula Tribune, that this migration is preventing Australians from obtaining skilled employment? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of his concern. He is a representative of an area which has three major industrial cities. As a former organiser on the west coast, I am also aware of the Eyre Peninsula Tribune. Mr Duncan —That makes two of you. Mr YOUNG —After today we will double the circulation. This is a serious question and one which, if not approached properly by those who want to write about it, can cause some concern and division in the community. I want to assure the House that that is not what is happening in the policy being carried out by the Government at the moment. There is no reason for concern by people in this community about the program of skilled migrants coming to this country. Our policy on skilled migration requires priority to be given to domestic education and training. A variety of arrangements are already in place to promote interaction between training institutions and industry. The current shortages in the metal, electrical and printing trades can be traced in large part to the dramatic decline in apprentice intakes during 1982 and early 1983 under the Fraser Government. Apprenticeships are now at a record level of 51,700, compared with 35,000 in the last year of the Fraser Government. Between April 1983 and April 1987, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, 782,000 jobs have been created-the fastest growth in employment in the Western industrialised world. There has been a 90 per cent rise in expenditure on training programs under this Government since 1983. The Government has taken initiatives to provide training in many ways. The apprenticeship trainee system, in which 1,300 employers are already participating, has provided almost 10,000 traineeships. We have also introduced a comprehensive strategy to reduce Australia's reliance on overseas skilled workers. These elements are, of course, to improve labour market planning, and to co-ordinate education, training and immigration. The occupational share system places annual limits on shares for the number of visas to be issued for occupations identified as requiring temporary reliance on immigration. The employer nomination scheme and temporary residence caters for specialised, cyclical or unanticipated requirements. They are both subject to employers testing the labour market for the specified vacancy before they can apply to bring in migrants from overseas. Late last year the Government received a report on the occupational share system for skilled migration. Under this system the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs worked closely with the Australian Council of Trade Unions in identifying shortfalls. Consequently, occupational shares are allocated only in occupations in which domestic education, training and retraining are unlikely to satisfy the present requirements. The report, entitled `Meeting Australia's Skill Needs', recommended that up to 3,950 workers in 26 occupations be granted entry under the arrangements in 1986-87. This represents an increase of 450 over last year's level, but the continuing strong demand for high level skills in certain occupations justifies this increase. I say to honourable members who may not have already seen the report-it was tabled last year-that it contained a schedule of the occupations which have been approved. It shows the total domestic labour force, the output domestically, the fact that we were re-filling the jobs, and the requirement to bring in skilled migrants. For instance, we have between 3,750 and 4,250 electronic engineers in Australia. We replace them at a rate of about 450 to 500 a year. This will require, in 1986-87, 100 of those professional people to be allowed into Australia. For the information of honourable members I table that document so that nobody can base his views on ignorance. It shows what is actually happening in regard to skilled labour migration. I will see that copies are sent to the Eyre Peninsula Tribune. Mr Cadman —Madam Speaker, will the Minister also table the notes from which he was reading, because they would be useful, too. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is not tabling the notes. Mr LLOYD —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. I refer to the awarding of the coastal surveillance contract to Amann Aviation and in particular to the Government's dramatic departure from the long-standing practice of dealing only with established companies which are able to fulfil contractual and financial obligations. Is the Minister aware that, according to information obtained from the Corporate Affairs Commission, when the awarding of the contract to Amann was announced, the successful tenderer was trading as an unincorporated, registered business name, R. and P. Amann Aircraft Hire, and was a $2 shelf company which had no aircraft and no air crew, and which had only recently before the announcement apparently changed its name from `Myruse'-I think that might be a fairly accurate name-which in turn was a $2 company and which had no record of lodging a return since 1985? Is the Minister still satisfied that the contract is actually legal, that Amann is a suitable company for such an important national service and that the company can fulfil its obligations? Is the projected changeover date from Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd to Amann still May for Darwin and otherwise 1 July, or has it now been put back to September? Madam SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Transport. Mr Tim Fischer —And don't just defend your Department of Aviation. Mr PETER MORRIS —May I say for the benefit of the honourable member for Farrer that these contracts are administered by the Department of Transport, not the Department of Aviation. Mr Howard —Big point. Mr PETER MORRIS —There is a little difference. The information raised by the honourable member is not new. It has been the subject of Press reports and allegations. A solid campaign is being waged by interests associated with some of the other tenderers to undermine the performance of the successful tenderer. I said to the honourable member on a previous occasion that tenders were invited. I outlined at that time the number of tenders that were involved and the procedure that was followed. It was dealt with in accordance with past established practice. There was no legitimate reason, after consideration of the tenders received and the procedures followed, why the contract should not have been awarded to Amann. I will deal in a written response to the honourable member with the specific questions he raised, rather than try to outline them from memory now, but I have no problem in providing detailed answers to the points he raised. As I said at the outset, the information that he is providing in respect of the companies is public knowledge. There is nothing new about that-it was published several times several weeks ago. Maybe he has just discovered it. But it was published on several occasions in several parts of the Press. The honourable member may not like the fact that the successful tenderer was not the one that he is supporting. I cannot do anything about that. But as I said to him before when he raised this question, this is not Queensland. We do not deal with contracts the way his National Party colleagues deal with them in Queensland. If the honourable member wants them dealt with that way, he should have the courage and decency-please-to stand up and say that is what he wants. He should not try to hide behind these subterfuges and allegations. Mr Lloyd —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. My point of order is that I am not a stooge for Skywest or anyone. I am trying to establish that the best thing is being done for the coastal surveillance of this country. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PETER MORRIS —Madam Speaker, for the benefit of the honourable member, I referred to no company by name and to no interest by name. The honourable member has chosen to identify a company. Be that as he wishes. I was saying that we will not deal with contracts in the manner in which the honourable member's colleagues and his new leader, the Premier of Queensland, deal with them. If he wants a rigged tender process, he should say that to the people of this country; but he will not get it from this Government. In regard to the other matter about the tenderer not having any aircraft suitable for the task, I say to the honourable member: Neither did six of the other tenderers. There were eight tenderers and only one of them-the existing operator-could have had the specialised aircraft and specialised equipment. So none of the other seven tenderers had the aircraft, the skilled staff, or the necessary equipment to go along with the services for which they were tendering. Mr Young —Skywest didn't when it got the contract. Mr PETER MORRIS —Exactly. As my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs says, neither did Skywest when it first tendered in that area. Mr Lloyd —It was a well established company. Mr PETER MORRIS —I seem to remember representations from the National Party and statements by National Party members in the Townsville area attacking Skywest at the time it received a contract, and making almost the same assertions against that organisation, its employees and staff as the honourable member has now been making against the successful tenderer in this case. I do not propose to go into the detail of that. Suffice it to say, of the eight tenderers, only one could have the relevant aircraft and the skilled staff. The contract that has been let imposes obligations on the firm concerned. That firm has a responsibility to carry out its obligations. If that responsibility is not met, it will be dealt with at that time. But in the meantime, I will not participate in an exercise, along with the National Party, of trying to rig the tender process as the Government of Queensland and the honourable member's colleagues are so renowned for doing in this country. Mr GEAR —My question is directed to the Minister for Science in his capacity as the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. What has the Government done to address increasing community concern about the cost of living, especially in a period of wage restraint? Mr BARRY JONES —Despite the Commonwealth's limited constitutional power over prices, except possible use of the corporations power in interstate trade, the Government recognised the moral imperative flowing from the prices and incomes accord of 1983 to impose restraint in the price of goods and services, just as there has been restraint in the price of labour. The Prices Surveillance Authority will be doing far more to contribute to maintaining wholesale prices. Recent Commonwealth initiatives have placed the spotlight on the PSA, which is being asked to do more. There will be more emphasis in PSA reports on the social consequences of price rises. The PSA estimates that it has saved customers $75m in price rises that have been either rejected or reduced since the beginning of 1986. That is a substantial saving. The new inquiries which I have directed the PSA to carry out into clothing, including children's clothing, and non-prescription pharmaceuticals in what are neatly called personal care products, will continue to assist consumers. The price watch groups which are now operating in 52 Federal electorates, which the honourable member for Canning played such an important role in initiating, have provided us with valuable information in their first survey. A total of 526 stores throughout Australia were surveyed. The differences both in the prices of individual products and the total baskets of goods revealed by the survey showed striking variations in the prices of individual products and weekly supermarket bills between capital cities, between some regional centres and their corresponding capitals and even from suburb to suburb. The national aggregated figures have to be read with caution and it will require several more surveys before it is possible to indicate or confirm more general trends. Of course, there are also striking variations between the prices of groceries and of fruit, vegetables and meat, which was demonstrated in Melbourne, where the price of groceries was a little above average but the prices of meat and vegetables were below. The results have now been returned to the price watch groups, which will now publicise the cheaper stores in their communities. The national prices network is community based, as we always wanted. We never wanted to create some centralised Canberra bureaucratic monster with all power in its hands. The aim is to help the shopper's dollar go further and consumers, especially those on low incomes, can ask their local retailer the reason for price variation. I entirely agree with that. The first survey showed that prices for grocery items in most large regional centres are lower than those in corresponding capital cities. For instance, prices for the survey's representative basket of goods in Newcastle and Bathurst were below those in Sydney. Media coverage of the prices issued is now far higher than it was, say, three months or 12 months ago, and that is a healthy sign, helping in the broad task of consumer education. But where is the Opposition in all this? What does it say about prices? All it has told us is that it will abolish the PSA. The only price restraint which the Opposition favours is restraint on the price of labour. As far as it is concerned, the best price for goods is whatever price the market will bear. Finally, it will freeze wages and stop pension increases. Where is the fairness in that? Mr ROCHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer the honourable gentleman to the agreement reached between the building unions and employers for a $52 a week pay increase for more than 200,000 building industry employees. Is this sweetheart deal, or at least the $20 severance pay component of it, totally outside the Government's wage fixing principles? Is it anticipated that under our centralised system there will be a flow-on of this agreement to employees in related industries? In view of the Treasurer's announced rejection of sweetheart deals and his threatened determination to intervene against them, will the honourable gentleman, as the Minister responsible, now intervene to oppose this deal? Mr WILLIS —The matter raised by the honourable member is an important issue. The Government, of course, has been concerned about the building industry negotiations and the prospect that they might lead to some breach of the wage principles and guidelines. I understand that the agreement reached between the parties, which has led to the lifting of bans and limitations on work at various sites around the country, provides for consideration of three elements-first tier and second tier wage increases and also the severance pay issue. In relation to the first tier, I understand that the agreement is that there will be support for the $10 increase which will apply to everyone who gives his commitment to the principles. I also understand that the employers have said that they would support an application to vary the building industry awards in accordance with any second first tier increase that might come later in the year. In regard to the second tier, the parties have agreed that they should establish an analysis of work practices which could be eliminated or improved to increase efficiency in the industry on a State by State basis. A long list of such work practices has been set out in their agreement. They agree that there will be no second tier increases prior to offsetting trade-offs being established and endorsed by the Commission. The Government has no problem with any of that as long as it is carried out as the words would seem to indicate. But, of course, there might be a gap between delivery and what is actually on a piece of paper. But as long as it is carrying through what has actually been agreed we have no problems in that regard. As I understand it-I do not have the details in front of me-the employers have agreed to the establishment of a working party to consider the issue of severance pay. The outcome of the working party will then go to the Commission for acceptance if it comes out in support of a severance pay agreement in the industry. The Government has a number of positions in relation to that. Firstly, I note that there has been no agreement by employers to any amount and the employers have not said in relation to that agreement that they support any amount. As I understand it the $20 figure, which was the union's claim, has not been agreed to by employers. Secondly, we support the establishment of the working party to examine the issues; I think that is a sensible thing to do. I also note that the application of redundancy pay in the building industry is a complicated matter. It has been looked at twice in passing by the Commission in respect of the original termination change and redundancy case and also the recent national wage case. In neither case has the Commission said that a redundancy pay scheme in the building industry is necessarily inappropriate. The Commission said that it was a matter that should be considered on its merits. We agree that the issue should go to the Commission for determination and I understand that that is also a key element in that agreement. The position the Commonwealth will adopt when the matter comes before the Commission depends on what comes out of the working party report. I say quite clearly, though, that we will not support anything other than a genuine redundancy scheme. We would not support anything which would be a general wage increase dressed up as a redundancy scheme. That is our clear position made known to the parties and that is the position we would adopt in the case. Whether we would support the actual proposal that goes to the Commission would depend on what that proposal is. If it is a genuine redundancy scheme and it suits, and is appropriate to, that industry, we will support it but only on the basis that it is a genuine redundancy scheme and not a general wage rise. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Has the Treasurer noted proposals from Monash University's Centre of Policy Studies to cut $13 billion from Federal Government spending to finance a reduction in the top marginal tax rate to 30 per cent? What impact would such proposals have on the level of services and community support provided by the Government? Mr KEATING —I have noticed in today's Press the report on the proposal by the Centre of Policy Studies for cuts of $13 billion to Commonwealth outlays to finance a tax structure with a 30 per cent top marginal rate. What is revealed is an attempt by Professor Porter and those whom he leads in this policy study to quantify-at least it is an attempt to do that-the kinds of outlay cuts which would be necessary to finance a tax scale of this dimension. The $13 billion which is identified by the policy studies unit indicates that $2 1/2 billion would be cut from an education program which is now costing about $5 billion, which would cut funding to universities and colleges of advanced education by 50 per cent. There would be no debate about the $250 administration fee. That would cost students $4,000 to $5,000 a year. It would mean that, if a student was not rich, that student would be out, and the same applies for colleges of advanced education. Funding to schools would be cut by 15 per cent. In the health area there would be $7 billion of net cuts which is virtually the whole health budget. So it would mean that there would be no universal health insurance system. The two million families which are covered now by the Australian Labor Party's Medicare scheme would again be thrown to the wolves. There would be no Commonwealth contribution whatsoever to health insurance, hospital services, pharmaceutical benefits, nursing homes, domiciliary care, national disease control or medical research. The lot would just simply go. Most of the $500m funding for labour market programs will be cut, which means that a person on the bottom end or the non-receiving end of the economic system who had been left out would stay out. On the University's theses there is no retraining or help for that person; he has missed out and he should do his best. Also $2 billion would be taken out of the social security system-that is, out of pensions, the unemployment benefit, family allowances and the like. This is virtually the wholesale destruction of the public outlay system in order to finance a 30 per cent top marginal rate. Why? When this Government, through tax cuts, has brought the top marginal tax rate from 60 per cent to 49 per cent and rates below that of 48 per cent and 46 per cent to 40 per cent and 30 per cent why would it want to see a wholesale decimation, and the redistributive network which has been built up by a succession of governments put asunder, so that we could hand out to high income payers a low marginal tax rate when many of those people are now taking the rewards in the stock exchanges, the property market and elsewhere. This crazy quest to squash money into the hands of the wealthy is obscene. But this is now the conservative agenda and, of course, this is what drives the Leader of the Opposition in his policies. Honourable members might remember the front page of the $5 billion spending cut plan revealed as the Opposition's policy. Is it any wonder, with this agenda coming from the Right, that we have not heard from the Leader of the Opposition about outlay spending cuts, about his secret tax agenda, and about the fact that he will not say because he is hemmed in. It is a squabble between the Monashs, the Johs, the Elliotts, the Hays, and all the others who are out there trying to rip off, to rape and to plunder the public system. Those are the stakes. Who is sitting in the middle? The people in the Liberal Party of Australia who are interested in keeping some sort of equilibrium in fairness have all been shoved up on the back bench. The bleeding heart appeared on the Four Corners program the other night. What is left is a party trying to dodge through all these conservative pressures. Of course, what we would see from a conservative government led by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly with the National Party of Australia led by the Queensland Premier, would be basically this agenda and, if not all of it, a large part of it. That is why people on this side of the House are entitled to say that the Opposition parties in this House at the moment are the most heartless to have sat there since the war. The debate is about equity, decency and fairness. If this debate is not about people sleeping on the sidewalks of our cities, being driven into refuges and kids being denied a decent education or about this Government lifting the retention rate in secondary schools from 36 per cent to 50 per cent, what is it all about? Is it about looking after the white shoe brigade and the wealthy? This is the base line on the conservative agenda-the line which Australian politics basically will be fought over at the next election. Unless I am very badly mistaken the Leader of the Opposition will have something approaching this policy or looking like it to rip the public system to pieces. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I direct my question to the Prime Minister and I ask that it be considered in the context of the cuts that the Government is proposing to inflict upon the Australian community in its 13 May economic statement. Mr Hawke —Dear, oh dear! Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr DONALD CAMERON —Just listen to the question. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the extent of expenditure by Federal public servants travelling overseas during the 1984-85 financial year? If so, is the Prime Minister aware that the known trips, even excluding foreign affairs postings and many statutory authorities, represent 10 Federal public servants taking off for overseas every day and that average expenditure amounted to more than $63,000 a day or $23m for that financial year? While acknowledging that a percentage of the trips would be both legitimate and necessary, I ask the Prime Minister: Will he give more than consideration to requiring departmental heads to set an example by using telexes, fax machines, telephones and audio-visual conferences wherever practical and set as a goal the reduction of costs in this area by at least 50 per cent in the forthcoming financial year? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I point out to him that there are strict guidelines governing overseas travel by public servants and those are reviewed regularly. Departmental secretaries and heads of statutory authorities, other than trading or business authorities, must seek ministerial approval for any proposed overseas travel. Each travel proposal is examined closely to ensure that the visit is essential and that the duration of the visit is kept to a minimum. Any other public servant must seek approval from the secretary of his or her department or the head of his or her agency and, again, the proposals are examined closely. As to that part of the honourable member's question which referred to the possible use of modern methods of technology, I say to him that where possible departments take advantage of new communications technologies such as facsimiles. But the honourable member will appreciate that there are occasions when those have limited uses. Finally, let me say to the honourable minister that this Government, in line with its commitment to reduce government expenditure where possible, is looking at all areas within the bureaucracy to identify cost-cutting measures. The area of administrative expenses, which includes overseas travel, will not, I assure the honourable gentleman, be exempt from examination. Because of the beautiful collocation of this question with the previous one as to credibility in this area of expenditure cuts, I conclude my answer by reminding the Leader of the Opposition that just recently he was raising the question of cuts and credibility in this matter. He had the Premier of Queensland in his sights. On 11 February he said that the Premier of Queensland had an $8 billion credibility gap. Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition about the de facto leader of members of the National Party, about Joh-that he had a $8 billion credibility gap. Does the honourable member for Maranoa agree with that? I know that the honourable member is tender on that matter, but he should be quiet. After the Leader of the Opposition said that the de facto leader of the National Party had an $8 billion credibility gap, he said on 19 February: Until he nominates areas where he will cut spending he is really having no credibility on the issue at all. I say to the honourable member who asked me this question about expenditure cuts and so on that his Leader has said of the de facto Leader of the National Party that there is no credibility with an $8 billion credibility gap. The honourable member's Leader-at least temporarily- behind whom he sits has a $16 billion credibility gap. I remind those opposite that the Treasurer and I have consistently given them the opportunity of telling us where the idea for a $16 billion credibility gap is not justified. So, if the de facto Leader of the National Party, according to the Leader of the Opposition, has a credibility gap of $8 billion, then with $16 billion the gentleman behind whom the honourable member for Moreton sits has a yawning chasm of credibility, which has been increasingly reflected in the fact that first the Treasurer of the Liberal Party and now the Federal President of the Liberal Party are telling him to lift his game. The honourable member knows what happened last time the Federal President of the Liberal Party said that the Leader should lift his game-he was out. The only trouble is that those opposite do not know where to turn now; but to whomever they turn they will be saddled with that same $16 billion credibility gap. So, the honourable member can ask his silly, petty, little question about a little bit of overseas travel by a couple of public servants, and we will examine it. But while his Party has a $16 billion credibility gap he may as well forget it. Members of the Opposition are unprincipled, leaderless and irrelevant. Mr BEDDALL —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether he can advise the House of the April employment figures. If so, what evidence do these figures provide regarding the success of the Hawke Labor Government's employment policies? Mr WILLIS —I am pleased to be able to advise the House that the April employment figures released today show a continuance of the very creditable performance in relation to employment which has been the hallmark of this Government. In April we had a growth in employment of 24,300 and a reduction in unemployment of 9,700, which dropped the unemployment rate from 8.4 per cent to 8.3 per cent and kept it still within the band in which it has been for 10 months now-between 8.2 per cent and 8.4 per cent. The honourable member for Rankin may be particularly interested to note that the unemployment rate in Queensland was the highest of any State, at 10.2 per cent. An implication of those figures for employment growth in 1986-87, as I indicated last month, is that we are running well ahead of the Budget forecast. The Budget forecast for employment growth was 1.75 per cent. If there were no further growth in employment in the rest of this financial year we would have growth of 2.3 per cent for 1986-87. So, clearly employment growth is running well ahead of the Budget forecast-and that is a very good outcome. It is also pertinent to note that the April figures give us the employment outcome for the Hawke Labor Government's first four years in office. They show that we have had a growth in employment in those four years of 782,000 jobs. That is an increase of 12.4 per cent, or an average of 3 per cent per annum, which is an extremely fast rate of growth of employment. If we look at other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development area, we see that the rate of growth of employment in recent years has been averaging about 1.25 per cent. We have been averaging 3 per cent. If we go back to the period of the Fraser Government, in its 7 1/4 years it produced a total of 337,000 jobs-that is, 450,000 less than we have produced in four years-and its total growth over that period was 5.7 per cent compared with our 12.4 per cent in much less time. Its average annual rate of growth of employment was 0.8 per cent compared with our 3 per cent. Those comparisons give some idea of the enormity of the achievement of this Government in relation to employment because of appropriate economic and employment policies which have been pursued. Those policies have involved our having to take decisions at times which have been very difficult-to pursue policies which have reduced real wages and cut expenditure in various areas, opening us to criticism by various parties. But the bottom line-and it should be recognised-is that our fundamental objective all the while has been to maintain the maximum increase in employment. Quite clearly we have achieved that. The policies that have been pursued clearly have been very appropriate for high employment and economic growth. Even whilst we have gone through the recent period of reduced economic growth, we have still kept employment growth at levels which at least are ensuring that we do not have an increase in unemployment. Given the difficulty of those economic circumstances, through the collapse of our terms of trade, that is an extremely creditable effort. When we hear criticism from the other side of this Government's economic, wages or employment policies, everyone should bear in mind the record of this Government; that is, 3 per cent employment growth, compared with the previous Government's 0.8 per cent employment growth, and the fact that we are producing employment outcomes which are more than double the rate of comparable countries in the rest of the world. We have put our money where our mouth is and we have produced the outcomes in the employment area. We believe that we can continue to achieve those outcomes through the continuance of the policies which have been so successful over the past four years. Mr CONQUEST —My question is to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. There have been intimations that the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services will be disposing of the Brassey House accommodation facility. Is he in a position to advise the management and staff of Brassey House, and indeed members of this House, what the Government intends to do with that accommodation centre? If it is to be sold why is this action being taken? Why are those who are employed at Brassey House not being adequately informed about the Government's intentions which obviously will ultimately impact on them because of the uncertainty of their employment position? Mr SCHOLES —I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to the question that the honourable member has asked. I will seek an answer from the Minister and have it conveyed to the honourable member as soon as possible. Mr LEE —Can the Treasurer inform the House of the consequences for the taxation of crude oil of recent opposition to the Government's resource rent taxation legislation? Mr KEATING —Since 1977 the Australian Labor Party has had as part of its platform the introduction of a resource rent tax on off-shore petroleum mining and exploration. In two elections-in 1983 and at the end of 1984-we went to the country with that as an integral part of our election platform. In accordance with the mandate which we were given on both those occasions, the Government has continued to negotiate that resource rent tax proposal with the industry over a period of four years. We are now at the stage where for the first time ever we have a stable, profit-based system of taxation for off-shore petroleum exploration and mining which over time will be constant, will not change and will only levy tax if there is an adequate level of profitability for that tax to be levied upon. In other words, we have moved away from the production-based system to a system based on profitability, which is the very essence of the resource rent tax proposal. Despite the fact that the Government has had a mandate on two occasions for a very clear and specific program and has had the most exhaustive discussions with the Australian petroleum exploration and mining industry, it is now finding difficulty in getting that legislation through the Senate. At the hands of the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Bill, which passed this House, is now threatened with defeat in the Senate. I make a couple of points about that. Such a defeat would remove the one decent piece of legislation which has come from the Parliament to the industry in all the years that it has been in operation. Apart from basically production levies which the Government has put on from time to time, this is the first stable piece of mining tax law that has ever been proposed. But once again we are finding destructive opposition from the Liberals, Nationals and Democrats in the Senate, for different reasons. I make the point that the Government took the royalties off Jabiru and Challis in north-western Australia in good faith. We took those royalties off by legislation in the expectation that this Bill would be passed. But now there is no royalty system to collect the tax, and indeed, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and its partners went ahead with Jabiru and Challis because of the impending RRT legislation. The company was not against that legislation, it acted because of it. What we are seeing, for the basest of reasons, is plain tax vandalism in the Senate in the hands of the Liberals, Nationals, Independents and Democrats. If this Bill is defeated there will be no tax on Jabiru and Challis and we will be in a position where we will have to start reintroducing royalty and excise arrangements on those fields. I know that the industry is opposed to the conservative parties' stand and to that of the Democrats in the Senate. Apparently some of the Democrats believe that we should not have this sort of a Bill because basically they do not believe in the petroleum industry-they believe in solar power and all that sort of thing. That is all very interesting, but the rest of us have to run an economy. The Liberal Party, which should have more brains and sense, is trying to defeat this legislation when it is a mainstream piece of government tax law, negotiated over four years and taken through two elections. Mr Carlton —The industry is opposed to it. Mr KEATING —The industry is not opposed to it. The honourable member should ask BHP. We are at the stage in our constitutional history where the Senate is poisoning the Australian parliamentary system. Senate quotas of 12 1/2 per cent mean that almost any splinter group can find representation in the Senate. It is becoming a problem for the major parties-in this case the Government-and the whole tradition of Westminster government in having the Senate there, either as a States House, as it was designed to be, or a House of review, it being put asunder for the basest political motives. There are no rules and no conventions; there is no sense of responsibility, no sense of the Westminster tradition. What we are seeing now is a government not being able to pass its reasonable, negotiated and fair laws because of what is basically just some good, old fashioned, vicious vandalism at the hands of people who have no intellectual framework. That means the Liberal Party, the cockies and the Democrats. I conclude on this point: The people of this country will be made aware of the capricious behaviour of the Senate, of the vandalism of this second chamber, and they will realise that it is poisoning their parliamentary system and their democracy. Dr WATSON —I remind the Treasurer that he has announced by Press releases major superannuation legislation which has not been introduced into or passed by this Parliament. While the operative dates of some pieces of legislation are as recent as January 1987, others will date as far back as 16 December 1985. How are the trustees of superannuation funds expected to fulfil their duties and comply with the laws without knowing what those laws are? Mr KEATING —It has been very much a standard technique of governments-this Government and previous governments-to foreshadow changes to the taxation laws and superannuation laws and then legislate them. This Government has done that but it has also done it in the context of the most major taxation reform in our history. The massive legislative program and work load upon the parliamentary counsel, apart from those in the policy areas of the bureaucracy, has been quite enormous. As far as the superannuation industry is concerned, we, unlike the previous Government, meet regularly with all the financial groups, including the superannuation industry. I have recently established a superannuation industry advisory council, along with an office for supervision of superannuation generally as a result of the national wage case. We have kept the industry apprised of both the Government's intentions in relation to announcements which have been formally made and its indications for the continuing development of the superannuation laws, including the supervisory structures. I do not think that anyone in the industry who has bothered to interest himself in the issue is at a loss to understand where the Government stands, and that the fact that the Bills have not passed the Parliament-- Mr Howard —Is this another Westminster tradition? Mr KEATING —The Liberal Government brought in statements and introduced Bills-mostly after members opposite were dragged to do it, of course, dragged by public opinion-but even after it was dragged to do so it announced the measures and then followed them up with legislation. But the fact of the matter is that the Government will be bringing in the legislation as quickly as possible. No one in the industry has been disadvantaged. But in the meantime, standing on the record books is fringe benefit taxation, capital gains tax, a foreign tax credit system, substantiation, abolition of entertainment allowances, and a decent tax system, which members opposite ran away from for 30 years. Mr HUMPHREYS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. What donations to political parties have to be disclosed under the Electoral Act? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for Griffith once again for his question. I have been informed by the Special Minister of State that section 304 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 requires all donations to a political party to be disclosed by the party, except those made on the condition that they be used for a purpose other than for an election. Whether donations designated for a non-election purpose and used on a mid-term campaign are disclosable depends on a number of factors, including the campaign's purpose, content and background. Perhaps for those honourable members who did not clearly understand that, I can explain it in a slightly better way. If one writes to the Queensland Branch of the Liberal Party for information, one gets back a little booklet about the Liberal Party, and look who is in the front-it is Andrew, and he is telling all those who are interested in the Liberal Party: `You are part of a Liberal resurgence which will shake every city, every State in this nation'. Well, I think he has done that-but not in the way that he intended. Further, there is a good quotation in this booklet. I am not too sure who the media commentator is, but we must have a yarn to him later. However, one media commentator called the Liberal Party `the best political machine in Australia'. If booklets like this are produced in the administration of a political party, and one makes a donation, of course that does not have to be disclosed, because it is done in the administration. The problem that we have is in relation to the Liberals' tax policy: Will it be an administrative document or an election document? As yet, we have not found it. So, this morning I made some telephone calls. I telephoned John Elliott. He has seen it, but he hasn't got it. I rang John Valder, and he has seen it but he hasn't got it. I rang Jeff Kennett-on the phone in the car-and he told me in no uncertain fashion that he didn't have it! I then rang Andrew Hay, and was told that he did not have it. But he is a character, and he told me and reiterated that the Liberal Party ought to get rid of all its deadwood-to which I replied that that would cause a problem for us in the woodchip industry! Moreover, we have the problems with the National Party of Australia in the disclosure of funds. We do not really have to worry about that because we had that beautiful occurrence prior to the 1984 election, when the Leader of the National Party, Mr Sinclair, made his policy speech in a club hall at Armidale-and the burglar alarm went off. So, we are doing everything we can to find this document: We want all honourable members and everybody in Australia to look around. It will be entitled `Post-coalition Liberal Party taxation policy'. If anyone can deliver it, the Prime Minister will give them two tickets to Crocodile Dundee. It might well be like the situation when it was pointed out to one of the evangelists in America that about $10m was missing out of his funds-he said that the devil must have got into the computer! I think that must be what has happened to the Liberal Party's taxation policy. I think that the devil must have got into the computer and taken it off, because no one seems to have it. Paul does not have it. I asked him. No one on this side has it. So we would be very pleased if, after having had a nice weekend, honourable members opposite could come back here on Monday and tell Australia what they are going to do for us in the field of taxation. Madam SPEAKER —I present the report of the Auditor-General, dated 7 May 1987, upon an efficiency audit of the Department of Housing and Construction, repairs and maintenance of Commonwealth assets. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General, dated 7 May 1987 upon an efficiency audit of the Department of Housing and Construction, repairs and maintenance of Commonwealth assets, and, (2) that the report be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations) —On behalf of the Prime Minister, I present for the information of honourable members the Joint Committee report on the construction of the second Hobart Bridge, now named the Bowen Bridge. The Joint Committee was established by the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments in November 1975 and this is its final report. The report is also being presented in the Tasmanian Parliament today. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 97 (4) of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Legal Aid Commission (Australian Capital Territory), together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time the Treasurer (Mr Keating), by explicit reference to me, criticised my opposition and that of my Party to the Government's resource rent tax legislation. One of the charges that he made was that our opposition was unreasonable because the Government had taken certain royalties and charges off certain oil fields in anticipation that the resource rent tax legislation would be passed and thereby, by implication, we were to blame for that unsatisfactory state of affairs. I remind the Treasurer and the House that our opposition to the resource rent tax legislation has been well known for years and that any government of this country which promised to any section of the oil industry a change in the royalty regime on the basis that resource rent tax legislation would be introduced and passed through this Parliament did so at its own peril and notwithstanding the known opposition of the Liberal Party to that legislation. Therefore, it is quite wrong of the Treasurer to try to represent to this Parliament that in some way we misled the industry. The Government knew, the industry knew and the world knew that we were against that legislation, and those royalties were taken off. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member has made the point concerning where he was misrepresented. Does the honourable member have a further matter of misrepresentation? Mr HOWARD —No, I do not, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —by leave-I rise today to make a ministerial statement on a matter of major importance not only to members in this Parliament but to all Australians who have an interest in the future of their country. I refer, of course, to the tourism industry. I guess in some ways this statement is an analysis of the Hawke Government's five-year stewardship of this industry. It is difficult to overstate the importance of tourism to the national economy. This year alone tourism will contribute $24,000m to our gross domestic product, making it our largest industry in turnover terms. Tourism will also contribute almost $3,000m in foreign currency income to Australia. The tourism industry is now growing at a spectacular rate and currently employs more than 405,000 Australians in a huge variety of occupations scattered over the whole continent. This, of course, makes it the largest individual employer in the nation. However, this bright picture of tourism is in stark contrast to the dismal shambles we inherited when coming to office in March 1983. For the whole of the Fraser Administration, tourism had been neglected and the industry was expected to struggle along by itself. The Department of Tourism, having been set up by Frank Stewart in the Whitlam Government from 1972 to 1975, had been dismantled and tourism was conducted in the Fraser years by a handful of people working virtually out of a cupboard in the Department of Industry and Commerce. Thus the incredible potential that Australia had in tourism was neglected. In my three years as a shadow Minister in the Labor Opposition prior to coming into office in 1983 I realised the extraordinary potential that Australia had in the tourism industry and set about producing a document `The Future of Tourism in Australia' which eventually became the Labor policy for tourism for the 1983 election. This paper set out a series of moves dedicated to turning what was then a fragmented enterprise into a major integrated industry. In hindsight the decisions that we took in opposition were correct, because what has happened since we implemented this blueprint for the industry is that tourism is now the biggest industry in Australia. Not only has the Commonwealth Government become active in the promotion of tourism but the State governments, which were as moribund as the Federal Government in that period prior to 1983, have now also become very actively involved as well. The document that we put together pointed to four main areas that needed attention if Australia were to become a tourism force. They were: Firstly, promotion; secondly, incentives for development; thirdly, incentives for overseas investment; and, fourthly, staff training. There were other related changes which were also included in that document, all of which have been implemented and all of which have become integral parts of the sophistication of this hugely successful industry. