Friday, 29 May 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —As required by the resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of members' interests received by the Registrar of Members' Interests during the period 26 November 1986 to 27 May 1987. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.02) —Today the Parliament is considering changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act, and in the context of an 11 July election that is quite appropriate. It is also appropriate before addressing some remarks to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill to talk about the context of the 11 July election and why we are debating this legislation today. We should really be following a totally different program, but early this week the Government decided that it was not game to go on with its industrial relations legislation. Contrary to the story that the Government is putting around, it did not withdraw that Bill; it is lying on the table of the House. I sometimes doubt the tactical wisdom of the Australian Labor Party. It seems to have done its own polling and it has discovered that the only thing it has going for it is that it happens to be in power at the present time. People do not like the Government, they do not like its policies, they do not trust where it is going and they do not believe anything that it says to them. Mr Young —What about Joh? Mr BLUNT —Joh is not going for you, mate. No way will Joh do anything for the Labor Party. I think the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is right-there are only two parties in Australia which have any political effectiveness at present; that is the New South Wales Right and the National Party. The Labor Party is very much aware of that. I guess to some extent the political gamble in the coming election is that the National Party will not be able to get 148 candidates right throughout Australia. But we will get enough and, in co-operation with our Liberal Party colleagues, after the next election there will be a new Prime Minister and a new government. Mr Young —Joh? Mr BLUNT —Joh might be the Prime Minister, but it certainly will not be the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and it will not be Bob Hawke, and that is fundamental. The Government has made two tactical mistakes in calling this 11 July election. Fancy going to the people of Australia without telling them what is in its Budget! People do not trust governments anyway, but to go to the polls and campaign on this Government's record over four years-and what an appalling record that is-without telling the people what is to be in the Budget is absolute political stupidity. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member in full flight, but I remind him that we are debating the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am aware of that, but I do think that the electoral laws are relevant to the election. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member not stray too far away from the Bill before us. Mr BLUNT —Madam Speaker, I think that it is also relevant to this debate to consider why we are debating the electoral laws today when, under the original program circulated to the Parliament, we were to consider the industrial relations laws which would have meant that the electoral laws would have been considered at another time. Madam SPEAKER —I still suggest that the honourable member take heed of the Chair. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Madam Speaker. This Bill is the result of 156 recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. That Committee has been working for over four years and has brought down a series of reports. It is my understanding that the Government proposes to implement the recommendations in a series of packages and this is the first package. We on this side of the House find many aspects of the Government's attitude to electoral laws quite curious. It is for that reason that we will be moving an amendment and it is relevant to both the electoral laws and the current political debate. I move therefore: That all words after `that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `while not declining to give the Bill a second reading this House deplores the Government's decision to continue to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer's money supporting election campaigns of political parties'. What that means to the average taxpayer is that in the context of fiscal restraint and the rhetoric of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about how we must tighten our belts and cut back, the Government is not prepared to cut back on the funding of political parties. The reason it will not do so is that the major beneficiary is the incumbent party-the Australian Labor Party. Under the public funding legislation, which is very much part of the Commonwealth electoral laws, there is a provision that registered political parties in Australia can stick their snouts in the trough and get taxpayers' funds to spend on election campaigns. Mr Hollis —And you don't. Mr BLUNT —The National Party is totally opposed to public funding of election campaigns. We voted against it and we are prepared to abolish it, which is more than the Government is prepared to do. The reason the Labor Party needs public funding is that, despite the fact that it can whip money in under the blanket from trade unions, it cannot get genuine Australian voters to give it donations. That is why members of the Labor Party have their hands in public funds-to finance the Labor Party, Trades Hall and Sussex Street. The mini-Budget was brought down so that the Government could start cutting back on things that effect the average Australian taxpayer, the average family. Yet it continues with legislation that provides money for the Labor Party. The money finances its election campaigns and pays for photographs of the Prime Minister to be placed in newspapers. However, at the same time the Government tells students that they must pay $250 to go to university. It cuts back on everything under the sun that is relevant and important to the average Australian. What is supremely irrelevant to the average Australian is intraparty politics, or the mechanics of party campaigning. This Government proposes to spend $10m on political parties in Australia. The hypocrisy of that attitude is absolutely astounding. Had this Government been prepared to do away with public funding for election campaigns, it would not have had to reduce funding for technical and further education colleges by quite as much in the mini-Budget. There would have been another $10m to spend on that. Let us go further and consider some of the other cuts. There would not have been the need to cut back on $40m worth of funding for the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Waiting lists for housing have grown astronomically under the Hawke Labor Administration. It would have been a good idea to spend that $10m on public housing rather than on political parties. Mr Mildren —What about Joh? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Everyone seems a bit frisky this morning. I suggest to the honourable member for Ballarat that he has had his go. I call the honourable member for Richmond. Mr BLUNT —Madam Speaker, I thank you for your protection. However, I think that there is a degree of sensitivity on the Government benches about this issue that perhaps will be matched only by Government members' sensi- tivity when they are forced to campaign for six weeks on the appalling four-year record of this Government. I would not like to be out on the hustings if I had a marginal seat saying: `What a great record we have. We have achieved increased unemployment, higher interest rates, a record foreign debt, uncertainty about the future, and we will not tell you what is in our August Budget, but we have a great record. Trust us'. The Prime Minister has broken more promises than the average cook has broken eggs. It is absolutely astounding. Had this Government not been quite as hypocritical as it is, and had it been genuine about reducing government expenditure, the first thing that it would have cut in the mini-Budget, let alone the Budget which it would have introduced in August, would have been $10m for political parties in Australia. The National Party of Australia is quite happy to stand on its own two feet, to ask our 57,000 members in New South Wales for $40 a year, to ask our donors and other people who support us for donations, and to campaign on our merits; but the Australian Labor Party wants to stick its hands into Consolidated Revenue and get the funding for its campaign in that way. One other way that it raises money for its campaigns is through something that is available only to the Labor Party of Australia. We must remember that the Australian Labor Party is the political wing of the trade union movement in Australia. We know that under the Income Tax Assessment Act subscriptions to trade unions are deductible. We know also that trade unions have very favoured status under that Act and no income tax is assessed in relation to them. Mr Griffiths —Better than getting money off brothel keepers. Mr BLUNT —I find the protests that we are getting from the left wing absolutely fascinating. Those honourable members are absolutely sensitive to this issue. They will grab any one these days; they will even have the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths). The Left is so depleted in its numbers that yesterday, during Question Time in this House, one of my colleagues said to me: `The Left has left'. They were out there campaigning because they are terrified as to what will happen to them after this next election. They are aware that this Government has copped out on all the things that they proclaimed that they would do. The traditional Labor Party has sold out to the image of the Labor Party that has been created by Paul Keating and the New South Wales Right. Everybody knows that, including the back bench of this Government. That is why those honourable members are worried about the current campaign. They are worried also that in six weeks their record will be spread mighty thin and that the holes in it will be revealed. They are a bit worried also that the Prime Minister perhaps will not have the temperament to conduct this six-week campaign. We remember what the last long election campaign was like and this one is nearly as long. I doubt that the Prime Minister can sustain this campaign. I have seen him in the House and I know what he is like. I have seen him on the campaign trail and I do not think that he will survive. In fact, I am prepared to take a bet with some honourable members as to just how well the campaign will go with the Prime Minister leading it. How much confidence do they have in Bob? Will he be able to run the distance? Is he a sprinter or is he a stayer? I think that he is a sprinter, yet we have a 6 1/2-week campaign. Mr Tim Fischer —He is going to lose his own electorate of Wills. Mr BLUNT —The electorate of Wills is not a particularly sound seat. A safe Labor seat! Honourable members should have heard the people in the electorate of Wills today talking about the traditional Labor Party and how it had been sold down the drain by this Government. I have never heard anything so damning of a Labor government. This is the Prime Minister who casts himself in the mould of Curtin and Chifley; he would be more in the mould of Rupert Murdoch, and of course we all know that. I find it absolutely ironic that we have a Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) who is relying on the National Party to advocate his policy because he got rolled by the Treasurer and his mates. Mr Hunt —He is not a bad bloke, you know. If he wanted to cross, we might have him. Mr BLUNT —I do not know about that, because he would have to pay his subscription; we do not believe in public funding. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will stop exchanging discussions with his colleagues on that side and get back to the debate. Mr BLUNT —I was referring to the privileged position of trade unions in Australia in relation to the Income Tax Assessment Act and the advantage that that confers on the Australian Labor Party. Trade union subscriptions are tax deductible. Of course, there is no tax liability for trade unions. We all know the massive support that-- Dr Klugman —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: The honourable member for Richmond is embarrassing the honourable member for Gwydir, who would probably want a withdrawal because he admitted before our Committee that money was given tax free to the National Party on the pretence that it was being given for some insurance company and the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member has made his point of order and will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The honourable member for Richmond will now discuss the Bill. Mr BLUNT —That point is totally inaccurate and I feel that I am obligated to correct it, because the National Party of Australia pays tax. Dr Klugman —It is tax free-your donations or subscriptions from the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales which go straight to the National Party. Mr BLUNT —I think that the Livestock and Grain Producers Association will take strong exception to that. The National Party of Australia pays tax and there are no donations between the New South Wales Livestock and Grain Producers Association or, as it is now known, the New South Wales Farmers Association, and the National Party. The honourable member for Prospect would do well to check the facts before he comes to the House and tries to mislead both Parliament and the Australian people. However, let us return to the privileged position of trade unions. Not only do they not pay tax; they make donations to the Australian Labor Party-not only in cash, but in kind. Yet this is the Government that brought in an electoral law and said that there would be full disclosure of donations and assistance to political parties. I have had a good, hard look at the Labor Party's disclosures return, and it does not even line up in respect of my electorate. I wander around my electorate and I see trade union paid officials working for the Labor Party-and New South Wales public servants also working for the Labor Party-yet there is no mention of that in the Labor Party's disclosure return. That is another example of the hypocrisy of the electoral law. This Government has the most incredible set of double standards on democracy-it is great on rhetoric, but the detailed application of the legislation does not work, and democracy does not work within the Australian Labor Party. Ask the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) what he thinks about democracy within the Labor Party; ask the Minister for Communications; ask those members of the Caucus who would like to express a view occasionally, but are rolled by the machine numbers. That is this Government's view of democracy. Let us return to the Bill and the amendment. Had the Government really been fair dinkum about reducing expenditure, the first and most irrelevant expenditure that would have gone-apart from some of those irrelevant wasteful grants to the obscure groups of which we have all heard during recent years-would have been the $10m to support Australian political parties. Let us get the facts straight-the Australian people do not want their taxes spent supporting McMullan and other people. They do not want them going into the coffers of the political machines; they want them spent on things that are important to them. What is supremely unimportant to them is a picture of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer or anything else to do with the Australian Labor Party, or a television commercial produced free by John Singleton. I wonder whether the value of that free service will be included in the disclosure return; I shall be looking closely at it. It is all supremely irrelevant. If the Government were fair dinkum, it would have knocked off that public funding. If it were fair dinkum, it would have brought down its Budget before it went to the people. If it were fair dinkum, it would have gone ahead with the industrial relations legislation. Of course, the Government is not fair dinkum about anything. That is why, come 11 July, there will be a change. The Australian people will not again fall for the line of the cardboard cut-out Prime Minister. They know that for four years their living standards have dropped like a rock. They know that to return the Prime Minister is to return the Treasurer, which would mean a continuation of high interest rates, rising unemployment and more indulgence to the friends of the Labor Party. It is for those reasons that the Australian people will not vote for the Government. A number of other issues in the Bill are important to the effective operation of electoral law in Australia. I have a personal concern, which I believe is reflected throughout the National Party of Australia, that our electoral law is becoming far too complex, mainly because the Labor Party seeks to regulate, control and manipulate it for its own benefit. We should have a free and simple democratic system that is accessible and available to anyone who seeks to represent his fellows in this Parliament. When the law starts to take upon itself a complexity that is beyond the comprehension of the average person, that restricts access to the democratic system-the elected parliamentary system-to lawyers and people who have the backing of the political machines, we are not doing the right thing by the democratic process. Many Govern- ment members accept that point of view. The Government is determined to use the electoral law to its own advantage, to bring in legislation that is, in many cases, ineffective and incapable of effective administration. One example was a provision in the electoral law that existed for the last redistribution that required absolute equality of electorates at the mid-point. That means that there had to be absolutely the same number of electors in each Federal electoral division in Australia halfway between redistributions. First of all, we do not have supremely accurate electoral rolls in this country because habitation reviews are not done as regularly as they should be done. People die, people move and people reach the age of 18 and become eligible to go on the roll. To suggest that we can achieve absolute equality at the mid-point is a nonsense. That has been proven so. The latest figures released by the Australian Electoral Commission indicate that it has not been successful. It can well be excused for that because it is a totally unrealistic requirement to expect it to achieve that equality. We have variations in New South Wales as high as 6 per cent and 7 per cent. Five per cent is quite common. We are not quite at the mid-point at this time. For that reason the National Party firmly believes that a fair and sensible electoral law in Australia would provide for a 10 per cent tolerance between electorates. Mr Griffiths —Like in Queensland. Mr BLUNT —Government members need not carry on about redistributions because the Premier of New South Wales, one Barrie Unsworth, is there because of a gerrymander. In fact, the last Labor Government in New South Wales saw its popular vote decline and the number of seats it held go up. That is the sort of gerrymander in New South Wales. Five years ago in New South Wales a country vote was worth 92 per cent of a city vote, and it is worse now. Government members should not talk to me about gerrymanders until they know something about the electoral laws in Australia. They should not carry on about gerrymanders when it takes many fewer voters to elect a senator from Tasmania than it does from New South Wales. They should get their facts straight before they come in here and talk about one vote one value. There are a number of amendments that we will move at the Committee stage that have relevance to the detailed provisions of electoral law. They are designed to achieve a simpler and more equitable electoral law to make sure that the will of the people is represented in the people who are elected to the Parliament. Let me say again that the National Party is totally opposed to wasting $10m on political parties in Australia. We would do away with public funding. If this Government were fair dinkum about reducing expenditure, it would also cut out public funding. If it can cut back on education and welfare and reduce funding for families in Australia, it can also reduce funding to the Australian Labor Party. Madam SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tim Fischer —I second the amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond and reserve my right to speak-hopefully, shortly. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.23) —There is an old colloquialism that immediately springs to mind. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) must have more cheek than the rear of an elephant. I was on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform when it was originally formed. Of course, that Committee presided over the most significant overhaul of the electoral laws of this country. On any objective criterion, it has brought about a situ- ation in which the electoral laws in this country constitute the fairest and most democratic laws of any country. Indeed, that is a matter of which the Parliament can be very proud. It is worth noting that to a very large extent there was bipartisan support for the fundamental reforms that were brought in at that time. I recall quite vividly the honourable member for Richmond and one of his colleagues, Mike Evans, the then Queensland Director of the National Party of Australia, coming before our Committee and articulating to the Committee how they got around the tax laws in Australia to provide effectively tax free donations to the National Party. If I recall correctly, the honourable member for Richmond was madly kicking his garrulous colleague when he was giving evidence before the Committee. Mr Hollis —With his white shoes? Mr GRIFFITHS —Yes, with his white shoes, and in an attempt to shut him up from proceeding on a most embarrassing course of disclosure. It is mind boggling to listen in this chamber to a member of the National Party waxing lyrical about the alleged unfairness of some aspects of the electoral laws in this country. It plumbs the depths of cynicism. Not one person out there, whether he be a National Party, Liberal Party, Australian Democrats or Australian Labor Party supporter, would take the sort of tripe put here by the honourable member for Richmond without a very large grain of salt. There is not one person in this country who does not understand that one of the fundamental themes of government in this country is the gross distortion of the electoral process by the National Party generally and the National Party in Queensland in particular. It makes me a little angry to come into this chamber and listen to the sort of tripe we have been forced to put up with for the last few minutes. Let me just witness what I would consider to be a couple of embarrassing objective examples that should prevent any member of the National Party getting up in this chamber and talking with clean hands on the issues of electoral laws and electoral fairness. The Premier of Queensland uses the taxpayers' money to the tune of $2,800 per hour every time he takes his jet on non-Queensland government business, as he often does. For goodness sake, at the moment he is flitting around Disneyland-fantasyland. Mr Peter Morris —Do you know why he didn't come back? Because he had paid for all his rides in advance. Mr GRIFFITHS —Yes, I heard that last night. My colleague the Minister for Transport confirms that the reason why Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersendid not return to Australia immediately the election was announced was that he had pre-paid his rides at Disneyland and wanted to use up his tickets. I think it is worth noting in this House that the sum of $2,800 per hour for the use of that jet for non-government business constitutes a massive and direct transfer of taxpayers' resources to the interests of the National Party. It has nothing to do with the philosophy that underlies public funding of political parties in this country. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I point out that the House is debating a specific measure-the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. Obviously, whilst we are in a pre-election mode and this deals directly with the conduct of the next election, the matters now being referred to by the honourable member are clearly outside the scope of the debate. You brought the honourable member for Richmond back to the terms of the Bill. I suggest that you should apply that same ruling to the honourable member now speaking. Madam SPEAKER —I reply to the honourable member for Farrer by saying that two or three times I advised the honourable member for Richmond to return to the Bill. He chose to ignore the advice on a couple of occasions and opened the debate fairly wide. I think under the circumstances the honourable member for Maribyrnong should be allowed the same latitude. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you for your much appreciated protection, Madam Speaker. Of course, the honourable member for Farrer is a Joh candidate; there is a degree of sensitivity attaching to any criticism of Bjelke-Petersen. Simply because he is too scared to be in the same chamber, where constructive criticism is put forward-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maribyrnong should leave criticism of the honourable member for Farrer out of this. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will be guided by you on that issue. In the recent past there have been a couple of spectacular examples of attempts to override and rort the electoral and taxation laws of this country. To be bipartisan about this, I need only witness the Cook electorate council of the Liberal Party-this has been documented and raised in this House before-which recently wrote to Party members advising them how they could go about rorting the tax system so as to provide tax free donations to the Liberal Party of Australia. As a corollary to the rorting of the taxation laws of this country proposed in the correspondence there was the entree for three dinners with Ministers of that Government should they be brought to power. For goodness sake, if there is any objective assessment as to what would constitute fair and reasonable behaviour by political parties and individuals, that must be in gross breach of those standards. I think most members of this House would abhor that sort of behaviour and that sort of attempt to rort the electoral and taxation laws of this country. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen just a short while ago, and again on the public record-this is not something that the honourable member for Maribyrnong is dreaming and it is not coming straight off the top of my head-proposed that should he become Prime Minister or should the Government change he would retrospectively end the disclosure laws that are an inherent and fundamental part of the electoral laws of this country. That is an open invitation to the white shoe brigade and the sleaze brigade to make donations to the National Party without any public disclosure at all. I find that attitude to the governance of this country abhorrent and I have no hesitation in using the strong terminology that I have used. That would really be government by a group of renegade thugs and crooks; we would get to the stage where we positively invited the rorting of our taxation laws and corruption by having a quid pro quo in terms of access to Ministers. To top it all off, we could go a little further. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen campaigned strongly and ad nauseam on the issue of the repugnance of retrospectivity in government legislation. He proposes, without blushing-that is what offends me the most-to embrace the same philosophy of retrospectivity to abolish disclosure laws that provide a window through which the Australian people may view those who seek, either for altruistic reasons or for more sinister motives, to fund political parties in this country and therefore to seek influence in the government decision making processes. That would be an abhorrent series of issues that every honourable member in this chamber, notwithstanding his political position or prejudices, ought properly to denounce. One could go on. I say only in passing that I had a discussion last evening with a colleague-and I will not say who it was, but he happens to be a friend of mine from the other side of the House-and the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth). We were talking about the difficulties of fund raising, which we all face. The honourable member from the other side pointed out that he had held a function for about 240 people that raised $20,000. I say good luck to him. That is a fair and reasonable way to go about raising the funds required to carry out the duties of the political parties of this country. However, it is also worth making the following point: Both the honourable member for Dunkley and I expressed surprise to that honourable member that with a catchment of 240 people a profit of $20,000 was made. That represents an awful lot of money for each individual. I have no embarrassment in saying that the Labor Party simply would not be able, and in my experience never has been able, to put on a constituency function -- Mr Tim Fischer —As opposed to Bob Hawke's black tie one. Mr GRIFFITHS —I am making the distinction, which is an obvious one. The Labor Party would not be able to hold a constituency function that pulls in that much money from each individual. Our constituencies cannot do that. However, I will say that it is a fair and reasonable way to go about fund raising, and it is a damn sight better than the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. It is better than people in public forums in this country owning up to the fact that they purchased knighthoods of the realm. That is an absolutely disgraceful state of affairs. Mr Scott —What was the going rate? Mr GRIFFITHS —It was about $60,000-an anonymous donation to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. Even I, the humble member for Maribyrnong, could be Sir Alan Griffiths. Perish the thought; perish the day! It is absolutely disgraceful that the laws and privileges of the gov- ernments of this country can be rorted in such an abhorrent and public way. People can put $60,000 into the kick and they become a knight of the realm. Of course it goes much further. Mr Humphreys —Twenty-five thousand dollars. Mr GRIFFITHS —Twenty-five thousand dollars, as my colleague the honourable member for Griffith reminds me, for-- Mr Humphreys —Twenty-five thousand dollars for breakfast with Joh. Mr GRIFFITHS —Yes, for breakfast with Joh. There would have to be an awful lot of cornflakes for $25,000. Of course, there are an awful lot, because everyone in Queensland knows that, if they do not donate to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, the government contracts dry up. We had a classic example of that in here the other day. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), a member of this chamber and one of the battling members of the National Party of Australia, was involved in a $460m land development project in Queensland. The Queensland Premier and some of his Ministers indicated on the public record that they were going to fast track the applications through the processes of the Queensland Government. Why were they prepared to do that? A charitable interpretation could be that the project has importance for the future of Queensland. A less charitable interpretation could be that he is a member of the National Party and one of the boys, one of the mates. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise under standing order 76, which states: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on members shall be considered highly disorderly. What the honourable member for Maribyrnong is developing now is an attack on the honourable member for Maranoa and on the motives of the honourable member for Maranoa in quite properly proceeding with a project in his home State. I believe in that respect he is now out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I am listening carefully to what the honourable member for Maribyrnong says. At this stage he is in order, but I caution him about proceeding to attack another member. Mr GRIFFITHS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have no intention of reflecting on the honourable member for Maranoa. If one uses an ounce of intellect and goes over what I have just put, one will see quite clearly that I have been very careful not to do that. I hasten to add that, were I of a mind to do so, I would contact the honourable member for Maranoa and I would then go ahead while he was sitting here. The issue that I want to raise here is this one fundamental reality; and this comes not from the honourable member for Maranoa but from senior Government Ministers in Queensland: They were prepared to fast track that $460m land development project that our honourable member for the National Party is involved with-and good luck to him, if that is how he likes to spend his business time. Mr Millar —His parliamentary allowances. Mr GRIFFITHS —His parliamentary allowances; that is fair enough by me. I do not reflect on him at all, but I do say this: It is on the public record that the Queensland Government was fast-tracking his application. Whether it was doing that for the benefit of Queensland or because the participants in the project included people very close to the Queensland National Party and a member of the Queensland National Party, I will leave to others to judge. But it is very important to note this point-the most important point on this aspect of my contribution: When the honourable member for Maranoa had the temerity to question the Joh for Canberra crusade explicitly and implicitly, what happened? This great project for the future of Queensland had the old rug pulled right out from under it, and the Queensland Government Ministers said on the public record that they were giving no further assistance. It was a classic case of the heavy handed blackmail that has become the hallmark of the operations of the Queensland Government. I notice that no-one is taking a point of order on that, because everyone in this House knows that those comments are fundamentally true and fundamentally accurate, and are comments that we all ought to be fundamentally ashamed of. I could go on in terms of the National Party, and I may come back to it if I do not run out of time. There are a couple of other points that I wish to make. The honourable member for Richmond pointed to what he saw as a discrepancy between the number of senators for the State of New South Wales and the number for Tasmania. He described that as a gerrymander. His describ- ing as a gerrymander the similarity in the number of senators for Queensland and the number for New South Wales, pursuant to our Constitution, clearly allows only one implication to be drawn. The National Party, because it does not do so well in Tasmania will, if it has an opportunity, knock off the representation that Tasmanians deserve and expect under the Constitution of this country. That is the only conclusion that one can draw. I think it is important that I place on the public record my view that the National Party should not attempt to rort the Constitution if it has the opportunity to do so in this Parliament, by preventing Tasmanians from having the appropriate numbers of senators for which provision is made under the Constitution of this country. Mr Tim Fischer —You are drawing a long bow. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member says I am drawing a long bow. The honourable member for Richmond described-and he can check the Hansard-as a gerrymander the fact that New South Wales had the same numbers of senators as Tasmania. There is only one objective implication that can be drawn from that statement-that is, he would reduce the number of Tasmanian senators if he had half a chance to do so. There is a range of other important issues on which I will touch briefly. We talk about political parties. I do not think there is a political party in this country which can enter the debate about the fairness of electoral laws with completely clean hands. But this Government has gone so far down the track to make the electoral laws of this country fair, democratic and reasonable that I think we can legitimately lay claim to being the best of a sometimes very bad bunch. Let me give a couple of important examples. In Queensland the politicians draw the boundaries. What happens in Queensland? There are zones. There is a farcical situation in which numbers of voters are extracted from the middle of electorates to rort the outcome when the ballot finally proceeds. The gerrrymander in Queensland, on any objective assessment, is a rort. Everyone ought to accept that point. It fundamentally underpins the rort that constitutes the Queensland Government. I do not want to concentrate only on the Queensland Government. This Government has brought about a situation in which we have an independent Electoral Commissioner. We do not draw the boundaries any more; the independent Electoral Commissioner does that. Compare that with what happens in Queensland. As a result, we have a fair redistribution. Compare that with what happens in Queensland. We have public funding and disclosure rules that are probably as good as one could expect to find anywhere in the world. The issues that are before this House today are of fundamental importance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.43) —I rise to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) to the motion for the second reading of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1987. At the outset, as a matter of courtesy, while the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) is present, I remind him that of course it was a Queensland State Labor government which introduced the zonal system in Queensland quite a few years ago. Mr Griffiths —Shame on them. Mr TIM FISCHER —Interestingly enough, in an honourable fashion a member, Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen, as he was then, spoke against the legislation at that time. It was Australian Labor Party people at the Queensland level who introduced the whole concept of zones in Queensland. I am pleased that the honourable member for Maribyrnong has gone back on his words and has condemned the then Queensland Labor Government for that initiative at that time. I want to compare Queensland's boundaries with those in New South Wales. The Labor Party, to win government in Queensland, at the State level, must get 51 per cent of the vote. That is not unreasonable in a sense. It is just one per cent more than would be regarded as a majority-50 per cent plus one vote. In New South Wales we have just seen a very neat redistribution which might be better dubbed as the Barrie Unsworth rescue operation. It is too little too late in that regard. The Labor Party, to win government in New South Wales under the new boundaries, requires merely 48 per cent of the vote. That is twice the difference from the centre point of 50 per cent plus one vote. There is a lot of hot air about redistributions and boundaries, especially in what the honourable member for Maribyrnong says. It reflects the fact that his faction and the extreme Left behind him are reeling this morning after news of the appointment of Mr John Singleton to the Labor campaign. It has left honourable members speechless. They cannot believe that they have picked up such baggage along the way to the 11 July polling day. They feel ashamed to go back to their constituencies to talk with their branch people. That was mirrored by AM this morning on which speaker after speaker in the electorate of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated unequivocally that the Prime Minister has done nothing for the electorate of Wills. They were referring not only to specific projects related to the electorate, but also to the effect of the economy on the electorate. Speaker after speaker on AM this morning and at a public meeting last night in the electorate of Wills dismissed this Prime Minister in terms of his contribution when evaluated at the constituency level. Government honourable members are embarrassed by John Singleton coming into the Labor campaign. They are embarrassed by a series of broken promises that the Prime Minister has mounted on Australia over the last four years. They beg the question: Why should he be trusted by this nation for a further term? The answer is that he should not be trusted. The Prime Minister promised that the inflation rate would be below 5 per cent. It is now twice that. The Prime Minister said that there would be a lower interest rate regime. The Commonwealth Bank is again increasing interest rates. I will not dwell on these matters because I know that they are embarrassing to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr McGauran —That's right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I have brought the honourable member for Gippsland to attention on numerous occasions for his continued interjections made from various parts of the House; one might say like a stereophonic radio system. If he wants to make any contribution to the affairs of the House, he should make it only from his own seat and he should cease interjecting. I draw the attention of the honourable member for Farrer to the fact that while it is fair and reasonable to suggest that honourable members or Ministers might have a particular interest in something, to try to impute a motive to the Chair is wrong. I ask that that be withdrawn. Mr TIM FISCHER —I withdraw that aspect of my comment. I would not like to put the Deputy Speaker in a difficult situation in any way because of his occupation of the chair. I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Maribyrnong raised two other matters and he indicated in his lengthy remarks in relation to the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) that he would have notified him had he been mounting an attack on him. In the circumstances he should have perhaps notified him anyhow because his speech dealt specifically with an interest of the honourable member for Maranoa, but I will leave that aside. That is in sharp contrast to what the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) said in relation to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) last night in her speech in the adjournment debate. The honourable member for Lilley admitted, in response to my interjections, that she had not notified the honourable member for Gippsland of her attack. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to come back to the amendment or the matter before the Chair. He might at least interweave something to do with the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill into these matters. Mr Griffiths —He has not read the Bill. Mr TIM FISCHER —I have read the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maribyrnong is falling into the same error as the honourable member for Gippsland did. Mr TIM FISCHER —I would have thought that I was entitled to respond to legitimate points of debate which were allowed to be made by the honourable member for Maribyrnong. I took points of order during his speech and Madam Speaker ruled that it was a wide ranging debate following the contribution by the honourable member for Richmond-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have not seen the honourable member for Lilley in the chamber this morning. Mr TIM FISCHER —Before the honourable member for Maribyrnong starts raising the issue of the Queensland Premier's jet, and before he launches into an attack in relation to areas of political administration, he might like to do some homework himself. It is a valid question to ask: Who paid for the Prime Minister's trip to Kirribilli House yesterday morning for a political campaign breakfast at which the embarrassing Mr John Singleton was brought into the campaign of the Labor Party? I know that the honourable member for Maribyrnong is embarrassed about that. It is a legitimate and reasonable question to ask who paid for the Prime Minister's campaign costs when he travelled right around Australia in a series of campaign visits associated with the build-up period. Mr Blunt —There was a company called ALP Gifts Pty Ltd. Do you know about that one? Mr TIM FISCHER —If there was fairness and justice, those campaign-only visits in this pre-election mode as utilised by the Prime Minister would be equalised through the provision of VIP aircraft to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) in accordance with the time honoured tradition. We now know that the allocation of those VIP jets in the time honoured fashion will be delayed and that the even-handed approach will not emerge until much later in the campaign. I think the honourable member for Maribyrnong, before he starts throwing stones, should check on his own glass house. The honourable member for Richmond has quite correctly highlighted the fact that a number of companies, such as ALP Gifts Pty Ltd, operate in New South Wales as part of the whole murky machinery in that State and which from time to time is subject to court hearings, including one in Parramatta recently. I think the honourable member for Maribyrnong was not fair dinkum in his contribution this morning because he is very upset about a number of areas in which the Hawke Labor Government has lurched away from its mainstream constituency. It is facing defeat on 11 July, and that is in the interests of the nation as a whole. Turning to some specific aspects of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill, I want to highlight to the House two things in particular. This 1987 election will see an alternative nomination form available to members and senators. Most of us are used to the traditional six signatures required from enrolees to nominate a member or senator on standard form C for the Senate and standard form D for the House of Representatives. But this year the registered officer of the party will be able to nominate to a particular seat for election a senator on form CA and a member of the House of Representatives on form DA. I know that some honourable members, including the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann), have expressed concern about these changes and particularly the delay resulting from the fact that all existing signed nomination forms upon the passage of this legislation will now more or less be redundant. New candidates and renominating members will need to be very careful to utilise forms which presumably will become available consequent upon the passage of this legislation and the issue of writs next Friday. I was a direct witness to the saga which has gone down in political history in this country as `doing a Jago' when in 1973 the then Minister for Health in the New South Wales Government, the then Liberal member for Gordon, at five minutes to 12 on a Thursday was asked how many candidates he had against him. He replied: `I am sorry, I do not know yet. I am going to nominate on the way home at about 4 o'clock this afternoon and I will find out tomorrow when nominations close at 12 noon'. In fact, nominations closed four minutes later on that Thursday. That was pointed out to Mr Jago at the time and all the colour drained out of his cheeks. He went absolutely white as he realised that he could not recover the situation in 180 seconds. Three minutes later, as the clock struck 12 noon in the foyer of the then parliamentary dining room in Macquarie Street, Harry Jago realised very suddenly that following the forthcoming election he would no longer be member for Gordon or a Minister, and he was a capable Minister for Health in the New South Wales Government. I might say that Mr Jago does not carry a grudge. He has performed a lot of good community work, not the least of which is involved with the Legacy Club of Sydney. I just mention to the House that nominating is a process not to be taken for granted and requires the direct attention of members and senators. This legislation provides, for the first time, new alternative nomination processes which will apply in the election on 11 July. In a sense, I wish everyone well. I hope that they do not end up doing a Jago in terms of getting their nominations in on time. I notice that, in view of the suggested dates for the closing of nominations, history might repeat itself. I think that the closure date for nominations is denoted as Thursday, 18 June, and not the Friday. However, there will be an official announcement on that. Hopefully, nomination forms will be made readily available throughout Australia as a matter of priority, consequent upon the issuing of writs, so that there will be no hampering of the democratic process for the large range of people who will nominate-that is, party members, independents and the like-at the next elections. I turn to another aspect related to electoral law. It is a pity that the Bill does not clarify, once and for all, the situation which would apply with the issuing of the writs had there been a House of Representatives and half-Senate election this year. About a fortnight ago, I made some inquiries about this issue. My attention was drawn to a High Court of Australia ruling on the definition of `election'. The 1907 High Court ruling in the Vardon v. O'Loghlin case stated: The term ``election'' in that section does not mean the day of nomination or the polling day alone, but comprises the whole proceedings from the issue of the writ to the valid return. And the election spoken of is the periodical election prescribed to be held in the year at the expiration of which the places of elected senators become vacant. That would seem to me to mean that one cannot commence the election process because the term `election' applies to the whole period. Writs could not be issued for the House of Representatives and half-Senate election until 1 July. Therefore, polling day could not occur until 33 days after the date of the issuing of the writs. Had that situation applied this year, the first date on which an election could have been held would have been 8 August. However, we are having a double dissolution on 11 July. It is of more than a passing academic interest to have this matter clarified once and for all. I invite the Minister who responds to the debate, either in this House or in the Senate-the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) has expressed an informal opinion in the Senate on this matter-to clarify what the Government believes in terms of the issuing of writs. There was a prospect of the writs being issued in June, challenged in court and declared invalid. That could have caused total chaos and disruption to the electoral process of this great country. That is yet another area which should be tidied up-obviously not in these amendments at this time-but in future amendments. However, I suspect that it may require constitutional change to bring about the absolute clarification required. I repeat that, as things stand, there is an element of doubt about the timing of the issuing of writs for a House of Representatives and half-Senate election. That centres on the very point of whether the writs can be issued prior to 1 July, for a polling day in July or August, or whether a government of the day, on making a recommendation to the Governor-General, has to wait until 1 July to issue the writs for a House of Representatives and half-Senate election. Any clarification which could be furnished in this House or in the other chamber would be relevant for consideration in future elections. Of course, we know that there are far too many early elections. This is yet another panic snap election by a government which is not game enough to face up to a horror Budget and to the horror stretch for the economy which will come later this year. Further, it is not game enough to face up to those who are subject to the devastating problems created by the high interest rate regime. This Government, especially its left wing back bench, is very embarrassed by its Leader, the Prime Minister, who has said a number of things over the years: For example, he said that there would be no capital gains tax, but there is a capital gains tax. He said also that there would be no wine sales tax, but there is now wine sales tax. Further, he said that there would be a reduction in fuel taxes, but in fact there was a massive increase in fuel taxes and charges. Mr Hand —We supported that anyway. Mr TIM FISCHER —I am pleased to hear the honourable member for Melbourne indicate that he supports Mr Bob Hawke in his campaign for the electorate of Wills, and that he is not utterly embarrassed by the arrival of John Singleton on the campaign cavalcade. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Farrer might get back to the legislation, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. Mr TIM FISCHER —I can understand the sensitivity of the honourable member for Melbourne, especially after hearing AM this morning. Of course, the swing against Labor could be so large that I know the honourable member for Melbourne is nervous about retaining his seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne has nothing to do with the debate. Mr TIM FISCHER —This Bill deals specifically with the modus operandi for the elections to be held on 11 July when this nation will vote for change, but my colleague the honourable member for Richmond has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill, which amendment deals specifically with abolishing the use of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to support election campaigns. The nation does not realise that over $10m of taxpayers' money, by virtue of the parent Act, the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and other related provisions, will be paid by the Treasury to Sussex Street in Sydney. I know that that might appeal to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will not dwell on that. It will be paid also to other political party headquarters around Australia. That matter is addressed specifically by the amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond which calls for the abolition of public funding of political campaigns once and for all because the nation's precious revenue resources, the funds held by Treasury, should not be spent on subsidising political parties and their campaign costs. On that the National Party of Australia is unequivocal and strongly supports the abolition of the public funding of campaign costs. I challenge candidates for the Labor Party to declare why they should have direct access to Treasury funds in these tough economic times when so many projects and so many individuals, primary producers and small business operators are suffering grievously from the economic stratagems of this Government, which clearly will be thrown out of office when the election occurs on 11 July. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(11.03) —It is a great pleasure to speak today in this debate and I am sorry that the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) had to go on so much about public funding, because it goes to show-- Mr Hand —Which he supported. Ms JAKOBSEN —That is right. Everybody knows that at the moment those opposite have no money, so they resent anything that we might get, and I am sure that, because it is based on the percentage of vote involved, they are worried about their share also. They will not get very many votes if the vote for Joh campaign is an indication of what sort of support the National Party of Australia can expect at the next election. Mr Hand —Which leader is he supporting? Ms JAKOBSEN —I do not know. I was interested when the honourable member for Melbourne raised that question earlier. I would like to know whom the honourable member for Farrer supports. Mr Hand —Is he supporting Sinclair or Joh? Ms JAKOBSEN —Is it Sinclair or Joh? The honourable member for Melbourne might like to know that I also asked the same question, but honourable members opposite did not acknowledge my interjection. As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform I have spent many hours considering the matters contained in the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. They are based on a number of the Committee's recommendations arising from its consideration of the operation of the 1983-84 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act during the 1984 general election. I was pleased to note the presence of Dr Colin Hughes in the chamber. He and members of the Electoral Commission were a wonderful help to our Committee, as I am sure the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) would acknowledge, because he, too, is a member of that committee. As the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), representing the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate), pointed out in the second reading speech, this Bill is the first stage of the implementation of the Committee's recommendations. Electoral reform is of special interest to this Government, unlike some other governments in this country, especially the Queensland Government, which is noted for its gerrymander. I believe that the changes incorporated in this Bill will enhance the democratic rights of Australian electors, as well as improve the administrative procedures associated with the Act as it operated at the 1984 election, and as it will operate at the forthcoming election on 11 July. I was interested to hear the comments of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) last night, who could not resist a shot at the Government about the introduction of this legislation. I am sure that he does not really think that there is anything sinister in the Government's action on this occasion, but rather that he could not let such a golden opportunity to indulge in politicking pass without comment. That is unfortunate, given the circumstances in which this legislation is coming before Parliament, with so much bipartisan support among the members of the Committee. Obviously, the legislation had to be passed before an election, whenever that was to be held. It has already been passed by the Senate. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has now announced the date of the election, that ensures its consideration some time this week or next week. Having said that, I note that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, which comprised members and senators from all political parties, substantially agreed on many of the issues discussed, especially those before the House today. Like the member for Warringah, I regret that the Government has not agreed to the re-inclusion of occupations on the Commonwealth electoral roll, as I believe that that information is particularly useful to parliamentarians. The clauses relating to the redistribution process are also very important in the light of the Government's commitment to a one vote one value electoral system. With actual and projected population growth being the prime trigger for a redistribution, more equal franchise at the time of an election is assured. Amendments in the Bill will simplify the redistribution criteria and improve opportunities for public participation and comment on proposed electoral boundaries. They will also provide for greater flexibility in the timetabling of redistributions. The Bill also contains changes that ensure that the maximum number of Australians may vote. To that end, it enables divisional returning officers and Australian electoral officers in each State to process claims for enrolment for any division in their respective States in the period between the public announcement of an election or the issue of the writs and the closure of the rolls. Currently, enrolment claims can be processed only by the divisional returning officer for the division in which the elector resides, or for which enrolment is sought. That can cause delays in the period immediately prior to the close of the rolls. Obviously, this amendment will assist electors speedily to update their enrolment irrespective of their whereabouts within a State when an election is announced. The Bill also amends section 93 of the Act so that electors enrolled for a division need not have lived within that division for three months prior to polling day in order to be able to vote. Many people are not aware of that requirement, and I believe that it has been instrumental in disenfranchising a large number of people in past elections. Sub-section 93 (6) provides that, except in the case of an eligible overseas elector, an itinerant elector or an Antarctic elector, enrolment is not, of itself, sufficient to confer the right to vote. The elector must, in addition, have had his or her real place of living within the division for which he or she is enrolled at some time during the three months immediately preceding polling day. I am absolutely convinced that most Australians believe that if their names are on the electoral roll they are entitled to a vote. However, under the current provision in the Act, that is not necessarily the case. Ordinary voters are obliged to establish that they are not disqualified from voting by the three months rule, by satisfactorily answering questions prescribed by the Act to be put by the polling official issuing ballot papers. Each voter, at least theoretically, is asked: `Where do you live?' If the address given in the response is not that shown on the certified list-the electoral roll at the polling booth-he is asked: `At what other place or places have you lived during the last three months?'. If one of the addresses given in the answer is within the division, the elector is given a vote. Otherwise, the claim to vote is rejected. In practice, however, few voters are asked where they live when they turn up at a polling booth within the division for which they are enrolled. Most people volunteer their names and their enrolled addresses without being asked to do so by the polling staff-who, in many instances, are too busy to ask the questions anyway. Those who realise that their enrolment has not been updated may even return to the division of their enrolment on polling day specifically to ensure that their vote is accepted and that they are not asked that question. Most people do not want to lie in order to exercise their right to vote and will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid doing so. It was interesting that on the Committee very few, if any, of the Committee members could ever recall being asked that question when they turned up at the polling booth to vote within their division. The fact remains that under the existing Act their residency status could be questioned and they could lose the right to vote if their answer was not satisfactory. Absent voters, provisional voters or electors voting under sections 192, 236 and 237 are obliged to make a declaration to the effect that they lived within the division at some time during the three months immediately preceding polling day. The declarations that they have to fill in are the forms approved by the Electoral Commission, which we usually know as absent voting forms and so on. In the case of a postal voter, however, the declaration made, that the voter is entitled to a postal vote in accordance with the provisions of the Act, is not nearly so explicit. The application for a postal vote requires completion of the name of the elector, the division to which the application relates and the address for which the elector is enrolled. There is also provision on the form for the ballot paper to be sent to an address other than that stated as the enrolled address, on the assumption, of course, that the address is a temporary one. However, it can go to the elector's new permanent address. He or she may have decided to utilise a postal vote provision as a way of bypassing the three months residence requirement. The report entitled `The Operation During the 1984 General Election of the 1983/84 Amendments to Commonwealth Electoral Legislation' of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform states: The Committee believes that the regular maintenance of the Rolls by annual habitation reviews should ensure improved accuracy and reliability. The 3 months real place of living requirement has been needed because the accuracy of the Rolls at any given election could not be guaranteed. It might be reasonable to suppose that if the Rolls could approximate better to the ideal, the significance of the 3 months rule would be diminished. This is a particularly important part of the Bill and change to the Act because, as a result, honest voters will not risk disenfranchisement as they will no longer be asked about residency. In the past a person turning up at a polling booth could simply lie if asked that question. There was very little prospect that the Australian Electoral Commission could have ascertained the person's true address. This Government does not want to encourage Australians to lie in order to exercise their vote. That is why I believe this change is very important. I am pleased that it is in the Bill and I am delighted to commend the Bill to the House. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(11.13) —I thank those honourable members who have participated in this debate. I have to say that much of the debate this morning from members of the National Party of Australia was irrelevant to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. Whilst some may say that it was a broad ranging debate, the fact is that it was irrelevant. One of the points raised by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) related to the timing of the issue of writs for the House of Representatives and Senate elections. The issue of the writs is a problem that relates to the Constitution. It is not a matter that can be resolved by legislation. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) spent considerable time talking about public funding, which will come up later in one of the amendments that he has foreshadowed. What he was really saying was that the old National Party wants a reversion to the covert type of electioneering funding that we saw when the conservative parties were in office-back to the old back room deals, back to the sale of favours, back to the helping out of mates, and back to the rackets-- Mr Blunt —Oh! Mr Carlton —You want to talk about that! Mr PETER MORRIS —Well, both of the honourable gentlemen who are interjecting are former functionaries, one of the Liberal Party of Australia and the other of the National Party. They may well laugh because they speak from a position of knowledge. They, better than anybody in this chamber, will be aware of the detail, and I am sure would have participated in the arrangements they developed in those dark old days before public disclosure of donations to political parties became law. We will not have a bar of that kind of arrangement. As I have said, the honourable member for Richmond is well aware of the process of developing special favours for special clients. He is obviously a very strong supporter of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, the sale of knighthoods, which has debased the whole process of public recognition-- Mr Kerin —And straight corruption. Mr PETER MORRIS —I was coming to that-and the whole process of corruption for which the State of Queensland has become renowned. The ultimate hypocrisy of the remarks by the honourable member is this: The National Party does not need to call for the repeal of that part of the Act relating to public funding if it does not believe in it. Acceptance of public funding under the Act is optional. If National Party members really believe-we challenge them to express that belief-that public funding for political parties should not continue and that money should not be provided to political parties under the public funding process, they do not have to lodge their application in respect of the coming election. One has to apply for public funding; it is optional. We will look forward in the weeks ahead to observing the National Party not applying for public funding under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. In those circumstances, the Government cannot accept the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond, and we commend the Bill, as it stands, to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Blunt's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— 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. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Grace, E. L. Scholes, G. G. D. Griffiths, A. G. Scott, J. L. Hand, G. L. Simmons, D. W. Holding, A. C. Snow, J. H. Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Staples, P. R. Shack, P. D. Dawkins, J. S. Webster, A. P. Gorman, R. N. J. Cadman, A. G. Hayden, W. G. Ruddock, P. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 13-by leave-taken together. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.25) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 5, page 3, at the end of the clause add the following word and paragraph: ``; and (e) by omitting from subsection (10) `one-tenth' (wherever occurring) and substituting `one-fifth'.''. (2) Clause 7, page 4, proposed paragraph 66 (3) (a), line 22, omit ``98% or more than 102%'', substitute ``90% or more than 110%''. (3) Clause 7, page 4 at the end of the clause add the following word and paragraph: ``; and (c) by omitting from subsection (3) `one-tenth' (wherever occurring) and substituting `one-fifth'.''. (4) Clause 13, page 7, proposed paragraph 73 (4) (a), lines 39 and 40, omit ``98% or more than 102%'', substitute ``90% or more than 110%''. (5) Clause 13, page 7, after paragraph (c) insert the following paragraph: ``(ca) by omitting from subsection (4) `one-tenth' (wherever occurring) and substituting `one-fifth'; and''. (6) Clause 29, page 18, proposed subparagraph 228 (5) (c) (i), line 32, omit ``13 days'', substitute ``17 days''. (7) Clause 35, page 24, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Disclosure of donations ``35. Division 4 of Part XX comprising sections 30 to 307 of the Principal Act is repealed.''. (8) Schedule, page 33, omit- ``Subsections 93 (6) and (9): Omit the subsections. Subsection 96 (12): Omit `, within the meaning of subsection 93 (6),'.''. (9) Schedule, page 33, omit- ``Subsection 194 (3): Omit `10 days', substitute `13 days'. Subsection 200 (1): Omit `10 days`, substitute `13 days',''. substitute- ``Subsection 194 (3): Omit `10 days', substitute `17 days'. Subsection 200 (1): Omit `10 days`, substitute `17 days',''. The proposed amendments deal with the degree of tolerance between electoral divisions under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The original provisions of this Act required absolute equality of electoral divisions at what was known as the mid-point, which was the mid-point of time between the original date of the redistribution and the date specified under the Act for the next redistribution. The legislation provides that certain factors shall be taken into account but that the redistribution commissioners shall, above all other things, achieve equality at the mid-point. The National Party of Australia believes that that is a totally unrealistic objective, and the recent figures announced by the Australian Electoral Commission for enrolments in electoral divisions throughout Australia-even some months before that mid-point has been achieved-indicate that it is unrealistic. In many cases the variations are far in excess of even the 2 per cent that the Government's amendments to this legislation propose. Divisions such as the division of Mitchell are 6.4 per cent below and the division of Richmond, my own electorate, is 6.8 per cent below. There are variations right throughout Australia which indicate that the achievement of equality at the mid-point is just beyond the capacity of the commissioners. We are dealing with a fairly imprecise set of circumstances. There is a need when drawing divisions literally to put a line on a map to encompass a specified number of voters. Unfortunately, there is never absolute certainty at the beginning that the number of people on the roll are, in fact, the number of people living within those boundaries qualified to vote. It is very difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy and certainly to the extent of achieving equality. I do not believe from the figures that we have that it is possible within the 2 per cent tolerance that the Government is now proposing, because there are such factors to be considered as changes in residence and changes in qualification to vote. People move, people die and people turn 18. When we talk about a population of 60,000-odd over a period of up to seven years, to suggest that we can achieve equality within 2 per cent is, as I have said, unrealistic. For that reason the National Party believes that a far more realistic approach to electoral boundaries in Australia would be to allow a 10 per cent tolerance at the mid-point between electoral divisions. Having regard to the way the Act is framed, we realise that there will be a need to change some of the other provisions of the legislation to specify what then is a malapportionment. For that reason we suggest that a malapportionment should be seen to have occurred where the tolerance is exceeded by more than 10 per cent. That is the effect of the amendments that we have moved. We believe that it is a nonsense to talk about one vote one value under the Australian Constitution when that Constitution provides that there shall be a minimum of five House of Representatives seats from all States. That means that in the less populous States, such as Tasmania and South Australia, there can never be an equality of value between votes cast in that State and votes cast in the more populous States such as New South Wales. A similar comment also applies to the Senate where there is a requirement that each original State shall return the same number of senators, currently 12. A moment's reflection will indicate that it takes a lot fewer votes in Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia to return a senator than it does to return a senator in New South Wales and Victoria. I think that makes a nonsense of the rhetoric that is used so often by some sections of the Government that there should be one vote, one value. We need not only a fair and equitable electoral system but also a realistic electoral system, an electoral system which does not, as a result of the inability of the Commissioners to achieve the parameters set down for them, render itself subject to criticism. For those reasons, the National Party supports the amendments we have proposed. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.30) —The Government rejects the National Party of Australia amendments. I do not know whether the Liberal Party supports them and, for that matter, I do not know which species of the National Party has put them forward. The amendments are designed to allow extra weightage for rural electorates. The National Party wants to introduce the Queensland system whereby there is a mass malapportionment. That is partially because there is no upper House in Queensland; the National Party has destroyed the Liberal Party of Australia in Queensland and there is a situation where democracy hardly prevails. I am staggered to find that one of the species of the National Party in this chamber is proposing this extra weightage. The fact is that the Australian Labor Party-the Federal Government-believes that one vote one value is the only proper and equitable basis for electoral systems. We accept that it is impossible to get exactly one vote one value but the fact is that, if we are to have any true concept of democracy, that is the way we should go. For many years the Australian Labor Party has striven to achieve fully the idea of one vote one value in elections for the House of Representatives, which determine the Government of Australia. While considerable progress was made by the Whitlam Government, it was only the amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act that were brought about by this Government in 1983 that finally realised in a workable way the concept of one vote one value. Unfair electoral systems are a taint to our democracy. It has taken many years to achieve a very fair system at the national level. It is important that pressure be continued from all levels of politics on those State governments which retain an unfair electoral system. One has only to look at the upper Houses, particularly in Victoria and Western Australia where it is very difficult indeed to achieve change because the conservative parties, the conservative forces, basically do not believe in democracy. The Government has tried to establish equality of representation throughout Australia by a range of measures, such as by running very high quality candidates in rural areas-and we have a great track record on that-where necessary, by increasing the size of the Parliament to ensure that electorates do not blow out and become too big, and by increasing the resources and the facilities of the members of parliament in distant areas to enable them to provide the services that are more easily provided in small electorates. The Government rejects the anti-democratic moves of one of the species of the National Party in this chamber. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clause 14 to 28-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.33) —by leave-I move: (6) Clause 29, page 18, proposed subparagraph 228 (5) (c) (i), line 32, omit `13 days', substitute ``17 days''. (7) Clause 35, page 24, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Disclosure of donations `35. Division 4 of Part XX comprising sections 303 to 307 of the Principal Act is repealed.'. (8) Schedule, page 33, omit- `Subsections 93 (6) and (9): Omit the subsections. Subsection 96 (12): Omit ``, within the meaning of subsection 93 (6),''.'. (9) Schedule, page 33, omit- `Subsection 194 (3): Omit ``10 days'', substitute ``13 days''. Subsection 200 (1): Omit ``10 days'', substitute ``13 days''.', substitute- `Subsection 194 (3): Omit ``10 days'', substitute ``17 days'' Subsection 200 (1): Omit ``10 days'', substitute ``17 days''.'. The amendments affect clauses 29 and 35 and several of the schedules. They relate to the time available for the returning of absent and postal votes. The Government has argued on the basis of the system under which votes are cast overseas that it is necessary to have a firm and fixed cut-off point to ensure that the counting and scrutiny of Senate votes can continue without the need to stop and restart. The Government talked about the procedures that it has adopted. The Senate count is a complex and expensive count; we acknowledge that. The Government bases its argument on the system for the return of votes cast overseas argues that it has changed the procedures for the return of absent votes. Our concern relates more to the House of Representatives. While it is true that the Senate vote is important, expensive and complex, governments are formed in the House of Representatives. On a number of occasions I have seen that postal and absent votes for close House of Representatives seats in Australia have not been counted because they have not been returned to the divisional returning officer in time to be included. For that reason, I believe that there is a need, if we are to have true regard for democracy in this country and ensure that everyone's vote is counted and that the value of everyone's vote is recognised, that there is an opportunity for all votes to be received and counted. Votes should not be excluded from the count as a result of the inefficiency of an officer of the Australian Electoral Office or someone else who has charge of the vote in the course of its conveyance from the point where it was cast to where it will be counted. I refer in that regard to the Australian Postal Commission and people who work for it, because quite often there are circumstances where postal votes go astray or are delayed in the mail. I believe that there is a principle which runs right through the Electoral Act that no one's vote shall be cast aside or not counted as a result of the failure of a public servant to perform his duties properly. For that reason, we have moved these amendments. They represent an extension of the time available for the receipt of votes. We believe that it is appropriate to provide the maximum possible time. We certainly have not gone to the extreme of suggesting that there should be no limit. The Government would be aware that in, for example, the western areas of New South Wales and other remote areas of Australia postal services are not as frequent as in the city. It is possible that, where there is a weekly postal service, a person could apply for a postal vote, have it sent out, miss the return post and have to wait another week. It could take two or three weeks for a letter to travel from, say, the centre of Griffith to a place such as Whitecliffs and return. In those circumstances, we do not believe that the administrative operation of the electoral law should in any way exclude the casting of a valid vote. We do not believe there is sufficient justification in the Government's argument about preserving the Senate count to exclude votes from the House of Representatives count. It is the House of Representatives that determines the government in this country, and for that reason all valid votes that have been cast should be counted for House of Representatives seats. The great complicating factor is that the vote for the Senate and the vote for House of Representatives are in the one envelope, and thus it is difficult to separate the two votes. If the Government is truly committed to the principles of democracy and to ensuring that people who are entitled to a valid vote in this country have the capacity to ensure that the vote is counted for the House of Representatives-where, as I have said, the government is determined-it would accept our recommendations and look very closely at ensuring that no provisions of the electoral law operate to discriminate against people who live in remote areas. Of course, there is the question of union activity in these areas. We are all aware that once an election is announced there is a tendency for postal material that is in some way identified on the outside as having a political content or as being relevant to the campaign of some political party to take more time to get through the post than would be the case with other mail. That is an unfortunate fact of life, but I believe that the electoral laws should take account of that fact of life. If it is not possible to prevent that sort of maladministration of those postal articles, account should be taken of the consequences of that situation in the electoral laws. For that reason, we have moved these amendments. As I said, there have been cases-such as the case of the old division of Riverina-where bags of mail containing postal votes were received after the cut-off point for the count. The electoral division of Riverina has always been closely contested; in those days, the result was often determined by a handful of votes. A number of members in the current Parliament hold their seats by a handful of votes-honourable members on both sides, I add. Honourable members on the Government side would be increasingly nervous these days going to an election. Some members on both sides hold their seats in the House of Representatives-where the government of the country is determined-by a handful of votes. If a handful of votes are prevented from being included in the count as a result of the operations of the electoral law, as a direct result of the maladministration or the non-performance of duties by a public servant, that is, I truly believe, a travesty of justice. As I have said, there is a principle enshrined in the electoral laws that every valid vote that is cast should be counted and that the counting of a vote should not be prevented simply because of the non-performance of duties by a public servant or an officer with a responsibility in that area. It is an important question and it is a question of principle. It does have consequences for the Senate. I believe that the consequences for the House of Representatives, if we have a true commitment to counting valid votes, are far more important than the cost of restarting a Senate count. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.41) —I will deal with all of the amendments, Nos (6) to (9), together. The Government rejects them. The first amendment, No. (6), increases the time allowed for the return of postal votes. The Government is increasing the time limit for the return of postal votes from 10 to 13 days, following the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I think the exact recommendation was 14 days. The Government believes it would be more sensible to close off the receipt of postal votes on a normal delivery day, on the Friday of the second week after the election; so it is just a question of adapting to that fact. The Australian Electoral Commission has to await the closure in respect of all postal votes before it can strike quotas in the Senate. The amendment proposed would increase the time taken to determine the election result, particularly for the Senate. With respect to amendment No. (7), the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) is seeking to delete the disclosure provisions from the Act. The basic rationale for public funding is that it lessens the dependence of political parties on their donors. Public funding has worked very well overseas and here in Australia. It puts a floor on expenditure under each political party to allow it to survive in the election. Public funding is dependent on the amount of support that is obtained in the election. I would like to point out the hypocrisy of the National Party of Australia-I guess in this case both species of the National Party-in opposing or condemning public funding and yet taking it. Most democracies throughout the world are quite happy to adopt disclosure laws for the simple reason that the public has the right to know who is funding political parties in election campaigns. The possibilities of large donors or industry groups, be they individuals, businesses or trade unions, donating to a political party and getting something back are thereby considerably lessened. The public has a right to know who is making the donations. I note that in the debate the National Party-again probably both species-has declared that it will not be seeking public funding. I get around the country areas of Queensland and I hear severe allegations about the way the Bjelke-Petersen fund is operated. We should express very serious concern about that. I have a close friend who was in partnership with a National Party member. He sought to get a liquor licence. The first question he was asked was: `Have you contributed to the fund?' Other business people I know who have contributed to the fund get follow up letters and are told that they should continue contributing to the fund. There is a lot of fear in people in the country areas of Queensland because of the corruption and manipulation of the National Party at the local level. Mr Tuckey —Brian Burke does that too. Mr KERIN —I know that the honourable member for O'Connor is quite right to condone corruption, but we are not-- Mr Tuckey —I am telling you that Brian Burke does it as well. He sends follow-up letters and threats. Mr KERIN —I am telling the honourable member what happens in Queensland and I am telling him what the National Party is up to. He will understand the National Party better when Mr Flugge and the Joh Nationals have a go at him too. I hope he has better success than the Liberal Party had in Queensland, because the National Party devastated, decimated and wiped out the Liberal Party in Queensland; so watch out over there. Amendment No. (8) is also an amendment to repeal the requirements that enrolled voters-- Mr Blunt —Are you campaigning for us? Mr KERIN —It is corrupt. Mr Blunt —No, I said: `Are you campaigning for us?' Mr KERIN —It is corrupt in Queensland. Amendment No. (8) repeals the requirement that enrolled voters live within the division in which they vote at some time during the three months prior to the poll. The problem with this amendment is that it is unenforceable. With the simplification of procedures at the polling booth the question of the real place of living within three months of polling day is hardly ever likely to arise, and if it does it will only disenfranchise the honest elector who admits to having moved from the division for which he is enrolled. The only other matter I would like to comment on is the publication of an elector's date of birth, sex and occupation. The Government is mindful that many electors would regard publication of their date of birth, sex and occupation as an invasion of privacy. These details are unnecessary to determine an elector's right to vote. Their publication would be inconsistent with the information privacy principles contained in the Privacy Bill 1986. The Government rejects the amendments. Amendments negatived. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.47) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without it having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Provision of new submarines. The proposal before the House involves the construction of six Kockums type 471 diesel-electric submarines fitted with the Rockwell combat system. The proposal also includes the provision of an Australian construction facility to be built at Port Adelaide where the submarines will be assembled. Australia's existing submarine fleet consists of six Oberon class vessels which are scheduled for decommissioning between 1992 and 1997. At that time it is expected that the Oberons will have lost their advantage over other conventional submarines operating in our region. Action is now required to commence the replacement program if Australia is to maintain a high priority defence capability. My colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) announced on 18 May that the submarine replacement project would cost $3.9 billion based on June 1986 prices and exchange rates. The cost of the assembly facilities at Port Adelaide was estimated at $90m. This facility will include: A range of workshops; wharf facilities; personnel, administration, storage and other support buildings; carparks; and infrastructure requirements of site services and development. Assembly of the submarines at Port Adelaide will create more than 600 jobs on site, while thousands of additional jobs associated with the project will be generated in other parts of Australia. The required production and delivery schedules for the new submarines are tight. Procurement action for the first of the submarines is required to commence almost immediately to enable the vessel to be commissioned into service in mid-1995. The remaining vessels will be commissioned progressively with the last in late 1999, some 12 years after the commencement of the project. Design and construction of the Port Adelaide facilities is to commence in August this year and they are to be progressively completed from March 1988. Critical facilities must be completed by March 1989. Delays in the construction program would have serious implications for the Royal Australian Navy submarine capability, due to the decommissioning of the Oberons from 1992. Any delay to the construction program would also defer the creation of job opportunities in areas of industry not currently being fully utilised. In view of the urgency of the construction program it is not possible for this proposal to be referred to the Public Works Committee for consideration and report. It was not possible to bring this proposal to the House at an earlier date, as detailed evaluations of the formal tenders as part of the selection process have only recently been completed. However, it is the Government's intention that all other fixed works proposals associated with the new submarines will be referred to the Public Works Committee where required by the Act. If the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning and construction can proceed following the finalisation of the contract with the Australian Submarine Corporation. I commend the motion to the House that it is expedient to carry out the work. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.51) —The Liberal Party of Australia will not oppose this motion. The construction facilities that are proposed are mainly of a straight building and construction nature and are not significant in terms of some of the great concerns that the Liberal Party has regarding the overall submarine contract. I want to repeat and underline the fact that the Liberal Party is not opposed to the submarine project or the fact that the submarines are to be constructed in South Australia. In support of that remark I refer to a Press release of the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), of 22 May 1987, which states: The Opposition fully supports the new submarine project with the construction being carried out in Australia. The Opposition is pleased that South Australia has been given so much of the works on the project, despite claims by Labor politicians to the contrary. The location of the construction work has never been in dispute. Yet today in Adelaide the Premier of South Australia has been frightening hell out of his own constituency. He has brought himself no credit by running a rumour that because the Opposition has serious concerns about the actual submarine program there will be a complete delay and a stopping of this project for South Australians. It is absolutely not true. We would not propose to stop this project. The concerns that the Liberal Party has are also clearly evidenced by the Press release of 25 May of the shadow Minister in which he asks: `Who is to manage this enormous and complicated industrial project in Australia?'. The statement of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) a few minutes ago does not enlighten us in that area. Obviously, the Public Works Committee will not have the opportunity at this stage to ask that question. He wanted to know whether it is to be Chicago Bridge Iron and Bath Iron. Maybe the emphasis should be placed on the bath iron. Why is the Heavy Metal Engineering Association so concerned about the management of this project? What will be the final cost? We have seen some massive blowouts in costs. In fact, as I recall it, there has been a trebling of the estimates that were floated in this Parliament prior to the project getting approval. The cost has increased three times and we have not yet picked up a welding torch. As the motion indicates, we have not even started to prepare the construction facilities. We would like to know whether the winning tenderer, the Swedish firm, has guaranteed a fixed price contract. Maybe the Public Works Committee will get a chance to look at it later, but of course it might not, because the Minister is obviously seeking to carry this motion under sub-section 18 (8) of the Public Works Committee Act 1960, which states: A public work, the estimated cost of which exceeds two million dollars shall not be commenced unless- paragraph (b) states: the House of Representatives has resolved that, by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that it be carried out without having been referred to the Committee; Of course, paragraph (c) states: the Governor-General has, by order, declared that the work is for defence purposes and that the reference of the work to the Committee would be contrary to the public interest. Of course, that might be the next step to avoid any embarrassment to a government of the future, if this project is found to be a lemon, as many people are suggesting it might be. We wish to know, as the shadow Minister has stated, who is responsible for the integration and final performance of the submarines and the combat systems. What happens in the event of a dispute between the submarine contractor and the combat systems contractor? If that falls in a heap, who pays? We would like to know whether the Cabinet submission was accurate. We have had brought before us today a scream for urgency to get a very important project off the ground. The Opposition knows the urgency of the project. We are totally committed to the defence of our country and when we are in government we will have a Minister who does not have to bear the biggest brunt of any Minister in terms of cuts to his budget allocation. We will see that the country is properly defended and that the funds are provided. Of course, according to the mini-Budget statement, $350m has been lopped off the Defence budget estimates for next year. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) apparently could not defend the very people who put their faith in him. We were also told by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that the sort of works that we are discussing now-the capital side of the program-will not be affected by those cuts. This will double, treble or quadruple the pressure on the operational side. If the cuts were to continue into the future it is doubtful whether the submarines would ever get into the water, because of a lack of manpower and diesel fuel to push them along. The manpower situation is now tragic because we are asking people to work excessive hours at low rates of pay. We are offering them no future. It is no good the Minister coming up with some smart-Alick comments later. If he tries to convince us that morale amongst people in our defence forces is high, he obviously has not been talking to them. It is a disgrace and a disaster. That is the real issue of this election. This matter has been brought to us, quite clearly, by the Minister's own admission, purely and simply because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has seen it expedient to go to the people. If this Parliament ran its full term we would not be usurping and denigrating its role further by not giving one of the most important committees of this Parliament the opportunity properly to investigate proposals of this magnitude and financial cost, and we would be able to ensure that the Australian taxpayer was getting value for money. The oldest trick in the book is to cut corners by saying a matter is urgent. The only thing that we know about urgency-and the urgency of the new Parliament House is exactly the same-is that when one says that something is urgent and starts to cut the proper processes and corners the price goes up. That will be one of the certainties of this arrangement. It could have gone through the normal processes of the Public Works Committee, but the Prime Minister wants an early election because he is dead scared of the economic indicators. He is dead scared that in a few months time not one Australian would vote for him. That is why, as I said, we have to assert the proper role of this Parliament. Every day at Question Time Government back benchers are completely controlled and are forced to ask questions that are not in any way relevant to their constituencies. Mr Robert Brown —Ha, ha! Mr TUCKEY —I say to the honourable member who is now laughing that I bet he would have liked to ask a couple of questions about the allocation of these contracts and the fact that Newcastle received very little. Newcastle missed out for the very simple reason that it has safe Labor seats. The Labor Party knows how to win votes. It knows that it has to allocate largess where it can pick up votes. Of course the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and the people of Newcastle missed out. They are too loyal. They paid again the price of loyalty. This early election is causing further denigration and is usurping the role of the Parliament. It is a tragedy that that is occurring. It occurs day by day. The Opposition believes that that is not proper and that it is not in the interests of Australians. Although we accept that this issue should be given the urgency that the Government asks for and we are not prepared to accept the opprobrium of being accused of being people who are trying to delay an essential defence program, we also know that this is the wrong way to do this particular thing. The Public Works Committee, is a bipartisan committee of the Parliament. It gets to the bottom of the problem. It puts pressure on people to see that the price is right. It keeps the Government honest. It has all those functions. They have to be pushed aside so that the Prime Minister can have his early election. We will pay a price for that. There is no doubt that this sort of urgency will increase the cost of this project which, in normal circumstances, would have gone through the normal procedures-there is no doubt about that. Other legislation floating around the Parliament is of equal concern to the Opposition in regard to the eventual cost of this huge project which is now estimated at $3,900m, up from an estimate of $1,300m. This legislation relates to the control of the trade unions in this country. The Government cannot even get a shipment of grain to Fiji until it gets the approval of the trade unions. The Opposition would like to know how many trade unions will have a say in the completion of these facilities, approval for which we need to rush through today. We would like to know whether they will be finished any sooner once the trade union bureaucrats get their fingers on the deal and start to negotiate because contracts are committed and people have had their negotiating power limited. If the Government succeeds in this selection and immediately, as we know it will, brings back its so-called reforms in the Industrial Relations Bill, the contractors, whether they be small subcontractors on the construction sites or whether they be the larger contractors, will have their ability to deliver in time substantially reduced. They will no longer have access to common law courts and properly qualified legal adjudicators. They will have to take all their problems to people supposedly experienced in industrial relations matters-that basically means union officials who will be promoted to the proposed new Labour Court-and beg them on their hands and knees for the privilege of taking their problem to a proper court so that matters can be resolved in their interests, probably in many of the workers' interests and, of course, in the interests of Australia and its defence. That position will not be resolved prior to the election either. That is just another blind stab in the dark that Australian voters will have to take on 11 July. They can take it from me that the Prime Minister has told us that he is seeking a mandate and that he will come back into this House if he wins and tell small business people and the contractors on this project that he has now been given a mandate to carry on with this proposal that denies them access to the common law courts. The other day the Prime Minister was lecturing us on fascism. Mr Kerin —We are talking about submarines. Mr TUCKEY —We are talking about constructing some buildings in South Australia. If the Minister wants to bet with me, I will bet him that sections 45d and 45e will have to be used before this project is concluded. The Public Works Committee would have heard that in its evidence if it had been given the opportunity to do so. It might have come back to this Parliament and told us some of the things that were necessary to fix up this disaster. That is what it will be on the face of it. The Minister is yet too inexperienced in business-- Mr Beazley —Ha, ha! Mr TUCKEY —The Minister laughs. He is a university academic who suddenly gets a job. He is no better than the manager of Bourke's store who is his boss. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member will address the Chair. Mr Beazley —You are a joke. Mr TUCKEY —I am not a joke. The Minister is the joke in here. He is all pumped up because he did a few studies at university. He has never had to pay a cheque in his own right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will serve himself and the House well if he addresses the Chair and is not distracted by interjections which the Chair will deal with in turn. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I am making is that the laws will be changed if this Government is re-elected. I remind the House of the opening remarks of the Minister that the proposal before the House involves the construction of six Kockums 471 diesel-electric submarines. That is what all this work is about. If the Industrial Relations Bill is ever allowed to pass this Parliament the viability of this project will be reduced. I hope that the Minister will get up and tell me that it will not be because I will make him eat it one day when the contractors, whoever they might be-Bath Iron or some other company-strike industrial difficulties. In conclusion, I repeat that there is not one scrap of evidence. It is disgraceful that Premier Bannon has reduced the credibility of his whole State Government by trying to suggest, purely for election purposes, that the Liberal Party has any intention of obstructing this project or massive parts of it which will be constructed in South Australia. That suggestion is wrong and it is lousy politics. It is frightening South Australians who need the support and the jobs that this project will create. There is no intention to obstruct the project. But that does not alter the problems that the Opposition has identified and which have not been answered by the Minister. They will certainly not be investigated at this stage nor are they likely to be investigated in the future by the Public Works Committee. We do not oppose the motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(12.07) —I will pick up one or two points made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) to give him some degree of reassurance. I will then talk more generally about the motion moved by my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). Firstly, I would like to hear the guarantees of the honourable member for O'Connor about the contract coming from the Opposition defence spokesman who last night was reported as saying something very different to what the honourable member for O'Connor has now said in the House. Secondly, I would like to know how he would feel about being in coalition with Joh Bjelke-Petersen if the Opposition comes into government. Joh has made it explicit that he does not believe we should purchase submarines, we should purchase patrol boats. I am sincerely embarrassed for those on the left of my Party who have been giving us such solid support in this matter. They have been outflanked on the left by Joh Bjelke-Petersen in this regard, but I guess they can live with it. I will pick up another point made by the honourable member in regard to the budget that has been allocated to defence. It continues the generosity of this Government to the defence portfolio since it has been in office in the difficult circumstances in which, overall, we face the problems of Commonwealth outlays. If anybody in this country were mug enough to believe that a party which approaches the electorate with a grab-bag of promises on the revenue side is capable of sustaining any sort of argument that it will protect important Commonwealth outlays, he definitely deserves the government he would get. If Opposition policies were to be implemented and if in any way there were to be cuts in outlays to match the revenue propositions that have been put forward, we would have to expend the Menzies percentage level of gross domestic product on defence. There is no question about that. We would need to come down to about 2 per cent of GDP. We have to remember that we are sustaining an expenditure of about 3 per cent of GDP on defence from a total percentage of GDP outlay available to government of about 35 per cent. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries of a similar size to us which operate on about 3 per cent of GDP, as we do, have available GDP outlays of around 45 per cent to 60 per cent from which to select that 3 per cent of GDP. If we were to return-as the Opposition would have us do-to about 28 per cent or 29 per cent of GDP, which is where we were during the Menzies era, we would have to go down to about 2 per cent of GDP. If honourable members opposite think they can sustain a submarine program on 2 per cent of GDP, they have another think coming. They simply cannot walk away from that. In two years time the F18 program will substantially drop out of the defence budget. There will be an opportunity available to governments to cut $500m or $600m off the defence vote if they want to, and that includes the submarine project. We can absolutely guarantee that honourable members on the other side of the House, in the unlikely event of their getting into office, would take every advantage of that possibility, as we see with the sorts of promises that they have been putting forward in terms of this election. This country will be defended by the Australian Labor Party and nobody else. That is simply the state of the figures as they are presented in the course of this campaign. I am not talking about the life of the Parliament two or three parliaments down the line; I am talking about the next Parliament. Everyone in the defence forces, and everyone associated with planning our defence projects, understands that. None of them is looking for a change in government. They know the underlying factors that create a sound defence vote, and they know that there is nothing forthcoming from the Opposition. Members of the Opposition are dilettantes on defence, and it has been that way for years. They wrap themselves in the flag. They have always relied on alliances; they have never delivered. That position continues, and this submarine project is an example of that. The Opposition has discovered these questions four years into the submarine project. In fact, it discovered them three or four months after they were asked via the newspapers. The Opposition's decision to threaten the project has been very much the effort of the last couple of weeks. In four years, after putting forward an option on nuclear boats and then leaving it to lie, it has had very little to say about it. It is now telling us that its judgment is better than that of the Royal Australian Navy and the Department of Defence. I think it has the view that the submarine project is some sort of invention of the Labor Party, that we wandered around saying to the Services: `What you fellows really need is a submarine. We can tell you how to evaluate the sort of submarine that you ought to pick up. We can give you an idea about how you ought to defend this country via this submarine process. We can tell you the engineering requirements that go into making a submarine and you can get on with it'. That has not been the Government's position. The submarine project arrived on our desks from the Australian Navy. The propositions that have been put forward on the industry program, on the process of production and on the capabilities of the submarines themselves are a product of the Department of Defence, advised by the other departments with concerns in this regard-not an invention of any Labor Party committee. Let me go into some detail in that regard so that people understand how the evaluation process has taken place. It has not in fact taken place in the media rooms above us, and it has not taken place in Caucus committees; it has taken place inside the Department. The two project definition contractors submitted their deliverables, that is, all the requirements related to the design and the various specifications on performance, hull, machinery, propulsion, electrical emergency systems, control rooms, communications, domestic services, utilities, weapon handling, stowage and discharge, navigation, sensors, masks, battery systems and so forth-about 300 of them. They have delivered those submissions progressively, over a period of 15 months, for evaluation. That information, in both preliminary and final form, underpinned the formal offers that were submitted in November last year. A massive amount of information was required to support the evaluation and source selection process. Its control and assimilation required thorough preparation and planning. Indeed, this task commenced shortly after the project definition studies contracts were awarded. An evaluation and source selection plan, endorsed by the Augmented Defence Source Definition Committee, was promulgated by the Chief of Capital Procurement on 24 April 1986. The two main tasks were, firstly, a comparative analysis of the information provided by the PDS contractors using the required ship characteristics, related guidance documentation and the preliminary design baseline review as baselines, and presentation of that analysis in a manner which facilitated the decision making process; and, secondly, the assessment of the relative importance of the evaluated data and the progressive formulation of conclusions and recommendations leading ultimately to a decision by the Government on source selection. The evaluation strategy involved the formation of five evaluation teams in March 1986, each supported by the following numerous working groups: Firstly, a submarine evaluation team which reported on the capability, performance and design of the submarine platforms and associated combat systems; secondly, a logistic support team which reported on maintenance, support, combat system software, support, manpower, training, documentation and plant and facilities associated with all of those things; thirdly, an Australian industry involvement team which reported on all proposals including scope, depth and quality of each proposal and associated considerations; fourthly, a production evaluation team which reported on all production aspects of competing proposals including the production method, delivery schedules, quality assurance, tests and trials, construction site proposals and any facilities associated with the submarine construction and/or production; and finally, a contract and finance team which reported on all contract and financial aspects of each proposal and was responsible for identifying all cost elements of the total project. The detailed evaluation commenced with the receipt of preliminary documentation and other deliverables in February 1986. The full scale evaluation began in September 1986 with the receipt of final detail design information. At the peak of the evaluation-and I am not talking about Labor Party committees-some 300 people were involved. They were drawn from relevant divisions throughout the Department including Navy Office, Defence Central, the other naval establishments, and officers from the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Attorney-General's Department. So the evaluation has been thorough, even-handed and exhaustive. As I have informed this House previously in response to a question, the augmented DSDC, under the Chairmanship of the Chief of Capital Procurement, comprises members of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, the Department of Finance and the Attorney-General's Department. Department of Defence members included the Chief of Naval Materiel, Chief of Naval Engineering, the First Assistant Secretaries for Defence Industry and Materiel Policy, Force Development and Analysis and Programs and Budgets, defence industry development representatives and the Chief of Supply and Support, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, the Defence Contracts Organisation, the Capital Procurement Organisation, the New Submarine Project Office and the Director Submarine Warfare. These are the people the Opposition considers to be a pack of ignorant nig-nogs not to be trusted in this evaluation project and not capable of presenting a sensible recommendation to government. I believe that those views can be rejected in their entirety. Another piece of nonsense was mentioned by the honourable member for O'Connor; that is, the suggestion that the Government was bringing this matter forward because we are to have an early election. What a load of hogwash! When this submission was presented to Cabinet-unless we assume a level of clairvoyance that goes back several months-included in the recommendations was this process. The Cabinet agreed to this process because if this enormous project were submitted to the Joint Committee on Public Works for consideration in the sort of detail that the honourable member was talking about, second guessing on all the activity that I have been talking about to this point, it would take months and months to come to a sensible conclusion. So it has absolutely nothing to do with the election at all. It happens to be a very long time since this matter was considered by the Public Works Committee, which is used to handling very effectively from time to time questions associated with facilities and construction involving of the order of $40m or $50m, and that will be the case with some of the facilities connected with this project. For the Committee to sit down and develop an entirely new slate of expertise in order to be able to confront this problem would be to spin out the process for another year or two. This Government is capable of taking sensible defence decisions and paying for them, because it takes these things in an orderly manner. We have a defence equipment budget that is projected on an orderly rate of payments on all major capital items. If we start making a mess of that and knocking it around by a year or two, we will have all sorts of problems with an equipment glut, such as we found when we came into office and have been trying to deal with ever since. The tories can never make a decision on anything. This is simply one example of that. I would have some regard and sympathy for the propositions that are being put forward if I had seen some evidence, over the past four years since the project has been under a process of evaluation, that honourable members opposite were sitting down seriously and giving it consideration in their committees and coming forward with sensible propositions to the public. There is no evidence that that has been taking place in the past four years. All that has happened is that two or three weeks after a variety of rumours were published in the course of the normal argie-bargie that goes on when a major tender selection is under way, they were picked up by the Opposition after they had already been answered and they were run again. The Opposition finally came to the conclusion that it would be a nice idea if the Public Works Committee had another chop at this for a couple of years. I will not accuse the honourable member for O'Connor of that because he did not say it. However, it has been indicated by the defence spokesman. Some of the honourable member's remarks go to the integrity of those who have been involved in the selection process. I believe that they were made largely in ignorance. In conclusion, I pay tribute to Admiral Hughes who has headed up the project office in a very difficult period. He has undertaken all the activities that I have outlined. I also thank those who sat on the evaluation teams. They are men and women of very great distinction who make a very substantial contribution to the defence of this country in a very innovative and intelligent way. They have done a fine job on this project. This excellent project has great prospects for Australian industry. It is a very foolish Opposition which has, in its dilettantish fashion, been threatening it on such an unsound basis over the past couple of weeks. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.23) —It is rather sad that Labor's inability to handle Australia's defence needs to be brought to the notice of the people in a debate of this character. Unfortunately, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has failed to address the reason why there is a fundamental requirement for us to upgrade the Australian fleet. It has been a contribution largely identifying the justification of the procedures within the Department of Defence. This debate is about the total ineptitude of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government to address the obligations of the Government. It is going to the people when processes, having gone through, in this instance, the Defence Department and requiring execution, are brought to the Parliament at a time when no further executive decisions should be taken by the Government. This is the case because of the Prime Minister's decision. It is not this Parliament's decision or the Defence Department's decision; I am not being critical of the evaluation capabilities or the opportunities for private enterprise in the construction of a new submarine. My concern is that the Prime Minister, having decided to hold an election on 11 July, it is improper, in that climate, for any government to proceed with any new executive decisions. In particular, it is improper for a government to say that it will not proceed with the proper scrutiny of a project that for the taxpayer represents $3,900m of expenditure. It is not sufficient for the Minister to come into this chamber and pretend that he and he alone has been able to upgrade the Defence Department. That is palpably false. Even he acknowledged a few moments ago the position in relation to the introduction of the FA18 aircraft-the new tactical fighter-for the Royal Australian Air Force which gives Australia an offensive-defensive capability which ensures that the Air Force is able to play its part for the future. The submarine project had its origin not in the works of the Minister but in the time when the coalition was in office and during part of the time when I was Minister. The concern that we in the National Party of Australia and the Opposition have about the project is not that it should not be allowed to proceed in the normal course but that the Government is not allowing it to proceed in the normal course. It is the Government which said that there would be an election on 11 July. As a result, the Government has obligations which it seemingly will thumb its nose at. It is saying: `Never mind the normal processes. Never mind the fact that we will have a change of government on 11 July. We will try to go ahead as though it is business as usual'. There are a few characteristics-- Mr Martin —Who is going to win? Mr SINCLAIR —I know that the honourable member will not win. I know that he will not be sitting in the Parliament after 11 July. I know that a number of honourable members opposite rightly share his concern. One of the worries which Government members need to have is that perhaps never before has there been a greater awareness in the Australian community of the total inability of this Government to care adequately for Australia's defence requirements. I will return to that point, because it is behind the whole of the fanfare that the Minister who addressed the House briefly a moments ago, unfortunately, failed to address or to comprehend. There are three aspects of the project of which I believe the people of Australia need to be aware. I have just mentioned the first-that is, it is not proper for a government in its lame duck phase, at a time when it no longer should be carrying out the executive decisions of government, to enter into contracts. It is not proper for it to introduce and pass new motions of this sort in the Parliament. It is not proper for it to undertake any new commitments for those commitments are being undertaken only in the light of the fading responsibilities which the Government has exercised during its term in office. It is not, above all, the responsibility of a caretaker administration, which this Government is now, to undertake significant programs of this size. As to the second aspect of the submarine project, I share totally the Minister's commendation of Admiral Hughes and those involved in the development process within the Department. But that is not our concern. Our series of concerns about the submarine project begin with a statement by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) who moved the motion that the Oberons were necessarily due for decommissioning from 1992. That decision is an executive decision. It is a decision that is related to whether those submarines had a refit. Surely they will not maintain their capability against modern generation submarines. We on this side of the House have felt for a long time that the development of technology in both the propulsion of submarines, the degree to which they can move silently under water, and their endurance-that is, the range they can cover underwater-has developed at such a pace in the past few years, particularly for the types of submarines in which Australia is interested, that it was not proper for that date which is the basis of the motion before the House to have been the date which required that we necessarily went ahead at the pace that the Minister chose in setting the project definition study and now the letting of the tenders to the preferred Swedish design. We on this side of the House want to look at the smaller propulsion unit that was included in the French design submarine, the Rubis, which has a small nuclear cell. It is a cell which, we are told, provides silence under water and is at least compatible with any modern generation diesel-electric submarine. We on this side of the House believe that it is necessary to buy the very best submarine we can buy for Australia and which will last for the next 40 to 50 years. With such a project we are not dealing with something for tomorrow; we are dealing with a unit that will still be in operation in 2020 at least and perhaps 2030. We are concerned that the pace which the Minister chose was set by a failure to address properly the alternative to nuclear propulsion, whatever other political consequences there may be. It is not for the Minister to say: `I do not like a nuclear-powered unit and therefore we will not even consider it'. That is essentially what he has done. There has been enormous technological development in the whole field of submarine propulsion and design and their combat systems over the last few years. Whilst it may well be that we on this side of the chamber have not had the advantage of seeing that the full details of this contract for the submarine that Australia is buying are as the Minister for Defence described them, I do not believe that it has been surveyed or assessed adequately, in contrast to other new developments in submarine technology. Neither the Minister nor anyone in the Department of Defence has at any stage produced an adequate comparison of this submarine with those other technologies. On that basis, we are apprehensive about the base for his so progressing. The third question is whether the contract itself should go to private enterprise. As to that, there is absolutely no dispute on this side of the chamber. However, I am a little curious as to the siting of the project. As a result of the briefings I have had in relation to this submarine, I know that South Australia was not the preferred location; I know that there were advantages in other sites. I am fascinated that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) has left the chamber. In relation to Newcastle, the fact that neither management nor the work force could get a satisfactory industrial record which would attract the interest of the submarine builders is a matter about which they need to be concerned, but it is also true that the Australian Labor Party did nothing to try to promote that area. Members of the Labor Party have represented the area for so long that they have become slack and lazy and failed to attend to their proper electoral representation. In our view, there needs to be within the Labor Party a close look as to how, why and in what way Newcastle failed to get even somewhere near the front in the consideration of this project. It was not necessarily in Newcastle that I was advised the submarine was to be built and, therefore, I say to this House and to the people of Australia that there is little doubt that it was blatant politicking that took the project to South Australia. I well understand the advantages for South Australia but we need to understand that this building of submarines will not resolve the problems of South Australia. While there is in South Australia a Labor government which has too little regard for the basic economics of trying to assist employment and investment opportunities, one cannot get long term correction of the unemployment problems just by make-work programs at a Federal level. We well understand South Australia's difficulties. It has had a Labor government for so long that it is a wonder that the work force is not even more significantly reduced, but our concern is that this submarine should be built in a totally effective and adequate way and that it will continue to be maintained in a totally effective and adequate way throughout its life. I query, therefore, the extent to which South Australia is the best site for the building of this submarine. There is no doubt that, in relation to its proximity to deep water exercise areas for the Royal Australian Navy either on the west coast or the east coast and the normal testing and proving grounds necessary, geographically South Australia is not suited to this project; so the politicking is quite apparent. Whilst we welcome the jobs that will be found in South Australia, on this side of the chamber our concern is that to change the fundamentals one does not just look at the shop window. The shop window is just a bit of political negotiation which, like the uranium export contracts relating to the mine in South Australia, has been granted not on the basis of merit but on the basis of the politics of the government for the time being. Mr Tim Fischer —The Hunter Valley has been dumped. Mr SINCLAIR —The Hunter Valley has been dumped. There is no doubt that the Northern Territory has been dumped on uranium. A lot of places around Australia would have liked this submarine project. North Queensland has been dumped, also. I think it is interesting that, as with the Roxby Downs uranium export prospects, this Government looks at the politics of the country rather than at the merits of a project. There has to be private sector involvement in building a submarine. As to the private sector building the six submarines, I am disappointed that it seems now that the first submarine, at least to a significant degree, apparently will be built outside this country-indeed, I am told that at least part of it will be built in Sweden. That disappoints us. We believe that far more needs to be done to encourage Australian design, development and construction of defence procurement in this country. As far as this Labor Government's record is concerned, there have been many projects in which Australian engineers and the Australian private sector could have been involved in design, but which have been scrapped. In relation to the new trainer for the Royal Australian Air Force, after spending nearly $90m of taxpayers' funds in developing an Australian design to meet Royal Australian Air Force specifications, it bought a Swiss prototype. Having reached that point, the Minister said: `Never mind Australian design; we will build it here anyway. We will spend more money on that Air Force trainer and it will not be as good an aircraft'. Project Waler, the replacement for the armoured personnel carrier for the Army, is another matter of concern. Thank goodness the White Paper at long last recognises that what the Minister wants to do in relation to replacing the present APCs is the wrong decision, and the Army will look at designing a new light armoured vehicle which is suitable for Australian conditions. That project was put in place by a coalition government. It is on that basis that long term decisions to ensure an adequate procurement program for the Australian Defence Force, bearing in mind the capabilities not only of manufacture but also of design in Australia, were based. Again, in relation to the submarine program, it is significant that there is to be manufacture but minimal design. I know that, whatever the project, it is essential that there be adequate supervision. Little of that has been said in this chamber but, as a result of private discussion with the Minister, I understand that that is being arranged satisfactorily. Unfortunately and unhappily, in the past there has been some difficulty with project management and I know that, as far as the Navy is concerned, the problems concerning HMAS Success and HMAS Cook were not necessarily of its own making. It is essential that, utilising private sector design and construction, a project is designed and managed throughout its course adequately, well and effectively. To do that, we must be prepared to hire and pay consultants to a standard necessary to achieve that which is required. As to defence itself, I do not believe that anyone can claim that, through this project, Labor is correcting the fundamental shortfalls in the Defence Force that it has created over the past four years. The only way that Australia can ever have an adequate Defence Force and adequate recognition of the problems of Australia's defence, along with deterring the sorts of threats that are projected around our environment, is by changing the Government of Australia, and that, thank goodness, the people of Australia will be doing on 11 July next. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(12.38) —As a Liberal member of this Parliament from the State of South Australia, I feel it is appropriate that Liberal members are represented in this discussion concerning this project. I say on my own behalf, and on behalf of the Liberal Party in South Australia and all Liberal members from South Australia in this chamber and in the other place, that we are absolutely delighted that some of the work for this submarine contract will take place in our State of South Australia and, in particular, that the construction phase of the submarine project will take place in our State. I appreciate that some 40 per cent of the project will take place in New South Wales, but the fact that we will get between 20 and 30 per cent in our State-and I think I am right in saying that a similar proportion will go to the State of Western Australia-is something that South Australians will welcome. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: There seems to be a conflict here in the honourable member's Party position and what he is saying. The shadow spokesman-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Melbourne must not persist in frivolous points of order, or he may suffer the consequences. Mr DOWNER —The left wing of the Labor Party, which is always irresponsible, has endeavoured to destroy the industrial structure of Australia through industrial relations activities outside this Parliament. Mr Uren —You want to watch out. I might take exception to you. Mr DOWNER —Admittedly, the left wing of the Labor Party has one or two good members, but it has done much to destroy the industrial structure of this country and all it can contribute to this discussion is frivolous and childish points of order; and I am sorry about that. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The honourable member is misleading the chamber. His shadow Minister has said that they will not build the submarines in South Australia and he knows that to be the truth. I support the program. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. I require the honourable member for Mayo to be more relevant to the question before the chamber. Mr DOWNER —I think that that point of order only confirmed what I said earlier. This project will create about 600 direct jobs and thousands of other indirect jobs in South Australia. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the South Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which initiated South Australia's proposal that the submarine construction project should take place in our State of South Australia. The Liberal Party of Australia has some concerns about the contract, and the shadow Minister for Defence, the honour- able member for McPherson (Mr White), has repeatedly made them clear. However, in doing so he has never walked away from the fact that the Liberal Party is delighted that the construction phase of the project will take place in South Australia. It is cheap politicking, and a real concern to the political ethics of this country, that the Labor Party, at both State and Federal level, has claimed that the Federal Liberal Party does not support the submarine construction phase taking place in South Australia. The shadow Minister for Defence said on 22 May: The Opposition is pleased that South Australia has been given so much of the works on the project, despite claims by Labor politicians to the contrary. The location of the construction work has never been in dispute. That statement is unequivocal-yet this very day, the Labor Premier of South Australia and other Labor members and candidates have, in defiance of that statement, claimed that the Liberal Party does not support the construction of the submarine in Adelaide. We do support it. As a consequence of those completely unreliable claims by the Labor Party, the shadow Minister for Defence has today issued yet another statement, in which he said: The Federal Liberal Party has always supported this project being undertaken in Australia and under a Liberal Government South Australia will remain as the construction site. For the benefit of people such as the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the Premier of South Australia and South Australians listening to this broadcast, I repeat that under a Liberal government South Australia will remain the construction site. That had better be understood to be unequivocal this time. It is about time that the Labor Party showed a little more integrity in election campaigns. In the 1985 State election campaign in South Australia, Mr Bannon, the Premier and Leader of the Labor Party, ran a fear campaign that, under the Liberals, privatisation would destroy the State. He said that privatisation was the great evil. Some two years later, who is the chief proponent of privatisation? It is Mr Bannon-another example of the despicable way in which the Labor Party conducts its election campaigns, with no regard for the truth or for political ethics. Indeed, it has complete contempt for the people of South Australia and Australia generally. The same applies to this submarine contract. There are certain issues involved in the contract that the Liberal and National parties are legitimately raising on behalf of the Australian taxpayers and the Australian people. However, let it be clear that we are not denying for one minute that the construction phase of the project should take place in South Australia. Under a Liberal government, it will take place there. I do not want to hear any more deception from the Labor Party on that issue. During the 1985 State election campaign, the Labor Party claimed that I had said that South Australia would not get the submarine contract. That claim was made by Mike Rann, who is a member of the Labor Party in South Australia. Of course, the claim is not true-we would not expect it to be true coming from the Labor Party. I said that South Australia could not expect to get all of the submarine contract, something that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) had already said. I was right-we got between 20 and 30 per cent of the contract. It is about time the Labor Party showed a little integrity. After 11 July, when it is in opposition, it will need plenty of integrity if it is to stand any chance of winning the election in 1990. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 101A, the debate is interrupted. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) left this morning to attend the South Pacific Forum in Western Samoa. They will return on the evening of 2 June. In their absence I am Acting Prime Minister and the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, is Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will represent the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House. As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) will be absent from Question Time today on Government business. Questions for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs should be directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and questions for the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —As a matter of courtesy I inform the House that the next Prime Minister, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), as well as the present Prime Minister, is also temporarily absent from the House, for which he apologises. He is engaged on urgent Opposition business. Mr CARLTON —It gives me great pleasure to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. Is it a fact that no Australian taxpayer earning less than $19,500 per annum or $375 a week will receive a tax cut on 1 July? Is it also a fact that the Australian Statistician's survey of the distribution and composition of employee earnings, released only last week, indicates that more than half of all employees earn less than $19,500? Is it therefore a fact that more than one-half of Australian wage and salary earners, that is, about three million people, will not get any tax cut on 1 July? Mr KEATING —I do not know whether the honourable member for Mackellar cannot read a Government Bill or a tax scale so as to know that the previous tax rate of 46 per cent for those earning over $19,500 falls to 40 per cent, that the rate below that which was previously at 30 per cent falls to 29 per cent and that the rate below that, previously at 25 per cent, falls to 24 per cent. I also remind the honourable gentleman that this Government reduced the 30 per cent rate to 25 per cent for people on the low end of the income scale so that we gave taxpayers earning between $12,500 and $25,000 a $7.60 flat tax cut in the 1984-85 Budget. That was followed by the December tax cut, which reduced the 60 per cent rate to 55 per cent. The tax cut on 1 July will further reduce the 55 per cent rate to 49 per cent. These reductions are paid for. They will not be added to the deficit in the way in which the previous Government added tax cuts to the deficit. They are not an irresponsible grab for votes like the one being contemplated now by the Opposition. If one looks at the Opposition's tax scale, the one that has been floated-- Mr Carlton —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise the question of relevance. I asked about the tax cuts from 1 July-- Mr Keating —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order on the point of order. Madam SPEAKER —I am just hearing the point of order. Mr Tuckey —You don't take a point of order on a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will be quiet. Mr Carlton —I asked the Treasurer a question relating to the tax cuts due on 1 July this year. He seems to be replying in other areas. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer is answering the question in his own way, to which he is entitled. Mr KEATING —The Opposition's scale which was released this week, and which was endorsed by the questioner as moving in the direction that he would choose, as usual gives the tax cuts to the people at the high end of the scale and next to nothing to those down below. That is par for the course. In days past when the Opposition was the government of this country, there was a 60 per cent tax rate but a tax system like a lump of gruyere cheese, full of holes so that nobody, other than the people without adequate tax advice, paid that 60 per cent rate. That rate was allowed to persist for five years without any repairs to the tax system. We could not even get the previous Government to repair the criminal evasion schemes without two major public reports, the McCabe-Lafranchi report and the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Not only would the previous Government not touch abuses of capital gains, fringe benefits, entertainment allowances, substantiation and the rest but also it would not even touch the criminal evasion schemes. It was looking after its crowd. Now Opposition members think that they should smash the social security system and rip education spending to pieces so that they can give the people of Vaucluse and Toorak a 35 per cent tax cut. Mr Spender —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. In my submission, what the Treasurer was going on about can have nothing to do with the question asked of him and therefore it is not relevant. He should be told to be relevant. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will stop giving the ruling. Mr Spender —I do understand that, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will bring his answer to a conclusion. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, the Opposition cannot take the heat of the public debate. Mr Porter —Well, you haven't answered the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order, the honourable member for Barker! Mr KEATING —Opposition members keep dropping out these tax scales, endorsing them on radio and saying that, yes, they will be run in the election. But when we blast them for their social inequity, the honourable member for North Sydney squeals to the Standing Orders. If he wants to stand up in a cowardly way and refer to the Standing Orders, he can do so. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair asks the Treasurer to withdraw the adjective. Mr KEATING —Yes, I will withdraw. Mr Spender —I don't give a damn what he says about me, but he should follow the rules. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Chair cares what he says. Mr Keating —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I remind you that under standing order 303 frivolous points of order are also out of order and should be dealt with. Mr BEDDALL —My question is also addressed to the Treasurer. Can he inform the House of the impact on the business community of Australia of the Hawke Government's economic policies? Mr Porter —You won't answer the question and you know damn well they were right. Madam SPEAKER —Order, the honourable member for Barker! Mr KEATING —I think it has been made clear that Australian business has been impressed both by the magnitude and the quality of the economic policy changes that have taken place in Australia in the last four years. Only yesterday we heard on the AM radio program from Westpac Banking Corporation's chief currency dealer in New York who, when asked whether the market cared one way or the other about the Australian election, replied: I think they'd very much like to see the current administration in office for a longer amount of time. When asked about either a Howard or Bjelke-Petersen government, he also said: I would have to say it would probably be a disaster and I would think you'd see a big sell-off on the Australian dollar. Today's Australian has further confirmation that the course charted for the Australian economy by this Government has been endorsed by the international financial community generally. A report in the Australian quotes one Wall Street currency dealer as saying: After all, the present Australian Labor Government looks kosher. The report went on to quote Mr David Maslin, the chief economist of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, as saying: Labor in its tenure has shown it can govern. Kidder Peabody's Mr David Gianni said that Wall Street `is definitely comfortable with Labor'. That by implication is a shocking damnation of the coalition parties in this country. A broad spread of opinion across the financial markets of the world, particularly in the United States, is prepared to believe in the credibility of the Hawke Government because the Hawke Government has earned its credibility. Mr Porter —That is why they chopped your rating. Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Barker. Mr KEATING —What was said yesterday was that a conservative government, led as it is now, would lack that credibility, and that that would lead to a currency sell-off and, of course, galloping interest rates. That is the damning indictment of the financial markets of the coalition parties and indicates the support it has for the credibility of the Government's policies. The contest we will have in this country soon will be a contest about credibility. The Government party is seeking to change the structure of the Australian economy for the better for all Australians, to make it internationally competitive and to give us a hallowed place again in the trading world, allowing us to hold up our heads as a developed, modern, sophisticated economy. The lack of credibility of the Opposition parties, which are taking a trip down the time tunnel to 1977 with another fistful of dollars is illustrated by what is another cynical vote buying exercise to grab the votes without worrying about the fabric of the economy or the future and economic security of Australians. That is what this contest is about, and that is what the currency markets are already saying. They are saying: `We will stick with Labor; we will stick with credibility'. It could not come in any more definite terms than the terms being reported in the past day. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Treasurer was asked a question about the economic consequences of this Government's policies-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for North Sydney raising a point of order on relevancy? Mr Spender —My point of order is that the answer which the Treasurer is now giving cannot be relevant to the question asked of him. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. The Chair finds the Treasurer relevant. Mr KEATING —This is a contest about credibility; it is a contest about the performance and outcomes of the Government's policies. In looking at the impact of the Government's policies on economic outcomes and economic policy generally, Australians know and the Australian business community knows that business is being given its first chance in 20 years to rebuild its formerly large import competing and exporting sectors, enabling it to be interested again in product innovation, in research and development and in competitiveness. They know that that is what is offered by the Government in contrast to the cynical fistful of dollars that will be offered by the Opposition. I conclude on this point: The echoes of that opinion in the Australian business community are now being heard around the world from where the very hard judgments are made not about tricky words in tricky Press statements by members of the Opposition, but about whether they can deliver. The answer coming out is a resounding no, giving support for the Government and the credibility of its policies built up consistently over the last four years. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the situation in the South Pacific following the military coup in Fiji and the trade union bans taken in the course of a union action initiated throughout the South Pacific in favour of the Bavadra Government, what initiatives will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister be undertaking in Apia in support of the restoration of democracy in Fiji? Will those initiatives include any action to recognise the legitimacy of the Bavadra Government and the recent elections in Fiji? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the right honourable gentleman would know, the Prime Minister has made a number of statements which clearly indicate the concern that not only Australia but all Pacific nations feel about the coup that has eventuated in Fiji. We are very anxious to see the restoration of democracy. The right honourable gentleman would know that that is no easy task in view of what has happened. That is a problem that we cannot solve from Australia's point of view. But the question is legitimate as to what might be on the agenda at the forthcoming conference in the Pacific. I understand that the difficulties in Fiji are not on the agenda in a formal sense. Whatever initiative the Prime Minister might take at the South Pacific Forum, it would involve other people agreeing on the matter being raised there by way of an urgency discussion. I am sure discussion will take place and I am sure it will be a matter of concern that democracy has been overturned in Fiji. I am sure the right honourable gentleman will understand that Australia will be expected to give a point of view as to how it might be restored. As to what Australia would think in that regard, I should think it would require the present administration in Fiji, illegal as it is in the context of normal democratic processes, to recognise that it ought to revert to the legitimacy of the Bavadra Government. As I say, that is a practical difficulty that we cannot solve. I am sure that that view would not be limited only to the Pacific countries; it would also be the view of the major democratic countries in the world, not least of which would be the Commonwealth countries of which, as honourable members would know, Fiji is a part. There has always been an attitude that the difficulties within the Commonwealth may well be resolved by Commonwealth action. Following the discussion, if there is one, on an informal basis, if not a formal basis, the Prime Minister might think it appropriate to arrive at a resolution which might encourage countries other than those in the Pacific also to try to assist in the restoration of democracy in Fiji. I make it very clear that I know the Prime Minister will be discussing the matter of how Australia can best play its role, in conjunction with all the other countries in the Pacific, to bring about an early restoration of democracy in Fiji and, we hope, the reinstatement of the Government that has been ousted illegally. We all hope for, and will work towards, the cause of peace and stability in the region. As the right honourable gentleman knows, if the coup is in any way legitimised-it appears to create problems not only for the economy of Fiji, but also for that country's peace and stability-it may not necessarily be limited to Fiji. It could well spread to other areas in the Pacific. It encourages other activities from other powers not in the Pacific to take an interest in the Pacific. It might well encourage activities from those powers which do not have a legitimate goal of achieving peace and stability. The real issue for Australia is to urge the Fijian administration-we hope the Governor-General will play his role-to guarantee the restoration of democracy, of legitimate government in Fiji. The Australian Prime Minister, together with the Foreign Minister, will be working towards that end. Mr BILNEY —My question is addressed to the extremely able Minister for Defence. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to comments by the shadow spokesman on defence, the honourable member for McPherson, that a Liberal government might renege on the submarine contract? Will the Government reaffirm its commitment that contracts for the submarine project will be concluded without delay? Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable gentleman has been asked a question relating to a statement attributed to a spokesman on this side of the Parliament. He is not responsible for the affairs on this side of the House. The question is, on the basis of precedent, out of order. Madam SPEAKER —I have asked the honourable member for North Sydney not to be judge and jury at the same time. The first part of the question was preamble. I find the second part of the question in order. Mr BEAZLEY —My attention has been drawn to the Press report last night when the Opposition defence spokesman ducked a question as to whether or not he would renege on contracts signed by this Government. I notice that today in a clarificatory Press release again no mention is made of whether or not contracts signed by this Government would be honoured. This morning on the submarine project we had the position presented by the Leader of the National Party that he wanted nuclear boats, and last week we had the position presented by the other leader of the National Party, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who will have no submarines at all, but will have patrol boats. What we want to know is this: Where does the Leader of the Opposition stand on this vital project to our defences? Where does he stand on the sanctity of contracts signed by this Government? Where does he stand on a project which is quite critical to the development of Australian industry not only in South Australia but also in Melbourne, in Sydney and, in fact, in all the States of Australia? There is a substantial and well based anticipation that a great deal of work will go to those States as a result of this $3.9 billion project, and a very significant advance will be made in technological terms by Australian industry as it is implemented. We have come to the conclusion of a four-year timetable of evaluation-a timetable, I might say, that was set running by honourable members opposite. That evaluation has been completed by a most intensive process inside the Royal Australian Navy and the Department of Defence, and we are coming, properly, to the position where a contract can be signed. The suggestion that the Opposition would repudiate a contract signed by a government is unprecedented. It would be even more serious if there was any opportunity at all to consider it likely that honourable members opposite would be able to do that. Of course, we can have confidence that they will not. This is just one more example of why the business community, the working community in this country, can have absolutely no confidence in the sort of government that would emerge in the unlikely event of the Opposition's taking power. I come back to the point I made earlier. We have now heard what the Opposition defence spokesman believes, what the Leader of the National Party of Australia believes and what the putative leader of the National Party, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, believes. What we want to know now is what the Leader of the Opposition believes. Will he repudiate contracts? Will he support a project that is vital to the defence of this country? Will he support a project that is vital to Australian industry? Mr TUCKEY —I address a question to the Treasurer on behalf of ordinary Australians, if not the money dealers who have already lent the Treasurer's Government $24 billion and no doubt it hopes for more-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I draw the honourable member's attention to the Standing Orders. His preface is out of order. He should continue with the question. Mr TUCKEY —I ask the Treasurer: Is it a fact that the National Australia Bank has joined with the Government's own bank, the Commonwealth Bank, in charging 16.5 per cent for housing loans and that the management of the National Australia Bank has predicted no early decline for home interest rates? In the light of the continuing pressure of these excessive interest rates on low income earners, what election promise will the Treasurer give that will guarantee relief, or is this to be another `trust me' situation? Mr KEATING —This year, the banking system is in a state in which it has not been for a long time-that of being able to attract deposits. In the past, in periods of monetary tightness, there were quantitative restrictions on the amount of funds available for housing. That position has passed now forever and always by the deregulation of the housing interest lending rates last year and that has meant-- Mr Beale —It is not deregulated. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr KEATING —What did your crowd ever do? Mr Beale —What? Mr KEATING —Nothing! Mr Beale —What about the 13.5 per cent? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Interjections are out of order. Mr KEATING —Nothing-like you always did. The result is that we have seen record rates of lending for housing. What the Commonwealth Bank and the National Australia Bank have said is that, because their lending is running at enormous rates, at the discretion of individual managers, certain categories of borrower, particularly those refinancing mortgages, can be charged 16.5 per cent, but the banks' customers will be charged 15.5 per cent. Mr Clark from the National Australia Bank has said that he expects the housing rate to trim down during the balance of the year until Christmas. We have seen a 3 per cent decline in commercial interest rates. That means that the instruments of the deposit taking institutions-the savings banks and the permanent building societies-are now much more attractive in this lower interest rate climate. Therefore, their flow of deposits is stronger, encouraging higher levels of lending demands. Of course, some of those lending demands can be met. It is a matter for each individual institution as to whether it wishes to keep it going. The fact is that there have been two influences on interest rates that the Government has achieved. The first is to reweight the instruments of policy from interest rates back on to fiscal policy by cutting $5 billion from the Commonwealth and States' demands on Australians' savings. Secondly, it is bringing down inflation, which we expect to be about 7 per cent by Christmas and 6 per cent by the following June. From the national accounts figures of the day before yesterday, we saw that the broadest measure of inflation, the non-farm deflator, declined from 9.3 per cent to 7.6 per cent. So interest rates are down. We saw the March quarter consumer price index down from 2.9 per cent to 1.9 per cent. We are seeing inflation falling already. As that inflation floor under interest rates subsides and the demands by the public sector on Australians' savings subside, we will see the whole interest rate structure subside and, as it does, it will impact on housing interest rates. Mr Tuckey —When is it going to happen? Mr KEATING —That worries honourable members opposite because they think that they will be embarrassed by a fall in interest rates. Well, so be it. We heard the Opposition saying all through this year that housing interest rates would rise. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. I call on the honourable member for O'Connor on a point of order. Mr Tuckey —On the matter of relevance, I asked a question on behalf of the ordinary people of Australia: What would be the election promise to help those people? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Treasurer is answering the question. Mr KEATING —The Government will not make gimmicky election promises. It is doing fundamental and quality things to bring down interest rates, that is, dealing with inflation, dealing with wages and dealing with the size of the public sector borrowing requirement. That is what gets interest rates down, not throw-aways off the Budget. We will leave throw-aways off the Budget to the specialists in grab bag politics, the Opposition parties, that know nothing about dealing with the fundamentals. They have never dealt with the fundamentals; they implemented only such things as an existing mortgage deductibility scheme in 1982 for people who had mortgages for 20 or 30 years. That was the barren quality of their housing policy. They should not ask us about housing, but they should look at the number of houses that have been commenced under this Government; at the record lending; at the commitments under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement; at the support for public housing; and at the first home owners scheme, involving $1 billion and 200,000 homes, particularly for couples going into their first homes. This Government is doing all the right things about interest rates. Interest rates are coming down in the commercial market and in the housing market, and the honourable gentlemen opposite are embarrassed by those falls, as well they might be. Mr GRIFFITHS —I draw the Treasurer's attention to comments made by the shadow spokesman on Treasury matters assuring the Australian people that a conservative government would introduce `new taxes'. Will the Treasurer advise the House whether this Government is considering the introduction of any tax changes in its next Budget? Mr KEATING —The Government has made quite plain that it does not intend to introduce new taxes or increase taxes in the Budget. The only parties that are running around with new tax promises are the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. Interestingly, today a draft discussion paper has turned up called `Reform of the Indirect Tax System. Replacing the Wholesale Sales Tax with a Broad-based Consumption Tax' by Michael Cobb, MP, member for Parkes, National Party spokesman representing Treasury. What we find in this illuminating voluminous document is support for a broad-based consumption tax, concentrating on the advantages of a broad-based consumption tax. This is a document in support of a broad-based consumption tax that considers an 8 per cent consumption tax grossing a net $4.2 billion. We are in this position: We have the National Party in this House in favour of a consumption tax. We have the leader of the National Party in Australia, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, opposed to one, and we have the Liberal Party not prepared to say what it stands for in respect of indirect taxation, but throwing into the debate, by way of leaks, a consumption tax. We have made it quite clear that to net $8 billion, which is what the draft document released the other day from the Liberal Party is worth, would require a consumption tax of 12 per cent, which would of course have a net price effect of 6 per cent, taking our inflation rate to 15 per cent, driving household consumer prices up 15 per cent, dramatically cutting the disposable income of taxpayers and housewives in the supermarkets and, of course, blowing out our inflation rate at a time when this Government is bringing the inflation rate down. That is part of the hidden agenda of the conservative parties in relation to consumption taxes. We have all of these conflicting remarks. The Deputy Leader of the National Party is saying: No, he will not have one. The honour- able member for Parkes, as Treasury spokesman, is saying: Yes, he is in favour of one; and the Liberal party, as usual, is lying doggo. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. In my submission, it is perfectly clear that what the Treasurer is doing is not relevant-- Madam SPEAKER —Could the honourable member just tell me which standing order he is seeking to invoke? Mr Spender —Firstly, relevance again, Madam Speaker; and, secondly, he is debating the question. What he is doing now has got nothing to do with the question at all, as he knows. Madam SPEAKER —Debating is a very grey area. The Treasurer will bring his answer to a close. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, I was asked whether the Government will be introducing new taxes in the Budget. The answer is no. I was asked whether the Government would be increasing taxes in the Budget. The answer is no. I observe that the only new taxes around the place are coming from the Liberal Party and the National Party. Now we have another conflict with the National Party in the House supporting a broad-based consumption tax and the Liberal Party afraid to stick its head up and say that it is in favour of one, and the real National Party Leader saying that he will not have one. Where does the Opposition stand on tax? What is its tax agenda and when is it going to come clean with the public with a united position, saying where it stands on fiscal policy and whether the Australian work force will have another 6 per cent tax burden around its neck and on its back in the supermarkets of this country as the Opposition lifts the prices of household goods by from 9 per cent to 15 per cent? It is time the Opposition came clean with the public about where it stands about its hidden tax agenda. Mr SMITH —My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. Is it a fact that the Treasurer, when on official Commonwealth business in Sydney, is provided with a Ford LTD Commonwealth car with tinted glass and New South Wales number plates? Is the Minister aware that this vehicle was involved in a traffic accident a few weeks ago involving three other cars? Is it a fact that the Treasurer was offered a Ford Fairlane as a replacement vehicle and that the Treasurer refused to accept that replacement vehicle and insisted on a Ford LTD, which resulted in the Treasury Department having to hire a Ford LTD from a commercial car hire company at around $100 a day for the Treasurer's use? Can the Minister advise the House whether this is usual practice and of the costs incurred by the Australian taxpayers as a result of the Treasurer's luxury tastes? How does this meet the Government's stated commitment to restraint with equity? Mr UREN —A great deal of detail is asked for and the question will need to be placed on notice, but I will answer it before the Parliament closes tonight. The Treasurer and another Minister are the only two Ministers who have private plates and they were given private plates because there were personal threats against them and their families. Mr Downer —That is not surprising. Government members interjecting-- Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Mayo that, if he interjects again, I will name him. Mrs Kelly —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. As a member of this House I personally find that statement offensive. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair did not hear the remark, but if the honourable member for Mayo interjects again the Chair will deal with him. Mr UREN —The Treasurer does not seek to have any luxury or anything more than any other Minister. I think a lot of false accusations have been made, but I will give the honourable member a detailed reply to the question by the close of Parliament. Mr Scholes —Madam Speaker, I think I should inform the House that as the Minister for Territories, responsible for motor registration in this Territory, I have had a number of requests from honourable members who use government drive yourself cars for the issue of private number plates. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is out of order and will please resume his seat. Mr JENKINS —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Can the Minister inform the House why the Government remains firm in its intention to introduce the Australia Card program? Dr BLEWETT —The Government's continuing commitment to the Australia Card is reflected in the decisions made recently and arises from the simple fact that we regard the card as vital to the economic future of this country. It is now beyond argument that the Australia Card is the single most effective weapon against the problems of tax evasion, welfare fraud and illegal immigration. I think that as each day passes that becomes more obvious to thinking Australians. There is no doubt that our efforts to tackle the problems we have in social security would be much facilitated by an effective identification system. It is growing more obvious that the ability to trace the money trail through the Taxation Office would be much enhanced by an effective identification system. At the same time that the Australia Card would be introduced it would be accompanied by enhanced privacy protections and an effective data protection agency. The result of the Australia Card would ultimately be a saving to this community of nearly $900m a year; that is, money would be saved from those who would defraud the public purse and would pass to honest taxpayers, whom the Opposition pretends to be so concerned for. That transfer is something that I believe Australians would very much welcome. Of course, each day that passes until this legislation is in place will ultimately cost the Australian people $2 1/2m. Ultimately each week that passes $17m is lost, and we are losing that because of the negativism and the obstruction of the Opposition in this country. On 11 July the Opposition will clearly be called to account because of its negative attitude on this issue, and I am completely confident of the verdict of the Australian people. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to my knowledgeable and good natured friend the Minister for Science. Will the Minister confirm that a draft five-year corporate plan for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation allocates extra resources to manufacturing and high technology research at the expense of the rural and mining sectors? What is the status of that plan, and has it been approved by the Minister? Does such a transfer of available CSIRO resources and funding away from agricultural research to other industry sectors accord with the general strategies of the current Government? Does the Minister agree that continued high levels of CSIRO research are essential to maintain high levels of productivity and efficiency in Australia's most important foreign exchange earning sector, that is, agriculture? Mr BARRY JONES —The broad outline of the five-year plan has been approved. The final details have to be agreed to by the new board. I think it is fair to say that at this challenging time in Australia's economic history we have to do more in areas in which we have not distinguished ourselves in the past-that is, the manufacturing and services sector, which have not made an adequate contribution to Australia's export earnings. In a sense, part of Australia's problem is that the close collaboration between the CSIRO and the agriculture and mining sector has paid off too well. It has paid off to the extent that 78 per cent of our total export earnings come from those two sectors. Superficially that looks like a good result. I think that in the long term there will be great difficulties for the economy unless the contribution of the manufacturing and services sector is far higher proportionally. In the last 25 years the fastest growing area of world trade has been in brand name packaged goods. Australia's reputation in that area until now has been almost non-existent. The result is that CSIRO, in a period of very severe economic constraint, is having to do more with less. I will not try to hide the fact that in the next five years I believe there will have to be a greater proportionality of effort in adding higher levels of value to manufacturing. That will not, of course, exclude heavy concentration on research related to the rural sector, to take a very obvious example. The implications of biotechnology are enormous for the rural sector. All the developments in the division of plant industry will have implications for traditional agriculture as well as for manufacturing and perhaps services. There may well be a significant change in the proportionality of expenditure in the old sectors, as conventionally defined. We now find that we have to rethink the whole direction of our secondary and service industries. But as the Minister for Primary Industry has pointed out, because of the contribution from the various rural industry funds, the actual amount of money spent both in absolute dollars and in actual dollars has increased significantly. What we are looking for is a change in the proportionality. I very much doubt whether there will be a fall in absolute terms. Mr LEO McLEAY —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Does the Government intend eliminating the brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews categories of the family reunion immigration program or plan to dictate to migrants where they should reside? Would such changes be roundly condemned by the ethnic communities? What effects would such changes have on the stability of migrant families? Mr HOLDING —I do not always know from where these rumours emanate, but they cause great concern to ethnic communities. It has been the policy of this Government and, indeed-to give credit where credit is due-it was under the administration of the honourable member for Goldstein when he was Minister that the previous coalition Government introduced the facilities which enable immigration for brothers and sisters. It was due to the initiatives of members of the Caucus committee and their concern for immigration and ethnic affairs that that category was extended to nieces and nephews. As one who is concerned to apply this principle on a daily basis, I know that it has the overwhelming support of the ethnic communities. I must say that I was pleased to note today from a Press release issued by the honourable member for Mitchell, the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, that the Opposition, as it goes into the election period, also supports continued family reunion, humanitarian and refugee programs. When I read that I thought that at least there was one issue about which there would be no disagreement during the election campaign. It was with some consternation, therefore, that I had drawn to my attention a document headed `Liberal Party of Australia'. It was not authorised by the honourable member for Mitchell. Maybe he does not know about it. It is authorised by an outsider, a fellow called Eggleton, the Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia. It is also authorised by someone called Davey, who is the Federal Director of the National Party of Australia. It has not been authorised by Joh. One can see that this hardworking group of back room boys, doing the job for honourable members opposite, have applied their minds to it. Paragraph 6 of section 2 states: `Polygamous unions will not be accepted'. I can just hear Joh Bjelke-Petersen standing on a platform and saying `No Queensland worker will be forced into a polygamous union', while young John says: `And there will be no sex before marriage'. The document continues. Mr Howard —We didn't laugh very much. Mr HOLDING —This is the Liberal Party's policy, so honourable members opposite should listen to the details. It states: The concept of `immediate family' for eligibility purposes, will be derived from the Australian norm, that is, the unit consisting of husband, wife, unmarried children and aged parents. What does that mean, very simply? Are the previous categories of brothers and sisters to be excluded, as are nieces and nephews? Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOLDING —It is not our fault if honourable members opposite cannot get their policies right. It is not our fault if they produce a glib, deceitful and contemptuous document. In a Press release they state that they support family reunions, while the terminology and definition that they use in a policy document regarding who will be allowed entry is `the Australian norm, that is, the unit consisting of husband, wife, unmarried children and aged parents'. Have they made a policy decision in the back room which is designed to exclude brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews? Mr Reith —Wind it up. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member might like to wind it up, but these are important matters for thousands of people in the community. They may not be very important to an ex-real estate salesman, but I assure him that he will pay in his own community for his attempt to mislead the ethnic communities of Australia. One of the important categories mentioned in the Press statement was the refugee program. But the fine print of the hidden agenda of the back room boys of the Liberal Party spells out what they are taking to the next election. The policy document states: However, refugee settlement will not form a permanent segment of our migrant intake. Opposition members-Ooh! Mr HOLDING —Just let me spell it out because it is Opposition policy. When Opposition members are standing on platforms and talking to people who are deeply concerned about family reunions and who are concerned about the plight of refugees they should make their policy perfectly clear. They can say one thing at a Press conference but when we look at the details it is perfectly clear that under their policy refugee settlements would not form a permanent segment of our migrant intake. On those three areas, brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, and refugee intake, the back room think tank of the Liberal Party has again produced a massive move to the right. If that is the position of honourable members opposite they ought to have enough guts to come out and say it. It is absolutely beneath contempt to produce a Press statement that says `Yes, we believe in family reunion, we believe in refugees' and yet produce a policy document that is absolutely snide. They ought to be ashamed of it. If that is the position they are adopting they should at least have the courage to argue it. When we look at the details of the policy document, as it stands, we see that it is a glib, facile, deceitful and mendacious document that will cause untold anguish to the ethnic community. Let me deal with one further aspect. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOLDING —I know honourable members opposite do not like being reminded of their own policies. Mr Moore —That is enough. Mr HOLDING —No, it is not. Opposition members are also concerned to prevent what they describe as enclave settlement. Their policy states: While migrants will have the same rights as other Australian residents to choose their place of residence individually or collectively, enclave settlement will not be encouraged. Immigration policy will not consider communities for mass movement to Australia in situations where enclave settlement would occur. Any member on this side of the House who represents an electorate like that of the honourable member for Melbourne or that of my own has lived for many years in an area where ethnic communities want to live close to their own people and have their own facilities. My own community over the last 25 years has gone from being a Greek community to a Turkish community and now there is a very considerable component of Vietnamese. Honourable members opposite are now saying to those communities that if people want to live in an enclave-whatever that is-they will not allow them to come into Australia. I want them to tell me how they can apply that sort of policy. It is nonsense. The history of immigration is a history of people settling where facilities are, where religious institutions are, and where they can get support and family services. It is a sad departure from the general policy approach of the Liberal Party. There is no way that it can make this policy work without causing untold hardship and damage to thousands of migrant families. It is a matter of deep regret that this will now be an issue in the election, not because, I think, of any actions of the shadow Minister, but because the right wing think tanks of the Liberal and National parties have been able to introduce their waspish attitudes into our whole immigration policy. It will be rejected by the Australian people as it will be overwhelmingly rejected by the ethnic communities of our country. Mr CONNOLLY —I direct my question to the Treasurer. In view of his interest in galloping inflation, is it not a fact that Australia's inflation rate has doubled from 5 per cent to almost 10 per cent since the last election? Is it not a fact that Australia's current inflation rate of 9.4 per cent is still more than four times the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries-in fact the worst relative performance ever recorded? After more than four years of government what possible excuse can he put to the Australian people for this disastrous record? Mr KEATING —If the honourable gentleman does not understand the impact of depreciation on the consumer price index I suppose it is not for me to try to teach him. Let me just record the progress of inflation under this Government. When the Government came to office it was running at an annual rate of 11 1/2 per cent. By the year to March 1985 the Government had succeeded in bringing it from 11 1/2 per cent to 5.1 per cent. The honourable member left that out of his question of course. In the intervening period the big depreciation of the dollar has lifted imported prices. That has been measured by the CPI and broadly took the inflation rate from 5 per cent to 9 per cent. That is now tracking back and, as we have indicated it will be at about 7 per cent by Christmas and 6 per cent by June next year. In other words, we will have enhanced massively our competitiveness. We will have lived through the unavoidable temporary rise in inflation, which will have taken inflation from 5 per cent to 9 per cent and back to 6 per cent by June next year. That is the history of our inflationary change. I would have thought that the honourable member would have understood that the benefits of a large depreciation, a pickup in our competitiveness and the restoration of our secondary industry would have been a price worth paying for a temporary 4 per cent increase in inflation that is now coming back to about 6 per cent. If the honourable member does not comprehend that data, God help him. Not only has his rational capability been broken down but also he has been sitting here not understanding the main economic game. Earlier, a question was put by an honourable member I have never seen before about whether I had swapped Commonwealth cars or something in Sydney. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the Treasurer like to make that explanation when we have finished Question Time. Mr KEATING —I would just like to add-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It is out of place here. Mr KEATING —I will make a personal explanation later. Mr KEOGH —I direct a question to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Mr Ian Cameron —This is your last, Len. Mr KEOGH —I am very happy to be in a position to bring a little humour into the ranks of those on the National Party benches. They do not get many opportunities these days. They will not get many more in the future. Is the Minister aware of the stated intention of the Tasmanian Government to proceed with logging operations in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests despite the Minister's announcement yesterday of Commonwealth action in the High Court of Australia? What does the Commonwealth intend to do about this? Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker; I raise a point of order under standing order 144. The question invites the expression of a legal opinion. As the Commonwealth has announced-a check with the High Court registry will confirm this-that it intends to make application for an injunction, the matter is clearly sub judice. Madam SPEAKER —No. The honourable member is quite wrong. The honourable member did not ask for a legal opinion. He asked what the Minister was going to do about this. Mr COHEN —I understand that this morning the Tasmanian Minister for Forests, Mr Groom, said that logging operations in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests would go ahead as planned, regardless of Commonwealth Government action in the courts. Such action by Tasmania would be totally irresponsible. The Tasmanian Government is actively encouraging defiance of the law of this Parliament. It is behaving in a mindlessly provocative fashion as it has throughout the whole affair. I remind honourable members that the Commonwealth Government has been forced to initiate legal action in this matter. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. From my understanding of news items this morning action has been taken in the High Court. If that is so, the Minister is putting a case and that surely is sub judice. Madam SPEAKER —I do not see it as sub judice. I do not think the High Court will be too worried about what is said in this place. I think the Minister is quite within his rights to answer the question. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, on a further point of order: Is the matter listed with the High Court or not? Madam SPEAKER —I do not know. Mr Tuckey —The Minister would know. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Minister know whether it is listed with the High Court? Mr Cohen —We have briefed senior counsel and papers are to be lodged this afternoon. Madam SPEAKER —In that case, I think we will let that question go. Mr TIM FISCHER —My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the many broken promises of the Prime Minister, why should the nation trust him for a further term when he said that there would be 5 per cent inflation, when he said that there would be lower interest rates, when he said that there would be no capital gains tax-and there is a capital gains tax-and, above all, when he said that there would be no more early elections? Madam SPEAKER —What is the question? Mr Tim Fischer —I have asked it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The question is: What will be the outcome of the election on 11 July? The answer is that the Hawke Government will be returned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Department of Territories on the operations of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority for the period 28 February 1986 to 30 June 1986. This report includes financial details of the operation of the Belconnen Mall by the Department of Territories between 28 February 1986 and 26 March 1986, the completion of the sale of the Belconnen Mall on 26 March 1986, and the winding up of the affairs of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Treasurer claim to have been misrepresented? Mr KEATING —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) alleged in a question that there had been an accident with my Sydney car. That is true. It happened during a sitting week, and I was informed of the accident a couple of days after it happened. I know nothing about the details of a replacement car. It was replaced by a similar car, and I made no such request as mentioned by the honourable member. It was, as usual, another personal attack on me, because honourable members opposite have no policies. It is the best that this scungy Opposition can do. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer has made his explanation. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CARLTON —I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr CARLTON —During Question Time I asked the Treasurer (Mr Keating) whether it was a fact that no Australian taxpayer earning less than $19,500 per annum would receive a tax cut on 1 July. The Treasurer replied that he did not know whether the member for Mackellar could not read a Government Bill or a tax scale so as to know that the previous tax rate of 46 per cent for those earning under $19,500 falls to 40 per cent. Quite contrary to the Treasurer's assertion, I can read a tax scale. The Treasurer is quite wrong. The rate under $19,500 was formerly 29 per cent and it remains at 29 per cent. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HODGMAN —In the Canberra Times of 26 May last and in a number of other newspapers I have been seriously misrepresented by reports that Australia's leading country and western singer, Slim Dusty, had given permission to the Australian Labor Party to rewrite the classic song I'd love to have a beer with Duncan to use against me in the campaign for the Federal seat of Denison. It is my duty to inform the House that I have been advised that neither the great Slim Dusty nor EMI records has given any permission whatsoever. Mr COBB(Parkes) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr COBB —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr COBB —The paper circulated in my name on a broad-based consumption tax referred to by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) during Question Time today has no status whatsoever in the National Party of Australia either at committee level or at party level. Neither was it a secret paper as the Treasurer implied. I have already spoken on it in the House, as recorded in Hansard. It is purely an expression of my opinion-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member tell the House where he has been misrepresented? Mr COBB —The Treasurer claimed that the paper had status as a Party document. It is purely an expression of my opinion as an individual that we should be moving towards a flat tax in the indirect tax area as well as a flat tax in the direct tax area. Naturally, I am delighted that the Treasurer has read it-- Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Parkes claims that he has been misrepresented by the Treasurer who referred to a docu- ment which he himself had prepared. I submit to you that under the circumstances the honourable member for Parkes could not have been, and certainly has not been, misrepresented. He is now completely out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will hear the completion of the honourable member's explanation. Mr COBB —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Naturally, I am delighted that the Treasurer has read the paper and is giving it some publicity, but in no shape or form is it National Party policy, as the Treasurer implied. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —I was quite horrified today in listening to Question Time while driving from the airport to hear the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) make a most extraordinarily inaccurate statement. The Minister suggested that my Party and I-and he referred to me by name-were in the business of repudiating contracts. For a moment I thought the Minister was talking about the repudiation of the Lemonthyme agreement by the Hawke socialist Government. This is very important. I make the point very clearly that at no stage have the Liberal Party or I ever suggested that the submarine contract would be repudiated. What my colleague the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) has said and repeated in a Press statement-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member cannot make an explanation for another honourable member. He can make an explanation only on his own behalf. Mr HOWARD —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was referred to. The honourable member for McPherson is absent from the House today. The Minister for Defence has accused me of sanctioning the repudiation of contracts. I repudiate that claim. We have said that the submarine contract should not be signed until after the election. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been personally misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation. Mr BEAZLEY —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BEAZLEY —I have been misrepresented in the statement just made to the House by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He suggested that I misled the House with regard to the facts that were outlined by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). I will read from an Australian Associated Press story to demonstrate that misrepresentation. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat for a moment. Mr Spender —I have a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am about to ask the Minister something before we have the honourable member's point of order, if he does not mind. The Minister can refer to where he was misrepresented. He may lead information to prove that, but I do not think he can then debate what the Leader of the Opposition has said. I ask the Minister to tell the House where he was misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr BEAZLEY —The point that was made about me was that I had misled the House in regard to statements made last night by the honourable member for McPherson. That was specifically said by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Howard —My Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The basis of my personal explanation was the allegation of the Minister for Defence that I sanctioned the repudiation of contracts. Mr Beazley —No, no. I did not. Mr Howard —May I finish my point of order? Mr Lionel Bowen —You were not here. Mr Howard —I heard it though. I listen to Question Time when I am not here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! This is getting too convoluted for everybody. Mr Howard —I quietly make the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the whole basis of my personal explanation was that the Minister for Defence had incorrectly claimed that I sanction the repudiation of contracts. I most emphatically reject that on behalf of myself and my Party. If he did not mean that, I am happy to accept his withdrawal. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the Minister now claiming that that is also a misrepresentation? Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is also a misrepresentation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr BEAZLEY —I asked the Leader of the Opposition a question as to whether or not he would sanction the repudiation of contracts and I suspect that he has now given us an answer. The basis of the question was this quotation: Mr White said he stopped short of committing a Coalition Government to repudiating . . . but said there was no guarantee a new government would accept them. That is what was said last night. There was no statement that-- Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Mr Spender —The Minister is abusing the allowance which was given to him by the Chair by referring to a matter which has nothing to do with the personal explanation made by the Leader of the Opposition, who has made it perfectly plain that under no circumstances would he repudiate those sorts of agreements. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is not up to the honourable member for North Sydney to decide whether the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else has made a matter perfectly plain. I think that we have passed this area of interest. I ask the Clerk to call on petitions. 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 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. Consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Brumby,Mr Ronald Edwards,Ms Fatin,Mr Hodges,Mr Milton and Mr Moore. 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 a 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 Beddall,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Hunt and Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent,Mr Saunderson and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should: 1. Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia and 2. Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137 and Cesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependant Spouse Rebate to $1,851 per annum, and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income earning spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beddall and Mr Rocher. 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 Rocher and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, call upon the Government to: 1. obtain from the French Government some form of commitment, which is recognised under international law, that they will not test nuclear devices at the Kerguelen Islands 2. bring this matter to the attention of the United Nations Assembly, if no such commitment is obtained 3. impose trade restrictions on France, including a ban on uranium sales, until a legal commitment is obtained. by Mr Blanchard. 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that the closure of the Killarney Heights post office agency is opposed by local residents and businesses. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the continuation of the Killarney Heights post office agency. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law: (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall the 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members in the House of Representatives assembled, the undersigned citizens call upon all members to pay due respect to pensioners and other recipients of Social Security benefits and to Commonwealth Superannuitants and to cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Government. We call upon the Prime Minister and his Government to take the following action when considering budgetary changes to be announced in May this year. 1. They ensure there is no further erosion of existing benefits to Pensioners and other Social Security recipients and further that they honour their promise to Pensioners made before the last election that pensions be increased to a level equal to 25% of average weekly earnings. 2. That the Government reconsider its action in reducing by two per cent the level of superannuation paid to Commonwealth Superannuitants, retired members of the Defence Services and other eligible Commonwealth Superannuitants. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members in the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any other other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal has been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: We are concerned that the decisions to be taken by Government with regard to the footwear industry in which we work may not recognise the continuation of a form and level of assistance which will maintain the security of our employment. Your petitioners therefore pray that: Every consideration and support will be given to this matter so that we are able to maintain our employment in this industry. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Federal Government immediately divert National Highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray: by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction by the Hawke Labor Government of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Hawke Labor Government to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mortlake showeth concern for current and future funding for road construction in south west Victoria. Your petitioners therefore pray that: The Commonwealth Government increase the moneys allocated to the Victorian State Government for road funding, so as to allow adequate funding for the construction and maintenance of roads within south west Victoria. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: 1. That we, the undersigned, are totally opposed to substantial Federal Government funding presently being wasted on undesirable, inefficient and incompetently run Government projects that are unacceptable to the vase majority of decent Australians. 2. That Government grants should not be directed toward projects that are of no, or dubious, worth to the improvement of Australia. 3. That public funding should not be used in encouraging lifestyles contrary to the Australian family way of life. 4. That public moneys should not be given to minority groups to support projects that are of a direct political nature. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Halt forthwith the public funding for the abovementioned purposes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and the present justice system in this country or in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens of Queensland call upon all Members to pay due respect to returned Service personnel and cease the constant erosion of entitlements by the Hawke Government. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not proceed with its intention to further means test Veterans' disability pensions in order to cut Government spending on Australia's Ex-servicemen and Ex-servicewomen. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher 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 Federal Health Minister's asserting 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 Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth: That taxpayers with dependent children have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of recognition provided in the taxation system for the costs of maintaining a family, in particular. the failure to index family allowances which has resulted in an erosion of more than 50% in their real value since May 1976; the abolition of family allowances for dependants who have turned 18, even those still at school; the abolition of concessional tax rebates for education and other expenses. That this erosion in tax equity has placed an intolerable financial burden on many large families, particularly those on middle incomes who fail to qualify for means-tested benefits such as TEAS but whose living standards are now well below average due to heavy expenses on necessities such as education, housing, food and clothing. Your petitioners humbly pray that: family allowances be restored to the 1976 value (in real terms), and indexed according to the C.P.I.; the dependent spouse rebate be retained; the Federal Government take urgent measures to restore equitable provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the current policy pursued by the Hawke government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. That consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. That unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Caboolture in the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The requirement for people receiving unemployment benefits to present their claim forms personally every two weeks to the Department of Social Security is causing considerable hardship for those people in the Caboolture CES District. The distance from the Caboolture Shire to the Redcliffe Department of Social Security office imposes an unnecessary financial burden in the form of travel expenses on the unemployed. The time involved in the process reduces the time available for the unemployed to seek work actively. We the undersigned call on the Federal Government to implement measures that would allow unemployed people in the Caboolture CES District to leave completed forms at the Caboolture Job Centre for collection by the Department of Social Security. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1986-87 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1986-87 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88 Supply Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Supply Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The abject failure of the Prime Minister to honour his promises to the Australian people. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.18) —Earlier today I had the opportunity of being interviewed on the Midday Show on Channel 9. In answer to a question regarding the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) an exchange took place between me and the interviewer which really epitomises better than anything else one of the great and continuing questions to be asked by the Australian public over the next six and a half weeks. I said to the interviewer that it was ironic that, by 11 July, the Australian public would know what was in the Liberal Party's taxation policy but they would never know what was in Bob Hawke's 1987 Budget. That is a very basic question. The interviewer said to me: `Oh, but he's already brought down the mini-Budget'. I said `What about the revenue side of it?' and he replied: `You don't have to worry about that. The Prime Minister said yesterday that if he was re-elected there would be no increases in taxation in the 1987 Budget.' My reply to that was: `But he said 12 days ago that there was going to be no early election'. That was the end of the exchange. That epitomises what is going to be an underlying issue throughout the whole of this election campaign-the issue of trust, honesty and integrity. That goes to the heart of the choice that must be made by the Australian people. The present Prime Minister is the most shop-soiled promiser in Australia's political history. No man in public life in Australia has made more promises and broken more of those promises than has the present Prime Minister. He may well be carried away with the hype of his own advisers. He may well believe that he has made a slick and smug decision on the timing of the election. However, the reality is that, once again, the Prime Minister has broken his solemn word to the Australian people. Once again, he has demonstrated, with breathtaking speed and clarity, that he is a man whose word is no longer his bond. He has demonstrated to the Australian public that his is the great proponent of the disposable promise. That will be an underlying theme in this election campaign, because in the undoubtedly difficult economic and social circumstances in which our nation now finds itself, more and more the Australian public wants a group of people in whom they can believe and trust. Demonstrably, we are led now by a man who cannot be trusted; we are led by a man who makes promises with reckless indifference to their accuracy or to his capacity to carry them out. I think it is worth while to take the House quietly through the staggering list of broken promises. It is important that we do this not only to demonstrate the number of broken promises but also to show the quite extraordinary emphasis that this man has always placed upon what he sees as his shining integrity in public life. Towards the end of the last session I put together a document called `The Top Ten Disposable Promises'. They epitomise the fact that we are led by a person who makes promises and then casts them like confetti to the wind. The first promise which the Prime Minister made and broke was delivered on 13 November 1984 when he said: We pledge ourselves to bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australian families. Since November 1984 housing interest rates have gone from 11.5 per cent to a record 15.5 per cent and, in some cases, to 16.5 per cent. Monthly repayments on a $50,000 loan have risen by $172 per month. Average loan repayments as a percentage of median family income have gone from 19.2 per cent in March 1983 to a record 26.9 per cent in December 1986, at which time there was a record 154,000 Australians on the waiting list for public housing. So much for the promise of the Prime Minister that he would bring home ownership within the reach of ordinary Australians. But he waxed even more lyrical on the subject of interest rates. A week later, on 20 November 1984, he said: At present, the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. Australia and Australians will, during 1985, reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from successful policies of the past 20 months. We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the near future we will harvest the crop. That language has a faintly familiar ring about it, and we have heard a lot about it. Over the past few days we have heard the same language from both the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister. We heard it at Question Time today from the Treasurer, just as in 1984, when they said: `Don't worry; the conditions are ripe; interest rates will come down'. They heavied the Reserve Bank of Australia before the 1984 election. They started heavying the Reserve Bank from the time that irresponsible 1984 election Budget was brought down. Towards the end of 1984 they engineered a temporary fall in interest rates at the cost of a very slack monetary policy. They went through the election period, and what happened in 1985? Interest rates went through the roof. The nation and this chamber should be on notice that this Government is again in the business of heavying the Reserve Bank to try to bring about an artificial fall in interest rates. I hope that the Reserve Bank of Australia has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the Treasurer and not to be heavied; to tell the Treasurer to go and get lost with his political posturing and his political pressuring of the Reserve Bank. At the moment we are set fair for a repetition of what he endeavoured to do towards the end of 1984. So much for disposable promise No. 2. Disposable promise No. 3 was: We expect inflation will be less than 5 per cent in the year ahead and we are determined to keep it below 5 per cent. I know that the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Government front bench do not like being reminded of these facts. They feign indifference and boredom. The reality is that they will hear a lot more about these facts over the next 6 1/2 weeks, because these facts represent the nailing of the final shreds of the credibility of the man who is now Prime Minister of Australia. He made that statement on 20 November 1984, and we all know that our inflation rate is now almost double the figure that he undertook it would be when he made that commitment in November 1984. Now we have an inflation rate which has almost doubled since he made that promise. It is four times the average of countries like Japan and West Germany; it is four times the average of our major trading partners and it is the worst, relative to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in the past 30 years. So much for fulfilling the promise of lower interest rates. We all remember that in the 1983 campaign, particularly when he opened the rural campaign for the Labor Party, he promised that there would be a reduction of 4c or 5c in the price of fuel. During the 1983 election campaign he misled every single farmer in Australia. What happened to that promise? As soon as he came to power, that was thrown out the window also. Disposable promise No. 5 relates to something that is very important to the future of this country and that of the job prospects of young Australians. In his address to the nation on 18 August 1985 the Prime Minister stated: In the coming year 10,000 traineeships will be made available . . . our aim of 75,000 young people in traineeships will be achieved in the bicentennial year. Mr Cobb —What happened? Mr HOWARD —I will tell the honourable member what happened. By September 1986, a year after that promise was made, only 2,025 young people had been found work and only 58 of those jobs were to be found in the private sector. The Prime Minister also dishonoured a promise which he made in 1983 to increase and index the dependent spouse rebate as well as the sole parent rebate. On 13 November 1984 the Prime Minister said: And I now give this undertaking-that for the term of our next Government- that is the government which was elected in December 1984 and whose term will expire on 11 July 1987- the Medicare levy will not be increased. In the 1986-87 Budget the Medicare levy was lifted from 1 per cent to 1.25 per cent. Disposable promise No. 8 concerns the trilogy-the centrepiece of the Government's economic campaign in the 1984 election. Those opposite talk about disclosure of policy. Their economic policy for the 1984 election was the trilogy. They do not even mention it. Months ago the Treasurer said that it was dead. So much for the veracity of election promises made by the Prime Minister and by the Treasurer. The Prime Minister said: In our next three year term of Government the overall level of taxation will not increase as a proportion of gross domestic product. That statement was made by the Prime Minister at the National Press Club on 29 November 1984. Yet that promise was consciously broken by the Government in 1984-85 and 1986-87. Of course, breaking the trilogy promises raised $1,000m additional tax in the current financial year. Many rural people, particularly the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) and the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond), will be well aware of the blatant way in which the Prime Minister, through his teeth, misled the wine producers of Australia. If he really believes that a tax on wine is something that was justified, why did he not have the honesty not to mislead the wine producers of Australia, as he did on many occasions during the 1983 election campaign? Of course, the daddy of them all is the one relating to capital gains tax. We all remember the contortions of the Prime Minister in relation to the capital gains tax. He once argued in favour of it before the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party. At the same conference of the ALP the current Treasurer argued against it. Then, the Prime Minister changed his stance and went before the public on 16 February 1983 and said: And here let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it; and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion. There will be no new capital gains tax. That completes the top 10 disposable promises of this Prime Minister, who has elevated disposable policies to a political art form. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the integrity, trust and credibility of the Prime Minister will be a major issue on which the Australian public will make a decision over the next 6 1/2 weeks? He has given away his believability and has broken too many promises, even by his own past standards. In a cynical way, he has sought to manufacture excuses for an early election and to run from his responsibilities of telling the Australian public what might have been in his 1987 Budget. The cynical way in which he has behaved entitles the Opposition and many Australians to ask: `What on earth are you hiding? What on earth are you concealing from the Australian people? What do you not have the courage to tell the Australian people before the election?'. The cynical way in which he has broken his promise not to have an early election puts the final nail in the coffin of the fast diminishing credibility of this Prime Minister. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.31) —I can hardly believe that the closing words uttered by the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), were `integrity', `trust' and `credibility', and that he asked the Government what it was concealing from the Australian people before the election. Those were the words of a man who brought down a Budget with an outcome of $1.5 billion in prospect, went through the 1983 election campaign knowing that the next deficit would be about $9.5 billion, but shut up about it. I do not know how he can accuse the Government of sitting on anything during the election campaign. It was a critical election campaign in 1983, with double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, a massive collapse in confidence and a blow-out in the current account deficit. Yet in August 1982, the honourable member brought in a Budget with an outcome in prospect of $1.4 billion, and by March 1983 was sitting mum during the last 10 days of that critical election campaign knowing that the Secretary to the Treasury had told him that the forthcoming Budget deficit would be $9.6 billion. The honourable member talks about integrity, trust, credibility and concealing matters from the Australian public-he should hang his head in shame. He lectures us, but with his record in Australian public life, he should not even be in Parliament. Anyone with any self-respect would have exonerated himself, struck himself off the list, and said: `Look, I have played and lost and I am out'. But no, not the honourable member for Bennelong-little Johnny Howard. Back he comes, saying: `Don't worry about 11.5 per cent inflation or 11 per cent unemployment; don't worry that we have just consigned half a million families to the unemployment scrapheap. I will line up for the Leader of the Opposition and I will knife the existing Leader, Peacock, and say that he has no ideas and that I am the ideas man. It is just that I could never get anything through the Fraser Cabinet because that rotten Malcolm Fraser kept swatting all my good ideas'. A good idea from Howard-swat, swat, swat from the former Prime Minister. We know that the former Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, could not get any structural change through the Fraser Cabinet, any more than he could get the television policy through his Opposition party last week. He is the classic non-deliverer of Australian politics. He is the one person who just cannot cut the mustard. The game is too hard for him. Lurking in this chest is not a heart for the political fight, but a split pea. He cannot make the changes in Australian public life that the nation needs. The honourable member spoke about the Prime Minister and his record. The country knows where the Government stands on fiscal policy-we have brought down the statement. It knows where it stands on tax-we had a summit, a statement later and we then introduced legislation. Our tax changes are the law of the land; they are not speculation, not some part of a cheap grab bag to buy votes. We are not concealing our position, it is clear for all to see. The Leader of the Opposition is nearly two years into his leadership-he was elected in September 1985, the month that I brought down the tax reform statement-yet in the intervening period until now, what have we learned about his tax policy? Not one thing. He is still crafting something that is tricky and vote catching. He is repeating his 1977 number. I am sure that honourable members remember the campaign-ring up and find out how much the tax cuts will be. That was the bait of the 1977 election when the honourable member became Treasurer, yet in May 1978 he took away those tax cuts. There is one thing about the Ash Street Liberals-they only know electoral cynicism. They do not know about public good, high standing public policy or structural change. The Leader of the Opposition comes from from the school of the red arrows, the downward thrust of China in the 1966 campaign, the state aid debate, the F111s, the Petrov Royal Commission-that is his heritage. The 1977 fistful of dollars is the Howard heritage. His training came from his mentor, Sir John Carrick, and the rest of the Askin Liberal Party of the day. Now, at a critical time in Australia's national history, with a terms of trade collapse of staggering proportions, of structural changes of the greatest importance in the post-war years, we have just another vote-catching Liberal, another common or garden, cynical, slinking, vote-catching Liberal with another fistful of dollars to buy votes. There is no high-minded purpose, no support for the Government's fiscal policy, no structural change, no contribution to the ideas market, no standing strong in the Senate in support of good policy, national policy, needed policy-no, he has run doggo on the lot, he has laid back. In the last couple of weeks, he is ripping out from his pocket another handful of dollars to sucker the public. Do not worry about the Prime Minister-he is out there trying to give people a clean and decent tax system. He is taking the rorts out of it-the fringe benefits, entertainment, free cars, free lunches, overclaimed expenses and free capital gains. The Opposition says: `Why ball that out? That is fair stuff, we are not having that. If it is fair-out'. What are we back to? It is the old, rotten borough politics of the Liberal Party. Before 1982, when the Australian tax system fell apart under the onslaught of the criminal evasion schemes-not the clever avoidance schemes-the Leader of the Opposition had to be dragged here by the McCabe-Lafranchi and the Costigan reports to change them. But he left them there so that his crowd, the burghers of Toorak and Vaucluse, could slip through the holes in the tax system-like holes in a lump of gruyere cheese-so that they did not have to pay their due taxes. The Hawke Government says that if it is now time to ask someone in the railways yards at Chullora on $17,000 a year to pay his taxes, it is about time that someone living in Toorak with a heap of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd shares paid tax on them. But the Liberal Party says: `No, no. We will give them that free and, on top of that, we will give them a 35 per cent tax rate'. That would be paid for by smashing the education system and wrecking Medicare so that the working class people with children who are sick cannot wake up confident that they can look after their children's health. The Opposition would wipe out funding for colleges of advanced education, universities, Catholic schools and the private schools. It would decimate the Commonwealth's expenditure system-- Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a Catholic, I object to that, and I ask him to withdraw it. He should not come in here lecturing and preaching on tax. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no point of order.The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —He is a tax cheat and he should be in prison. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr KEATING —This is serious. There is no question of the public good, of uplifting, noble public policy, from the Opposition-none of that. What we now have from the Opposition is a blatant attempt to go back to the pre-1982 tax system but to go there the legal way. The Opposition will rip out the Hawke Government's capital gains tax, rip out the fringe benefits tax and rip out the entertainment and substantiation provisions. It will knock out all of that fair stuff and give all the people battling in Toorak and Vaucluse, with their enormous stocks in the stock market, a 35 per cent tax rate. It will do that by ripping money off the kids in Blacktown in the public schools, by wrecking Medicare, wrecking age pensions, wrecking support and community services, wrecking hostel accommodation, wrecking the nursing homes, wrecking the home and community care services, the domiciliary services and smashing the Commonwealth expenditure system-all because it believes that the rich are not rich enough. The Liberal Party tried to have us believe that it was the `party of the majority'. It thought people would believe that nonsense. In 1987 it is proposing a 35 per cent tax rate at a cost of about $8 billion. If that is not financed by the route of cutting expenditure and the Opposition opts to go for the indirect tax route, it will require a 12 per cent consumption tax, which will mean another major loss in the purchasing power and income of the average family. In the House the other day I gave the figures for the enormous cost of a consumption tax. It would cost up to $27 a week for a two-income family on above average weekly earnings and with a couple of children. The income of such families would be ripped to shreds in the supermarkets of this country by a consumption tax. That is where the Liberal Party stands today. Basically, it stands for getting its hands on the public moneys of this country in order to give them back to the rich. It is almost unbelievable that in 1987, in these days of economic stress, economic change, economic reconstruction and economic sacrifice, the Opposition should so blatantly come out with a policy which is about featherbedding the rich. This is what the Opposition Leader has always stood for. That is why he never did anything about the tax system before 1982. That is why he let it fall into disrepute and disrepair. He had the nerve on Ray Martin's program to talk about what would be in the Hawke Government's Budget. Let me remind him that at a Press conference on 9 March he was asked: To what degree do you have to cut Government spending? The Leader of the Opposition replied: Far beyond. I think in the Mini-Budget they should take at least $4 billion out of Federal Government spending. He set a task that he thought the Government would not meet-but it did. As the Government has met his $4 billion task, he is now trying to promote the mistruth that there is a need to cut X more billions, for some horror Budget. What a lot of nonsense! This Government is not going to this election saying: `Our Budget will come down in August'. We have done the decent thing and said: `Here is the May statement. These are the measures. These are the reconciliation tables. This is where we stand'. The Prime Minister and I have said that there will be no new taxes and no tax increases in the Budget-full stop. But where is the Opposition's policy? Why is it not out? The Leader of the Opposition is going to try, in the heat of the election battle, to slide it in because he thinks that it will not be given the usual kind of scrutiny and that he will be able to get his hands on some votes. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his Party. I have grown up in this Parliament with him since 1974. His pretence that he stands for something in policy almost makes me sick! For years I thought that he did stand for something ennobling in policy. But he does not-and he never did. He was just pulling the wool over everyone's eyes, including Peacock's. Peacock may have been a lightweight, but he is an elegant lightweight. Now we have an inelegant lightweight-but, worse, one who has no semblance of policy. Do honourable members recall the famous policy speech to the National Press Club in September 1985, before he was made leader, when we had the Howard agenda from this ideas man? But what have we seen, nearly two years from that time, in 1987? We are left with nothing. He cannot even get support for the Government's deregulated television policy. He is in favour of deregulation but he cannot even get enough backing for that. The truth is that he does not stand for anything. He has opposed every decent bit of legislation that we have put up. He knocked off the Australia Card in the Senate when we tried to reap $1 billion from the rorters. He has stood against every decent piece of legislation that the Government has proposed in the last few years. He thinks that he can climb out of his hole with a grab-bag tax policy at the election and offer a fistful of dollars to the people of Toorak and Vaucluse and the high income suburbs of this country who have massive stock exchange gains. All I say to him is: `You will come a gutser from the decent people of this country who do not want to see spending on education smashed, who do not want their health protection smashed, who do not want to see indexed pensions torn up, who do not want to see hostel accommodation ripped apart, who are not prepared to see nursing homes cast asunder, along with domiciliary care, child care and all the rest. They do not want a consumption tax to rip the heart out of their savings at the supermarket and they do not want a 15 per cent inflation rate'. This Government has a record to be proud of. That is more than we can say for the people on the other side and we will not be shamed into moving away from our record. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Holding-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.47) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1987), Customs Tariff Proposals No. 13 (1987) and Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Proposals No. 1 (1987). The tariff proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921, the Customs Tariff Act 1982 and the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1987), Customs Tariff Proposals No. 13 (1987) and Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Proposals No. 1 (1987) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by notices published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette during the recent recess. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1987), operative on and from 16 May 1987, provide for altered rates of excise duty on certain refined petroleum products resulting from the Government's decisions on the pricing of indigenous crude oil and related issues. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 13 (1987), operative on and from the same date, provide for corresponding alterations to rates of customs duty. Rates of diesel fuel rebate have also been altered in conjunction with the changes I have just outlined. Eligible primary production continues to attract a 100 per cent duty rebate and the altered rate for eligible mining operations effectively means no change in duty payable. Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Proposals No. 1 (1987), operative on and from 16 May 1987, relate to a minor technical amendment to the definition of high quality coking coal in the Act. The Act provides for the application of an export duty on high quality coking coal. Because of a change in overseas market conditions the Act is having the unintended effect of making liable for duty certain blends of coal currently being marketed as steaming coal. Government policy intends the coal export duty to apply only to exports of high quality coking coal to steel industry users. The amendment removes the liability for duty from exports of certain coal currently classified as steaming coal for export purposes, while leaving unchanged the duty status of high quality coking coals. Summaries of alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987 provides for the validation until 31 December 1987 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 10, 11 and 12 (1987) which were introduced into the House of Representatives on 7 May 1987, and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 13 (1987), and Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Proposals No. 1 (1987) which were introduced today. Under section 226 of the Customs Act 1901 the collection of duties in pursuance of Customs tariff proposals is protected against legal challenge for 12 months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first. The introduction and passage of a validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure to protect the collection of the duties which have been introduced by the proposals. The tariff changes contained in the Customs tariff proposals arise from the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on luggage and vegetables and vegetable products; the granting of duty free entry to gas barbecues and parts therefor of New Zealand origin; and the variation in customs duty rates on imported petroleum products to align with changes in the excise duty on equivalent locally produced goods. The change contained in the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Proposals corrects an unintended situation where certain blends of coal currently being marketed as steaming coal were being subject to an export duty. Financial Impact Because the validation of the changes contained in the proposals merely continues their application, the Bill has no financial impact as such. I commend the Bill to the House. I tender the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1987 provides for the validation until 31 December 1987 of duties collected in pursuance of Excise Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1987) which were introduced into the House of Representatives today. Under section 114 of the Excise Act 1901 the collection of duties in pursuance of excise tariff proposals is protected against legal challenge for 12 months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first. The introduction and passage of a validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure to protect the collection of the duties which have been introduced by the proposals. Financial Impact The changes contained in the excise tariff proposals increased the duties on locally produced petroleum products because of a fall in the price of indigenous crude oil under the Government's import parity pricing policy. The change in the levels of excise was designed to offset the changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty. I commend the Bill to the House and tender the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Uren-by leave-and read a first time. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(3.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill amends the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 to implement the decision announced in the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 13 May to introduce a system of quarterly instalments for the payment of the Commonwealth's general purpose assistance for local government. This amendment will apply with effect from 1987-88. A system of quarterly instalments will enable the Commonwealth to better match outlays and receipts resulting in a saving in public debt interest payments due to a reduced financing task within each year. As the Treasurer indicated in his statement on 13 May, a sustainable recovery in Australia's economic fortunes requires governments at all levels to exercise restraint. The introduction of a system of quarterly payments to local government complements the decisions to cut back on the Commonwealth's own purpose outlays and the decisions taken at the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meetings on 25 May 1987 to cut back on the Commonwealth's general purpose payments to the States. Under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986, the amount of general purpose assistance in 1987-88 will be escalated in line with the change in the consumer price index in the year to the March quarter 1988 over the previous year. Previously, the Commonwealth has made a payment, usually during September, to each of the States and the Northern Territory, for distribution to local governing bodies of their estimated annual entitlements; that is, a single lump sum early in the financial year. The amendment provided for in this Bill will mean, so far as practicable, that annual entitlements will be paid in equal quarterly instalments. The Government proposes to make these payments no later than 15 of August, November, February and May respectively. It will not be possible, however, to make a quarterly payment by mid-August in 1987. This payment will be made at the same time as in previous years, that is, normally before the end of September. The new arrangements will mean that, from 1988-89, the first payment to local government will occur at least four weeks earlier than had previously been the case. The changes in this Bill will not affect the amount being provided to local government under the Act, but there will be some loss of benefit to local government, principally as a result of interest revenue forgone. This is possibly the last time I will speak to the Parliament as Minister responsible for local government. It has been a privilege for me to serve in this capacity. I have great faith in local government. I am proud of the record of our Government with regard to local government and I am confident that our co-operative achievements will endure and that local government will continue to evolve as a responsive and responsible partner in the democratic government of our nation. I am proud to say that I was a Minister of the Whitlam Labor Government that introduced untied grants to local government back in 1974. In that year we made $56m available to local government. I am proud to say that in the year ahead of us the amount made available in untied grants to local government will be around $640m. So over the years I have been in politics, and also under my stewardship, I have seen the evolutionary development and growth of local government. I have seen local government develop from kerbing and guttering, through roads and garbage to the broad human services. I have great faith that in the long term, through the democratic process, there will be a great future for human services and the broadening of the responsibility of local government. It gives me some pride to have been a part of that historical development. I commend the Bill to the House and I table the explanatory memorandum. Madam SPEAKER —I would like to add to the Minister's remarks that it is sad for the House to have him addressing it today for the last time and he is right to have had pride in his achievements. Mr Uren —With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I said that this is possibly my last contribution. I might say that, if the Leader of the House gives me the opportunity, I will make a statement before I leave this Parliament about the achievement of our Government in local government but as you know, Madam Speaker, next week will be a hurly-burly and I may not have the opportunity. Madam SPEAKER —That is why I made my point. I might not get a chance either. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(4.02) —On behalf of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without it having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Rationalisation and redevelopment of property holdings in Tokyo. Honourable members will be aware that the Government places great emphasis on the centralised strategic management of its property assets at home and abroad. The Commonwealth's property estate is continually reviewed to ensure that the best use is made of its assets. In this context, it is possible to make more efficient use of the valuable and prestigious embassy site in Tokyo, by building new accommodation and bringing together government functions which are currently dispersed. At the same time the Government will receive a very substantial return to revenue and significant ongoing savings. The redevelopment will provide new office accommodation, an official residence, 50 units of staff housing and recreation facilities. This will be financed by the sale of an adjacent block of staff apartments. An integrated development is envisaged which is sensitive to important aspects of the site, such as the traditional Japanese garden, and which improves the environment and amenity of the site. The return to revenue will result from the sale of long-term lease of that part of the embassy site not required for this development. The receipt of funds from the disposal of land in Tokyo is linked to the composite development of the total site. It is the Government's intention that funds from disposal be received prior to the end of the financial year 1987-88. This is an extremely tight timetable and invitations to register interest are currently being issued to consortia with the demonstrated capacity to undertake a development of this nature. A second element of urgency exists in that there are substantial cost savings to be achieved from the proposed development, and delays in finalising the work would significantly reduce these savings. We are presently paying over $4m a year to lease residential and office accommodation in Tokyo. It is proposed that accommodation to meet these needs will be provided on site. Also the present chancery accommodation is inadequate and inappropriate to our needs. This Government believes it is necessary that we take this opportunity to provide accommodation which reflects the importance of the relationship between Australia and Japan. Due to the urgent nature of the proposal, it is the Government's view that exemption under section 18 (8) (b) of the Public Works Committee Act be sought. Accordingly, and following advice from the Attorney-General's Department, officers from my Department and the departments of Housing and Construction and Finance met with the Public Works Committee yesterday and I understand that the Committee has no objection to an exemption from the Act on the ground of urgency. Should the House agree to support this motion, negotiations can continue expeditiously towards formalising contracts for these works. In commending the motion to the House, I should like to thank all members of the Public Works Committee for the prompt consideration that they have given to this matter. I commend the motion to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.06) —The Opposition opposes this proposal for a shortening of the procedures of the Parliament. We have seen enough of that in this place. We have conceded to the Government on the point of its submarine program because of its great importance but we do not think this proposal has the same level of importance to national defence or anything else. If it were so important, the Government should have presented it to Parliament some time ago or otherwise had an election at a later date so that the procedures could have been completed properly. I direct attention to some of the statements that have just been made by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who said: There will be a very substantial return to revenue and significant ongoing savings. If the mini-Budget is correct, no doubt that will occur but there is certainly no evidence before this House. The Public Works Committee Act of 1969 is quite specific about these arrangements. It says that a public work, the estimated cost of which exceeds $2m, is to be dealt with in a particular way. We have heard figures of hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars for this proposal but the Minister's statement does not even do the House the courtesy of telling it how much the proceeds and the costs might be. I think to do that would be reasonable. That is why we have a Public Works Committee, to inquire into these arrangements and ensure that the Australian taxpayer gets the best possible deal. I suppose we are also to understand that the `very substantial return to revenue' means exactly that and that the proceeds of selling what might be called the family jewels-the properties of the Australian people-are to be consumed in ordinary current expenditure. The Minister went on to say: . . . which is sensitive to important aspects of the site, such as the traditional Japanese garden. We do not know what is to happen with the Japanese garden. We understand it is of great importance in Tokyo and gives great prestige to our embassy. We do not know what will happen about it. It is apparently one of the few gardens that is available in the centre of Tokyo. The Minister continued: The return to revenue will result from the sale or long-term lease of that part of the embassy site not required for this development. Surely Parliament has some say in that but we are not even told whether the Government intends to sell it or to lease it, yet the Government wants a blanket approval from this place to rush in and do whatever the Executive Government thinks is best. To be quite honest, the Opposition, and I in particular, do not trust the Executive Government in these delicate matters. We have looked at its leadership and we do not see one person who is qualified in these financial matters who could take these sorts of decisions and we assert the right of the Parliament to have the say provided for it in the Public Works Committee Act 1969. There is no need for this urgency, other than the Government's desperate need for money and to spend the money so that Government members can strut around the community saying that by one means or another they have reduced expenditure. They do not say: `We have this funny arrangement whereby we sell Australia's assets and get the revenue and then we boast that we are going to reduce expenditure'. No, they intend to spend the money, but that is a separate part of the problem. The problem for us is that we are not being told how this procedure will develop. We see, of course, that it is the Government's intention that the funds from the disposal will be received prior to the end of 1987-88. That is what all this rush is about, as I have just said, and it is admitted in the Minister's statement. He is saying quite clearly that the Government wants the money, and wants it for current expenditure. He says further on page 2: A second element of urgency exists in that there are substantial cost savings to be achieved from the proposed development, and delays in finalising the work would significantly reduce these savings. We are presently paying over $4m a year to lease residential and office accommodation in Tokyo. That is a huge amount of money, but we are not told what the cost of the net value will be. We are not told what the cost to the Australian taxpayer of these new facilities will be. We certainly do not know the extent to which there might be cost overruns or no investigation of the building activity in Tokyo, and how all this will be achieved. I know that there are some constraints on time and I am of the opinion that I must give time to the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) on this issue. We are very much opposed to this move. It is not urgent in the context of the submarine situation. It is an issue that could be dealt with at another time. The only urgency is the Government's decision to have an expedient early election, contrary to the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) because he does not want us to look at his Budget and at the gold tax that he will probably bring in if the Government gets back in. We, therefore, oppose this proposal. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.11) —The National Party of Australia, together with the Liberal Party of Australia, does not accept this proposal as rational or sensible, and it will not go ahead when we are in government. Commercially, there is nothing more important than our relationship with Japan. People in the Government do not seem to comprehend that status and respect for tradition, heritage and culture, for all that those things are important, are tremendously significant to the Japanese. This particular property was bought fortunately some years ago, and brought in such a way that the Australian people were able to acquire one of the great gardens of Tokyo. Those fortunate to have seen it will know that there is a magnificent old well of traditional significance to the Japanese. The ancient trees, the water and the fish that live in the stream, the very character of the land, are such that it should never be redeveloped. For this Government to want not only to sell it but indeed to push it through without the Joint Committee on Public Works considering it, reflects little understanding of the basis by which Australians for the future ought to be able to develop their own culture and respect the culture of others. It demonstrates how little understanding or comprehension this Government has for matters of such significance, and I am afraid it puts into proper perspective the incorrect, wrong and blatant actions it has pursued, supposedly to protect the Australian heritage. I feel particularly sad that it is the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) who has introduced this, for I know of his love of heritage and the work he wants to do in that respect. I commend him, as he has made his last speech as Minister in this place. I am afraid many of his colleagues are doing the same thing. In his instance I would like to commend him for his interest in local government. As an old colleague, I respect many of the contributions he has made. The only regret I have is that he has made them for the wrong side. Unfortunately, in that sense they have been contributions that on occasions have had a political bias with which I have found myself in total disagreement. But he has made a worthwhile contribution towards local government, and I commend him and wish him well. As to this particular measure, I am afraid that there is no basis on which members of the National Party would support the view that it is reasonable that there should be expedition of its consideration, nor do we believe it reasonable that there should be rationalisation and redevelopment of that magnificent old garden. I understand that part of the project relates to the redevelopment of the home. Perhaps that might be supportable, but the proposal for any redevelopment of the garden is not and the National Party is totally opposed to this measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.15) —I have obtained material under the Freedom of Information Act that relates to the controversial decision to proceed with the ceremony for the proclamation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act at the Australian War Memorial on 22 May 1986. On that very day I raised a question without notice expressing concern over the use of the Memorial for this function. It emerged in the report of the inquiry into the Australian War Memorial, and I quote: In the circumstances, the conclusions by the Director and his staff that the function was being held at the Memorial as a result of ministerial direction does not seem unreasonable. In fact, there was a minute from Miss Cynthia Martin, a senior staff member of the Minister's office, detailed in the report which said, and I quote: He- that is the Minister- would like a ceremony arranged at the War Memorial. In considering the freedom of information material which has now become available, we must first examine what the Minister said in the Senate. On 29 May 1986 the Department then made a decision that a suitable place for the proclamation ceremony would be the Australian War Memorial. On 14 November 1986, the Minister said: Never at any time did I direct the Australian War Memorial to perform a function or to make its premises available for the function. It was a decision of the Department to hold the function. It was the decision of the Department that it should be held at the Australian War Memorial. It was then the responsibility of the Department . . . Never at any stage was it a ministerial direction. Finally, on 18 November 1986, Senator Gietzelt said: I know of no occasion when any recommendation was made to me that the ceremony could not be held at the Australian War Memorial. Now, these statements sit very unhappily with vital FOI material, which I obtained for the price of $225.20 of my own money in order to get to the bottom of this matter. At folio 17, there is a memo from Mr J. Bright to Cynthia Martin, which details a number of venues which could be utilised for such a ceremony. I explain that Mr John Bright is the Public Relations and Publicity Officer of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and Miss Cynthia Martin is a senior staff member in the Minister's office. Folio 17 mentions possible venues as being the Australian War Memorial, Parliament House, the RSL National Headquarters, Anzac House in Civic, General Morshead War Veterans' Home or the Department of Veterans' Affairs regional office. This is a formal record of alternative venues being made available by the Department to the Minister's office. At folio 19 there is a note to the Deputy Secretary to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, again from Mr John Bright, which says in part: On Friday, 2 May, I telephoned the Australian War Memorial to discuss the possibility of using some part of it for the ceremony on 22 May. When I arrived, the Director, Air Vice Marshall Flemming, asked to see me about the background to the ceremony and to offer his views. He pointed out that, to date, the memorial had only ever been used for purposes directly related to its activities and he was concerned that the Australian War Memorial could be criticised for being the venue of a political statement. He asked that it be made quite clear that it was the choice of the Minister and that the VEA announcement was to highlight benefits to veterans and their dependants. He asked me to pass his thoughts to the Minister, which I did through a meeting with Cynthia Martin later in the day. These extracts from folio 19 are crucial, as they indicate that on Friday, 2 May, the Director of the War Memorial, Jim Flemming, had informed the Public Relations and Publicity Officer, Mr John Bright, that he objected to the use of the Memorial for the reasons mentioned in folio 19. As a consequence of this FOI material, we now know that this objection was conveyed direct to a senior staff member in the Minister's office, and it would be stretching the imagination beyond the bounds of credibility to assume that the senior staff member did not, in her normal, efficient and effective way, place that recorded objection before the Minister and discuss, if only briefly, alternative venues. It is clear that the Minister had a distinct and determined preference for using the War Memorial against advice from the Memorial conveyed through the Department. In these circumstances, it would be very unusual in the extreme for the function to proceed at the proposed venue of the War Memorial over objections from the Memorial, but it did because it was the Minister's direction. This aspect finally led to a formal letter dated 9 May from Mr John Bright to the Director, which says, and I quote from folio 49: The Minister has now confirmed that he wishes to proceed with the ceremony at that location on Thursday, 22 May at 2.30 p.m. The Minister cannot have it both ways. If he maintains his position that he had nothing to do with the choice of venue and was not aware of objections and alternative venues then he is accusing a senior officer of his Department, the Director of Public Relations and Publicity, Mr John Bright, of writing a letter on 9 May containing an absolute falsehood. What is more significant is folio 37, which says: Cynthia Martin confirmed this morning that the Minister has agreed to the arrangements set out in my Minute of 6 May. It is clear that Mr John Bright was completely correct in drafting and signing a formal letter to the Memorial on 9 May stating: The Minister has now confirmed that he wishes to proceed with the ceremony at that location, i.e. the Australian War Memorial. This is particularly so as the recorded minute indicated the basis for the issue of that letter. The Minister must respond in the Senate and I invite him to do so before the dissolution of the Parliament. Clearly, a prima facie case must be addressed about the comments made by the Minister in the Senate on the one hand which sit very unhappily with the FOI material worth $225.20, which indicated, finally, on a crucial minute dated 22 April: The Minister has requested a major launch of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill to coincide with the proclamation on 8 May. He would like a ceremony arranged at the War Memorial. My case rests. This is another example of a classic Yes Minister situation, and I regret that the Minister has gone down this particular path. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(4.20) —I raise a matter which, firstly, reflects badly on the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Government; secondly, devalues the work done by members of parliament; and, thirdly, abuses the vulnerable and desperate in our community. It concerns the activities of a Mr Leslie Hardy who heads a firm called Hardy's Investigations. This firm advertises daily in a leading Sydney newspaper under the heading `Immigration'. The advertisement states: We are a firm of professionals and specialise in the following: Change of Status Fiance Visas Sponsorship Overseas Any Immigration problem For the information of honourable members I seek leave to table a copy of the advertisement from the Sydney Daily Telegraph of Tuesday, 12 May 1987. Leave granted. Mr MOUNTFORD —My involvement with Mr Hardy occurred when he sent one of his clients, a Korean man, Mr Young Hur, to my office because of the pending deportation of Mr Hur following Mr Hardy's shoddy and unprofessional handling of his appeal to the review panel for reconsideration of Mr Hur's rejected change of status application. Mr Hur desperately wanted to remain in Australia and, being vulnerable and unaware of the assistance provided by members of parliament and other agencies free of charge, paid Mr Hardy $1,000 to provide him with professional and specialist services. What he got was a rip-off. Mr Hardy failed to lodge the appeal with the review panel within the 14 days stipulated. It was therefore not even accepted. I raised this case with the investigations section of the Department and was surprised to find that this man, who was advertising his specialist services daily, was up on four charges of fraud and four charges of uttering forged documents to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. He was obviously well known to the Department. Apparently, Mr Hardy deals with hundreds of cases at a time. His services include the introduction by mail to prospective brides and the introduction of change of status applicants to unmarried Australian citizens. In one of the cases under investigation, Mr Hardy charged two families seeking change of status $5,000 each, telling them he had discounted his normal charge because there were two of them. Apparently, he indicated to the families that he had a senior contact in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and had a Federal MP on side, the clear implication being that he needed the money to pay them off. In regard to the case concerning Mr Hur, I was advised that the original application for change of status was also under investigation. The Department believed that the signature of the justice of the peace who witnessed the application was fraudulent, in which case the whole application was invalid. In retrospect, Mr Hur said that no one had witnessed his signature in writing, although at the time he did not realise this needed to be done. This matter has now been referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. This is not a simple matter. It involves illegality, allegations of corruption and deception, not to mention the financial and emotional abuse of vulnerable people. This Government has done much to strengthen the image of Federal departments as a fair and helpful Public Service. People such as Mr Hardy make a mockery of this effort. He convinces people that in order to get a fair hearing with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs they must pay inordinate sums of money to a so-called expert. At present the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has the authority under section 48 of the Migration Act to prevent Mr Hardy from continuing to advertise his services. From information that I and his own Department can provide, I feel sure that the Minister has every ground to do so. Such action may at least reduce the number of people being taken for a ride by Hardy's Investigations pending the court hearing later this year. I also mention my concern over proposed changes to this section of the Migration Act which will rescind the power of the Minister to act in cases such as this. The draft provision apparently relies on market forces to control any abuse. But when one is dealing with susceptible people willing to pay any amount to be assured of permission to live in Australia, market forces simply do not apply. I urge the Minister to reject such proposals. I also request the Minister to take appropriate action under the Act to stop Mr Hardy advertising his so-called services and so protect vulnerable people from his dishonest and callous actions. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(4.24) —I congratulate the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) on revealing those incidents. I think that all of us who have been involved with immigration cases have suspected at times that there are people in a industry misleading people who want to become immigrants to this country into believing that there are ways of doing it when in fact all they are doing is taking down vulnerable people. I hope that the honourable member's efforts are rewarded. I also rise to speak on the subject of immigration and to correct the grotesque misrepresentation of the Liberal Party's policy on immigration and ethnic affairs given today in Question Time by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). The Minister, of course, assists the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) in case histories and is quite familiar with immigration principles and procedures. In a quite spurious answer to a question, the Minister attempted to portray the Liberal Party's policy on immigration and ethnic affairs as anti-family and anti-refugee. He quoted selectively from it and attempted to make much play on a few words. For the information of the House, I shall read the sections of the policy which refer to families and refugees. It states: The next Liberal government will continue family reunion and humanitarian immigration programs. However, increases in the level of immigration should aim at attracting migrants who are younger and who are either skilled, knowledgeable or educated, and employable. People who possess financial resources or entrepreneurial skills will be particularly encouraged. Of course, that refers to increases in the program. It continues: The basis of our immigration and ethnic affairs policy must always be the national interest of Australia and its people, accompanied by a compassionate and sensible recognition of our international responsibilities and an acceptance of our humanitarian obligations to the world community. In a section of the policy headed `The Nine Principles' reference is made to principles which have remained unchanged for the last 10 years and this therefore contains nothing new. These words have been in the Liberal Party's policies for a very long time. In this section, the following words appear: Migrant entry criteria should be developed on the basis of the economic and social benefit to the Australian community for people other than those admitted for family reunion or as refugees. In other words, matters pertaining to family reunion or refugees are considered to be special cases. It goes on to say: Applicants should be considered for immigration as individuals or individual family units, not as community groups. An exception will be refugees in designated refugee situations, although even in such circumstances the criteria for selection will be related to the characteristics of individual applicants. That has been the principle of refugee programs of this country under Liberal and Labor governments for many years. The sixth principle is enunciated as follows: The standard for eligibility and suitability of migrants should reflect Australian social mores and Australian law. Polygamous unions will not be accepted, nor the entry of child fiances or fiancees. The concept of `immediate family' for eligibility purposes will be derived from the Australian norm, that is, the unit consisting of husband, wife, unmarried children and aged parents. I reiterate that those principles have applied to our immigration programs for years. Mr Holding —What about brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews? Mrs SULLIVAN —As the Minister knows very well, it does not exclude brothers and sisters or nieces and nephews. Under our program they would have no less priority than would be the case under the Labor Party's policy-which has involved a continual downgrading of migrants, I might say. The only special treatment provided to families involves, of course, the immediate family-which matter I have referred to. The policy statement goes on to say: Family reunion will continue and we will provide opportunities for independent retirees . . . If there is one group that this Government has cut out, and it cut it out very quickly after it came to power in March 1983, it is the sibling of an independent retiree, someone who has been in Australia for 20 or 30 years. This involves a person who emigrated here in their twenties or thirties, who had brothers and sisters who stayed behind because they had parents there, but because their parents are now dead they want to join the family in Australia. They have superannuation entitlements or pensions and the ability to buy a home and to be independent, but, in the May 1983 statement they were cut off. The situation might have been relieved a little recently, but only slightly. I point out to the Minister that I know very well how many of those cases were sitting on my desk, involving people who were previously eligible but who became ineligible after the present Government came to power. So much for the Government's sensitivity in relation to the reunification of families under an immigration program. Finally, I draw attention to the section of the policy that is headed `Special Humanitarian and Refugee Programs'. The Minister referred to this section at length. He referred to the words `refugee settlement will not form a permanent segment of our migrant intake'. The Minister knows very well that that refers to an earlier statement made in that same section. He should read the section again, the contents of which are self-evident to everyone-the Minister, me, and anyone who is interested. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(4.29) —To seek to condone or encourage the threat or use of violence against public figures is behaviour that is utterly alien to Australian standards relating to public life. This country has been fortunate to be virtually free of attempts of assassination of political figures, and every Australian fervently hopes that that will continue. Any public figure who by his actions or utterances lends encouragement to such conduct in Australia deserves condemnation by all decent Australians. To do so in this place is appalling. I regard the conduct today of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) in the House of Representatives as being contemptible, and I was disgusted and appalled by it. Both the honourable member and I are former diplomats who served in countries where politicians and their families as well as diplomats and their families are subject to assassination and threats to their personal well-being. As a public figure himself, the honourable member for Mayo should know better than to appear to condone or encourage terrorism of that kind in Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 May 1987: Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-Laws-1987-Postal-Amendment No. 2. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 28 May 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4693) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What was the (a) number of person hours involved in and (b) cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services used by his Department and instrumentalities responsible to him in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) 1986 to date, including work contracted out to the Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) Are there any instances where surveying or drafting requirements have not been satisfied due to limitations on the resources of (a) his Department or instrumentalities responsible to him, (b) the Australian Survey Office or (c) the Department of Housing and Construction; if so, what are they. