Wednesday, 3 June 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Consideration resumed from 2 June. Clauses 4 to 6-by leave-taken together. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.03) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 4, page 4, lines 22-31, omit subclauses (3) and (4). (2) Clause 5, page 4, line 43, and page 5, line 1, omit ``regulations for the purposes of subsection 7 (1) prescribing''. (3) Clause 6, page 5, lines 43 and 44, omit ``regulations for the purposes of subsection 8 (1) prescribing''. The amendments I have moved on behalf of the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia relate to the Government's intentions to establish in this legislation by regulation guidelines for superannuation funds and approved deposit funds. As I said in my speech on the second reading, we feel that this is a totally inappropriate approach for the Government to adopt to such an important issue. We believe that the Government, having made Press statements about this as far back as June 1986, should by now know exactly what it is going to do in terms of people's superannuation and retirement planning. I remind the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) that last evening when I was speaking in this legislation I read to him an extract from a letter from the Life Underwriters Association of Australia Ltd which posed four very important questions. I hope that at some stage during the remaining time available to debate this legislation in this chamber the Minister will be able to give this side of the chamber and the Life Underwriters Association some indication of the Government's intention on this issue. It is very relevant to understand that what we are talking about here is amending the Government's proposal to determine standards by regulation and moving to a legislative determination. We find that as at this point the Government has no real firm plans as to how it will determine the guidelines for superannuation funds and approved deposit funds. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.04) —The Government is not able to accept the amendments. The regulations are very important to the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. I addressed the problems raised by the Life Underwriters Association of Australia in responding to the second reading debate yesterday in as much as I pointed out that it was mainly concerned with taxation provisions which apply at present. It was seeking more help in the Income Tax Assessment Act for those selling life assurance policies. That would be considered separately outside the consideration of this Bill. It would be considered in the context of the Income Tax Assessment Act and reforms to it. Therefore, I hope that the Opposition will recognise that we will be giving attention to the points raised by the Life Underwriters Association and that this is not the occasion to address those problems. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clause 7 (Operating standards for superannuation funds). Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.06) —by leave-I move: (4) Clause 7, page 6, lines 10 and 11, omit subclause (1), substitute the following subclause: ``(1) Standards applicable to the operation of superannuation funds shall be such as are prescribed by this Act or any other Act.''. (5) Clause 7, page 6, line 12, omit ``may'', substitute ``shall''. This clause provides for operating standards for superannuation funds. This is very much germane to the arguments of the National Party in this area. Previously I have remarked about the Government's intention to regulate and determine standards by regulation. The issues to be determined by regulation are very significant to the operation of superannuation funds and therefore very significant to people who are contributing on a weekly or monthly basis to superannuation funds. The Government proposes that the standards that may be prescribed include, but are not limited to, standards relating to certain matters. They are the persons who may contribute to superannuation funds; the vesting in members of superannuation funds, that is, when they acquire a proprietary interest in the moneys contributed to the funds; the preservation of benefits, which is a very important part of the whole issue of superannuation and retirement income planning; the payment by superannuation funds of benefits arising directly or indirectly from amounts contributed to superannuation funds, that is, the pay-out policy for the retirement provisions; and the portability of benefits. Nothing could be more important in this superannuation debate than the question of portability, particularly in those industries where there is a significant turnover of staff. Also included is the application by superannuation funds of money no longer required to meet payments of benefits. That relates to what happens to surplus funds or what happens when the person who has subscribed to the funds in the first place cannot be found. Also included is the number of trustees and, of course, that is very important in the debate on who will control superannuation funds. We on this side of the Committee have great concerns about the involvement of the trade union movement in superannuation funds. We do not believe under any circumstances that peoples' retirement savings should be used and exploited for political or industrial purposes. To provide by regulation that the Government can determine the rules that apply to the appointment of trustees is to our mind totally unacceptable, and we believe it is unacceptable to the people who contribute over 25 or 35 years to their retirement income. The list of provisions that will be controlled by regulation also includes the financial and actuarial reports to be prepared in relation to superannuation funds and the disclosure of information to members which, of course, is very important. The final matter-the catch-all-is the matters required, permitted or not permitted to be included, from time to time, in the trust deeds of superannuation funds. That is the very character of any superannuation fund. A trust deed lays down almost in concrete the provisions and the basis of a superannuation fund operation. Yet the Government proposes to change by regulation the rules relating to trust deeds and all the other provisions that I have mentioned. We are well aware of the mechanism for considering regulations in this place but, as I said before, if people are planning for their retirement over 25 or 35 years it is perhaps one of the most important decisions that they take in their working lives-it is akin to the decision to buy a house. If people make decisions this year which will affect them in 20 or 30 years time, they cannot change those decisions quickly. We believe it is totally inappropriate for any government to seek to change the rules of retirement income planning by regulation. If a person's planning cannot be changed quickly, the Government should recognise that it has an obligation to ensure that the rules of the game cannot be changed conveniently and expediently, and it should be done by legislation and not delegated legislation. It is for that reason that we move this amendment to require the operating standards of superannuation funds to be determined by legislation brought into this place and not under the Government's proposed methods of regulation through delegated legislation. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.10) —I wish to tell the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) why the Government cannot accept the amendments. I appreciate so much of what he said. The matters in the regulations are very important, and he listed some of them-preservation, vesting, portability and disclosure. They are the essence of the administration of funds, and I readily accept the points that he made. I addressed the problem that the Government faced in deciding whether these matters should be in the regulations or in the Act itself when I replied to the second reading debate. I drew the attention of the House to the fact that a great deal of consultation is currently taking place with all the relevant bodies. I must qualify that, because it may be that, for some reason or oversight, the Life Underwriters Association of Australia Ltd may have been excluded, but certainly the Life Insurance Federation of Australia and the superannuation fund bodies have not been excluded. I shall ensure that other bodies are included, especially any that the honourable member for Richmond may wish to bring to my attention. This is a partnership between the Government and the knowledgeable people in the industry to ensure that the regulations will be in the best interests of the industry, of members of the funds and, therefore, of the community. We need the extra flexibility that is given by these matters being in regulations rather than in the legislation. The honourable member was in the House last night and he may remember that I said that following the period of consultation and the testing of what has gone into the regulations-perhaps in a year's time-I would be willing then to consider again the possibility of transferring what is in the regulations into the legislation. There are good reasons why there should be a greater certainty with these matters in the legislation itself. I hope that I have expressed my sincerity in addressing the problems raised by the honourable member for Richmond. I am convinced that in this time of consultation and of testing it is in the interest of us all that there should be the greater flexibility that regulations give us rather than that these matters be put into the legislation itself. It is for those reasons that the Government opposes the amendments. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.14) —I was not in a position to participate in the second reading debate yesterday, but I feel impelled this morning-despite the obvious sincerity of the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford)-to register that the Government has been extraordinarily remiss in its duties and obligations. Occupational superannuation is an extremely important matter. Vast sums of money will be involved in the funds that will accumulate in the industry superannuation schemes-- Mr Cobb —Hundreds of millions of dollars. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —In fact, billions of dollars will be involved. With the order of magnitude that was originally proposed of 3 per cent of wages paid, and with a total wages bill of about $120 billion, then $3 billion or $4 billion is just the start. There is the potential, if the funds are not properly set up and properly controlled, of the exertion of enormous leverage. There is particular concern in that respect about the extent to which that leverage could be exerted in the pursuit of particular objectives by the militant trade unions of this nation. So it is a matter of quite crucial importance that these funds be set up in the correct way. The Minister says that he is negotiating with the various bodies-excluding one at least, the Life Under- writers Association of Australia Ltd, a very important body-on these matters. The matter was in the forefront of consideration at this time last year. We know about a critical Press release at that time. We have another situation here of government by Press release, as was pointed out by my colleagues last night. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Well, I am trying to get to the amendment, Mr-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member might listen for a moment. We are dealing with clause 7, which involves the operating standards for superannuation funds. The honourable member is straying a little. He might relate his comments to clause 7. He will then be in order. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I will indeed, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN —I hope the honourable member will. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —What we are concerned with in this clause is the empowering of the Government to prescribe regulations in relation to these very important issues of the composition-- Mr Blunt —To let its union mates run the superannuation funds. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As my colleague the honourable member for Richmond said, the Government's dilatoriness can be interpreted as giving its union mates longer to run these funds as they will. The issue involved in this Bill is the leaving to regulation of the very important matters of the composition of the controlling bodies of these funds. Mr Blunt —If it were a competent government, it would have a policy. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —That is what I was pointing out when the Chairman interrupted me. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Berowra does not need his speech rehearsed for him by the honourable member for Richmond. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —This was the very point I was making. This matter was at issue at this time last year. Some provisional guidelines were laid down in the Press releases of 11 June and subsequently. But the Government has had all that time to negotiate and settle the critical matters relating to the superannuation funds-the form of the governing bodies; how they will be divided, particularly in industry funds, between unions and management; and of course, all those other very important matters relating to preservation, portability, vesting and so on. I am just making the point, Mr McLeay, that it is all right for the Minister to get up and to express his great sincerity in these matters and to say that negotiations are going on and that he will give consideration to bringing in other bodies that have been left out of those negotiations, but the fact is that the Government has been very remiss in its duty in this very critical area where such vast sums are involved with great potential for the exercise of leverage and control in this economy. These important matters should have been determined and spelled out by now in the legislation, and not simply left to a clause of this nature which leaves the matters to be determined at some indefinite time in the future by regulation. I support the amendments proposed by my colleague. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.20) —I wish to comment briefly on clause 7 and support my colleagues the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). I too was a little stunned to hear the Minister say that he is sincere in his comments, that the Government had consulted the industry and that there may have been some oversight in leaving out the Life Underwriters Association of Australia Ltd. As I pointed out in debate last night, the Life Underwriters Association was excluded completely. The Government pulled in all its cronies, the administration-type people and its supporters to consult with. But it left out the people who represent the vast bulk of the industry. The people at the cutting edge of this matter were left out in the cold completely. The Life Underwriters Association has 4,000 members. It represents 60 per cent of the professional superannuation and life assurance agents in Australia, but it was omitted from consultation completely. Dr Harry Edwards —A vast font of experience. Mr COBB —Exactly. It is of no use saying that it was an oversight. Perhaps in the first instance by some stretch of the imagination it could have been. But the Association wrote months ago to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and pointed this out, but it has not yet received a reply. Sixty per cent of the people out in the field who can see the real problems have been excluded from consultation. One can only come to the reasonable conclusion that the Government excluded the Association for some reason. As the honourable member for Berowra has said, the rules are quite vague. Billions of dollars are at stake. Goodness knows how much longer we will be left hanging in the air before we know what the regulations will be. The unions are running amok. Anomalies are creeping in. We have mentioned things like overfunding, et cetera. We have heard of the coercion involved in schemes such as the building unions superannuation scheme. It is time the Government got its act together and presented us with what is going to take place. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.22) —I just want briefly to make some remarks in response to the comments made by the Minister. He suggested that the Government would be prepared to include the Life Underwriters Association of Australia Ltd and that by some oversight it had been excluded from consultation. My friend and colleague the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), who like me is very interested in these issues, has made reference to the Association. I have a copy of the letter that the Life Underwriters Association wrote to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 25 March 1987. It states: Dear Treasurer, The Life Underwriters Association of Australia Ltd has noted from your Press Release No. 9 of 9 February . . . Of course, we all realise these days that, if we are to work out what the Government is likely to do, we have to read the Press releases because we would not get a clue from anything else. The Government responds to group pressure these days, and Press releases are the best indication of the Government's legislative intention. The letter also stated: The LUAA is a national organisation representing over 4,000 professional agents engaged in the Super- annuation, Life and Disability Insurance market. To fully complement the membership of the Committee- that is, the superannuation consultative committee- we respectfully suggest that one representative be appointed from the Life Underwriters Association of Australia Ltd. That is a reasonable request from a very significant industry group. The Government would have the Parliament believe that this legislation has the unanimous support of the industry. That is a long way from the truth. The industry has a number of diverse opinions. We have all received large volumes of correspondence from various actuaries, superannuation consultants and specialists throughout Australia. Messrs Mercer, Campbell, Cook and Knight have been particularly active in this area. I have received correspondence from a number of firms of solicitors and accountants. We have even had calls from the employees of the Office of the Commissioner for Superannuation expressing views contrary to those contained in the legislation and providing the Opposition parties with background briefing on this legislation. This is very important legislation. It should not be rushed through the Parliament. I am very pleased that this Bill will lapse because it will not be dealt with in the Senate. The Government's approach to it is reprehensible. We are dealing with the life savings of thousands of Australians. We have no idea from the legislation before us today exactly what is the Government's intention in so very many important areas. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.24) —I would like to pay to those honourable members who have risen since I was last on my feet the courtesy of addressing the problems that they raised. The consultation referred to by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt)-that is, the formal consultative machinery that has been set up-is not the only consultation that takes place on matters like this, such as what should be the regulations relating to preservation, vesting and so on. Most of the consultation goes on between officers of the Treasury and officers of the various organisations. We have noted that the Life Underwriters Association's main concerns were taxation ones, in fact I believe almost exclusively taxation ones, and were not addressed to the particular machinery which is contained in this Bill to monitor the 300,000 superannuation funds. However, the Government is certainly giving consideration to a representative of the Life Underwriters Association being on that particular consultative body and I do not in any way rule that body out. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) was in the chamber last night and took part in the debate, and I give him credit for that, but the story with the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) is not such a good one, because he sought to cover ground that was covered last night and he was equally ill-informed about these matters as others in the debate last night. It is very important indeed to get this legislation through. In reply to the final remarks of the honourable member for Richmond: Even though there may be some particular representatives of the industry who would like the legislation to be in a slightly different form, I do not think anybody involved in the industry would not want this legislation in place. It really is up to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Richmond, in particular, as front benchers, to make sure that their colleagues in the Senate assist the Government to get this legislation through the Parliament so that the regulations can be brought down very shortly. The regulations will lie on the table of this chamber in due course and there will be opportunities for them to be disallowed. But it is important that those regulations should be in place and it is important for us to have some experience of them, because it is not as beneficial merely to consult about regulations. We want to have the experience of them. That was the essence of my earlier remarks when I said that flexibility at this time is very important and that we need these matters to be in regulations rather than in the Act itself. Once these provisions relating to preservation, vesting, portability, disclosure and so on have been tried with experience, then the Government can give consideration to putting these matters into the legislation. In the meantime it is in the interests of the industry-and it is what the industry wants-that the matter should have that greater flexibility in regulations. If the honourable member for Berowra had been here last night he would know that this legislation is not the result of any pressures whatsoever from trade unions. It is the result of the need for the managers and the trustees of the 300,000 separate funds to have this administration in place. We therefore seek the co-operation of the Opposition in the Senate to make sure that this Bill becomes law. Amendments negatived. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.29) —I move: Clause 7, page 6, subclause (2), after paragraph (j) insert the following paragraph: ``(ja) the levels of administrative fees, commissions or other deductions which may be payable from amounts contributed to superannuation funds;''. Clause 7 of the Bill under the heading `Operating standards for superannuation funds' states: The regulations may prescribe standards applicable to the operation of superannuation funds. It then lists a number of matters in relation to which standards may be prescribed under the legislation. Regulations dealing with these particular matters may be introduced into the Parliament and subjected to disallowance. The additional item that the Opposition wishes to insert is that regulations can be made regulating the levels of administrative fees, commissions or other deductions which may be payable from amounts contributed to superannuation funds. The reason for this relates to the arguments I put to the House last night and it specifically applies to union controlled funds. As I pointed out to the House last night, there are funds controlled by trade unions which are there as a result of pressure being placed on employers and employees. A lot of those funds are not there because of the free choice of employees to put their retirement nest egg in a particular vehicle, nor are they reflecting the wish of employers to provide in a particular way for the retirement of their employees. We regard this as a matter of quite basic individual liberty and free choice. In the same way, we object most strongly to the imposition of compulsory unionism on employees. Nobody on the Government side, including the Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), has put forward any single argument to refute my assertion last night that money paid by or on behalf of employees should be paid into a fund with the consent of both employees and the employer. Nobody in the Government has refuted that proposition. Some Government members asked: `Well, how can you tell?'. In an atmosphere of intimidation and terror it might sometimes be very hard to find out but, as we have found with sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act relating to secondary boycotts, whilst that section of the Trade Practices Act is not used by everybody, because many people are intimidated and are not game to use it, nonetheless it is there to be used by those who have the courage or, perhaps, are in an industrial situation where they can appeal to elementary justice. Just because there is a power situation, for example, on building sites, where people live in terror sometimes of their lives and certainly of their livelihood and are not game to take advantage of legislative provisions, that is not sufficient argument for saying that those legislative provisions should not be there. In this case we are adding to the amendment we moved last night-which the Government did not accept, but which we, when in office, will introduce very shortly-which would have meant that a fund which was not freely subscribed to would not enjoy tax concessions. That seems perfectly reasonable. In this case we are adding a regulatory power to ensure that administrative fees are not diverted to trade union purposes. The funds that we are talking about are enormous. I was looking at a leaflet last night from the building unions superannuation scheme which mentioned that approximately $37m was already in that particular fund and that administrative fees already collected were well over $1m. We are very concerned with those large cash flows as to exactly where the contributors' money goes. We should be in a position to regulate those funds so that they will not finish up in the coffers of trade unions, adding to their excessive power already in this community which they derive from compulsorily levied membership fees on their members. These people are in an extraordinarily powerful position. They were able to require the Government to do a whole lot of things under the so-called Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions accord. Despite what the Minister says, this legislation is here largely as a result of accord mark 2, which was signed between the ALP Government and the ACTU in September 1985. My colleague the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) quite correctly pointed out that it is an absolute disgrace that we are in the teeth of an election in June 1987 and we are introducing legislation-not the regulations themselves which will govern the behaviour of these funds. Those funds have had to operate for a very long time on the basis of Government Press releases. That is an absolute scandal. The Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, who is the nice chap of the duo of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and himself, comes into the chamber and makes all sorts of statements by way of mollification. He says that the Government is very nice to people, that it has talked to people and so on. The Minister does, in fact, talk to people very nicely and he is a civilised and decent chap but, heaven forbid, the real power in all this is none other than the honourable member for Blaxland-the Treasurer-who is anything but that. People know when they hear this Minister come in here being the nice guy and saying: `We will talk to everybody; everybody will be listened to and so on', that somebody else can beat the hell out of them later. The Treasurer, the bully boy, can come in and ride over them-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I do not believe the honourable member for Mackellar should make attacks like that on other honourable members. Mr CARLTON —It really pains me to hear that, Mr Chairman. I sit over hear every Question Time and over there stands the Treasurer; and under Standing Orders he can tip buckets on us all the time. The CHAIRMAN —Order! We are not dealing with Question Time; we are dealing with the honourable member's amendment to clause 7. Mr CARLTON —I object very strongly if I cannot get stuck into the Treasurer in ordinary debate. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member can get stuck into the Treasurer in any manner if he can relate his remarks to clause 7 and the amendment. He cannot, however, attack members and impute motives to them by calling them `bully boys'. The honourable member can address himself to the matters before the Chair. Mr CARLTON —I should have thought the Treasurer would have thought that that was a fairly mild term to be applied to him. The CHAIRMAN —Order! None of us knows what is in the Treasurer's mind. Mr CARLTON —You said it, Mr McLeay. The CHAIRMAN —It might just be because we are smaller characters that we do not know what is in the Treasurer's mind. Mr CARLTON —We also do not know what is in the Treasurer's tax return. The CHAIRMAN —The Treasurer might say the same himself. We should get on with the debate on clause 7. Mr CARLTON —What we are doing here is trying to ensure that there will be some mechanism, when the regulations actually come in-and we know now that that will be under a new government-so that we will be able to regulate the administrative fees and other charges that are placed on the moneys that come in from the contributors to these funds to ensure that the likes of, for example, the building industry unions, cannot get their cotton-picking hands on the life savings of their coerced members. That is basically what we are wanting to do in this amendment. As I said last night, the whole thing is a bit of a farce because the Senate will not be considering the legislation. That is not the fault of the Opposition. It is the Government that has called an early election. It is the Government that has jammed the Senate with a whole stack of legislation that cannot be well considered in the time that is available. The Senate is perfectly justified in saying that it will not deal with these important measures in a matter of five minutes just because the Prime Minister has called an early election for all sorts of unworthy reasons. Therefore, we merely say that we will introduce these kinds of provisions-the ones I introduced last night and today by way of amendment-and we will be in a position to do that in about six weeks. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.39) —I support most strongly the remarks of my colleague the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), because this is a most important issue. We have a situation in which the guidelines that we already have, and as the legislation is projected, give no real recognition to the problems that can arise in this area and the potential for the creaming off of funds that properly belong to the members. Mr Cobb —It is happening now. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Of course it is happening, which is precisely why we are so concerned about it. An employer contributing to these moneys could just as well send a cheque straight off to the fund manager as do it through a trade union; rather we have a situation where we clearly see already, trade union officers, in effect, insisting on payments which they do not earn and which are a cost to their members, and it is potentially a significant sum. I have not considered the figures for some time, but I would say that, eventually, about three million employees might be involved in such schemes. A so-called administrative fee of about $1 a week is being charged for the handling of these funds. Mr Cobb —It mounts up. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It mounts up. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that for three million employees paying about $50 per annum the amount will be about $150m. Such an amount will be accrued by the building workers unions-- Mr Blunt —And it is tax free. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As my colleague says, it is tax free. Vast sums are involved. I therefore take this opportunity to support strongly the amendment moved by my colleague, which seeks to lay down some firm guidelines in this regard and underlines, again, the dereliction of duty on the part of the Government in not getting these matters firmly spelt out and into legislation long before now. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.41) —I support the remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) on the amendment. The amendment seeks to insert a very important section which deals with the level of administrative fees. Under the building unions superannuation scheme, an employer is forced to contribute just under $25 a week per employee. That is a considerable amount of money. Out of that amount, $1 is put aside for administrative fees. Four per cent of the compulsory fee which an employer puts in is taken out every week. That is a considerable sum. It has been suggested that if private enterprise were to handle the schemes and if there was a choice as to which scheme a person could contribute to, perhaps only 35c would be taken out. So what is happening to the other 65c? When one multiplies the figure by 120,000 members it works out at about $80,000 a week, tax free. What is happening to this money? Of course, if there were free choice in this area there would not be 120,000 members. Polls show that probably 80 per cent at least would drop out of the schemes and there would be only about 25,000 members, and if people had free choice as to which scheme they entered the figure would probably be a lot lower. Dr Harry Edwards —They need their superannuation ticket as a ticket to the job. Mr COBB —They do. The superannuation scheme is being used nothing more nor less than as a lever to enforce compulsory unionism. The whole thing has become an absolute rort. It is quite repugnant to the average Australian. The scheme is also being used as a deferred wage rise. The drop-out rate in the scheme and the rate of those who give false names, et cetera, are more than twice the rates that apply in other private enterprise schemes, and there are many other anomalies. There should be one standard laid down in this legislation. It should be that the level of administrative fee should be set at a reasonable level. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.44) —The claim that administrative fees can be creamed off to unions is a load of rubbish. The Opposition lives in a fantasy land when it comes to matters relating to trade unions. As I said last night when a similar amendment was brought before the Committee, the Opposition has engaged in an exercise of political gimmickry. Let me say why I am able to claim that with justification. I remind the Committee that there will be equal sharing of control under the standards legislation between employers and employees. The representatives of employers have an equal number of trustees or directors involved in the management and control of these funds. In addition, I make the point that the trustees will be much more accountable to their members through the reporting and disclosure of standards. If there were any creaming off of administrative fees, of course, the members would surely very quickly replace the particular trustees who were indulging in that exercise. The Government opposes the amendment. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.45) —I cannot let the remarks of the Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) go unchallenged. Just to say that there are equal numbers of trustees of employers and employees is to push an unbelievable argument within the context of industrial relations. This goes back to the heart of the setting up of the building union funds, to take those as an example. I sat down with the managers of those funds-and I shall not name them, but they are related to a large and quite reputable life insurance company in Australia-and they said that they were managing funds that were set up by agreement between the employers and trade unions. I asked exactly what the nature of the agreement between the employers in the building industry and the union was. How can it be an agreement? Heavens above, it was an agreement that was extracted from the employers under duress. It would not matter if there were equal numbers of employers and employees sitting around the table; the power relationship is un- equal. It is absolute nonsense for the Minister to come into the chamber and suggest that there is equal representation. In the facade of numbers, there is equal representation, but it is like the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In the report of the Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relation Law and Systems, Professor Hancock makes it absolutely clear that the relationship within that system is of unequal power. The whole basis of the Hancock recommendations to try to preserve the system is that it cannot be changed because of the power situation. That is disgraceful, and it is one of the things that the Liberal-National government that will come into office on 11 July will change. We must get down to what I would call genuine industrial realities. When the Labor Party or the trade union movement talks about industrial reality, it is talking about a reign of intimidation, coercion and pressure. It calls that industrial reality. We know that industrial reality is the corruption of the true, proper, productive relationship between workers and managers in a work place. If an employer wishes to set aside superannuation money for the retirement security of employees-which is a noble and very useful thing to do, a good society objective-that should be done on the basis of mutual trust between employer and employee and of a trust on the part of those putting their money into funds for a long period that those funds will be managed properly by people who can be trusted. The Minister made a pitiful remark about union members rising up if they were not happy about what was happening. Since when has anyone on a building site been able to stand up to the Building Workers Industrial Union or, before it, the Builders Labourers Federation? That is not real life. How many years was it before Gallagher was brought to justice? For how many years was there intimidation and thuggery on building sites? Was there a great rising up of workers in that union? They were scared stiff to do anything. It was only after the very belated actions of governments acting on behalf of those members that something was done about the BLF. The Building Workers Industrial Union is not much better. We are talking about justice for the worker. The worker's retirement nest egg should not be placed in jeopardy. People should worry about what will happen to them in 10, 20 or 30 years. The Opposition worries about them and the security of their money. The Opposition wants changes made to the legislation that will protect the interest of those people. We cannot rely on the Labor Party to do this. The Minister just glosses over these issues. We get absolute rubbish from honourable members on the other side of the House about the realities of this situation. It is simply not good enough. We have to expose it in the same way as we exposed the absolute farce of the present industrial relations system. We are not in the business of causing any confrontation. We want to dismantle confrontation, but the Minister laughs at that. Mr Hurford —Yes, I do indeed. Mr CARLTON —The Minister should listen. It is the confrontation that takes place when somebody from the Building Workers Industrial Union or formerly the Builders Labourers Federation puts the squeeze on a contractor, a member of the union, or on somebody to join the union in the first place. That is aggression. All common decency requires that the laws of the land enacted by this Parliament intervene on behalf of the ordinary citizen to ensure that the ordinary citizen has rights against the new powerful groups which try to take away those rights. I remind the House that it was Alfred Deakin, a Liberal Prime Minister, who used the powers of this Parliament to intervene on behalf of workers against the then excessive power of employers by establishing the conciliation and arbitration system in the first place. It was Deakin who did that-not the Labor Party. It will be the Liberal Party in 1987 which reforms that system for the very same reason that the concentration of power against the interest of the individual worker has changed in the opposite direction. Once again, 80 years later, we in the Liberal Party will have to redress that balance. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Mackellar will relate his remarks to his amendment. Mr CARLTON —I will relate them exactly to the amendment. The amendment is to give through the powers of this Parliament the authority of the Parliament to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner, to regulate what will happen to moneys that are being invested for the life-time retirement security of individual members of trade unions or, for that matter, any members of the public. That is just as important a civil rights issue, an issue of individual liberty, as the issues addressed by Deakin in 1904. Because of the changes in the balance of power and the build-up in the trade union bureaucracy of unbelievable power, 83 years later it is essential for us to redress that imbalance in the same way that Deakin did in 1904. We are looking at the same kind of problem even though the players might be different. The interests of the ordinary worker are at stake and, once again, it will be the Liberal Party that will stand up for the interests of the worker. In this case the Labor Party will be on the wrong side of the fence. In 1904 the labour movement supported Deakin in his reform. It was then arguing on behalf of the individual worker. Certainly my forebears were doing that as, no doubt, were your forebears, Mr Chairman, because they came from the same part of the globe. They were there fighting with the Labor Party at that time for the interests of the workers. Now the Liberal Party is fighting for the interests of the workers and the Labor Government is introducing legislation which will reinforce the power of those who would oppress those interests. It is an absolute disgrace. It was the Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer who provoked this response. It was the Minister who brushed lightly over the rights of workers on building sites and who chose to present to the House an incorrect picture of what occurs brutally in those areas and which, incidentally, pushes up, as part of that process, the cost of every building in Australia, therefore making Australia less competitive. On this clause, small though it may seem, there rests a major issue of principle. I was delighted, Mr Chairman, to relate my amendment to what I was saying earlier because the issue of liberty and whether we will enjoy growing prosperity is in the mainstream of the current political debate. We in the Liberal and National parties are proud to take up the cudgels to protect the rights of the ordinary workers on every building site and in every work place in Australia. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 8 (Operating standards for approved deposit funds). Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.55) —by leave-I move: (6) Clause 8, page 6, lines 39 and 40, omit subclause (1), substitute the following subclause: ``(1) Standards applicable to the operation of approved deposit funds shall be such as are prescribed by this Act or any other Act.''