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the moves we made in these four main areas and how these threads, having been drawn together, gave this industry the opportunity to develop into the major concern it has now become. First of all, I refer to promotion. The Australian Tourist Commission formed in the late 1960s had achieved real recognition in the time of the Whitlam Government. However, under the Fraser Government it was almost wiped out, having been denied funding, staff and resources. The need to promote Australia overseas is of course fairly obvious. Australia was the best kept secret in the world and, with all we had to offer, we really needed to promote Australia as a holiday destination. Funds for the Australian Tourist Commission under this Hawke Government have been trebled from $10m to $30m and of course this enabled us, among other things, to fund the very successful Paul Hogan series of commercials which have revolutionised the promotion of Australia overseas, particularly in the United States of America. Prior to 1983 the number of international tourists visiting Australia was 950,000 per year, with 1.4 million Australians travelling overseas every year for holidays. In 1987 we will have 1.7 million visitors to Australia-almost double the figure for 1983-and, in 1988, 2.2 million, which is a huge increase over that 1983 figure. Replacing the old kangaroo-koala duumvirate with a new human face for Australia has obviously been a master stroke. On the reverse side of the coin more Australians than ever are choosing to stay at home for their holidays. The second point that we wanted to look at was the building of a decent infrastructure for tourism. With improved promotion obviously succeeding, the need for the building of infrastructure was fairly obvious. In the Budget of 1983, the Hawke Government decided to increase the depreciation rate on buildings for the tourist industry from 2 1/2 to 4 per cent. The stimulative effect of this initiative is now very clear. The face of tourism infrastructure in Australia has been revolutionised in those four years from 1983 to 1987. One has to look only at cities like Sydney or Melbourne, or particularly the tourism areas of Queensland from the Gold Coast north, to see exactly what effect this has had. At the present time we have almost $8,000m worth of infrastructure being built for the tourism industry in Australia. These changes mean that we can now bring international tourists to Australia, confident that the infrastructure they will find in terms of hotels, motels, resorts and restaurants is the envy of the world and of course this has had a marked effect on encouraging Australians to holiday at home. They no longer have to travel to Fiji, Hawaii, Bali or other places off-shore in order to find the splendid array of facilities that are now here on their own shores. I guess it is fair to have to point out some of those buildings that we have in Australia in that period. We now have the Regent of Sydney, which is the No. 11 hotel in the world on every credible list. Before 1983 it would have been impossible to suggest that Australia could produce a hotel in the first 100. Melbourne now has the Hyatt on Collins which has become the flag hotel for the Hyatt group around the world. These great successes are being repeated all over Australia. The third area that we needed to look at was overseas investment. Prior to 1983 there were very strong disincentives for overseas investment in Australia, but this Government has eased the guidelines and now we are allowing foreign investment in Australia to 100 per cent equity in the provision of tourism infrastructure. The effect of this has been quite miraculous, with particularly the Japanese being heavily involved in investment in tourism. The benefit of having the Japanese of course is that once they build facilities here they spend a great deal of their own time and energy in promoting these facilities in Japan and attracting Japanese to come here and use them. In the last month or so about $500m has been invested by Japanese investors in the Gold Coast alone. I hope that this trend continues. On the fourth issue, of course, it was useless developing a tourism industry of some size in Australia unless we could staff the facilities. Prior to 1983 it was very difficult to convince bright young Australians who had completed their schooling that tourism was a proper career path for them. There was a mistaken belief that to be in the service industry in Australia one had to be at least obsequious and probably servile. I am pleased to note that these attitudes have changed dramatically and now we have in Australia a marvellous reservoir of well trained, well equipped young Australians entering this glamorous industry. Education authorities all around Australia have responded to the change and we now have emerging a splendid array of hospitality schools in the colleges of technical and further education, the colleges of advanced education, the universities, and even in the schools where young people now have an opportunity to be trained to the highest level for the very skilled and glamorous jobs that exist in this industry. So those four main areas-promotion, incentive for development, incentive for overseas investment and training-have all been put into place. The success that we are now having with tourism in Australia at the minute is not necessarily the result of a decreased value of the dollar or the success of the Paul Hogan campaign, although one should not dismiss either of those factors. The product we are selling has not altered dramatically since 1983. The beaches are no more beautiful now than they were. The wonderful climate is the same. The blue skies are the same. The free and easy lifestyle is the same. The friendliness of Australians is still the same. But what has happened is that this industry is at long last recognised for what it is-a great contributor to the Australian economy as a result of government leadership and legislative action. To examine our commitments and achievements in detail it is necessary to look firstly at the changes that have occurred since March 1983. A number of important measures have taken place in line with our promotional commitments. The first of these was to increase the budget for the Australian Tourist Commission by 200 per cent. This was a major step in inspiring confidence in the minds of investors and developers and also led to the phenomenally successful Paul Hogan television commercials which I mentioned earlier. I think it is fair to say that Paul Hogan has made Australia the flavour of the decade in the United States. Now Crocodile Dundee has reinforced this image right around the world. Australia now has an international profile that we could not have dreamed of prior to 1983. The Hogan campaigns, scoffed at by allegedly sophisticated critics at their inception, are now universally recognised as the most successful tourism marketing exercise the world has seen. They have been so successful, in fact, that Australia's position, in terms of priority for American international travellers, has improved from forty-ninth out of 100 countries in 1983 to first in 1987. I think that is a fairly decent testimony to the capacity of Paul Hogan as our super-salesman. The Government also introduced the tourism overseas promotion scheme, known as TOPS, to assist the industry in its international product marketing efforts. This has encouraged private operators to build on the great promotional efforts of the ATC, with financial rebates for advertising and other marketing expenses incurred overseas promoting the Australian product. As a further innovative step, I introduced an annual program for national tourism awards. These awards encourage excellence within the industry and also make a major contribution to heightening public awareness of the importance of tourism as a whole. This year the awards will be held in Perth in September. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all honourable members that the tourism industry in Australia now looks upon these awards as something well worth winning. They have become very prestigious. A number of subsidiary measures were also introduced. For example, the sales tax on certain cruise vessels was removed-back-dated to the implementation date of August 1981-to provide a boost to the tourism and boat building industries. Those Queensland members of the National Party of Australia I see sitting over the other side of the chamber will be more than delighted that this Government sought to remove that silly sales tax that was imposed on the building of tourist vessels. I well recall going up to Brisbane a few days after that announcement and speaking at the shipyards in Brisbane in the electorate of Griffith. Thompson Bros, Millkraft Boat Yards Pty Ltd and Lloyd Ships Holdings Pty Ltd were all in terrible despair. Twelve months earlier Thompson Bros staff had been reduced from 32 to three. The boat building industry had come to a halt. In 1984, when we took that silly sales tax off and made its removal retrospective by back-dating it to the date of its implementation, I had the great pleasure of travelling Australia giving cheques back to people who had built boats or had boats being built at the time of the implementation of that tax. I am pleased to report that now the Australian boat building industry is undergoing an extraordinary improvement. A number of magnificent tourist boats are being built here in Australia by Australian tradesmen. I mention particularly the Sun Goddess, the boat that Ansett uses to transport travellers from Hamilton Island to Hayman Island, as a perfect example. I cannot remember how many boats I have launched in the last couple of years. There was one particularly recently which I launched on the Gippsland Lakes. It was built in a little place called Metung. It was a marvellous example of the Australian tradesman's art. That has happened only because we took off that silly sales tax. Of course, it is difficult to have a tourism industry in a country such as Australia unless we have the capacity to build tourist boats here. We provided a special subsidy towards the cost of diesel fuel used for power generation by off-shore tourist resorts within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park region. We have approved some international charter flights where it has been shown that they will promote a genuinely new market. I only wish that we would get more applications from all those people who talk about charter flights but never apply. We have agreed to a program for the accelerated development of visitor facilities and infrastructure in Kakadu National Park and, as a part of the management objective for the Uluru National Park, we helped to facilitate the development of the Yulara tourist resort on the perimeter of the park. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) must take great credit for the co-operation he has given my Department-and the Tasmanian Government, too, I might add-in the provision of tourism facilities in the very fragile south Tasmanian wilderness area. Since the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) is in the chamber, I say that I am sure he is delighted with the progress that the Commonwealth and State governments have made in implementing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I think it is fair to say that the improvements in the infrastructure for the Barrier Reef-now we will be having fixed hotels on the Barrier Reef-are full measure of the appreciation that world travellers and Australians have about the magnificent resource that lies off the coast of Queensland, the 3,000 miles of the Great Barrier Reef. Against every advice that it could not happen, we have managed to talk the two main domestic airlines into implementing lower tourist air fares. It is a pity that they keep these tourist air fares such a secret. Most Australians do not realise that they can go to Australian Airlines or Ansett Airlines and demand a tourist airfare. It is not stand-by, it is not shoulder, it is not Apex-it is none of the euphemisms that are usually applied to cheap fares. One can go to any tourist office and apply for a tourist airfare. One must travel for 10 days, but as long as one is spending four days outside a capital city one can obtain a ticket that will give one five stops. For $500 one can travel 6,000 kilometres, which is 8c a kilometre. For $800 one can travel 10,000 kilometres. One can skirt Australia for $800. For example, a tourist-not necessarily an international tourist but also an Australian tourist-can buy a ticket in Sydney for $500 and go to Brisbane, Cairns, Alice Springs and Sydney. As long as that person takes 10 days it is a perfectly legitimate travelling operation. It seems to me to be a pity that travel agents do not want to push this fare option and the airlines seem to be fairly reluctant to advertise it in Australia-although they do advertise it fairly well overseas. Mr Peter Fisher —Make them. Mr JOHN BROWN —I would like to know how to make them. We have also provided $26m for the purchase and modification of a replacement Bass Strait ferry of doubled capacity and for associated terminal upgradings. This has had a quite stimulating effect on tourism in that beautiful State of Tasmania. The Australian land transport program was introduced on 1 July 1985, providing to date almost $1.5 billion for the construction and maintenance of roads. Included in that amount, of course, was mainline railway upgrading and road safety and research. There seems to be a feeling abroad that international tourism is the only thing that we should be pushing. It seems to be forgotten that 85 per cent of the tourism industry in Australia is generated within Australia. Eighty per cent of that tourism is undertaken by Australians in their motor cars or on buses. Every week when I travel to Canberra down the new freeway from Sydney I think of the enormous potential that this city has for tourism. There is no question that Canberra is now the most beautiful of all the national capitals. It is probably one of the youngest, but I think every Australian should be proud of this national capital, which has been built up by a variety of governments of a variety of political colours. The opening of that freeway from Sydney to Canberra, together with the opening of the new Parliament House next year, will give this place, to my way of thinking, the title of the best tourism resource in Australia. I hope that every Australian who finds it possible will visit this city and be in wonder, as I am, at the beauty of the national capital. The freeway also gives those lovely towns on the Southern Highlands of New South Wales-Berrima, Mittagong, Bundanoon and Moss Vale-an opportunity to present themselves as a real tourism resource. One of the things that we managed to do, of which I am very proud, was to organise the States to introduce standard registration of travel agents. For too long in Australia we have had the odd and sad spectacle of travel agents crashing, taking with them the heard-earned savings of people who were buying a holiday. It has been very difficult in Australia to get the States to co-operate on standard law. This has been the first breakthrough. All the State governments, with the exception, I might add, of those of the Northern Territory and Queensland-I wonder why it is those two-have now agreed to introduce standard legislation to cover the registration and bonding of travel agents. I hope that the talks that are taking place at the moment will convince Queensland-the biggest tourism State-to join all the other States, including Tasmania, in this very admirable piece of legislation to protect Australian travellers. We have also managed to organise with the Department of Aviation and the airlines duty free shopping for returning passengers. Qantas complained for many years that it cost it millions of dollars a year to fly in about 50 dozen bottles of spirits free on every flight. This was purchased in Fiji, Singapore or somewhere along the line. Australians now have the option of making their duty free purchases-that is, liquor, tobacco and perfumes-when they get off the plane in Sydney at the airport on the way to the immigration desk. It is a great breakthrough and it has been extraordinarily successful. Qantas is delighted-and so are the other international airlines-that it is not now carrying all this free freight because, among other things, spirits are flammable. Also, we have had the odd spectacle of some people who have managed to drink too much on the plane being refused service and then opening their own duty free bottles which they had under the seat. All of those problems have now been corrected. It is now possible to buy duty free goods when one gets off the plane. In the area of training this Government has addressed the long term needs of the industry. Without trained staff, the viability of tourism as a major earner for foreign exchange would be jeopardised. We need to have in this country a system whereby young people can look forward to rewarding careers in the tourism industry. Accordingly, we have commissioned and now released for public discussion the Sprokkreeff report. This most valuable document clearly identifies the problem areas in tourism training needs and makes constructive suggestions as to how we should go about remedying these deficiencies. This report is also being considered by my colleague the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). Even without the benefit of the Sprokkreeff report there has been a huge upsurge in the number of jobs available to young Australians who are looking for a career in the tourism industry. Between now-7 May 1987-and the end of 1988, it is very likely that 70,000 new jobs will be created in the tourism industry, and this will provide a great opportunity for young Australians. In the short term the Government has actively used the community employment program, administered by my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), to boost tourism projects and also to increase job opportunities in this most rewarding area. Until 1983 the development of hotels, resorts and casinos was haphazard and occurred in a climate of government disinterest. The turnaround since that time has been truly remarkable. This Government, for the past four years, has done everything in its power to foster and to encourage the development of tourism across the entire nation. Rather than rest on our laurels, as outstanding as they may be, we have embarked on a marketing strategy to expand the variety of experience holidays available in Australia. Sport, culture, farm, excitement, heritage and wilderness are just some of the headings that spring to mind. Our vision for the future includes an awareness program highlighting our museums, wonderful national parks, art galleries, theatres and a vast variety of extremely high quality resorts with a uniquely Australian flavour. I point with some pride to the new Australian Airlines Wilderness Lodge which is right on the tip of Cape York where one can sit and dangle one foot in the Indian Ocean and one in the Coral Sea. Mr Lloyd —And watch out for crocodiles. Mr JOHN BROWN —And watch out for crocodiles that is right. Every week I hear of more new and exciting proposals that are about to get under way that will offer visitors to Australia holidays far more luxurious and exciting than they can get anywhere else in the world. This is obviously the way forward for this country. What we will seek to do in an environmentally sensitive way is to give international visitors and our domestic tourists greater access to the beautiful and remote parts of this continent. Our aim is to provide facilities that will give people access to these areas but we will do so in a way which will not harm the sometimes fragile environment or detract from it in any way. We have learned well that tourism and environmental protection can be harmonised with sensitive development. I suppose the best example of this is the Tasmanian wilderness area but I also believe there is a great opportunity in Australia, particularly in Queensland, to exploit the wonderful resource of the tropical rainforests. Anyone who has not taken a walk in a rainforest, particularly at night, has missed one of the great experiences of life. We are also examining the requirements for visa entry to Australia and it is my personal hope that we will be able to ease the current restrictions particularly with regard to some of the countries that are anxious to have free entry to Australia. However, I must emphasise that one of the great attractions of Australia is our peace and harmony, the fact that we are free of terrorist attacks and that we are free of any civil insurrection. Some countries in Europe that have allowed visa free entry to visitors for a long time are now looking at reinstalling the visa system to protect themselves from vagabond terrorists who seem to want to cause countries problems. While the Government can look at its record with pride, the Opposition must be truly embarrassed by the total absence of policy development which has occurred during the past four years. All that the Opposition can offer the industry is a demand for greater private sector investment. I cannot blame it for that-I am in favour of it as well but in isolation it is not much use. It would appear from this that the Opposition has learnt nothing from the Government's highly successful multilayered approach to the development of the industry. A continuing narrow-minded theme in the Opposition's statement on tourism is an attack on industrial relations. It is worth putting on public record the fact that in the last four years there has not been a single strike within the tourist industry although some industrial problems in the airline industry have, at times, indirectly hurt the trade. Furthermore, the bogy of penalty rates-I may say more about that matter in a moment-has not stopped the upsurge in tourism development and it is acknowledged that the quality and costs of services in Australia compare favourably with those in most other countries. Despite what appear to be generous hourly rates of pay many tourists are delighted to return to Australia because we do not have the insidious system of obligatory tipping. That is not to say that industrial relations are perfect. I noted the comments that the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), made in the grievance debate. I am on record as saying that there are some areas of the tourist industry in which penalty rates are far too high. I believe that to be the case but it has not been a disincentive for international hotel chains to come to Australia. Every hotel chain of any note is now represented in Australia, and they are coming here in increasing numbers. In the club industry, some restaurants and dining rooms there is a need for more co-operation between the tourism industry and the related unions. A committee has been set up on the Tourist Advisory Council headed by Mr John Haddad, the Chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission, and including, among others, Keith Williams, the proprietor of Hamilton Island, which is negotiating with the unions about a better regime for industrial relations in those particular areas. Mr Cowan —I hope you're successful, John. Mr JOHN BROWN —Most of the predictions I make work out. I knew that the honourable member would be a very good member, and I was right. I have said on several occasions that Australia is now the tourism success story of the Western world. The most recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development confirms this view. Released in Paris on 9 March, this report states that Australia has recorded easily the world's strongest growth in international visitor numbers for 1985-86. They are up 23 per cent against an OECD average of a mere one per cent. While most other industrialised countries have remained stagnant Australia is surging ahead, and the best is yet to come. Interestingly, according to the OECD figures, the next most successful country after Australia is Canada. The OECD report indicates that the staging of Expo 86 in Vancouver played a major part in boosting visitor numbers to that country. This is very welcome news for Australia, particularly for Brisbane, because Expo 88 will be a major international drawcard, along with many other facets of our bicentennial celebrations. I share with the honourable member for Wide Bay among others the hope that all of the States will come to their senses and decide that they should also be represented at the Expo in Brisbane. If they do not they will be the losers-no one else. All of the statistics indicate that tourism will continue to grow and benefit the whole economy. Many honourable members might not be aware of the number of overseas visitor arrivals. Before the Hawke Government came to power Australia had never welcomed one million visitors during a calendar year but thanks to the policies of this Government growth has been spectacular. In 1983 there were 950,000 visitors; in 1984, 1,015,000 visitors; and in 1985, 1,143,000, an increase of 12.6 per cent; in 1986, 1,418,000 visitors, an improvement of 24.1 per cent; and the estimated figure for 1987 is almost 1.7 million visitors, an improvement of something like 17 per cent. I am very confident that we will easily eclipse our target of two million visitors next year. It is estimated that each adult visitor spends on average $1,440 in Australia. This means that in the current year overseas tourists will spend over $2.3 billion while they are here. This estimate excludes the earnings of Qantas Airways Ltd and expenditure of foreign airlines which will amount to a further $1.2 billion. In 1983 the turnover for tourism in Australia was $7 billion. In 1987 the estimated turnover for tourism in Australia will be of the order of $25,000m, making it easily our biggest industry. New Zealand remains our largest market, with 24 per cent of total short term visitors, followed by the United States of America with 18 per cent, the United Kingdom with 12 per cent and Japan with 11 per cent. However, the Japanese market is growing so quickly that it will very soon be in third place. As impressive as these figures are, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that 85 per cent of the industry is composed of domestic travel and holidays-that is, Australians deciding to take their holidays in their own country. How pleasing it is to find that Australians are now doing this in increasing numbers. This part of tourism has also grown under this Government at about 3 per cent per annum. Australians travelling within Australia will spend over 250 million nights away from home in 1986-87, involving a total expenditure of about $15 billion. A further 100 million day trips will account for an extra $3.4 billion of domestic tourism expenditure. But if one takes the figure for the calendar year 1987 instead of for the financial year 1986-87, one will find that my aggregate of $25 billion will be exceeded. As well as assisting our balance of payments, the tourism industry has also given a major boost to employment. The Hawke Government is immensely proud of having created three-quarters of a million jobs since 1983. Some 70,000 of these have been in the tourism industry-a huge contribution. As more overseas visitors come here, and as more Australians holiday in their own country, so more jobs are created. There is a misconception, however, that tourism will lead Australia towards an army of unskilled and semi-skilled people, with no future prospects. The truth of the matter is that tourism is providing real career paths for young school leavers who are voting with their feet into the industry. There is also a growing awareness and understanding that work and career in service industries ought not to be regarded as servile in nature. Let me give an example. The Ryde College School of Catering in Sydney reported a `football grand final' scramble for places in management courses for the hotel and tourist industries in January this year. People had started camping out the night before enrolments began; and while 400 young people were admitted to courses, another 800 were turned away. Similarly, the William Angliss College in Melbourne had more than 500 applicants for its diploma of hospitality and catering, but only 96 students, unfortunately could be accommodated. The picture is similar all over Australia. Young people have recognised the wide scope for a long term career in tourism, and are prepared to train for three to four years to seek positions in hotel and catering management, travel agencies, theme park management, and the airline industry, to name just a few of the avenues opening up to them. As I mentioned earlier, a report has now been completed into staff training needs within the industry. Undertaken by Mr Willem Sprokkreeff, the Vice-President for Australia and South Pacific of Hilton International, this report contains extremely valuable recommendations on how best to respond to these demands for trained staff by the burgeoning industry. With international visitor arrivals increasing at around 20 per cent annually, and major investment in new world class establishments, attention is focusing on the industry's ability to cope. This growth rate means that each year up to 10,000 new jobs will be created from international tourism alone. As a nation we need to meet this challenge, to keep apace with the promotional activities being undertaken by other countries to capture the leisure and tourist dollar. The work of the Sprokkreeff Committee will help the Government and industry do just that. I should add that the problems associated with tourism tend to be ones of too much success rather than too little. I tell the House that we are the only country in the world that has this problem. Examples include too many passengers arriving early in the morning at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, the design and outlay of our baggage collection and Customs areas, too many people seeking accommodation, and an excess of organisations wanting to hold conventions in Australia. I can add other deficiencies, such as a shortage of staff who speak Japanese, and a shortage of signs in the same language. These are all difficulties which the Government is working to overcome. Tourism's ascendancy has been obvious in many subtle and not so subtle ways. For example, I am reminded of early attempts by the media to denigrate the value of tourism by relegating tourism stories to the social pages or in flashy advertising supplements. So, it is also immensely satisfying to see the beginnings of a media debate on the subject. Are we doing enough for tourism? How can we provide incentives for tourism development? How can we best marry the needs and wants of environmental groups and tourism investors? There is now a clear recognition that tourism is this country's major industry. It is, as well, the fastest growing, and the more sophisticated media attention it now gets reflects this. Even political and economics writers are reporting on tourism related subjects. Hallelujah! It is a far cry indeed from longstanding media indifference and the `She'll be right mate' attitude that unfortunately afflicted the industry and its commentators for so many years. Analysis of data provided to my Department by Cordell Building Publications indicates that nearly $2 billion worth of tourism projects were commenced in the period April 1984 to September 1986. These constructions alone will provide around 12,000 part and full time jobs when completed, and 54,000 man years of work during the construction phase. In addition, there are $6 billion worth of tourism projects in varying stages of planning, with the potential to generate a further 40,000 part and full time jobs once operational, and some 130,000 man years of construction work. Tourism is bricks and mortar, small business, electricity and power generation. Tourism relies on an enormous range of feeder industries and it is this multiplier effect that gives tourism a special place in well balanced economic planning. Tourism represents a real future. We are not waiting for major structural adjustments to the economy; we are creating them. I am not here to state that it is this Government alone which has been responsible for the rise in tourism; far from it. I pay tribute to my State colleagues and their tourism authorities, whose professionalism has done much to increase tourism to their regions. However, it is the private sector which has really taken up the tourism challenge. This has happened quite effectively in a climate created by the Hawke Government. The industry can be justifiably proud of its achievements, without handouts, protection or over-regulation. I have said it publicly before, and I will say it again now: While I am the Minister with responsibility for tourism, the Australian Tourist Commission will continue to be what it is-a body set up to help the promotion of tourism in Australia. It will never become a competitor for private enterprise in terms of tourism development or even as a ticket selling agency. It does its best work in its present role. The huge tourism industry has been built up by competent, generous and very courageous investors from the private industry, who have created this magnificent industry for Australia. As far I am concerned, the Australian Tourist Commission is there to help them, not compete with them. Every overseas tourist who has spent a dollar here has assisted this country in reducing our foreign indebtedness. Also, all Australians who have decided to take advantage of the development of our tourism industry-the better roads, better flight facilities, better developed hotels and motels-are also assisting the maintenance of a strong Australian economy. More importantly, I believe the findings of the Australian Government Inquiry into Tourism-the Kennedy report-will become the blueprint for the future direction of Australian tourism. The inquiry, which I commissioned in January last year, has produced a wide ranging report over the full gamut of issues which will affect Australia's tourism competitiveness in the years to come. I give credit to Mr Jim Kennedy, a very distinguished Queenslander, the proprietor of Daydream Island, for the extraordinarily good work he did in chairing this Committee. As a result of all the factors I have outlined, I believe that the Hawke Government has set the stage so that Australia can truly aspire to be the tourism capital of the world. Certainly the pre-conditions are there-friendly people, a stable government, a great climate, wonderful scenery, and world class accommodation and catering. No other country can compete with us. We are now taking ourselves and the industry seriously. We could probably sit back and cheer ourselves for our success. But what of the future? I think it is fair to say that the potential was always there. It was a pity that for many years of conservative rule in this country the potential of tourism was not recognised. We had a diamond mine and no shovel. The fact that this Government undertook the leadership and the integration of this industry has had great effects for all Australians, particularly for the great tribe of Australian kids who now have jobs. The future is a glowing one. In the next week I will be producing a booklet which will indicate, on quite sophisticated prognostications, that by the year 2000 we will have five million visitors to Australia, which is a huge increase on the less than one million we had in 1983. That figure is calculated on a fairly conservative growth factor of only 10 per cent from 1990 onwards, when growth is now at a rate of 23 to 40 per cent. So it is very likely that we will become one of the great tourism successes of the world. And why should we not? No other country in the world can offer visitors the pleasures that this beautiful, bountiful country can. One has only to look at Sydney. I spent a few hours there last Friday, announcing a new hotel to be built by the Beaufort chain on Circular Quay. I wandered from the Opera House to the redeveloped Circular Quay, past Circular Quay West and Walsh Bay to Darling Harbour. If every there was a magnificent modern city, it is Sydney, and it is not alone in that respect. There are an enormous number of attractions of every diversity all over Australia from the Great Barrier Reef to the snowfields. Tourism in Australia has an absolutely unlimited future. The ball is in our court. All we have to do is give it a decent kick. Mr REITH(Flinders) —by leave-There is no doubt that the tourist industry is of considerable growing significance to the Australian economy. To that extent I welcome the general statement that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has put down in the House today relating to the direction of the tourist industry in Australia. I must say that I was disappointed that, having got through page one the statement, I found on page 2 a bucketful of comments about the previous Liberal-National Party coalition Government. I say to the Minister that members of the previous Government, such as my predecessor, the late Sir Phillip Lynch, were very much involved with the tourist industry. The fact is that Sir Phillip Lynch did a great job for tourism. The past Government did much that was very good for the industry. I will continue to stand up proudly in terms of the result of the work that we did when we were last in government. I can assure the people of Australia that when we return to government after the next election, we will continue to give support to what we believe is an important industry. In terms of the general macroeconomic situation, let me say to the Minister that I suppose it was no surprise that there is a reference to the previous Government on page 2 of his statement. The fact is that the Minister's Government has been in office for four years. The Australian public will not be diverted when it comes to attaching blame to his Government as a result of the policies which it has implemented in the last four years. The overseas promotion of Australia has been recognised generally as a success and I acknowledge that fact. The Minister comes and goes a bit in terms of who in fact ought to take credit for this. Whilst promotion has been important, it is difficult to quantify these matters. One needs to take account of some other factors which have been of great significance. I will mention just a few. I think the America's Cup created interest internationally in Australia. The Grand Prix in Adelaide has been a success. Of course, the drop in the value of the Australian dollar as a result of Labor's economic mismanagement has been of great significance. We have seen in the last few years heightened concerns about terrorism which has attracted people to Australia as a safe place for a holiday. We have had the great success of Australians such as Greg Norman in the sporting world which has put Australia on the map in many ways. As mentioned by the Minister, the success of Crocodile Dundee has done a lot for tourism. Another factor is the increasing awareness in markets like Japan which are particularly keen on our wide open spaces and some of our more interesting flora and fauna attractions. The 10- foot long giant earthworm at Bass in my electorate, the frilled lizard and whatever have all had an impact on tourism and have helped to increase the numbers of tourists. Mr Beale —What about the penguins? Mr REITH —The honourable member for Deakin properly reminds me about the penguin parade where I was a volunteer, a member of the committee of management for a number of years and then chairman for a period. Of course, this is another one of Australia's great natural tourist attractions. I say to the Minister that we certainly give credit where credit is due. I do not think there should be any backing away from that. I have mentioned promotion in this context. I think another good thing that the Minister mentioned in his statement is the relaxation of foreign investment in Australia. I think to some degree he has picked up in that area strands of policy which, of course, had been developed by the coalition over some time. On the other side of the coin, let us not forget that when we have a national debt of $100,000m, we have to start to sell some assets to try to balance our current account problems. The Minister mentioned a number of other issues but time will not allow me to canvass all of them. Mr John Brown —You have got all day. Mr REITH —I think some of them need to be picked up. The Minister will be pleased to know that when I have completed my few remarks, the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) will address the House on this subject. The Minister mentioned road funding. It is interesting to look at the figures which show that under Labor we have had nothing but road funding cuts. The real level of road funding in 1983-84 was $1,359m; the Budget estimate for 1986-87 has dropped to $1,152m. So the Minister has nothing to boast about in terms of road funding. Whilst not a glamorous issue with the public, road funding and, generally, infrastructure funding, are very significant in terms of building up and supporting the tourist industry of Australia. Mr Lloyd —Particularly road funding. Mr REITH —Particularly road funding. The Minister also talked about education and young people. He had a shot at the Opposition's industrial relations policy while recognising, with some qualifications, his 1983 remarks in regard to penalty rates. Mr White —He was all promises then. Mr REITH —If anybody was ever caught out, it was the Minister in 1983. This was an absolute classic. The Minister promised the world when speaking to the Australian Tourism Industry Association. He said that penalty rates were horrendous and that we had to get rid of them. The next day an editorial in the Australian newspaper said that the Minister's remarks were very interesting and that this would be a test of whether or not Labor would put first the national interest or the interests of its constituency in the trade union movement. Within days the then Leader of the Opposition sent the budding Minister off into the back-blocks with a firm instruction to keep his mouth shut. That is a classic example of a Minister appealing to an audience, being caught out and the Labor Party acting under instructions from the trade union movement. Mr White —He had to go and apologise to the liquor trade unions. Mr REITH —As the honourable member for McPherson reminds me, he had to make an apology as well. I was rather intrigued when the Minister said in his statement: `Look, things are so good that the William Angliss College in Melbourne and the Ryde College School of Catering in Sydney are turning young people away from opportunities to attend courses in relation to tourism'. If the Minister thinks that is good news, all I can say to him on behalf of those hundreds of young people who have been turned away is that it is not good news. In fact, it is a reflection of the inflexibility of the Government's education policy. There is no good news in that at all. I am sorry that the Minister was not prepared to acknowledge that a lot more has to be done and that one of the basic problems behind the fact that young people cannot get into those courses is the very education policies that have been implemented by his Government. There is a lot of talk about the number of jobs that have been created under Labor since it was elected in 1983. This is an interesting change in emphasis because prior to 1983 the Labor Party was always talking about unemployment. This has not been the case since Labor was elected to office because unemployment is now off its agenda. Labor's agenda does not include concern for the unemployed young people in this country. The fact is that the continued compliance with the demands of the trade union movement to keep young people out of jobs because of ridiculously high wage arrangements is acting to the detriment of young people. The Government ought to take a leaf out of our book. It ought to read our education policy, which addresses these issues, and it ought to read our industrial relations policy so that it can fix up some of the problems and start to create some opportunities for young people in this country to get a job. The third matter I would like to raise is the tourism overseas promotion scheme. The Minister made nothing but a fleeting reference to this scheme which, of course, has been in a state of administrative mess virtually since Labor has been in government. Mr White —How much is in arrears? Mr REITH —It is interesting that the honourable member for McPherson, my predecessor as shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, asked: `How much is in arrears?' That is really the crux of the matter. When the TOP scheme was introduced we were told by the Government that it would make sufficient funds available to ensure that that scheme would continue. It put $5m into that scheme. I had a departmental briefing this morning and I have spoken to people in the industry. The figure that the Government is now behind the eight-ball is somewhere between $8m and $15m. I see that the Minister has moved off to the back benches which is not a bad spot for him. I think he can look forward to some more time on the back benches because he said to the tourism industry `We will support you in overseas tourism promotion'; yet he lacked the clout to go into the office of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and demand that the commitment that this Government made be met. That is his problem. It is about time that he stood up to that problem and he stood up to the Treasurer and fulfilled this Government's commitment. People in the tourist industry are saying: `The Government made this promise to us but it has broken its promise. What is the point of bothering to get overseas tourist promotion?' Mr White —For the second time. Mr REITH —It is the second time that this has happened. The other thing I want to say generally is that the Minister's statement was really interesting, partly for what it contained, but also partly for what it did not contain. We cannot talk about the tourism industry in Australia without talking about the general economic climate. When we look at the general economic climate we should look also at some of the measures introduced by this Labor Government because they are relevant to so many people in the tourist industry who are in small businesses. As the Minister has stated, this industry is based virtually entirely on the principles of free enterprise. Let us take, for example, the capital gains tax, which is Labor's tax of envy. What sort of encouragement is there for people who have a few spare bob to put their money into the tourist industry when the Government has introduced a capital gains tax? The Minister should not sit in this House and tell me that this capital gains tax is innocuous and that we should not worry about it as it will bring in only $5m or maybe $20m eventually over so many years. What was revealed this week? We found out that the tax would not just bring in $5m. If we look at the 1986-87 Budget Papers we see that the Department of Treasury states that it is such a minuscule amount that it does not think it is worth putting any figures in the Budget. We now find that this tax will bring in $125m. Who is the Government taking that off? It is taking it from many of the people in the tourist industry which this Government claims to support and to represent. Let us look at some other factors which are important to the tourist industry. What about interest rates? There is no mention of interest rates in the Minister's 20-page statement. One would have thought that the Minister could have fitted in something about interest rates but it is not to be seen anywhere. Why? In 1984 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stood up before the people of Australia and said: `Things are going pretty good. We have got the fundamentals right. Things are going to be so good that, if you put us back in office, the one thing you will notice is that interest rates will drop'. What a crackerjack that was; what a promise! No wonder we have not heard any more. Interest rates have gone through the roof since the Government was elected in 1984 and since the Prime Minister made that promise. I do not suppose that I need to say to the Australian people, because they feel it in their hip pockets every week when they get their pay packets, that this Government is the highest taxing government we have ever had in Australia. Of course, when we are talking about high taxing governments, the other side of the coin is high spending governments. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism-- Mr Howard —He knows all about that. Mr REITH —He certainly knows all about that. Mr White —Why don't you tell us a bit about that? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for McPherson will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Flinders is able to handle his own affairs. Mr REITH —Thank you for your support, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have had this job as shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism for four days now, and I have piles and piles of paper in my office of examples of massive government waste which is funded by the taxes of the very people in the tourist industry which this Government claims to support. Last year the Prime Minister's address to the nation cost $54,000-- Mr John Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. There is a long-standing tradition in this place that when an honourable member seeks leave to make a statement on a particular subject he must stick with it, as I did, for 40 minutes, and not make personal attacks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member will remain relevant to the debate. Mr REITH —These matters go right to the heart of the tourist industry in Australia. The point that I am making is that economic conditions in Australia are not as conducive to the growth of the tourist industry as the Minister would like us to believe. When the Minister was appointed someone should have told him that he was not supposed to be a tourist. Mr White —A big spender. Mr REITH —This is the big spender. The other day someone contacted me to tell me about some of the Minister's previous trips. Honourable members will recall that he spent $16,000 on car hire on one trip alone. Talk about seeing the world! There is virtually nowhere that this Minister has not been. I find now that he is planning his next overseas binge. It is absolutely amazing! Next Wednesday night the Treasurer will come into the House and he will cut expenditure items which will affect ordinary Australian families. Most of those expenditure items which will be cut will come into operation on 1 July. Two weeks after the Treasurer has made his statement, where will the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism be? He will be on tour. He will not be too worried about the impact of Labor's economic mismanagement on ordinary Australians. He will be in Japan enjoying a nice little sojourn reportedly under the heading `Investment Mission to Japan'. In conclusion I point out that the tourism industry is an important one. Mr John Brown —Ah, you have discovered that. Mr REITH —I am restating what I said when I commenced my speech. It is just a pity that the Minister, who had an opportunity to come into the House today and make a statement of value, started by tipping a bucket and finished by tipping a bucket. If he wants to do that he will get the same in return every time-have no doubt about that. Let me just state very succinctly that the tourist industry is important. The tourist industry is based on free enterprise. I am in politics because I believe in free enterprise-not as a concept in itself but because it is the basis upon which we, as a community, can look after the living standards of all Australians, families and individuals alike. It is an important industry and one that has my support. But the fact is that, whilst things have improved under Labor for many of the reasons I have referred to today, many opportunities have been lost and only a return of a Liberal government under the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) will see the tourist industry given its full reins and the opportunities which I believe it deserves. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee) —by leave-The National Party of Australia acknowledges the significance of the tourist industry to the Australian economy and the role of thousands of small and large entrepreneurs across the nation whose personal contributions and endeavours have provided a basic structure from which the major springboard for the expansion of the tourist industry in recent years has developed. I am charitable enough to acknowledge the role and enthusiasm of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in this expansion. He has given the industry a high profile in many ways, some of which I will not mention. Particularly with the benefits of the sick dollar and with the destruction of our economy by his colleagues, the tourist industry has used its opportunities to attract a massive growth in the numbers of international visitors. With estimates of two million visitors next year, this gives cause for optimism and opportunity. I would like to mention very briefly the role of our State governments which, to varying degrees, have also been part of this expansion. Time does not allow me to detail their initiatives. The co-operative role of Western Australia ensured that the major challenge of hosting the America's Cup competition had a successful outcome. Anyone visiting Fremantle would have been justifiably proud of this feature world event, despite the loss by Australia. I think that the staging of the America's Cup competition will have a lasting flow-on, not just for Western Australia but for the whole of the nation. Gaining the Grand Prix for South Australia has been a major achievement. Queensland, in staging Expo' 88 in co-operation with the Commonwealth, will complement our bicentennial celebrations. But we should abhor the bigotry and inward-looking attitude of most of our State Labor governments in not fully backing this exposition, with its opportunities for the promotion of Australian industry, trade and tourism. The Minister's statement also referred to the increase of 3 per cent in domestic tourism. This is of considerable benefit; but again, unfortunately, it reflects the deterioration in the value of our currency and reduced living standards which do not allow people to travel overseas to the extent that they have in the past. It therefore follows, though, that the major growth in the domestic area has been away from recognised resorts and more towards caravaning and camping holidays. The Minister, of course, mentioned many of the great attractions in this country. With so many of my colleagues from the National Party here in the chamber, I must point out that rural electorates have tourism as a large component of their economy. Mr Braithwaite —Particularly in the Whitsundays. Mr PETER FISHER —In my electorate of Mallee only agriculture exceeds the benefits of the tourist dollar. The honourable member for Dawson mentions the great attractions in the Whitsunday area. Mr Blunt —And the Tweed Valley. Mr PETER FISHER —Yes, and the Tweed Valley. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) could talk about Fraser Island. My colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and I share one of Australia's great wetland areas in the Murray Valley. Of course, we could go on and on talking about electorates all over the countryside. Mr Conquest —The Barrier Reef and Noosa. Mr PETER FISHER —I hear an honourable member trying to tell us about the great attractions on the Sunshine Coast, including Noosa. Time does not allow me to go through all the attractions, even those in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, where there are some outstanding man-made attractions. In the few minutes available to me let me make some positive suggestions that will ensure not just that the Australian tourist industry's growth occurs because of the slide in our economy into banana republic status but also that it can be consolidated as gains for the future. The Minister raised the matter of the lack of initiative of our travel agents and airlines in arranging package deals to suit overseas travellers. This is obviously a major area that has to be tackled. I believe that the Government has a major role in this, as it has a major role in meeting the urgent need to upgrade airport facilities and efficiency, particularly at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Sydney Airport can barely cope with our domestic travellers and sadly gives arriving tourists and business people a bad first impression of our country. Privatisation of many of our airports would increase competition and consumers could only be the beneficiaries. It should also be recognised that increased capacity for international airlines could add millions of dollars to our tourist earnings. This market today is too highly regulated to cope with peak traffic requirements in particular. The Paul Hogan campaign, of course, has been highly commended, as it should be. It was an outstanding success, but its effects should not be limited by any refusal to allow extra capacity to accommodate the growing tide of tourists-particularly American tourists. I will refer just briefly to the industry initiative in establishing a chair of tourism at the James Cook University. This will give great access to highly trained professional managers and planners and provide for the research that is so essential at a time of growth and potential in our tourist industry. The centre for studies into travel and tourism, which is an excellent initiative, will complement the expansion of many of our education programs, particularly in the technical and further education area with its hospitality and tourism courses which are designed to heighten awareness of career opportunities and the skills needed in the tourist industry. This is one area in which the Minister should ensure that full time TAFE courses are available, with national standards and awards to enable a greater recognition of the qualifications obtained there. I intended to mention the tourism overseas promotion scheme-the TOP scheme-but the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) has adequately covered it. He criticised the Government for failing to carry out the initiatives it promised. As the Minister said in his statement, our people, beaches and lifestyle are the same today as they were a decade ago, before Australia gained its reputation as an international tourist destination. It will not be easy to hold this competitive edge if-and hopefully very shortly-our economy improves. We must look at our restrictive work practices that penalise industry and penalise further employment in the tourist industry. We should also recognise that the Government has taken many initiatives that disadvantage the full potential of this industry-the fringe benefits tax, the entertainment tax and, of course, the capital gains tax that has been mentioned by the honourable member for Flinders. It is appropriate that this Parliament has devoted some of its time to the tourist industry and to the many opportunities that still wait to be tapped. I emphasise that the private sector is waiting out there to tap these opportunities, given further encouragement by the Government. 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 consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 86 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 86 to 1 July 87 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 86 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 Blunt,Mr Dubois,Mr Goodluck and Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Smith and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr McArthur,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. 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 Dependent Spouse Rebate to $1851 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 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 whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware that it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum.'' And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson and Mr Hawker. To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Rocher. 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 is duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr McArthur and Mr Maher. 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 five-fold increase before a note can be used. It will have taken eighteen years from decimalisation to go from the fifty cent piece as the highest value coin to a one dollar coin, but only a further four years to replace the two dollar note with a coin. The lowest value paper note will be five dollars, forcing a dramatic increase in the weight of coinage carried and dislocation of the retail industry. Many people, particularly the elderly, will mistake the value of the coin for that of another lower value coin just as many now confuse a one dollar coin with the ten cent piece. That the addition of two new coins in four years creates the biggest number of coins in circulation at any time in Australia's history and will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins; this will accelerate the cost of living, particularly the cost of food where numerous items are involved and future price rises would need to be five cent increases on every item on every occasion. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the proposed two dollar coin not be proceeded with by the Hawke Government, and no future Government proceed with this proposal for several years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth : That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, do solemnly submit this petition to the Parliament and Government of Australia. Considering that: Twelve years after the takeover of South Vietnam, the Communist Government in Vietnam is still grossly and wantonly committing serious crimes against its people in blatant breach of the UN Declaration of Human Rights; The Communist regime of Vietnam still destabilises the whole Pacific region with its policy of aggression and genocide in Kampuchea and Laos. It has also surrendered Vietnamese sovereignty to the USSR, allowing the latter to establish permanent bases in Vietnam; Australia's trade and so-called cultural links with Hanoi have been misused by the latter as the proof of Australia's support for its genocidal policies. In addition, these links have led to the importation of sub-standard goods from Vietnam, and the presence of Communist cadres masquerading as students in Australian educational institutions; The Family Reunion Program, despite genuine efforts from the Australian Government, is still used as a tool to blackmail Vietnamese refugees who wish to be reunited with their relatives in Australia; Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House: Condemns the sorry records of human rights violations of Hanoi, and request the immediate release of all political prisoners in Vietnam; Condemns the establishment of Soviet bases in Vietnam and the continued occupation of Kampuchea and Laos by Hanoi troops; Ceases forthwith all trade and cultural links with Hanoi, as these have no benefits whatsoever to the populace of Vietnam; and Requests that Hanoi scrupulously observes all basic tenets of the Family Reunion Program. by Mr Howard. 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 the 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 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 sheweth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. by Mr Nehl. 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 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 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 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Benefits of the War Widows have been altered, and they no longer receive Pharmaceutical Benefits from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This is causing great concern and hardship, as quite a lot of their medications are no longer available, and there is nothing to replace them on National Health. They are now required to pay large amounts to obtain the medications, just to stay alive. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Honour its commitment to these War Widows by: Returning their Veterans' Affairs Pharmaceutical Benefits to them immediately, and to refrain from worrying these aging widows any further by tampering with our Veterans' Affairs Act and breaking all promises made to our husbands . . . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors in the seat of Lilley shows- 1. That the Federal Government has given a commitment to the provision of tertiary education for the people of Australia; but 2. That certain aspects of the Higher Education Administration Charge may adversely affect access to tertiary education by some categories of students. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. The Federal Government discontinue the Higher Education Administration Charge as soon as is economically feasible. 2. During the operation of the administration charge, a graduated charge be introduced, the amount of which to be related to the number of units studied, so as to promote greater equity. 3. A set maximum charge be introduced for families to alleviate the burden of such a charge on single income earners with more than one dependent student. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to recognise and respond to the fact that the major difficulties faced by exporters result from its own policies and not from external factors. 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 SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.20) —Week after week, day after day, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his colleagues in the Government berate the Australian community as to why things are tough in this country. We have heard repeatedly the cry that it was the Fraser-Anthony Government; we have heard constantly that it is the result of actions taken abroad. The reality is that whether it is in this place or whether it is at meetings such as that of the Australian Finance Industry Council-where the Prime Minister pursued the same line-the Prime Minister and his Ministers are misleading the Australian people. They are pursuing a policy which ignores the prime relationship between economic management in Australia and the returns for those who produce the goods and particularly those who sell and export. Indeed, there is little doubt about the statement the other day by Joe de Bruin of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association-that well known affiliate of some honourable members; that factional colleague of those who sit in the corner of the Labor benches-when he said that the last four years had seen the most sustained reduction in living standards since the Depression of the 1930s and with the economy in its present state there was no relief in sight. Sadly, not only is there no relief in sight, but also the connection between our gross external debt and declining exports, on the one hand, and the living standards of Australians, on the other, is totally ignored by the Government and most of those who speak on its behalf. We all know that the ballooning overseas debt is not purely a product of our declining terms of trade. But I find it quite incredible that when month after month we learn that billions of dollars and, in more recent times, millions of dollars deficit are incurred, we are told that it is really not a bad figure. There is an illusion that because the stock market is buoyant, the average producer is getting on quite well. That is arrant nonsense. The reason for raising this matter of public importance today is to try to ensure that those factors that are contributing to the appalling state of the terms of trade of the Australian family farmer, the appalling state of the Australian small business man and the declining conditions for average Australians, reflected by that comment of Joe de Bruin, are understood in the wider community. The fault lies not in what happened in the previous coalition Government or in what is happening abroad, it lies predominantly in what is not happening in Australia or what is happening as a result of this big spending, big taxing Labor Government. Above all, we need to understand that while there are external problems created by changing world market circumstances-and I will say a little about that in a moment-those problems were inadequately addressed by this Government, particularly in the early stages of its administration. When my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) asked the Prime Minister only yesterday whether he would play some role in the renegotiation of the beef arrangements with Japan, the Prime Minister gave no recognition of the fact that Australia's share of the Japanese beef market is declining and the United States share is increasing largely because of the neglect of the first Labor Minister for Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) back in 1984. There is a total failure to understand the affront caused by sending a junior Minister, such as the present Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) or the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), to a country such as Japan. The Japanese treat that with something like contempt. The Americans send their Vice President and the Vice President is the second most senior member of the American Administration. The Prime Minister said that he was really quite concerned and he would like to go to Japan, `but . . . '. The reality is that unless we equal status with the Japanese community, our chances of overcoming what looks like a sweetheart deal between Prime Minister Nakasone and President Reagan is minimal indeed. Let me emphasise the fact that there is a direct link between market access for Australians exporters and prices paid for Australian exports, and living standards in this country. It is important that at every level this Government should understand that both in its attempt to try to negate the efforts by the Americans to add to their subsidies against imports and its attempts to try to maximise Australian access in markets such as Japan, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and every senior member of the Government should be involved. We have the farcical situation in which someone whom most of us do not even know-I think he is the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham)-is leading a major delegation from this Parliament to try to persuade members of the United States Congress that their present legislation is not in Australia's interests. Let me try to persuade the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that these other figures in their Government do not count. I see that the honourable member for McMillan has just walked into the House. For him to try to persuade members of the American Congress that the steps they are taking through the Gephardt amendment and in their protectionist legislation should, for some reason, be changed is really quite farcical. I think that it is a great pity that the Government does not lift its performance in international trade negotiations. Of course, we are concerned about the circumstances in which the United States and Japan are introducing an increasing wave of protectionism. On this side of the House at every level we will do all we can to assist those positive attempts by the Government to try to do something to reverse those legislative and administrative trends. But it must be understood that the Government must also play its part and that it is not doing so adequately at the moment. When we look at the situation in Australia we find that again the Government has no basic understanding of the components of Australia's export income. Primary and mineral exports are still the prime source of Australia's export trade. We just heard a speech from the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) telling us all the efforts that were being made on behalf of tourism. That is to be commended, but we need to understand that tourism is a very small part of gaining Australia's export earnings. Primary and mineral exports remain predominant. In Question Time today we heard an incredible attack by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on Opposition members and the Australian Democrats because they are opposed to the Government's petroleum resource rent tax. I do not know whether the Treasurer understands, but as at 28 February this year, 38 of Australia's 43 on-shore drilling rigs were idle, as were three of the four drilling vessels and 19 of the 20 seismic crews. The Australian Bureau of Statistics issued figures a couple of weeks ago showing that petroleum exploration spending had dropped from $342m in the first half of last year to $157m in the second half-a drop of 54 per cent. This is the industry on which the Treasurer intends to levy a new resource rental tax, a tax that the industry does not want and cannot afford. This tax will add to the cost of not only every motorist in Australia, but also every producer. For that reason members of the National and Liberal parties will continue to oppose an unwanted, unnecessary, unjustified tax. Indeed, we need to understand that in Australia today the current marginal Government take on oil found before 1975 is 91 per cent. The take on new discoveries is 69.4 per cent under the resources rent tax legislation and 71 per cent under the new oil excise. That compares with marginal rates of 45 per cent in the United States and only 39 per cent in Canada. That comparison shows why it is quite objectionable for this Government to come to this House, pretend it is concerned with exports and the productive industries, and apply new levels of taxation. Our tax imposition is totally unsatisfactory at every level of business. All one needs to do is look at the 1986 Mount Isa Mines report, where one will find that company tax this year is $1.4m but the new fringe benefits tax imposed by this Government is $5m. What is this Government doing? It is introducing new taxes, such as a capital gains tax and a fringe benefits tax, and denying the new mining operations any chance of playing their proper part in exporting the products that are so necessary for Australia's domestic recovery. The Australian Coal Association tells me that not only is there a problem with government taxes, there is also a problem with government regulations. In the exploration, development, production and transport to the point of export of coal in Australia, 28 State government departments are involved in the State of New South Wales and nearly half the Federal Departments. We all know that in terms of inflation we are falling further and further behind. Indeed, Mr J. B. Ritchie wrote to the Australian Financial Review earlier this week and said that the extent to which inflation in Australia is rising had eroded almost totally the competitive advantage of the Australian depreciation. That is the situation: Inflation, interest rates, regulation and taxation-all imposed by this Government, all at non-competitive levels and all making it almost impossible for exporters to play their part. As for the poor old family farmer, he has been driven out the back door. That has occurred for several reasons. The first is that all the factors that I mentioned a moment ago, such as interest rates and inflation, apply at least as much to the farmer as to anyone else. The family farmer cannot go out on to the wider market and borrow funds; he must borrow from traditional lending sources. When he is trying to buy agricultural machinery or fund the acquisition of livestock he is forced to pay in accordance with an interest rate regime that is at least three times as high as that of our competitors and under an inflation rate that is at least twice as high. One of the fundamental reasons why I have raised this matter of public importance this afternoon is that the Government has failed to understand that it has been totally inadequate in taking any steps to reduce those work practices that are totally frustrating for everyone involved in every industry in Australia, particularly those who are involved in export. It was not that long ago that we heard from Mr Charles Copeman from Peko Wallsend. He started the move to try to get changed those work practices at Robe River affecting the mining industry. Honourable members would remember that the work practices in question involved such things as the requirement of two operators, not one, for each loader or bulldozer at the port. Only one operator could work at one time so the other operator spent half of each shift in the crib room. At the mines three water trucks were required on the day shift, even in winter or when it was raining. Full equipment crews were required in the mine at all times, whether or not they were working. Even if no shovels were operating, minimum manning requirements meant that if a rostered operator was off sick another had to be called in-at a minimum of four hours on double time when no work was being done. The company's messing officers were not allowed keys to the company stores. Yet, this Government has the hide to criticise Charles Copeman and others who have tried to bring about a fundamental change in Australia's industrial practices. But just as bad, if not worse, are those industrial practices pursued on Australian wharves. Earlier this week in response to a question that I asked, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) showed his total lack of understanding of the appalling non-competitiveness of the handling of grain in the Australian grain terminals. I draw to the attention of all honourable members an excellent article headed `Why our grain exports are in turmoil', written by Julian Cribb and published in the Australian news- paper of Tuesday 5 May. Figures in relation to the days delayed-relating to average annual delays, 1981-85-are based on claims agreed after applying deductibles, with the exclusion of crew strikes, and they indicate that Australia tops the list around the world. In percentage terms, 26.5 work hours were lost due to industrial strikes. On average, 140.3 days per annum are lost in Australian industry, as compared with a country like Papua New Guinea which loses an average of only 6.06 days per annum and New Zealand, which loses some 10.38 days per annum. More importantly, the average throughput of grain per employee at Sydney terminal is just 17,000 tonnes a year compared to 80,000 tonnes a man at Convent and Westwago in the United States of America and 120,000 tonnes at Kalama in the United States. How can Australia compete when work practices like that are pursued? We need to understand that the average personal income of a family grain farmer over the past two years, of just $580 a year, stands in stark contrast to the average wage paid at the Sydney grain terminal of $30,900. The whole circumstances of work in the export industries is appalling. It is in this climate that the Government must look at its own soul. It is not the fault of the Fraser-Anthony Government; it is not the fault of what is happening in the United States Congress; it is not the fault of what is happening in Japan; it is the product of a Labor accord between the present Government and the trade union movement. It is the product of an inadequate response by this Government to industrial conditions that are totally unsatisfactory. It is a product of economic policies which have led to quite impossible levels of interest rates. It is the product of Government taxation-and I refer to the resource rental tax, the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, which are anti-production and which are against the interests of small productive Australians. Unless the Government wakes up to the reality that those circumstances must change, the opportunity for us ever to defeat the declining living standards, referred to by Mr Joe de Bruin, are absolutely nil. The only way to change those conditions is to change the Government and with it to change the economic policies that the Government is presently pursuing. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(4.35) —This poor, embattled and befuddled leader of an embattled and divided party sits here overshadowed by a septuagenarian demagogue in Queensland. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has just made a speech which exposes the confusion in not only his mind but the minds of those in the divided Opposition. The honourable member started off by saying-and this is also evident in his motion-that all our problems are due to domestic circumstances, and then the right honourable member proceeded to spend a good deal of his time talking about what was happening to our beef market in Japan, what was happening in the United States, and about what was happening between Japan and the United States. They are some of the international circumstances about which we are concerned but with which we have been dealing more effectively than any other government. If the Leader of the National Party of Australia really wants to go back to where the trouble started in relation to the Japanese beef market, I ask him to review what his former leader did during the 1977 negotiations. However, the right honourable member prefers to criticise the very effective negotiations that were undertaken by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in 1984. In the context of the Japanese market, we still enjoy a much more favourable position for quota beef than does the United States. But it is interesting to hear a contribution made by at least one member of the Opposition on the question of trade, because for months and months we have sat here in despair and wondered when the Opposition would outline a policy in relation to trade and exports generally. All we have heard has been an almost weekly cry from various members of the National Party to send yet another delegation to the United States. That has been their only policy, namely, send a delegation to the United States. What on earth would a delegation do in the United States if it were not to address the international circumstances confronting Australia? Honourable members opposite have had only one policy and that was doing something about American policy, and then they come in here with this proposition saying that the whole of our problems are related to domestic circumstances. Further on the matter of these cries being made for delegations to be sent overseas, over a period of time the Deputy Leader of the National Party made nine separate calls for a delegation to go to the United States. The former spokesman on trade made eight separate calls for delegations; indeed his best effort was to make four calls in four days for a delegation to go to the United States. When the Government does respond recognising that now is an appropriate time to send in a low key and non-hysterical way a group of members of this House, and one from the Senate, to the United States to talk to counterparts in the United States Congress, all that members opposite can do is to disparage the leader of the delegation, who was a member of the last successful delegation and someone who is highly respected in the agricultural community for the work that he has done on behalf of the agricultural community. I think that to disparage this delegation even before it has left Australia, the delegation which has been the centrepiece, indeed, the only plank in the Opposition's trade policy, is a deliberate attempt to undermine its effectiveness when it gets to the United States. If that is really the attitude of the National Party to this delegation, why do not National Party members withdraw from it? Of course those members want to be on it; they want to go on a weekly delegation. All they are interested in is tripping off to the United States, rather than making some concerted effort towards policy development in this difficult area. That delegation will be followed by my own visit to the United States so that we can have a two-pronged approach to the problems confronting us with a belligerent and increasingly protectionist Congress. So, this delegation will talk to members of Congress and then I will follow it up a few days later to maximise our efforts in that regard. It is very curious that the Leader of the National Party should make this deliberate attempt to undermine the efforts of this delegation, a delegation of which his Party's Deputy Leader will be a member, before it has even left Australia. Let me agree with the Leader of the National Party on one matter, and that is when he refers to some of the domestic circumstances confronting our industry. Let us look at the circumstances confronting the Queensland coal industry. Coal remains our largest export. It is absolutely vital for us to continue to have a prosperous coal industry, one which can compete in the world. That industry confronts difficult times. There is massively increased competition from other countries for the existing coal markets around the world. Those coal markets are not expanding very fast, but the competition is expanding extraordinarily fast. As a result of that competition, prices for Australian coal are dramatically down. There has never been a more important time when we should be addressing the difficulties within that industry to try to improve its efficiency, productivity and overall competitiveness so that it can hang on to the important markets that it has around the world. This is a responsibility which lies with both employers and employees. The Australian Coal Consultative Council involves both sides of the industry, which would not even sit in the same room when we came to office, so sour were the relations between employers and employees, largely as a result of the neglect of the former Leader of the National Party. We have been able to get the various sides of that industry-the employers, the employees and the various governments of the States in which those industries operate-together to try to address some of the difficulties that confront it. They have had a series of meetings, and I have attended several of them. They have all been thoroughly productive in terms of seriously dealing with some of the difficulties which confront that industry and the kind of change which confronts it. I have said to the employees as well as to the employers, the managers, that they will all have to improve their game; they will all have to improve the way in which they work; they will all have to work to improve the industrial relations within that industry, which, of course, has not been very favourable in recent times. We will not deal with that by taking the attitude of Charles Copeman. He instituted a lockout in one of our other vital export industries, the iron ore industry. What do honourable members think was the attitude in Japan when the mining company decided to lock out the work force and suspend exports to Japan, a most important market for us and one which has to be supplied reliably if we are to be looked upon as a serious supplier of iron ore? Of course the Japanese were totally confused by that action which was very unnecessary. Since that time, since that heroic and massively unsuccessful gesture on behalf of Mr Copeman, the unions have been prepared to sit down and work their way through some of those outdated practices. We cannot blame the unions alone for the existence of those practices. During the period of the former Government there was a very lazy and complacent attitude to the circumstances confronting the mining industry. Just because prices were high, management gave in and granted extraordinary conditions which should never have been accepted. Most of those mad work practices which are now being reversed were agreed to. They were accepted by management. It did not even resist them. What sort of an attitude is that for management to take? It is now paying the price for it because the circumstances in those industries are not as favourable and they are having to wind back some of the conditions. In this difficult situation what do we see the Queensland Government now doing? It has introduced a piece of legislation which is quite calculated and quite deliberately intended not to solve the problem of industrial disputation in the coal industry but to inflame it. The real purpose of that Queensland legislation is to cause, not stop, a strike. We have this crazed megalomaniac, Bjelke-Petersen, out of control simply with a politically inspired campaign directed at the heart of our most important export industry. The Leader of the National Party is right; there is a great domestic threat to one of our great export industries, and it comes from his Party in Queensland. That is the most serious threat to our export performance at the moment. It is quite deliberately designed to cause strikes when we should be ensuring that we have increased reliability within our coal industry. The Leader of the National Party indicated that some sweetheart deals may be being done between Prime Minister Nakasone and President Reagan. One of the areas of great concern to us is that maybe the Japanese will buy more coal from the United States. Would it not be a wonderful excuse for the Japanese to divert their sources of supply if our coal industry went on strike? If it went on strike that would give the Japanese the excuse they want to divert their sources of supply. This has been done quite deliberately by a lunatic in Queensland in the party of the Leader of the National Party who comes in here and tries to say that we are responsible for the problems confronting exporters in this country. I want to make another point about this. The silence of the coal companies in Queensland is quite intolerable. I know that they have been threatened; they have been intimidated by the Queensland Premier with threats in relation to coal levies and rail freights to keep their mouths shut, to not express the view that they otherwise would express about this mad legislation. They are opposed to it; they know what a threat it represents to the stability of their industry, yet they are being threatened by the Queensland Premier that if ever they should voice any criticism of it the levies will go up and the freight rates will go up-levies and freight rates which, of course, are already a punitive tax on the coal industry in Queensland, ripping something like $90m out of the industry, not in respect of any services provided by the Queensland Government but just as a straight, blatant tax. He is threatening to put them up if those coal companies ever step out of line. Those coal companies cannot afford the luxury of their silence. They have to expose the threat which this legislation represents not only to their industry but also to the whole of the Australian economy. Indeed, it ill becomes the Opposition here to maintain its silence because it knows what this is all about and it ought to have the courage to expose this campaign for what it is. The Government would not under any circumstances condone any industrial relations action in this matter. We are working with the unions, and with the industry if it is prepared, to find ways of defeating this legislation-and defeat it we must because, as I said, it is not designed to stop strikes; it is designed to start strikes and threaten our great coal exporting industry. Let me deal with a couple of blatantly incorrect facts which were represented to the House by the Leader of the National Party. In the first instance, he quoted the circumstances of our agricultural industries. Of course they have been badly affected, not by the policies of this Government but by the international market-place. The price of wheat has halved, but we did not halve it; the Americans and the Europeans did. We have not disrupted the sugar market; that has happened as a result of European policies. Nevertheless, as a result of the devaluation which flowed from the floating of the Australian dollar, a policy which even the alleged farmers' friends could not get through, the farmers have been saved. If we look at farm cash operating surpluses, which is the normal measure to establish the conditions of Australian farms, we find that in 1986-87 the average surplus across the sector is expected to increase by 30 per cent following a fall of 12 per cent in 1985-86. We know that that does not make farmers well off, but it is quite incorrect for the Leader of the National Party to say that their circumstances are continuing to deteriorate. There have been rises of 140 per cent in sugar and 105 per cent in beef. There have been improvements in farm operating surpluses of 100 per cent in relation to sheep, 97 per cent in cotton, 44 per cent in relation to sheep-beef and even 13 per cent in wheat. The Leader of the National Party has exposed a total misunderstanding, a total ignorance, of the circumstances which we currently confront. Another fact which is worth putting on record is that we now enjoy in this country a very substantially improved competitiveness, not only as a result of the depreciation of the dollar but also as a result of improvements in our wage structure. If we compare our unit labour costs with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average we find that we are now 25 to 30 per cent more competitive than we were 2 1/2 years ago. The Leader of the National Party went on about a whole lot of other issues that he alleged we have not addressed. Our record on removing impediments to trade has been infinitely better than anything that he and his colleagues ever did. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services)(4.