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based upon information provided by my Department and by the statutory authorities within my portfolio: (1) (a) The number of person hours involved in outside contract surveying and drafting services is not available for some authorities as contract work is done on a fixed price basis. The following information is available. Financial year Department of Communications ABC (i) 1984-85 ... Not known 4,614 hours (ii) 1985-86 ... 20 hours 6,435 hours (iii) 1986-date ... Nil 3,121 hours (b) The cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services other than that given to the Australian Survey Office or to the Department of Housing and Construction is as follows: Financial year OTC DOC ABC Post Telecom $ $ $ (i) 1984-85 ... 4,500 16,940 73,100 Nil n.a.* (ii) 1985-86 ... 7,400 1,200 103,500 Nil n.a.* (iii) 1986-date ... 43,500 Nil 51,218 Nil n.a.* * Telecom performs a good deal of its own drafting work but contracts out such matters as buildings floor plans and radio masts and structures for transmission projects. Similarly Telecom carries out its own survey work with limited work being undertaken by local private surveyors in country areas. Telecom advises that it would be extremely difficult and time consuming to extract details of the cost of all drafting and surveying work contracted out. Details of the work undertaken by the Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction is not a matter that falls within my portfolio. 2 (a) No; (b) In 1985/86, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission was referred by the Darwin office of the Australian Survey Office to an outside contractor due to lack of resources. The value of the contract work was $3,000; (c) No. This is a revised answer to Parliamentary Question 4693. The original answer appeared in the House of Representatives Hansard of 17 March 1987 on page 975. (Question No. 4708) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) How much has the Government spent on programs designed to reduce the incidence of tobacco-related diseases (a) each year since 1971-72 and (b) in total. (2) What is the estimated expenditure on these programs in 1986-87. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) As the honourable member will be aware, health education and health promotion activities, including smoking control programs, are, primarily, the responsibility of the States and Territories. The Commonwealth Government supports these activities through funding programs such as the former Community Health Program, the Medicare Agreements and the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. However, because smoking control programs usually form part of broader health promotion activities it is not possible to provide a break-down of figures in the form requested by the honourable member. Funds provided by the Commonwealth under these programs to date total approximately $530 million. In addition, through the National Health and Medical Research Grants, the Commonwealth has provided another $394,072 for research into tobacco-related disease. Commonwealth funds which have been identified as being directed specifically to programs designed to reduce the incidence of tobacco-related disease or to associated activities are as follows: (i) The National Warning Against Smoking (a Commonwealth-funded initiative introduced by the former Labor Government in 1972 and which ceased in 1975)- $m 1972-73... 0.5 1973-74... 0.5 1974-75... 0.5 Total... 1.5 (ii) The National Campaign Against Drug Abuse (NCADA), a joint Federal and State program introduced in 1985. A.C.T. Quits Anti-Smoking Campaign- $ 1985-86... 18,000 1986-87... 9,000 Total... 27,000 (iii) Health Services Research and Developments Grants- $ 1978-79... 36,639 1979-80... 37,272 1980-81... 51,816 1981-82... 45,519 1982-83... 33,919 1983-84... 57,500 1984-85... 13,284 1985-86... 38,381 Total... 314,330 (iv) Research into Drug Abuse- $ 1985-86... 23,843 1986-87... 24,086 Total... 47,929 Estimated Commonwealth expenditure on the Medicare special grants for new or expanded community services and the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse for 1986-87 is $20 million and $21.4 million respectively. (Question No. 4878) Mr White asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 12 November 1986: (1) When did tenders for the Government's current fringe benefits tax advertising campaign close and how many were received. (2) Which firm has been awarded the contract or contracts. (3) What sum is to be spent on the campaign and from which departmental vote is the money provided. (4) When was the ministerial meeting held which considered the tenders and awarded the contract or contracts and who attended the meeting. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Tenders are not called from advertising agencies providing creative services. Rather, a panel of advertising agencies, usually between three and six, is invited to make competitive submissions. For the Tax Reform Campaign, three advertising agencies were briefed to make submissions on 10 and 13 October 1986. (2) The Magnus Nankervis and Curl/DDB agency was commissioned in the week commencing 13 October 1986 to plan and produce advertising for the Tax Reform Campaign. (3) That part of the campaign dealing with tax reform generally was funded by Treasury with a budget of $2.75 million for advertising, market research and public relations. That part of the campaign dealing with the subject of substantiation and with the provision of literature was funded by the Australian Taxation Office with a budget of $1.75m plus $670,000 for leaflets. (4) The Ministerial Committee on Government Information and Advertising is not necessarily involved in the processes which precede and follow the appointment of an advertising agency selected to provide creative services. A meeting of the Committee was briefed on the progress of the Tax Reform Campaign on 23 October and on 8 December 1986. (Question No. 4963) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) Further to the Minister's answer to question No. 3970 (Hansard, 8 October 1986, page 1708) what is meant by radiation-induced death and serious radiation-induced injury. (2) Is the Minister able to say whether the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) is always notified of accidents involving radiation exposure of workers at nuclear power stations in OECD countries; if so, (a) is this a legal requirement of the companies or government bodies responsible for the nuclear power stations and (b) what type of information is provided to the NEA. (3) If the NEA is not always notified, how does it obtain information on the exposure of workers to radiation. (4) Is the Minister also able to say what level of radiation exposure of workers is regarded as hazardous to health in each of the OECD countries and how many workers in each of these countries have received exposure to radiation above these limits. (5) Does the NEA or any other agencies in OECD countries monitor deaths or diseases of workers who cease work at nuclear power stations, as death or disease from radiation exposure can occur some years after exposure. (6) What were the causes of the 9 deaths which occurred in the civil nuclear industry in the U.K. between 1975 and 1984, referred to in the Minister's answer to part (2) of question 3970. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Radiation-induced death is likely to occur as a result of instantaneous or short term irradiation at levels around 5 sieverts and above. At lower levels, or when only parts of the body are irradiated, other serious effects can occur, such as sterility and erythema, and this is what is meant by serious radiation-induced injury. (2) Yes, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) is advised of accidents involving radiation exposure of workers at nuclear power plants in member countries. (a) There is no legal requirement to provide such information, the arrangements are based on a recommendation of the Council of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (b) The information provided covers the circumstances and details of the accident, including the number of workers receiving a radiation dose in excess of prescribed limits as a result of the accident and the extent of such doses. (3) Not applicable. (4) The criteria and procedures for protection of workers against ionising radiation are based on the re-commendations of the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP). The recommendations have been incorporated into ``Basic Safety Standards for Radiation Protection'' issued jointly by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Labour Organisation, the NEA and the World Health Organisation. In turn, OECD countries, and others, have adopted these standards as a basis for legislation and regulations. These ICRP limits are set out in ICRP publication number 26 published in 1977 copy of which I have arranged to be placed in the Parliamentary Library. Apart from advice received under 2 (b) above, the NEA does not have statistics of exposures above the annual dose limits established under national legislation or regulations as outlined above. (5) The monitoring of deaths or diseases of workers who cease work at nuclear power stations, in terms of the possible effects of such work, requires epidemiologi-cal analysis. Such studies require data specific to regions and the particular groups involved. Epidemiological studies cannot therefore be carried out effectively on an international basis. The NEA does not carry out such studies, but has conducted assessments into levels and trends of occupational exposures on a task by task basis for workers in commercial nuclear power plants. Epidemiological studies have been carried out in the U.K. for particular groups of nuclear workers, and the National Radiological Protection Board is carrying out a national study collating all the available data. (6) The U.K. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was unable to provide the specific causes of the 9 deaths which occurred in the U.K. civil nuclear industry between 1975 and 1984 and which were reported in the U.K. Hansard of 10 March 1986. However, in the U.K. Hansard of 9 March 1987 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy reported that there were 10 deaths in the nuclear civil industry in the 10 years to February 1987 none of which involved radiation. The HSE reports that these were due to road traffic accidents, people being struck by objects, crushed by machinery, falling or being asphyxiated. (Question No. 5048) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to comments made by the Director of Public Prosecutions in his annual report for 1985-86 to the effect that health insurance legislation is generally in an unsatisfactory state for the purpose of prosecutions. (2) Do the charges laid in cases of Medicare and other health benefit fraud often not reflect the full extent of alleged criminality because it is necessary to lay a charge in relation to each offence and there is a limit to the number of charges that can be effectively dealt with at committal and trial. (3) Is the Health Insurance Act beneficial in nature, not drafted with the purpose of prosecution in mind and, in many areas, vague and ambiguous. (4) Should the deterrent effect of prosecution for Medifraud not be underrated. (5) When does he intend to amend the legislation to make prosecution for fraud against the health insurance system more effective. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the comments which appear in the 1985-86 Annual Report of the Director of Public Prosecutions which form the basis of the honourable member's question. (2) As medical fraud cases usually comprise a multiplicity of individual services, indictments often contain only representative charges. (3) The Health Insurance Act 1973 is quite obviously beneficial in nature, though it includes severe penalties for those who engage in deliberate medical fraud. (4) There is a significant deterrent effect in prosecuting both public and practitioner medical fraud. (5) As amendments to the Health Insurance Act over the last two years have made significant changes in relation to medical fraud offences, it is not the Government's intention to introduce further amendments at this time. I note, in particular, that the Health Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1985 included a new Section 128B making it an offence for persons to knowingly make false statements that are capable of being used in connection with a claim for a benefit under the Act. The penalty for such an offence is quite severe-``a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both''. In addition to this criminal penalty, the Amendment Act also created the Medicare Participation Review Committees which have wide-ranging powers, including the power to recommend that a provider of medical services be disqualified from participation in the medicare arrangements for a period of up to five years. (Question No. 5233) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 March 1987: (1) When were advance payments to pharmacists first made under the Pharmpay system. (2) When did the advance payments cease. (3) When did his Department (a) request and (b) receive a legal opinion from the Attorney-General's Department concerning the legality of advance payments to pharmacists under Pharmpay. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Part payments were first used in late 1974 to ensure timely payments to pharmacists under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Under the current Government, advance payments were first used in May 1985. (2) November 1986 (3) (a) 7 November 1986; (b) 19 November 1986. (Question No. 5247) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 26 March 1987: (1) Is the limit for continuous discharge of airborne plutonium-239 from the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories (LHRL) set at between 0.16 and 5.9 milligrams per day, depending on the height of release; if so, does the limit take into account all other discharges of airborne radionuclides at LHRL. (2) Is any airborne plutonium-239 released from LHRL which is not the result of accident or incident; if so (a) from what building or buildings does the discharge take place, (b) what equipment is used to monitor its release and (c) what quantity was released in (i) 1984, (ii) 1985 and (iii) 1986. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The quantities of radioactive materials discharged to the atmosphere from discharge points at the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories (LHRL) comply with the requirements of the NSW Radioactive Substances Regulations. Those from seven major stacks comply with a quarterly discharge Authorisation approved by the NSW Radiological Advisory Council pursuant to Regulation 13 of the Radioactive Substances Regulations. Those from stacks on more recently constructed buildings comply with the requirements of Regulation 13 and Schedule II. The Schedule limits take no account of dispersion provided by stacks whereas the Authorisation does. The Authorisation contains no specific limits for plutonium-239. As an alpha particle emitter, the discharge limits for plutonium-239 are included in the limits set in the Authorisation for gross alpha activity. In the hypothetical case that the gross alpha activity is assumed to originate only from plutonium-239, the quarterly discharge limits for the seven stacks would correspond on a pro-rata basis to between 0.008 and 3.2 milligrams of plutonium-239 per day depending inter alia on stack height. These figures would apply only if no other radionuclides were being discharged. If other radionuclides were also present, the permitted discharges of plutonium-239 would be reduced accordingly. Schedule II to the Radioactive Substances Regulations contains specific limits for the airborne discharge of plutonium-239. These limits for the four most significant discharge points at the LHRL not included in the Authorisation correspond on a pro-rata basis to between 0.006 and 0.03 milligrams of plutonium-239 per day depending on the discharge point. As with the Authorisation, if other radionuclides were present in the discharge, the permitted discharges of any plutonium-239 would be reduced accordingly. (2) No, there is not and never has been any discharge of airborne plutonium-239 from the LHRL whether as a result of an accident, incident or otherwise. Very small quantities of plutonium-239 have been and are occasionally still used for research purposes, but these are handled under stringent safety arrangements allowing no airborne discharge. (a) Not applicable. (b) Each significant discharge point is equipped with a sampling device designed to sample particulate volatile components of airborne discharges. The sampling equipment operates automatically on a continuous basis and is fitted with alarms connected to the LHRL Emergency Alarm Centre in case of malfunctions. (c) (i) to (iii) Nil. (Question No. 5266) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 April 1987: (1) Did his Department conduct an internal inquiry into the method by which approvals were granted for the listing of 40 generic drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits List; if so, (a) when was the inquiry completed and (b) were the roles played by Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the Therapeutic Goods Section of his Department considered during the inquiry. (2) Were the actions of any other bodies or individuals taken into account during the inquiry; if so, which bodies or individuals were taken into account. (3) Will he provide me with a copy of the inquiry's report or table it in Parliament. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) An investigation was carried out early this year into problems within the Therapeutics Division of the Department. In consultation with my officers in the course of that investigation it was decided that we would set up an independent inquiry, which is now under way, supported by an expert brought in from overseas to make a fully impartial study of the problems in the Therapeutics Division. (3) I intend tabling the report of the independent review in due course. (Question No. 5298) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 April 1987: What proportion of (a) officers and (b) other ranks did each Branch of the Australian Defence Force have stationed in Canberra as at 30 June each year since 1980. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: PERCENTAGE OF OFFICERS AND OTHER RANKS STATIONED IN CANBERRA AT 30 JUNE 1980 TO 1986 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Navy- Officers... 17.5 19.0 19.9 21.0 21.3 21.3 23.1 Other Ranks... 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.9 3.2 Army- Officers... 19.0 18.2 18.9 17.8 17.4 17.6 17.5 Other Ranks... 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 Air Force- Officers... 17.0 16.8 16.7 17.7 17.4 18.1 18.4 Other Ranks... 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 (Question No. 5300) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 April 1987: (1) How many Australian (a) Defence Force personnel and (b) civilians were on the Australian Defence staffs at overseas missions in (i) Washington, (ii) elsewhere in the U.S., (iii) in London, (iv) elsewhere in the U.K., (v) in Wellington and (vi) elsewhere in New Zealand as at 30 June (A) 1975, (B) 1977, (C) 1979, (D) 1981, (E) 1983, (F) 1985 and (G) 1986. (2) What is the estimated annual cost of maintaining an Australian (a) Defence Force member and (b) civilian at each post referred to in part (1). Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The numbers of Defence Force personnel and Defence civilian staff at the locations requested are summarised in the following table. (2) The estimated per capita costs at May 87 values of maintaining a Defence Force member or civilian at the posts are as follows: (a) Washington A$87,000 per annum. (b) London A$75,000 per annum. (c) Wellington A$25,000 per annum. AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE STAFF OVERSEAS 1975 SVC CIV TOT 1977 SVC CIV TOT 1979 SVC CIV TOT 1981 SVC CIV TOT Per capita maintainable costs excluding salary US ... Washington... 76 25 101 68 18 86 70 18 88 73 6 79 ($A MAY 87) 87,000 Other US... 200 34 234 131 35 166 149 38 187 491 52 543 UK... London... 35 10 45 35 7 42 37 8 45 36 6 42 75,000 Other UK ... 256 20 276 213 6 219 264 6 270 138 9 147 NZ ... Wellington ... 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 - 2 25,000 Other NZ... 9 - 9 13 - 13 17 - 17 9 2 11 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE STAFF OVERSEAS 1983 SVC CIV TOT 1985 SVC CIV TOT 1986 SVC CIV TOT Per capita maintainable costs excluding salary US ... Washington... 39 16 55 39 16 55 39 16 55 ($A MAY 87) 87,000 Other US... 306 58 364 274 57 331 272 42 314 UK... London... 9 6 15 10 6 16 10 5 15 75,000 Other UK... 195 12 207 166 20 186 149 18 167 NZ ... Wellington... 2 - 2 2 - 2 2 - 2 25,000 Other NZ... 11 - 11 6 - 6 9 - 9 (Question No. 5304) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 April 1987: (1) What sum has been paid into Government superannuation schemes for the defence services since 1 January 1960. (2) What sum has been paid to contributors from 1 January 1960 to 1 January 1987. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information sought is detailed in the following table for the financial years 1959-60 to 1985-86 inclusive. Details relevant to the current financial year are not yet available. It would be appropriate to provide an explanation in conjunction with the table to clarify some of the detail. The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (DFRB) scheme commenced operation in 1948 and because of deficiencies was superseded by a new scheme effective from 1 October 1972, the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) scheme. Under the old scheme contributions were paid into the DFRB Fund and earned interest. Costs of administering the scheme were borne by the Government which also met some 80 per cent of the cost of benefits paid to members. The balance was met from Fund moneys. This latter point is not evident from the table because a high proportion of annual contributions was allocated for investment purposes. Those members retiring before 1 October 1972 continue to be covered for retirement benefits under the provisions of the old scheme although the DFRB Fund was wound up effective from that time. The Commonwealth assumed responsibility for future payments of DFRB benefits, and in the winding up of the DFRB Fund: a surplus was found to exist in relation to recipients and some $8.3M, including interest, was distributed to eligible persons in 1976-77 an amount actuarially assessed as meeting future DFRB benefits for DFRB recipients was transferred from the Fund to Consolidated Revenue an amount transferred from the Fund to Consolidated Revenue in respect of DFRB contributors transferred to the DFRDB scheme was insufficient to cover the future liabilities which the Commonwealth assumed in respect of those contributors. Those members transferred to the new DFRDB scheme on 1 October 1972 and members joining the Defence Force since contribute at a flat 5.5 per cent of salary. The DFRDB scheme has no associated fund and contributions are paid into, and all benefits are paid from, Consolidated Revenue. Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Period ending DFRB contributions to 30.9.72 Interest earned by DFRB fund DFRDB contributions from 1.10.72 Total benefits paid DFRB DFRDB # # # 30.6.60 2,624,305 695,232 1,855,964 30.6.61 3,413,305 871,934 3,698,137 30.6.62 3,075,327 1,117,973 3,103,410 30.6.63 3,298,548 1,102,510 3,326,656 30.6.64 3,916,880 1,290,079 4,265,747 30.6.65 4,999,242 1,530,215 4,807,105 $ $ $ 30.6.66 9,078,529 3,834,182 11,075,342 30.6.67 9,885,047 4,338,522 11,749,848 30.6.68 10,191,060 5,103,429 14,384,933 30.6.69 14,593,016 5,911,636 17,722,153 30.6.70 16,967,529 6,972,995 22,992,448 (1) 30.6.71 18,942,891 7,881,623 27,480,081 (1) 30.6.72 21,636,444 8.903,378 31,900,848 (1) 30.6.72 5,044,212 2,131,751 $ 8,613,434 (1) 30.6.73 15,325,417 24,595,636 (1) (2) 30.6.74 26,886,552 63,858,174 (2) 30.6.75 34,069,361 79,247,271 (2) 30.6.76 39,431,399 102,845,310 (2)...$ 30.6.77 40,104,241 33,976,472 84,633,455 30.6.78 44,502,867 40,988,458 95,782,918 30.6.79 46,299,536 43,411,248 115,156,568 30.6.80 50,540,475 47,314,500 129,942,812 30.6.81 57,431,580 46,564,186 153,686,070 30.6.82 77,943,789 50,084,246 195,803,211 30.6.83 78,974,777 60,640,408 218,750,903 30.6.84 81,377,637 59,536,606 264,204,401 30.6.85 84,546,756 61,888,012 304,373,465 30.6.86 91,478,431 69,161,915 362,069,423 (1) In addition, the distribution of a surplus from the DFRB Fund of $3,689,770 to those who were contributors on 30.6.64, and $776,000 to those who were recipients on that date, occurred during this period. (2) Separate DFRB and DFRDB figures unavailable for these years. The figures shown are combined Total Benefits amounts for DFRB and DFRDB. (Question No. 5311) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 April 1987: Further to his answer to Part (5) of my question No. 5091, are women excluded from the highest ranks in the Australian Defence Forces because of their exclusion from combat and combat-related areas. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. Women are currently excluded from ADF positions at Major General rank and above. Notwithstanding this restriction, a recent ADF review identified 39.5% of senior ADF positions (from Major to Brigadier) as open to women, and individual Services are currently re-examining all Major General (and equivalent) positions to determine whether any such positions could be opened to women. (Question No. 5332) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 May 1987: (1) Why was it agreed in the work load agreement between his Department and the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association that the number of selective reviews to be undertaken in each office will be decided after negotiations with local union delegates. (2) Why have regional managers been ignored. (3) Had his attention been drawn to the heavy work load imposed on regional officers when the long term unemployment benefits review was announced; if so, what action did he take to overcome this situation. (4) If his attention had not been drawn to the heavy workload imposed on regional managers, why not and what action has been taken to find out why not. (5) Why did he agree to union demands to withdraw the requirement to confirm residential addresses of social security clients. (6) What was the extent of the proof of identity package bans. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The general approach to reviews of eligibility and entitlement throughout the Department is one of selectivity. There are various areas of work where priorities have to be set in regional offices. This aspect of the agreement was included to allow the elected representatives of staff to negotiate the level of reviews with regional managers given all other work for which the office is responsible. The decision rests with regional managers after negotiation has taken place. (2) They are key members of the Department's management with important tasks which are not reduced by the agreement. (3) Yes. Resources were obtained for the long term unemployment benefit initiative and implementation of the 1986/87 Budget initiatives was staged as far as possible to avoid overlap in the introduction of new measures. (4) Not applicable. (5) Under new proof of identity procedures introduced in December 1986, the Department initially proposed that in certain cases clients established the integrity of their residential addresses. During discussions on introduction of this part of the new arrangements, it became apparent that more work needed to be done to ensure that the check of address would be effective. Consequently, this aspect of the new procedures is being re-examined. (6) Union bans on proof of identity were directed at new procedures implemented in December 1986. Bans were applied in the majority of offices in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania. However, the identity of new clients contained to be checked in offices applying the ban by using procedures that were in place before December last year. All such bans have been withdrawn. (Question No. 5333) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 May 1987: (1) What will officers of his Department be doing during periods when, with the exception of emergency cases, they refuse to deal over the phone with the immediate problems of persons in need. (2) What are considered to be emergency cases and has the departmental manual been revised to advise staff of the definition. (3) Why is his Department not processing information concerning unemployment beneficiaries supplied to it by the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES). (4) Why is it left to individual departmental officers to decide whether CES data is unreliable and then for his Department and the union in that area to resolve the issue. (5) What have the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and himself done to overcome this situation which has been identified in a number of reports of the Auditor-General. (6) On what basis was each of the 12 questions which were removed from the 2 year unemployment benefits review deleted. (7) In the work load agreement between his Department and the Administrative and Clerical Officers, Association (ACOA) why is emphasis placed on the importance of close and effective liaison between his Department and CES office when interviewing unemployment beneficiaries, when his Department disregards CES data. (8) For how long will departmental employees continue to exert discretion as to what questions will be asked and in what depth answers will be obtained when interviewing unemployment beneficiaries. (9) When will his Department and the ACOA finalise what will and will not be asked and obtained during questioning and how many persons will be questioned in the meantime. (10) Will beneficiaries be recalled if the interviews are found to be inadequate. (11) Will any record be kept of what actually was asked and what responses were obtained. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The agreement reached between the Department and ACOA allows for regional offices to close their public contact areas from 1.30 p.m. on one day a week provided certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is that telephones must be answered during normal office hours. Other conditions include that suitable arrangements are made to handle emergency cases and that local welfare and community organisations are made aware of these arrangements. Staff in offices which satisfy the requirement to close on one afternoon a week will continue to perform assessing, determining and follow-up work. The arrangement will also assist staff to assimilate instructions and to undertake training. The agreement specifies that staff are not to take flextime during the period the office is closed to the public. In short, staff will be fully occupied. (2) The Department deals with emergency cases on a daily basis. There is no need to make further amendments to manuals. (3) The Department is processing information relating to unemployment beneficiaries received from the CES. In some areas during the first few months of the new liaison procedures between the CES and the Department, some advices were received from the CES which referred to people who were not clients of the Department. The Department agreed with the union that, where backlogs of CES advices were being held and in the main it was considered that the advices did not relate to clients of the Department, no further action on these advices was necessary. The new procedures and practices referred to in (5) below will ensure that any information relating to clients which was not previously processed will be acted upon. (4) Staff in each State are in the best position to identify the accuracy of data being received and to act in the most effective way to improve the accuracy of the data as they relate to the particular office. (5) The liaison procedures between the CES and the Department of Social Security have been reviewed jointly by both organisations. Procedures and practices are being developed to improve the effectiveness of the liaison procedures. Agreement on closer liaison and co-operation between the CES and DSS has been reached between the Secretaries of the Departments of Employment and Industrial Relations and Social Security and a Working Party of senior officials has been set up to ensure that positive steps are taken. Steps to ensure closer liaison and co-operation at the State and local levels have also been taken. (6) The questions were deleted because they related to information already held on the claim form, covered in the pre-grant interview or included on the fortnightly income statement. They involved duplication of effort and an unnecessary prolongation of the interview. (7) The Department does not disregard data relevant to its clients. Emphasis has been placed on close and effective liaison because of the CES involvement in the interview process for the long term unemployed. (8) The arrangements included in the agreement are interim arrangements which will apply until the interview questionnaire has been redesigned. The Department will always expect staff to use discretion in the interview process either to ask additional questions or not to ask others where it is clear that they are not relevant to the person's eligibility. (9) The Department is well advanced in designing a new form and procedures for this form. This work should be completed by the end of May. There will be no reduction in the number of interviews to be conducted. (10) The interview process is designed partly to determine a client's continued eligibility for benefit. Regional officers have the discretion to arrange a further interview if considered necessary. (11) Yes. (Question No. 5418) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 May 1987: (1) What has been the cost of implementing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs in the Minister's Department, including all costs associated with the recruitment of EEO officers, advertising, office facilities, training and development programs. (2) How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time EEO officers are employed in the Department and what salaries do they receive. (3) What is the estimated recurrent expenditure to maintain the EEO unit. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Social Security has approached its Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) responsibilities with the aim of integrating EEO principles into its general management functions as far as possible. It is not possible to separate to any meaningful extent, the costs associated with implementation of EEO programs from associated expenditure e.g. in training and staff development programs. (2) Currently there are twelve full-time and one part-time staff allocated specifically to EEO matters. They act as co-ordinators, facilitators, analysts and monitors of the Department's progress towards achievement of its EEO goals and are spread across all States, Territories and Central Office. These staff and their salary costs are: 1 x CLAD Class 11 ... $ 41,000 3 x CLAD Class 9 ... $105,000 1 x CLAD Class 8 ... $ 32,000 4 x CLAD Class 7 ... $117,000 3 x CLAD Class 6 ... $ 80,000 1 x CLAD Class 5 ...(part-time)...$ 10,000 Total ... $385,000 (3) The estimated annual recurrent expenditure to maintain the Department's specifically allocated EEO staff and certain direct aspects of their activities is: salaries (as above) ... $385,000 travel ... $ 58,000 printing ... $ 7,000 consultancy... $ 30,000 consultation with unions ... $ 10,000 Total ... $490,000 (Question No. 5044) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: Are major changes needed in the criminal process if the courts are not to be swamped, and does the report of the Victoria Shorter Trials Committee provide a useful starting point for considering what form those changes should take, as stated by the Director of Public Prosecutions in his annual report for 1985-86; if so, what action will he take to initiate reform in this area. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It has been Commonwealth policy since Federation for the Commonwealth to utilise State procedures when State courts are exercising federal criminal jurisdiction. This policy is embodied in various legislative provisions including section 68 Judiciary Act 1903. Accordingly the reform of laws relating to the criminal process is primarily a matter for the States. (Question No. 5158) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 February 1987: (1) What financial assistance has been given in each year since 1970-71 by his Department or any authority responsible to him to the (a) Australian Railway Historical Society (SA Division), (b) Steam Ranger Tours, (c) Victor Harbor Tourist Railway, (d) Australian Electric Transport Museum, (e) Mile End Railway Museum, (f) Pichi Richi Railway Preservation Society and (g) Steam Town Peterborough. (2) Did any of the organisations receive assistance for a project which (a) was subsequently cancelled or (b) the organisation subsequently requested permission to change; if so, what are the details of the project and is the Government able to ensure the new commitment is being honoured by the organisation. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) On the basis of available information, the Department is not aware of any financial assistance provided to any of the above organisations. The Department of Transport was established in 1983. (1) The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) has provided the following advice. AN has provided assistance to several of these organisations since its formation in 1978 but the majority has been `in kind'. Prior to 1978, assistance `in kind' was provided to the Pichi Richi Railway Preservation Society by the former Commonwealth Railways. AN has advised detailed information of assistance provided to the organisations is not readily available as the majority has been `in kind'. Assistance has taken the form of provision of readily available professional advice, provision of specialist services at reasonable cost, access to specialist equipment, and availability of material and equipment at around scrap value.