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the National Health Act 1953, the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 and the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the introduction of new recurrent funding arrangements for nursing homes, quality of care standards in nursing homes and improved arrangements for granting capital assistance to non-profit organisations. These measures will improve the quality of care and quality of life provided for aged people and achieve greater efficiency in government funding of nursing homes. Over the last decade, and over the past five years in particular, major criticisms have been made of many aspects of policy and program management in the aged care area, and in particular residential care. There have been two major reports to Parliament by committees comprising representatives of both sides of politics. One was by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, the McLeay report, and the other was by the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, the Giles report. There has also been a report by the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit of the Commonwealth administration of nursing home programs. All these made strong comments about the inappropriate mix of services between and within institutional accommodation and home and community care, the unplanned and unco-ordinated approach to residential care provision, the need for significantly tightened control on the growth of nursing homes, and the need to introduce funding arrangements which provide incentives to operators to be efficient and reduce inequities between States. The often inadequate quality of resident care, the need for more consistent inspection and better quality control arrangements and the crucial roles of assessment and rehabilitation were also highlighted in these reports. Against this background, in its February 1983 pre-election policy statement, the Australian Labor Party committed itself to a change in the approach to funding of nursing homes, foreshadowing the introduction of a program grants approach. The Review of Nursing Homes and Hostels, which was tabled by my predecessor, former Senator Don Grimes, in the Senate on 14 April 1986, brought together the conclusions and recommendations of these previous reports and outlined a blueprint for a staged program of reform of residential care services for aged people. As the first stage of the reform program, the Government made a significant commitment, in the 1986-87 Budget, to begin the process of redistributing resources for the care of aged people away from nursing homes to alternative less institutionalised forms of residential care and to community care services. This will involve, as a package, additional expenditure of approximately $24m in 1986-87, $80m in 1987-88 and $150m in 1988-89. Implementation of that first stage is now well under way. The main elements include new needs-based planning arrangements linked to capital funds arrangements covering both nursing homes and hostels, with increasing emphasis on the number of hostel places through an expanded capital program; increased resources for home and community care; the development of a special services program to cater for the special needs of frail aged people which cannot satisfactorily be met through standard levels of funding; and the development of co-ordinated assessment processes, including the staged establishment and expansion of assessment teams, to assist aged people and their families to plan the most appropriate care to meet their particular needs. The Government also foreshadowed in the 1986-87 Budget the introduction of new recurrent funding arrangements for nursing homes and arrangements to develop quality of care and life standards in nursing homes. On 31 March 1987 I announced the second stage of the Government's program of reform which, with the passage of this Bill, will see the foreshadowed arrangements turned into reality. In developing the proposals to be given effect to by this Bill, the Government has acknowledged that the achievement of improved care services for the aged depends on the co-operation and support of the community, the industry and other groups. For this reason, the Commonwealth has undertaken extensive consultations concerning the details of proposed changes with State governments, the nursing homes and hostels industry, consumer and other welfare groups, and professional and staff organisations. I shall now discuss the two major elements of reform, commencing with the new nursing home recurrent funding arrangements. Briefly, the new nursing home funding arrangements which this Bill will bring into effect involve the phased introduction, from 1 July 1987, of standard daily resident fees and standard Commonwealth benefits to replace the current cost reimbursement arrangements operating for non-government nursing homes for aged people. These new funding arrangements will constitute a uniform national system. Special conditions will not be granted to one State which are not available to others. These new arrangements will apply to some 1,250 non-government homes caring for some 60,000 aged residents across Australia-those being private participating homes funded under the National Health Act 1953, including both `for profit' and `not for profit homes' and `not for profit' homes funded under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974. While ostensibly these groups of homes are funded under two different types of funding arrangements, both are essentially funded on a cost reimbursement basis. Under the new arrangements the Commonwealth will, in effect, fund a specified level of service of nursing home care on behalf of residents at a predetermined price. It will no longer reimburse proprietors for whatever level of costs has been incurred. In other words, emphasis will be placed on outcomes rather than inputs. This represents a vast improvement over the current arrangements which are unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. First, residents of participating nursing homes can be faced with unexpected fee increases every few months. Many are required to pay amounts significantly above the minimum contribution, even though the standard of care may be no better than that provided in other nursing homes where the residents pay only the minimum contribution. Second, cost savings by efficient nursing home proprietors do not produce increased profits and there is therefore no incentive to operate efficiently. Third, the industry is also subject to an excessive degree of regulation and unwarranted operational rigidities. In order to maintain their financial viability, proprietors need to apply for a fee increase whenever their costs vary and provide detailed documentation in support of their applications. Fourth, the quantum of Commonwealth nursing home benefits is geared to the levels of expenditure incurred by nursing homes. Because costs vary widely between homes and States, this system has led to substantial per capita inequities in benefits paid from one State to another. For example, the maximum benefit paid to ordinary care residents in participating nursing homes varies from $54.60 a day in Victoria to $35.25 a day in Queensland. Fifth, the plethora of different funding, and funding control mechanisms, and their seeming inability to contain the mushrooming cost of nursing home accommodation, have resulted in totally unacceptable and unjustified cost escalations per bed day. In the period from 1973 to 1985, for example, the increase in Commonwealth per bed day expenditure was of the order of 606 per cent, compared with a 233 per cent increase in the consumer price index and a 308 per cent movement in average weekly earnings. The cost of nursing home care has clearly risen out of all proportion to other indicators and it is becoming increasingly difficult to prevent unscrupulous proprietors from exploiting the system to increase profits at the expense of residents and taxpayers. The unintended and undesirable consequences of the present funding system are well illustrated by the findings of an analysis done by the Department of Community Services of nursing home operating costs incurred during the 1984-85 financial year. The study concentrated particularly on infrastructure costs-that is, all costs other than those incurred on nursing and personal care staff. This analysis confirmed that there is extraordinary diversity in the nature and quantum of funding approved by the Department around Australia for the provision of infrastructure services-State average infrastructure costs vary by 27 per cent and are 18 per cent higher in Victorian homes than the next highest State, South Australia. The analysis also showed no statistically significant relationships between infrastructure costs and factors which might explain these substantial variations in costs such as dependency levels, bed capacity, ward size, age of home, whether the home was free standing or part of a complex. Even within States, there are large inexplicable cost variations between individual homes. The inescapable conclusion drawn from this analysis is that the substantial variations in infrastructure costs both within and between States are unjustified and that there is little basis for having different levels of infrastructure funding from home to home or State to State. This is not to imply blame on individuals, particular sectors or particular States. Clearly it is the funding system itself that is wrong and requires change. Where the funding arrangement leads to the incurring of unwarranted additional costs, it is the taxpayer and the consumer, in the main, who pay the piper. In this particular case, the consumers are frail, elderly people, approximately 80 per cent of whom are in receipt of part of full pensions. The Government cannot ignore the fact that if there is unnecessarily high expenditure on nursing homes for the very small proportion of aged people in nursing homes, this will mean diminished funding available for less intensive accommodation or community based services for the remainder of the aged population. Clearly, the Government would be negligent if it continued to let costs mushroom in the nursing homes area and thwart its objectives of providing aged people with a wider range of care choices to match more closely their individual needs. The new funding arrangements for nursing homes being introduced in this Bill are designed specifically to redress the many problems faced under present arrangements and to achieve greater equity between States and individual nursing homes in the Commonwealth funding of aged care. They will also simplify the administration of the program and eliminate the detailed intrusion by the Commonwealth into everyday decisions of care providers about how to spend their infrastructure resources. This will give providers greater flexibility and incentives to increase efficiency, provided that appropriate care and lifestyle outcomes are achieved for residents. Finally, the new arrangements will provide much needed control over the growth of Commonwealth nursing home expenditure. As I mentioned earlier, the concept of the new funding arrangements is a simple one of introducing, over five annual steps from 1 July 1987 to 1 July 1991, a system of standard fees and benefits for nursing homes catering exclusively or predominantly for aged people. It is proposed that from 1 July 1987, all nursing home fees will be split into two components-one for all direct nursing and personal care costs, and the other for infrastructure costs-for example, transport, laundry, food et cetera-and return on investment. This latter composite infrastructure component is know as the standard aggregated module, or SAM, and represents about 45 per cent of total average nursing home costs. At this stage, the standard aggregated module will be the only component in respect of which all nursing homes for the aged will begin a gradual transition to a uniform national funding level from 1 July 1987. Until new national uniform staffing standards are agreed with State governments and, indeed, for some time after they are introduced, current approved nursing and personal care staffing levels will continue to be reflected in fees on a cost-reimbursement basis. The level of SAM is set in the Bill at $27.65 per occupied bed day, for 1987-88. This figure represents the average infrastructure cost for all participating homes for 1984-85 indexed by a weighted average of actual and projected movements in average weekly earnings and consumer price index to give a figure for 1987-88. The Bill also provides for the Minister to either gazette a higher amount or to gazette a formula in accordance with which a higher amount would be ascertained. The formula will provide that in 1988-89 and in subsequent years, the SAM will be indexed by a weighted average of the annual expected movements in the AWE and CPI indices. The index will also take into account the difference between the expected movements in these indices used to determine the previous year's SAM, and the actual movements. The Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice would be subject to parliamentary disallowance. In response to requests from industry organisations, the Government has agreed to regular reviews of the appropriateness of the level of SAM, based on surveys of industry costs. I should stress, however, that the level of SAM which has been set for 1987-88 is fixed and non-negotiable. It has been reached after extensive analysis by my Department of nursing home costings data and represents a level which will result in an equitable redistribution of current levels of income within the participating sector. It will also provide a greater level of income than the average infrastructure cost for homes in the deficit financed sector and put them on the same footing as participating homes. I should stress again that the new funding arrangements represent a transition to a uniform system. Nursing homes with infrastructure costs which are presently either above or below the SAM, will have that component of their fees adjusted in five annual steps to bring them into line with the SAM on a national basis. The 65 per cent of non-government homes which have infrastructure costs below the SAM will receive additional funding over the transition period to assist in improving their quality of care. The 35 per cent of nursing homes which have a level of infrastructure costs above the SAM will need to bring their outlays on such items more into line with costs in the majority of homes. However, the phasing of this transition over five annual steps will allow such adjustment to be undertaken gradually to ensure that disruption to the industry and to nursing home residents is kept to an absolute minimum. For higher cost homes whose residents may prefer, and are prepared to pay for, higher quality and more expensive services, the Government has given in-principle support for the concept of fee exemption. This would involve exemption of entire nursing homes or some beds in nursing homes from the standard fee arrangements and allowing those particular homes to charge at levels higher than the standard fee arrangements. The Commonwealth benefit for these beds would be reduced in proportion to the extent to which the fee charged exceeded the regulated fee. In return for greater operating freedom under the exemption arrangements, the Government will be looking for an increased acceptance of responsibility by the proprietors of such homes. To this end, the exemption arrangements are likely to involve careful assessment of the suitability of proprietors, including an assessment of the quality of care and quality of life that a home has afforded to residents under the standard fee arrangements. The exemption concept will be developed for introduction as soon as is practicable. The Bill contains formulae for calculating the standard ordinary care fee for each nursing home, and a description of the elements which make up the formulae, including nursing and personal care costs and SAM. The Bill provides for the various elements of the formulae to be determined in accordance with gazetted legislative principles, which are subject to parliamentary disallowance. The Bill also requires the standard ordinary care fee for a nursing home to be taken into account when setting a scale of fees which may be charged by a nursing home. Other matters which will be taken into account in setting a scale of fees will be covered in the principles, and it is envisaged that these matters will include arrangements for ensuring accurate cost reimbursement of nursing and personal care staff costs and for phasing out the charging of different scales of fees within the one nursing home. The current system of temporary fee loadings will continue. Existing appeal rights in relation to the determination of a scale of fees based on all 1986-87 cost will be preserved and in future proprietors will continue to be able to request a review of decisions relating to the inclusion of nursing and personal care staffing costs within their scale of fees. Such review requests will be required to be made within 42 days of receipt of advice of a decision in relation to a fee application. The new funding arrangements for nursing homes will provide a greater degree of protection for financially disadvantaged people and will ensure that the group has better access to nursing home care than under existing arrangements. At present, some 80 per cent of residents in all nursing homes are required to pay no more than the minimum resident contribution of 87.5 per cent of the basic pension and rental assistance. This minimum resident contribution will remain at this rate in all nursing homes. The Bill also provides for the Commonwealth to continue to meet the full difference between the approved fees for former deficit-funded nursing homes and the fixed resident contribution relating to those homes which is 87.5 per cent of the basic pension and rental assistance. The residents of other nursing homes pay additional fees of up to $65 per day over and above the minimum resident contribution. By the end of the transition period, the new arrangements will have greatly reduced, for many residents of these homes, the amount to be paid over the minimum resident contribution and will have provided better protection against operating cost increases. Under current arrangements the maximum level of nursing home benefit is adjusted each November. However, because adjustments to SAM are to be made from 1 July each year, the Commonwealth proposes also to adjust the level of the maximum Commonwealth benefit from that date, commencing this year. The Bill also provides for special administrative arrangements to be introduced which will maintain equity between the way existing and new nursing homes are treated. Under these arrangements, the infrastructure fee component for new nursing homes which received an approval-in-principle before 1 April 1987 and which commence operation between 1 July 1987 and 1 July 1991 will be set under the same transition arrangements to SAM as existing homes. For new homes resulting from approvals-in-principle granted on or after 1 April 1987, the infrastructure fee component for the home or beds will be the SAM. The Bill provides for similar transition provisions in relation to proprietors who rebuild sub-standard nursing homes to improve the living environment and quality of life of residents. This provision applies where approval to rebuild is either granted or sought before 1 July 1987. Another measure is the inclusion in the Bill of a simple mechanism under the National Health Act 1953 for approving the demolition of premises occupied by a nursing home and the reconstruction of those premises on the same site. The Government intends also to introduce a similar mechanism for approving the relocation of existing nursing home beds as soon as possible. I should make it clear, however, that decisions in relation to relocation proposals will continue to involve an assessment of the appropriateness of the proposal in terms of planning and other objectives. The Bill also provides that until 1 July 1988, `approved services' in the former deficit-funded sector provided to persons who are not nursing home residents, that is hostel and community residents, will continue to be funded as at present on a cost reimbursement basis. From 1 July 1988, funding for these services will be transferred to the special services program which former Senator Grimes announced as a result of the 1986-87 Budget and will be provided on a grant basis. This does not mean that nursing home residents will cease to receive therapeutic and rehabilitation services-these types of services will be in the future, and indeed have been for many residents in participating nursing homes in the past, largely provided as part of normal nursing home care. Nursing home residents with extraordinary disabilities may also be entitled to supplementary services under the special services program to meet particularly intensive service needs unable to be met under standard funding arrangements. As I mentioned previously, the new nursing home funding arrangements apply only to nursing homes catering principally for aged people. This Bill provides for the new arrangements to be funded only under the National Health Act 1953, and transfers to that Act the approvals of all nursing homes for aged people approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974. In line with this transfer of all homes for the aged to the National Health Act 1953, the Bill contains transitional provisions to preserve the general rights and entitlements of transferred homes. The Bill also amends the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974, so that it applies only to nursing homes where the majority of residents are disabled people who are less than 70 years of age. This amendment is reflected in a change to the long title of the Act. The existing funding arrangements for the 69 nursing homes throughout Australia which cater principally for the non-aged disabled are to be preserved, pending development of a new system for funding these homes consistent with the principles and objectives of the Disability Services Act 1986. The Bill provides for the 69 non-aged homes to be identified in gazette notices published under the National Health Act 1953 and the amending Act. The Bill also enables a certificate of approval-in-principle for new or additional nursing home beds for non-aged disabled people to be granted under either the National Health Act 1953 or the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974. New bed numbers for these people will not be subject to the statutory growth control arrangements which apply to nursing home beds for the aged, but will be announced by the Minister each year in the Budget context. I turn now to the other component of the new funding arrangements-nursing and personal care costs-and to the issue of standards of life and care in nursing homes. I intend, as soon as possible, to introduce uniform national staffing standards based on a resident classification system which reflects different levels of intensity of service need. However, before these uniform national staffing standards are finalised, there will be extensive consultation with service providers, staff and professional bodies and consumer bodies. The new uniform staffing arrangements will incorporate measures to ensure that the new standards will not apply for two years in respect of persons who are resident at the time of introduction. For these residents, the pre-existing approved nursing and personal care staffing levels will continue to apply for that two-year transitional period. A significant concession made by the Government in the course of consultations with the industry in relation to the new arrangements, has been the inclusion of payroll tax and workers' compensation insurance costs for all staff in the cost-reimbursed nursing and personal care component of the fee. The Government acknowledges, however, that with the management flexibility introduced under standard grant arrangements, there are increased incentives to cut corners to make profits at the expense of standards of care and the quality of life of nursing home residents. It also acknowledges the criticisms of parliamentary reports which have identified serious deficiencies in the quality of care provided in certain nursing homes. To tackle these concerns, the Government is approaching the problem on two fronts. The Government's first task has been to clarify the standards of care to be required in nursing homes. The Commonwealth, in consultation with the States, has now developed new outcome standards relating to quality of care and quality of life for residents in nursing homes and has prepared a document which incorporates extensive contributions from service providers, unions and professional groups, consumer bodies and many others. The amendments included in this Bill will allow the gazettal of these standards for nursing home care under the National Health Act 1953 as the basis against which the care provided in individual nursing homes can be measured. In implementing the new standards, the Government intends to adopt an educative and consultative role. An amount of $600,000 will be provided over three years for training packages aimed at directors of nursing homes and hostel supervisors. Where sub-standard care is occurring, departmental staff will work with nursing homes to ensure that the welfare of residents is protected, and to improve overall standards as quickly as possible. The second task is to introduce effective measures to ensure that the minority of nursing homes which have a consistent record of providing poor quality care and which have shown a disinclination to comply with Commonwealth efforts to improve care standards do not continue to do so. The principal existing sanction currently available to the Commonwealth is to withdraw approval of the nursing home, but applying this is difficult because of the immediate need to find alternative care for a large group of frail aged residents if a home is closed. As the current provisions for dealing with cases of sub-standard care have not proven to be flexible enough, the Bill includes two additional powers which the Commonwealth can use to protect the interests of frail elderly residents, where the gazetted standards of care are not complied with. First, the Bill will enable the Minister to ensure that Commonwealth funding is not provided in respect of any new residents admitted to the nursing home which refuses to comply with standards. The withholding of Commonwealth funding in these circumstances is intended to act as a disincentive for proprietors to admit new residents, with the result that, at the very least, no further elderly people will be subjected to the poor quality care being provided in the home. The second power in the Bill will apply only in relation to nursing homes with infrastructure costs which are less than the SAM, and will apply only during the transition period to the new standard funding arrangements. For those homes with infrastructure costs below the SAM, the Commonwealth intends that the additional income gained as the infrastructure cost component of a home's fee is moved upwards to the SAM will be used to improve the quality of care provided, where this is not already at a satisfactory level. Where a home with unsatisfactory care standards receives an increase in infrastructure funding but does not use this additional income to improve care, it would be unjustifiable for that home to receive further increases in funding until the quality of care improves. Accordingly, the Bill gives the Minister the power to withhold increases in infrastructure funding until the home meets the gazetted care standards. Revenue lost would not be made up retrospectively in these cases even where the proprietor subsequently agrees to improve care standards. The two additional powers are designed to indicate to providers that a persistent pattern of poor quality care will result in action being taken to protect nursing home residents. The use of these powers is seen as a more acceptable and workable approach to seeking compliance with the standards required. Because of the desirability of involving industry, State government, consumer and professional interests in the monitoring of nursing home performance-nursing homes after all are community facilities which are of enormous significance in the care of our frail aged people-I propose to establish a peer review mechanism involving these groups to review recommendations to exercise the new powers. Industry and consumer bodies have made the point in consultations regarding the new standards that any review and appeal mechanisms should be speedy and effective and be resourced with appropriately skilled professional and other suitably experienced personnel. Industry bodies have also rejected a remote and legalistic approach to solving the problems which arise when poor care practices are identified and have stressed the need for professional scrutiny in these areas. I have heeded those views and propose to create a nursing home standards review panel in each State and Territory. Discussions are to be held with State governments on the formation of these panels and it is likely at least one panel will be established on a pilot basis in the near future. The pilot should serve as a proving ground for this new approach and provide guidance on establishing similar bodies in other States. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr Porter —On the understanding that the Government will allow the Opposition spokesman the same amount of time that the Minister takes, I move: That the Minister for Community Services be granted an extension of time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD —I thank the House. Certainly we will be very happy to allow the person leading for the Opposition about 35 minutes in which to speak. The Bill also introduces a new mechanism under the National Health Act 1953, in addition to the existing mechanism for the approval of applications for admission to an approved nursing home. This new mechanism will assist the Government in achieving its stated intention that only those who require the level of care available in a nursing home will be admitted to or remain in a nursing home. It has two elements. First, Commonwealth benefits will be payable only in respect of a person who is approved by the Minister as requiring nursing home care. Secondly, the Minister will have the power to reassess, at any time, a nursing home resident's need for nursing care and to stop payment of Commonwealth benefit in respect of that resident where the Minister determines that the resident no longer needs nursing home care and that other, more appropriate care is available. This second mechanism recognises that a person's condition can change over time and that, for many people, admission to a nursing home need not be a one-way street. As a result of the specialised nursing care and, in some cases, rehabilitation provided in a nursing home, a person's condition-for example, in the case of a stroke-can improve to the point where that level of care is no longer needed. Such a person is likely to find the nursing home environment over-protected and dependency-creating, which could work against any further rehabilitation. Where it is found that a resident no longer requires nursing home care, he or she and any other appropriate people-for example, carers, relatives-will be counselled and given every assistance to find the necessary appropriate accommodation and support services. In addition the length of time for which the approval of an application for admission to an approved nursing home remains valid will be limited. Where a person is not admitted to a nursing home within a specific period, and still wishes to be approved for admission purposes, that person will be required to have his or her need for nursing home care confirmed. These conditions will apply, in the longer term, to both Government and non-government nursing homes. However, a distinction is drawn in the Bill for the commencement of these measures in the case of government homes, as negotiations are currently occurring with State governments to set up the appropriate administrative mechanisms. The Bill will also amend the current mechanism under the National Health Act 1953 for controlling the admission of people to approved nursing homes in emergency situations to ensure that such admissions are not used to subvert the normal admission control system. First, emergency admissions are to be notified as soon as practicable to allow the Minister or his delegate to establish that an emergency has occurred. Then, an application in accordance with the normal approval process is to be made within three working days, unless special circumstances exist which prevent the deadline from being met. This will ensure that a judgment as to whether the person was in need of nursing home care at the time of the emergency admission can reasonably be formed. Where an application made within the prescribed time period is approved, Commonwealth benefits will be payable from the date of admission. However, where an application is made outside the prescribed period and subsequently approved, Commonwealth benefits will be paid only from the date of approval. The Bill will also make two amendments to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954. The first of these amendments will enable the current value of donated land and other land acquired by an eligible organisation to be used in connection with an approved home under that Act, to be counted as part of the matching funds of the organisation. The second will enable provisions to be included in agreements entered into under the Act under which the Commonwealth may recover the value in real terms of a capital grant where the agreement has been breached. Finally, during the Senate debate on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Act 1986, the then Opposition spokesman on community services moved two amendments to omit `or otherwise' from new sub-sections 40ad (1ab) and 40ad (1ad) of the National Health Act 1953. My predecessor, Senator Grimes, undertook to seek and find an alternative way of wording these provisions, and on this basis the two amendments were withdrawn. This Bill therefore contains measures to remedy those perceived defects. The new financial arrangements for nursing homes are expected to result in increased expenditure of $3m in 1987-88 and $14m in 1988-89. The other measures in the Bill have no readily quantifiable financial impact, although it is expected that there will be some very small savings in administrative costs. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.28) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 10 to 12 (1987). The tariff proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 10 and 11 (1987) provide for the duty free entry of gas barbecues and parts thereof of New Zealand origin from 8 May 1986. The Australian and New Zealand governments have agreed that gas barbecues and parts thereof are not covered by the modified arrangement on whitegoods under the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement. Accordingly such goods should have been subject to the normal phasing arrangements of the agreement rather than being dutiable until 30 June 1987. The changes contained in these proposals provide duty free entry for the maximum period allowable under the relevant Customs refund provisions. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 12 (1987) implement changes arising from the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on vegetables and vegetable products and on the luggage, handbags and similar containers industry. These changes will operate on and from tomorrow. In respect of the vegetables and vegetable products report, the Government has accepted the Commission's recommendation that imports of fresh vegetables be dutiable at minimum rates and imports of processed vegetables be dutiable at a general tariff rate of 10 per cent. In addition, the Government has decided that fresh mushrooms will also become dutiable at a long term general tariff rate of 10 per cent. Where assistance will be significantly reduced, tariff reductions are to be phased in so as to give the relevant sectors adequate time to adjust. In respect of the Commission's report on luggage, handbags and similar containers, the Government has decided on a uniform general tariff rate of 15 per cent for most of the goods which were under reference. A range of goods, including non-leather cases, trunks and handbags will be dutiable at a general tariff rate of 25 per cent until the end of this year. The general tariff rate on these goods will then phase to 20 per cent for all of 1988 and then to 15 per cent from 1 January 1989. The general tariff rate for those goods currently dutiable at rates lower than 15 per cent will rise to 15 per cent from tomorrow. The uniform long term tariff treatment will assist in resolving classification problems that have previously provided incentives for substitution and reclassification. Summaries of the alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated to honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Wool Marketing Bill concurrently with the Wool Tax (Nos. 1 to 5) Amendment Bills. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.31) —The purpose of the Wool Marketing Bill, with which we are debating the Wool Tax (Nos. 1 to 5) Amendment Bills, is to replace the Wool Industry Act 1972. The Bill will govern the operations of the Australian Wool Corporation and the wool auction system. The Opposition will not be opposing the Bills, but I foreshadow that we will be moving amendments in the Committee stage. The wool industry, of course, is one of those great hallmarks of Australia's history. The wool clip was part of the beginning of this nation. The often quoted saying `the land of the golden fleece' was apt. Wool carried this nation from the various statehoods into Federation, through the First World War and the Second World War, and the wool industry gave life to this nation. I do not think any honourable member in this House would not have been affected in some way by the consequences of the wool industry. My first knowledge of it was in the days of the Korean War when the wool industry was very much in a state of boom. In those times the saying was that wool was selling for a pound per pound and that period put an enormous amount of money into this sector. However, as time goes on, great booms always lead to slumps. As a consequence, there was a lot of criticism about the marketing procedures for Australian wool, the various qualities, and the techniques that were used in those times in shearing, baling, classing and final handling through various stock agents. It was not unknown in those days-regrettably it is still the case today-for a bale of wool to be healthily subsidised by a brick or stone which helped the scales no end. In the course of the slump a movement got under way to do something about supporting the wool industry and cleaning up its act. This movement was led by a very prominent Queens- lander, Sir William Gunn, who at one stage was the leading light in this area. He was the first Chairman of the Australian Wool Commission and a member of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Bill Gunn put an enormous amount of work into the rescue operation. It is probably worth repeating some of the history of that matter, because Bill Gunn was opposed by the famous Basic Industry Group. The Basic Industry Group had its heartland here with Charles Russell, from Queensland, as its leading light. He was supported by Mr Crebben, a well known businessman from Sydney, of all places, who probably became better known for Marrickville in his later days, and the late Sir Frank Packer. They ran this group. There was enormous tension within the Country Party and areas of the Liberal Party of Australia in relation to the establishment of the Wool Industry Commission which eventually came about in the 1960s and the 1970s. It is interesting to note that that was probably the point at which the late Charles Russell, who was a member of this House, left the Country Party, ran as an independent, lost the seat and became quite a maverick operator, both in politics and in business, for the rest of his time. It is probably worth noting that today his son is one of the principal advisers to the Premier of Queensland. That maverick spirit lives on. Bill Gunn was very ably supported in the establishment of this cause by a number of major operators. On the occasions that I have spoken to Sir William about this period, he has frequently recalled to me meetings of farmers and graziers around Australia at which he was bombarded with tomatoes and eggs. I was looking for the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), because one of the most well known meetings that Sir William has mentioned to me on a number of occasions was at Hamilton, where he received very vigorous dissent, so much so that the meeting ended up in a free for all. But, as he said to me in his very down to earth Australian way: `It did not really matter, John; we won anyway'. As a consequence of his actions probably more than the actions of any others, the Australian Wool Commission was established, which latterly became the Australian Wool Corporation. As a consequence of those activities we are now looking at a very sophisticated Australian Wool Corporation and marketing set-up. The Corporation, under the chairmanship of David Asimus, has made a remarkable contribution to the Australian wool industry. I think it has been ably supported by the Wool Council of Australia and the International Wool Secretariat, both of which have intermingled relationship, and the establishment of the joint wool selling organisation, which enabled the wool industry to come together with unions, agents and shippers to create an atmosphere and a market in which they could bring together the various aspects of the product, such as its sale, its transportation and its export, was a credit to them. Today the wool industry probably represents a gross export figure of between $3 1/2 billion and $4 billion a year. Ninety-seven per cent of all wool produced in Australia is exported. Therefore, wool, in itself, is an enormous generator of foreign currency at a time when it is very badly needed. When this legislation comes into force, it is probably significant that the industry would have been heavily consulted and would have approved of such action. I think the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) ought to be congratulated for paying attention to the wishes of the industry in relation to the composition of the Bill. The marketing of wool itself is quite significant. Around Australia, over the past century, marketing facilities have been set up, from very small beginnings. This has been depicted in Henry Roberts's famous paintings of drays taking the wool to the markets. Wool marketing has been established by tradition around Australia. The wool selling centres that have grown up have enabled the Wool Corporation to develop some centres and shut down others and to rationalise the way in which the activities of these centres could most properly be carried out. The Wool Corporation inherited a large portfolio of property from the wartime storage establishment. Some of it was irrelevant and it has been sold, and some very expensive and large storage centres have been established. I noticed in the report of the Australian Wool Corporation last year that a number of new centres have been established, not the least of which was in China, which I will speak about later in the debate. Marketing has been subject to a number of impacts in recent times. We notice from time to time that wool of equivalent quality varies in price from centre to centre and there have been some very big swings in the price structure in one selling season. We have to look for the reasons for this. Interest rates have to be a prime reason. Quite clearly, buyers of wool will not pay for long periods of storage if they do not have the availability of dumping or access to a shipping connection within a reasonable period of time. These things have impacted on price levels in various areas. It is the pricing of Australian wool on which the whole support system has been developed. This issue drew most of the fire when the scheme was originally set up. Eight per cent of all the proceeds from wool is deducted by the agents and sent to the Australian Wool Corporation. Four per cent goes on marketing, 3.5 per cent goes into promotion and research and 0.5 per cent goes into general administration. This floor price plan has enabled the Corporation to set out a list of prices for all the categories of wool that are going to be sold. In relation to that, it has been able to play a very significant role in the maintenance of a free market because formerly there were areas in which certain buying groups were acting in concert and producing results which were markedly in favour of the buyers. Taking into account this activity over the years, the Wool Corporation has judged the market with some astuteness. At times it has had to hold very large quantities of wool in a downturned market or a depressed circumstance. Such things occurred in the 1970s. In the 1980s, when the wool market was feeling the impact of the great desire of consumers around the world to switch to natural fibres and the competition from artificial fabrics was not as strong as it used to be, and as a consequence of the favourable pricing of wool at that time, a lot of work went into wool fabric marketing. As a result, a strong demand was built up and the excess production of wool was gradually taken up, to such an extent that in the last two years the holding of wool stocks by the Australian Wool Corporation has diminished to its lowest point since the Corporation's inception. This is a great credit to its management and its understanding of the wool market. In terms of financing this operation, as I said before, there is an 8 per cent deduction to the Corporation. Over the period until 30 June 1986, total tax collected was $950m, in round figures. Surpluses of $254m have been added to that. From that sum, $188m has been returned to the growers from the taxation collected-amounts going back to the 1978-79 period. I will cite figures from the financial statement of 6 May-only very recently-of the Wool Council of Australia. It says, as to current policy, that it is possible for 1987-88 to maintain the tax level at 8 per cent and to leave the tax splits at 4 per cent for marketing, 3.5 per cent for promotion and 0.5 per cent for research and development. It also says, as to the revolving fund, that the amount to be returned to the growers in terms of tax for the 1980-81 season will cost the fund $83m. After all that, the balance of the fund today stands at $1.14 billion. Of that amount, some 75 to 80 per cent is in liquid funds. This shows the scale of the success of the management and of the operation. It is an event from which the growers certainly have benefited, the producers have reaped their reward, and users of Australian wool have grown in confidence as to the product we sell. This has been achieved also through the other wing of the Wool Corporation-its promotional activities. Through the International Wool Secretariat, based in London, some very expensive and well-placed advertising programs have taken place. Our contribution in the year 1985-86 topped the $100m mark. The rewards from this contribution to the promotion of wool world-wide can be seen in the sales figures. China, in the current season, is our second biggest purchaser. That market did not exist in any significant way only a few years ago. This is claimed by the Wool Corporation as one of its significant victories in that time. On top of that, we have seen the build-up of promotional sales in eastern European countries. In the current program, the Corporation is spending money in Spain, Canada and some other areas which have not been tapped to date. Not only have international markets been pursued, but also here in Australia from 1982-83 to 1985-86 domestic consumption of wool products went up by 53 per cent to a point where we are now consuming two kilograms of wool per head of population-a remarkable achievement which shows the success of the wool promotional activities of the Wool Corporation. Other activities which the Corporation has gone into and which are also adding to the success of the wool industry at the moment include such basic things as pack improvement, training of shearers and research-particularly in pushing the industry gradually but inevitably towards fibre measurement, both for length and for strength. As a consequence of those developments, it is not hard to see that sales in the future will not be in the current form as more and more of this measurement takes place. It is inevitable that computer selling will become a matter of interest to the whole industry. In relation to some other developments, Dr Bob Richardson said: Developments in wool product manufacturing and retailing also have great potential to influence consumer demand for wool. Some trends in this respect include: the increasing reliance on brand images and advertising by manufacturers and retailers to raise profits and gain market share; the emergence of new and different types of companies, which could be called merchandising companies, which control product collections, risk taking and retailing, through franchising, licensing and commission operation, but do not specialise in any of these areas; stronger vertical co-ordination links by leading established retailers and manufacturers enabling them to control their suppliers and those who sell their products; and new computer-based technology to improve information flows, speed up product ordering, conversion and distribution and reduce stockholding costs. Quite clearly, the marketing and research side of the industry has come a long way through the organisation of these matters. It is worth reflecting on the future of the market and projections for it, because I have spoken of marketing, finance and promotion. If we address the physical state of the market for a moment it is interesting to note that since 1982-83 Australian sheep numbers have increased by 20 per cent and shorn wool production by 22 per cent. This clearly indicates once again that the wool industry is increasing its productivity levels which probably means that shearing sheds are better run than they were when the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) was there. As I can attest as a former classified wool classer-- Mr Kerin —They have better conditions in them now, that is why. Mr MOORE —That might well be. They might have wider combs and things like that. Mr Kerin —We give them mattresses now and all sorts of things, food and all that. Mr MOORE —I am surprised. The last time I was in a shearing shed it did not look too bad. As a consequence of that and despite the increase in 1985-86, Australia sold over one million bales more than it produced. As a consequence there has been a very rapid rundown in stocks held by the Australian Wool Corporation. In nominal terms the price has increased between 1982-83 and the present by 8 per cent a year which is a very good return to the wool producers of Australia. The impact of the increase in sheep numbers in Australia and the rapid fall in the Australian stock holding, will mean that available supplies of wool in 1987-88 will probably fall by about 10 per cent in Australia and about 8 per cent in a world sense. Those factors alone must add to the optimistic side of the wool prices equation. This bears out the very optimistic comments made by the Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation only a couple of days ago when, looking to the future, he said that he could see current price levels being roughly maintained over the next two or three years. These prices are significantly higher than they have been for a number of years and no doubt this not only reflects the supply position, to which I have just referred, the improved promotional activities and the turn-around in consumer demand for natural fibre rather than fabric, but also plays an important part in a reading of the exchange rate position. As Australia's exchange rate has gone down very markedly against the Japanese yen and even against the Italian lira, the price of Australian wool in their terms has become remarkedly cheap. As a consequence it is inevitable that Australian wool prices will be maintained at current levels for that reason alone. The product is marketed internationally as `wool', not as `Australian wool'. It is interesting to note that when one travels overseas and inquires about men's suits-as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) does-quite frequently one is offered Tasmanian wool in a suit as a selling point. That is something that I have not seen done in Australia. There are three key points in the Wool Corporation's recent activities. The first is the extra intervention in the market place by the Corporation in the last couple of years. In other words, it has bought in the market at prices over the agreed floor level. This activity was engaged in when there was a slackness in the market and the Corporation's judgment was that some of the excess supply needed to be taken out of it. The Corporation acted in that way and time has proved that to be a very profitable and sensible course of action. It is a matter of judgment. From my experience in the share market I would say that going into a market like that can be profitable, but it can sometimes be a losing consequence. The second key point is the push towards the measurement of fibres. While some technical problems have occurred there, it is inevitable and certainly in the best interests of everyone that that program be persisted with. The third element is the question of how we handle shipping problems in the future. Agreement with the Conference Lines certainly guarantees access to availability of transport-at a cost. At a time when the world supply of freighters is vastly over the demand it is inevitable that the Australian Wool Corporation should look beyond Conference Lines to competitive areas in the future. This legislation is welcomed by the industry. We should all compliment the Minister on the high degree of consultation and understanding that has been achieved with the industry. The Bill removes some of the excessive burdens which had been imposed on the Australian Wool Corporation. The reserve price scheme will now be determined by the Wool Council of Australia in consultation with the Corporation. The Minister will not be as heavily involved as he was before. The wool tax situation now appears to be a matter of consultation between the Corporation and the Council and the market support fund is also a matter of agreement largely within the industry. The funding arrangements now enable the Corporation to borrow up to 50 per cent of its net assets without government approval. As honourable members will recall, I said that by 30 June 1987 those assets would be heading towards $1.2 billion which gives it a healthy amount of leverage before it needs to seek the Minister's approval to go beyond that figure. The wool stores situation is covered by the Bill and some of the loose ends are tied up there. The Bill vests within the Corporation a very substantial property portfolio. The investment in that must be used to the best advantage of the wool industry and it is up to the Corporation to ensure that those properties are properly used and kept to the ever-changing standards required for large storage and for the supply to consumers around the world. These stores are not only in Australia but there is also one in Europe and the latest is in China. A lot of work went into the selection of the chairman and members of the board of the Corporation. That leads me to believe that perhaps the Minister did not have much faith in some of the members of the board. Otherwise the very particular way in which he went about constructing the selection process would seem to be a very heavy way to go about a filter operation. I do not know the background of that but I have always thought that generally industries put forward their best people. No-one could criticise David Asimus or his contribution. I am not familiar with all the members of the board, but I do know a number of them and I am sure that the ones whom I know would make a most reasonable contribution. Therefore, I wonder about the degree of stress in relation to the selection. We all approve the desirability of setting up a corporate plan for the Australian Wool Corporation over a five-year period. These days it is very important that all corporations, as well as governments, have some program down the track which they know when they are handling money of this order. The status in which they are held by the community must be appropriate for their position in the future, particularly in relation to ordering requirements and the reporting requirements to the Wool Council of Australia is embraced in this. We also welcome the way in which the Government has backed away from intrusion in the industry and I am sure that this will lead to a happy association and continuing development in this area. Finally, the Opposition welcomes the proposals in the legislation. This is a contribution to the deregulation of government corporations and a contribution to an industry which is very highly regarded throughout Australia and the world. The industry earns some $3.5m to $4 billion a year in export income. The industry provides an enormous amount of employment throughout Australia. Because of that, if for no other reason, the Opposition supports the Bill. However, I indicate that the Opposition will move some amendments in the Committee stage. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(6.00) —At 6 p.m. on this Thursday evening, with only 10 people in the gallery, we have witnessed, I think for the first time in many years, a major piece of rural legislation coming before this Parliament on which Opposition debate has not been led by either a Country Party or National Party spokesperson. In fact, there is only one member of the National Party, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), sitting in this place tonight. What has happened to the great National Party? The legislation with which we are dealing this evening-the Wool Marketing Bill 1987 and the Wool Marketing Tax (Nos. 1 to 5) Amendment Bills 1987-replaces the Wool Industry Act 1972, which commenced on 1 January 1973 in starkly different circumstances from those currently enjoyed by the industry. In the early 1970s the industry was on its knees. It was due to the bold leadership of the wool industry at that time by men such as Bill Vines, Bill Gunn and others-this was mentioned by the previous speaker in this debate, the member for Ryan (Mr Moore)-including David Asimus, the present Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation, and also, probably the most important contributor, Ken Wriedt, the then Labor Minister for Primary Industry who introduced initiatives with the reserve price scheme, that the decline in the wool industry was arrested and the basis for a sound reconstruction was laid. In considering the situation that pertains today we have to look at the arrangements that were put in place, and which in no small way contributed to the improvement. As the honourable member for Ryan has said, the Australian Wool Corporation has operated effectively in its support of the market through the reserve price scheme, and wool growers have strengthened the position of wool in the world textile market by continued investment in wool promotion, research and development. Some of the latest figures clearly indicate how the rural sector is turning around the so-called doom and gloom situation about which we have heard so much. The figures in the January Bureau of Agricultural Economics quarterly review of the rural economy show that in 1985-86 the industry produced $2,678m for Australia, with the projected figure for 1986-87 being $2,980m. The latest projections are pointing to an improvement on that figure of some $4,000m for 1986-87. That represents a dramatic turn-around, another $1 billion coming into Australia from our export of wool. The BAE farm survey report of March 1987 shows that the sheep farm family income for 1985-86 was $14,840, with the big turn-around for 1986-87 projected to be $35,600-an amazing improvement in relation to the wool industry and the rural sector in Australia, and I am sure it will continue. Thinking that the former Opposition spokesperson on rural matters in this House would be leading off this debate for the Opposition, I asked him whether I could have a graph incorporated in Hansard. It relates to an article on page 23 of the National Farmer of 29 April, which indicates what has occurred with wool prices. That is why I have not asked the speaker who led for the Opposition, as I was not aware that he would be leading off in this matter. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. If it cannot be incorporated, I would like to table it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —The Chair will have a look at the graph and the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) might also want to have a look at it before the Chair rules. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Notwithstanding the present buoyancy in the wool market, the industry faces enormous challenges in the future. We should not let our record wool exports detract from the fact that wool is a special fibre, occupying a small and declining share of total textile consumption. It accounts for only around 5 per cent of overall world textile use, as against a 47 per cent share for cotton and 48 per cent for synthetics. Furthermore, in those areas where wool is relatively strong its share is declining. Wool had 33 per cent of the menswear market in 1970, while only about 18 per cent today. Similarly, its share of the womenswear market has fallen from 27 per cent to 14 per cent. Knitwear has fallen from 40 per cent to 27 per cent. On the supply side, members would be aware of the present disruption in world agricultural markets and the potential for a continued shift in resources away from other farm enterprises, in particular a shift from cropping to wool production. Sheep numbers have grown rapidly, from 133 million in 1983 to an estimated current flock of 160 million head. A continuation of this rate of growth poses a longer term challenge for the wool industry and must be monitored. We must have flexible marketing arrangements in place to meet any crisis in the supply of wool arising from an increase in sheep numbers. It is timely therefore that the process commenced in the late 1960s and early 1970s be extended to cover modern demands and to position the industry to prepare for the circumstances that it will encounter in the 1990s and into the next century. It is for this purpose that the new arrangements, developed in consultation with the wool industry, have been introduced. The previous Minister for Primary Industry is to be congratulated for his efforts in this area. This Government has distinguished itself in comparison with the previous coalition governments in that it has introduced significant market deregulation and has opened the way for better commercial operation by Australian enterprises. It has abandoned conservative rhetoric and given the market a chance to work. The initiative of the Government is particularly evident in the approach that it has taken to the changed administration of its government statutory business enterprises and to the reform of its statutory marketing authorities. This includes the reforms which ensure that women in statutory marketing authorities get a fair go. Women employees of the authorities are now guaranteed equal opportunity by the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill. That Bill insists that women applying for jobs in those authorities be treated on merit. Over the past couple of weeks we have seen a charade on the part of the Opposition in the introduction of that very important Bill dealing with these statutory authorities, in relation to which very important clauses are contained in this Bill. The Liberal Party has been severely damaged by the revolt on Tuesday night by eight Liberal senators on this issue. Mr Downer —That has nothing to do with the wool industry. Mr CUNNINGHAM —It is very important to the wool industry. Seven of those senators, led by the former front bencher, Senator Peter Baume, crossed the floor to vote for the Hawke Government's Bill giving women in Commonwealth statutory authorities such as this one a fair go at work. The eighth senator, Senator Don Jessop, abstained. Those senators are the few Liberals who have had the courage to stand up for what they believe. Certainly, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) did not have the strength to stop them or the integrity to join them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McMillan should return to the Bill. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was of the opinion that the honourable member for Ryan had indicated that amendments would be made to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Ryan has not yet moved any amendments. I think the honourable member is questioning the ruling, and I would ask that he get back to the Bill. Mr CUNNINGHAM —There is no doubt that this is very important legislation in relation to statutory authorities, and I think that the Hawke Government's introduction of it will certainly have a big part to play in what will occur in future in these statutory authorities. I am sure that honourable members opposite who have been so divided on this issue will certainly have their opportunity this evening to decide which way they intend to go. Perhaps that is the reason why a member of the National Party did not lead the debate for the Opposition or why so few National Party members, other than the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), are listed to speak. It is essential for the Corporation to operate on an effective commercial basis and that its Board comprise the best available talent. To this end the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerrin) has introduced a number of changes. The Bill will therefore provide that a chairperson be appointed on a part time or a full time basis. Where a full time chairperson is appointed that person will be the chief executive officer of the Corporation. However, where the chairperson is appointed on a part time basis a managing director will be appointed by the Board as an additional director of the Corporation and that person will be the chief executive officer. It is imperative that the Corporation be headed by the best available person and that the increased flexibility provided by the Wool Marketing Bill will enable this to be the case. Also the equal opportunity positions within the legislation will certainly play their part in the future in this area. I hope that members of the Opposition clearly support that position when it comes up for a vote this evening, if that occurs. The present Chairman, David Asimus, has been an outstanding leader and has piloted the Corporation to its present successful position. However, he has publicly announced his intention to retire as Chairman of the Corporation when his current term expires at the end of 1988. In terms of the financial demands of the Australian Wool Corporation, it presently has in excess of $1 billion to the credit of the market support fund, sells wool internationally in various currencies and could, in the event of a severe downturn in the market, be required to spend heavily in purchasing wool to support the market. The Australian Wool Corporation can, on a financial transaction basis, be equated with larger Australian private corporations. Commercially it cannot be expected to seek frequently ministerial or government approvals for corporate financial decisions. It is also fundamentally wrong for major decisions on the finances and market operations of the Australian Wool Corporation, such as decisions on the minimum reserve price, to be taken in a political environment. If the Australian Wool Corporation is to act as an autonomous commercial body, it must perform on a commercial basis like any other business organisation. Under the existing legislation the precise ownership of some wool stores of the Corporation has been uncertain, particularly in view of the defence provisions dating back to World War II which allows the wool stores to be reacquired in the event of threat of war. This Bill removes the defence provision which has been rendered obsolete and clarifies the ownership issue by fully vesting all wool stores in the Corporation. Simultaneously, the Bill upgrades the status and visibility of the wool stores operation by establishing a separate Wool Stores Board of Management as a sub-committee of the Corporation to administer stores to the benefit of wool growers. The Wool Stores Board of Management will be required to prepare corporate and annual operational plans and an audited annual report, with full visibility of financial accounts, to the Corporation for inclusion in the latter's annual report. In addition the stores are a significant asset of Australian wool growers. They should be managed so as to ensure the best commercial returns to wool growers, and growers should be apprised of the location and other relevant information on the stores and the results of their management. Provisions in the Bill will achieve these goals. Mr Hawker —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Is it in order for the honourable member to read verbatim the Minister's second reading speech on this Bill? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for McMillan. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Wool is our No. 1 rural export. Australia is the dominant world supplier of it. We must do everything possible to preserve that market dominance of Australian wool and its competitive position relative to other fibres. This includes taking whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of Australia's wool. The Bill also provides for compulsory registration of wool classers classing wool to be sold at auction, prohibition of sale at auction unless classed by a registered wool classer and deregistration of wool classers for up to two years where such classers have been found to be consistently flouting industry agreed standards for presentation of wool for auction. It is expected that deregistration action would be an infrequently used deterrent but would have a significant impact on the industry. Any deregistration action would be subject to appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is very important legislation, and it is important that those who are listening to the parliamentary broadcast tonight and those in the rural sector of Australia who are aware that this Bill is being debated tonight are acquainted with what is in the Bill and what is going on in relation to this important legislation. However, in the concluding couple of minutes of my speech I would like to make a few more comments in relation to that important part of the Bill which deals with the equal opportunity measures. In the last couple of days we have had a lot of debate in relation to this issue. Yesterday it was reported in the Melbourne Sun: The Liberal Party yesterday averted another potential split by supporting a new bill which enforces equal employment opportunity programs. A full party meeting decided to support, without amendment, a new wool marketing bill which requires the Australian Wool Corporation to develop such programs. I will be very interested to see the amendments that have been foreshadowed by the honourable member for Ryan to see what the Opposition means in relation to this. Many people want to see exactly where the Opposition stands and where the National Party of Australia which is not part of the official Opposition-the honourable member for Gwydir will be the next speaker on this Bill-stands on it. He is speaking for a party which, as I said at the beginning of my speech, for the first time in as many years as anyone in this place can remember, has slipped into oblivion. It purports to represent rural Australia, but it represents only about half of that area now because the Australian Labor Party holds at least 50 per cent of the seats in rural Australia. This is possibly the major piece of legislation dealing with one of the major export industries in the rural sector-- Mr Hawker —The biggest. Mr CUNNINGHAM —The biggest export sector. The honourable member for Ryan led off for the Opposition. He is to be followed by the honourable member for Gwydir, the only speaker listed on behalf of the National Party as we see it today. He is to be followed by members of the Liberal Party as they are listed. It is with some sadness, we could say, that we have seen such destructive elements within the Opposition. They have brought about a situation such as we are witnessing here tonight. It is really an historical time to see before such a small gallery of interested spectators the demise of what was once known as the Country Party and the National Party. We have seen it relegated to a position in this House tonight where, on a major piece of legislation, the lead has been taken by the honourable member for Ryan, to be followed by the honourable member for Gwydir. It is a sad day indeed for country Australians. Mr Cowan —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for McMillan has said on a couple of occasions that the honourable member for Gwydir is the only speaker from the National Party. If he looks at the list of speakers he will find that we have other speakers from the National Party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for McMillan. Mr CUNNINGHAM —In the last minute of my speech I say that it is sad to see such division rending the Opposition apart, as we have seen here. Perhaps the equal opportunity problems have caused this. We have had the National Party solidly opposing that to the point where, in the Senate this week, seven wets, as they were called on the front page of the Australian, or eight Liberals rebelled and crossed the floor in order to get that very important legislation through on behalf of women in Australia in dealing with statutory authorities. The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill was the first one to come before the Parliament to encompass such legislation. I look to the debate this evening to see just what the position will be in relation to these issues-whether the Opposition supports the measures in the Wool Marketing Bill, whether the National Party which has solidly opposed it in the past continues to oppose it, or whether we will have some sort of division so the wets and the dries will have to decide whether they will support it or continue to follow the massive divisions in the Opposition. Certainly one thing that can be put before the people of Australia is that the Australian Labor Party now is clearly the only party in this country that is in a position to continue to govern it, the only party that has the strength and the cohesion to bring forward major legislation. I commend the Minister, who is at the table, on his great efforts in relation to this Bill. I can assure the House and the small gallery that, although we have seen the demise of the National Party and history played out here tonight, a Labor government will, for many, many years, be quite capable of looking after the interests of both city and country people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! Before the honourable member for McMillan concludes, I indicated to him earlier that I would rule on the document he asked to have incorporated in Hansard. It does not fall within the guidelines laid down by Madam Speaker, and it may not be incorporated. But I give the honourable member the opportunity to seek leave to table it. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(6.20) —I regret that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) made a pathetic, political contribution to this debate about some very significant pieces of legislation, the Wool Marketing Bill and the Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills. I can only say that it was a very destructive and inappropriate contribution to the debate. The National Party of Australia-indeed, the Opposition parties-support this legislation, subject to reservations that I will talk about in a moment. But I dismiss the speech of the honourable member for McMillan with the comment that it was a pathetic contribution. The legislation is of great significance to the Australian wool growers and, indeed, to Australia. It should be of interest to all Australians, as we are all likely to benefit this year from an all-time record $4 billion return from wool exports. Clearly, this makes the industry our second most prominent source of export income, behind only the coal industry which is earning a shade more than $5 billion. In net terms, the foreign exchange earned by the wool industry probably exceeds that of coal, because the wool industry does not repatriate much of its earnings to overseas parent companies and certainly it does not have to satisfy the demands of very substantial loans from overseas borrowers. Wool is perhaps the best placed of all farm industries in these difficult times, although grower incomes on average this year across all sheep and wool farms still do not reach the level of the average wage. The industry's stability is an enormous tribute to the efforts of the producers themselves in developing self-help plans focused on the need for strong international market promotion. The wool industry, which carries a disproportionate share of the costs of tariff protection, remains one of the most important export industries, exporting about 90 per cent of its production. Graziers are sick and tired of carrying a disproportionate burden of government costs such as tariffs. I am pleased to say that this legislation reflects the strong input from the industry in updating marketing arrangements to meet the changing conditions and world trading circumstances. It is pleasing to acknowledge the industry's input to these Bills, in view of my recent criticisms of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for not ensuring adequate consultations with farmers over the content of legislation. Time and again I have had to attack this sloppy approach to the administration of the primary industry portfolio. But on this occasion the Minister has consulted widely with the industry and all outstanding areas of disagreement have been largely settled. Growers deserve the full co-operation of the Government. They have extended a total of 8 per cent of the gross value of the clip into self-help marketing, research and promotional activities. The activities of the Australian Wool Corporation are fully funded by the wool growers. I think people need to understand that the wool industry is not subsidised. It has established a very complex, but very efficient, marketing arrangement and, of course, the funding of it is met by the growers themselves. The market support arrangements are, I think, something of a model. They have evolved over a period of time. The self-funding arrangement is reflected by the relative stability of grower incomes when the farmers have suffered heavy income fluctuations. But it is reflected also in the wool fight-back against competition from synthetic fibres. Some honourable members will recall that back in the late 1960s economists by the dozen were writing off the Australian wool industry as an industry on its knees and having no future. The management of this great industry by wool growers through the Australian Wool Corporation is one of the great success stories of Australian agriculture. Of course, there are those who are determined to see the end of the Australian Wool Corporation. As far as I am concerned, they will do it over my dead body, and they will certainly do it over the dead body of the National Party. The Wool Tax Bills go a step further, raising the maximum contribution from 8 to 10 per cent. I congratulate the industry on this decision. The Wool Council has given great leadership, and the fact that there has not been grower opposition to this increase indicates the confidence that growers have in the Council. For the time being contributions will remain at 8 per cent, but this legislation will offer the flexibility for contributions of up to 10 per cent should the demand arise for increased allocations for such things as research or promotion. I note the recent decision of the Wool Council's executive committee to recommend an increase in funds to the International Wool secretariat, a decision I strongly endorse. But I understand that, due to wool price increases, the increase can be accommodated within the existing 8 per cent wool tax. The Wool Marketing Bill is designed principally to govern the operations of the Australian Wool Corporation and replace the Wool Industry Act of 1972. This legislation is the result of an evolving process which grew out of the wool price crash crisis in 1969-70. I recall the Rt. Hon. J. D. Anthony, when he was Minister for Primary Industry, introducing on 27 October 1970 the historic Bill to establish the Australian Wool Commission. In introducing the Bill, Mr Anthony announced that it would establish the Australian Wool Commission which would be empowered to operate a flexible reserve price scheme for wool sold at auction and would involve a number of major changes relating to the marketing of the wool clip. He conceded that the idea of setting up a statutory wool marketing authority originated within the wool growing industry itself as a result of severe price declines which all but crippled this great industry. The financial affairs of the wool growers were so serious at the time that the Liberal-Country Party Government of the day introduced the short term wool deficiency payments scheme to help the bulk of our wool growers to survive. Unfortunately, prior to 1970 there were enormous differences among the wool growers, with reactionary industry leaders who held a blind belief that the so-called free auction system was the only effective way of disposing of the Australian wool clip. They were right. It was an effective way of disposing of it, but at the lowest possible price. The free auction system, as it was called, was being manipulated by merchants and others who had robbed the Australian wool growers of an initiative to be the world price-setters for this product. Australia is by far and away the biggest exporter of wool. It was outrageous that Australia had not established itself many years before as the price-setter for raw wool. I recall raising this issue in my Party room soon after I became the member for Gwydir in 1970. The then Leader of the National Party, the Rt. Hon. John McEwen, challenged me by saying: `You don't have to convince me, Mr Hunt. Go out and convince the Australian wool growers'. Mr Cowan —And you did. Mr HUNT —And I did. I did that by contacting key people who supported reform and I initiated the first major grass roots rally of wool growers in Moree in north-western New South Wales. It was the first such meeting in Australia. It was called by Mr Ron Hunter, OBE, at Moree on Saturday, 21 March 1970. I was chairman at this, the biggest mass rally of primary producers-wool growers-that had been held until that time. There was an overwhelming vote for a wool selling organisation. Mass meetings were then arranged throughout Australia. With two federal wool growing organisations at loggerheads, it was necessary for the grass roots wool growers to force the leaders of those organisations to accept that change was necessary. As a consequence, the two major wool grower organisations-the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council and the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation-resolved to form a peak council organisation, later to become known as the Australian Wool Industry Conference. It was through this body that a special advisory committee of the Australian Wool Board was asked to prepare an outline plan suggesting the principle on which a statutory wool marketing authority could be established. The late Sir John Crawford played a significant part in making an independent assessment of the recommended proposal from that body. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr HUNT —Just prior to the dinner break I gave some authoritative history of the development of the Australian Wool Commission and its successor the Australian Wool Corporation. I said that the late Sir John Crawford-a man for whom I think most honourable members have tremendous regard-played a very significant part in undertaking an independent assessment of the recommendations of the special advisory committee that was set up through the Wool Board to look at the way in which a special marketing authority should be established. Since that time many changes have been made to this statutory authority. Indeed the name of the Australian Wool Commission was changed to the Australian Wool Corporation. The Corporation and the Australian Wool Council have given admirable service to the Australian wool growers. Very few industries in Australia have been structured as well as the Australian wool industry. Its research, promotion and marketing arrangements are a model in the field of commodity promotion and marketing. Very few industries are making as much of a contribution towards that purpose off the top of the gross proceeds of their production. Wool has many unique qualities. One is that it is not a perishable commodity in a real sense. This quality has enabled the Wool Corporation and the wool selling system to hold in stock adequate quantities to help iron out marketing fluctuations and at the same time to allow the flow of wool on to the market to various points of the world enabling an assured supply for the needs of processors. I want to pay a tribute to those people who bit the bullet in 1969 and 1970, those who were in the forefront of this radical change to wool selling in Australia. Firstly, I pay tribute to Doug Anthony who was the Minister for Primary Industry; David Asimus, who was in the forefront of activity in those days; Sir William Gunn; Mr Ronald Hunter; Mr Bryce Killen; the late Claude Bohay; the late Bill Fagen; Mr Claude Renshaw; Mr Bruce Wright; the late Bruce Walker; and Mr Dick O'Brien. Indeed dozens of others played a monumental role in helping to bring the Australian wool industry leaders to their senses and to a point where the industry was able to take decisions for the long term future and viability of this great industry. I also pay tribute to those who have continued the great work of helping the industry adjust to modern marketing demands under the chairmanship of Mr David Asimus and all the many chairmen who have given leadership to the Australian Wool Council. It is a tribute to their responsible leadership that the Government has extended further discretions, flexibility and responsibilities to the operation of the Australian Wool Corporation in association with the Australian Wool Council. The Wool Marketing Bill builds on the co-operative ground work laid by the industry in association with governments since the late 1960s. It implements many of the guidelines laid down in the statutory marketing reform paper-an admirable paper-issued last year. The Bill aims to place the Corporation on a sound commercial footing. It ensures that the Corporation remains fully accountable to both the industry and the Government, introduces new arrangements for quality assurance of the Australian wool clip and provides a businesslike footing for the Corporation's day-to-day activities. The Corporation's Board will be selected by a committee to be headed by the distinguished Australian, Sir Roderick Carnegie. I am sure all honourable members will join with me in offering Sir Roderick our best wishes in his important role. I wonder why it was necessary because, quite frankly, I believe the industry has proved to be very responsible and quite capable of choosing its own people. I pay a special tribute to the Chairman of the Corporation, Mr David Asimus, who has indicated that he will retire when his current term expires in June next year. It it to be hoped that Mr Asimus will see fit to maintain a close relationship with the industry, perhaps with the International Wool Secretariat of which he is Chairman and to which he has made a tremendous input. The importance of his role on behalf of Australian wool growers cannot be underestimated. He is a man of exceptional ability and integrity and with qualities of perseverance and foresight. May I simply say to him on behalf of every member of the parliament: `Thank you, David, for your magnificent, tireless work on behalf of all wool growers and the industry as a whole. Its dynamism and buoyancy are largely attributable to your efforts'. Mr McGauran —The National Party salutes him. Mr HUNT —Yes, indeed. I turn briefly to several other matters relevant to these Bills. The National Party is opposed to clauses 41 and 42 of this Bill dealing with the equal employment opportunity program because of the burden these place upon management. The Party has no objection whatsoever to appointment of females or males on the basis of merit, but there are provisions within the equal opportunity program that we regard as unnecessary impositions and government intervention in the workplace. The National Party had already opposed the legislation and is not prepared to allow this provision to stand in the body of this legislation without contest. Among the major concerns held with legislation such as the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 was the imposition of quotas which, in substance, were effectively proposed by that Bill. Such a move would impose employment conditions which have been neither arbitrated upon nor agreed upon. It was clear from the definition of `employee' that the Government's intention was to apply the Bill not only to employees but also to independent contractors. This was equally unacceptable, as was the clear intention of applying the Bill to so-called `designated groups'-a move which would have given that Bill an excessively wide, vague and uncertain operation. I acknowledge that the Corporation is not opposed to clauses 41 and 42, because clause 43 ensures that the Corporation can appoint staff according to merit without reference to gender. Clearly, therefore, clauses 41 and 42 are unnecessary window dressing for political purposes and, as far as the National Party is concerned, these clauses can go out the window. Let me say that I have shorn on the same floor in the same shed as women shearers. I am not anti-women, but I think this is just a political stunt. I foreshadow that the amendments circulated in my name will be moved in the Committee stage. I also foreshadow that the National Party will take this position on every piece of legislation where this program appears. Another element of the Bill is the power extended to the Corporation to determine the qualifications of a stenciller or classer-a measure I am happy to support. There will be compulsory registration of wool classers classing wool to be sold at auction, and unless such registration is obtained the wool processed by that person may not be sold at auction. Classers will face penalties of up to two years deregistration under certain circumstances if they fail to meet the required standards. The Corporation will have power to acquire samples from wool testing houses to establish the ownership of any wool fund, for example, to hold excessive levels of residue. This is a positive move. I commend the Minister for agreeing to this. For too long the outstanding reputation of Australian wool has had to suffer reports of bale contamination. It takes only a few instances to mar the collective reputation of the industry-a problem we cannot afford on today's hard-fought international markets. Reports of wrist watches, cigarette butts, grappling hooks, dead chooks, eggs, or whatever, found in wool bales-- Mr Hawker —Boots. Mr HUNT —Yes, boots, moccasins-you name it, it has been found. Reports of these things being found in wool bales unloaded overseas are not helpful, and it is to be hoped that a wide range of measures can be implemented along with the handling chain to cut such instances to an absolute minimum. What is probably even worse is coloured wool-black wool, brown wool-in with white wool, and dags. People who chuck dags in with fleeces are really irresponsible. There are a few dags around here. With the likely switch of grain farmers to wool production, it is imperative that wool clip preparation standards are not allowed to slip. I turn to one other matter of concern relating to the American wool industry and the United States demand for our product. I am advised that a move is under way within the United States to alter defence contracts-and I hope that the Minister is listening to this-which presently specify that clothing and other apparel should be made of the efficient, high quality, hard wearing wool fibre. Such a move could easily rebound on Australian exports of wool to that nation, as its domestic growers will be forced into other areas of the domestic market which we currently supply. Our annual wool sales to that country are now topping the $100m mark and we must strive to maintain and expand those sales. The defence contracts in the United States are an issue which could be appropriately raised by the all-party delegation which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is sending to Washington at the end of next week. A further matter of concern is two Bills recently introduced in the Congress which carry provisions which I doubt will be carried by both Houses, but which nevertheless give vent to the strong protectionist sentiment welling up among certain elements of the Congress. The two Bills, known as House of Representatives 2043 and Senate 980, are identical and seek, among other measures, to prohibit altogether the importation of farm commodities such as lamb, wool or skins bearing wool. Whilst I expect that these Bills will not win congressional support, they represent a tide of sentiment to which Australia must place its objections. We stand to lose out in the battle between the trading giants of Europe and the United States unless our voice is heard clearly among our many friends on Capital Hill. Despite these concerns there are tremendous signs of new opportunities opening up for Australia. The Chinese market undoubtedly is potentially the most important new market for the Australian wool industry. In conclusion, I reiterate that these Bills will help to consolidate the position of the industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —(Mr Leo McLeay)-Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the very dapper member for Kalgoorlie. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(8.12) —Thank- you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Before I begin my speech I want to take issue with something that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) said, because I think it indicates the paucity of ideas that emanate from the National Party of Australia today. I am not seen in my Party as one of the leading feminists. I think that that would be true. I must say that I generally have contempt for what I consider to be the hairy-legged Stalinists who tend to abound in some places. But it is absurd to oppose the equal opportunity provisions of this legislation. What the honourable member for Gwydir calls a political stunt-- Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I would like your ruling on whether it is appropriate for a person to speak on a wool Bill-an industry in which the people work in flannels-while wearing a dress suit and a bow tie. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr CAMPBELL —I point out to the honourable member that it is a pure wool dress suit. Mr Peter Fisher —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I find it offensive that the honourable member has referred to some of his colleagues as hairy-legged Stalinists. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not believe that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie has referred to any members of the House in any such form. Mr Peter Fisher —I heard it, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mallee will resume his seat. Mr CAMPBELL —You are quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I certainly did not refer to any members on this side of the House. I said that those sorts of people abound. The equal opportunity provisions of this legislation make it very clear that positions should be judged without reference to gender, on the basis of ability. It seems to me that the National Party is saying that even if a person is equal, or, in fact, better, if that person is female, it is quite okay for people to discriminate against her. That is a nonsensical situation. I am very pleased to speak on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987 and the Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills 1987 because I have had a long and intimate association with the wool industry. I believe that the Australian Labor Party has a very good record in regard to the wool industry and, indeed, in the entire rural sector. I remember the disastrous decade of the sixties when the wool producers were faced with falling prices and rising costs and which culminated in the price collapse of 1970-71. I remember well the voluntary price support scheme which disintegrated at the sale in Fremantle in 1970. All the wool on which my brother and I were depending was sold for a song-a song that nearly became a funeral dirge for our pastoral property. I remember Elders forsaking the bush. That great Australian pastoral house literally turned its back on the people who had been the source of its wealth and rushed into diversification, including a bigger investment in wheat farming. Of course, wool boomed again in 1972 as the Japanese reorganised themselves, re-entered the market and spun and wove the yen into dollars. The year 1972 saw the advent of a Labor government and the introduction of a floor price scheme. The Australian Wool Corporation moved quickly to minimise types and lines, thereby giving a greater reliability to our wool clip. The year 1974 saw the strengthening of the wool support scheme with a guaranteed minimum price and a floating floor price. The advances which have given the wool industry stability in the years since came from initiative Labor governments. Those initiatives were opposed by the honourable gentlemen opposite. I would exclude the honourable member for Gwydir from that comment because he was significant in the National Party in those days when there was very little support for orderly marketing. The recognition of China opened up wheat sales to that country, even going back to the wheat stabilisation legislation of 1948. Great initiatives were taken by Labor governments and they were opposed by honourable members opposite. I can well remember sitting in my swag at night listening to Doug Anthony, who was then a member of this House, telling the world that he would not sell his soul for trade. Shortly afterwards, his Party formed the Government. The way he and his Government grovelled to China was a little sickening. The Wool Marketing Bill is designed to replace the Wool Industry Act 1972 and it provides for major reforms to the Australian Wool Corporation-reforms that emanate, for the most part, from the Government's White Paper en- titled `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities'. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on the effort he has put into the Bill. Sometimes I feel embarrassed when I say this, but there is no doubt that the Minister's contribution to the rural sector of this country is an achievement of enormous dimensions. Mr Simmons —Outstanding. Mr CAMPBELL —There is no doubt about that. The Bill will give additional power and responsibilities to the Corporation in the areas of reserve price setting, borrowings, wool stores, quality assurance of our wool and administration. The Wool Council of Australia will have additional powers in the apportionment of the wool tax and determinations of refunds from the market support fund. Also, the Bill gives the Corporation an important input into the appointment of directors of the Corporation. These changes have been made in consultation with the industry and they have its general support. It is a credit to the Australian Wool Corporation and the wool growers of Australia that they have been able to strengthen the position of wool internationally. They made a commitment to wool promotion, research and development and it has paid off. There is no room for complacency, and the industry understands that. Today wool has about 18 per cent of the menswear market. Less than 20 years ago it had 33 per cent. It has gone up market in a growing demand area. Similarly, in the same timescale, the percentage of wool used in womenswear has fallen from about 28 per cent to 15 per cent and, in knitwear, from over 40 per cent to under 30 per cent. When we add to this the volatility and vagaries of the fashion world, it becomes obvious how well the industry has done and how difficult its task has been. The number of sheep in Australia has risen rapidly and it can be expected to rise further as farmers decide to plant less wheat. In 1982 there were about 130 million sheep; today there are about 160 million. We must have a strategy to handle this increased supply. The industry has a good record of innovation and it must continue to innovate or it will perish. I believe that the wool industry understands that. The industry faces competition not just from other producers but from the makers of other natural fibres and synthetics. If I had any advice to give the industry I would cite the Bible text: Keep your light so shining just a little in front of the next. Clearly, there is room for improvement in transportation costs. I hope that we will see the demise of Railways of Australia. It is an entity that does not own a single inch of railway line or possess a single shunting engine. It is merely a very costly accounting monster that interfaces between the various rail systems and induces some awful anomalies in the costing. I believe that, in the long run, we need one single railway system in Australia. I would suggest that the relatively efficient Australian National railway system and the Western Australian railway system-Westrail-amalgamate and pick up the less efficient railways of the eastern States. I look forward to that happening and I hope that it will happen during my time in this Parliament. The further processing of wool is something which we must consider. I believe that Australia is uniquely placed to do this. I think we have the resources not only to scour but also for top making as well and for spinning into high quality yarn and weaving of very good quality worsted material. I hope that the Australian Wool Corporation will do a lot of research in these areas. Wool and cotton blends should also be considered. From my own experience, wool and cotton makes an admirable mixture and is ideal for shirting material. Wool and silk is another mix which I think should also be considered. It is ideal for tropical wear and may be a very useful avenue to pursue in developing trade relations with our neighbours to the north. I recognise that this Bill focuses on three main objectives. First, it places the Australian Wool Corporation on a sound commercial footing. Secondly, it introduces appropriate arrangements to ensure that the Corporation is fully accountable to the industry and to government without hindering its commercial performance. Thirdly, it introduces new arrangements for the quality assurance of our wool. Overall, these three objectives will provide a modern businesslike framework under which the industry can go with confidence towards the next century. I want to stress the need for research, for it is through research that improvements in productivity can be enhanced. During the last 50 years there has hardly been any advance in the weight of fleeces in New South Wales. There has been virtually no increase at all. Prior to this there was a continuous improvement, due almost totally to pasture improvement. Western Australia started from a lower base and it is the last 30 years that have shown no growth in fleece weight. The pastoral industry is a somewhat different scene. Up until 1978 there had been an average increase of one per cent in the per sheep wool cut. This could not be attributed to pasture improvement for there simply was none, and the benefits were almost entirely genetical. In my own State the introduction of Bungaree lines in what had been predominantly Peppin areas would have improved frame size and fleece averages to a considerable degree. The eminent sheep breeder and geneticist, Dr Helen Newton Turner, believes that we have achieved only about half the improvement that we could have if we had a greater commitment to objective measurements. There are about 150 stud breeders in Western Australia making use of the objective measuring testing service of the Western Australian Department of Agriculture. I would like to pay tribute to the Western Australian Department of Agriculture. It has developed a sire reference scheme which is gradually expanding Australia wide. It is based at the Animal Breeding and Research Station at Katanning and it is a scheme against which stud breeders throughout Australia can measure the performance of their stock. I think this is a genuine contribution to the enhancement of the wool industry and to improvements in productivity. Other things that could certainly improve the situation in Western Australia include research into tender wool. It is one of the greatest causes of fleece loss in Western Australia as farmers continue to shear in the autumn and to lamb in the spring. There are many reasons why it is difficult to change this situation, but research into economic hand feeding during that intervening period could probably cut that wastage down considerably. Another area that needs to be researched is lanolin. I believe that much more could be done with lanolin. Once we have a fully-fledged industry in this country, we will have a lot more lanolin to play around with and we can expand its use in cosmetics and other areas. I believe that will also work to the benefit of the rural sector. I would also like to see more research being done into the admixture of goats, the running of goats with a sheep flock. I believe this will increase productivity. As it is, there is a lot of scientific evidence to show that the goats tend to eat different fodder, and the stocking rate can be increased without putting any additional pressure on the land. In total, I believe that this Bill goes a long way to giving the industry the sort of leadership that it needs. I would like to pay credit to the Australian Wool Corporation and the people who have been running it over the last few years. I would also like to pay credit to Bill Gunn. Although there is very little that Bill Gunn and I would agree on, I believe that his passion for the establishment of the Wool Corporation was very worth while. I was very happy to give what support I could at the time. I must say, looking back on those years, that the people who opposed the formation of the Corporation still loom very large in the wool industry. I can remember the people of the McLachlan empire telling me how they thought that this was a bad thing. These people still oppose innovation in the industry although some of their relations now pose as saviours of the same industry. But I remember their attitude then. It was a negative one of opposing any reform and adherence to the status quo. We can all be proud of the Australian wool industry. It is the most efficient wool industry in the world. This is in part due to our unique climate and the sort of land we have. It is an industry which we must cherish and develop. The wool industry has become Australia's most significant exporter. I say this knowing full well that on face value the coal industry exports more. But that industry also exports more profits overseas, which the wool industry very seldom does. It is with great pleasure that I support this legislation and I commend the Minister for a thoroughly workable document. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(8.27) —I am honoured to rise in the House tonight to address the Wool Marketing Bill and the Wool Tax (Nos. 1 to 5) Amendment Bills. I have to acknowledge the contribution made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) in this debate. I endorse the sentiments that he expressed about the importance of the wool industry to Australia. I add to the remarks that he made that not only is the wool industry one of the industries that export a renewable resource, a fact that distinguishes it from the coal industry, but also, of course, it is the industry that is most characteristically Australian. I rise as the member for Wakefield, I am aware that other members in this House representing wool growing electorates would like the opportunity to speak tonight. I acknowledge particularly the presence in the House tonight of the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), both of whom are listed to speak but whose opportunity to do so will depend entirely on the co-operation of their colleagues, such as me, in keeping their remarks brief. It is important that I, as the member for Wakefield, have a word or two to say since Australia's key merino studs are located in the Wakefield electorate. I refer to studs such as the Collinsville stud under Neil Garnett, the Ashby studs, the well known Murdoch studs, the Hawker Bungaree studs, as well as the studs operated by Dunn, Stockman, Lehmann, Fiebig, Murray and Davidson. One could go on and on with the list of studs which characterise the Wakefield electorate. These studs and the industry of which they are a part have been a success story in Australian agricultural terms. I am speaking in this debate at a time when the wool industry is at a high point. The South Australian Stock Journal of 2 April this year-I have it in the House for exhibition-ran the headline `Wool sales top 720c'. This is the sort of optimistic headline that the South Australian Stock Journal responsibly uses. If that were not enough, today's Age newspaper ran another story under the headline `Wool demand is likely to yield $4 billion'. An article in the Australian of 18 March written by Julian Cribb pointed out that opportunities for exports of Australian wool to China were currently booming. I quote briefly from that article in which Cribb said: In barely a decade, China's purchases of Australian Wool have soared from 2,000,000 kg to a likely total of more than 90 million kilos in the current 1986-87 season-rising from twentieth to second-largest customer. In value terms that represents $370 million, or more than 1.2 per cent of Australia's total export income. Later in that article Julian Cribb states: Another factor is that China has a thriving trade in rugs and carpets into which to pour the coarsest wools it produces. There are two fundamental demand factors behind the growth in China's wool textile industry, says Mr Saunders. First, the dramatic rise in national living standards has sharply boosted demand . . . Incomes have risen by 40 per cent in recent years and under the present economic plan are intended to quadruple by 2000. China, with its long, almost unbearably cold winters, is a natural market for wool. Mr Saunders noticed that many Chinese wear up to three jumpers to compensate for the absence of central heating. Someone has observed that, were we to get every Chinese person to wear just one woollen sock, we would change overnight the shape and the future of the Australian wool industry. Having given that background, rather than reiterating all that has been said by previous speakers, I want to set into perspective the current outlook for the wool industry. Some people have been unwise enough to say that what is often referred to as the wool boom of the 1950s is being repeated in 1987. Let us look at that in real terms. In 1950-51 the average auction price for greasy wool was 264.9c per kilogram. In 1986-87 the average auction price for greasy wool is 395.3c per kilogram. But if we look at the 1950 figure in 1986-87 dollar terms we discover that in 1986-87 one wool grower would actually have to get an incredible $24.94 per kilogram to match the price of wool in 1950-51. Mr Hunt —What was the figure? Mr ANDREW —I know it is incredible; I know it is unbelievable. I have checked the figures. In real terms, wool growers would have to get $24.94 per kilogram in 1987 to match the price of wool in 1950-51. So even in 1986-87, the year in which we have had headlines telling of a wool price of 720c per kilogram, the reality is that wool growers in Australia have faced an 84 per cent loss in what their wool cheque generates compared with the 1950s. One might well ask: `What sector of the community, apart from the rural community, has been prepared to wear this sort of loss?'. Mr Hunt —None. Mr ANDREW —Precisely. As the honourable member for Gwydir says, no one else. I acknowledge that the Australian wool industry has survived partly because of the legislation that was before the House in 1972, which is being replaced by the Bills now before the House, in 1987. As has been acknowledged, these Bills allow the Australian Wool Corporation to be much more flexible than it has been in the past. They provide for the appointment of a part time or full time chairman. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has said in his second reading speech, if a full time chairman is appointed he will also be expected to occupy the post of chief executive officer. Under these Bills the Corporation, in co-operation with the Wool Council of Australia, will set up a selection panel, which will be a sunset panel. It will cease to exist after it has undertaken its task of selecting the directors for the Corporation. These Bills will allow the Corporation to act in a more commercial way whenever it deals with overseas money deals or in any Australian commercial venture and will allow it to borrow on a commercial basis up to 50 per cent of its net assets. Other speakers have spoken about the way in which these Bills will change the historic ownership of some of the existing wool stores. The Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills provide for an increase from 8c to 10c in the ceiling rate of tax on the value of shorn wool. An immediate move from 8c to 10c is not intended but this level of flexibility will be provided. This gives greater flexibility to the way in which money is allocated out of that 8c or 10c, as the case may be, to market support, to general purposes of the Corporation and to research and development. There is no doubt that the money allocated to research and development and market expansion by the Corporation has allowed the wool industry to survive what have clearly and statistically been very difficult years. The industry has been trumpted as the flagship of Australian rural industry but there can be no doubt, when we look at my earlier statistics, that every wool grower is to be commended for having survived in what has been a real economic storm. The legislation that the industry has worked under has allowed this survival and we in the Opposition trust that the legislation currently before the House will allow the industry to survive into the twenty-first century. I acknowledge that there are a number of parts in the Bills that I ought to have addressed but I notice that the Whip is giving me rather strange looks. So in the interest of the honourable member for Wannon, the honourable member for Corangamite and others, I simply say that the Opposition and I, as the member for Wakefield, are pleased to support the legislation currently before the House. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(8.37) —The Wool Marketing Bill and the Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills will govern the operation of the Australian Wool Corporation and the wool auction system and, as has been mentioned previously by other speakers, it replaces the Wool Industry Act 1972. But most importantly from the Government's perspective, it introduces a number of changes that are consistent with the Government's policy statement issued by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) entitled `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities'. I think it is worth while at this point to remind honourable members that, under the changes that were announced in the reform document, all the statutory marketing authorities now have powers to borrow, to open bank accounts and to invest surplus funds, subject to the approval of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister. Obviously, the Australian Wool Corporation, as one of the largest of the statutory marketing authorities, is involved in quite significant transactions. Statutory marketing authorities have now increased commercial independence to improve their effectiveness as marketers of our rural export wealth. They are now much more autonomous organisations that control matters such as staffing, property, capital works and shipping. There are significant change in these Bills to the financial powers of the Australian Wool Corporation as well. The interesting point about the legislation at this time is that it comes before the House, I understand, after a high degree of consultation with the Wool Council of Australia, the Australian Wool Corporation, and other elements of the wool industry. It is important, when we have a major change in wool marketing Bills such as this, that those people who are involved in the industry have an opportunity to make an input into it. I would suggest that it is also significant that this legislation is being debated when, clearly, the wool industry is our nation's major rural export industry with a likely contribution this year of $4 billion to our balance of payments situation. Wool provides somewhere in the order of 18 per cent of the gross value of rural production and 30 per cent of our rural exports. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document prepared by the Department of the Parliamentary Library which gives an indication of the movement of wool prices over the last few years and the changes in the wool stockpile which clearly indicate the very significant boom times that the wool industry is currently experiencing. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Statistics Group Department of the Parliamentary Library WOOL PRICES AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION MARKET INDICATOR cents/kilo 1984-85 (average)... 526.2 1985-86 (average)... 533.4 July 1986-December 1986 (average)... 570.5 30 January 1987... 609 27 February 1987... 639 27 March 1987... 701 10 April 1987... 735 Note: clean equivalent WOOL STOCKPILE '000 bales end June 1985... 979,611 end June 1986... 924,296 end December 1986... 882,954 end January 1987... 815,737 end February 1987... 720,962 end March 1987... 493,504 end April 1987 (provisional)... 425,000 Source: Australian Wool Corporation Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service. Mr SIMMONS —I thank the House. I wish to mention briefly a couple of figures from the table. The Australian Wool Corporation market indicator in 1984-85 showed an average of 56.2 cents per kilo. As at 10 April this year the market indicator has risen to 735 cents per kilo. At the end of June 1985 there were nearly one million bales of wool on the Corporation's stockpile and the provisional estimate for April 1987 is less than half a million bales. I think those figures speak for themselves. The present legislation for the wool industry, the Wool Industry Act 1972, commenced on 1 January 1973. The circumstances at that time were quite different from those currently enjoyed by the industry. During the debate I was pleased to hear recognition being given to a number of people in the wool industry who have made a significant contribution to it. I join the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) in acknowledging the contribution made by the present Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation, Mr David Asimus. Most honourable members would acknowledge that he has made a very valuable contribution. My colleague the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) mentioned the contribution made by Mr Bill Gunn. The recovery of the industry in the last 14 or 15 years can be attributed to some of the major changes that were set in place at the time. Wool is seen as a quality product in the current textile market because of wool promotion and research and development by the Australian Wool Corporation. I am sure that all honourable members would acknowledge the very valuable contribution by the Corporation. Wool is a very special fibre. It occupies a small and declining share, unfortunately, of total textile consumption. I understand that it presently accounts for about 5 per cent of the overall world textile use compared with about 47 per cent for cotton and 48 per cent for synthetics. The other interesting change we have seen in recent years is the decline of the use of wool in the menswear market. Wool had 33 per cent of the market in 1970. That figure is down to about 18 per cent today. In womenswear its use has fallen from 27 per cent to 14 per cent and in knitwear from 40 per cent to 27 per cent. Those figures indicate that we are dealing with a very volatile market which is obviously very much subject to changes in the fashion whims of consumers. What we have seen in the last couple of years as a result of changing circumstances with respect to prices is a rapid increase in the sheep flock. The numbers of sheep have grown rather rapidly, from 133 million sheep in 1983 to a current estimate of 160 million. Therefore, there is likely to be downward pressure on prices as we enter the 1990s. It is important that we take note of that. Wool prices are expected to increase by 9 per cent in 1986-87 and production is expected to increase by just over 2 per cent. It is also significant in this debate that the honourable member for Gwydir, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, is to move a number of amendments which the Government will oppose, in particular, to clauses 41 and 42-provisions relating to equal employment opportunity. This is unfortunate. National Party members are thumbing their collective noses at the people whom these clauses of the Bill are intended to assist. To National Party members, any time equal employment opportunity is mentioned it is some sort of emotional trigger, suggesting that it may have something to do with women. In this case the equal employment opportunity provisions most certainly have something to do with women. But they also deal with the disabled and with the people who do not have English as their first language, the migrant community. The National Party should keep that point in mind. I note that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) in his contribution tonight did not give any indication of his feelings about clauses 41 and 42. Mr Hawker —Don't you worry about that. Mr SIMMONS —I am not sure that we will have to worry about it but I suppose the critical time will be if the National Party or the Liberal Party has the intestinal fortitude to call a division on them. I guess that many members on this side of the House will wait with a great deal of interest to see whether National Party members have the courage of their convictions and decide to vote against this legislation when the chips are down. Mr McGauran —You won't be disappointed. Mr SIMMONS —I may not be disappointed because it may be some sort of attempt by the National Party to seek to embarrass members of the Liberal Party whom they see as wets and wimps. Mr Peter Fisher —This is a democracy, you know. Mr SIMMONS —It is, but the whole attitude of the National Party is somewhat hypocritical when it comes to equal employment opportunities. A number of Bills in this House in recent years have discussed this matter-the Sex Discrimination Bill and the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. We hear platitudes mouthed by members of the National Party, particularly with respect to women. I quote from a speech delivered by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) on 10 April 1986. He is quoted in Hansard as saying: We in the National Party of Australia are 100 per cent in favour of equal opportunity. No doubt our opponents will endeavour to suggest that our commitment to equal opportunity is less than complete. But that is incorrect. The honourable member for Fisher went on to say: I am pleased and proud to be able to stand in this Parliament and join my National Party colleagues in opposition to this Bill. We have seen many instances in the last few weeks and months of the attitudes of the conservative forces in this Parliament to legislation relating to women. On the one hand we have legislation on equal opportunity that was supported by the then coalition in 1986. On the other hand, we saw the fiasco when it came to the crunch a few weeks ago when the National Party used its heavy-handed standover tactics that it has used for years against the Liberal Party to say that the Liberal Party should oppose the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill on some sort of spurious technicality. Tonight we see the Deputy Leader of the National Party suggesting an amendment to the Bill and suggesting that the National Party will oppose the Bill. Once again, it will be interesting to see the attitude of the Liberal Party in this regard because its members have funny views. For example, in debate on the sex discrimination legislation in 1984 the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) said: Both the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are committed to the removal of discrimination against individuals on whatever basis. Both are committed to equality of opportunity for individuals and in government took action in many fields to eliminate discrimination and enable genuine equality of opportunity to be achieved. Later in the debate, the then honourable member for Darling Downs, the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), said: Women now comprise a significant percentage of the work force in Australia. There are 2,576,000 Australian women in the work force. To that remark, there was an interjection from the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who said: `Too many'. That is an indication of the sort of attitude on that side of the chamber when it comes to legislation that deals with equal employment opportunities for women, migrants and the disabled. We are seeing some very strange actions. I find it most difficult to understand. People will appreciate from those limited quotations-and I could go on with many more but time does not permit-and from further quotations if I went on, the whole series of double standards that we are used to. I am most anxiously looking forward to the Committee stage of this Bill. I am looking forward to any divisions that may be called and to seeing the actions of those people in the Liberal Party who have the guts to live up to their convictions and the comments they have previously made in this House. This legislation is most significant. Yet, on hearing some of the comments from the Deputy Leader of the National Party, we could be forgiven for believing that somehow or other the Australian Wool Corporation owns all the shearing sheds throughout Australia. Some of the contributions that he made suggested that some of the dags-I think that was the term he used-appearing in some of the bales of wool for overseas sale were put there by women who work in the wool sheds. Surely that is a whole load of nonsense. It is an indication of the sort of attitude that we have seen from the National Party. I hope it is not the sort of attitude that we are going to see from members of the Liberal Party but one can never tell in this place. We do not really know where they stand because, unfortunately, we have seen too much chopping and changing of attitudes within the coalition in this Parliament. I will finish my contribution shortly because many other honourable members are anxious to speak on this piece of legislation. I am most bitterly disappointed that in this important change to the functions of the Australian Wool Corporation there is not a united stand. For some spurious reason-perhaps because of some of the dictates from the fascist from the north being sent down to his people in the National Party sitting in this Parliament awaiting his arrival here as the new leader of the sort of neo-fascists that we are unfortunately seeing in this place-we are seeing support for this amendment. I state in conclusion that this is a most important piece of legislation. I congratulate the Minister and those people from the Department of Primary Industry associated with the preparation of it. I am mindful of the fact that the Australian Wool Corporation supports the legislation, as do the other people I mentioned earlier. I understand that the Australian Wool Corporation, as late as yesterday, telexed, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Liberal Party indicating that the Australian Wool Corporation strongly supported this Bill. I hope that when it comes to the crunch all members of the Liberal Party will support it and that some of the agrarian socialists, the troglodytes on the other side who have some sort of hatred of women being mentioned in equal employment opportunity legislation, will come to their senses. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.52) —I have been to the electorate of Calare, the electorate of the honourable member who has just spent three-quarters of his speech raising the political aspects of a very serious subject. His whole contribution on the Wool Marketing Bill was to read to us a few selections from the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). He chose to use his time, beyond the terms that have been agreed, to tip buckets, as he thought, on the Opposition in a political sense. He completely ignored the people that he represents and who have serious problems. He chose politics over his constituents just as he does at Question Time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I take it that the honourable member for O'Connor is suggesting that he is going to get to the subject matter of the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I certainly am, but I am going to complain on behalf of the honourable member's constituents because he is not worried about them. At Question Time he throws up dorothy dixers. We have never heard a word from him on behalf of the people suffering in his electorate under the pressures of the present rural downturn. I will be back in his electorate to remind some of his constituents accordingly. Let me just say-- Mr Kerin —Flugge has got him beaten. Mr TUCKEY —I bet he has. We can have a gamble on that. The electorate of O'Connor-I recognise this clearly-is a mixed farming electorate relying heavily on wheat and wool production. There is no electorate in Australia which has more people who earn their living as farmers than the electorate of O'Connor. The electorate could do with more wool growing if it were able to accommodate the sheep in the country that is available. I will come back to that shortly. One of the major promotions of the wool industry is conducted in my electorate-the Wagin Woolorama. Some 18,000 people are attracted over two days to this show purely and simply because of the wool industry and the stud wool industry. I think this is worth mentioning in this debate. It is quite amazing to go and see people sitting in a small grandstand just watching the judging of the stock and taking that level of interest. Legislation relating to the Australian Wool Corporation is important. The Government, in my view, has generally done a good job in its negotiations to upgrade a Bill which was originally brought to this Parliament in 1972. The Australian Wool Corporation is a success and there are simple reasons for that. From the beginning it was a very enlightened statutory authority. It is not one that has worked on the old arrangement of being totally subservient to government. This legislation gives it substantially more independence and autonomy. Even originally the people who were put on the board to administer the Corporation were people who were well known throughout the business community. It was generally recognised that their job was marketing and intervention in the market, and that great skills were needed there. The people who have conducted the affairs of the Corporation to date deserve the congratulations of this Parliament for the wonderful job they have done. It is now quite sensible and proper that the apron strings should be untied for the Australian Wool Corporation because it has been a success. It has $1,000m in reserves and it is now well able to look after itself. It is revolving the funds originally provided by its shareholders-if you like, the wool growers of Australia-and I am pleased to see the Government taking these steps. Nevertheless I think that the electorate should be reminded that the legislation makes provision to increase what is known as the wool levy, but which is called the wool tax in this legislation. The wool tax ceiling will be increased from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. The tax itself will remain at 8 per cent and we have assurances from the Minister for Primary Industry that it will only be increased under very serious circumstances, and, as the legislation provides, at the request of the Wool Council of Australia. There is another major shift in the way that that money will be spent, because now the legislation dictates that 2.5 per cent of the shorn value of the wool will be spent on promotion, 2.5 per cent on the support scheme, 0.25 per cent on research and development and the balance at the discretion of the Corporation. The major shift there is to direct 2.5 per cent of the value of the wool to the promotion of wool. That is still a very small percentage of a product value being spent on promotion. I think it is sufficient, but on the other hand, when we look at other industries and see the level of commitment which many have to promoting their product, we can see how necessary that is in this very competitive world. I think the Australian wool industry generally supports and understands that it must promote its product in that way. There are moves to improve the quality of the product, particularly in the eyes of our purchasers, and I think we all support the provision that wool classers should be registered. If they fail in their duty, they can be deregistered. We also support the provisions that use of new bales become a statutory obligation because that reduces the opportunity for contamination of the crop. If the Minister would listen for a moment, I would like him to consider-- Mr Hand —He will listen when you say something worth listening to. Mr TUCKEY —I think he might well listen. On the question of the integrity of the stencil, I think that we will eventually resolve some of the problems associated with the quality of the product when it is obligatory for wool to leave this country with a stencil, which clearly identifies the producer. If people who buy wool and forward it to mills overseas are able to add wool from another clip when they are dumping and doing things of that nature, that reduces the opportunity for growers to put integrity into their stencils. As a young man I had the opportunity to buy vegetables in the Perth metropolitan markets and none of the good buyers ever went anywhere near the product. The auctioneer announced the name of the producer, the stencil was known and some products brought a high price while others brought a low price purely on the reputation of the grower. I would like to think that within the Australian wool industry we could eventually have a situation where mills would know that if wool came from a particular grower and classer, that would be sufficient to guarantee its high quality. Clearly those sorts of reputations cannot be established while it is still possible for people buying wool in Australia to add other products to that wool before it leaves the country. I do not say that as a criticism; I just mention it for the Minister's consideration some time in the future. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), had a great deal to say about affirmative action and equal opportunity. I am all for equal opportunity, but I think that the hard-pressed wool growers-and there are plenty of them in my electorate-do not need to spend additional money to send various documents to a government authority. I remind the Government of my experience in my electorate. The Liberal Party is putting forward amendments, and I shall support them-- Mr Simmons —Where are they? Are you still drafting them? Mr TUCKEY —The amendments are here. I want the legislation to be as simple as possible to ensure that people do not have the problems that I am experiencing in my electorate, where public servants-and female public servants at that-are missing out on promotional opportunities because of somebody's interpretation of the meaning of equal opportunity. I am getting complaints about the system, and if Government members are not, they are very lucky. The Government had better watch that bureaucratic approach, which is typical of it. It has to pass a law about something that we might otherwise deal with in a more simple way. We need to sell products overseas and wool is a marketable product. It is one of high quality and I am sure that its market will expand. Yet in my electorate people cannot produce wool because they lack a sufficient water supply. We have some rather peculiar ideas about how we spend the taxpayers' dollar. We recently announced a $27m reticulation water scheme in East Timor to help dry land farmers. They are getting $27m of taxpayers' money when many people in my electorate-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr TUCKEY —I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it would be reasonable to stop honourable members disrupting my speech. I like to help those whom I represent and I am putting a proper argument on their behalf. It is simply that the Government would do better spending money on a reticulated water supply to places in the electorate of O'Connor, to assist those who are currently locked in to producing purely wheat-a difficult commodity to sell at the moment-thereby giving them the opportunity to be mixed farmers. I refer specifically to the Agaton water scheme, which could be introduced and completed over 10 years at a mere cost of $64m-just double over 10 years what we have managed to give East Timor in one year. There are other places around Pingerup and the southern areas that are generally better off. They would be advantaged if we were to reinstate the sort of tax deductibility that was available to farmers to install better water storage on their properties. Those people have country that will store water, whereas those to be serviced by the Agaton scheme do not. There must be some priority in government expenditure. If there were, we would be investing in our productive resources. It is all right to give money away; it is all right to employ bureaucrats on some of the schemes that have been mentioned here tonight, but we are always told that there is not enough money to put water in the ground to give people in those areas a little better standard of living, the opportunity to survive on their farms and produce goods for Australia, which we need desperately at present. Unlike the honourable member for Calare, I will keep within the rules that have been established. I have taken an extra minute to cover the interjections that have been allowed during the debate. I am for the people in my electorate. When the honourable member for Calare understands that his responsibilities are to his constituents and not to his Party, those people will be better off also. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(9.04) —It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Wool Marketing Bill and the Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills before the House. The principal Bill is the Wool Marketing Bill, which replaces the Wool Industry Act. The purpose of this major Bill is to provide major reforms to the Australian Wool Corporation, and to a number of other matters that affect the export marketing of wool. They are wide-ranging reforms, principally designed to enhance the flexibility of the Australian Wool Corporation in what is becoming more and more a complex trading environment. That is occurring through what we are providing here-the greater devolution of responsibility to the Corporation for planning and reporting procedures. The extent of the reforms includes the removal of obsolete legislation and streamlining and restructuring, which will make more compact and more easily understood wool marketing legislation. As the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) noted earlier, most of these reforms emanate from the Government's White Paper on the reform of Commonwealth primary industry statutory marketing authorities. These reforms are principally aimed at providing much greater autonomy to statutory marketing authorities so that they can be more flexible, are able to meet the market more effectively and are more accountable to the growers. Associated with the principal Bill are the Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills. They all form part of this major package. They have been developed after extensive consultation with the Australian Wool Corporation, the Wool Council of Australia and other elements of the wool industry. As the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) noted in his second reading speech, there is no question that these Bills will provide the framework for the marketing of Australian wool in the next decade. It is self-evident to anyone in this chamber and those in the community who follow the fortunes of the wool industry that the industry at the moment is enjoying a relatively buoyant phase of activity. Today's Melbourne Age, for example, carried a major article headed `Wool demand is likely to yield $4 billion'. The article stated that wool, Australia's biggest agricultural export, is tipped to earn close to $4 billion by the end of 1986-87 because of record prices and strong overseas demand. The article went on to say that the industry's export earnings have doubled in three years-that is, during the period of the Hawke Government-against the general downward price trend in primary commodities. Wool has so far outstripped wheat, which is expected to earn about $2.2 billion in 1986-87. The depressed nature of wheat prices has resulted in a reduction of 25 per cent compared with the figure for 1985-86. The article goes on to say that overseas demand for wool has increased to the point where, over the past two years, Australia has sold one million bales more than it produced, despite shorn wool production being up by 22 per cent since 1982-83. Finally, the article says that it is the depreciation of the Australian dollar, which occurred because this Government had the courage and the foresight to float the Australian dollar, which has strengthened world demand for wool. There is a challenge before us, though, and that is to sustain the present industry strength. I think we can all learn from the experience of this industry, going back for more than a decade. Looking back to the early 1970s, it was Ken Wriedt in an Australian Labor Party government who gave us the Australian Wool Corporation in 1973 and the reserve price scheme in 1974. Mr Simmons —Second best Minister for Primary Industry. Mr BRUMBY —We can learn a lot from that. I would describe Ken Wriedt as the second best Minister for Primary Industry we have had in this House-second only to the current Minister for Primary Industry (Mr John Kerin), who is so widely supported across all political groupings throughout rural Australia. It is no wonder because the policies that the Minister has managed to have supported in Federal Cabinet have been of immense benefit to the rural sector in Australia. I repeat the message that we can all learn from an examination of history and we would do well to remember that it was an Australian Labor Party government in this place in 1973 and 1974 which set the institutional structure which has so shaped the future of the Australian wool industry. In addition to that institutional factor, a number of marketing factors have contributed to the present strong position of wool in the international market. I have mentioned the Age article, which refers to the depreciation of the Australian dollar. There is no question that that has been significant in improving world demand for wool. Last year the Bureau of Agricultural Economics calculated in a study that, without the depreciation of the Australian dollar in the last two years, wool sales would be 20 per cent lower, the wool stockpile would be somewhere between one and two million bales and market prices would be 10 to 20 per cent lower than they are now. So that depreciation of the dollar, a direct response and policy initiative of this Government and this Minister, has unquestionably contributed to the buoyancy of the wool industry at the moment. A second factor is that investment in research and development has been vital in enabling wool growers and the wool industry to survive in an extremely competitive fibre market. It is clearly crucial that that effort be continued. This Government has put the funding for wool promotion on a secure long term basis. That particular policy initiative has also played its part in boosting world demand for wool. However, we should not be complacent. As I have said, as other speakers in this House have said, and as the Minister has mentioned, there is a big challenge ahead of us. Wool, for instance, presently accounts for only around 5 per cent of overall world textile use. That compares with 47 per cent for cotton and 48 per cent for synthetics. So wool has only a small part of the market. But it needs to be noted that in those areas of the market where wool is strong its share has been declining. For instance, wool had around a third of the menswear market in 1970, but it has around 18 per cent today. Equally, its share of womenswear has fallen from around 27 per cent to 14 per cent. So these are some of the demand-side factors. On the supply side we have to be aware that, because of the poor international prices for grains, many farmers in Australia are moving, with good reason, from cropping to wool. Sheep numbers have increased from 130 million to 160 million over the last few years. We need to be aware that if that trend continues it will, of course, put supply-side pressures on what is now clearly a viable industry. The debate tonight has been interesting because we have seen all political parties and factions represented. Of course we have seen a united contribution from Government members, because we have a united party with a coherent policy determined to get the best possible economic environment for this crucial Australian industry. But, looking at the contribution from the Opposition side-I do not want to be overly political about this-I think the point needs to be made that there are now effectively three shadow Ministers for Primary Industry in this Parliament. So when John Kerin, whom I have described as an outstanding Minister for Primary Industry, speaks in this Parliament or goes out into the community, he has to have three Opposition shadow Ministers trailing him around, shadowing him wherever he goes in Australia. The Howard Liberals have Mr Wal Fife; the Sinclair Nationals have retained Mr Ralph Hunt. But we now have the Joh New Nationals, who have Mr Ian Cameron. He, I understand, will be following me in the debate. All we need now is a representative of the Peacock Liberals, and then we will have all of the Opposition factions represented in the Parliament. Mr Hawker —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it not normal for a member to refer to another member by the name of his seat? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I was just about to draw that matter to the honourable member's attention, actually. I thought he had passed on to other areas. Mr BRUMBY —As I was saying, there are currently three shadow Ministers for Primary Industry in this place, and all we need now is a spokesperson representative of the Peacock Liberals and we will have four shadow Ministers for Primary Industry represented in this place. How laughable it is that honourable members opposite can attempt to retain any credibility at all in this place. They can speak in response to a Bill which is introduced and debated in this Parliament, but as far as members of the public-who have a right to know-are concerned, who are they to believe is the genuine spokesperson for the Opposition, the genuine shadow Minister? Is it Mr Fife? Is it Mr Hunt? Is it Mr Cameron, or is it a spokesman for Mr Peacock? Which honourable members are we to believe when they speak about primary industry matters? The relevance to the Australian people and the farmers, who want strong effective government which they are getting; who want coherent policies which they are getting; who want a united government, which they are getting; is that before they can get any commitment from the Opposition they will need agreement across all four political factions in the Opposition parties. This hurts because it is true, does it not? Mr Downer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that these Bills are about the wool industry. The only thing we can hear about wool is the woolly thinking of the honourable member as he makes cheap party political points. I ask you to draw his attention to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I just ask the honourable member for Bendigo to try to remain relevant to the Bill. (Quorum formed) Mr BRUMBY —I was saying that there are, effectively, four shadow spokesmen on primary industry in this Parliament. It does not take one spokesman to match our Minister; it takes four spokesmen. Examples of the division which I have outlined are nowhere more clearly marked than in the fact that the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) called a quorum and members of the Liberal Party came into the House to attack him for calling it and destroying their speaking time. This Opposition is hopelessly faction ridden. How many shadow Ministers does it want? It has three; it has four. Will the amendments to be moved by Mr Hunt, who is a member of the old Nationals, be supported by the new Nationals or the Liberals? Mr Slipper —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member who is presently addressing the House has been here long enough to know that he ought to refer to honourable members by the names of their electorates, not by their personal names. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will address members through the Chair and according to accepted decorum. Mr BRUMBY —We have never seen such ducking, weaving and slithering to get away from a fundamental item of debate such as this. The honourable member for Gwydir and the honourable member for Fisher both have different policies on these Bills. What about the amendments that will be moved tonight by an old National? The old Sinclair Nationals will be very old after the next election. Six amendments have been moved. They all relate to the equal opportunity clauses of the Bill. We do not know the attitude of the Peacock Liberals. I suspect that they support the Government. What is the attitude of the Hunt old Nationals? They probably oppose the Government. The Cameron new Nationals, the Joh new Nationals, probably support the amendment because they moved it. What is the position of the Opposition in this House? As I have said throughout this debate, this only confirms that the Opposition is hopelessly faction ridden. Unless the Opposition can get the agreement of all four factions, the public cannot believe it as credible. Let us look at the amendments that have been moved. They are to oppose clauses 41 and 42 of the Bill, the equal employment opportunity aspects. Opposition members are opposing these clauses in direct contravention of the views expressed by the Australian Wool Corporation, which has expressed its full support for this legislation. So the Opposition is not even in touch with constituent bodies, with representative bodies, with the needs of the industry. Opposition members espouse a hard line extreme conservative policy which has no relevance to the vast majority of Australian people. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) will be the next speaker in this debate. Let us look at some of his policies on women which are relevant to these clauses of the Bill. On The World Today on 19 February 1986 Mr Cameron said: I'd support paying a higher wage to men so that their wives can be home with the children where they ought to be. I, you know, I don't even believe in pre-schools. What a remarkable statement! I am sure that all of the mums and dads around Australia who have their kids at pre-school will be rapt in that comment. He went on: They've (women) got to look at the social problems they're creating. You know, this women's movement. What a great statement, that women have to look at the social problems they are creating! Wait for the next one! This is a real beauty. The Opposition can add it to its $16 billion of promises that it has clocked up already. He said: I believe the Government can spend money to encourage married women to stay at home. They ought to be making the kitchen a bit more attractive than what they do these days . . . That is from the Joh new Nationals. What a great setup we have in this Parliament from this hopeless, tattered, battered Opposition. It is snaking its way towards a finishing line that it will never cross because we will decimate it at the next election. We have heard some of the Opposition's policy proposals. I see that the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) has come into the House I am sure she would have a lot in common with these views espoused by the Joh new Nationals. I will just repeat them in case she missed them. The honourable member for Maranoa said: I believe the Government can spend money to encourage married women to stay at home. They ought to be making the kitchen a bit more attractive than what they do these days . . . The Opposition can add that to its $16 billion worth of expenditure. We will see what happens to the amendment tonight. Opposition members will not have the courage to divide on it, to call a division, because they do not have the guts to go back into their electorates and line up on these aspects of the legislation. They lack any policy and will be removed at the next election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.24) —The members of the Australian Labor Party have been fleecing the people of Australia and the farmers of this country ever since they were elected. They are all suffering from wool blindness and it is time they were wigged and ringed, the lot of them. I do not know what to say about the female members. But I assure honourable members that we in the National Party of Australia will not support clauses 41 and 42 of this legislation because we support the employment of all people on merit. We do not believe that people should be discriminated in favour of because they happen to be crippled, coloured females. That is the system we have in Australia under the woolly lot of Labor supporters on the Government side of the House. They are a disgraceful lot. If they think that we will support the entire legislation, they have another think coming. There is no way that we will allow the Australian Labor Party to introduce this equal opportunity, affirmative action type nonsense in every Bill that relates to statutory authorities. It is absolute nonsense. I love women; there is nothing wrong with them. But I do not believe that there is any reason why we should discriminate in favour of women or in favour of coloured people or crippled people-the people that the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) talks about. Surely we have progressed far enough that we do not have to discriminate in favour of these people. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in the House the other day that 58 per cent of the work force are women. For God's sake, how many more do we need in the work force? They comprise over half of the work force now. How many more do we need? There will be no one left at home to look after the kids. I say to the honourable member for Bendigo that it was Labor that withdrew Federal funding for kindergartens. Yet he has the audacity to criticise the National Party for talking about kindergartens. It was a Labor government which withdrew Federal funding for pre-schools and it was left to the States to fund them. Government members are the ones who hate women and young kids. I turn to the contents of the legislation, which is to do with the wool industry. I hope that all of the nice girls-members of parliament-in the House are wearing their best wool dresses. Ms Fatin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I suggest that I am a member of parliament, an honourable member of this House. I may be a nice girl-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! There is no point of order. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am pleased to see that equal opportunity applies in this House. I notice that most of them are wearing wool. I see that all the fine members of parliament are wearing their good wool suits tonight, including me. I am also wearing a wool tie. Honourable members should keep buying them. I would like to support the great stud industry of this country. There are many studs in my electorate, the great electorate of Maranoa. I refer to Welltower stud at Goondiwindi and Mount Abundance and Crockentie at Roma. A good friend of mine, Russell Dowling, is chairman of the Queensland Merino Stud Sheepbreeders Association. Of course, they are doing an excellent job in lifting the standard and quality of wool throughout this nation. Australia is again riding on the sheep's back, and so it ought to be. At long last we have seen a recovery in the wool industry. Those of us who live in the western inland areas of Australia hope that this will continue. Mr Cobb —You have to keep the cost down. Mr IAN CAMERON —We have to suffer all of these new taxes. As soon as a person makes a quid today, this Labor Government rips it off him. There is a capital gains tax. One must now pay in order to milk a cow on farms. That is how lousy the Government is. Owners must pay tax on workers' accommodation so that men will work on their stations. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) is grinning. All the people in his electorate are paying extra taxes. We heard today that Mount Isa Mines has a fringe benefits tax bill of $5m. Mr Gayler —What about Noosa? Mr IAN CAMERON —There is nothing wrong with Noosa. Members who get knocked up in this place can go there and have a rest. One thing about Noosa is that a person does not need to wear wool clothing there, unfortunately. Many fine personalities who live in Maranoa have done a wonderful job for the wool industry, including Sir William Gunn, who is a resident of the Goondiwindi district. Sir William has done a fantastic job. He has been proven correct over the years. For many years he advocated the sort of floor price system that has been operating in the wool industry for the past 20 years. He has done an excellent job to try to stabilise the industry, which has allowed many growers to remain in the industry. After a long struggle they are now starting to reap the rewards of their labours. Unfortunately, because of the fall of the grain market, we will see a movement of people, such as wheat farmers, into the wool industry. We must be mindful of the fact that if we produce too much wool, we will have problems of overproduction. One of the reasons for the upturn in the market is the trend back to natural fabrics from synthetics. The Russians have bought more wool, for which we are very grateful. The Chinese have freed up their markets in terms of primary products and manufactured goods. I would like the Australian Labor Party to take note of what the Chinese Communist Party is doing. It is doing the complete reverse of what this Government is doing. This Government keeps introducing regulations, including the ridiculous limit on the weight that a person can lift. The regulations have got so bad that one will not be able to lift one's grandchildren or a bag of fertiliser. Ten people will be needed to lift a bale of wool on to a truck. That is how pathetic the Government has become in introducing legislation to impose weight limits. Of course, we do not support such proposals. The Wool Council of Australia has been closely involved with the Government in the development of the legislation. The National Party supports pretty well all of the legislation except those clauses dealing with equal opportunity of employment. I point out to people in the electorate of Maranoa who are listening to the debate tonight that it is not the industry that is being burdened with the equal opportunity clause; it is the Australian Wool Corporation. The Government controls the Corporation and it is using this Bill to force an extra burden on the Corporation. In the long run, the taxpayers will pay for the burden of going along the track of not employing people on the basis of merit. We are reaching the stage with equal employment legislation when we will be forced to employ the unemployed. That is the absurd position we shall soon reach, and it is high time this stopped. We in the National Party will not support absurd legislation such as that which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has introduced to the House. The Wool Marketing Bill provides that a director of the Corporation may be appointed as a chief executive officer. There will be nine directors, or eight in the case of a full time chairperson. They will be chosen by the Wool Council. The Corporation will be setting and announcing the minimum market indicator reserve price and reserve prices for wool types. The Wool Council will consult with the Corporation on the allocation of the wool tax. The legislation allows a maximum tax of 10 per cent of wool growers' gross income, 2 1/2 per cent of which is for market support. That has been the central component of holding up the stockpile, which has been up to two million bales. We have been able to reduce that to under half a million bales. As the market improves, the stockpile is sold off. The industry is lucky in that wool can survive in a bale for years on end. So it is able to be stored. Two and half per cent of the value of the wool will go to promotion. The industry is one of the leaders throughout the world. As honourable members all know, the woolmark symbol as the integrated symbol of the wool industry has been a roaring success and is recognised throughout the world. The industry has done a fantastic job. The International Wool Secretariat has done a brilliant job in promoting wool and this is one of the reasons why the prices have taken off. A quarter of a per cent will go to research and development. This provides for the Corporation to borrow up to 50 per cent of its net assets without ministerial consent. A commercial auditor will be appointed by the Corporation to audit the books. This is a good thing. We need to have some sort of commercialism in these statutory organisations to make sure that they are kept on the straight and narrow. A separate Australian Wool Stores Board of Management will be established. The corporate plan of the Corporation will last for five years and the annual report will be presented to this Parliament. The Bill will introduce new arrangements for quality assurance. I think it is important for me tonight to tell the wool growers of Australia, particularly those people who are wool classing, that they will be forced to register. This is one aspect of the Bill that I am not happy about. But if it will help to improve the quality of the product, I guess it is one of the measures that we have to go along with. All wool classers will have to be registered to sell their wool through the Wool Corporation. The Corporation is allowed to acquire samples from wool testing houses to establish the ownership of wool which is found to have excessive levels of pesticide. Of course this is the greenie element coming in. It is concerned about pesticides. I will tell honourable members that there is nothing worse than seeing a flyblown sheep wandering around the place. I can tell honour- able members that they suffer. If farmers cannot use pesticides, where does that leave them? Can they not kill a few blowflies with a bit of pesticide or a bit of the old oil? What is wrong with these blokes? This Bill will encourage and facilitate the training of shearers. Where is Mick Young? He is an old shearer. He ought to be in the House tonight listening to us debating the Wool Marketing Bill. He ought to be able to contribute to it, but he is not here. The industry has done a fantastic job in training shearers, particularly in the electorate of Maranoa. We have had many shearing schools going, and of course this is good for the industry. The Bill provides for the withdrawal from auction of wool which does not meet the industry standard. We believe that this is an excellent provision to support. I know that many other speakers who support the industry are still to speak. I have much pleasure in supporting most of the Bill but I am very keen to oppose clauses 41 and 42. Motion (by Mr Cunningham) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. 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. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. 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. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian (Teller) Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Conquest, 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 Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hodges, J. C. Watson, D. J. H. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hayden, W. G. Fife, W. C. Uren, T. Nehl, G. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Mr MOORE(Ryan)(9.51) —I move: (1) Clause 3, page 3, line 24, omit paragraph (b) of the definition of ``employee''. The purpose of the first amendment which has been circulated in my name is to restrict the application of the Wool Marketing Bill to employees of the Australian Wool Corporation and to remove a limitation on the Corporation's capacity to contract freely with independent contractors. Our concern is to ensure that the restrictions which are contained in the Bill apply to employees and that it does not limit the situation of independent contractors or, indeed, the capacity of Commonwealth authorities, such as the Australian Wool Corporation, to contract freely with people whom they wish to deal with on the basis of their being independent contractors. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(9.52) —The Government rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). As most of the amendments that have been circulated relate to one issue and one issue alone I believe that I should just say something now as we go through the debate. The whole concept of equal employment opportunity always provokes great jocularity and, of course, there are two popular stereotypes. On one hand we have the stereotype that employers will be forced to employ one-legged, black, lesbian, Chinese speaking women and on the other hand we have a stereotype that all women should be pumpkin scone cooking, who know their place-barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen-and, if in the work force, they should work in factories or do typing only. The reality, of course, is that these stereotypes are absolute nonsense and it is about time that honourable members in this chamber had a little more maturity and just dealt with the subject of equal employment opportunity. The reality is, of course, that it should be totally unnecessary even to have this sort of thing recorded in any legislation. Unfortunately, the reality is that it is necessary. It is necessary because women and many other people are still positively discriminated against and this legislation means nothing other than equality of opportunity. The Cabinet decided that primary industry statutory marketing authorities should be exempt from the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 but that statutory marketing authority enabling legislation should be amended to incorporate provisions consistent with the EEO Bill. The Minister for Primary Industry is to oversight the implementation of EEO policies through the strategic relationship between the Minister and the statutory marketing authorities concerned. This requires EEO programs to be incorporated in the statutory marketing authorities five-year corporate plans and annual operational plans for the Minister's agreement and for the statutory marketing authorities annual report to include an assessment of the development and implementation of the EEO program during that year. I spoke to the Chairman of the Wool Corporation yesterday and he sees no problem with the legislation as it is posed. I also point out that the very basis of equal employment opportunity assumes that freedom of choice of occupation is a basic social right which should not be constrained by criteria unrelated to ability to perform the job. It promotes efficiency by avoiding waste of talent and underutilisation and underdevelopment of human resources which result from discrimination. Equal employment opportunity programs are designed to ensure that all employees are treated fairly and equitably. Such programs operate to the advantage of the individuals directly concerned, the employing authorities and the community as a whole. I wish to emphasis that the programs are not intended to and will not lead to positive discrimination. The Bill expressly confirms that employment matters are to be dealt with on the basis of merit. The whole thrust of the legislation would strengthen the merit principle by ensuring the review of any existing discriminatory personnel or employment procedures. It is as simple as that. It is a pity that it is necessary but unfortunately it is because of the mores of society and the all too immature and stupid stereotypes I referred to earlier in my comments. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(9.56) —Since there has been some positive discrimination in the debate on the Wool Marketing Bill 1987 tonight I rise to talk about the amendment put forward by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). We are talking about positive discrimination and so on. On a more positive note I hope that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will take up a point he made in a speech to the Wool Council of Australia in November 1986. I remind the Minister that in that speech he was talking about setting a formula and about funding. In this instance he was talking about the Government's contribution towards wool promotion. In regard to the funding formula he made a very clear commitment which I hope we will hear again. He said: `We intend to maintain funding under that formula'. Considering the mini-Budget of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) coming up next week I hope that the Minister will remember what he told the Wool Council in November because it was a very significant statement. He would know that commitment would not run out this year, nor the next year; I think it runs until 1989. I hope that the Minister takes up that point and makes damned sure that the Treasurer does not get stuck into this area. Listening to what honourable members had to say during the debate, I was reminded of a comment a colleague once made about what sort of a suit people wear. I wear a Fletcher Jones suit which, of course, is made in my electorate of Wannon. Wannon is an electorate which is proud of its association with the wool industry. It is proud of the fact that it contributes probably more to the wool industry than anywhere else. It has certainly contributed more to the leadership of the wool industry than any other electorate. In fact, two members of the Board of the Wool Corporation come from my electorate-the Deputy Chairman, Mr John Silcock, and one of the members with special qualifications, Mr David Jones, who also happens to be the Managing Director of Fletcher Jones. I make that point because from listening to some of the speeches by honourable gentlemen opposite it seems that they are very keen to praise the Minister. Maybe the Minister should go to Fletcher Jones and get a special suit made, with the pockets lined with special water proof material. I return to the amendment. When we talk about discrimination and so on it is very easy to lose sight of what this Bill is all about. It is very important legislation and it is about a very important industry. The wool industry is the number one rural industry today. As I was saying, my electorate has a very proud association with the wool industry. Hamilton is not only the wool capital of the world but Wannon could be the wool capital of Australia when it comes to electorates. We could probably claim that not only are we the premier wool growing area in Australia but also one of the premier wool growing areas in the world. I am very happy to support the amendments moved by the honourable member for Ryan. They are significant. However, I keep them in the following perspective: This is the new wool industry Act. It is a very important Act. It is a demonstration of the efforts of wool growers in consultation with the Government to develop a better marketing system for the growers, a marketing system which, I might add, is funded by growers and not by government money. Ms FATIN(Brand)(10.00) —In listening to this debate tonight I am absolutely astonished by the lack of understanding about the whole notion of equal employment opportunity. I hope that the many women around Australia who have been listening to the debate will recall in future times the contributions from honourable members on the other side of this chamber. Nobody on this side of the chamber has said-nor is it in the legislation-that there is positive discrimination in the Wool Marketing Bill. There is no positive discrimination in this Bill. In this concept of equal employment opportunity we are talking about the notion of merit. When we are talking about equal employment opportunity we are talking about employing women, migrants, Aboriginals and handicapped people, based on merit. If people in this chamber and elsewhere in Australia imagine that there is no such thing as discrimination out there in the community when these classes of people are trying to get jobs, they do not understand what it is like trying to get work out there. It is absolute nonsense to suggest there is no discrimination out there. It does exist. I was interested to see the other day in the Sun newspaper a report of a poll that showed that 75 per cent of Australian men and women support anti-discrimination laws. So why on earth the Opposition parties are suggesting today that under this Bill we should not include the notion of merit when employing people in the Australian Wool Corporation astounds me. The Wool Corporation employs approximately 460 people altogether around Australia. Why should people who apply to work there not be given jobs based on merit? Experience for years has shown that the classes of people specified within our equal employment opportunity legislation do not get jobs based on merit. This type of legislation is absolutely crucial in enabling them to get work based on merit. For the moment let us not talk only about women looking for work. The example of women is always used. Let us consider some of the handicapped men and women who, because of a handicap to their leg, spine or some other part of their body, are not given a job. Anybody who has anything to do with handicapped people in the community knows that that happens. This Government over the last three years has introduced legislation to eliminate discrimination in the community and to introduce equal employment opportunity-in the private sector, the Australian Public Service and, only last week, in statutory corporations. We have seen Opposition parties vote for such legislation one year, against it another year and tonight have a little bit each way. They will support this Bill but are putting up amendments which will eliminate all reference in the Bill to equal employment opportunity. That is absolutely disgraceful. The Wool Corporation has a good record in this area. I will allow some other honourable members to contribute now but as I said when I began my speech this evening, I hope that the women of Australia have listened to this debate and to the contributions from the other side of this chamber. I hope that they will remember in months to come the nature of the contributions from members such as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). Amendment negatived. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.05) —I move: (1) Clause 3, pages 3 and 4, omit the definition of ``equal employment opportunity program''. The National Party of Australia has opposed this legislation from day one because it does not believe it is necessary. We see it as a very substantial cost burden upon industry, upon organisations which at present are having enough difficulty with all the regulations and other requirements that Commonwealth, State and, in some circumstances, local governments are imposing upon industry. The definition reads: ``equal employment opportunity program'', in relation to the Corporation, means a program of the Corporation that is designed to ensure: (a) that appropriate action is taken to eliminate any discrimination by the Corporation against women and persons in designated groups in relation to employment matters; This suggests that the Australian Wool Corporation is in fact discriminating against women, discriminating against people on the basis of race, discriminating against other sections of the Australian community. I refute that suggestion. There is no way that it has done this. The definition continues: (b) that appropriate measures are taken by the Corporation to promote equal opportunity for women and persons in designated groups in relation to employment matters; being a program that includes provision for assessment action, consultation action, employee information action, and policy action, in relation to the program; These sorts of programs involve businesses, commercial undertakings and statutory authorities in a tremendous amount of additional administration and government intervention. As I said in my speech at the second reading stage, I think the insertion of such provisions is only a lot of window dressing for political purposes because clause 43 of the Bill states that appointment will be undertaken on merit. So what are we talking about? Do not let it be said that the National Party is opposed to women; we are opposed to a continuing flow of regulation and what we call social engineering in legislation at a time when society is fairly educated and sophisticated. Any- body who believes that there is discrimination in the community should say where it is. It should be reported to the appropriate State and Federal government authorities. Our basic objection to this provision in the legislation goes right back to our original objection to the equal employment opportunity legislation. We have gone overboard in this country with conservation and environmental impact statements and so on. Sure, we have to preserve the environment. But every time a piece of legislation of this type is introduced it only adds to overall administration and functioning cost. And for what purpose? Nobody has reported to me-and I do not think anybody has reported to the Minister or to the Government-that there has been discrimination in the Australian Wool Corporation. Can anybody say there has been? Ms Fatin —How many women are there? Mr HUNT —If women were interested in applying for a job and they had merit beyond that of the other applicants, of course they would be appointed. Ms Fatin —Do you really believe that? Mr HUNT —I really believe that. One sees this today. In the past many women were not educated because their parents did not believe it was necessary to educate the females of a family. That happened in my generation, when I grew up. It happened in my grandfather's day. But most parents today are making sure that their daughters are educated as well as their sons. We will see more and more women take their place in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, and in every major role and function in this country. They will take their place according to merit. We do not have to legislate in the Parliament to make sure that these things occur. I think it is outrageous to believe that all these rather complicated, bureaucratic requirements are necessary to ensure that the Australian Wool Corporation chooses its staff by merit. It has done so in the past and I have no doubt that it will in the future. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.11) —The Government rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I do not know what he means when he talks about a substantial cost burden. No additional people will need to be employed. I suppose that there will be some additional paperwork and a few additional paragraphs in the annual report. This is not a window dressing matter and part of the honourable member's problem in moving his amendment was that his arguments became circular very quickly. He said that there was no need for the inclusion of a definition of `equal opportunity program' and that clause 43 mentions `merit'. We do not really know whether there has been discrimination in the Wool Corporation or any of these other companies or statutory marketing authorities. We have no way of knowing. The clause is an affirmation that this organisation will in future-- Mr McGauran —Nonsense! The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Mr McGauran —You ignore those opposite, do you? The CHAIRMAN —I warn the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr KERIN —This organisation will in future take equal employment opportunities into account. Honourable members opposite say that there has been no discrimination. Even in Canberra, which is pretty advanced on these sorts of issues compared with other areas-- Mr Conquest —Oh come on! Mr KERIN —I could give the honourable member book, chapter and verse three occasions on which my wife has been discriminated against. I will not go into those personal matters, but honourable members opposite should not give us any nonsense about there being no discrimination against people because of sex, colour or their disabilities. If honourable members believe that discrimination does not take place and that all employers are enlightened people who judge everyone on merit they are having themselves on. I make it very clear that in addition to the key elements in the Bill which will enhance the commercial operation of the Corporation, the legislation also has transitional provisions to continue the essential administrative arrangements for the Corporation. This particularly applies to its workers. Appointments to the Corporation and its research council will continue under the appeal and transitional provisions in the Bill, as will the committees of the Corporation and membership of those committees. More importantly, employment of staff of the Corporation and the terms and conditions of those staff members will continue under section 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which relates to the effect of the repeal of Acts which cover such arrangements. The Government rejects the amendment by the honourable member for Gwydir. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.14) —I support the amendment moved by the honour- able member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). In doing so I am aware that there are two dangers in this debate. The first is that the discussions relating to the equal opportunity provisions in the legislation will overshadow the importance of the Wool Marketing Bill. Thankfully, a number of members from both the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia have stressed the glee with which this Bill is being greeted by the industry. The second danger is that an impression will grow up that the National Party is against equal opportunities for women or that we deny that discrimination occurs in different parts of this country, in different sectors of society or in different professions. Of course we do not deny that there are cases of discrimination. We could debate all night about the frequency of those cases but no one on this side of the Chamber denies for a moment that acts of discrimination occur not just against women but also against the disabled and Aborigines. But it is a matter of degree as to whether legislation of this type should seek to address such problems. In my view and that of the National Party equal opportunity programs in this form are totally inappropriate. What I find more offensive than anything is that pious Government members can stand up in here with a most sanctimonious air and pretend that the mere insertion of words such as `equal opportunity' or `affirmative action' will correct the problem. Of course there is discrimination, but there are people dying as they wait for Medicare finally to take care of their elective surgery. There are people in poverty-- Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. The Chairman having reported accordingly- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Kerin-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —Of course there is discrimination, but there are so many other problems. Any member of this Government who stands up and pretends that, with a sweep of the wand or the insertion of words, he can correct the problem willy-nilly is trying to kid people. What angers me more than anything else is the belief and the conviction held by most members of the Government that legislation of this type will correct the problem. I, for one, do not believe that, although naturally I acknowledge the genuine belief of many honourable members who would support the insertion of equal opportunity programs-- Mr Staples —What will? Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Jagajaga asks me what will correct the problem. It is a slow process, often an agonising process of education. We have a responsibility to recognise the difficulties as they arise and to try to address them over a period. Who is kidding who? Really and truly, will this legislation, with which the Australian Wool Corporation will have to comply, address the problem? We must weigh up what small benefits may accrue against the disadvantages and the price to be paid-namely, the concept of reverse discrimination against men, which is a very real fear. That discrimination actually occurs. There is also the cost of complying with an equal opportunity program and the interference in both a social and an economic sense. There is a fundamental difference of philosophy between the Australian Labor Party and the National Party of Australia. Nothing more greatly crystallises that difference than this debate tonight. Those listening to the debate, or any persons interested in it, can clearly understand the differences. If people want such interference from a government they can vote gladly for the Australian Labor Party. If they want a party that will take a stand against such emotional and obviously easy criticism, the National Party will stand firm. It has been said by the Minister that there is no real cost to the Wool Corporation. I refer him to clause 123 (3) (c), which states that the Minister must be furnished with: a report on the development and implementation of the Corporation's equal opportunity program during that year. There is a cost, and the plain and simple reading of that provision is that it will result in informal quotas. Of course the Government has been very careful expressly to deny the specific target or quota. The truth is that this legislation, like all equal opportunity legislation, leads to informal quotas because of the reports that must be complied with, furnished to the Minister in charge and then tabled in this Parliament. I know that other members wish to speak and I do not wish to delay the Committee any longer. I wish only to say in summary that the National Party knows that there is discrimination, but does not for a moment acknowledge that it occurs to the same extent that Government members would have us believe. We do not believe that it is the role of government to interfere in the workings of statutory authorities in this way when there is a very high price to be paid. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.19) —I congratulate the National Party of Australia for at least being consistent in its opposition to this clause, to this legislation, and to the basic principles of equal opportunity. At least we know where we stand with the National Party. It opposes a fair go for women. It does today, it always has and it always will. Mr Tim Fischer —We support promotion on merit. Mrs KELLY —We can see that demonstrated in this chamber. Promotion on merit is what this legislation is all about, and that is what the National Party is opposing. That provision is in the clause that it is opposing tonight. We see all the prejudices coming out in the speeches of members of the National Party. We see why we need this legislation. Members of the National Party have been saying: `Why do we need all this? We believe that women get a fair go'. Look around the Opposition benches. Where are the women in the National Party? Mr Ian Cameron —We welcome them. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member for Maranoa knows where they are. He says they are all in the kitchen or in the other room, not here in the Parliament. Mr Ian Cameron —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman: I ask the honourable member for Canberra to withdraw that statement. I have never said that the place of women is in the other room. Mr Robert Brown —You did. Mr Ian Cameron —I have not. Mrs KELLY —In a speech. Mr Ian Cameron —I have not. I ask that the honourable member for Canberra withdraw that comment. Mrs KELLY —I will not withdraw it because the honourable member said it. Mr Ian Cameron —I did not. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. Unless the honourable member for Canberra can come up with the evidence, I suggest that she withdraw that statement. Mrs KELLY —He said it in a speech in the House when he spoke on an equal opportunity Bill in September last year. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Canberra will withdraw it. Mrs KELLY —I will withdraw it. Mrs Darling —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman: I believe that under Standing Orders if it was not an offensive statement there was no need to withdraw it. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honourable member has withdrawn it. I call the honourable member for Canberra. Mrs KELLY —We are supporting these clauses because we believe that the wool industry is so important to this country. It has been historically important, and it will be important in the future. That is why we want all Australians to have the right to participate in such an important industry. Members of the Opposition mentioned some of the costs that may be incurred in implementing some of the clauses of this legislation. If, like every other corporation in this country, the Australian Wool Corporation has proper management training, the inclusion of programs such as those that are outlined in these clauses would become part of the management training. Surely the cost is all about training the best people to their full potential. That is how one gets the best value for money. That is what this legislation is all about. It ensures that every Australian has the opportunity to participate in an industry that is so important to this country. Surely the industry will benefit from all Australians having the opportunity to develop and participate to the fullest. If we do not develop the talents of all Australians this industry, like all other industries in this country, will not be able to compete against those of other countries. Mr Peter Fisher —You're drawing a long bow now. Mrs KELLY —It is not a long bow. That is what this is all about. It simply involves promoting on merit but developing programs to ensure that all the groups that are referred to-not only women but also migrant people, the handicapped and Aboriginals-have an opportunity. Mr Conquest —We're with you. Mrs KELLY —If they are with us why do they not vote with us? That is what it is all about. The trouble with members of the National Party is that they say that democracy is all right, that a fair go is all right for everyone else but not for women; they are a bit beyond that. Again look at them-there are no women over there. They should give a few women the right to sit in Parliament. It is important that we realise that these clauses contain nothing sinister. They involve no attempt to kick out the men and put the women in. All these clauses say is: `Give women a fair go'. That is what equal employment opportunity is all about-give women the same chance for a fair go as men have had. I do not think anyone in this chamber would deny that women in Australia, and in the rural sector in particular, have played an important and fundamental part not only in the development of the wool industry in this country but in the development of the whole rural sector. Give them a fair go. What are National Party members afraid of? Are they afraid that women might end up taking their places in this Parliament and in the wool industry? If they have the talent, give them a chance. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(10.25) —It was not my intention to speak in this debate this evening. It seemed to be well accommodated in the hands of honourable members who have spoken from both sides of the chamber. The extraordinary thing about it is that there seemed to be a unanimity of view on the fundamental question of equality of opportunity and that people should aspire to and attain their objectives on merit. But I have been a little surprised that one significant feature has apparently been overlooked; that is, that merit is a rather amorphous term. In these arrangements there is a distinct threat of establishing reverse discrimination. Before Government members leap at that proposition, let them just consider this case: A potential employer is faced with a male job applicant and a female job applicant. The employer, very mindful that he or she must adhere to the regulations in respect of equal opportunity, finds that the prospective employees are rather equal at first blush in terms of merit. The employer is very mindful that if he or she errs in judgment he or she faces the decided prospect of lengthy proceedings, and penalties if the dissatisfied job applicant-let us say that in this case it is a female-believes that she has not been fairly treated. Naturally, the employer, not greatly enthused at the prospect of being dragged up before the tribunal, or whoever, for having abused the spirit of the legislation, will say: `I can't take that chance. Here you are, lass, the job is yours'. In this situation, what we have done, possibly in strict terms, is to be party to an act of reverse discrimination. The admirable and laudable objective has not been achieved. We have actually predisposed a situation of reverse discrimination. That possibility should not be the singular determinant in these issues. But it has rather surprised me this evening that, in the fairly vigorous exchange, nobody has allowed for that possibility of reverse discrimination. So somehow we have to refine this term merit, because to a considerable extent it is in the eye of the beholder and there is that latent threat that the employer's determination could result in painful and costly proceedings and a penalty if the tribunal is of a mind to uphold the appeal of the unsuccessful applicant. It is a point. There has been no argument on equal merit-a sweet unanimity of view. But we have skated over the fact that it could result in the direct opposite of that which honourable members here, to their credit, seek to achieve. I just put that thought on the record. It had escaped the attention of the chamber. Ms FATIN(Brand)(10.28) —I respond to the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) by saying: If it were the case, as the honourable member has said, that the man and the woman were virtually equal in terms of merit, and if the man felt that the decision was taken unfairly, he would have every opportunity to appeal against that decision. One of the reasons we include in legislation such as the Wool Marketing Bill the provisions that we are talking about tonight is that-- Dr Watson —It doesn't mention men in the Bill. Ms FATIN —It does actually. When we talk about handicapped persons, Aboriginal persons and migrant persons we are talking about men and women in those areas. We are not talking about only handicapped females or Aboriginal females. Men and women are included in those areas. When we talk about the provisions that we have included in this legislation, and the reasons why we include words, to use the words of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), in a willy-nilly fashion-I suggest they are not included in a willy-nilly fashion-we should remember that they are included to enable the statutory marketing authority to establish programs. Let us assume, for the purpose of this argument, that a corporation did, in fact, discriminate against women or against these other persons. If the word `merit' is included in this legislation we will not encourage that corporation to change its practice. So we include reasonable provisions in the legislation whereby programs are developed and the authority will respond by tabling an annual report. Under this measure it will respond to the Minister within five years with a progress report on those programs. This Bill requires the EEO provisions to be incorporated in the statutory marketing authority five year corporate plans and annual operational plans with the Minister's agreement. I draw the attention of honourable members to a paper given at an ANZUS conference in 1985 by the EEO co-ordinator from ICI (Australia) Ltd. It is very important that we look at this paper because it is from private enterprise. ICI (Australia) is one of the largest and most successful companies in this country. It began an EEO program in the 1970s. I refer to this paper in answer to the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for Gippsland who suggested all we need do is include the word `merit'. In the paper Ms Boake stated: Education is a very important part of introducing a program of change . . . That is what we are talking about; we are talking about changing attitudes-- At ICI we have also introduced training courses on the philosophy and practice of equal opportunity, and have included this in other training courses, such as management skills and interviewing techniques. The more people who understand the concepts, the more momentum such a program gains. This company was involved in the Australian Government affirmative action pilot programs. I wanted to give that example to illustrate my point that one cannot just mention the word `merit' because half the time people do not understand it. Tonight I think we have found that very few people understand the difference between positive discrimination and merit. From the number of debates we have had on this issue it is about time that the Opposition parties had a better understanding of the matter. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.33) —I make an offer to the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin). I know she has a great interest in the welfare of women. I invite her to come to my electorate at the next opportunity she has because I want to introduce her to a female public servant who has just lost an opportunity for a promotion because the things the honourable member says will not happen are happening. The lady is very competent and merited the promotion. The job was taken from her because head office sent a token Aboriginal. I will also introduce the honourable member to the male Aboriginal, a very intelligent person. I have met the pair of them together. He recognises the fact that he is a token Aboriginal because he is the first person to be sent to that office who has not had any pre-training. When he arrived he said: `What will I do?'. All his colleagues said: `You know what to do. You have been pre-trained for this job. You have been selected above this lady who is skilled, competent and experienced'. He said: `I do not know what to do'. I am not telling the Government what is in its legislation; I am only telling it how it is working in the Public Service. I am inviting the honourable member for Brand to meet this lady because I have met her and she is terming the honourable member's equal opportunity legislation `social engineering'. Irrespective of how the honourable member sees the legislation and how she eloquently argues her case, I want to introduce her to the people she is hurting. I also want to introduce her to another group for which I have a special responsibility in this place, and it is called `employers'. I was one of those for a long time. I want to know when the Government is going to legislate for their rights because, after all, they have the final decision. This legislation charges these people in the Australian Wool Corporation with all sorts of responsibilities. They are charged to deliver on behalf of the people who pay them 8 per cent of the shorn value of their product, their wool. They must do their best for their clients. That should be sufficient for them to wish to choose on merit, to get the very best employees. I am saying to the honourable member for Brand that there are male and female employers in this community, and they have some rights in deciding who best suits their businesses. I have given the example in this place before and the honourable member would be aware of it. In the hotel industry, in which I conducted business for many years in Western Australia, there was never a separate wages award for women. They were always paid the same as men, and I always chose to employ women. That is a choice that, if I were still running that business, I would no longer have. My choice was made on the grounds that women were better at that job; not because they were cheaper to employ, as was the case in New South Wales and many other States for years, but because they were better. They had a better effect on my clientele. My clientele behaved better when women were serving behind the bar. That was helpful to the running of my business and I believed I was entitled to that choice. There were many other such jobs. Not one person here can look at my family life, at the business association between me and my wife, and say that I am any sort of chauvinist. We have shared in everything. We have had our arguments but never about money or the right to share each other's property. Never have we argued about that. I am probably unique in that regard. Never in my life have I decided that there were special jobs for my wife in our family arrangements and special jobs for me. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor might stray back to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I believe this is very much about the Bill because I am waiting for the honourable member for Brand to say that I am some sort of a chauvinist. I am begging her to see what is happening to female employees. Motion (by Mr Kerin) agreed to: That the question be now put. Amendment negatived. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.38) —by leave-I move: (2) Clause 3, page 4, after the definition of ``export auction'' insert the following definition: `` `forward estimate' means a quantitative measure or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time;''. (3) Clause 3, page 4, after the definition of ``member of Parliament'' insert the following definition: `` `objective' means a qualitative measure or aim, expressed as a general principle, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time;''. (4) Clause 3, page 5, lines 4-8, omit paragraph (c) of the definition of ``policy action'', substitute the following paragraph: ``(c) to set objectives and make forward estimates in the program;''. The amendments in this case go back to our approach to the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act of 1986 that we supported. We affirm our commitment to equal opportunity in employment and our commitment to avoid moving towards positive discrimination. The Wool Marketing Bill sets up its equal employment opportunity program in a different fashion from the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill. The Wool Marketing Bill does so in the following manner: It requires the Corporation, under clause 41, to develop and implement an EEO program, and, under clause 42, to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to that program. An EEO program is defined as a program designed to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to eliminate discrimination and to promote equal opportunity, and is to include provision for positive action. That is in clause 3 (1). Positive action is defined to be an action, inter alia, to set quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. Hence the implication that the Corporation is obliged to adopt quotas. If we remove from the contents of the EEO program the requirement to set quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed, we are removing the source of implication. By replacing it with the words of the 1986 Act, the Corporation will be required to make a qualitative estimate. Motion (by Mr Kerin) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. 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. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian (Teller) Moore, J. C. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hodges, J. C. Watson, D. J. H. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 4 to 40-by leave-taken together. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.50) —by leave-On behalf of the National Party of Australia, I move: (2) Clause 12, page 11, lines 33 and 34, omit paragraph (3) (g). (3) Clause 17, page 13, lines 25 and 26, omit paragraph (2) (d). In addressing myself to these amendments I want to answer a point that was made by the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin), because it is very relevant to these two clauses. The honourable member claimed that the merit principle was not good enough. She said this in response to my claim that clause 43 rarely protected the rights of women or any other section of the community. Clause 43 states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require action that is incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. The honourable member for Brand said in all honesty-and I think she was the only one on the Government side who has been honest on the issue-that this legislation required the application of an equal employment opportunity program and that assessment actions, consultation actions, employee information actions and policy actions were needed in relation to the program. The Minister has said: `Don't worry about it because all it will require will be two or three paragraphs in an annual report'. I submit that that is not correct, because the full impact of the equal employment opportunity legislation will affect the operations of this Bill and of the Australian Wool Corporation. I understand that, in discussions that took place between officials of the Department of Primary Industry and the Australian Wool Corporation, the original draft of the section on equal employment opportunity was about three pages in length. After a lot of negotiation they broke it down to what is contained in clauses 41 and 42, believing in all sincerity that those clauses were going to relieve them of the obligations of the equal employment opportunity legislation. The simple fact of the matter is that if clauses 41 and 42 of this legislation are carried the Australian Wool Corporation will be bound hand and foot to the full impact of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. There is not the slightest doubt about that, and there is no doubt that there will be costs. Mr Hand —What is wrong with that? Mr HUNT —The honourable member for Melbourne asks: `What is wrong with that?'. What is wrong with it is that it adds up to a lot of bureaucracy, a lot of cost, a lot of claims and counter claims and evidence being given. If the honourable member thinks that the Wool Corporation is going to get away with this sort of legislation without additional cost to the wool growers of Australia, when in fact there has not been any evidence of discrimination, he has another think coming. We think it is totally unnecessary because the merit principle is embodied in this legislation. We do not oppose that, but we oppose the bureaucratic nightmare that the equal employment opportunity legislation imposes upon employers, on business and on corporations such as this. Motion (by Mr Kerin) agreed to: That the question be now put. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clause 41 (Corporation to develop and implement equal employment opportunity program). Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.55) —The National Party of Australia is totally opposed to clauses 41 and 42 of this Bill because they do in fact contain the equal employment opportunity provisions of the legislation. They deal with the equal employment opportunity program which, as I mentioned earlier, places inordinate burdens upon management of the Australian Wool Corporation when there is no evidence at all that there has been any discrimination in that organisation. The National Party has no objection whatsoever to employees or staff being engaged on the basis of merit. But there are provisions within the equal employment opportunity legislation that we regard as unnecessary impositions and government intervention in the work place. The National Party has already opposed the equal employment opportunity legislation. It is not prepared to allow such provisions to stand in the body of the legislation now before us. Among the major concerns that we had with the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 was the imposition of quotas which effectively, in substance, were proposed in that legislation. Such a move would impose employment conditions which have been neither arbitrated nor agreed upon. It was clear from the definition of `employee' that the Government's intention was to apply the Bill not only to employees but also to independent contractors. This was unacceptable, as was the clear intention of applying the Bill to so-called designated groups, a move which would have given that Bill an excessively wide, vague and uncertain operation. I acknowledge that the Corporation, although it does not like these clauses, is not opposed to clauses 41 and 42 because it believes that clause 43 ensures that it can appoint staff according to merit without reference to gender. But we see this as unnecessary window dressing for political purposes. As far as we are concerned, we are totally opposed to that legislation. We believe it is social engineering. Government intervention is not necessary when there is a merit provision in the Bill. I repeat, on behalf of the National Party, that we are totally opposed to these clauses. Ms FATIN(Brand)(10.59) —I will be brief. For the purpose of informing the Committee and the people who are listening to this broadcast, I would like to read what clauses 41, 42 and 43 actually require. This Bill requires the Australian Wool Corporation to prepare a corporate plan. Mr McGauran —We are on clause 41. Ms FATIN —I am speaking about clause 41. The Bill requires the Australian Wool Corporation to prepare a corporate plan which includes the Corporation's equal employment opportunity program. It also requires the AWC to prepare an annual operational plan which proposes action to implement the EEO program for the Minister's agreement. Clause 41 also requires the Australian Wool Corporation to develop and implement an EEO program. So in this legislation we are asking the Australian Wool Corporation to plan the program, set it up and then implement it. If an organisation is to employ people on the basis of merit it has to have made some plan; it has to work out how we are going to do that. That is all that this legislation requires of the Australian Wool Corporation. As the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) just said, the Australian Wool Corporation does support these clauses. It supports clauses 41, 42 and 43. It knows that this means that it is to set up the plan. It will tell the Minister for Primary Industry how it is going to carry out that plan. When it does carry it out, it will be employing people based on merit. I say very briefly to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) that when he referred earlier tonight to the female public servant and the male who got the job, it seems to me, from what he said to the chamber, that the male was not placed in that position on merit. As the honourable member said, he was not prepared for that job, so it seems that the people who placed him there were not following the legislation as it was laid out to be. Mr McGauran —That's a cop-out. Ms FATIN —The honourable member for Gippsland can say it is a cop-out if he likes. I was taking my breath to then say that if the honourable member for O'Connor and I can arrange a time when we are both in Western Australia-I am sure that will be able to be done-I would be more than happy to meet his constituent and to talk about it. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I draw to the attention of honourable members the presence in the chamber of a former Speaker of the House, Sir Billy Snedden. Consideration resumed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.03) —The amendments put forward by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), have aroused some concern to members of the Liberal Party of Australia. I do not think there is any doubt, as the Minister for Primary Industry said previously, that there are examples under which discrimination has taken place within the work force against women. While we do not endorse or accept the Government's proposition of quotas within the work force, we do support equal opportunity within the work force for women. As a consequence, we cannot support his opposition to the clause. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(11.04) —I will take only a couple of minutes in my contribution to this debate. Clause 41 is clearly a re-run of what we have seen in the Senate and in the House over the last couple of weeks. We have a clear indication with the amendments of the National Party of Australia that the National Party intends to continue to oppose legislation which has been carried in both Houses and which has had the support of eight Liberal rebels. On the front page of the Australian we see an article entitled: `Wets now a faction'. The legislation has gone through both Houses of this Parliament and is now the law of this country. The statutory authorities will carry out equal opportunity programs. We are looking at the words in the legislation to see that the law which has already been passed by the Senate this week is put into operation. We have the most ridiculous situation where legislation has been passed by both Houses. This legislation has to be worded according to the existing law, as it has been put through, or it would be contradictory. Members of the National Party appear to be getting their riding orders from somewhere else-I imagine that they are coming from Queensland. We have just seen the exhibition by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who is at the table. He has clearly indicated that the Liberal Party does not agree, once again, with the National Party. What have we got? We have a victory for Senator Peter Baume, the man who had to stand down from his position on the front bench under the leadership of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) a few weeks ago. He is a very good Senate member who has spoken many times in support of this type of legislation. He lost his place on the front bench for the very reason that the honourable member for Bennelong was trying to carry the National Party of Australia-- Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that clause 41, which is before the Committee at the moment, has just 14 words in it. It is a very significant clause but it is also a very narrow clause and the honour- able member for MacMillan is now talking way beyond the provisions of clause 41 and he should be brought back to those provisions. The CHAIRMAN —Clause 41 is about equality of employment opportunity programs in the Corporation. I think the honourable member for McMillan is making a point about the legislation recently passed concerning equality of opportunity in statutory corporations. While he is pursuing that matter he is in order. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Mr Chairman, I thank you for your guidance. As I was saying, there is a clear indication of what Senator Peter Baume was saying on behalf of the Liberal Party. He took a position on principle, and he lost his place on the front bench. Now we have seen the ridiculous-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. The speaker wants to associate this legislation with the previous legislation to which he has referred. Mr Chairman, I remind you that the previous legislation specifically excluded the Australian Wool Corporation and, therefore, there is no association and he must be brought back to clause 41. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The debate has been fairly wide ranging. We heard about the interest of the honourable member for O'Connor in hotels and we heard about his wife. I think we can hear a little more of what the honourable member for McMillan has to say. Mr CUNNINGHAM —It is quite obvious that members of the Liberal Party of Australia have themselves in a certain position on this type of legislation. We saw this legislation pass in the Senate as eight Liberal rebels crossed the floor to make sure that their principles were adhered to. We heard the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) tell us tonight that the Liberal Party now opposes this position. We have not heard from the honourable member for Bennelong, the Leader of the Opposition, because he was in the invidious position a few weeks ago of trying to stifle the debate on this type of legislation in order to keep the coalition together, and he had Buckley's chance of doing that at the time. So let us take a little further the importance of this legislation. What could be the hidden agenda here? Is there a problem in relation to this legislation which makes the National Party want to give it a re-run every time it comes up in the Parliament, or has the National Party got a hidden agenda? Is somebody trying to create a climate where the Liberal Party will be put in a position of embarrassment? I have no doubt that members of the Liberal Party are embarrassed that the situation has been allowed to develop over the last few weeks to the point where tonight we have had amendments moved by the honourable member for Gwydir which have not been supported by the honourable member for Ryan. So we have an obvious division between the Liberal Party and the National Party. Mr Brumby —Which National Party? Mr CUNNINGHAM —We do not know which National Party. We will wait until honourable members opposite vote and then we will see which National Party, and we will see whether honourable members opposite have the fortitude to stand up and vote for the amendments they have put forward and whether they want to tell the Liberal Party: `This is our position. We will call for a division'. Will members of the Liberal Party cross the floor, support the honourable member for Ryan, or slip back in their little dens and hope that nobody notices them. Honourable members opposite are absolutely hopelessly divided on this issue. No doubt there is a hidden agenda. I believe that their hidden agenda is trying to establish a situation-- Mr McGauran —Come on, Mr Chairman. This is appalling. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I warned the honourable member for Gippsland earlier this evening. I hope that he will desist from interjecting any more. Mr CUNNINGHAM —There is not any doubt that clause 41 is vital to the legislation. It ties in with the legislation that was passed in the House of Representatives and in the Senate last week. It is vital to people in the community who need a guarantee that they will have equal opportunity. If we have a look at the attitudes of honourable members in the National Party corner of the chamber honourable members will understand the need for the legislation. What is going on in this hidden agenda? There is an attempt by a right wing group to take over the conservative parties of Australia. That group opposes things such as clause 41. I never thought I would see the honourable member for Gwydir stand before this Parliament and be directed from behind as he is being directed in regard to this legislation. Mr Hunt —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. I know that there has always been a certain amount of laxity, or flexibility if you like, in the way in which Committee debates are conducted, but the honourable member for McMillan is very wide of the clause. I suggest that he come back to the purpose and meaning of the clause. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Clause 41 contains only 14 words but they are 14 very important words. The clause is the key to the debate in Australia as to whether we are to be a progressive society or whether we walk back into the Dark Ages because a group of people outside this Parliament is directing members of parliament as to how they will vote and in which direction they will move. That is what clause 41 is about. That is why the Liberal Party, behind the honourable member for Ryan tonight, has decided to stand up and say: `We do not support this Bill'. It is a pity that the honourable member for Bennelong did not do so three weeks ago. Senator Peter Baume would not be in the position he is in today and Her Majesty's Opposition would not be in the dreadful position it is in today. We would not have a group of the Right brigade, the Reebok boys-the new Reebok boys in Melbourne, the Foxes-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member might come back to clause 41. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Clause 41 is all about the political situation in Australia today. It is the essence of what this debate is about. It is about whether the National Party is going to rule and dominate the Liberal Party tonight, whether it is going to take over the seats of the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) and the honourable member of Goldstein (Mr Macphee). That is what it is all about. The Nationals are only rerunning the show. They lost in the Senate because the Liberals crossed the floor. They are afraid of what is going to happen in the future. We all want to see when this vote is taken tonight whether the Nationals sit there and do not move or whether they come across to this side and back the position as put by the honourable member for Ryan. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(11.12) —The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) has criticised National Party members for standing up in this chamber time after time to oppose the Government's affirmative action legislation. We do so on the basis of principle. We have been consistent. We opposed the legislation in 1986, we opposed the legislation brought into the House earlier this year and we continue to oppose the Government's social engineering legislation. Government members come into this place and masquerade as the great champions of equal opportunity. The National Party supports merit and equal opportunity. Motion (by Mr Kerin) agreed to: That the question be now put. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 88 —— Aldred, K. J. Jenkins, H. A. Andrew, J. N. Jones, BarryBaldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J. Beale, J. H. Kent, L. Beazley, K. C. Keogh, L. J. Beddall, D. P. Kerin, J. C. Bilney, G. N. Lamb, A. H. Blanchard, C. A. Langmore, J. V. Bowen, Lionel Lee, M. Brown, John Lindsay, E. J. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown Robert McHugh, J. Brumby, J. M. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Maher, M. J. Cameron, Donald Martin, S. P. Cameron, Ewen Mayer, H. Campbell, G. Mildren, J. B. Charles, D. E. Miles, C. G. Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P. Chynoweth, R. L. Moore, J. C. Cleeland, P. R. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G. Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P. Dobie, J. D. M. O'Neil, L. R. T. Downer, A. J. G. Peacock, A. S. Drummond, P. H. Price, L. R. S. Dubois, S. G. Punch G. F. Duffy, M. J. Reith, P. K. Duncan, P. Rocher, A. C. Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J. Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. Gayler, J. Shack, P. D. Gear, G. Shipton, R. F. Goodluck, B. J. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Smith, W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Staples, P. R. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hawker, D. P. M. Tickner, R. E. Hodges, J. C. Tuckey, C. W. Hodgman, W. M. Watson, D. J. H. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Cameron, Ian (Teller) McGauran, P. J. Cobb, M. R. Millar, P. C. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Cowan, D. B. Sinclair, I. McCFischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. (Teller)Fisher, Peter Uren, T. Nehl, G. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. PAIR PAIR Clause 42 (Regard to be had to equal employment opportunity program). Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.28) —We oppose this clause. For the purposes of this debate I will read the clause. It says: Regard to be had to equal employment opportunity program 42. The Corporation shall take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the Corporation's equal employment opportunity program developed under section 41, and any person who exercises powers in relation to employment matters in the Corporation shall have regard to the program in exercising those powers. Interestingly enough, clause 43 says: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require action that is incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. I return to the point that this program will require a lot of administrative effort. Honourable members should make no mistake about that. They should not write it down. The Australian Wool Corporation itself was opposed to this provision but, in order to get the legislation, it had to go along with the clause. The Government made it clear to the Corporation that this clause would be a central feature of the legislation. Most of the debate here tonight has not been about wool growers and their welfare; it has been about clauses 41 and 42. Even those Government members who have spoken have addressed themselves to these specific clauses. I think that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) made a disgraceful contribution to this debate. I hope that he makes a better contribution as the leader of the delegation to Washington because if he does not he will miss the boat entirely. He did not devote himself to the clauses in this Bill and what they mean; he devoted himself to political point scoring and trying to point out the differences between the Liberal and National parties. We are not in coalition; we are separate parties. We are in a democratic institution. This is supposed to be the place of democracy. We have every right to take a position, and at least it has been consistent in regard to this legislation. We believe that it is a lot of political hogwash in this educated society of ours. This sort of legislation will not stop discrimination if people intend to discriminate. Surely our society provides an education that is trying to encourage people not to discriminate against others on the grounds of race, religion, creed or sex. Surely we do not need this legislation in 1987-we might have needed it in 1907, but it is now 80 years too late. We are educating females as well as we are educating males to take equal chances in life. Why do we need this legislation? It is because the Government thinks that it is pleasing the women of Australia. I do not think that it is. There is a considerable percentage of women who do not want such legislation, and nor do most of the business houses, the employers or the corporations. The legislation will impose great burdens upon the employment sector of this community. Does the Government think that the Australian economy can take this sort of legislation, this sort of regulation? We have only to look at the statistics plaguing Australia, such as our $110 billion overseas debt. Every one of our accounts is in debt. Our trade balance is in debt. The Australian Wool Corporation is one of the most important organisations in Australia serving our most important export income earner. Yet in clauses 41 and 42, the Government is imposing a burden upon an organisation that has never discriminated against women, blacks or anybody else. What is it all about? It is about a big political stunt. We are opposed to the legislation, and we will not be bulldozed or bullied by anybody in this Parliament or anywhere else. This Party is against this legislation, and will remain against it. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(11.32) —I wish to comment on a couple of the points made by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) during the debate, which have been repeated by the honourable member on the other side of the chamber. I feel they show a complete absence of logic. One particular point made by the honourable member was that the legislation was not necessary because women have been well educated in 1987. He said that in the past women were not educated to follow a profession, and that that is why there are not many of them in positions in statutory authorities, the Public Service or private enterprise. I agree that that is precisely what happened in the past. Women were not educated to a stage where they could take up such a career. The result has been that, entrenched in the top echelons of statutory authorities, the Public Service and different corporations and organisations are men who had that extra opportunity when women were not being properly educated. It is now being made very awkward for women to move up a career scale. I have known women in that position-not as lucky as I have been in becoming a member of this Parliament, but within the Public Service-who are absolutely at one level, with younger men coming through and passing them. No matter what people say about enlightened attitudes that is actually happening today. It is one reason why there is a need for legislation-it is needed to set a standard and a value. One of the other comments made by honourable members during the debate-- Mr Hunt —What now? Mrs DARLING —I hope that the honourable member will allow me to continue'. I did not shout during his contribution. One matter that concerned me was the suggestion that there is something wrong with suddenly setting a legislative framework for something what we believe to be worthwhile. It is suddenly too heavy. Just about every aspect of our lives-such as roads, and hospitals-is controlled, to some extent, by legislation-- Mr Ian Cameron —That is the trouble. Mrs DARLING —Honourable members do not think it is the trouble. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the honourable member for Lilley. Honourable members on my left and on my right are making far too much noise. I call the honourable member for Lilley. Mrs DARLING —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have not heard this sort of debate about how weighty is the legislation day after day on bread and butter legislation that underlines many aspects of our lives. It is only when it comes to something concerning equal opportunity to do with women that suddenly all of these arguments are dragged up. I find it a little offensive. This is a framework to encourage and facilitate the application of a human right-another one-in that equal opportunity is offered to people who may otherwise be disadvantaged. Do not be mystified. Human rights are not something strange with militants running through. Human rights are just rights for people to use the full potential of what is around them. That is precisely what this legislation does. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) was very eloquent in his contention that mere words will not result in action. This week I have listened to honourable members, one after the other, speaking about the Parliamentary Privileges Bill, supporting a set of mere words designed to ensure that the rights of members of this House are protected. That was okay. That was just setting a legislative framework to ensure that if something goes wrong and we need that legislation it will be there. Honourable members stood there, one after another, patting each other on the back and saying how marvellous it was to put forward this set of words to ensure that the members of this House get their rights. That is precisely what this legislation does, and I am a bit sick of the strange manner in which honourable members opposite have picked on this legislation and suddenly find it so dreadful that we should have such a thing as legislation in this House which thrives year after year on putting through legislation. Motion (by Mr Kerin) agreed to: That the question be now put. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 87 —— Aldred, K. J. Jenkins, H. A. Andrew, J. N. Jones, BarryBaldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J. Beale, J. H. Kent, L. Beazley, K. C. Keogh, L. J. Beddall, D. P. Kerin, J. C. Bilney, G. N. Lamb, A. H. Blanchard, C. A. Langmore, J. V. Bowen, Lionel Lee, M. Brown, John Lindsay, E. J. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, Robert McHugh, J. Brumby, J. M. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Maher, M. J. Cameron, Donald Martin, S. P. Cameron, Ewen Mayer, H. Campbell, G. Mildren, J. B. Charles, D. E. Miles, C. G. Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P. Chynoweth, R. L. Moore, J. C. Cleeland, P. R. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G. Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P. Dobie, J. D. M. O'Neil, L. R. T. Downer, A. J. G. Peacock, A. S. Drummond, P. H. Price, L. R. S. Dubois, S. G. Punch, G. F. Duffy, M. J. Reith, P. K. Duncan, P. Rocher, A. C. Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J. Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. Gayler, J. Shack, P. D. Gear, G. Shipton, R. F. Goodluck, B. J. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Smith, W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Theophanous, A. C. Hodges, J. C. Tickner, R. E. Hodgman, W. M. Tuckey, C. W. Holding, A. C. Watson, D. J. H. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. R. D. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Cameron, Ian (Teller) McGauran, P. J. Cobb, M. R. Millar, P. C. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Cowan, D. B. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. (Teller)Fisher, Peter Uren, T. Nehl, G. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.49) —I move: (6) Clause 123, page 62, lines 5 and 6, omit paragraph (3) (c). Paragraph (3) (c) of the Wool Marketing Bill 1987 states: . . . a report on the development and implementation of the Corporation's equal employment opportunity program during that year . . . I would just like to say, in passing, that according to the Minister, this is about the only thing that the Corporation has to do-to insert three or four paragraphs in the annual report. Of course, that is a load of hogwash. The Corporation will have to conform with the equal employment opportunity program. As I said earlier, it is a more complex program than the Minister or the Government would have us believe, although the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin) was very forthcoming. She made it clear that it is not just some mild manner of procedure; it is a fairly substantial one. Of course, this clause is really consequential upon clauses 41 and 42, and therefore the National Party of Australia is totally opposed to it and moves for its deletion. Amendment negatived. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Kerin)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Order of the Day No. 6, Government Business, being called on. Consideration resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bills be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. Leave granted for third readings to be moved forthwith. Bills (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. House adjourned at 11.54 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 7 May 1987: Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 71. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 55. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 72. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1987-No. 5-Export Meat as amended (Amendment). Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 73. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 66. Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing 8 May 1987 as the date on which the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act 1987 shall come into operation. Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 65. Quarantine Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 69. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinance-1987-No. 16-Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment). Regulations-1987-No. 4 (Credit Ordinance). Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 70. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 5023) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Science, 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 have 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 Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 1982 the following word processing and computing equipment has been introduced into the Department and Statutory Authorities within the Science portfolio: Mainframe computers Mini computers Micro computers Communications controllers Shared word processors Stand alone word processors Peripherals for the above equipment CSIRO-As typing equipment has been replaced, word processing equipment has been introduced generally throughout CSIRO. The main concentration is in the word processing centre at CSIRO headquarters, where the present equipment was acquired in 1984 at a cost of approximately $440,000. Since 1984 the Organisation has also been introducing multi functional workstations to support new on-line administrative computing systems. CSIRO is also in the process of commissioning a new central computing support system for its library service to be operated on-line from computer terminals. Further, the Organisation's research and technical staff make extensive use of computing facilities, frequently involving the use of terminals. (2) The equipment was purchased to improve efficiency by applying office automation to various tasks undertaken within the Department and the Statutory Authorities. Prior to purchase of equipment no specific targets were set in terms of cost savings or improved efficiencies. CSIRO-Word processing and computer equipment provide a wide range of facilities, in particular the storage, reproduction and transportation of text in the form of electronic media. These facilities enable rapid modification to text, database storage and retrieval and electronic transfer to printing and publishing facilities. Earlier studies on word processing indicated improved administrative efficiencies would flow from these new technologies and also suggested that increased work loads could be handled while retaining staff numbers relatively stable. Studies on administrative arrangements indicated that a decentralised administration, as envisaged following the Independent Inquiry in CSIRO in 1977, could only be effectively supported through the use of modern computer technology. Improved management efficiencies were seen to flow from the devolution of functions and responsibilities, with a likely saving in administrative staff. (3) Cost of purchasing equipment 1982-83 to date was $14,246,459. CSIRO-Since 1 January 1984 has spent in the order of $2m on word processing and related equipment, $2m on administrative workstations and $1.3m for the central library system. (4) Yes, ergonomic furniture at a cost $272,922. CSIRO is committed to providing an ergonomic environment. While expenditure throughout the Organisation on new office equipment related to the use of terminals is not recorded separately, expenditure specifically for the headquarters' word processing centre and terminals for the new administrative systems has been in the order of $200,000. (5) The introduction of equipment has led to an improvement in office efficiency resulting in timely presentation of work and easier access to improved analytical tools. CSIRO had memory typewriters and other word processing equipment before 1982 which reduced repetitive keyboard work. Thus, the introduction of the current word processing equipment has not changed work practices, although it has assisted scientific staff in the production of their written work. The introduction of on-line administrative computer systems is changing work practices to the extent that processing is more automated and clerical staff are entering data on computer terminals. (6) Since 1982 there have been 131 cases of RSI reported within the Department. CSIRO-Since 1 January 1982 there have been 79 incidents of RSI reported. (7) 10,310 full days and 2,321 part days. CSIRO-A total of 3,711 working days have been lost. (8) Six persons have been retired on invalidity grounds due to RSI. The compensation costs amounted to some $59,892.16, plus $163 per week to one former staff member. CSIRO-Eight persons have been retired as a result of RSI, with compensation costs in the order of $200,000. (9) (a) Yes; (b) Yes. CSIRO-The introduction of word processing has enabled increased work loads to be handled without a commensurate increase in staff numbers. New computer systems are still being developed to support the devolution and decentralisation of administrative functions and therefore staff savings targets in this area are yet to be tested. (Question No. 5104) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union has transformed the naval bases at Cam Ranh Bay into its largest naval base for forward deployment outside the Warsaw Pact. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I would refer the honourable member to Mr Beazley's answer to a question without notice on 26 February (Hansard, page 805). This contains a useful summary of Soviet activity in the Pacific, including at Cam Ranh Bay. My answer to question No. 3544 (Hansard, House of Representatives, 14.10.86, page 1984) also contains information on Soviet naval activity at Cam Ranh Bay. (Question No. 5105) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: Is he able to say whether the naval base facilities at Cam Ranh Bay are operated exclusively by the Soviet Union and that all Vietnamese have been systematically excluded from the area. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my answer to question 5104. (Question No. 5106) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union has missile loading and handling equipment in place at Cam Ranh Bay and has established ordnance ranges and aircraft maintenance depots. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my answer to question 5104. (Question No. 5107) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: Is he able to say whether 20 Soviet navy vessels, together with six attack and cruise missile submarines, regularly operate in the vicinity of Cam Ranh Bay. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my answer to question 5104. (Question No. 5108) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union has based a squadron of MIG-23/Flogger G aircraft at Cam Ranh Bay since December 1984. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my answer to question 5104. (Question No. 5109) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union has based a composite aircraft unit of TU-16/Badger, TU-95/Bear D and TU-142/Bear F aircraft at Cam Ranh Bay since January 1984. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my answer to question 5104. (Question No. 5110) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union has established an electronic intelligence gathering facility at Cam Ranh Bay. (2) Is he able to say whether the electronic facilities also enable regional communications for the Soviet navy and air force in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my answer to question 5104. (Question No. 5062) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: Is he able to say who will select, and what criteria will be used to select, Australian television programs to be shown on Gostelradio in the USSR on the occasion of the Bicentenary of Australia under the Program of Cultural Co-operation between Australian and the USSR. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Gostelradio will select programs in accordance with its normal programming criteria, and an agreement between the ABC and Gostelradio which states that both sides will facilitate the provision to each other of news material on key events in Soviet and Australian life. (Question No. 5075) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: Is he able to say whether the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party dismissed astrophysicist Mr Fang Lizhi as Vice-President and Mr Guan Weiyan as President of the Science and Technology University in Hefei because of their alleged support for the recent student demonstrations in China. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: According to the official Chinese media, the Vice-President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a member of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, Mr Zhou Guangzhou, announced on 12 January the decision of the Chinese central leadership that Mr Guan Weiyan was relieved of his positions as President, Deputy Party Secretary and President of the Graduate School of the Science and Technology University in Hefei, Anhui Province, and that Mr Fang Lizhi was dismissed from his position as Vice-President of the University. According to the Chinese Press, Mr Guan has been reassigned as a Senior Research Fellow of the Chinese Research Institute of Physics and Mr Fang as Senior Research Fellow of the Beijing Observatory. I understand that this action was approved by senior organs of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. While I am not privy to the precise reasons for the decision to remove Mr Guan and Mr Fang from their positions, I understand that both were considered, either through statements or neglect of duty, to have at least tacitly encouraged the student demonstrations that took place in Hefei and some other Chinese cities in December 1986. (Question No. 5195) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: (1) Is it a fact that Australian Development Assistance Bureau funds are being used in Burma to construct roads for a military purpose and that some of the roads are being constructed into areas controlled by the Karen minority who have been seeking to establish their own state since Burma obtained independence in 1947. (2) Is the provision of assistance to the Government of Burma to suppress minorities in Burma consistent with Australia's foreign aid policy. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The only road construction activity in Burma funded under the Australian aid program was the Western Highway Project along the west bank of the Irrawaddy River, an area in which there is no significant insurgent activity by any group. The road was constructed in order to achieve clearly identified economic development benefits. Under the project Australia has supplied road building plant, equipment and spares together with technical assistance and training at an estimated cost of $18.6 million. The project has now been completed. (2) The Australian Government provides development assistance in order to foster economic and social development. The aid provided to Burma fully accords with these objectives and as such bears no relation to military actions against insurgent activity by any group. (Question No. 5203) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: (1) When did he acknowledge a letter from the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers (ATCV) received by his office on 23 January 1987. (2) What financial assistance has his Department provided to the ATCV and what will it provide in 1987-88. (3) Is the Government prepared to assist the ATCV in other ways; if so, in what ways. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 27 April 1987. (2) A total of $16750 was provided during the period 1982-83 to 1986-87. Any application submitted by ATCV for funding in the 1987-88 financial year for grants to voluntary conservation organisations and other programs administered within my portfolio will be given consideration through a comparative assessment process together with those from other applicants. (3) Requests for assistance by ATCV will be considered on their merits. Future support from other areas of Government is a matter for the responsible Ministers.