. (7) Clause 8, page 6, line 41, omit ``may'', substitute ``shall''. This clause is a further example of this Government's intention to lay down by regulation the rules affecting people's retirement. The Government does not have the courage to bring into this Parliament a statement of its policy to be fully debated by both Houses and then incorporated in legislation. This clause contains a number of provisions and relates to approved deposit funds. Previously we took exception to this approach applying to superannuation funds. Approved deposit funds are used to provide a home for superannuation payments that are received prior to a worker's final retirement, and that involves substantial sums of money. Often a person will work for one employer for 10 or 15 years and then change jobs. He will go to another employer and join another superannuation scheme. For reasons of convenience, it is sometimes appropriate to take the superannuation lump sum payment-and under this Government there is a tax on superannuation lump sums-and put it into what is known as an approved deposit fund. As I said, that involves fairly substantial amounts of money accumulated over a period of working years. This Government proposes by regulation to change the rules, standards and guidelines for those funds. Clause 8 (2) provides: The standards that may be prescribed include, but are not limited to, standards relating to the following matters: There are then listed eight very significant points, but the standards are not limited just to those points. The first point relates to the kinds of amounts which may be deposited with approved deposit funds, which is whether you can put in your money in the first place. How can you plan for your retirement if you are not sure whether you can take a superannuation payout and put it into an approved fund? The next points relate to the preservation of amounts deposited with approved deposit funds, the payment out of approved deposit funds of amounts deposited and the earnings on such amounts. There is nothing more crucial than the payment out of a fund. Once you put in your money you should be confident that you can get it out and you should have some confidence that you will get the interest on that money which has been deposited for some time. The Government is not prepared to tell us what rules will apply to that. The next point relates to the portability of amounts deposited with approved deposit funds and whether at some point you want to move from one fund manager to another fund manager or from one type of fund to another. Once again, we do not know what rules will apply. Fundamental to the safety of an investment is the kind of investments which will be approved for these funds and whether they can go into government bonds or some fly by night type of investment. No rules are specified. The final points deal with the financial reports that will go to the people who own the money in these funds; the disclosure of information to depositors; and a number of other things related to trust deeds of approved deposit funds. As members on this side have said before, we believe that this is indicative of the Government's lack of competence in the superannuation area. The Government does not have a coherent retirement incomes policy. We have seen that in the Department of Social Security with its piecemeal approach to welfare and, in particular, aged pensions. We are seeing it again here. We have seen an example of it having to do something very quickly to try to contain, but keep on side, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. So we had a series of Press releases from the Treasurer (Mr Keating). In one Press release he said that there would be negotiation in the work place and that that was industrial reality. As my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) said, that is just an invitation to the unions to use their muscle on the building sites and in the work places. They will squeeze from individual employers, one by one, the concessions that they need for superannuation. It will give trade unions, which have a declining membership, another source of income that is tax free because they do not pay tax on income. Not only do they not pay tax on the subscriptions of their members, but they do not pay it on the additional income that they earn from the commission or administration charges for the superannuation arrangements. If this Government were really competent, if it knew what it was doing, it would bring to the House legislation that laid down, chapter and verse, the rules for superannuation and approved deposit funds. We are talking about the future of the money that people are saving. They are giving up their current living standards to provide for their future living standards when they retire. Those whose money is at stake must know exactly the rules of the game in which they are about to engage. But that is not the case with this Government. It is: `Take us on trust', like so much of what it does. It is: `Trust us, trust me, and we will do the right thing by you'. After four years of that, the Australian people have had enough and on 11 July they will get rid of this Government. It is about time that we got down to firm policies and did away with reliance on trust and charisma. That is why we have moved the amendments requiring this Government to legislate for the operating standards for approved deposit funds, and not simply to rely on regulations. It is just as important as the superannuation question, and it is more significant for many people because it affects their retirement planning. Halfway or more through their working lives, when they have accumulated a certain credit in superannuation, for a multitude of reasons they often change jobs. They do not want to retire, so they need a repository for those funds. Surely it is not too much to ask that they have confidence in and know the rules that will apply to the funds in which they are depositing those hard-earned, hard-saved dollars that will be so fundamental not only to their standards of living in retirement, but to the demands that they make on the public sector-the Australian taxpayers of the future-for a supplement for retirement income support. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.02) —I have already explained why the Government and, indeed, the industry-and I wish to emphasise that it is both-want these matters initially to be in regulations and not inflexibly enshrined in the Act. Our case should and could rest there; but I will continue. I agree with the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) that these matters are crucial. That is why we need to get this legislation through Parliament. That is why the responsibility lies very heavily on the honourable member for Richmond and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) to ensure that they use their influence to get this legislation through the Senate. We need to have the arrangements in place and to be able to study the regulations prior to 1 July, when they should come into operation. In a wide-ranging contribution, the honourable member for Richmond spoke of a comprehensive retirement benefit policy. The Government's policy is clear, but we know that the Opposition will tax the superannuation funds to make funds available-- Mr Carlton —What? Who said that? Mr HURFORD —There have been plenty of indications that that is the Opposition's policy. It will tax the funds to make funds available to look after the greedy rather than the needy. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.03) —I am astounded at the remarks of the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) about the Opposition's alleged proposal to tax superannuation funds. It is a shabby attempt to suggest that the Liberal Party of Australia-and, perhaps, the National Party of Australia-would tax superannuation funds. I wish to make the House aware of what the Government has up its sleeve. For the past six months there has been a Treasury committee-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! We are not going to make anyone aware of anything other than the matters that relate to clause 8, on operating standards for approved deposit funds. Mr Carlton —Well, why did the Minister raise the matter? Mr BLUNT —My remarks will relate to what the Government plans to do to the income that accrues to approved funds in approved deposit schemes. The Government has a Treasury committee which, for the past six months, has been working out how to tax superannuation funds and approved deposit funds. That has been happening behind the scenes, in the hidden agenda of the Australian Labor Party in government. Yet the Minister has the nerve to come here and try to run some spurious assertion that the Liberal Party is planning that. The Government, with the resources of the bureaucracy, with the need to fund the Treasurer's expenditure program, has had a Treasury committee working out how to impose another tax on superannuation and approved deposit funds. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I think we have probably pursued this matter as far as we need to. I think both sides have had equal time and we might get down to the question on clause 8. Mr BLUNT —Mr McLeay, I take your point but I just want to make the record clear so that everybody knows what the Government is planning and what it is doing behind the scenes. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(11.05) —The claim has just been made that the Opposition will not be taxing the investment income-- The CHAIRMAN-Order! The Committee is dealing with the operating standards for approved deposit funds, clause 8 of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. The debate got a little wide and I do not intend to allow the honourable member for Charlton to widen the debate any further. If he wishes to contribute on clause 8 he may do so. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Clause 8 is certainly one of the most critical parts of the entire legislation because it clearly establishes those standards for the future operation of superannuation funds. It qualifies the type of standards that should be considered as appropriate in legislation of this kind. At the same time, it was interesting that whilst a number of matters were raised in connection with this clause, there was a denial that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in a private meeting of back benchers last week, had foreshadowed a decision to tax the investment income of superannuation funds. Mr Carlton —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. That is not relevant to this clause. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I am just waiting to see what the honourable member is getting to. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Mr Chairman, all I wanted to do was to defend the statement which had been made by the Minister because the Minister's claim had been refuted, denied, by members of the Opposition. What the Minister said is perfectly correct and I think the Minister is entitled to the protection and the defence of colleagues on this side of the chamber. It has been made perfectly clear that the intention of the Opposition, if it ever gets into government, is to finance in part the $16 billion credibility gap by taxing the investment income of superannuation funds. Mr Howard has briefed his own back bench to that effect. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will refer to office holders by their title. I think that we are really drawing too long a bow on this matter now and it might be better if we proceeded with the vote on clause 8. Dr Harry Edwards —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I just want to say-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I really think we have widened this debate a little further than was intended. Dr Harry Edwards —Mr Chairman, you talked of equal time a little while ago. If this goes on it will go from one side to the other with equal speaking time and we will get nowhere. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I think if the honourable member for Berowra and the honourable member for Charlton resume their seats there will be no problem. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I agree with you, Mr Chairman, that it is important that the matter be brought to a conclusion. I am pleased I have had the opportunity to clarify it. It is certainly the intention of the Opposition to get its grubby hands on the investment income of superannuation funds. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(11.09) —Speaking to this clause, I will merely say that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) will be looking very stupid next week. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 9 to 15-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 16 ( Review of certain decisions). Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.10) —by leave-I move: (8) Clause 16, page 13, line 25, omit ``21'', substitute ``60''. (9) Clause 16, page 13, line 33 to 37, omit subclause (4), substitute the following subclause: ``(4) Where the Commissioner does not confirm, revoke or vary a decision before the expiration of the period of 60 days after the day on which the Commissioner received the request under subsection (1) to reconsider the decision, the Commissioner shall, upon the expiration of that period, be deemed to have revoked the decision under subsection (3).''. (10) Clause 16, page 14, omit subclause (7). Our amendments to this clause indicate the sort of rough justice handed out by this Government and the way in which it is dominated by the bureaucracy. It is important to understand exactly what changes these clauses make to the present situation. Right now, if the trustees of a superannuation fund have a complaint about a determination made by the Australian Taxation Office, they have 60 days in which to lodge an appeal. If that appeal is not successful, they can take the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The impact of this clause is to transfer the responsibility from the Australian Taxation Office to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. But, in the course of making the transfer, it changes substantially the balance of power and the equity in the appeal procedures. If the trustees make a return and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner makes a ruling with which they do not agree, they have 21 days in which to appeal. Contrast that with the 60 days currently allowed through the Tax Office. After the appeal has been lodged, if nothing is done by the Commissioner within 21 days, this provision deems that the original determination will be upheld. First of all, it is an excuse for indolence and sloth by bureaucrats. Secondly, it is not a fair dinkum appeal procedure. Why would one go to all the trouble of mounting an appeal, preparing the arguments and arguing one's case when all that has to happen is for some bureaucrat to say that he is too busy, that he is going to flex off that day or that he has something better to do than to deal with it and, 21 days after the date of lodgment, it will be deemed that the original decision is upheld. What sort of justice is that? What sort of government would bring in a provision like that? It is an invitation for bureaucrats to do nothing. It encourages people to undertake futile work that will not even be read by the people who have the power if they do not feel like dealing with it. If this provision were to come into effect, after an appeal was dismissed, one would then have the option of taking it to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Why have the intervening process if there is to be no requirement on the people with the power to review the original decision to do anything about it? It is for that reason that we have moved the amendments. The impact of our amendments is to restore the 60-day appeal procedure, which is only fair. Twenty-one days is not very long when one is dealing with issues as complex as superannuation law and the returns required under this legislation. Importantly, our amendments would change the onus of the provision. Instead of the original decision being upheld, we will change it so that, if there is no review, the appellant's position is adopted. That will make the bureaucrats sit up and do their work. They are paid to do these things. They are charging a fee for doing these things. There will be up to 500 public servants in this Commission eventually and it is about time that something was done with the manpower resources. It is for that reason that we have moved amendment No. (9) which states: Where the Commissioner does not confirm, revoke or vary a decision before the expiration of the period of 60 days after the day on which the Commissioner received the request under subsection (1) to reconsider the decision, the Commissioner shall, upon the expiration of that period, be deemed to have revoked the decision under subsection (3). That is the sort of provision that we should have. That is the way that we will get efficiency from the Public Service in Australia; not by giving public servants an excuse not to do their job, but by actually requiring them to address the real issues, take the decisions and make sure that what is important to the funds' subscribers, the people who are saving for their retirement-that is, the administration of their superannuation-is dealt with efficiently, effectively and equitably and that we do not have the opportunity for members of the bureaucracy to say that they are too busy, that they are going on holiday, that they are taking a flexi day or that they have to pick up the kids from school and cannot address an appeal. They should not be able to say: `Anyway, if I do not address it, they can take it to the AAT'. That procedure would take a couple of years and cost a couple of hundred dollars. In the meantime the fund has to continue operating. That is the important thing. The fund has to continue to operate because people keep on earning their wages and each week the deductions for their superannuation are taken from them and paid into the fund. Because of this Government's attitude to administration, which I have to say is slack and lax, we do not have a determination on the appeal, we do not know the status of the funds, we do not know the status of the contributions, we do not know the tax status of those contributions and we do not know what impact that will have on the retirement benefit paid to the contributors to those funds. This is an appalling provision to bring into this place. As I said, it shows no recognition of the rights of fund subscribers. It is concerned with the comfort and the convenience of the bureaucracy, a burgeoning bureaucracy, which will be increasingly expensive, which will have 500 people doing a job that is currently done by the Taxation Office. If that sort of administration apparatus is to be set up in Australia, it ought to be done on the basis that those people have to do their job. They have to recognise they are not there for their own convenience but for the benefit of the fund subscribers. People who are concerned with planning for their retirement have a right to know the status of their superannuation fund, the status of their contribution to that fund and what the likely consequences for their retirement are. If, after a couple of years, the AAT says `No, we reject the appeal' and the original decision of the Commission is upheld, what will happen? This could take 2, 3, 4 or 5 years. It could involve five years worth of contributions from each subscriber. That could mean millions of dollars in a large fund. This Government is about to say: `We will have an appeal procedure but we are not fair dinkum about it'. I do not know why the Government wastes the time of the Parliament, the paper and ink, or the draftsman's time in drafting an appeal procedure which is not real. If the Government says to the bureaucracy `You do not have to consider this appeal', I wonder how the Minister could honestly get up in response and say: `I am sure they will'. He knows, as I do, exactly what will happen. If people are given an excuse not to do a job-I am sure he has encountered this in his responsibilities-they will not do it. People cannot be given a way out, not when the matter could so significantly affect many thousands of Australians. It is for that reason that we would reverse the provisions that the Government has brought into this place, and require it to make a decision. It should address the issues because they are fundamental and important. We cannot have Sir Humphrey running this country. If the Australian Labor Party is prepared to acquiesce and to go along with the bureaucracy, let me say that the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party are not. We are fair dinkum about responsibility in government, we are fair dinkum about getting efficiency and performance out of the Public Service and we will not do it with the standard of provision that the Government has brought in in this clause. Mr COBB(Parkes)(11.18) —I have been in this Parliament for only two and a half years, but in that time this is the most extraordinary sub-clause I have ever seen in any legislation put before this chamber, and I think it is worth reading it. Sub-clause 16 (4) states: Where the Commissioner does not confirm, revoke or vary a decision before the expiration of the period of 21 days after the day on which the Commissioner received the request under sub-section (1) to reconsider the decision, the Commissioner shall, upon the expiration of that period, be deemed to have confirmed the decision under sub-section (3). That is just incredible. As the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) said, it is in effect an admission that the Commissioner does not have to do anything. By any standard it is a very lazy government. If people did not get an acknowledgment that their appeals had arrived-there may have been a mail strike or the letter may have been lost-they would not even know whether their appeals were with the Commissioner. There is no compulsion or reasonable provision that the Commissioner has even to look at the appeal. I find it absolutely incredible that this provision could be inserted in the legislation. There is an old joke about public servants in Canberra being on strike. It is: `How can you tell? The work output is exactly the same'. The sub-clause that we are now debating seems to confirm this. I saw a sticker on a car bumper this morning which said: `Sleep with a public servant-they need the exercise'. This sub-clause seems to give some credibility to that statement. The Commissioner does not even have to consider an appeal. I find that incredible. How could this sub-clause possibly be introduced into this Parliament? As the honourable member for Richmond said, a public servant could be on holiday, on flexitime or on strike, and an appeal would not be considered. He could even be at work and `working' and he would not have to consider an appeal. The legislation that we are debating here today provides for a blowout of public servants under the Commissioner-from what I read in the papers-from 200 to 500, yet the Commissioner still cannot give a guarantee that an appeal will be considered. It is absolutely extraordinary. What do they do? Who drafted this legislation? All we are asking in this amendment is that they go ahead and do their job. In this sub-clause we are amending the number of days for consideration of an appeal from 21 days to 60 days. For example, with the doubling of public servants that will be needed, if the Commissioner cannot handle an appeal within 21 days, we are giving him 60 days. So there can be no excuse in that area. Surely that will be enough time. If the public servants cannot handle it in 21 days, they now have time on their hands to do it. The appeal system will be meaningless if this sub-clause is left in. It is an absolutely outrageous sub-clause. The amendment moved by the National Party should at least be considered by the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford). Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(11.21) —I want to make a couple of observations on this matter. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) referred to this as one of the most extraordinary sub-clauses in any legislation that he has considered or to which his attention has been drawn since he has been in the Parliament. Mr Mountford —He has only been here for a short time, though. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As the honourable member for Banks reminds me, the honourable member for Parkes has only been here for a relatively short period. I am sure that had he given close attention to all the legislation that has come before the Parliament during that time, as he obviously has to this legislation, he would be aware that this type of provision is in no way exceptional. I emphasise the inconsistency and the absurdity of what has just been put to us. The sub-clause proposes: Where the Commissioner does not confirm, revoke or vary a decision before the expiration of the period of 60 days . . . the Commissioner shall, upon the expiration of that period, be deemed to have revoked the decision under subsection (3). The absurdity of that is apparent when we consider the possibility that the most appropriate way in which the Commissioner could have dealt with that particular application could have been by way of varying the decision. The amendment moved by the Opposition would not allow the Commissioner the opportunity under those circumstances, after the expiration of 60 days, to vary the decision in any way. It would automatically be revoked. Dr Harry Edwards —No. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Of course it would. Those opposite are not even familiar with the import of the amendment that they have moved. Let me remind them what it says: Where the Commissioner does not confirm, revoke or vary a decision before the expiration of the period of 60 days . . . the Commissioner shall . . . be deemed to have revoked the decision under subsection (3). If honourable members opposite go and tell the funds that they are going to impose on them a situation where they are seeking a variation of some decision and that they are going to impose on them, as a result of that absurd amendment, a requirement that the Commissioner be deemed to have revoked the decision, they will be laughed at. I bet those opposite did not discuss that with any of the funds because they would have been advised, in the first place, not to be so ridiculous. To suggest that an onus of this kind should be placed on the Commissioner would be the application of a principle which simply has not ever been adopted before, should not be adopted now and certainly would never be adopted in the future. Those opposite are suggesting that where there are cases where the Commissioner may well feel it appropriate to confirm, revoke or vary a decision because of some time element, the Commissioner will then be required, in effect, to revoke the decision under new section 16 (3) of the legislation. I do not know where members of the Opposition got that from. If they got it from their party room considerations, that might explain it, but they certainly did not get it from the industry or from any informed, sensible advice that might have been available to them. I suggest very strongly to members of the Opposition that in future when they bring amendments into the chamber-they will have the opportunity after 11 July, because they will still be in opposition and will still be bringing in amendments-that they seek more competent advice than they have obviously sought or had access to on this occasion. It is an absurd amendment. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.25) —I am very glad that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) has an 18 per cent majority-because if that is the standard of his contribution to this place and his constituents ever find out about it, they will not put him back here. He has got the whole argument wrong. The impact of our amendment is simply to provide that if the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner does not decide, we have the status quo ante-that is, it goes back to the position before a determination was made. It does not in any way prevent variation of a decision; in fact, it is designed to make the Commissioner address the issue and, if appropriate, vary it. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(11.26) —That is precisely the point. What the Opposition is suggesting is that some of the funds may apply for confirmation, revocation or variation of a particular decision and, where the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner does not answer within 60 days, the status quo-that is, the determination that has already been made by the Commissioner-will be the situation to prevail. Mr Blunt —No, prior to the determination. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Exactly; but that is precisely what the fund may be appealing against. What the honourable member is saying is that, despite that fact that a fund has made an appeal against some particular determination, if no decision is made and advised to the fund within 60 days, the status quo prevails. If the Opposition tells the funds it is knocking out from under them the opportunity in those circumstances to bring about a variation or determination, they will laugh at the Opposition. It is an absurd proposition and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) cannot defend it. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(11.27) —All I can say to the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), through the Chair, is that Professor Anderson must be turning over in his grave. I am sure that the honourable member sat at the foot of Professor Anderson, at the University of Sydney, that distinguished phil- osopher who used to teach Philosophy 1, simple logic: All A are B; some A are B; some A are not B. Does the honourable member remember? Mr Robert Brown —Yes. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Charlton, whom I knew well at the university-he was President of the Labor Club in those days-- Mr Robert Brown —And you were President of the Liberal Club. Mr CARLTON —That is true, but the honourable member should not raise the matter too much because the Labor Club in those days was not quite what people today might think it was. He has got quite a lot of sense over this period but, unfortunately, his command of logic has fallen away. We have a distinguished former Professor of Economics from the same university here, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), and he could attest to what I am saying. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I do not believe we wish to run through honourable members' CVs. Mr CARLTON —The amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) merely says that if the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner has made a decision and somebody does not like it and that person writes in, if the Commissioner chooses to ignore that representation, after 60 days one is back where one started. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable proposition, whereas what is in the Bill means that, if somebody writes in because he does not like a decision the letter can sit in the in-tray for 21 days, or not be delivered by Australia Post or whatever, or somebody can sleep on it, and it is assumed that it is as of nothing under the legislation. That seems to me the height of absurdity. I think the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) was quite correct in drawing attention to this in this way and the honourable member for Richmond has put up a perfectly sensible proposition. The convoluted logic of the honourable member for Charlton is quite beyond my comprehension. I know it is a slip. I know it is an election period. I know the honourable member is under some pressure, even though he has an 18 per cent majority, but Professor Anderson would be ashamed of him. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(11.29) —As a sometime student of the aforementioned Professor Anderson, I cannot fail to enter into this debate. What is at issue is a simple matter of logic. I really just wonder what the honour- able member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) is about. Presumably, he just happened to be passing and came into the debate and his opening statements were precisely about the great importance of having the standards at issue spelt out in this legislation. That is exactly the very point we have been making all morning, as the honourable member would have known if he had been here listening, but he was not. My colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) is trying to ensure, in his amendments, that there is an onus on the Public Service to respond-to do its job. The sub-clause provides that the Public Service can confirm, revoke or vary a decision. However, we want it do something and not just sit there or leave us in suspense that perchance, due to Australia Post, the document has not even arrived. We want the Public Service to do something. The sub-clause as it stands gives the Public Service a complete out for not doing its job. I add my support to the view that the logic of the amendment is very clear and very much in the tradition of Professor Anderson and it ought to carry the day. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.31) —As the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) has suggested, the Opposition has got itself into an unnecessary lather over this matter, which indeed it has misinterpreted. This sub-clause follows sections in the Insurance Act and the Life Insurance Act which have been in operation for some time. The Opposition believes that something will happen which will not happen. It has not happened in the past when it has had a chance to happen. Section 63 (5) of the Insurance Act 1973, which has had 14 years of operation, states: Where the Treasurer or the Commissioner, as the case may be, does not confirm, revoke or vary a decision before the expiration of the period of 21 days after the day on which he received the request under sub-section (2) to reconsider the decision, he shall, upon the expiration of that period, be deemed to have confirmed the decision under sub-section (4). When that happens and the parties concerned feel aggrieved, they can go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is an enormous sanction on the Commissioner to make sure that that does not happen. As those of us who have experience of administration know, no one in administration would want any of these matters to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I add that a body called the Administrative Review Council constantly monitors this sort of section and Act. There has been no question of the Administrative Review Council suggesting that there ought to be an alteration to this measure. A period of 21 days is provided for in corresponding Acts other than the Insurance Act. I repeat that in those other Acts too it has not given rise to any difficulty. It is fanciful to claim, as the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has claimed, that all these terrible things will happen if the sub-clause remains as it is. He is living in fantasyland when he says that. The provision is a part of a well established review machinery that is oversighted not only by the Attorney-General's Department but also, as I have indicated earlier, the Administrative Review Council. A 60-day period as against a 21-day period could adversely affect the interests of fund members. Both the regulatory authority and the trustees should be obliged to consider matters promptly and without delay where a fund's compliance with the standards may be in question. In other words, 21 days is very much preferable to 60 days. It means that we do not have to wait so long for the bureaucracy to act. The bureaucracy will act because it has the deterrent of going to the AAT if it does not act. There is strong pressure for it to do so. I commend the clause as it stands. The Government rejects the amendment. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.37) —I move: Clause 6, page 3, line 3, omit ``7'', substitute ``5''. The amendment relates to the term of appointment of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. Members of the National Party have some concern about the provision for the appointment of the Commissioner for seven years, which is a bit more than two terms of parliament, if it runs its full term. Of course under the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who keeps saying that there will not be an early election, this Parliament will not run its full term. A government appointment to a very significant office which could extend to the term of three parliaments is, the National Party believes, an unwise course of action. I am reminded of a situation in the past where a Labor government appointed a former Labor Minister to a very important position-I refer to Mr Grassby. He was appointed in a way that a succeeding government of a different political view could do nothing about. We are talking about superannuation; we are talking about people's life savings; we are talking about retirement income policy; we are talking about costs to the Australian taxpayer; we are talking about the need to maximise the returns available to subscribers to superannuation funds; we are talking about the need to have efficient, effective non-political administration. I am not suggesting for one moment that this Government would be tempted to make a political appointment to this office. If the temptation should arise at some point in the future the National Party believes there should be some limit to the extent for which the appointment could be made. It is suggesting a small reduction in the term of appointment from seven years to five years. As I said, it is very important that we attract individuals to the office of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner who have the qualities and capacities necessary to administer the provision of the legislation and to make sure that superannuation in Australia is effectively regulated. I do not believe, nor do my colleagues in the National Party, that a reduction in the term to five years will adversely affect the ability of any government to attract a sufficiently competent and qualified person to accept that appointment. The Government will argue that seven years is the standard term of appointment for statutory authorities. It might well be, but that does not mean that it is right. We are talking about effective administration; people's savings and something which is very significant to the future of the country in fiscal terms and in terms of the obligations of taxpayers to fund retirement income support in the future. We must make sure that we do the right thing. We cannot have the temptation for a political appointment to be made. Should it ever cross the mind of the Labor Government to appoint one of its cronies to this position, the National Party will not tolerate it. It is bad enough that the framework the legislation has established for superannuation provides the opportunity for trade union heavies to coerce their fellow trustees in the management of the funds. The National Party could not tolerate a situation where a political appointment was made to such a significant office. It is for that very simple reason that we suggested the quite reasonable reduction in term from seven years to five years. The Government will perhaps suggest that it will not make appointments for more than five years. If it is not its intention to make appointments for more than five years, why not put that provision in the legislation in the first place? A period of five years is adequate. Why does the Government need the provision of seven years if it is only going to make appointments for five years? Why does the Government not agree to this amendment if it is concerned to get this legislation through both Houses before the Parliament is prorogued? One way to do it would be for it to accept some of the more reasonable amendments suggested by the National Party and the Liberal Party. As I have said, it is a simple and reasonable amendment. It has no flow-on consequences. The Government I think will argue that five years is a long enough term. Simply to achieve uniformity with other statutory authorities is not a sufficiently strong enough argument to convince those of us on this side of the House. Mr COBB(Parkes)(11.41) —The Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) has been telling us this morning what a reasonable and sincere man he is. I believe that that is substantially correct. I hope that he will take note of the words of my colleague, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who has put forward a very reasonable amendment. A seven-year appointment for the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner is far too long a period for such a crucial position, for this person will be overseeing not hundreds of millions of dollars of contributors' money, but billions of dollars. The last thing we want to see is a political appointment. I do not believe this will happen. However, should it happen-it has happened in the past-we would not be able to shift such a person for seven years. The honourable member for Richmond has referred to the former Labor Party Minister, Al Grassby, who was appointed to a position and who could not be shifted for seven years. Australia agonised over that matter and finally we had to get rid of him. It would be more reasonable to reduce the period from seven years to five years. There will be many members from the Government benches who will be looking for jobs after 11 July. No doubt there will be some pressure on the Government-- Mr Tim Fischer —The new Government will resist that pressure. Mr COBB —The new Government will, of course. In the unbelievable circumstance of the present Government being returned, many honourable members will be available for jobs. This will be one job that will be available. We would like this seven-year period reduced to a five-year period. We think that it is perfectly reasonable to request that the amendment be considered seriously and not rejected out of hand as other amendments have been this morning. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.43) —I assure the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) that the Government has considered this amendment very seriously. As anticipated by the honourable member for Richmond, the provisions enabling appointments for a period not exceeding seven years does not make it mandatory for anybody to make an appointment for seven years. It is merely that it must not exceed seven years. That provision follows normal machinery regarding the creation of statutory offices. We have been obliged to maintain some uniformity in relation to that matter. However, let me place on record that I have great sympathy with the desire of those who have spoken in this debate to see that this appointment be for five years. I have been very heartened by the good sense shown by the honourable member for Richmond and the honourable member for Parkes in assuming that we, on this side of the House, will be making that appointment. That assumes that we will get this legislation through. With the help of those opposite in influencing senators we will get this legislation through. I point out that the Government goes into a caretaker mode as from Friday and no appointments of any substance will be made after Friday. So it will be an incoming Government that will make this sort of appointment. If I have influence, as I hope I will have, over such an appointment, it will be for five years or less. But we have a practical difficulty. Even if I were disposed to break away from the normal uniformity of appointments to statutory offices by agreeing to this amendment, there are printing problems before we get this Bill to the Senate. I hope that the honourable member for Richmond, the honourable member for Parkes and others will agree that my first obligation to the industry and to the Australian community must be to try to get this Bill through by Friday-the day after tomorrow. We have to try with the help from those opposite to persuade the Senate to put this legislation into place so that we can then see the regulations, so that we can have preservation, portability, vesting, and all the things that this Bill gives this country. Similar provisions, I repeat, have been contained in the Life Insurance Act and the Insurance Act for many years and they have worked well in practice. It is relevant that the provisions will enable appointments to be made for shorter periods than seven years where that is considered appropriate. I hope that the spirit will prevail of us keeping to the five years that those opposite want in practice, and I hope furthermore that in return for that honourable members will help me to ensure that this legislation gets through this Parliament by Friday. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.49) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Department of Aviation Central Training College, Australian Capital Territory. The proposed work reported on by the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works is for the construction of a central training college for the Department of Aviation in Canberra. The need is to accommodate the Department's air traffic control, flight services, search and rescue, flight standards, administrative and automatic data processing training schools. In particular, there is a need to provide specialised accommodation for an $8.8m air traffic control and flight services simulator now on order and due for delivery in September 1988. Although the proposal, as originally referred to the Committee, was for a totally new building to be constructed on a site adjacent to Canberra Airport at Pialligo, the Committee was asked in April 1987 by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) to give consideration also to the conversion of part of Watson High School for this purpose. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has since agreed to the widening of the examination of the proposal by the Public Works Committee. Honourable members will be aware that, in October 1986, the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), in consultation with the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, announced that Watson High School would close at the end of 1987 due to declining enrolments and high recurrent operational costs. Whilst that decision was contested in some of the public submissions, the Committee, in recommending in favour of conversion of part of the Watson High School, has been influenced by renewed confirmation of the School's availability and by the firm belief that greater economy can be achieved by pursuing this alternative than by undertaking wholly new construction at Pialligo. The limit of cost estimate for the original Pialligo reference was $11.2m at October 1986 prices. Due to the late confirmation of the prospective availability of Watson High School, only preliminary investigations were possible by my Department in the restricted time available before the Public Works Committee hearing. The indicative cost, for a comprehensive conversion of part of Watson High School to requirements comparable with those briefed for Pialligo, was $9.115m at February 1987 prices. To this would need to be added the land transfer price of $1.147m-as agreed between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Territories-and the cost of redesign. However, the Committee reasoned, and my Department acknowledges, that with briefing changes more closely attuned to existing room configurations and existing engineering services, considerable additional savings should be possible. The Committee also acknowledged that no suitable space existed at Watson High School to house the simulator currently on order. The Committee therefore accepted that construction of a new detached simulator building, identical to that designed for Pialligo, was essential. The Committee further acknowledged that some delay in the desired completion date for this building was inevitable, if we picked up its recommendations. In conclusion, whilst recommending that portion of Watson High School be converted for use as the Department of Aviation Central Training College and that approval be given to proceed with the construction of a new simulator building at a limit of cost estimate of $2.45m, the Public Works Committee has made its recommendation for conversion of existing buildings conditional on a detailed review by the Department of Aviation of its functional and briefing requirements. The Committee has further recommended that, upon completion of that review, a second public hearing should be held to review the developed designs, to review the extent of briefing change adopted, and to review the limit of cost estimate for conversion works. It is therefore expected that the estimated final building cost of the total project will be significantly less than the $9.115m figure indicated to the Committee in evidence. It is not yet possible to indicate a likely completion date for conversion works, although completion of the simulator building will most certainly be a few months later than that which would have been possible at Pialligo. If the House agrees to support this motion in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, work will commence on construction of a new simulator building at Watson and detailed investigations will be undertaken into reducing the cost of conversion works for further examination and report by the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.54) —The Opposition certainly does not approve of this proposal, principally on the ground of the haste with which it has been brought before the Parliament. We do not see that it is appropriate for this decision to be taken a couple of days before the rising of the House and an election. However, I cannot level the criticism aimed at other measures where the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works has not been included or reference has not been made to that Committee. In this case that has occurred. This whole issue dwells on the fact that, first, it seems highly inappropriate to have this facility in Canberra and, secondly, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has clearly indicated-- Mr West —The Committee has approved it. Mr TUCKEY —I am aware of that. We do not have all the information. I suppose that there is a tendency to look at public works as much as anything else. To support the fact that this matter should not be before the House today one need look only at page 3 of the Minister's speech on the motion, where he guarantees that there will be a second public hearing to review the developed designs, to review the extent of briefing change adopted and to review the limit of cost estimate for conversion works. There are more `ifs' in this motion than positives. So why do we have this motion before the House? Only a couple of days ago we had an argument about the submarine project, which is a major defence project. There is a school within Henty House to train air traffic controllers. The recent shortage of air traffic controllers has been resolved, so there is no urgency about this matter. In fact, one might wonder whether it is here only so that the Opposition can reaffirm its deep concern about this proposal. Of course, our concerns revolve around the availability of hands-on training for air traffic controllers here in Canberra. It is no secret that Canberra airport has relatively low traffic density compared with Melbourne, where the school is now located, or with Sydney for that matter. In terms of technical arrangements, Canberra has no area approach control centre, no operational control centre, no aerial control centre, no flight service centre and no rescue co-ordination centre. On occasion I visit Essendon airport, which has a huge building that is basically empty. One must wonder how easy it would have been to establish the school there if the old Henty House facilities are inadequate. I am not exactly aware of the building design for the simulator, but I do know that there is a huge building at the old Essendon airport. It is extremely close to Tullamarine and would appear to be much more suitable for the training of air traffic controllers. The Government is in receipt of the Review of the Air Traffic Services System of Australia by Dr Rattner, which makes some quite radical suggestions about the future training of air traffic controllers, but they do not seem to be accommodated in this motion. A little while ago the Minister said that the Public Works Committee has recommended that we start on this work. The Committee has not recommended anything. It does not know what the project will cost and it does not know half the proposal. The Committee wants to have another look at it. Will the simulator building be half constructed? That seems to be the Government's point of urgency. It could be that after receiving further evidence the Committee will say that it does not think that it is a very good idea. I think the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) should describe how this proposal will benefit the skills of air traffic controllers. I can see that it might benefit the control and centralisation of the Department of Aviation. Of course Mr Dick Smith, with his Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom, has had a bit to say about the skills and ability of that Department. In closing, quite clearly it is the Government's responsibility to put the facility where the action is. That is why many things are being centralised in Canberra. This is the centre of government and many government decisions are taken here. It is obvious that we should have senior bureaucrats and departmental officers in contact with government. But when we set out to teach someone a skill-in this case, the skill of controlling aircraft in high density traffic, which really occurs in Australia only at Sydney and Melbourne airports-we want him where he can develop that skill through a hands-on approach. I believe that point about hands-on training was a major part of Dr Rattner's recommendations. I suppose the Government suffers a bit from the fact that it has more academic people on its front bench than anything else and it is possible that they believe one can learn everything in schools. I am one of those people who believe that one learns most through practical experience. In this case, where people's lives are at risk, I think we should be encouraging that. Watson High School is an embarrassment to the Government, and many people are applying pressure for its retention. No doubt this proposal might ease that embarrassment. But we are talking about the training of air traffic controllers and their future role in protecting human lives. That should be done under the best possible arrangements-and we do not think that that means Canberra. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation)(11.59) —I indicate to the House, in my capacity as Minister for Aviation, my support for the expediency motion moved by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for the acceptance of the third report of 1987 by the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the construction of a Department of Aviation Central Training College in the Australian Capital Territory. The proposal put by the Department of Aviation to convert Watson High School for the aviation college includes the construction on the site adjacent to the assembly hall of a new building to house the air traffic control and flight service simulator. This proposal, which has been agreed to by the Public Works Committee, provides the Government with the unique opportunity not only to provide the necessary modern facilities for the high quality training of personnel to maintain Australia's high standard of aviation safety but also to achieve a significant cost saving of the order of between $3m and $4m from the proposal originally referred to the Committee for the construction of a purpose designed aviation college at Pialligo in the Australian Capital Territory. Those savings can be achieved because the Watson High School option allows the Government to realise the benefit in real monetary terms of a facility that is no longer required for its original purpose. The recommendations contained within the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works charged the Department of Aviation to review its functional and briefing requirements to enable the Department of Housing and Construction significantly to reduce the cost of converting Watson High School. That review has already been commenced by my Department and, as I previously stated, it is anticipated that significant cost savings will result. My Department recognises that it has been charged to appear again before the Committee to submit for its consideration the necessary details of the alterations to the briefing requirements, and to show where the cost savings have been accomplished. The project has been considered year after year, almost ad nauseam. On each occasion that it comes up for consideration, a different pressure group has come forward to push its particular barrow. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) is really saying: `Stall, stall and stall again'. A timetable is involved in the construction and a severe cost penalty will be incurred by the Department if the simulator is not relocated. The case for Melbourne was put by the Victorian Government and considered by the Committee. At quite an early stage, the Location of the Australian Government Employment Committee also considered the proposals and reached the conclusion that the simulator should be located in Canberra. It is a centralised training facility for all those within the Department who require training. It should not be located on the basis of which State is pushing a particular barrow-- Mr Tuckey —I did not say that. Mr PETER MORRIS —I know that; I am not suggesting that. We must not locate the simulator on the basis of which pressure group is pushing a barrow for its own interests. It is a major training facility that must be placed in the ideal location, and the proposed location has been supported by the Location of Australian Government Employment Committee and also by the best advice available both within and to the Department. All those factors have been considered by the Public Works Committee. Those who want to reactivate the arguments are, in effect, saying that that Committee, after consideration of all the evidence available, is not capable of coming to an appropriate conclusion. That Committee comprises members from both sides of the House-it is not a Government committee. It is suggested that we continue with parochialism and put off difficult decisions. Time is of the essence and all the time that could be wasted has already been wasted. There is no time left for further stalling. The Minister for Housing and Construction would not bring the project before the House if he was not aware of the urgency of getting on with the job. The simulator building needs to be completed so that the simulator can be installed in October 1988. Training is to commence in mid-1989 and there is to be an updating and integration of the flight service units and the air traffic control operation. A detailed timetable is now under way for which facilities must be provided. The training college is an education facility, albeit for specialised training, and is, therefore, compatible with the previous use of Watson High School as an education facility. That building is no longer required for the purpose for which it was originally constructed. I have noted some of the petty point scoring on this issue over a period of years. I am referring not to the previous speech, but to the issues generally. I remember from my Opposition days, well over four years ago, that much of what is being said now was said then by various groups. The comments have not changed over the years; mostly it has been those uttering the comments. At some stage a facility as important as this must be commenced and must be brought into operation. Honourable members can be assured that the revised requirements will result in a training college for the Department of Aviation that not only will provide the highest level of training but will be the most cost effective solution for the conversion of Watson High School. I commend the motion to the House. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(12.05) —I wish to support the comments of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, in stopping just short of opposing the passage of this motion. The only recommendation from the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) is that Watson High School be determined as the site because further review is necessary by the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. The only aim of the motion is to kill an Australian Capital Territory argument about whether Watson High School should remain a high school or be taken out of the education debate to become an aviation training college. I have two general grounds for opposing the location of the training college in Canberra, whether at Pialligo or Watson High School. First, we are discussing an outdated concept. As the Minister said, this debate has raged for many years and was part of the original concept-probably going back 10 years-that all the Department of Aviation central office facilities and other aspects of the Department that were then in Melbourne should be transferred to Canberra. It is the last of those that are now under review. To the credit of the Minister and the Department, they have gone beyond that in many other areas of departmental administration because the Federal Airports Corporation, which will be a major part of aviation administration, is being located in Sydney. The second general ground is that at no time has the Committee been given a real choice to determine the optimum site for any central aviation training college. The argument has always been that it must be located somewhere in Canberra, either at Pialligo or at Watson High School. The Committee has never had the ability to recommend whether it should or should not be in Canberra, but only the precise location in Canberra. The weight of evidence that has been presented and that has been leaked by documents has, in every case, been in favour of the training college remaining near the action in aviation-that is, either Melbourne or Sydney. That was the point of the remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor. As he mentioned, the particular facilities are important for the training of air traffic controllers. In addition to those two general arguments, three new ones impinge on where the college should be and the concept of the college itself. The honourable member for O'Connor referred to the Rattner report. It is a review of the air traffic services system in Australia, and has been released only within the last month. I wish to refer briefly to three remarks by John Spiers, the aviation writer for the Weekend Australian of 16-17 May. He referred to the Rattner report and its recommendations to improve air traffic control procedures, and said that they included: Strengthening of introductory and on-the-job training . . . Preventing the use of inexperienced controllers as training instructors for on-the-job training . . . International pilots not accustomed to Australian ATC procedures frequently express amazement at their apparently dated nature. If those recommendations do not mean that there must be some basic rethinking of the training of air traffic controllers and procedures, I do not know what they mean. As part of the reconsideration, it must mean questioning the best place for such a training college and the whole concept of the college. The second new argument is what is called IMAS-the integration and modernisation in the airways system-which is basically a restructuring, still to be finalised in the Department, for the consolidation of air traffic services. Unless that is also taken into account in relation to the whole concept of a training college, the Department must be dealing with different hands at different times and obviously does not know what it is doing. The third recommendation concerns the concept that has been put forward by the Minister for Aviation-we are still to hear the detail on it-concerning the civil aviation corporation. What is its role to be? Where is it to be situated? I hope it will be situated in the most sensible position. I have already stated that no longer is Canberra holy writ for anything the Department does because the Federal Airports Corporation is in Sydney. It has a role in relation to the whole question of air traffic controllers and this also has to be considered. I want to make it quite clear, speaking on this occasion on behalf of the National Party of Australia, that in government we believe-- Mr Hand —Which National Party? Mr LLOYD —When the Australian Labor Party can work out what its right hand and its left hand are doing I will respond to that. The Government should not proceed with the college. Any decisions made here today must be reviewed by a coalition government. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.11) —The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), with their years in various shadow ministries, have rightly expressed concern about whether the Aviation Training College ought to be located in Melbourne, Sydney or Canberra. As the only member of the Public Works Committee currently in the chamber I make an additional comment or two on the tabling of this report. The Public Works Committee looked at the possibility of refurbishing Henty House in Melbourne and inspected Henty House. The Public Works Committee is concerned principally with the location of a Canberra site. However, the area of concern I most want to bring to the attention of the Government and the House is that the Public Works Committee, having visited both the Pialligo site and the Watson High School site, recommends in this report that we proceed with the Watson High School site. Our concern is that the cost of refurbishing the Watson High School site, excluding the simulator, is estimated to be $6.66m. No matter where the college is located the cost of the simulator building will be a constant $2.45m. That cost will apply whether the college is built at Pialligo or is located on the present Watson High School site. I was astonished and the Committee was concerned-I stress this on behalf of the Committee-that the cost of an all new building at Pialligo, including heavy footings necessary because of the flood prone nature of the site, without the simulator, was $8.75m; and the cost of refurbishing Watson High School is estimated to be $6.66m. The Public Works Committee recommendation and the Minister's recommendation to the House are based clearly on the Watson High site. But the simulator cost is constant. It is astonishing that we can spend $6.66m refurbishing an existing learning facility to continue to use it as a learning facility. One would imagine that the Watson High School site was an industrial site and that we were demolishing the buildings-totally dismantling them. In fact, Watson High is a modern cream brick education facility which any institution-a technical and further education institution, a civil aviation body or a high school-would be pleased to use. I have to request that the Department of Housing and Construction look again at the cost it has estimated for the refurbishing of Watson High School. I also request the Department of Aviation to consider again its demands for a training facility. I restate that there is an existing learning facility. It is difficult to imagine how $6.66m could be spent refurbishing a portion of it for an aviation training college. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) has said, using an analogy appropriate to the debate and appropriate to aviation, that the task of the Opposition had been in some way to thwart the intention of the Government and he constantly used the word `stall'. To take that analogy one step further, I say as a member of the Opposition that the economy of this nation is currently in a spin and what we need most is someone who is prepared to apply opposite rudder and push the stick forward. Continuing the analogy, we say we will continue to spin unless we prune government expenditure. Clearly we should question how the expenditure of $6.66m can be justified to create a learning facility out of an existing, modern and upgraded learning facility. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 29 May. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(12.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. When I introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986 on 22 October last, I indicated that action on a number of matters had been deferred to allow more time for problems to be analysed and discussed. This Bill sets out the Government's proposals for a new regime to cover exploration and mining on Aboriginal land which is the first fruit of that further process of analysis and discussion. Consultation with the various interested parties has been extensive. In particular, the Northern Territory land councils have been given many opportunities over the last two years to put their views to me, to the Caucus committee on Aboriginal affairs, and to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). The Government has sought, to the maximum practicable extent, to accommodate the views of all parties. Where this has not been possible, best efforts notwithstanding, it has sought to follow a course that strikes a fair and equitable balance between competing interests, while preserving at all times the essential purpose of the Act-that is, to enable Aboriginals in the Northern Territory to claim land of traditional significance, and to control activities undertaken on that land. The amendments now being placed before the Parliament, together with those contained in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986, will significantly improve the operation of the Act in key areas. By reducing the potential for continued tension and conflict between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals in the Territory, the amendments will reinforce and strengthen the real and lasting benefits that Aboriginals in the Northern Territory have gained from this legislation. I refer now to the main features of the Bill. Exploration and Mining on Aboriginal Land The single most controversial aspect of the Act over the last five years has been the set of provisions regulating the exploration for, and mining of, minerals and in particular the operation of the mining veto on Aboriginal land. However, it is fair to say that it has not been the existence of the veto power which has produced the present situation where only one agreement between Aboriginals and companies has been concluded under the Act since its enactment. Rather, the major reason is that the implicit conjunctive structure and direction of the Act-requiring, in effect, that agreement be reached on exploration and mining arrangements at the outset-tended to work against the finalisation of exploration licence applications and the resolution of disputes. The new scheme embodied in this Bill recognises the need to clearly set out the rights and obligations of the councils and companies and requires them to work within a set of firm parameters. The new scheme will ensure that Aboriginal traditional owners are able to control exploration and mining activity on their land. As well, it will allow those Aboriginals wishing to negotiate agreements with companies for the grant of exploration and mining interests to do so with greater certainty of the process and time limits within which those negotiations take place. In summary, the new scheme will provide clear guidelines governing the granting of a once-only consent at the exploration stage and the negotiation of terms and conditions at the exploration and mining stages. The Exploration Stage A person who has the approval of the Northern Territory mining Minister will be able to apply to the relevant land council for its consent to the grant of an exploration licence. An applicant will be required, within certain time limits, to submit a detailed application to the land council, which will then have 12 months and such further time as either the parties agree or the Minister allows in which to give or refuse its consent and to come to an agreement in respect of the terms and conditions relating to the exploration proposal. If the application is not made by the applicant within the specified time period, the consent of the Northern Territory mining Minister will be deemed to have been withdrawn. Within that period the land council will have to consult the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land and any Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the grant of the exploration licence. The land council will be obliged to convene meetings with the traditional Aboriginal owners to consider the exploration proposals, and the applicant or his nominated representative will be able to attend such meetings to present and explain the exploration proposals. The Minister will also be able to send a representative to such meetings. The land council will be required to either consent, or refuse to consent, to the grant of an exploration licence in accordance with the wishes of the traditional Aboriginal owners. In general, where consent is refused, no further exploration licence applications will be able to be made in relation to that land for five years. If, on the expiration of the five-year period, the same applicant wishes to present a further application, he will be able to exercise that option. It has been decided, however, that a ministerial discretion to re-open the application process at the request of the relevant land councils should be retained for use in special circumstances. The use of this discretion will involve appropriate consultations with Commonwealth and Northern Territory Ministers and requires the Minister to be satisfied that the re-opening of the application is, among other things, in the public interest. This provision is not intended as a back door means by which Aboriginals can avoid the necessary incentive to consider seriously the ramifications of any decision to refuse consent. If a land council has neither consented nor refused to consent at the end of the 12 months, consent shall be deemed to have been given by the land council. So that this deeming provision does not operate unfairly in situations where, for example, there is a sizable backlog of applications, the Bill makes provision for a land council to apply to the Minister for an extension beyond 12 months. The Minister has 30 days to make a decision whether or not to extend that 12 months. A decision by the Minister to extend the negotiating period requires consultation with the Northern Territory mining Minister. Further, the Minister must be satisfied that in all the circumstances it is not reasonably practicable for the land council to perform these functions within the normal period. The Minister must also give written notice of his decision to the applicant, the land council and the Northern Territory mining Minister. Where a land council consents, or is deemed to have consented, to the grant of an exploration licence the Minister will also have to consent before the licence can be granted. Where there is no agreement on terms and conditions within the negotiating period, the parties may either agree to appoint a person to conciliate or may request the Minister to refer for conciliation the matters in dispute to a person appointed as a mining commissioner. Upon the expiry of the negotiating period, and the consequent deeming of consent in the absence of express refusal, the Minister shall appoint a mining commissioner who shall attempt to conciliate between the parties concerning the matters in dispute. Where such conciliation is unsuccessful the mining commissioner shall proceed, by arbitration of the matters in dispute, to determine the terms and conditions which he considers should be acceptable to both parties. In determining the terms and conditions of exploration the mining commissioner shall have regard to a number of specific matters relating to the impact of exploration on Aboriginal land and on the lifestyle, culture and traditions of the Aboriginals. The terms and conditions either agreed between the parties or determined by the mining commissioner may include the payment of compensation for damage or disturbance caused to Aboriginal land but shall not include compensation for the value of minerals removed or proposed to be removed from the ground and shall not include payments for any other purpose; for example, payment which is not related to damage or disturbance but is made simply in return for the giving of consent to the application. This provision would not prohibit reason- able payment for the provision of facilities or services by the land councils. Where the intending explorer is willing to enter into an agreement on the terms and conditions determined by the mining commissioner, the land council shall enter into an agreement on those terms and conditions. The Bill contains a safeguard clause which empowers the Minister, after consultation with the Northern Territory mining Minister, to cancel an exploration licence or lease if he is satisfied that the actual exploration activity does not accord with the proposal and that consent would not have been given. He must also be satisfied that the national interest does not require that the exploration works proceed. The Mining Stage The central feature of the Bill as it relates to the mining stage is that a further consent is not required to enable the successful explorer to proceed to develop a mineral deposit. It is necessary however that a terms and conditions agreement be entered into by the parties and be approved by the Minister before a mining licence can be granted by the Northern Territory mining Minister. The intending miner will have to submit to the land council a written statement setting out a full range of specified particulars concerning the proposed mining activity and its impact on Aboriginal land and on Aboriginal people. The parties will have 12 months, or such longer time as they agree, within which to endeavour to reach agreement. As at the exploration stage, the Bill requires land councils to consult with traditional owners and other affected persons, and to provide full opportunities for representatives of the mining company to present and explain their proposal. If the parties fail to agree within 12 months, either the intending miner or the land council or both may request the Minister to refer the matters in dispute between them to a person appointed as a mining commissioner. That person shall be a Federal Court judge appointed by the Attorney-General in consultation with the Commonwealth Ministers responsible for Aboriginal affairs and resources and energy. The mining commissioner shall attempt to conciliate between the parties on the matters in dispute but, where such conciliation is not successful, he shall proceed, by arbitration of the matters in dispute, to determine terms and conditions that are fair and reasonable and which in his opinion would have been negotiated by the parties in commercial arm's length negotiations concluded in good faith. The mining commissioner will not be limited by the Act as to what matters to take into account; for example, he will be able to take into account the value of minerals likely to be mined. Where the intending miner is willing to enter into an agreement on the terms and conditions determined by the mining commissioner, the land council shall enter into that agreement failing which the Minister shall enter into it on the council's behalf. Where the intending miner does not enter into the agreement within 90 days, or such longer time as the Minister determines, of the arbitrator's determination, its exploration licence or lease will be cancelled. There will also be a provision to guard against a situation where a miner puts forward either an exploration program or a mining proposal so as to obtain the consent of the traditional owners and, after that consent is gained, departs substantially from the original proposal. If such a situation occurs, the relevant land council will be able to apply to the Minister who will have a discretion to decide that the departure from the original proposal was such as would have led to the traditional owners refusing their consent. If he so decides and, excepting where the national interest requires the project to proceed, the mining interest is invalidated and it is open to the Northern Territory Minister to provide the opportunity for another application to be made to the land council. Other provisions in the revised exploration and mining provisions of the Bill include: Retention of the existing power for the Governor-General to proclaim that the grant of a licence is required in the national interest; scope for a land council to enter into an agreement relating to exploration or mining on land under claim; specifications for the appointment of two assessors to assist the mining commissioner at the exploration agreement stage-one on the nomination of the relevant land council, and the other on the nomination of the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines (Inc.). Financial Impact The only additional cost to the Commonwealth arising from these amendments will be incurred in the event that the arbitral proceedings are involved. Conclusion With this Bill and the Bill introduced last year, the Government has made significant improvements to the Act. The amendments will result in a scheme which gives proper recognition to the wider range of interests affected by the Act while continuing to preserve and protect the rights and interests of Aboriginals. This Bill represents the culmination of a most intensive and thorough process of review and consultation. The compromises that have been reached may not please everybody. What is now required, however, is that all parties recognise that each has legitimate interests, and that the changes proposed represent both an attempt to address in an equitable manner the structural deficiencies in the present Act, and a genuine effort to balance the interests involved, whilst maintaining the fundamental rights that Aboriginal people are able to exercise in relation to their land in the Northern Territory. The Act remains the most visible symbol of the recognition by the Commonwealth Government of the special relationship between Aboriginals and their land. The Bill maintains the unequivocal and fundamental right of traditional Aboriginal land owners to control resource development on their land, whilst instituting a number of essential reforms which are in the interest of both Aboriginals and the wider Australian community. Further details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.31) —The Opposition will not oppose the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3). However, significant amendments will be moved to it during the Committee stage. The very record of the development of mining in the Northern Territory has reflected part of the consequence of this legislation. Over the last 11 years there has been only one new mining development on Aboriginal land, largely as a product of this type of restraint. It concerns us that the Government has yet again introduced a half baked piece of legislation. It is typical of the way it approaches almost every subject. It does not do anything well enough, and when it does do something, it spends too long setting it up. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has just said that this legislation has taken two years to bring forward. In fact, it has been four and a half years since the Government came to office and this legislation, and the amendments to the veto powers, were in the mind of the preceding Government before the 1983 election. Whilst the absolute interest of Aborigines in land and land development is, of course, accepted and recognised by the National Party and the Liberal Party, I am afraid that we do not accept this type of legislative restraint, where the veto power is being transferred only from the mining to the exploration stage. It is not going to provide the correct balance between the protection of Aboriginal interests and the proper development of the Territory. All of us know that mining has been quite fundamental to the economic development of Australia. If it were not for mining, much of this country would still be in a very backward state. In 1987 there is no less reason for mining to be of significance in an area such as the Northern Territory, with its vast land mass, and metalliferous bodies. Given rational and sensible development, allowing not only reasonable protection of the rights and interests of the Aboriginal people, but also proper conservation practices, there can be further worthwhile economic development. Sadly, this Bill does not go far enough. In our view it has not enabled the proper balancing of the interests and aspirations of all the people of the Territory. Therefore, as I say, whilst we will not be opposing the legislation, we will be moving a significant number of amendments at the Committee stage with the objective of modifying the processes so that there can be no veto, but there can be a proper consideration of Aboriginal interests. I should say, as we are on the eve of an election, that the passage by the Government of this legislation in its present form does not mean that it will be the practice that we will pursue in government. Indeed, the legislation, with respect to the veto power, will be subject to review. I would commend all the people of the Northern Territory-both those who are considering mining developments and the Aboriginal people-to take note of the Kilgariff amendments that were part of the proposals advanced in the Senate, and which are essentially translated within the amendments that we will be moving in this place at the Committee stage. It will be on that basis that the veto powers will be lifted and that there will be in our view a proper balancing between the development of reasonable mining opportunities and the protection of the valid concerns of the Aboriginal people for the land, their land rights and their cultural and traditional tribal patterns. Whilst this Bill has what might be considered an innocuous sounding title, it is vitally important to the future of the Territory and it extends in its impact well beyond the Territory. Whilst the Bill purports to deal with the rights of Aborigines, more pertinently it contains enormous implications for the development of billions of dollars of resources in a large chunk of northern Australia. We all know that the Northern Territory is immense. Its land mass is 1.34 million square kilometres. The amount of land which is now granted as Aboriginal land is in the order of 450,000 square kilometres of that 1.34 million. In other words, nearly half of the land mass in the Northern Territory is now represented by Aboriginal land. So if we are talking about economic development, we cannot exclude 50 per cent of the land mass without recognising the consequences. The land under claim by Aboriginal interests amounts to 185,000 square kilometres. Together these land blocks amount to 47 per cent of the land mass of the Northern Territory. Significantly, the amount of land which is now granted or under claim equates to an area eight times the size of Tasmania or 3.5 times the size of Victoria. Roughly 12 per cent of the Australian land mass is now Aboriginal land, whereas the Aborigines constitute just one per cent of the national population. However, it is not a matter of proportional numbers; it is a matter of how we balance the proper interests of the Aboriginal people, with which we have no dispute, with the reasonable and rational economic development of the mineral resources of the Territory, which this legislation is all about and where it falls short. More land has been granted to Aborigines than has been granted to indigenous groups in either the United States of America or Canada. Currently, most of the land is unproductive- tied up because of the nature of the land because of the operation and function of that land by the imposed white do-gooders working within the Aboriginal bureaucracy or tied up by government regulations. There is little doubt that mining in the Northern Territory has been hamstrung by legislation such as that which this Bill seeks to amend, albeit inadequately. It is fair to say that land rights might well be more palatable to northern Australians if that land now occupied by the Aborigines were used productively. I think Northern Territorians quite rightly wonder, when this country is facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, incurred largely because of the policies of this Labor Government, why governments continue to closet away enormous areas of productive land from the reach of Australian enterprise, away from the opportunity of economic development and away from the development of proper opportunities between the indigenous people and those who might seek to develop the land. As I say, in the changes which we will seek to introduce, we will try to protect the interests of the Aborigines, in their employment in the land, in their cultural patterns, in their sacred sites and in the traditional use of the land. But we think to shut the land up to provide a continuation of the veto is not appropriate, given the extent to which the veto has protected rational economic development in the past. Something has been done, and one would have hoped that had this Bill been introduced in a different form it would have really opened the doors to redress the imbalance of the past decade. Unfortunately, when this Bill was introduced into the Senate on 7 May 1987, in concert with provisions contained in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986, it became patently clear that no attempt had been made to clean up the administrative and political mess caused by the original Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Indeed, all of us on this side of the House have been appalled at the general operations within the Minister's responsibility in Aboriginal affairs over the last four and a half years. There are so many occasions and instances where we see allegations of either undue intervention against the interests of development, where we see the bureaucracy taking over, or where we see the Minister and those within this Labor Government failing to take proper account of the balanced interests either of Aboriginal people themselves or of all Australians. This Bill certainly falls far short of what is needed in land rights legislation and resources policy. It ensures that the economic fortunes of the Northern Territory will continue to be held hostage by the overseers of the Aboriginal land councils and their anti-business advisers. The concern of all of us on this side of the House is not with the elders of the Aboriginal tribes, nor indeed with many of the members of the land councils themselves, but it is with those who, as white do-gooders, seem to persist in intervening and who prevent the normal and rational development of resources in the way that they are permitted everywhere else in this country. Reportedly, this Bill sets out the Government's proposal for a new regime to cover exploration and mining on Aboriginal land in the Territory. Under the amendment that we will propose, the Aborigines will retain their right to claim land of traditional significance and to control activities undertaken on that land but we would seek to remove the veto. But all that this Bill effectively does is to move the Aboriginal power of veto over resources development from the mining to the exploration stage of development. Under the new arrangements that will result from this legislation, once consent is given to explore, the mining company retains the right to develop any mineral deposits free of Aboriginal hindrance. It can also be said that this Bill puts the onus on the mining industry to reach agreement. I see nothing wrong about an onus on the mining companies to reach agreement. Indeed, in our amendment, they are still required to do so-but the veto power would go. The Bill also reflects the fact that the Federal Government is not interested in economic development or, indeed, in mining competitiveness internationally. It indicates that the Government now wants the mining industry to rush forward on the basis of this legislative amendment without admitting that some of the delays have been caused by two years of talk by the Minister and by those responsible in the Government. There has been two years of delay simply because the Government was not prepared to modify what was demonstrably an impossible set of restraints imposed by the legislation that is now to be, in part, changed. There is almost absolute certainty within the industry that at the mining stage the conflicting parties will have to go to arbitration to resolve unreasonable Aboriginal claims for compensation. The Bill sets out guidelines on the rights and obligations of Aboriginal councils and mining companies, while reserving, in my mind, too much ministerial discretion in the settlement of disputes. The Bill provides guidelines governing the granting of once-only consent at the exploration stage and the negotiation of terms and conditions in the exploration and mining stages. The real concern that I have, however, is that under the Bill Aboriginal land councils will have 12 months to give or refuse consent to exploration while the time limits available to mining companies are so much less. Indeed, as I understand it, there is only something like a 90-day period of conciliation through a ministerially appointed mining commissioner available to resolve differences between the parties. I believe that a warden's court or some other independent, dispassionate body would be far better for that purpose. Where consent is refused, no further exploration licence applications will be able to be made in relation to that land for five years. That, to me, is also unreasonable in the circumstances of fairly dramatic change in mining conditions and mining markets and in the prospects of the Territory. I am told that the Government believes that the Bill will prompt the Aborigines into treating applications seriously, that it should discourage dismissive treatment of bona fide applications. I believe that it would be far more effective to remove the veto altogether and if the circumstances applicable to Aboriginal land and use of the mineral resources under the land were to be made pari passu with those of ordinary Australians, or all other Australians, wherever they might be, or whatever the colour of their skin. Irrespective of the intentions of this amendment, the Northern Territory mining industry will still find itself living within a framework of continuing Aboriginal veto over mineral development. The situation, as epitomised in this Bill, is destabilising to the mining industry. It will have a negative impact. Mr Lloyd —It undermines an important industry. Mr SINCLAIR —I could not agree with the honourable member more. It will have a negative impact on the further application of development capital in the Northern Territory. Goodness only knows, given the constraints that the Government and the Territory have in alternate areas of economic development, the mineral industry and the mineral developments there are absolutely critical. Should the current legislative amendments become law, if mining companies are lucky enough to come up with an agreement within one year, they will then spend an average of two or three years exploring their sites and, if they are fortunate, they then have to go back to the Aboriginal land councils and negotiate a mining agreement which cannot be vetoed. But the trouble is that it still puts that original exploration stage into serious doubt. Going on the track record of Aboriginal land councils, I think that many of the applications are going to be rejected. We can see no basis, therefore, why the initial veto should not have been lifted. It is our intention in the Committee stage to move extensive amendments to the legislation. We see them as being a preferable way by which the whole of the restraints that the Government has unduly applied can be modified. We think that the legislation is necessary. Therefore, we are not going to oppose it at the second reading. But we believe that unless there is a valid basis by which mining can be permitted in the Territory and, at the same time, the proper interests of the Aborigines can be protected, the Northern Territory is going to suffer forever. We wish to protect the interests of the tribal Aboriginal people, but at the same time we wish to balance that with a fair opportunity for mineral development. We suggest that can only be achieved by the Government's acceptance of the amendments which we will be moving in the Committee stage. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) — Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate will be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(2.00) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister from moving forthwith a motion of censure of the Leader of the Opposition. Madam Speaker, in the past 24 hours we have witnessed the greatest political deal this country has ever seen and we had better have it all out in the open. Mr Howard —With great relish, leave is granted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Censure Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(2.02) —Madam Speaker, I move: That this House censures the Leader of the Opposition for his attempts to deceive the Australian people- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the House to come to order. I remind the honourable member for Mayo that I can hear him very well. Mr HAWKE —I move: That this House censures the Leader of the Opposition for his attempts to deceive the Australian people about the status of the policies which he will present to the electorate in the coming weeks. Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! If the House will come to order we will proceed with the business. I point out to the honourable member for Deakin that there are Standing Orders in this House and he is expected to observe them as well. In fact, interjectors had better watch it. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, Australia has within the last 24 hours witnessed one of the most pathetic capitulations in the history of Australian politics. So that all members of the House will be properly informed as to the language that I will use in this debate, let me remind the House of the descriptions that have been applied to each of the main parties in this capitulation. The Premier of Queensland has simply described the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) as a silly little boy. And, of course, there has been total reciprocity in these matters because, for instance, the Leader of the National Party-that is the Leader of the National Party in this place (Mr Sinclair)-has described the aspirant to Federal leadership, the Premier of Queensland, as the Norm Gallagher of the National Party. That reflects the language of the Leader of the Opposition about Sir Joh, whom he has described as a thug. So, the language that I will use, Madam Speaker, is their own language. The negotiations between the silly little boy and the thug: Let us examine precisely what has happened. The desperate early morning dash this morning by the Leader of the Opposition to Brisbane is the action of the weakest leader in the history of Australian politics. Now he has returned to Canberra, like Neville Chamberlain from Munich, not with `Peace in our time', but `Coalition in our time'. We have had, honourable members will recall, in the history of this country the infamous Brisbane Line; now again we have the Brisbane line of 1987. He has returned. All we missed is the photographer showing him descending from the plane waving and saying `Coalition in our time' or `Coalition to Joh's terms'. Who does the Leader of the Opposition expect to believe him? The Premier of Queensland has folded in the face of public opinion and in the face of the Hawke Government. The Premier of Queensland is not so stupid that he wants to come to Canberra and spend three years on the Opposition benches, giving up Beryl and the $10m jet, giving up his trips to Disneyland. He is not so stupid that he wants to give up all that. The campaign of the Premier of Queensland ground to a halt quite recently when he came to Canberra to the Premiers Conference, which he was going to use as his launching pad into Federal politics. It came to an end then in Canberra here when, under the combined pressure and weight of this Government-represented by me and the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-we ground him right into the ground. He gave it away then. This Government took the Premier of Queensland head on and we crushed him and he has given it away. The Premier of Queensland went home and his campaign was in tatters. Now, Madam Speaker, the Premier of Queensland has pulled out completely, but it should be realised that in doing this the Premier of Queensland has given an even more devastating message to the Opposition Leader than he did when he launched his campaign in the first place, because then the Premier of Queensland was saying: `Howard is too weak. He cannot take on the Hawke Government. I, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, will take on the Hawke Government'. But now the Premier of Queensland has made an even more hard-nosed judgment in the political scene. That hard-nosed judgment, Madam Speaker, is that the Leader of the Opposition is so weak that he will drag down the entire conservative forces in this country. So, Joh has decided that splitting with the Leader of the Opposition is not enough. He has decided that while this man retains a prominent position in the ranks of the conservative forces they are doomed. So, he has dumped now not only the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party in this place but also the entire conservative force. Put in the simplest terms, Madam Speaker, what the Premier of Queensland has decided is that he is not going down with the Titanic. The Premier of Queensland has taken to the lifeboats. That is what happened in the last 24 hours. But, in those circumstances, where the Premier of Queensland has made this decision, what did the Leader of the Opposition do? Did he have the guts, did he have the leadership to say: `Good; great; I have finally triumphed over Sir Joh.'? Did he have the guts or the principle to do that? Does he say that he has crushed the attacker within the conservative forces? Does he say: `I will have nothing to do with this man who has described me as a silly little boy.'? Does he do that? No, Madam Speaker. Instead of standing up and saying that, as soon as he can, without any pride, he whimpers off to Brisbane to get his marching orders from this man. We have had the sorry spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition sitting in his plane out on the tarmac waiting for the fog to clear and trying to see some glimmer of sunlight before he finally goes off to Brisbane. And what does he do, Madam Speaker? This man, this silly little boy, goes up to see the thug, to see the Norm Gallagher of conservative politics, and he says this to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen `Sir Joh, I know Joh, that you said that I am finished; I know, Joh, that you said I am a silly little boy; I know, Joh, that you said I am not a winner and can't possibly win,' but he says also: `I know, Joh, that you have said that as Treasurer I made an utter mess of running this country. I know all these things but please, Sir Joh, will you anoint my campaign? Will you say no longer I am a silly little boy? Will you say I am all right?'. Madam Speaker, has there ever been anything more pathetic in the history of this country than the silly little boy going out into his aeroplane, sitting there in the fog and as soon as the fog clears off goes the silly little boy? He knocks on the door of the thug, the Norm Gallagher, and says: `Norm, Norm, here I am, the silly little boy. Will you please anoint me and now say that I am all right?'. He says: `I'll take it all back. Joh, I won't any longer call you a thug. I won't say you are a terrible fellow and the worst conservative Premier in Australia. I'll take back all the things I've said about you. Will you now say some nice things about me?'. The Leader of the Opposition said: `I'll take it all back. Do you remember, Joh, that I said you were suspending the laws of arithmetic? I will now take all that back. Will you now join me in suspending the laws of arithmetic?' When the Leader of the Opposition went to Queensland he said: `Let us try to stitch together a coalition, Joh, then we will have at least a band-aid coalition for the purposes of this election'. After all the pathetic grovelling when he went to Joh and said `I'll take back all those things, please say that I'm all right', he returned from his Brisbane trip this morning a proud man. This House is entitled to ask, as the people of Australia will ask: Proud of what? What can the Leader of the Opposition be proud of? He has been to Brisbane to beg the Premier of Queensland for his support. He has swallowed any pretence of credibility. The Leader of the Opposition has shown yet again that he will prostrate himself before any individual, before any interest group and before any vested interest in his pursuit of power. If there was any doubt remaining before this morning, and I doubt that there was, today we have witnessed the end for all time of the dry, rational John Howard, the John Howard who, as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) will remember, pursued his attempt for leadership of the Liberal Party on the basis of rational, economic analysis. That is what destroyed the honourable member for Kooyong. The honourable member for Bennelong, the Leader of the Opposition, said that the honourable member for Kooyong was a wet-a wimp. The honourable member for Bennelong said that the honourable member for Kooyong would not face up to the tough, hard rational economic decisions. However, this man-the honourable member for Bennelong-has made, if anything, the honourable member for Kooyong look among the driest and most rational of conservative economic leaders that this country has ever seen. Since the time when he threw out the honour- able member for Kooyong, the Leader of the Opposition has compromised, compromised and compromised. He has compromised to the point where any shred of economic credibility has gone. He is shattered. Let us remember the Leader of the Opposition's record when he has been under pressure. Under pressure he has chalked up $16 billion worth of promises; he has committed himself to restoring the tax rorts of the white shoe brigade-those people behind Sir Joh whom the Leader of the Opposition has embraced into his fold. No doubt when he spoke to Joh today he said: `Don't worry, Joh. I'll restore all the tax rorts that your friends are asking for. It is just the same with me as it is with you. You tell those people with the millions of dollars that they can give the money to me because I'll restore the tax rorts'. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done under pressure. Under pressure, he has failed to deliver on spending cuts. The man who had the temerity to write to the honourable member for Kooyong, the then Leader of the Opposition, and say `You are no good, Mr Peacock, if you do not spell out where the money is coming from' has done just that himself. I ask the House to remember what he has done to the Opposition front bench when he has been under pressure. Look at it! Look at the collection of people he has on the front bench. Under pressure he put the honourable member for Kooyong and the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) on the back bench. Is there one member of this House or one member of the Australian community who would say that the front bench represents the best talent in the Opposition? Government members-No. Mr HAWKE —No. Government members all say no. That has happened for one very simple reason. The weakest leader of conservative politics in the history of this country has been prepared to put the better talent on the back bench because he is under pressure from forces-not even within his own Party-outside this Parliament which have demanded that the better talent on the Opposition be sent to the back bench. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done under pressure. I suggest that today Sir Robert Menzies must be turning in his grave. Can honourable members imagine Sir Robert Menzies accepting the spectre of the Federal Leader of the Liberal Party getting on to a plane in the early hours of the morning, waiting for the fog to lift and flying to Queensland to get the endorsement of the Leader of another party in a State? Do those on the back bench of the Liberal Party, remembering, as they do, that their Party was created by Sir Robert Menzies, think that he would have anything but the most utter contempt for their Federal leader, the leader of their once great party, getting in a plane, flying out of the fog of Canberra to the sunny climes of Queensland and saying, to the man he has called a thug, the man who has been identified as the Norm Gallagher of conservative forces in this country: `Please, Norm Gallagher, anoint me and say that I am all right'? Let us consider what this means in terms of policies. In the end, the capitulation of the past 24 hours has revealed precisely what the Australian people will be confronted with. On this side of politics they will be confronted with a situation where the Australian Labor Party has set out the policies which are necessary to deal with the economic challenges confronting this country. On the other side of politics they will be faced with the situation conveyed on the front page of the Australian newspaper today where a spokesman has said that some policy horse-trading has been going on. The horse-trading that has gone on will represent what is put before the Australian people. Let us consider what has been said by Sir Joh today. Sir Joh said that he would produce his 25 per cent single rate tax policy and he would use it vigorously to campaign against the ALP and anyone else who supported higher taxes. That is what Sir Joh-the thug, Norm Gallagher-has said. That will be his tax policy. I remind the House of what the Leader of the Opposition said about that policy. Of the 25 per cent he said: It really is phoney- those are his words- because at 25 per cent it either means 20 per cent of the community gets a huge tax and 80 per cent gets nothing . . . are left for dead, or alternatively he is going to send the country bankrupt by adding $8 or $9 billion to the deficit. On this very day when the thug has dealt with a silly little boy, and when the thug, Norm Gallagher-those terms are the Opposition's language-has said `I will campaign on the 25 per cent flat tax' the silly little boy has said of that policy that it is phoney and that it represents a huge shift of the resources of this country to the rich from the poor. On this very day the Leader of the Opposition says of the policy of the Premier of Queensland that it is phoney and that it represents a massive and unacceptable redistribution of income from the poor to the rich. On 29 April the Leader of the National Party said: Now it will be necessary to go into the election campaign with our separate policies and then, after the election, to enter negotiations with the Liberal Party, form a coalition, and then we will work out which of the policies that have been presented to the people are going in fact to be put in place. The Leader of the National Party said that it does not matter what they say in the election; they will work out afterwards what it is that will be fulfilled. That was confirmed in today's Press release. I ask honourable members to savour the implications of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition today. These are the words: At a meeting in Sir Joh's Brisbane office today, the two leaders agreed that any important variations between their basic policies for Australia's economic recovery could be resolved co-operatively, and translated into urgent legislation, immediately after a new conservative Government was sworn in. Mr Howard and Sir Joh, in a joint statement from their meeting, stressed that the crisis facing Australia demanded the differences in the policies of the two parties should not be allowed to stand in the way of defeating the Hawke Labor Government. In other words, the Opposition can put up its smorgasbord of policies, but the Australian people will go into the election not having any knowledge of what policies a coalition government would bring in. That is contrasted against this Government which will go to the people and give them clear and relevant policies. This is the worst capitulation and the most devastating dereliction of leadership in the history of this country. You are gone! Mr Keating —Madam Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.22) —If ever I have entertained for a moment any doubts about the wisdom of the course of action I undertook this morning, those doubts have been completely dispelled over the last 20 minutes. If ever we have heard a pathetic and irrelevant speech by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) we have heard it over the last 20 minutes. I do not think the Prime Minister is upset about what I have done or what the Premier of Queensland has done or said; I think he is a bit upset about what his pollster, Rod Cameron, had to say this morning on the AM radio program when, contrary to the bold predictions of the Government only a week ago, he said that this election was going to be awfully close. I will repeat what I said a week ago; it will echo around the country and it is starting to sink into the marginal seat holders. The honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) was an abject study in dejection while the Prime Minister carried on in the last 20 minutes. In calling the election as he did last week, the Prime Minister has made the greatest mistake of his political life. Rather than carry on in a ranting fashion about a whole lot of irrelevancies, I shall respond to the text of the motion. We are 5 1/2 weeks from a Federal election. This is the third last day of the sitting of this Parliament, and the Prime Minister has brought forward a censure motion-a censure motion that talks about deceit; a censure motion that talks about policy. Rather than engage in 20 minutes of personal abuse and irrelevance, let us have something to say about the track record of integrity and honesty of the Prime Minister of this country. Let us have some of the facts. Let us ask the fundamental questions yet again: What is the Prime Minister hiding? What is the Treasurer (Mr Keating) hiding? What is the Government hiding by having an election before it brings down the Budget? Is it not an extraordinary irony that, by 11 July, the people will have John Howard's tax policy but not Bob Hawke's Budget. What is more, they will never have Bob Hawke's Budget. This man, this Prime Minister, has the temerity to come to this Parliament and to start talking about deceit. He has also got the temerity to come here and start talking about what one person on our side of politics may have said about another person on our side of politics at some point in time. Has he forgotten what he said about the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in the bar of the Kingston Hotel in Adelaide after the 1979 Australian Labor Party conference? Has he forgotten what he said about the present Foreign Minister? Has he forgotten how gutless he was? He has forgotten how absolutely irrelevant he was. The real substance of this motion relates to questions of deceit, to questions of credibility and to questions of honesty. I want to say something about those three issues. I want to say something about the credibility of a man who has broken every major electoral promise that he made to the Australian people in 1983 and 1984. The Australian people have not forgotten that the present Prime Minister of Australia was the person who, in 1983, stood before them and said in clear and emphatic terms that there would be no new capital gains tax. They have not forgotten that in November 1984 he came before the Australian public and said that in 1985 interest rates would come down. Yet since then, interest rates have done nothing but go through the ceiling. The Australian people have not forgotten that this was the man who promised that Medicare would give cheaper and better health care to nine out of 10 Australians. Yet what has happened? We have seen the complete reverse. Even the Prime Minister's own advertising man has been caught saying precisely those things. They have not forgotten that this was the man who promised in 1983 that there would be a reduction of 3c to 5c a litre in the price of petrol, which did not eventuate. They have not forgotten that this was the man who, in 1983, promised there would be no assets test on pensions, and that promise has been forgotten. They have not forgotten that this was the man who promised that he would put home ownership within the reach of average Australians. Yet in March 1983 an average Australian family was paying 19c in every dollar to pay off their home but by December 1986, that figure had gone to 27c in the dollar. They have not forgotten that this was the man who promised that he would bring down the entire interest rate structure of the country, and yet during the years that he has been in office, he has pushed interest rates to record high levels. In recent weeks, of all the tests of the Prime Minister's credibility, of all the tests of whether this man is to be believed, the greatest test is what he has had to say about the holding of early elections. Everybody remembers the pious remarks he made in 1983 about having an early election. Everybody knows that in 1984 he recklessly dishonoured that commitment and promise. Everybody knows that, chastened by the results of the election in 1984, and chastened even more by the acerbic comments of the Foreign Minister about the wisdom of the early election in 1984, the Prime Minister solemnly promised yet again that he would never again take the Australian public to the polls before time. He was tempted, so he said, in May, and he decided against that temptation. He was tempted again 12 days before he announced the date of the election and, finally, he succumbed to that temptation and called an early election. I remember that last week when I was interviewed on the Ray Martin television program I accused the Government of not having the guts to bring down the 1987 Budget. The interviewer said `You don't have to worry about that because the Prime Minister has promised that there are not going to be any new revenue measures in the 1987 Budget', to which I replied that the Prime Minister promised only 12 days ago that there was not going to be any early election. Let me say this to the Prime Minister and to the Parliament: The reason the Prime Minister is concerned about what happened this morning, the reason the Prime Minister has brought forward this motion, is that there is growing concern in the ranks of the Labor Party about its smart-Alick strategy in calling an election on 11 July, and the more noise that emanates from the Government benches, the more certain we are on this side of the House that that charge is accurate. We now face a situation in which the Government's cynicism and gutlessness in failing to bring down the 1987 Budget are evident. What an insult it is to the intelligence of the Australian public to have a 6 1/2 week election campaign and to say to the Australian public that this election campaign, above everything else, is going to be fought on the issue of economic management. Mr Hawke —Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —The Prime Minister says: `Hear, hear'. Would not honourable members imagine that in the wake of that statement we would have from the Prime Minister at least all of the cards relating to his economic management? Would not honourable members think that the Treasurer-and he has been Treasurer of this country now for over four years-had the courage to put his Budget on the table before he went to the public? What reliance can the public have on the word of this Prime Minister? He has become the great shop soiler of promises so far as politicians are concerned. He has broken more promises than any other Prime Minister in Australia's history. There is not one person, not one elector in Australia, who believes the Prime Minister when he says: `Believe me. Trust me. Take my word for it. I am not going to put your tax up if I happen to be re-elected on 11 July'. It is an incredible irony and an incredible contradiction that we will have an election on 11 July and that over the next 5 1/2 weeks the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will be tramping the length and breadth of Australia saying to the people: `Re-elect us because our economic management is superior. Vote for us because we can do it better', yet incredibly they have not told the public precisely how they will do it. I cannot think of an example in recent Australian political history where the leader of a major political party has sought an electoral mandate from the people in such a contemptuous and offensive fashion. If the Government and the Prime Minister really wanted an honest, serious debate, if they really wanted an election campaign that did not involve deceit of the public, and if they really wanted an election campaign where the swinging voters of this country could make an honest assessment of the relative policies of the two major parties, they would have had the political and the economic courage to bring down the 1987 Budget. Yet despite that clear obligation, what does the Prime Minister do in the first serious debate in this Parliament between him and me since the election has been called? Does he devote his speech to a serious analysis of his own Government's policies? No. Does he devote his speech to a serious comparison of the policies of the Government and of the Opposition? Does he treat the public with the respect that they deserve? Does he ask the public to vote for him and to support him on the basis of policy and performance? No. He invites the public to support him on the basis of cheap abuse, on the basis of erecting arguments that are irrelevant to the living standards of the Australian public. The Prime Minister spoke for 20 minutes and he uttered not a syllable about the living standards of families. He spoke for 20 minutes and he uttered not a syllable about the fact that we have the highest interest rates since the Great Depression. He uttered not a syllable about the fact that we still have an unemployment level which is over 8 per cent. He uttered not a syllable about the fact that we have a youth unemployment rate of 23 per cent. He uttered not a syllable about the fact that we have the highest levels of taxation and expenditure in Australia's peace-time history. He uttered not a syllable, and he will utter not a syllable over the next 5 1/2 weeks about the fact that waiting in the wings, in the unlikely event of his Government being returned, will be the Industrial Relations Bill that will place the trade unions above the law. I say to the Prime Minister that if there is one issue that unites all shades of opinion on our side of politics throughout this country, it is an absolute detestation of trade union power. On trade union power, the Prime Minister has given to the Liberal and National parties an issue which clearly demarcates them from the Labor Party. We were the parties in government that for the first time wrote into the laws of this country the very simple principle that all Australians are equal before the law. On behalf of the Liberal Party and the National Party I assure the House that there are no circumstances where we in Government would ever support a situation where some Australians were given a preferred or unequal position before the law. The next 5 1/2 weeks are about the future of this country. They are not about cheap insults. They are not about unnecessary point scoring. They are about the future of this country, the living standards of families, and whether the great bulk of Australians and the many millions of Australian families are to be offered hope, are to be offered choice, and are to be offered incentive. Over the next 5 1/2 weeks the Liberal and National parties will present to the public an approach, a vision, and a set of policies which will offer hope, which will offer choice, which will offer incentive and which will offer a new direction for this country after 11 July. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(2.36) —If that was a manifesto speech, no wonder those opposite looked as glum as they did. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has censured the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for his attempts to deceive the people about the status of his policies. The basis of that is that today's supposed rapprochement with the Queensland Premier is to be dressed up as some sort of united policy front for the conservative parties when there is no united policy front. Within half an hour of the Leader of the Opposition leaving Sir Joh's premises, he is out there supporting a 25 per cent flat rate tax and an aligned company tax costing $8 billion to $10 billion, on the World Today at midday. There is no comprehension in policy; there is no cohesion. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the election being five weeks away and said that the Government was not talking about its economic record. I point out that we are two years into his leadership and we do not even know what his policies are. Talk about credibility! This is the person who lay doggo in the 1983 election campaign knowing that the Budget deficit would be nearly $10 billion and who shut up about it. That is credibility! That is a deception. While talking about credibility, let us look at the 1977 tax cuts. The Liberals had advertisements on television asking people to ring up to find out how much their tax cuts would be. J. W. Howard took them away five months later as Treasurer. How can the Leader of the Opposition talk about credibility and deception? He gave tax cuts in 1982 knowing that it would destroy the economy. He left this Government with a $10 billion Budget inheritance and it has taken four years to recover from it. Is that what the Leader of the Opposition calls credibility? Anybody with the Leader of the Opposition's economic record would not dare show his face again if he had any sense of shame. But in his Party, where there is no talent, where the lowest common denominator is deceit and lack of credibility, up he bobs again. No parliament in the world would be touting him for a senior executive post, let alone as a prospective Prime Minister-somebody who had produced double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and the first negative growth in 30 years. If he were in any other parliamentary system, including the American system, he would be drummed out of public life for ever. But no, up he gets, with a hide as thick as an elephant's, with more front than anyone can imagine, saying: `I know that I drove the economy into the ground. I pushed hundreds of thousands of families into unemployment, but give me another go. Trust me again'. The Leader of the Opposition was up there today trying to do a dirty deal with the Queensland Premier. Why did the Queensland Premier get as far as he did with a small rural constituency in Queensland? The reason is that the Leader of the Opposition is weak. That is why Joh got as far as he did. He thought that if the Leader of the Opposition could not get on top of the Government by the end of 1986, in a terms of trade collapse, in a currency collapse, he never would. He thought that he would come in and try to do the job himself. But the fact of the matter is that he could never have won seats in the major east coast cities of this country and of course he had to capitulate. He ran the race because he knew that the honourable member for Bennelong was weak and could not deliver. What do we see today? Not a coalescence of a coalition and not a reforming or joining together of the parties into another meaningful parliamentary group with the capacity to form a majority with a common set of policies. As the Prime Minister said, we have a capitulation. Remember the insults hurled at the Leader of the Opposition by Sir Joh. This morning he was sitting there revved up on the tarmac in the fog waiting to get up, as the Prime Minister said, to ask Sir Joh to anoint his campaign. He was waiting for the person he called a thug and a wrecker to anoint his campaign. If ever there was all-consuming weakness, if ever all-consuming weakness was demonstrated, it was demonstrated today by the Leader of the Opposition. This Chamberlainesque piece of paper states: Any important variations between their basic policies for Australia's economic recovery could be resolved co-operatively. Can anyone imagine the post-election discussions between Sir Robert Sparkes and the Leader of the Opposition? Can anyone imagine the outcome of that little discussion? Imagine being a fly on the wall there. What about all the other splits-the Joh Nationals, the Sinclair Nationals, the Howard dries and the Peacock wets? That is the state of the coalition groups. There is not a shred of cohesion between them. Of course, in the shadows there are harder men such as Hay, Elliott, McLachlan and Copeman. They will be drawing up the agenda for the wimps on the other side of the House. That is where it will come from. They know that they must face this Government so they have pushed the honourable member for Bennelong up to the front. Joh has tapped the mat and they have said: `We will make it look like a contest, because when we get to the wire we will say what the policies are'. The Queensland Nationals will be driving the bargain about the policies. Of course, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) was entirely correct when he said: Now it will be necessary to go into the election campaign with our separate policies and then after the election to enter negotiations with the Liberal Party to form a coalition and then work out which of the policies that they are presenting to people are going in fact to be put into place. What an admission! In other words: `We will go with a case to the public and when they elect us we will sit down and the hard men of the right will determine what the policy is'. This weak man who never got a piece of tissue-paper past Malcolm Fraser in the Cabinet room, this weak man who could not get support for the then Government's television policy through the Liberal Party past Senator Puplick and the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), this weak man is supposed to be governing coalition policies. Can anyone imagine what would happen with Sparkes at the table along with Joh, the Queensland National Party, Elliott and Hay. It would be a joke. Today the Queensland Premier said that he would produce his 25 per cent single rate tax policy and use it vigorously against the Australian Labor Party and anyone else who supported higher taxes. That would cost $8 billion. This is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about Joh in February: I don't think his behaviour is rational. I think he is wrong. He is misguided and in many areas he is using dishonest argument. Wait for this line: Until he nominates areas where he will cut spending he is really having no credibility on the issue at all. How is that? He went on to say: Bjelke-Petersen clearly has not vision for this country and there is something quite ugly to me about a campaign that places so much store on how much money is available. What a laugh about something being ugly and about money being available. How dare he say anything about the Prime Minister's credibility. We are two years into the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. We know nothing about his policies, the Press Gallery knows nothing about his policies and the public knows nothing about his policies. He is getting into Joh about being ugly for not nominating spending cuts and throwing around money. What we are seeing here today is just a ruse, a deceit, so that a group of split non-descripts can market themselves as a cohesive political force. But, worse than that, they are trying to suggest to the public that they would put up decent and credible policies for the country. Let me refer to a statement today by Sir Joh: We will step up our campaign across Australia. I will continue to do that, flying the flag for the policies and the party we hold dear to enable people, the ordinary man, to take home more pay through lower taxes and to encourage business to spend and invest. We have both of those at 25 per cent- he has even got the company rate at 25 per cent- and the needy will be cared for. The policy is the one all our party will support, continue, and we will achieve that. This is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about a 25 per cent flat rate tax on 2GB on 2 March: If the flat rate really is phoney because at 25 per cent it either means 20 per cent of the community get a huge tax cut and 80 per cent get nothing and are left for dead or alternatively it is going to send the country bankrupt by adding $8 billion or $9 billion to the deficit. What is the status of the 25 per cent tax cut? What will members opposite say when they take their so-called united front to the public? Will they tout this 25 per cent tax rate to cadge votes dishonestly, or do they repudiate it? Where do they stand on these major issues of fiscal policy? Here we are dragging the country through its biggest post-war transition to get the overseas debt off our back and we are going for rational policies. Where is the supposed rationalist of Liberal economic thinking? He is out there in the fog waiting to do a deal with the man he said was a wrecker and a thug and abhors everything he stands for. It is the essence of weakness, deceit and dishonesty. When challenged by the Prime Minister, what did he have to say? Nothing. What did his gibberish amount to? Just an attack upon the Government with no solid policy to back him. The Queensland Premier said of the Leader of the Opposition: He made an utter and complete mess of it when he was Treasurer. What a damning statement by someone on the same side of politics. He said: I'm not going to trust the country's future to these two-Howard and Sinclair. Their policies are suicidal ones. He also said: I am not going to give Mr Howard any time any more. If you are going to back a racehorse it has got to have a good record. You don't back a racehorse that hasn't got a good winning record. The fact of the matter is that there is no economic record. As we on this side of the House have said, our policies have credibility. That is why the Prime Minister has an approval rating of 68 per cent and the Leader of the Opposition has an approval rating of 18 per cent. The public knows that the Government has credibility. Credibility is a hard thing to earn. It must be earned; it does not come with rhetoric. It comes with actions and it comes with deeds. One cannot take credibility away any more than one can earn it cheaply. Mr Spender —You are the only person to get a minus rating. Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition has a $16 billion credibility problem. We have been through those policies. This week we have seen an attempt to dismantle the universal health scheme, Medicare, to try to pretend that there are some tax cuts for the rich that would not blow out the Budget deficit. This is from these great people of principle opposite. After four years of opposition they are going to do a mirrors and con trick on the deficit and use supposed savings from Medicare to provide tax cuts for the rich. That is what the Opposition is down to. It has the hide to talk about this Government's credibility when we have dragged the former Government's $10 billion Budget deficit down to about $2 billion and cut it from 5 per cent to under 1 per cent of gross domestic product, we have restored the country to economic health, we have also created 800,000 jobs and we are rebuilding our secondary structure. The best on offer from the Opposition is a fistful of dollars in cynicism. Because Joh taps the mat, because he never could win seats in metropolitan Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth, the Leader of the Opposition with no pride or principle whips up to Brisbane and tries to show a united front. If the public were to be deceived for one moment by this hoax-this exercise in supposed unity by the coalition forces-it will find, if the Opposition wins the election, that the hard people of the right will determine the policy. Of course, nothing that the Leader of the Opposition says can matter when it comes to delivering a majority for it. There is no agreement, and Sir Joh has made that clear today. All that he has done is to withdraw. Even the terms of withdrawal are ungracious-he still attacks the Liberal Party of Australia for what it stands for; he still marches with a 25 per cent flat rate tax as the centrepiece of his tax policy which the Leader of the Opposition has himself said would destroy the fiscal policy of the Commonwealth. I repeat that today is a day of capitulation by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a day of all-consuming weakness-flying up to Brisbane to lick the boots of someone who has kicked him in the mouth for months. As usual, he has taken the grubby way out, as he did in the Fraser Cabinet and the 1982 Budget. He does not have the intellectual strength and stamina to stand for decent policies. That is why we are censuring him-it is for the deceit and the hoax of trying to suggest that there is a united front among the Opposition parties, especially as that front would only drag the Australian people and the economy into disrepute and perilous times. We censure him for his behaviour, his weakness and his obsequiousness. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.51) —With what contempt does one regard this poor Government? How incompetent, how inept it is. I have been in this place for a little while and I do not think that I have ever heard a more bungling, incompetent or falsely based premise than that which this Parliament has been called upon to discuss this afternoon. Even the beginning of the quotation by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was wrong. I said that the President of the National Party of Australia in Queensland might well have had elements similar to Norm Gallagher of the Builders Labourers Federation, and been the Norm Gallagher of the National Party, but at no time did I make any such accusation about the Premier. The Prime Minister cannot even get his quotations right. This is the third last day of the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is the third last day on which the people of Australia can measure the performance of the Hawke Labor Government. It is the third last day when Question Time might reasonably be available to honourable members. We all know how incompetent and bungling are the Ministers of this Hawke Government. But why are they running away from questions? Why are they racing away, unprepared to answer the questions that the people of Australia want to put to them before 11 July? While the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who spoke a few moments ago, was fiddling with his tax returns, Australia was going to the poor house. He is the man who, more than anyone else, has put Australia in the abject economic mess in which it is today. We all know that earlier this week the National Australia Bank, which is very big on economic statistics, said: . . . inflation in Australia is likely to remain disturbingly high and out of line with other western economies. Does the Treasurer remember that? The acting chief executive of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia said: . . . many companies have placed investment decisions on the back burner until the Government faces up to the hard decisions on wage, taxation and industry policy. This afternoon, there has been an incompetent performance by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer who have run, in a panicked state, from what they see as the imminent disaster of the Federal election, which will sweep from power every Government member in a marginal seat. There is no doubt that the Hawke-Keating combination has been an unmitigated, unrivalled, unnecessary and unacceptable disaster for ordinary Australians. There is no doubt that for the family, the small business man and woman and the family farmer, there has never been a worse government in Australia's history. There is no doubt that with interest rates, inflation, the level of overseas debt and the power of the trade union movement, there has never been a government that has more prejudiced the rights and opportunities of ordinary Australians. A little while ago we heard about what the Government claims is the power exercised outside this Parliament by some with the philosophies of the Opposition. We have heard nothing about the Kelty and Crean influence on the Australian Labor Party. If anyone thinks that those two men, and those who work with them, do not manipulate the strings with poor old Bobbie and little Paul jumping to the tune, all they need do is remember the Industrial Relations Bill last week-- Mr Tuckey —And the tax summit. Mr SINCLAIR —As my colleague said, that Bill was in a succession that began with the tax summit, the national economic summit and all the directions to the members of the Australian Labor Party. It was designed to ensure that the power of the trade union bosses was well and truly entrenched forever into the law of this country. It sought to change the power game. The Government did not do it by going out and having public debate; it did it by attempting to change the legislation and so entrench that discipline. This censure motion this afternoon is not about whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has produced his policies; it is about the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and their minions having panicked. They know that they have nothing to offer the Australian people. They know that the policies that the Opposition has presented for something like two years are the policies that the people of Australia need to get them out of the abject mess that Labor has created for them. I wish for a few moments to consider the positives before analysing the record of the Government. I do not think that anyone has done more to produce a better analysis of an industrial alternative for Australia than has the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown). As shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, he produced a cohesive, positive, alternative plan-- Mr Young —Break it up; this is not supposed to be a comedy hour. Mr SINCLAIR —We will have the tragedy when the Minister gets to his feet. The shadow Minister for Industrial Relations presented a cohesive, positive, alternative, constructive plan-not to destroy the trade union movement, but to ensure that there is a proper balance where members of the trade unions and the citizens of Australia are equal before the law. In that policy, which was brought down 18 months to two years ago-so much for people not knowing what our policies are about-he introduced a positive, constructive plan that is now the guideline for all constructive analysis of the best way by which the conciliation and arbitration system in this country can be modified to the advantage of ordinary Australians. It is equally important that we understand that with respect to family policy and family living standards the Opposition has not been neglectful in trying to ensure the total correction of what has happened under the economic mismanagement of Labor. We have examined social welfare, education and the whole embrace of policies that are designed to assist and protect ordinary Australians. We have produced a package that will ensure that the little people are not forgotten. This Government is a government for big unions and big government. It is for more money for the big and never mind the little Australians. The Opposition is interested in cutting the Government deficit and taxation. It is interested in introducing a program that will help the young to attain jobs and education, and which will help ordinary Australians to buy their homes and carry on their lives without the constant intervention of the excessively regulated society for which the Prime Minister, who moved the censure motion, is largely responsible. We are not doing that in a headstrong way. The Leader of the Opposition and I, on behalf of the National Party, will, over the next five and a half weeks until the Federal election, present to Australians a constructive alternative plan that will ensure that Australia is lifted out of the abject mess which the Labor Party has created. Having set down those alternatives, we need to consider something of the integrity of the man who, for the moment, is Prime Minister. It is appalling that he can come into this place today and intend that, in some way, there has been deception by the Leader of the Opposition about the status of our policies. The deception is by he whose word can no longer be believed. Remember the promise: `Of course there won't be an early election'. We know what happened 12 days later. We know all about the promise that there would be no capital gains tax. Let us run through the Prime Minister's record. As leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions he was a tremendously successful businessman! Remember ACTU-Solo? Remember Bourke's ACTU Store? Remember the ACTU insurance company? Remember all those pipe dreams, the cheap housing estates, the workers holiday village, the ACTU shipping lines and the pharmaceutical services? Mr MacKellar —How much tax did they pay? Mr SINCLAIR —As my colleague indicated, all these businesses not only did not make profits but also could not even make profits in a circumstance in which they were totally tax exempt. We had his duplicity with the then Leader of the Opposition. The former Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is in the House at the moment, remembers only too well the blood on the Prime Minister's hands. We remember the response that the Prime Minister gave successively to those interviewers who asked him anything about his integrity; how proud he was that his word could always be trusted. How can a man who has broken so many promises ever have his word believed? How can a man who in the exercise of his ministerial responsibility saw all those misdealings in the Australian Bicentennial Authority be regarded as a person of competence and ability who is able to lead the nation out of its abject mess? Even more important is the record of the things he has not done in government. I refer to capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax. The average Australian finds himself in a worse investment and employment situation today than ever thanks to this Prime Minister and his Government. Those taxes erode the ability of the little employer to carry on his business. Government members talk about government revenues and forget about the impact of those revenues on the ordinary Australian. They forget about the impact of fuel excise and the way in which automatic indexation progressively adds to the tax burden of the Australian community without reference back to the Australian Parliament. We all know that because of the impact of taxation and interest rates we are worse off today thanks to the policies of the Hawke Government. The Prime Minister is reported on page 1589 of Hansard of 19 March last year as saying that the Government remained committed to the retention of the 13.5 per cent ceiling on housing interest rates. What has happened? Some housing loan interest rates are up to 16 per cent. So much for that promise. What about the Medicare levy? We all know that there is a good deal of toing and froing at the moment. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has been a little honest recently. To what degree will the Medicare levy be increased if this Government gets back in? How many Australians are waiting in queues for medical and surgical procedures? How many Australians are finding that the double whammy of having to belong to a contributory health fund as well as paying a Medicare levy is driving them broke? Then we had promises on the wine tax, the tax cuts and lump sum superannuation which were broken. Those promises were designed to ensure that Australians supported the Government but the people were left in a worse state. There is a great Australian expression to describe the present Treasurer-as flash as a rat with a gold tooth. Since 1983 he has used this House as a forum for vicious personal attack. Today we have heard it all again. Today he attacked the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier of Queensland. He attacks anybody except those responsible for the abject state in which we all find ourselves. Madam Speaker, the days of the gold toothed rat are coming to an end. On 11 July the Treasurer and his silver-haired mate, the silver budgie, are destined for the political waste bin. There is no doubt that the present Labor Government has had it. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer know it or they would never have introduced into the House such an inept and incompetent motion as that which we are debating at the moment. They spoke for over half an hour and gave no undertakings to Australians as to what is in their Budget. We want to know the contents of the 1987-88 Budget. Labor's hidden agenda, its tax and spending plans and its vision of Australia are really the questions in this debate. Abuse, flim-flam and empty rhetoric are all we have heard from the two greatest promise breakers in Australia's history. They have the credibility of a convicted arsonist working for the fire brigade. They will be ignored by this House. The motion will be carried on party lines, but it will be rejected, as the Government will be, by the people of Australia on 11 July next. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(3.06) —The person who was not invited to the meeting this morning, the leader of the Canberra section of the National Party of Australia, had to speak in support of the coalition. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) was not even at the meeting this morning. He does not know what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has put his name to. No one will see the document that was signed this morning in Queensland because it was locked up in the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. That is where it will stay locked up until 12 July. The Leader of the Opposition should not have gone to Queensland this morning; he should have gone to St Vincent's Hospital to see whether the staff could find his spine. That is what he is lacking. When the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) suggested some months ago that all the Opposition parties should get together he was thrown to the back bench for even having the temerity to suggest that. This morning the Leader of the Opposition, helped by the fog at the Canberra Airport, rubbed ointment on his knees and went to the altar of the white shoes. He has carpet rash from kneeling in front of Joh this morning saying: `Please, don't upset our campaign too much'. This means that he cannot believe anything said by any Opposition spokesperson from now until 11 July because there is a hidden agenda. We do not know whether there will be a 25 per cent tax. We do not know whether there will be income splitting. Another thing that is locked up in the room of the Leader of the Opposition is the 10 per cent consumption tax proposal. It is sitting in there waiting to be brought out. So when people do their shopping between now and 11 July they should add 10 per cent to the bill because that is what will occur if the Leader of the Opposition is made Prime Minister of this country. It is hard to imagine how a person who has been punched so silly as John Howard has been over the last 14 years could put himself up to be Prime Minister of this country. As the Treasurer said, fancy John Howard sitting down with John Elliott, Bob Sparkes, Joh and the boys. They would have him for breakfast. He would not know which way he was going. As Vince Gair said of Billy Snedden, he could not go two rounds with a revolving door. The Leader of the Opposition will have no credibility between now and 11 July after going to Queensland, getting on his knees and pleading with Joh, leaving behind the Leader of the National Party, to do some grubby deal that he hopes will hang together. The Liberal Party campaign slogan between now and 11 July should be: `Don't you worry about that'. The Joh supporters in the National Party here have their own policies. It is not a question, as the Leader of the National Party said, of their being unified in presenting their policies. The Leader of the National Party is on record as saying on 29 April that they will be putting up separate policies and if they are elected to government they will sit down after the election to decide which ones to implement. That is a great way to go to the Australian public! The Australian people will not know what policies will be implemented by any incoming Liberal-National Party government, because of the grubby deal done by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. He has capitulated to a person whom he has described in the following way. I read from the transcript of the Sunday program of 1 March what the Leader of the Opposition said about Joh: He just has a power kick, a manic drive for power, and he's prepared to use standover tactics . . . to achieve it. He used a few standover tactics this morning. The spineless little Leader of the Opposition completely capitulated on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia. He has absolutely no stomach at all. The person who has been running around the country abusing the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal Party and the National Party has had his great moment of victory. He was able to tell the Leader of the Liberal Party: `You fly to Queensland and we will do our deal and no one will know what is in the vault. They will not know until 12 July. They will not know what taxation reforms they are going to get. They will not know what other policies they are going to get'. What about the document that was floating around the Liberal Party headquarters a few weeks ago? It stated that the Liberal Party, on coming to office, should prepare Australia for a general strike. Another senior Liberal was talking to some businessmen last week and told them: `If Australia has to go through a short, sharp depression, so be it'. So, a general strike and a short, sharp depression are the great policies to be presented to the Australian public for 11 July. Those opposite put themselves up as people capable of governing this country. The Leader of the Opposition could not get passed any resolution of any consequence in any meeting that he attended in Australia. He has proved to the Australian community this morning just how totally weak he is. As the Prime Minister said, one of the national papers this morning stated that the Liberals and the Nationals will be doing a bit of horse trading. But we know what the horse trading is-the future of Australia. The future of Australia is the horse trading being talked about in such glib terms. It would not really matter to those opposite if there were a depression. Most of them could get themselves clear of the ramifications of it. But the working people, the middle income earners, could not. They would lose their homes, their jobs and all the other things that would occur during such a period. The Liberal Party is also prepared for a general strike. Can honourable members imagine any bunch of maniacs in any organisation in Australia saying privately, not making it public for debate: `Let us prepare Australia for a general strike. That is the way to get Australia forward. That is the way to overcome the problems. That is the way we will achieve proper leadership in this country'. The Leader of the Opposition, in his contribution today, said: `If there is one issue that we all have in common, it is industrial relations'. Mind you, he mentioned only one issue; the Opposition parties do not even have motherhood in common. But, if the Opposition is supposed to be so bright on industrial relations, how come the number of days lost in strikes under this Government is 60 per cent fewer than under the Fraser Government? That shows a significant difference between the industrial relations policy of this Government and that of the previous Government. The Leader of the Opposition talks about what will happen with tax. But how can anyone believe what he says now? What did John Howard do in 1977 with the tax cuts? Do honourable members remember the full page Liberal Party advertisements every day offering a big handful of dollars? But what happened after the 1977 election? The Fraser-Howard Government took them back. It is no wonder that all the bankers in New York are so nervous about what might happen if there were a change of government. It is no wonder that they are saying to their clients that it would be a disaster if the Liberal-National parties were elected on 11 July. But, now, it would be an even greater disaster. Before today there was some chance that, with just an element of courage, the Liberal Party could have presented its policies. But now there is no chance. The Leader of the Opposition's escapade this morning started in a fog and it will finish in a fog. That is what it is meant to do. It is meant to smudge all of the issues that will be raised between now and 11 July. The Opposition does not want discussion on policies. It just hopes that, if it throws enough promises around in the community, it will get 50 per cent of the votes. Opposition members have no idea what they want to do in government, They talk about depressions and general strikes. They do not examine the great advantages of keeping this Government in power. Fancy anybody in Australia considering that John Howard should be Prime Minister over and above Bob Hawke! The only person who has the competence and the toughness and the compassion to lead Australia through these difficult periods is Bob Hawke. The only Treasurer who has the guts to stand up and give us the policies for the issues that are confronting Australia is Paul Keating. They are the people who can give us hope for the future. Fancy having John Howard! John Howard is like a cross between fairy floss and jelly. At Question Time, when Ministers are answering some of the furphies that are put forward, he sits there and gets some of his front benchers to go and talk to him, as though he cannot hear what is going on. When debates are on, he wanders around the back benches. He ought to get used to that because Andrew Hay, John Elliott, Ian McLachlan and all the boys have plans for John Howard which encompass his sitting way up the back because they will not have the lamb from Lane Cove in their shadow ministry. He will be off because he just does not have the stomach for it. He cannot even stand up to Joh. Poor old Joh is crippled up, is at the end of the line, is getting around with a walking stick and is as silly as a wheel and the Leader of the Liberal Party has to fly off to Brisbane to tap the mat to Joh. By God, how would he be with some of the tough nuts! John Elliott opened up another dozen cans of Foster's when he read that in the paper this morning. We can imagine Ian McLachlan saying: `This is terrific. Here, rub the old ointment on the knees, John. You will get the old carpet rash from going up to see Joh, with all that bending down'. What we want to know is: What is in the document that was agreed upon between Joh and John Howard? The thing is that John Howard told us two years ago that we were going to see his taxation policy. But he does not have the courage to expose his taxation policy while the Parliament is sitting. He is terrified of what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister will do to his taxation policy. He has to wait until the Parliament has risen before he gives some sort of exposure to the taxation policy which he told us nine months ago would be the central theme of any future election campaign. At the end of last year he said: `We are going to fight the next election on taxation'. But he does not have the guts or the courage to bring the document in here. Instead, bits and pieces are leaked to the papers and he puts his toe in the water to see whether it is all right. He will not bring the document in here so that we can have a debate and it can be examined by everybody in Australia. No. He will float it off at midnight one Saturday night close to the election and hope that no one will notice it. But now it does not really matter. After the deal done today, we will not know what policies would be implemented until 12 July. Everybody in Australia who is thinking about how to vote in the lead up to the election over the next four or five weeks ought to remember that what John Howard is saying, what Ian Sinclair is saying and what Joh Bjelke-Petersen is saying stand for absolutely nothing. A deal has been done to put the policies together after the election, not before the election. It will be like a puppet show. It will be John Howard on the strings, but with Joh's voice. Over the next four or five weeks Joh will keep John Howard dangling and will be telling him: `You step out of line and I will come down on you like a tonne of bricks'. The Leader of the Opposition is so terrified of the relationship he now has with the Queensland Premier that he will do everything he can. The Leader of the National Party of Australia said: `The Prime Minister, when he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, started off Bourke's store'. But the Prime Minister, as President of the ACTU, also busted retail price maintenance, which saved consumers billions of dollars. If Opposition members think that the Treasurer knows something about gold teeth, let me tell them that no one in the Parliament knows more about gold teeth than the right honourable member for New England. He used to have a room full of them. If we are talking about running businesses, people should look at what happened about Walsh's funeral parlours. Was that a beaut business! That cost the taxpayers a bit of money in taxation rebates on the losses. Opposition members should look at the way that was run if they want to examine the business acumen of people on either side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition will sit up the back and talk to all of his mates, hoping that they will not notice what has been done today and what is being said. But it was the grubbiest deal, the most deceitful bit of politicking, the most apologetic performance by any senior person in the Liberal Party in the history of the Liberal Party. He has no spine, no courage, no decency and no policies. Everything is going to be wrapped up in the hope that the Opposition can con the people between now and 11 July. The only person he has not talked to on the back bench now is Andrew. He ought to go across to Andrew and say: `Forgive me, Andrew, for I have sinned'. That ought to be his line because Andrew told him months ago what would happen. He sat with him in the Cabinet room and he sat with him in the shadow Ministry. He knows how weak the honourable member is. He has seen him crumble time and time again. Even poor old John Stone had him terrified. This deal today deserves to be exposed in the Parliament for the grubby deal it is on Australian politics and, more importantly, on the Australian voters. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.20) —Four things can be said about this censure motion that has been moved by the Australian Labor Party, and they can be said very briefly and very clearly indeed. The first thing that must be said is that this motion is, beyond a shadow of doubt, an extraordinary motion. Here we have the Government so preoccupied with the Opposition that it is prepared to suspend debate on legislation and to devote itself body and soul to cooking up and debating a motion to censure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). So we have a government which has now set aside all of its legislation for several hours, and which is not concerned about the great issues of taxation, the housing crisis or the crisis in all of our great rural industries. It is prepared to set all of those matters to one side just to have a go at the Opposition with the basest political attack that this House has probably ever seen. How low can the Government get? It must surely have given a new meaning to The Dingo Principle. It has gone so low today. But we now know, of course, why it is doing this. We have been able to see the demeanour of Government members during this debate. We are now able to conclude that there clearly is trouble in Labor City. But this trouble does not start with a `T', it starts with a `P', and it stands for panic, because the Australian Labor Party is now panicking about the early election that it has called and about the inevitable result which is now looming on the horizon and coming closer to it every day, and that result will be defeat. We saw defeat on the faces of Government members and we heard it in their speeches. We can see clearly that panic, panic and more panic has broken out in the ranks of the Labor Party like some mediaeval plague. The Opposition dismisses this motion with the contempt that it deserves. We hope and expect that the Australian people will also treat it with the contempt that it deserves. The Government tried this little act once before, only a few months ago. It tried to censure the Opposition then, and the result was a complete bomb on that occasion-it fizzed instantly. When the Australian people come to read about this motion in their newspapers tomorrow, they will treat this exercise with the same contempt that they treated the last little exercise. That is the first point that can be made-that the motion should be treated with contempt and should be rejected. But it gets better, because the second thing that can be said about the motion relates to the extraordinary nature of the use of the word `deceive' in the motion. Let me remind the Australian people that what the Government is saying in the resolution is that the House `censures the Leader of the Opposition'-but for what? The answer is: `for his attempts to deceive the Australian people about . . . policies'. Talk about deceit! Here is a government that has called an early election weeks before a Budget is due, and it says: `We will not tell you what is going to be in our Budget if we are re-elected. We are going to keep that a big secret'. Is it any wonder that the question that is in the minds and on the lips of the Australian people is: `If the Hawke Government is re-elected, what is going to be in the 1987 Hawke horror Budget?'. There is no question about where the guilt for deceit and deception lies, because that guilt lies in the Australian Labor Party. I come to the third thing that can clearly be said about the motion. We go on to the rest of the motion to come to this point, because the rest of the motion tells us that the Leader of the Opposition is being censured because of his `attempts to deceive the Australian people about the status of the policies which he will present to the electorate in the coming weeks'. At the outset, I will tell honourable members one thing about the policies that the Leader of the Opposition will be presenting. They are policies which have been approved and which will be put up for endorsement by the Australian people but, most importantly, they are policies approved by parliamentary members. They are not policies that are determined in the smoke-filled back rooms of the Labor Party, which is where Labor's policies have always been determined. We on this side of the House are answerable to the Australian people and when we put policies forward to those people, we stand behind them because they are our policies. The Government condemns the status of our policies, but I will tell it something about their status. First, they have one firm foundation, and that is the strength of the individual, of every Australian man and women. If there is one thing that divides us from those opposite in this Parliament, it is simply this: We recognise that the great strength of a country comes from the strength of the individuals, and the role of government is to provide incentive and encouragement to those individuals to make the best of their lives. We do not treat them with contempt as individuals, as the Labor Party does, particularly the left wing of the Labor Party, and as all socialist parties tend to do. Secondly, ours are policies that will get Australia out of the rut that it is presently in. I will tell honourable members something else about the status of our policies, if they will listen for five seconds. They are, thirdly, policies that will revive Australian industry and policies that will give people the incentive that they used to have but do not now have-to get up on their own feet and to apply themselves and to make something of their lives. Fourthly, our policies will restore the great rural industries of this country which the Government has driven into the ground and almost destroyed. They will also get the costs of our industry and commerce sectors down. They will make it worth while once again to get into business and to stay in business, and they will give encouragement to the small business sector-the sector of industry and commerce which the Government has done its best to destroy. That is the status of our policies. They are policies that will help restore this country and its strength; policies that will give some incentive and encouragement back to the people, the sort of encouragement and incentive that they used to have. Finally, this motion is based on unmitigated gall, because here we have a Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) moving a censure motion based on what he calls the deceit of the Leader of the Opposition, when he himself has the most deplorable record of making promises which are expendable when it is convenient to him to expend them. We have only to look at some of his more famous expendable promises to see that he is the last person in the world who should stand up here and accuse anyone of deceit. What did he say in the last two election campaigns? Listen to some of the cherished promises that this paragon of virtue has put forward to the Australian people. He got them to re-elect him in 1984 by saying: `We pledge ourselves to bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australian families'. The Government has not brought home ownership again within the reach of ordinary Australian families. It has turned that dream into a nightmare. That was the first expendable promise. He got the people to re-elect him in 1984 by thumping this message to them up and down the country: At present, the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the near future we will harvest the crop. That is his second expendable promise. What a bitter harvest that turned out to be when interest rates have gone through the ceiling, when the Government has done its best to cripple our rural industries, when it is doing uncontrollable damage to our housing industry and when it has driven so many small businesses out of existence. That and that alone is the inheritance on interest rates of this Prime Minister. He, above all, has no right to be talking about deceit. What did he say about inflation? What was his promise about that? He got the people to re-elect him in 1984 by saying this up and down the country: We expect inflation will be less than- wait for it- 5 per cent in the year ahead- five per cent indeed- and we are determined to keep it- wait for it- below 5 per cent. We have an inflation rate now of almost up to 10 per cent. That promise, like so many promises of this utterly discredited Prime Minister, was made with reckless abandon as to whether it was true or false or as to whether there was any reasonable prospect of it ever being implemented. What did he say about employment and particularly youth employment? What did he say about the great scandal that has been exposed by my colleague the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack)-the traineeship scheme, the great answer to the problems of youth unemployment in Australia? He said that in the coming year-that is when the Government set up the traineeship scheme-10,000 traineeships would be made available. Ten thousand lucky young Australians were going to get youth traineeships. What have we got now? Is it 2,000? Yes, we are just over 2,000, 18 months after the traineeship scheme was set up. It is a dismal failure, a disaster, another one of his utterly expendable promises and yet this Prime Minister talks about deceit. What unmitigated gall! As if that were not enough, let us remember the famous promise about Medicare. He stated: And I now give this undertaking- he probably had his hand on his heart- that for the term of our next government, the Medicare levy will not be increased. This is the Prime Minister who went out peddling these expendable promises around the country, saying on this occasion that the Medicare levy would not be increased. Yet what do we find in the 1986 Budget? He just turns around and increases the Medicare levy from one per cent to 1.25 per cent. It means nothing to him. He would not even blush if we put it in front of him as an obvious departure from what he had promised. I suppose one can go on and on, promise after promise, but one promise stands in our minds, I suppose, above all. The Prime Minister in the 1983 election campaign stated: 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 capital gains tax. Yet we find he turns around in September 1985 and imposes yet another tax burden on people, on industry and commerce, and what should it be, but a capital gains tax. His promises mean nothing. He is an absolute hypocrite for standing up in this Parliament and basing a motion on what he claims is deceit so far as our policies are concerned. The motion has no substance. It should be utterly rejected. It will be rejected by us with the contempt that it deserves. Finally, we make this simple point: Not only for all of the reasons that I have given should this motion be defeated and not only for all of the reasons that I have given will we vote against it; we will vote against it for another reason, a reason that outweighs all of those reasons, that is, simply that the Leader of the Opposition, whom the Government is now so keen to censure, will certainly-I repeat, will certainly-on 12 July this year be the Prime Minister of this country. Question put: That the motion (Mr Hawke's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J. Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J. Bowen, Lionel Kent, L. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. 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. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Millar, P. 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, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Everingham, P. A. E. Shack, P. D. Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F. Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —I present reports from the Auditor-General dated 2 June 1987 upon efficiency audits of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations: Community Employment Program, and the Australian Customs Service: Licensing and Administration of Customs Agents. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the reports of the Auditor-General dated 2 June 1987 upon efficiency audits of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations: Community Employment Program and Australian Customs Service: Licensing and Administration of Customs Agents. (2) That the reports be printed. Madam SPEAKER —I present the following report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House: `A Report Relating to the Proposed Works in the Parliamentary Zone: Traffic Control Signals', and minutes of the proceedings of the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Administrative Review Council entitled `Access to Administrative Review: Stage 1, Notification of Decisions and Rights of Review', together with a letter from the Chairman of the Administrative Review Council relating to the report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Administrative Review Council entitled `Review of Customs and Excise Decisions: Stage 3, Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Decisions'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present the Law Reform Commission's report on contempt. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present the Law Reform Commission's report on spent convictions. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —On behalf of the Prime Minister I present, for the information of honourable members, the annual report of the Official Establishments Trust for 1985-86. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Report of the Australian Delegation to the Seventy-first Session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva from 7 to 27 June 1985. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian Tripartite Mission to study the training of skilled workers in the metal and electrical trades in Austria, Italy and Yugoslavia. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian Tripartite Mission to study the training of skilled workers in the metal and electrical trades, which investigated the feasibility of establishing trade testing facilities in Austria, Italy and Yugoslavia. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by Mr R. M. Bannerman, administrator of the code of conduct for Australian companies with interests in South Africa. The principal objective of the code was to ensure that Australian companies operating in South Africa do not exploit the peculiar employment conditions which arise as a result of apartheid. With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I wish quickly to make two points. In commending the report to honourable members, I draw attention to two matters: Firstly, the administrator's conclusion that Australian companies in South Africa are not supporting apartheid, nor are they exploiting it for commercial gain and, secondly, confirmation that the Australian private sector presence in South Africa is very small and declining. I express the Government's thanks for the work of the administrator over the last 12 months. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 35 of the Student Assistance Act 1986, I present a report on the operation of the Act. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 13 of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973, I present the Commonwealth Schools Commission report on Commonwealth programs and policy development for schools in 1988. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 48 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979, I present the annual report of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation for the year ended 31 December 1986. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by Mr Justice Everett, QC, President of the Inter-State Commission, relating to a review of the financial performance of the Australian National Line. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Marine Research Allocations Advisory Committee's report on marine sciences and technologies grants for 1987. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I do, Madam Speaker, grievously. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr GOODLUCK —During a peaceful rally of the timber industry today, which I was invited to address, a violent confrontation occurred between me, Bruce John Goodluck, and Senator Norman Sanders from Tasmania. During that confrontation the Australian Federal Police came and took Senator Norm Sanders away. They even asked me his name. In an American garble-I can term it only in that way-the confrontation got a bit heated. Then, to my dismay, I heard an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program, the World Today-it seems always to support the greenies, incidentally-on which this confrontation was described as a confrontation between the timber workers and Senator Norm Sanders from Tasmania. Not that I want to be pumped up, but I claim to be misrepresented as a result of that. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Blunt,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Cleeland,Mr Cowan and Mr Tickner. 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 Beale,Mr Kent,Mr Saunderson and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That, as a consequence of the Hawke Government's decision to introduce a two dollar coin in 1988, Whereas the introduction of a one dollar coin was only a twofold increase in the maximum value of coinage, the elimination of the two dollar note represents a fivefold increase before a note can be used It will have taken eighteen years from decimalisation to go from the fifty cent piece as the highest value coin to a one dollar coin, but only a further four years to replace the two dollar note with a coin The lowest value paper note will be five dollars, forcing a dramatic increase in the weight of coinage carried and dislocation of the retail industry Many people, particularly the elderly, will mistake the value of the coin for that of another lower value coin just as many now confuse the 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 and Mrs Sullivan. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles and Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer and Mr Ruddock. 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: We are opposed to the imposition of a Capital Gains Tax. Your petitioners humbly pray: That the Honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the 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 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. 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 electors of Australia showeth: That the Australian Diplomatic Representation in Lebanon be re-established because of the dangers and extreme difficulties experienced by people in Lebanon in approaching the nearest Australian Embassy in Damascus, Syria. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. And, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilising nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government (a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All federal members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Jakobsen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the 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 we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall the millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world who have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lamb. 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 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 there 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 Slipper. 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 Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 the 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain senior citizens, electors of the Division of Wakefield draws to the attention of the House the suggestion that Telecom charge for the total time spoken on local calls. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government do not legislate for this to become effective when determining their policies for Telecom. by Mr Andrew. 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 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 assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth: That taxpayers with dependent children have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of recognition provided in the taxation system for the costs of maintaining a family, in particular. the failure to index family allowances which has resulted in an erosion of more than 50% in their real value since May 1976; the abolition of family allowances for dependents who have turned 18, even those still at school; the abolition of concessional tax rebates for education and other expenses. That this erosion in tax equity has placed an intolerable financial burden on many large families, particularly those on middle incomes who fail to qualify for means-tested benefits such as TEAS but whose living standards are now well below average due to heavy expenses on necessities such as education, housing, food and clothing. Our petitioners humbly pray that: family allowances be restored to the 1976 value (in real terms), and indexed according to the C.P.I.; the dependent spouse rebate be retained; the Federal Government take urgent measures to restore equitable provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Government's actions in changing levels of pharmaceutical benefits will adversely effect the infirm and elderly and that it will cause further unnecessary economic hardship and suffering among all people who are currently dependent on existing benefits. The Government's actions are little more than yet another burden placed upon our Australian citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Restore pharmaceutical benefits to their former level, therefore lifting this inequitable burden now being placed squarely on the infirm throughout Australia. Give a firm undertaking not to further desert those citizens in need of medical support. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 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 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 to the Redcliffe Department of Social Security office imposes an unnecessary financial burden in the form of travel expenses on the unemployed. The time involved in the process reduces the time available for the unemployed to seek work actively. We the undersigned call on the Federal Government to implement measures that would allow unemployed people in the Caboolture CES District to leave completed forms at the Caboolture Job Centre for collection by the Department of Social Security. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens of Queensland call upon all Members to pay due respect to returned Service personnel and cease the constant erosion of entitlements by the Hawke Government. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not proceed with its intention to further means test Veterans' disability pensions in order to cut Government spending on Australia's Ex-servicemen and Ex-servicewomen. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 vast majority of decent Australians. 2. That Government grants should not be directed toward projects that are of no, or dubious, worth to the improvement of Australia. 3. That public funding should not be used in encouraging lifestyles contrary to the Australian family way of life. 4. That public moneys should not be given to minority groups to support projects that are of a direct political nature. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Halt forthwith the public funding for the abovementioned purposes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; 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. Petitions received. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1987 Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Ships (Capital Grants) Bill 1987 Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1987 Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 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 Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The growing community outrage at the increases in the cost of Medicare which needs fundamental changes to ensure all Australians have access to affordable high quality health care. 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- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodgman, W. M.Beale, J. H. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Jull, D. F.Braithwaite, R. A. Katter, R. C.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. 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. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.PAIR Staples, P. R.Webster, A. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(4.08) —The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) has come to this House after extensive consultation with the people who are to be most affected by it-the traditional Aboriginal landowners of the Northern Territory. This Government has recognised its responsibilities towards them and waited until such time as they were able to consider fully the implications of the amendments before placing them before the Parliament. In a most generous expression of good faith, the traditional owners agreed to consider the amendments and to try to strike a balance for all interested parties. This was a part of the Aboriginal decision-making process at the joint Land Council meeting at Lake Bennett in the Northern Territory. The result was a unanimous decision in support of the Government's amendments. They have been aptly described by the Northern Land Council Chairman, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, as a triumph for common sense and the Aboriginal genius for effective compromise. Pat Dodson, the Director of the Central Land Council, hailed the decision of the Lake Bennett meeting earlier this month in similar terms, and he said it was a brilliant compromise. As one who, with my colleagues the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans)--(Quorum formed) Last week when I spoke in this House two quorums were called. Today, I get going for about a minute and another quorum is called. The Opposition has listed only three speakers in this debate. Only three people are game to express their views on this issue. The Opposition calls quorums when honourable members on this side are speaking. It is an outrage and a disgrace, and the Opposition knows it. As I was saying before the quorum was called, my colleagues, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, and I were privileged to witness the Lake Bennett meeting. As an observer from this House I can say without any shadow of a doubt that the description given by Galarrwuy Yunupingu and Pat Dodson is a fitting description of the meeting. The result of the Lake Bennett meeting is all the more laudable when honourable members consider the effects of mining on the Aboriginal communities. Since the first minerals boom in the Northern Territory-the Pine Creek goldrush in the 1890s-the traditional owner's acquaintance with mining and miners has not been a happy one. They have in the past 100 years seen their watercourses poisoned, their hunting grounds devastated, and their sacred sites desecrated. They have felt the ravages of disease and drunkenness. They have been dispossessed with no recompense. They have experienced the reality of massive population decline through death and dispossession and the parallel destruction of their society and culture. They have witnessed the true nomads of the Northern Territory. Those nomads are the miners who have marched on to their land, gouged it with picks, shovels and dynamite, and then walked away leaving the landscape and its sacred associations irreparably scarred. The shock of these events for people whose lives have been involved the deepest, most sacred principle of caring for the land is unimaginable for those of us who grew up with no concept of caring for country. But Aboriginal people have survived against all of these odds. Some of their country has also survived. Through the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act some of it has been restored to them and they have been able to care for it once again. Along with the rights to their land, traditional land owners have been able to share in some of the benefits of development. Royalties from mining have helped develop communities, build houses and community facilities and created opportunities for investment for a more secure economic future. As we see it, even the benefits of allowing economic activity are still not without cost. There is still the ever present danger of sacred land and sites being disturbed. There is new fear that water and lands could be poisoned forever because of the irresponsible dumping of toxic and radioactive wastes. Land owners are concerned that the creation of towns to service the mining industry brings its own social hazards-the exposure of the young to violent and pornographic videos, to illegal drug use, to community acceptance of excessive alcohol consumption. Land owners who met at Lake Bennett know all of this. They have directly experienced these hazards in their own families and on their own land. Yet still they were prepared to consider the national interest and allow changes that clarify the regulations governing mining and the administrative timetables. They have been prepared to concede these changes because they have not been at the cost of the integrity of control over their land. It is worth highlighting that, frankly, the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory would have probably preferred that these amendments not be proceeded with at the beginning of the process. They would have preferred the development and extension of the 1976 Act to give control over their lands. Like other traditional owners of proper native lands elsewhere in the world, for instance in Canada, our Aboriginal people should have the right to be able to say no to any proposals for the development of oil or mineral deposits on their land right up until the negotiating of the mining stage has been concluded. The concessions which have been made by Aboriginal people in this regard cannot be overestimated. Australia sadly lags a long way behind all other former British colonies. This Parliament should now guarantee that this Act will not be further amended. No further changes should be made except to build upon those rights. Nothing should be done to the rights of these people without further consultation. In particular, the mining industry and the Northern Territory Government should understand clearly that it is our view that no one interest group has the right to dictate what Aboriginal people should have. I ask honourable members to contrast this responsible approach by the Aboriginal land owners with the actions of the Northern Territory Government and the mining lobby. Between them they have marshalled their powerful resources to lobby the public. Unfortunately, some honourable members of this House on the lie that the limited control by traditional land owners of some regained land has somehow caused a log jam in the processing of applications for resource development in these highly prospective areas. They have devoted huge amounts of money and great amounts of energy to allow prominent members of the lobby to stump the country, repeating the lie. This mixture of media manipulation, and cheque book management in the boardrooms of the Press barons has been a disgrace. On behalf of the Government, I count it a privilege to be able to put the lies to rest once and for all. The true record of the past 10 years of the land rights Act is quite a different story from the lies promoted by the miners. Let us examine what was happening. As at the end of April 1987 the Northern and Central Land Councils combined had a total of 235 exploration licence applications under consideration on Aboriginal land in their respective regions. Seventeen and a half per cent-41 applications-were log jammed by the Northern Territory Government's Department of Mines and Energy. So we have a queue of mining companies waiting for the Country Liberal Party Northern Territory Minister simply to give his go-ahead to negotiate with the land councils. And after the Northern Territory Government has given the go-ahead, we have yet another log jam, this time created by the mining companies themselves. A total of 194 ELAs have received Northern Territory Government consent. Thirty-three per cent of these-64 applicants-have not bothered to submit exploration proposals to the land councils. Thus over a third of the ELAs which could be actively considered by the land councils are held up because the mining company chooses not to proceed. An ELA over Aboriginal land has no time constraints or rental liabilities. A company can, in effect under the Act as it exists-that is prior to the introduction of these amendments-use the ELAs to lock up the land, and then indulge in non-competitive business practices by waiting for the best economic circumstances before proceeding. This is a very good way to lock up the land from one's competitors. There are therefore only 130 ELAs out of 235 not log jammed by either the Northern Territory Government or the mining companies themselves. Of the remaining 130 ELAs that could proceed, the mining companies have lost all interest in seven. That leaves 123 ELAs that the land council could proceed with, whilst close to 50 per cent, or 112 ELAs, are log jammed elsewhere. Thus the real situation for land councils is this: Out of the remaining 123 ELAs, 17 have reached agreement stage, 24 have been rejected by the traditional owners, and 80 are under active consideration by the land councils. Some are at various stages of traditional ownership identification and negotiation. It is also worth noting that the mining companies and the Northern Territory Government constantly campaign against the 1976 Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. They malign it and call for its destruction; yet commercial development from the non-mining sector has experienced no problems with this law. The following are examples of successful commercial enterprises, negotiated on Aboriginal land under the current Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Firstly, the Amadeus to Darwin gas pipeline is a 1,500-kilometre pipeline running across six separate Aboriginal land trusts. It was scheduled to cost $380m and actually cost $330m. It was done with the utmost speed. Secondly, I refer to Telecom Australia. In the Northern Land Council area 21 separate 25-year leases have been negotiated on Aboriginal land. Thirdly, I refer to the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. In the Northern Land Council area 21 numerous leases for navigational aids, lighthouses, accommodation and general government installations have been negotiated with the land councils. Fourthly, in the pastoral area 14 buffalo mustering and domestication licences have been negotiated in the Arnhem Land, Daly River, Wagait and Goulburn Island areas. In addition to these, one pastoral lease and four grazing licences have been negotiated on Aboriginal land. The combined value of these enterprises represented a turnover in 1986 of $4.5m including approximately $1m in export earnings. I turn now to tourism. There have been three major resort development plans negotiated on Aboriginal land. These include: Kings Canyon, Corel Bay on the Cobourg Peninsula and Bathurst Island Lodge. These represent an investment of $25m. In 1986 the Aboriginal lands of Uluru and Kakadu were visited by approximately 220,000 people. Standley Chasm had 84,000 tourists in 1986. There are safari operations and an ever increasing number of licence agreements for people who operate tourist attractions and run tours through various Aboriginal lands. Permits issued for access on to Aboriginal land were in the order of 6,000 per annum. These were for tourism, business and social purposes. So it is a lie for people to say that Aboriginal people have stopped progress and development. Perhaps we should start to look at those people with whom Aborigines must sometimes deal. The miners do not have a good record in this area. The role of the land councils of the Northern Territory in working for the interest of the traditional owners cannot be underestimated. My colleagues on the Caucus committee will agree with my conclusion that the tenaciousness, maturity and responsibility shown by the land councils' employees clearly illustrate the continuing need for strong land councils to protect the interests of traditional Aboriginal land owners. The work of land council staff has been a particular target of the Northern Territory Government and the mining and pastoral lobbies. These people have insulted the traditional owners as employers. They malign their workers. They insult both the decision making processes of the councils and the direction they give to their staff who are termed their `white advisers'. They have peddled another racist urban myth. They fail to recognise the right of Aboriginal people and their organisations to employ an effective advisory and service structure. My experience-I am sure I speak for my colleagues the honourable member for Moore and the honourable member for Leichhardt in this matter-has always been that land council staff are dedicated to the interests of the land council members, the traditional owners. If their employees did not act in the interests of the councils and the council members, they would be replaced with people who would do their bidding. My observations from long experience were confirmed by the progress of deliberations leading up to and during the Lake Bennett meeting. At all stages during the joint meeting of the land councils staff members were directly responsible to the councillors. They reported accurately the negotiations with this Government to the members at the meeting. It is through the efforts of the land councils and through negotiation with members of this Government to the highest levels that we have been able to reach this compromise. We have before us a series of amendments to the Land Rights Act which offer certainties and guarantees and maintain the integrity of all parties. Traditional Aboriginal land owners will now have the certainty that their wishes will be respected. If they want to be left alone to care for their country, that wish will be respected. I contrast this with the position which exists now. Those land owners who refused the initial approach of the miners have been hounded day after day. Their refusal to meet with miners has been seen as a crude negotiating device; their care for their country has been belittled and they have been subjected to the strongest pressure this powerful lobby group can bring to bear-both at home on their own lands and in the wider world. This pressure has helped create the lie which many people swallow without a second thought-that traditional land owners do not want development. Honourable members can see clearly that some of these land owners do want development because they recognise very clearly the benefits this can bring. But they also want fairness in these dealings and in the way the negotiations are conducted. They want guaranteed protection of these rights when they do not want to see their land developed. The Act's amendments offer certainties for mining companies too. They will now be able to operate with a clear time-table of events, with recourse to arbitration where there is a stalemate, with clear guidelines which will streamline the process of negotiations. This Government and the traditional Aboriginal land owners of the Northern Territory have joined forces in the national interest. We have both accepted that the provisions of the Act need to be clarified to offer these certainties. Together we now hold out an offer to the mining companies to join us in acting responsibly in the national interest; join us in ensuring a better future for all Australians, if that is what improved exploration and mining conditions will bring; and join us to ensure balanced development which will take the wishes of Aboriginal people into account. Mining companies have a very clear choice: They can continue their knee jerk opposition to the efforts of this Government and the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory or they can show their willingness to get to work with us. We have done our part by proposing these amendments to the Land Rights Act. The traditional Aboriginal land owners have done their part and shown their good faith by accepting the proposed amendments responsibly and with good grace. The miners can do their part when these amendments are passed by this House, as I am sure they will be. (Quorum formed) Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.28) —In view of the behaviour of the Opposition, I move: That the honourable member for Melbourne be granted an extension of time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr Connolly —This is an outrage. The Opposition has had no opportunity to debate the matters before this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Connolly —I call for a division. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is a division called for? Only one voice having called for a division, I call the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(4.29) —I thank the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) for moving that I be granted an extension of time and for doing such an excellent job. Let me conclude by repeating that this Government will not sit idly by and see Aboriginal people continually assaulted by racist and bigoted campaigns by the mining industry or elsewhere, and by people like the honourable member opposite. Nor will we kowtow to the continued demands, from the same quarters, for the weakening or removal of the rights that Aboriginal people in the Territory presently have. It should be our aim to accord all Aboriginal Australians recognition of their demands for justice and to develop the Northern Territory legislation as the basis for the granting of land rights for Aboriginal people throughout Australia. It is only appropriate at this time that the following employees of the Land Councils are given special acknowledgment for the work they do. They are the senior Aboriginal employees of the organisations, the ones who have directed the discussions and negotiations with the Government on behalf of the land councils. In particular, the outstanding work of Pat Dodson, Director of the Central Land Council, and John Ah Kitt, Director of the Northern Land Council, deserve the highest praise. They have been more than ably assisted by Marcia Langton of the CLC and Mick Dodson of the NLC. Those people are of the highest integrity and ability. They have relentlessly pursued the wishes of their chairmen, executives and council members-and they have done so with dignity and with a standard of professionalism of which all Aboriginal Australians can be proud. Let there be no doubt that we will not sit idly by and allow the rights of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory continually to be attacked and undermined by vested interests, be they the miners, the Northern Territory Government or the Federal Opposition. It must be made clear to the Opposition's members and supporters that we will not sit by and allow that. Aboriginal Affairs is a national responsibility, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs said at the National Press Club the other day. At the end of the day, the responsibility lies with this Parliament. As we approach the bicentennial of our invasion and occupation of this country, it is important that we in this Parliament and the wider non-Aboriginal Australian population recognise that we have yet to come to terms with the continuing dispossession of Aboriginal Australians, the destruction of their society and culture, and our unwillingness to accept and recognise in the Constitution or in law the indigenous rights of Aboriginal and Islander people of this country. The redress of that should be a basic and fundamental priority of this Parliament and nation during the next 12 months. It is without question an historical, moral and legal obligation of this Parliament. Far from diluting or removing the rights presently granted, we should have as an objective the development, extension and enrichment of the rights of those people. These amendments were worked out by people sitting down and discussing the problems. They sat for many hours and discussed the problems and the proposals, and they reached agreement. The challenge now rests with those who have knocked the previous legislation because there are no more excuses; there is no more ducking for cover. They have to deliver because the Aboriginal people have done their share, and done it very well. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.34) —This debate is probably the last opportunity that we will have to discuss the issues of Aboriginal affairs in this Parliament, as we come towards the end of the Thirty-fourth Parliament this week. In view of the difficulty that we have continually faced with legislation in this House since I have been a shadow Minister, it is a pleasure to say that while we have a number of significant difficulties with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill-to which we shall certainly press a range of amendments-we will not vote against it. We regard it as a step forward, albeit a relatively short step, but an improvement for all of that. Honourable members may recall that only last week, on 27 May, we commemorated the twentieth anniversary of the national referendum held on that day in 1967. The Australian people voted overwhelmingly to give to the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate concurrently with the States to make special laws for the Aboriginal people. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) has just delivered his usual diatribe on the issue. He quoted the words of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in his National Press Club address on that same day. He said that the question of legislating for Aboriginal affairs was a Federal responsibility. I do not dispute that, but what the honourable member tends to ignore is that it is also a State responsibility. The record of the Australian Labor Party throughout the entire period of major interest in Aboriginal affairs-from the early 1970s onwards-has never, until now, explicitly stated that the States had no legitimate interest in a concurrent use of power for the welfare of Aboriginal Australians. I find it extraordinary that so often in debates of this nature, we hear the absurd suggestion that, once again, Aborigines are to be treated as Commonwealth citizens-and, by extension, not as citizens of the State. When will this Labor Government, soon to be the Opposition sitting on this side of the chamber, learn that one of the very reasons why Aboriginal Australians are discriminated against-and why in recent years, as a direct result of the Government's policies, there has been a growing degree of dispute on a racial basis in our community-is the perception that there are two forms of Australian citizenship, black and white. Mr Hand —That is rubbish and you know it. Mr CONNOLLY —Unfortunately, it is not rubbish. The honourable member should go to the Morees of Australia and talk to Aborigines and whites and he will understand what I am saying today. The unfortunate fact is that the record of Aboriginal affairs has been set back, not forward, by virtue of the fact that when members of the Government were in opposition during the Fraser years they deluded themselves into believing that they could apply national land rights across Australia. I do not know to whom the Labor Party spoke during those days, but quite clearly it got its lines mixed in discussions with its State colleagues. It totally ignored the reality of this country, as guaranteed in law in 1967, that the States, too-both under the Constitution and as a result of the referendum-had a shared responsibility for Aboriginal legislation. They have the right and the duty to look after Aboriginal citizens at least as well as they look after their white citizens. All honourable members know that the sad reality of recent years has been that the equality of opportunity of which I speak has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I gave notice of a motion in the House last week which dealt with the referendum of 27 May 1967. It was a matter of the greatest regret that, although the Minister had the opportunity to discuss the anniversary of the referendum in the National Press Club, not a word was raised in this Parliament. As a member of the Opposition, I could do no more than give notice of motion. I had hoped that someone in the Government-for example, the honourable member for Melbourne, who has demonstrated such a keen and long-lasting interest in Aboriginal affairs-might have been prepared to join with me, on a bipartisan basis, to debate in a civilised environment the realities of the Aboriginal situation in Australia. But, despite all its noise on this issue, at a time when the Parliament should have had its voice heard, there was nothing more than thundering silence from the Government. Just for the record, I wish to read into Hansard the motion of which I gave notice. It stated: That this House- (1) commemorates the 20th anniversary of the national referendum held on 27 May 1967 by which the Australian people voted overwhelmingly to give the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate concurrently with the States to make special laws for the Aboriginal people; (2) reaffirms- (a) the right of Aboriginals to equality of opportunity, and (b) the continuing need for special programs to overcome disadvantage caused by poverty, distance and deprivation, and (3) notes with pleasure the considerable achievements of Aboriginal Australians in many fields of endeavour over the last 20 years. The motion was put on the Notice Paper on 26 May 1987, and there it rests, more than one week later-unheralded, undebated and unsung. The sad fact is that in many of these areas, whatever the long term intentions may be, Labor's overall Aboriginal affairs policy has been less than successful. It is fair to say, as do many Aboriginal Australians, that we should condemn this Labor Government for its failure in Aboriginal affairs and for the disillusionment that it has caused to so many Aboriginals, primarily over the issue of national land rights. As I said earlier, commitments were made. Mr Hand —No, they were not. Mr CONNOLLY —They were not kept. If they were not made, as the honourable member for Melbourne now suggests, I ask him to find me a single Aborigine in Australia who will believe the denial that I have just heard from the honourable member. He said that commitments were not made. Let us have it across Australia, because that is what he said. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that I have been misinterpreted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Hand —The point of order is that he is misleading the House and the Australian community and he knows it. That is not what I said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order and he knows there is no point of order. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member has a gross attack of bad conscience and so well he might. Mr Hand —You have always opposed anything we have tried to do for Aboriginal people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will stop interrupting. Mr CONNOLLY —On 26 May Mr Robert Haupt wrote an article in the Sydney Morning Herald referring to the twentieth anniversary of the referendum on Aboriginals. Mr Hand —He wouldn't know. Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, he is a good bloke, as the honourable member said. This is what he said: . . . above all, that the cycle of reform begun under a conservative government would have come to a halt, in exhaustion and boredom- Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that the Chairman of the Standing Committee of which the shadow Minister is a member found cause to write to the Sydney Morning Herald on the shadow Minister's behalf pointing out that Haupt was wrong. So I suggest that the honourable member not quote him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr CONNOLLY —I will start again. Mr Robert Haupt in his article said: . . . above all, that the cycle of reform begun under a conservative government would have come to a halt, in exhaustion and boredom, under a cynical Labor Government-had you said that to my generation in 1967, we would not have disagreed with you, we would have been utterly unable to understand you. The reason for that is clear. More than 90 per cent of the Australian people voted as they did back in 1967 because they were the generation that lived in the environment of the Kennedy era of human rights issues in the United States of America. They believed that Australia also had a record which needed to be significantly improved. Mr Haupt is not the only person who has raised his voice to make the point that in this whole issue of land rights Labor built up an expectation which it has consistently, and for very good reason, been unable to deliver on. Father Frank Brennan, SJ, an adviser of Catholic Bishops of Australia on land rights, said in April 1986, concerning the Labor Government's backdown on its promise to implement uniform national land rights legislation: The broken promises are the greatest breach of faith committed by any government towards the Aboriginal people since white settlement. If the honourable member for Melbourne objects to the invasion of the country by white people perhaps he should try to find out where his forebears come from; they might be willing to have him back. On balance, it would probably be of advantage to Australia. Father Frank Brennan said: Aboriginals no longer have a voice or an advocate in the major political parties at a national level in relation to the land rights question. They are an electoral liability. Their votes have been bought, they have been betrayed totally less than two years before we, as a nation, will dare to celebrate the events of January 26, 1788. The Australian Labor Party, then in opposition, bought its way into power by making promises which the Liberal and National parties as the then Government said were promises which should not be made and which could not be fulfilled. To an Aborigine there is nothing worse than being betrayed by the people he thought he could trust. In that period when we said that a proposal to give national land rights ran counter to the rights of the States vis-a-vis the Commonwealth and we rightly assessed the tenor of the people of Australia on this issue and we advised the Labor Party of the danger of going down that course, nevertheless it did so. For the first time since 1967 a degree of division on Aboriginal land rights and general Aboriginal development was introduced into the Australian political environment. Such division had not been seen for many generations in this Parliament or elsewhere in Australia. That is Labor's contribution and it is one for which it will long be remembered. Labor's promises led the Aboriginal people to expect and demand things that would never happen, that cannot happen. Labor's promises destroyed the positive community attitudes towards Aborigines which had been encouraged since 1967 and resulted in substantial community conflict and division which I am sure all members of this House would say we can well do without. The legislation before the Parliament now is the third set of amendments to the Fraser Government's original Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. In many respects that legislation, which was drafted by the Whitlam Government and passed by the Fraser Government, was not only historic but also very brave. In international terms, whatever our problems may be, our record of giving land to indigenous populations is substantially better than that of any comparable nation, such as the United States or Canada. Aborigines now have about 12 per cent of the mainland of Australia. To a primary degree, that is because this Parliament initiated and passed that legislation. However, this was done in the knowledge that it was unique legislation. There were no worthwhile precedents to draw on and it was recognised that amendments would have to be made from time to time. Senator Chaney-one of the most, if not the most, outstanding Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs produced by this Parliament, from any side-tried to negotiate with the land councils in northern Australia on the need to make amendments to the Act. His successors, in particular Senator Peter Baume, also tried to negotiate. Senator Peter Baume's successor, Mr Ian Wilson, carried on the same exercise. But one thing stands out: Through all that period when our Ministers went to the land councils with open hands to negotiate a complex set of amendments they were continually frustrated and thwarted by irresponsible members of the Australian Labor Party, principally in this Parliament, who said to the land councils: `Give them nothing. Hold on. Do not change anything'. In that environment, those negotiations regrettably failed. Mr Hand —That is a lie, and you know it is a lie. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw that statement. Mr Hand —Even if he does not object to my saying it is a lie? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr Hand —All right, I will withdraw the term that it is a lie. Mr CONNOLLY —If you want me to object, I am quite happy to do that. I object most strongly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Hand —If you object to my saying it is a lie, I will withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It has been withdrawn. Mr CONNOLLY —As I said, race relations in the Northern Territory in recent years have deteriorated. The honourable member for Melbourne is well aware of that. One of the reasons for that deterioration is that when the pressure gauge started showing a problem and the Federal Parliament and the Government of the day tried to do something about it, we were thwarted right down the line. Our Ministers desperately wanted a settlement which was across party lines. We did not wish to make Aborigines the butt of major divisions within the Australian community over the issue of land rights, their normal capacity to have access to opportunities in the same way as other Australians, or anything else. But this Government, in its shortsighted determination to win government at all costs, was prepared to offer the world to these poor people, knowing perfectly well in its cynicism and its arrogance that it would never be able to deliver. Finally, 1 1/2 years ago the Minister had to climb down and admit in the face of the reality of Labor Party opposition in Western Australia, and in every State of Australia, that land rights as a serious objective was simply not attainable in this country. Then the Government and the Minister agreed to do what we had been saying all along, that we have to work through the States and not try to dominate the States in this matter. Mr Maher —What about this Bill? Mr CONNOLLY —I have been asked by the honourable member for Lowe: `What about this Bill?'. It is a significant piece of legislation, but it needs to be seen in the context of the historical process from which it has resulted. As I said earlier, there have been three sets of amendments to this legislation. Finally, we have reached some sort of settlement. But what I find very odd is that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs apparently played no meaningful role in reaching that settlement. Mr Holding —That is not true. Mr CONNOLLY —Of course I expected the Minister to say that that was not true. Mr Hand —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on what one does in this place when one cannot refer to a comment as an untruth or a lie. How does one make a correction? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I advise the honourable member-- Mr Hand —What he has just said is just not true and he knows it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I advise the honourable member to resume his seat if he does not have a proper point of order. Mr CONNOLLY —I said that the Minister apparently performed no meaningful role and I think the evidence supports my statement. The fact is that the negotiations in the Northern Territory with representatives of the Land Councils and many of the Aboriginal communities were conducted primarily by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans. He negotiated the deal. He came back and put out a release stating that his negotiations had been successful. I must say that I was very charitable at the time but I did wonder where the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs had been. No doubt he was keeping the seat warm back in Canberra. Nevertheless, we do not for one moment undercut the significance of the negotiations that were carried out with some success, knowing as we do the constant attempts by both the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council to frustrate, as they did under our Government, any meaningful attempt to reach a settlement on this issue. Unfortunately, the ultimate problem still remains. It has been the objective of our policy consistently since the mid-1970s to remove ultimately the veto over exploration and mining. As I have said, the step taken in this legislation is a small one forward. At least we have now reached the stage where, provided there is agreement on exploration, there cannot be disagreement ultimately on mining. That has to be seen as a step forward. But the key word is that the proviso still rests on the fact that, if agreement cannot be reached on exploration in the first place, there will be no mining. What is more, negotiations cannot then be taken forward for another five years, subject only to ministerial involvement. One has to say in all fairness that the record of ministerial involvement under this legislation is zero. That is what it has been and I doubt whether it will ever change. That is one of the fundamental problems. It is also fair to make the observation that the Government makes the distinction between what it would probably claim as traditional Aboriginal communities-principally those in Arnhem Land whose attitude towards access to exploration and mining, to date, has been virtually totally negative-and other communities in central Australia who, from my observations and discussions with them, take the view that they have had so little that, if they can get access to royalties and so forth, that must be a step in the right direction. The difficulty, therefore, is that we have two types of community groups whose attitude towards exploration and mining varies very significantly indeed. Under these proposals the likelihood of opening up any additional opportunities for exploration, or of ever getting to the mining stage in Arnhem Land, in my opinion-I may well be wrong in terms of history-is not very great. In my opinion there will be a lot more trouble yet in trying to apply the provisions of this legislation in Arnhem Land, although I do not anticipate any major problems elsewhere. As I have said, our major difficulty with this legislation is that the Government has not removed the veto. That is the essential problem that we have with this legislation. For that reason, at the appropriate stage of the debate, at the Committee stage, I shall move a range of amendments based on the Kilgariff private member's Bill which was introduced into the Senate some time ago to overcome some of these difficulties. I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister and his cohorts in the Government will not support any changes to this legislation. In the dying hours of this Parliament, one must expect no serious attempt from the Government to try to reach a compromise or a settlement, even for the people who for so long have been dispossessed, as the honourable member for Melbourne continually tells us. This is important legislation. But our conscience on the question of Aboriginal land rights and our policy towards Aborigines remain absolutely clear. The record of my Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, in particular, since the time that this legislation was passed in 1967 clearly demonstrates that we did mean what we said. The Aboriginal people of Australia know that, unlike the Labor Party, we did deliver. We hear all this hearts and flowers stuff from the honourable member for Melbourne, but I find it quite interesting to read remarks in the newspapers from leading Aboriginal activists in Queensland and in other parts of Australia who make the point that they are recommending to their people that it is a time for change and that Aborigines should think very seriously about supporting a government which they believe has let them down so fundamentally. That is not because this Government has not spent more money on Aboriginal affairs, as the honourable member for Melbourne continually tells us. This Government has virtually doubled the budget. But the funny thing about this Government is that in so many areas it doubles the budget but does half the job. Unfortunately, the same principle applies with Aborigines. Across Australia, they know that so few of them have anything to show for the vast number of millions of dollars that they are told is being spent on their welfare. Recently I had discussions with the Ngurratjuta-Pmara Ntjarra Association in the Northern Territory. It is an area around the Hermannsburg Mission which is of interest to the honourable member for Melbourne because he has been there. That community is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, the people receive royalties. They get their royalties from the Mereenie oil pipeline which flows through their ground. But the people are worried now-no doubt the Minister knows about this-about the result of the activities of the Minister for Resources and Energy. They have very real doubt that they will continue to receive their royalties as a result of the Government's proposal for the resource rental tax. As they understand it, there have been discussions with the Northern Territory Government and everyone else but, strangely enough, this Government which is supposed to be so interested in and so concerned about Aboriginal welfare, has not taken very much action to talk to those people. Mr Hand —I have talked to them. Mr CONNOLLY —I am delighted to know that the honourable member for Melbourne has talked with them. But, regrettably, while he remains on the furthermost of the back benches, his word as a member of the left wing does not seem to carry very much weight in this most rightist of all Labor governments. The fact remains that there are communities in Australia who say: `Yes, we will welcome mining. We will welcome royalties. We welcome research into our land to see what we can get out of it. We have nothing else so, for heaven's sake, let us see if we can make an economic base within our own community'. They are not by any means exceptions to the rule. However, those communities are very critical of the very people with whom the Government has been negotiating, the Central Land Council. For example, the communities claim that they do not even receive minutes of meetings and that all that the land councils have effectively done is to replace white paternalism with black paternalism. What is worse, many of the paternalists in the land councils are not even residents of the Northern Territory. They are Aborigines from other parts of Australia, principally from the cities of Sydney and Melbourne and the country towns in New South Wales. They are concerned about this matter because they are saying that their power for self-determination, one of the principles of this Government's concern for Aboriginal welfare, is being totally negated by the fact that they cannot make the decisions, because they are not even being consulted. When they say to me that they now have the capacity to manage their own affairs, thank you very much, and that they should be allowed to enter into negotiations and discussions with miners, restaurateurs or people who want to open hotels or motels and so forth, so be it. Let them do so. That is their right. It is a right that every other Australian citizen has. Why should they not have the same right? But no, this legislation is about as paternalistic as it could ever be. There are no real provisions here which in any way allow those traditional owners to have the ultimate say. Unfortunately the traditional owners do not trust the rule of the land councils. The miners, who after all are the ones who have to negotiate, do not trust the role of the land councils. The most quixotic element of this whole Bill is that the Government has made a deal to quieten down the mining lobby in a pre-election environment. Do not let us kid ourselves; that is what it is all about. At the same time it has sacrificed 4,000 or 5,000 landless Aborigines who had expected some settlement from this Government and from the Northern Territory Government in relation to excisions from pastoral leases, because the two Bills before and now these amendments today have done nothing to face this problem of these people who do not have access to any land in the traditional environments in which they have lived. That is one of the greatest sadnesses of this whole sordid exercise. The Government could have made a deal which covered the Northern Territory Government, the miners, the land councils, the Aboriginal traditional owners, the pastoralists and, most important of all, those people who have so little, if anything. Yet the Government deliberately cut them off. They have become the Government's sacrifice on the altar of expediency to get the Government through the election, to keep the miners quiet and at the same time, in reality, to take the very minimum amount of power away from the land councils. Government members will know, before too long in the long years that they are going to enjoy on the Opposition benches, the error of their ways. We will have to come into government and rework this legislation so that the traditional interests of Aboriginal communities can be safeguarded, so that the long term interests of the Northern Territory can be safeguarded and so that the interests of the 75 per cent of the population who are not Aboriginal can be safeguarded and, above all, so that the resources of the Northern Territory can be exploited for the benefit of all Australians. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(5.04) —I intend to spend the majority of my time speaking to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3). I preface my remarks by referring to some of the accusations and allegations-- Mr Maher —And inaccuracies. Mr GAYLER —And inaccuracies of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). A few matters should be placed on the record. First, I refer to his challenge relating to a general debate on Aboriginal affairs. I am very aware of his notice of motion listed on the Notice Paper. In fact, the honourable member, who is the shadow spokesman for Aboriginal Affairs, would be aware that previously in this place, during a debate on Aboriginal matters, I challenged him to a public debate on Aboriginal affairs. Of course, he has not taken up that challenge. In fact, his comments relating to his notice of motion are rather hollow and I would like to draw them to the attention of the Australian public, and particularly the Aboriginal people. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, (Mr Holding), was quite happy to accommodate the honourable member for Bradfield in such a debate, and knowing of the intense interest in Aboriginal matters by my fellow Government members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs-many of whom are now in this place, in rather stark contrast to the almost total lack of presence opposite-I am sure that we would have been quite happy to accommodate him. When the honourable member for Bradfield approached the Minister to bring on the debate, the Minister said: `Yes, we would welcome such a debate'. The shadow spokesman then had to admit to the Minister that he could not get it on for debate because members of his coalition, particularly the members of the National Party of Australia, in fact-- Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Could I clarify a point? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —No. There is either a point of order or there is not. Mr Connolly —The Government said: `You can have your motion provided you do not have the matter of public importance'. That was not an issue which could be negotiated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr GAYLER —What I want to draw to the attention of Aboriginal people is that it is clear the shadow spokesman does not have the support of the National Party members in relation to matters Aboriginal. Mr Holding —It was their turn. Mr GAYLER —It was their turn. The Liberal Party could not bring it on for debate because the National Party disagreed with it. Is it any wonder that today we heard the mumblings of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) about what his Party would do with legislation such as this? It will just tear it up and hoick it out the window. This should be known by the Aboriginal people and it should be known by all Australians. When the shadow spokesman talks about the attitude and the concern of those opposite, he is not speaking on behalf of those people. There is so much dissension within the Opposition that he has to bring out as Opposition policy on Aboriginal affairs something that is not really policy. The Opposition has no policy, and the National Party members are the ones who are standing in the way of it bringing forward any decent policy. It must be remembered that a number of interests had to be taken into account during the long and at times painful negotiations that were undertaken by this Government with the Aboriginal communities, the traditional owners, the mining industry, which was consulted at great length, and the Northern Territory Government. Discussions took place over years between the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Northern Territory Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Those discussions were necessary and important. For the honourable member for Bradfield to say that the Minister played no part in those negotiations was either a reckless attempt or a deliberate attempt to put before the people of Australia untruths. The Northern and Central Land Councils, at a historic meeting at Lake Bennett in the Territory, voted unanimously in support of the amendments. They are to be commended on the way in which they negotiated and on the way in which the purport of and the reasons for the amendments were put to traditional owners, with some 76 communities being represented at Lake Bennett. At the end of the day legislation which was accepted by all those interests has now come before Parliament. I would like quickly to place on record some of the comments made not only by Aboriginal people but also by those in government and within the mining industry. It is very interesting to note that the mining industry supported this legislation to the hilt. The Australian Financial Review of 8 May this year stated: The Australian Mining Industry Council yesterday described the Federal Government's proposed amendments to the Northern Territory land rights bill as ``mildly encouraging''. Mr Murray Hohnens, assistant director of AMIC, said the cardinal advantage of the new amendments announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, was that the mining industry could have direct access to the traditional Aboriginal landowners. That is in stark contrast to what we have just heard from the shadow Minister. Mr Hohnens went on to say: . . . this could speed progress in the negotiations of the 179 mining lease applications currently lodged. I will have more to say about the backlog later. Mr Hohnens continues: On the one hand it recognises the obligations in the Australian community generally to provide an opportunity for those Aboriginals who wish to retain a traditional way of life, to do so, that is to decide not to have mineral activity on their land and to be protected from constant approaches from those who wish to see that land developed . . . Both Mr Justice Toohey and Mr Justice Woodward in their inquiries have indicated that the right of the Aboriginals to reject mining in their land is paramount. It should not be interfered with. In these amendments, under the mining regime which is contained in the Bill, that right of veto still exists. But what is just as important is that once permission is given by traditional owners for exploration to proceed, they do not have an absolute right of veto for mining operations later on. That is why AMIC has come out in support of this legislation. It has also been said that the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr Coulter, sees the amendments as a step in the right direction. That was reported in the Australian Financial Review of the same date. There can be no genuine accusation from those opposite that the processes of consultation were not properly carried through. It is two years now since those negotiations and discussions commenced government with government, Federal Government with the mining industry and Federal Government with the Aboriginal people. The process of consultation was such that at the end of the day all the parties who had an interest-this is how it should be-were satisfied that some action had been taken to break the backlog, where mining was not proceeding. The traditional owners who wished for mining to proceed on their land, the Northern Territory Government and the mining industry were able to get on with the job. At this juncture I would like to make some comment about some of the misinformation, some of the deliberate lies and untruths that people elsewhere have put before the Australian public in relation to the backlog. I am not suggesting that no blame lies at the door of the Aboriginal land councils or the traditional owners, but it is wrong and improper to suggest that they are the sole reason for the backlog. It is interesting to note that there are exploration licence applications in the Territory that have existed for some 11 years in respect of which the Northern Territory Government has given permission to mining companies to negotiate with the traditional owners and the land councils. Yet the mining companies have not been near either the traditional owners or the land councils. Despite requests from the land councils to sit down, talk and negotiate, they have stood idly by for 11 years. The legislation in the Northern Territory must be a real gem if permission is granted and people can just sit on their hands. If anyone has to clean up his own backyard in relation to mining legislation, Mr Coulter should certainly have a close look at his legislation. Let us have a look at some other instances. Mr Hand —There are 64 of those. Mr GAYLER —I am advised by my friend the honourable member for Melbourne who has a very deep and wide knowledge of this very issue that there are 64 others. I will just refer to a number of other specific ELAs. In June 1983, almost four years ago, mining companies were given permission to negotiate on seven ELAs. To date they have not made any effort to continue those negotiations. We have any number of instances where obviously the log jam has been caused by mining companies. The process that exists within the Northern Territory Government certainly does not help. In fact, documentary evidence is available which would suggest that there have been occasions when the Northern Territory has deliberately stood in the way of progress in ELAs. (Quorum formed) At the end of April this year, the northern and central land councils combined had a total of 235 ELAs under consideration. Of those 17 1/2 per cent, or 41 applications, were log jammed deliberately by the Northern Territory Government's Department of Mines and Energy. The Act at present provides that unless the Governor-General declares that the national interest requires that a grant be made, there shall be no new mining or exploration without the consent of the relevant land councils. There is no time frame within which the proposals must be dealt with. The land councils can exercise veto at either the exploration or mining stages. The Act as it is currently structured has caused difficulties for both land councils and miners. For example, land councils could be asked to make decisions at the exploration stage in the absence of details on the impact of any mining venture or, on the other hand, miners could spend many millions of dollars on exploration only to be frustrated when a formal mining proposal is put forward. The Government accepts that Aboriginals must continue to have the right to decide whether or not there should be exploration and mining on their land. This position recognises their attachment to the land and the need to protect their culture and lifestyles. The Act must be amended, however, to make it workable for all parties, while still preserving the fundamental rights of the traditional owners. The amendments now proposed seek to introduce arrangements requiring potential miners to submit, at the exploration stage, detailed proposals on exploration processes and the likely scale of any resultant mining venture. The land councils, within a defined period, will consult the traditional owners and other groups affected and advise the applicant of the decision. At this point the land councils can exercise a right of veto and, other than in special circumstances, the applicant may not reapproach the land councils for a period of five years. Any agreement to an application will cover both exploration and mining. That is important, and it is recognised by the mining interests. In other words, if consent is given at the exploration stage there will be no further opportunity to exercise a veto at the mining stage. This revised arrangement is seen as equitable to all parties and has, in principle, been accepted by the Northern Territory Government. In closing, I pay high commendation to the land councils and the staff of the land councils on the way in which they negotiated and discussed these issues not only with government but also with their own people. The meeting at Lake Bennett was, I believe, not only historic but also a democratic process put into place by many historic but also a democratic process put into place by many traditional owners brought from right across the Northern Territory. I also pay tribute to the members of the Government Caucus Aboriginal committee who have spent now almost two years in negotiations and discussions at departmental level, governmental level and with the Aboriginal people themselves. They have put a lot of work into this although no more than the Aboriginal people. The efforts that have been put into this legislation show that it can be done. Consultation can take place and at the end of the day we have legislation that is acceptable to all parties, something that is still sticking in the craw of those opposite because they did not think it could be done. It just shows that the process of consultation is a necessary process in democracy. This legislation is important, it is progressive and it will assist not only the traditional Aboriginal people but also the future economy of the Northern Territory. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(5.22) —Honourable members opposite have spoken of the years of consultation and all the effort that has gone into the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. I think they described it as a step forward and even on this side of politics it has been described as a small advance. The ministerial and Caucus elephant has strained for years at what was originally a package to improve by way of amendment the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. By the way, Mr Justice Woodward, whom honourable members opposite are quite happy to quote as the crack, said in his original report that the operations of the Act should be reviewed from time to time, not that it should remain as inflexible and immutable as the laws of the Medes and Persians. This ministerial and Caucus elephant that has strained and strained has finally spawned what is little more than a gnat. I intended to speak about in particular the terms of the legislation, but we heard the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) go on and on about the effects of mining on Aboriginals; we heard a long litany of atrocities allegedly perpetrated against Aborigines by miners; and, of course, we heard the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) go on with unsubstantiated and unspecified allegations of log jams in the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly is sitting at the moment and I think I might just ask the Minister for Mines and Energy up there to produce some statistics about all these exploration licences that have been hanging around the chambers of the Northern and Central Land Councils for, as the honourable member for Leichhardt admitted in one case, 11 years. Let me tell the House that more than one case has been hanging around waiting for processing for 11 years. Of course, in that time, how many of these companies that were formed to explore for minerals have gone broke? That is probably why they cannot negotiate any more. It is because the land council delays have sent them to the wall. That is what has happened to mining development in the Northern Territory. One can see the reduced number of mineral exploration and mining companies such as Esso and Exxon. Esso Exploration, one of the world multi- nationals, has pulled out of the Northern Territory because it cannot get land on which to explore. That is the sort of thing that has happened in the Northern Territory. The honourable member for Melbourne went on about how the poor old Aborigines have been kicked around by the miners-about how everything has been done to them by the miners. How many mines have we had in the Northern Territory in the 100 or so years of white settlement there? We have had three gold rushes that I can think of and Victoria had a darn sight more than that. How many mines have we got today? We have got Ranger and it is on Aboriginal land. We have Nabarlek, which is on Aboriginal land. We have Gove. Mr Hand —You were the Chief Minister up there. You wrecked the economy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is interjecting and he is not sitting in his proper seat. Mr EVERINGHAM —He has had a long lunch, I think, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have got Groote Eylandt, and we have got North Flinders. North Flinders is the latest mine I can think of that has got off the ground on Aboriginal land. North Flinders took seven years. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order relates to the honourable member's reference to a long lunch. As a teetotaller, I have never been in the chamber in the condition that the honourable member for Northern Territory has been in when he has come into the Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. Mr EVERINGHAM —I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw that remark, to which I take exception. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Melbourne has been requested to withdraw the remark. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, if the honourable member for the Northern Territory withdraws the reference to me, I will withdraw the reference to him. I am a teetotaller, he is not. Mr EVERINGHAM —Will you withdraw the remark? Mr Hand —I will withdraw the remark and I will further ask that the reference to long lunches made to me-as a teetotaller, long lunches or short lunches do not affect me as they do him-be withdrawn. Mr EVERINGHAM —What is sauce for the goose, Mr Deputy Speaker, is sauce for the gander. The honourable member for Melbourne kept referring to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) on numerous occasions as having been to a long lunch. He cannot cop it, Mr Deputy Speaker; he can dish it out but he cannot cop it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It offends the honourable member. Do you withdraw? Mr EVERINGHAM —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have seen how the honourable member for Melbourne can throw it around but he cannot cop it. What other mines do we have in the Northern Territory? I have mentioned, I think, five including North Flinders. It took seven years of negotiation to get that very wealthy gold mine off the ground-producing minimal interference to anyone at all because it is in the middle of the Tanami Desert. It took seven years with the Central Land Council to get it off the ground and look at the export income it is producing for this country now. It could have been got going in a couple of months if the Government had been dealing with sensible, rational people, not the sorts of people who seem to do the negotiation on behalf of the Central Land Council. Apart from the five mines I have already mentioned in the Northern Territory plus Tennant Creek, we have perhaps six smaller mines. I think we have a total of about 12 mines in a million square kilometres. It is ridiculous to suggest that miners have inflicted incredible suffering on the Aboriginal people. What a load of codswallop! As I said, the arithmetic of both the honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for Leichhardt in relation to the exploration licences is interesting. I know for a fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, that at least some companies have been sent to the wall and have left the Northern Territory simply because they cannot get to sit down with either the Northern or Central Land Councils to discuss the terms on which they might be permitted to mine the areas they are interested in. Mr Hand —Tell us where the figures are wrong. Mr EVERINGHAM —The honourable member need not worry; I will get the statistics. The honourable member for Melbourne went on to say that, in the non-mining sector, everything is sweetness and light; that the rest of the world behaves decently and it is only the miners who kick Aboriginals. The reason the pipeline proceeded so speedily was that it used a right of way on the land that had been surveyed for the proposed Alice Springs-Darwin railway line back in the days of the Fraser Government. The land had been cleared in accordance with the terms of the sacred sites ordinance. The King Canyon proposed tourist resort is not on Aboriginal land. I suppose the honourable member for Melbourne would make such a fundamental mistake. He has visited the Northern Territory fleetingly on a few occasions. He has seen it from the windows of VIP aircraft and jets flying at 35,000 feet. If he had spent a few years on the ground in the Northern Territory he would not do as many people do; that is, go to the Northern Territory and five minutes later tell us the solutions to all the problems with which we have lived for many years. The provocativeness of the land councils' staff in making claims to every national park in the Northern Territory, to almost every square inch of public purpose land and to the Tennant Creek town water supply, and so on, has engendered bitterness between the Aboriginal people and the rest of the community, even though in many cases the Aboriginal people do not know what is going on, because the bureaucracies of land councils act in their name. That is why I object in the strongest terms to all these hearts and flowers for the staffs of the various land councils, with the significant exception of the Tiwi Land Council. Those bureaucracies act in the name of the Aboriginal people and perpetrate race hatred. The Aboriginal people will suffer for that over the long term. The honourable member talked about the tenacity of the land councils' staff. Their only tenacity is in strangling development. They strangled the Magellan oil field for years. I think that it took 10 years to get oil out of the Magellan oil field, thanks to the work of the staff of the Central Land Council. That is the sort of work that they did when Australia was importing oil. That is the hocus-pocus, the hugger-mugger, the delay, that those people go on with. There are cases where, after years and years of negotiation-for instance, the Jabiluka and Koongarra mines-the Aboriginal people have given the go ahead for billions of dollars worth of development, for creating thousands of jobs, and the development has been stifled. The revenue from those mines that would help Aboriginal people become self-sufficient has been stolen from them. They have been thwarted by the efforts, the policies, of this Government. Obviously, the honourable member for Bradfield stung honourable members opposite with his proof of their shameless betrayal of the promises of the Australian Labor Party to Aboriginal people. It was very obvious that honourable members opposite did not like being told that they have sold the Aboriginal people down the river. The Government told them that it would give them Aboriginal land rights. Actually, I would like to see national land rights because we would soon have a revision of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act if it covered the whole of Australia. My very word, I am all for national land rights. I know that honourable members opposite want them like they want a hole in the head. Obviously, it is the Hawke Government's intention to ensure that the majority of land in the Northern Territory, Aboriginal and national park land, is to be closed to mining for all time. I conclude this not just from the legislation presently before the House but from a series of statements, policies and actions that have come from this Government. It seems that, as in so many other things, the Hawke Government says one thing on mining in the Territory and does quite another. When the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) was introduced, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, went to considerable lengths to convey the impression that the right of veto for Aboriginals was substantially reduced-so much so that some sections of the media reported that the right of veto had been lost. However, as we now know, the right of veto is strengthened considerably by this Bill. Before I proceed to deal with the Bill specifically, let me just consider some of the actions of this Government which lead me to conclude that it is the Government's intention to prevent mining altogether over half of the Northern Territory. First, we had the extraordinarily massive expansion of Kakadu-to an area twice the size of Israel-and the related applications for world heritage listing and the legislative pea and thimble tricks which have opened up still more of the Northern Territory to land rights claims. By making the Gimbat and Goodparla leases available to claim, the Government put highly prospective land into the hands of Aboriginal claimants. Then there was the unprecedented spectacle of special legislation rushed into Parliament to prevent a particular mining company from exercising its legitimate right to explore. Then we witnessed the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, using his power to delay mines; for example, the Northern Land Council's proposal-I repeat: The Northern Land Council's proposal-to proceed with Koongarra. Also, we saw the blatant discrimination against the Northern Territory on uranium mines ready to go while, interstate, Australia's biggest uranium mine at Roxby Downs got the go ahead. I could go on, but time constrains me to turn to the specific legislation-yet another nail in the coffin of the Northern Territory mining industry. The Government claims to have consulted on this legislation, and indeed it has, exhaustively those it chose, such as the land councils. But those it did not choose-for instance, the elected representatives of the Northern Territory, the Territory Government-were totally removed from the consultative process in the final stages. The Territory Minister for Mines and Energy has told me that he received only disjointed drafts of the Bill hours before it was introduced. That, of course, also reflects the reckless haste with which the Bill has been rushed into Parliament-already requiring substantial Government amendments in another place, before being brought into this chamber, which is a great pity, as well as irresponsible, because had the Territory Government been consulted as it should have been, it could have assisted in over- coming a number of serious anomalies between this legislation and existing Territory mining legislation, which will come back to haunt this Parliament and will cause considerable difficulty and frustration to the mining industry. Let me cite some examples. A person who has been granted an exploration licence before a claim for land was made may have made application for the grant of an exploration retention lease under section 38 of the Territory's Mining Act. Even though the exploration licence may have expired he may, by section 39 sub-section (2), continue to carry out exploration. Under the proposed amendment in this legislation such a person may not be deemed to hold a mining interest, cannot be called an `intending miner' under that definition and, therefore, will not be able to negotiate but yet will be able to continue to explore. Secondly, under section 47 of the Territory Mining Act the Territory Minister may require a person to apply for a mineral lease in some circumstances. That person is then required to make a mining agreement with the land council-a process which has a timetable all of its own. Non-compliance may result in the Minister cancelling the person's interest. Thus we have two timetables under different Acts, and a miner may lose his interest because of the incompatibility of the Territory mining legislation and the Commonwealth's amended land rights legislation. Thirdly, there are people who are holders of mineral claims in the Northern Territory which have since become Aboriginal land. This Bill may prevent such a form of tenure from proceeding. I do not ask that the responsible Minister should investigate these anomalies; rather, I ask that he should do what he should have done in the first place-that is, consult properly the Territory Government and ensure that the mining industry is not left to inherit the problems of incompatible legislation. Even more serious than these mechanical problems, anomalies and incompatibilities are the apparently deliberate features of this Bill which will put the seal on an end to mining exploration on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, which, I remind the House, effectively means half of the Northern Territory. The net effect of the retention of the veto provision will be continued depressed levels of exploration and mining activity on Aboriginal land. This is a veto which can be applied to the advantage of a land council almost ad infinitum. A person requesting an exploration licence must submit a detailed application to the land council, which is given 12 months in which to give or refuse its consent. The council may apply to the Minister for an extension beyond 12 months, and what Minister will be prepared to refuse such an application? If the Minister is prepared to stick his neck out and order a mining commissioner to arbitrate-and how long will that take?-the Minister may still cancel an exploration licence if he believes the actual exploration activity does not conform to the proposal. In short, the odds are all stacked in the land councils' favour and against the mining industry. The industry must lay all its cards on the table, risking all in negotiations, delays and frustrations while the land council can hold its cards to its chest, using every legislative advantage to extract the best deal possible. When a mining company has been dragged through the mill with regard to an exploration licence, it then faces another round of protracted difficulties. While there is no veto at the mining stage, it is necessary to put together an agreement on terms and conditions and then obtain the consent of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. That, again, provides an opportunity for delay. If no agreement is reached inside another 12 months, a mining company must go back to the Minister, then back to the mining commissioner and then back once again to the Minister. If the mining company is not happy, the exploration licence is cancelled. I ask: What mining company will be prepared to risk between two and five years of negotiations under this legislation? They would have to be mad. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) referred to a debate on Aboriginal policy. I would have thought he is taking his political career in his hands to mention at this moment the word `debate'. I doubt whether the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would want to hear anything about debate during the 5 1/2 weeks coming up to the election, but I am damn sure that if the Prime Minister wants to debate Australia's problems, the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) will certainly be prepared to handle him. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(5.42) —I support the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3). The absent honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham)-whom I presume we will see for just two or three more days because he is refusing to face the electorate in the Northern Territory at the forthcoming election-is the last person to talk with any authority about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. He alleged that not many agreements had been made-in fact, only one, which I will discuss later in my speech-as a result of the present Act. The important thing the House should realise is that the economic climate in the last five to six years has not been conducive to mining operations. It is not true to say that companies have gone to the wall because of the land councils' refusal to negotiate. The land councils have been prepared to negotiate, but there have been occasions, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), when the miners have not been prepared to pursue their claims. There have been occasions when the Northern Territory Government has been in a position to hasten negotiations but failed to do so. Consultations were extensive at both the ministerial and the Caucus committee levels, with all sections-the Aboriginal people, traditional owners, land councils, the Northern Territory Government, the mining interests and the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association. It is not true, as the honourable member for the Northern Territory said, that there was a lack of consultation. If one listened to the speech of the honourable member for the Northern Territory, one would realise that his views as a representative of the Liberal Party were light years away from the views expressed by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who at least indicated that the Bill was a step forward, and it is to his credit that he did that. At this stage I will place on record my appreciation of the behind the scenes work carried out by my two parliamentary colleagues, the honourable member for Leichhardt, the Chairman of the Caucus committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). Their efforts led to the amendments before the House. Credit too must be given to the two Ministers concerned-the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans)-as well as to the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council for their willingness to work towards a solution to the problems created by the original Act. Those of us who were privileged to see the democratic decision-making process of the delegates to the land councils at the meeting at Lake Bennett all felt we had witnessed democracy at work. These amendments repeal Part IV of the principal Act and replace it with a new Part IV which relates principally to the mining provisions of the Bill, and is the result of extensive consultation, as I indicated earlier. These consultations illustrated the readiness of this Government to work towards consensus on an issue that has divided the principal parties concerned-the land councils representing the traditional owners and the mining lobby. To understand the thrust of the amendments, it is necessary to refer to the major planks in the 1976 Act. It is also necessary to recognise the Aboriginals' close spiritual and economic ties with the land. The three principal elements in the mining provisions of the principal Act are that veto powers can be used at both the exploration and mining stages; no time limits exist on the negotiation; and compensation is negotiable. The veto power has been the subject of much controversy. I would much prefer to use the term `consent' rather than the term `veto' because the term `consent' is written into the Act. The term `veto' is an emotional term used by the critics of the Act. The veto-or consent-power gave the land councils acting on behalf of the traditional owners the right to withhold consent to exploration or mining. The principal Act had a number of exceptions to the general rule, including a national interest provision. Some argue that it is the overhanging threat of the consent rule which has produced only one agreement between Aboriginals and mining companies. As I mentioned earlier, the reality is that, because the veto could be exercised at both the exploration and mining stages, miners were reluctant to proceed with an agreement at the exploration stage and then find the veto power used before they could proceed with the mining stage. It is also true that the economic climate, to which I have already referred, has affected mining ventures in the past few years. The amendments will ensure that Aboriginal traditional owners are able to control exploration and mining activity on their land. They will provide clear guidelines governing the granting of a once-over consent at the exploration stage, as well as for the negotiation of terms and conditions at the exploration and mining stages. Previously, as I indicated, there has been no time limit on negotiations, and this has led to protracted negotiations. It has not been in the interests of both the principal parties. It has not been in the interests of traditional owners who want to proceed with mining on their land, and it has not been in the interests of miners. I want to get rid of the furphy that seems to have been perpetrated by honourable members opposite that the traditional owners of these lands do not want mining. A number of them do want mining because it means that the wealth of the community is increased. It is unfair for honourable members opposite to argue that the Aboriginals per se do not want mining. That furphy should be exploded at this stage. (Quorum formed) Obviously, Opposition members are so bereft of policies to discuss that they have to call quorums. Mr Hand —They only have three speakers. Mr BLANCHARD —Only three speakers are listed to speak in this very important debate. It shows their contempt for Aboriginal people. The present proposals are that once an applicant submits a detailed application to the land council, the latter has 12 months and such further time as either party or the Ministers agree in which to give or refuse its consent and to reach agreement in respect of the terms and conditions relating to the exploration proposal. During this period, the land councils are required to consult the traditional owners. But first, they are required to identify the traditional owners. This is done by looking into land claims, books, transcripts, published anthropological literature, or by consulting people who have worked in the area. This is not an easy operation as the traditional owners can be spread over a large area. They could be involved in hunting or in traditional activities. It is a time-consuming activity. It is because it is a time-consuming activity that time was given for this activity to be carried out. The land council then has to call a meeting of traditional owners to explain the proposals and to take instructions from the traditional owners. This process denies what the Opposition has tried to say, that the traditional owners are coerced either by the land councils with their white advisers or the land councils with foreign Aboriginals from the main cities. That argument is a nonsense. We have a very democratic process that has developed over time. When the land council calls a meeting of traditional owners the applicant, the mining company or his nominee, can attend to explain the exploration proposals and the Minister can send a representative of he can attend that meeting himself. The whole process is not only time consuming, but also very democratic. It ill becomes those on the other side to argue otherwise. If the terms and conditions are not settled within the 12-month period, they will be determined firstly by conciliation processes and then, if necessary, by arbitration. However, safeguards have been built in to allow either party to seek an extension if, for a particular reason, the time limits are too onerous. There could be many reasons for extending the time period. It is at this point that the land councils, acting on behalf of the traditional owners can exercise the right of consent. Where consent is refused, no further exploration licence will be issued in respect of that land for five years, although the applicant has the right to reapply at the expiration of the five-year period. However, there is a ministerial discretion-I am glad to see that that is so-to reopen the application process at the request of the relevant land councils, which will again be acting on behalf of the traditional owners. The Minister must be satisfied that reopening the application is in the public interest. I now turn to the mining stage. I have already referred to the fact that under the principal Act the consent clause could be used at both the exploration and the mining stage. This is no longer possible under these amendments. Once there has been a successful conclusion to the exploration stage, the miner can proceed to develop a mineral deposit. The intending miner will be required to submit to the land council a written statement setting out a full range of specified particulars concerning the mining activity and its impact on Aboriginal people and on Aboriginal land. At this stage, the parties will have 12 months, or a longer period if they both agree, to reach agreement. Again, discussions will take place with the traditional owners and with the representatives of the mining company being present. So at all these stages, we have full consultation. We have the involvement of the parties concerned in the negotiations at different levels. This is a serious attempt by the Government with the concurrence of the Aboriginal people and with the full knowledge of the mining industry to resolve any difficulties that occur in the present Act. If both parties fail to reach agreement, they may request the Minister to refer the matter to a Federal Court judge acting in the capacity of a mining commissioner. He will attempt to conciliate and, if necessary, arbitrate on the issue. Where a miner accepts the terms and conditions determined by the Mining Commissioner, the land council will be required to enter into an agreement. However, permission will be given for a miner to walk away should the terms and conditions as determined be unacceptable. So the miner, too, is given a right to walk away from the proposal. As I said earlier in my speech, there has been considerable consultation with all parties. I continue to emphasise this point because I think it has been said too often by honourable members opposite who have spoken in this debate that there has been a lack of consultation. It must be recognised that there has been very full consultation. As I said earlier, the consultation has been at ministerial level and at Caucus committee level. The whole purpose of the consultation was to improve the principal Act and meet the legitimate concerns of both the Aboriginal people and the miners. This is a genuine attempt to balance the interests involved while at the same time recognising the special relationship which exists between Aborigines and their land. While it will not please everyone it is a large and constructive step forward in helping to resolve the issue of mining on Aboriginal land. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to support the Bill. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal affairs)(6.02) —in reply-I thank honourable members for participating in the debate. I will rectify some of the suggestions and approaches made by some honourable members opposite in speaking to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. At the outset I point out that in the Committee stage of the Bill the Government will reject the proposed Opposition amendments. Basically, those amendments represent an attack on the essential concept of the veto, which is a very important part of the rights of Aboriginal people to control that which happens on their land. I think it was an unfortunate piece of rhetoric to suggest, as did the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair)-and he was supported by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly)-that if Aboriginal people have any kind of veto it will pose some threat to the economic development of Australia and to the future of our mining industry. That attitude has in many ways hindered the development of an effective relationship between industry and Aboriginal people. The fact of the matter is that in other parts of the world-and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has produced documents to this effect-such as in the United States of America, which has probably the strongest mining industry in the world, it has been possible to live continuously with veto rights applied not merely on behalf of indigenous people but on behalf of the great majority of American farmers and owners of land. That has not stopped that industry from prospering; and it has not hindered the development of huge American companies, many of which operate in this country. To suggest, as does the Australian Mining Industry Council and some miners, that somehow or other a veto right attached to indigenous people threatens the future economic potential development of the mining industry is little short of nonsense. It is unfortunate that we are seeing within the Liberal Party and within the coalition generally a complete change in approach to the whole question of land rights-but it is not surprising. The Leader of the National Party is on record as saying that he was now ashamed to think that he ever voted for land rights legislation. The honourable member for Bradfield repeated the allegation that is always put by him in this type of debate that all problems associated with racial tension in Australia have come about only because of this Labor Government and its attempts to procure land rights for Aboriginal people, and that it was our failure to do that which has produced this tension. What is the reality? The reality is that for two years this Labor Government endeavoured to produce a uniform piece of land rights legislation known as the `preferred model'. However, it was not proceeded with for several reasons-the most important of which is that Aboriginal leadership around Australia said that they did not want the Government to proceed with it. We believed-I think history has shown that we were correct-that we would do better, achieve more results more quickly and resolve some of these long-standing issues by proceeding on a State by State basis, by using Commonwealth influence, Commonwealth finance and Commonwealth constitutional rights to establish the rights of our indigenous people in a negotiating framework with the States. When one looks at the record, one can see who has opposed land rights on every occasion. There has not been a single piece of legislation introduced into this House by the Government to confer additional rights on Aboriginal people which has not been opposed by those opposite. Let us look at the record because it is all very well for the honourable member for Bradfield to say that the Liberal Party's record in this area is outstanding. When land rights were introduced into Western Australia by the Burke Government, the prerogative of a State government, they were supported in the final analysis by the pastoral industry and by the mining industry and were subject to negotiation between the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments. However, the legislation was voted out of existence by the conservative Liberal Party dominated upper House because that Party does not approve of land rights. Was there a word of rebuke from the honourable member for Bradfield? Did he say that it was anathema to Liberal Party policy? Not a bit of it. In South Australia-and here we are talking about initiatives by governments-the Labor Government introduced the Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Bill, but it faced defeat in the Legislative Council. Was there a word of condemnation from the Federal Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) or from the honourable member for Bradfield? Did they say: `Look, we believe that you should do this; it is in the interests of indigenous people'? Not a bit of it. Why was the legislation passed? It was passed because I said that the Commonwealth would introduce and pass the legislation if South Australia did not. I received a rebuke from the honourable member for Bradfield. If we had not intervened in both those matters, nothing would have happened. Land rights are now being considered in Western Australia and are being argued against on a consistent day to day basis by the honourable member for Bradfield's colleagues in that State; he knows that and I know it. Has he ever on one single occasion said that the upper House in Western Australia is acting contrary to the spirit and philosophy of the Liberal Party? Not a bit of it. The same thing happened less than six months ago in my State of Victoria. Mr Connolly —You made a mess of that one. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member shows his abysmal ignorance-that is all that has occurred there. The Victorian Government negotiated for over three to four years with Aboriginal people and reached agreement about areas of land which, if you put them all altogether, would not make a decent farm. Legislation was put through the Victorian Legislative Assembly, but when it reached the Victorian Legislative Council the Liberal Party and the National Party to a member voted against it. What was the awful thing about it and what caused it? On that occasion the cause was this concept of inalienable freehold title. Commonwealth property and land at Wreck Bay had been subject to unsuccessful negotiation by Ministers in the previous Fraser Government for almost seven years. When this Government negotiated a successful conclusion and brought in legislation to this House, the Opposition and the National Party to a member voted against it. That is the track record of members opposite. That is their record of achievement, so they should not dare come into this House talking about their achievements. The fact is that not a single piece of legislation that would confer some additional land on Aboriginal people has not been fought tooth and nail by the Opposition. On every occasion, its reasons for that have been as spurious as they are today. We are now told by the honourable member for Bradfield that this legislation has not been fully considered and that we have not conferred with or consulted all the relevant parties. That was reiterated by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), who said: `What about the Northern Territory Government?' I can assure this House and the people of Australia that if ever there has been a piece of legislation that has been the subject of consultation almost to the point of exhaustion, this is it. I wish to pay tribute to the officers of my Department-the heritage division led by a senior public servant, Mr Gray, who produced the basic concepts for this legislation almost two years ago-- Mr Connolly —It took a long time to get it here. Mr HOLDING —If the honourable member knew anything about Aboriginal affairs, he would know that we have to sit down and consult-- Mr Connolly —It could have been produced last year. It is your third bite at the cherry. Mr HOLDING —The reality is that, having produced it, it was then circulated to the land councils for their informed comment. It was also circulated to every other interest group, and we received their responses. All of those groups-the miners, the pastoralists and the Northern Territory Government-were given the opportunity to contribute. There was then a very long series of negotiations. The fundamental concepts are the same because the key to this legislation was the development of a concept that split exploration from mining and development. That came about as a result of discussions with the miners. Many mining companies quite properly believed that that would do a great deal to break the backlog and produce advantages all round. Everyone was available. In the final analysis, my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs went to the Northern Territory to participate in and observe the discussions with the land councils. I had other commitments that made it impossible for me to be there-- Mr Connolly —Oh, nothing could be more important. Mr HOLDING —Just listen, my dear friend. My position was perfectly clear-the proposal had already gone through Cabinet. I was quite happy to leave to my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) the minor details and concerns of mining. Mr Connolly —He did a good job. Mr HOLDING —They all did a good job. It was much better than the level of carping criticism that I have heard from the honourable member today. It is not just a matter of the Opposition being concerned about the veto. The honourable member and I both know that in November last year, the Leader of his Party had a meeting with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory who came down here, to work out their policy in these matters. The honourable member knows the policy. If, by some mischance, the Opposition were ever to come to government-and I do not think that to be at all likely-what would it do with the land rights legislation? It is not a question of veto; it is one of repealing the entire legislation and giving it to the Northern Territory Government. It involves the abolition of the land councils-- Mr Connolly —You took 18 months to get there. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member should not come here talking about his concern in such a hypocritical way. He is pledged, and he does not have the guts to walk in here and tell us his real policy. Let the Aboriginal people and every fair-minded Australian know that while the shadow Minister yaps on about veto, he is committed-- Mr Cadman —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has refused to allow the term `hypocritical' when applied to an individual. She has even disallowed it-- Mr HOLDING —I was applying it to the Party. Mr Cadman —You were not; you said `you'. Mr HOLDING —If the honourable member for Bradfield is offended, I shall withdraw the remark. However, I say that his Party is hypocritical, it is mendacious and it is without principle because it has made a secret deal-- Mr Cadman —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: These remarks are being made by a Minister whom a royal commission said owed greater loyalty to his Party than he did to the truth. Mr HOLDING —That is a complete misstatement and the honourable member is telling a lie. Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence. The Minister has called my colleague a liar, and I ask that he withdraw that remark. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member for Mitchell has made a statement that is a lie. If he withdraws the lie, I will withdraw my remark. He walked in here and deliberately, falsely and maliciously said something that he knew not to be true. Mr Cadman —Withdraw. Mr HOLDING —I am perfectly happy to withdraw, but I think that the honourable member for Mitchell should also withdraw. I assure him that what he said was quite wrong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! I think that the honourable member for Mitchell should also withdraw. Mr Cadman —I withdraw. Mr HOLDING —A deal has been made in which the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) said to the Northern Territory Government that he would recognise statements; but that he was not too keen on having six senators, so that has gone on the back burner. However, there is a commitment to repeal the land rights legislation in its entirety-- Mr Connolly —I deny that. Mr HOLDING —Well, the honourable member had better go and check with the honourable member for Bennelong, because he probably has not told him that he intends to repeal the legislation and give it to the Northern Territory Government. That is the commitment. It involves the destruction of the land councils. Mr Connolly —That is not the commitment, and that is not our policy. Mr HOLDING —That is your policy. We can go further and look at the emphasis in your policy about returning structures to the States-Aboriginal legal aid has gone, as has Aboriginal health services. Of course, not to be outcome, this expert on administration will also ensure that the Department is abolished. The Opposition will turn back the clock 25 years. We have considered the detail of the arguments, but because the coalition is such a mess we have not had a candid statement of its true agenda and its real objectives. It plans to turn back the clock 25 years. It should not take up the time of this House moving amendments about vetoes and thinking that we will consider them seriously. We know its agenda, and none of it is acceptable to the Government and none of it will be accepted by the Government. A number of other points should be made. The shadow Minister, in trying to indicate that there has been concern within the Opposition ranks about the exercise of the veto, implied that it was a matter of concern to previous Ministers who were somehow frustrated by the position of the land councils. I can say as a Minister, with access to all the relevant information-although one does not look at previous Ministers' files-that there is absolutely no evidence that Ministers Chaney, Peter Baume or Wilson made any move, on any occasion, for the repeal of the veto during their terms of office as Minister. There is evidence that AMIC went to the Prime Minister on a large number of occasions-13, 14 or more-to put the very arguments that are being put in the House today. They were rejected by the Prime Minister and never developed by his Ministers. Like every aspect of the Opposition policy on Aboriginal affairs, the arguments that we are hearing today indicate not any abandonment of consensus between the Opposition and the Government-the Liberal Party and the Labor Party-on this issue, but the extent to which this unfortunate Liberal Party has moved to the think tanks of the Right, which are dictating its political agenda. The people whom the Opposition consults on these issues are not the Aboriginal people. The shadow Minister has at no stage indicated-nor could he do so-any occasions when he sat with representatives of the land councils to ask for their arguments about the legislation. The agenda items, the policy positions that have been developed, have not been formulated by this sordid coalition in conjunction with discussions with the Aboriginal leadership at any level. They have been concocted in the back rooms of the Liberal Party, in secret deals between the Northern Territory Government and the honourable member for Bennelong-and, ultimately, in the think tanks of the right wing. That is why we are getting all this nonsense about vetos. That is why we are getting the kind of accusations which are belied by the Opposition's political history. The amendments which the Opposition is proposing will not be accepted by the Government. I must correct the statements of the shadow Minister. He speculated that there would be no development in Arnhem Land. I do not know whether he has been to Arnhem Land; I hope he has. Already there are major mines at Gove in eastern Arnhem Land, at Nabarlek in western Arnhem Land. Agreements have been concluded with Uranertz of Australia Ltd for exploration mining in western Arnhem Land. Queensland Mines Ltd is already negotiating for exploration in western Arnhem Land. That is not a bad start. I admit that this legislation does not go as far as the mining industry would like but the miners who are concerned to reach agreements and concerned to achieve positive relationships with Aboriginal people in mining on their land see these amendments as being a major step forward for the creation of new approaches which we all hope will produce not merely new relationships but new ventures. Given the track record of this Opposition in Aboriginal affairs, it is to be entirely expected that it should come into this House with the sorts of arguments it has used on this occasion. It does the Opposition no credit and it is typical of the way in which it treats this most sensitive of all issues. As the Parliament reaches its dying stages I believe it is a fair comment on the state of the Opposition that in this debate today we are getting the same old hackneyed arguments and nonsensical positions which we have heard for almost four years. There has not been a new thought or a new approach but simply a total embracement of the more lunatic propositions emerging from the right wing think tanks. Regrettably, in the long term that will affect black-white relations in Australia and our capacity to resolve some of the long term problems which have to be addressed in a much more serious way, not merely by this Government but by this Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 postponed. Clause 4 (Application of money of Land Council). Amendment (by Mr Connolly) negatived: (2) Clause 4, page 2, line 37, omit `` `42, 43, 44, 46, 48a, 48b or 48d,' '' substitute `` `41,' ''. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 (Repeal of Part IV and substitution of new Part:). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.24) —I move: (3) Clause 5, pages 2 to 24, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: ``5. Part IV of the Principal Act is repealed and the following part is substituted: `PART IV-MINING INTERESTS AND MINING OPERATIONS Interpretation `40. (1) A reference in this Part to the warden's court is a reference to the warden's court established by the Mining Act of the Northern Territory at a place closest to the land to which the reference relates and includes a reference to the warden constituting that court. `(2) A reference in this Part to a mining interest includes, where the context so requires, a reference to the land to which the mining interest relates. Grant of mining interests `41. (1) Subject to this Act and the Atomic Energy Act 1953, a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land may be granted under a law of the Northern Territory relating to mining for minerals. `(2) A mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall not be granted unless the applicant for the mining interest has first entered into an agreement in writing with the Land Council in whose area the Aboriginal land is situated relating to: (a) the compensation to be paid on the granting of the mining interest; (b) the guidelines to be adopted after the granting of the mining interest in relation to the identification and protection of sacred sites; and (c) the employment opportunities to be offered to Aboriginals in the operations to be conducted under the mining interest. Agreement provisions `42. (1) An agreement referred to in section 41: (a) shall make provision for the distribution of moneys paid to the Land Council under the agreement to or for the benefit of such traditional Aboriginal owners as are specified in the agreement; (b) may make provision for the applicant for the mining interest to lodge with the Land Council a security in such form, for such amount and from such person as the Land Council thinks fit, to secure the applicant's compliance with the conditions referred to in section 47; (c) may make provision for a process of arbitration, in accordance with a law of the Northern Territory relating to commercial arbitration, to determine disputes relating to compliance with the conditions referred to in section 47 and failing such provision in the agreement, the parties to the agreement shall be deemed to have appointed a warden constituting the warden's court as the arbitrator under that law of the Northern Territory in respect of such disputes; and (d) may provide that where a condition referred to in section 47 requires the holder of the mining interest to do anything in relation to the mining interest and the holder does not, within the time provided in the condition, do that thing, the Land Council or a person authorised by the Land Council may enter on the mining interest with such assistance as, and take whatever action, the Land Council or that person, as the case may be, considers necessary for doing that thing, and the costs reasonably incurred by the Land Council or that person in so doing shall be a debt due and payable by the holder of the mining interest to the Land Council or that person, as the case may be, whether or not at the time that the thing was done by the Land Council or that person the mining interest had been cancelled, forfeited or surrendered or had expired. `(2) A condition referred to in paragraph (1) (d) shall not entitle the Land Council, or a person authorised by it, to take any action in pursuance of the condition until the grounds on which the Land Council claims to be entitled to take or authorise the taking of such action have been referred to arbitration under a condition referred to in paragraph (1) (c), the arbitrator has determined that the holder of the mining interest is required under the agreement to do the thing to which the matter relates and the further time (if any) determined by the arbitrator for the holder of the mining interest to do that thing has expired. Aboriginal consultation `43. (1) In consulting with traditional Aboriginal owners in accordance with the requirements of subsection 23 (3) in relation to an application for a mining interest referred to in this Part, the Land Council shall ensure that the applicant is given an opportunity to present to the traditional Aboriginal owners for their consideration, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, an explanation of the purposes for which the mining interest is required and the operations to be conducted thereunder. `(2) Where a Land Council entering into an agreement referred to in section 41 fails to comply in all respects with subsection 23 (3) in relation to the Aboriginal land to which the agreement relates, that failure does not of itself invalidate the agreement. `(3) Where a Land Council, by reason of not being able to identify all of the relevant traditional Aboriginal owners of land, is unable to comply with the requirements of subsection 23 (3) within 12 months after being notified in writing by the applicant for a mining interest of the applicant's wish to commence negotiations for an agreement referred to in section 41, the Land Council shall, in accordance with this Act and subject to section 45, negotiate for and enter into the agreement with the applicant and all moneys subsequently paid under the agreement to the Land Council for the benefit of the traditional Aboriginal owners shall be held in trust for those traditional Aboriginal owners by the Land Council pending the identification of those traditional Aboriginal owners by it. Determination of compensation `44. (1) The compensation to be paid under an agreement referred to in section 41 shall be limited to compensation: (a) for the traditional Aboriginal owners being deprived of the use of the surface or part of the surface of the land; (b) for the effect that the carrying out of exploration and mining activities on the land may have on: (i) the preservation and protection of the lifestyle, culture and traditions of the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land; (ii) the social, cultural and economic structures of those owners; and (iii) the freedom of access of those owners and their freedom to carry out, in accordance with tradition, rites, ceremonies and other activities on the land; (c) for damage to the surface of the land through exploration or mining activities conducted on the land; (d) for the traditional Aboriginal owners being deprived of the use of improvements on the land; (e) for the severance of the land from other land held in trust for or occupied by the traditional Aboriginal owners; and (f) for all other damage to the land or improvements on the land arising out of operations to be conducted under the mining interest. `(2) In determining the amount of compensation to be paid under an agreement referred to in section 41, no account shall be taken of minerals known or supposed to be on or under the land or of the giving of consent to the agreement. Arbitration on agreement `45. (1) Where a Land Council and the applicant for a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land cannot agree on the terms and conditions of an agreement referred to in section 41 within 12 months after the applicant having notified the Land Council in writing of the applicant's wish to commence negotiations for such an agreement or within that time the Land Council refuses or fails to enter into such negotiations, either the Land Council or the applicant may refer the matter to the warden's court for its determination of the appropriate terms and conditions of the agreement. `(2) In determining the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to in subsection (1), the warden's court shall have regard only to the requirements of sections 41, 42 and 43 in relation to the terms and conditions to be agreed upon and shall determine as appropriate only those terms and conditions that, in its opinion, should in the circumstances be acceptable to the Land Council and to the applicant and the determination of the warden's court is binding on the Land Council and the applicant. `(3) In determining a term or condition of an agreement referred to in section 41 requiring a security to be lodged by the applicant for the mining interest to secure the applicant's compliance with the conditions referred to in section 47, the warden's court shall take into account any security that the applicant may be required to lodge under a law of the Northern Territory relating to mining for minerals in respect of the mining interest and shall make its determination so that, as far as practicable, the applicant is not required to provide more than one security in respect of the same matter. Applicant for mining interest not bound to proceed with application `46. An agreement referred to in section 41 shall not be construed so as to compel the applicant for the mining interest to which the agreement relates to proceed with the application. Implied conditions etc. in grant `47. In addition to the terms and conditions subject to which a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land is granted, that mining interest shall be subject to the conditions that: (a) the holder of the mining interest or the holder's employees, servants or agents shall not unlawfully interfere with any historical site or object, or any Aboriginal sacred site or object, declared as such by or under a law of the Northern Territory; (b) the holder of the mining interest shall keep to a minimum the number of people associated with the exploration or development on the land to which the mining interest relates; (c) except for the purposes of consumption by its employees, servants, agents, contractors or sub-contractors at its camps, the holder of the mining interest shall not bring or permit to be brought on to the mining interest any alcohol; (d) the holder of the mining interest shall not bring or permit to be brought onto the mining interest firearms of any kind or, except with the prior consent of the Land Council, any animal; (e) the holder of the mining interest shall at all times give full consideration to the aspirations and welfare of the local Aboriginals and co-operate with the traditional Aboriginal owners and not interfere with the growth and development of the Aboriginal social, cultural and economic structures on the mining interest; (f) the holder of the mining interest shall employ and engage, and shall ensure that its agents, contractors and sub-contractors employ and engage, as many Aboriginals or Incorporated Aboriginal Associations or groups associated with the mining interest as is practicable who are capable of carrying out, or being trained (including by on-the-job training) to carry out, in a satisfactory manner, the particular work required to be carried out in relation to the mining interest at the usual award rates for the type of work performed and subject to the usual conditions of employment; (g) the holder of the mining interest shall progressively rehabilitate and restore, as far as practicable, all areas disturbed by its activities in accordance with good environmental practice; (h) the holder of the mining interest shall liaise with the Land Council on the exploration or development programs in relation to the mining interest and discuss the possible relocation of proposed works and details of the program as it develops; (j) the holder of the mining interest shall, before carrying out a program involving substantial disturbance of the surface of the mining interest, advise the relevant Northern Territory authority and the Land Council, in writing, of that program and comply with such directions as the relevant Northern Territory authority considers appropriate for the protection of the environment in the carrying out of the program; (k) the holder of the mining interest shall advise the relevant Northern Territory authority and the Land Council, in writing, of the proposed location of all infrastructure facilities on the mining interest and the proposed method to be used in disposing of waste, and comply with such directions as the relevant Northen Territory authority considers appropriate in relation to the disposal of that waste; (m) the holder of the mining interest shall not erect a permanent building or facility on the mining interest except with the approval in writing of the relevant Northern Territory authority; and (n) the holder of the mining interest shall comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to in section 41 in relation to the mining interest. Access to Aboriginal land `48. Notwithstanding sections 68 and 70, where a person has the right under a law of the Northern Territory to occupy Aboriginal land by virtue of the grant of a mining interest, that person has for himself, his employees and his agents, a right of access from a public road to that land and across other parts of the Aboriginal land of which the mining interest is part and any contiguous Aboriginal land, by the shortest practicable route, being a route agreed upon by the person and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land. `(2) Where the traditional Aboriginal owners and the holder of a mining interest cannot agree on the route by which a right of access under subsection (1) may be exercised, the matter may be referred by those owners or the holder of the mining interest to the warden's court for determination and the decision of the warden's court in relation to that matter is binding. Right of way in respect of services etc. `48a. (1) The grant of a mining interest entitles the holder of the mining interest to a right of way over Aboriginal land for all reasonable ancillary purposes in connection with the operations to be conducted under the mining interest. `(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a right of way extends to access for or in connection with: (a) the erection and use of conveyor apparatus in connection with the transporting of minerals or substances containing minerals; (b) the erection of electricity lines; (c) the construction of roads; (d) the cutting and construction of water races or drains; and (e) the boring, sinking for, pumping, raising of or conveying of water. `(3) Where the holder of a mining interest is entitled under subsection (1) to a right of way, that right of way may be exercised by a route agreed to by the holder of the mining interest and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land. `(4) Where the traditional Aboriginal owners and the holder of a mining interest cannot agree on the route by which a right of way under subsection (1) may be exercised, the matter may be referred by those owners or the holder of the mining interest to the warden's court for determination and the decision of the warden's court in relation to that matter is binding. `(5) Compensation shall be payable by the holder of the mining interest to the relevant traditional Aboriginal owners in respect of a right of way under subsection (1). `(6) The compensation to be paid under subsection (5) shall be determined on the same basis as under section 44 in respect of the grant of a mining interest. `(7) Where an amount of compensation payable under subsection (5) cannot be agreed upon between the traditional Aboriginal owners and the holder of the mining interest, the traditional Aboriginal owners or the holder of the mining interest may refer the matter to the warden's court for determination and the decision of the warden's court in relation to that matter is binding. `(8) A right of way under subsection (1) shall not be exercised until compensation has been paid in accordance with this section. Jurisdiction and supervision of warden's court `48b. Where, by or under this Part, a power is conferred or a function imposed on the warden's court, the warden's court has the jurisdiction to exercise that power or perform that function as if it had been conferred or imposed on it by or under the Mining Act of the Northern Territory and an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory from a decision or determination of the warden's court under this Part in the same manner as an appeal against a decision of the warden's court under that Act.'.''. This is a most substantial change in the actual format of the Bill. It is appropriate that I should make some general observations about it. I would like, however, first to refer to some of the observations which were made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in relation to alleged secret deals with the Northern Territory Government on the substance of this legislation. I point out to the Minister that the Liberal Party's policy as enunciated and publicly expressed makes it quite clear that legislation of this type-in fact, all Commonwealth legislation on the books prior to the transfer of responsibilities to the Northern Territory-will be subject to negotiation, and I emphasise this, in the context of the transfer of powers to the Northern Territory. That is our policy. To suggest-- Mr Holding —It has been agreed. Mr CONNOLLY —No, that is not correct. A view has been expressed. The Minister is completely out of touch on this subject. It is no secret that the Northern Territory Government takes the view that it would like to have control of this legislation prior to the transfer of Federal jurisdiction. We have made it quite clear that that is not a position we are prepared to countenance. We are prepared to negotiate the future of this legislation in the context of the transfer of power. It is relevant in this context to point out that every State of this Commonwealth has jurisdiction over its own land mass. It is perfectly obvious therefore that this Labor Government-which will soon be in opposition-seems to think that the Northern Territory should be an exception. There is no reason why the Northern Territory, if it is to be a State, with the same status and rights as other States, should not control its own land as well, subject to whatever agreements we may negotiate with it in relation to Aboriginal lands. The purpose of the amendment-- Mr Holding —John Howard has already said he will give the legislation over to them. Mr CONNOLLY —That is simply not correct. Mr Holding —Go and ask him. Mr CONNOLLY —You have no reason-- Mr Holding —Well, he has not told you? Mr CONNOLLY —You have no reason at all to make that observation. I ought to know; I am the shadow Minister responsible for Opposition policy in this particular field. The basis of the Opposition's amendment was the Kilgariff private member's Bill introduced into the Senate some 18 or so months ago. When we originally considered the Evans Bill-we cannot call it the Holding Bill for reasons I discussed in the second reading debate-I endeavoured to amend that legislation to overcome what we regarded as some unsatisfactory aspects of it. However, we were advised by the learned Clerks that in fact the directions of the two Bills were so fundamentally opposed to each other, they were so dissimilar, that it was simpler to take the substance out of the Evans Bill and replace it with the substance of the Kilgariff Bill. As I said in my speech on the second reading, the fundamental difference of course is the question of veto. Whilst the Minister can fulminate, as no doubt honourable members behind him can, the simple fact of the matter is that there is considerable distrust in the Northern Territory, of which the Minister is well aware, as to the bona fides of land councils in regard to the Evans legislation. The mining companies, contrary to what the Government members have said this evening, are not particularly impressed with this exercise; they simply regard it as better than what was there before. They are very sceptical and think that with the ultimate power largely still being in the hands of land councils little may change. But I am prepared to give the land councils the benefit of the doubt. That is precisely why we are not opposing this Bill. The negotiations have been completed. I have been involved, although not as deeply perhaps as the Minister has-for reasons of which he is well aware-in the affairs of Aboriginal communities. Nevertheless, it is difficult to negotiate these settlements. The negotiation having been done, we believe it is at least worth having a go. Let us see how things develop over time. We have made it quite clear-and I state it again-that when we assume the treasury bench and are responsible for reviewing this legislation again we will undoubtedly have to go the next step. The speed with which this next step is taken will depend to a large degree on the success of the legislation which the Minister currently has before the chamber. In other words, the onus is absolutely on the Government to prove that the direction it has taken is correct. The Minister made some observations concerning the time it has taken for this legislation to be completed. We have had no fewer than three bites at the cherry. The Minister has introduced significant changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act on two occasions before. On both occasions we moved amendments, precisely because the whole mining issue was totally ignored. I give credit to the Minister that he made a commitment to me and to the House at the time of the previous legislation that amendments would be introduced this year. He has kept that commitment and I note that fact. But it is also important to point out-- Mr Holding —That is the best thing you have said about me. Mr CONNOLLY —I hope that it is not the only nice thing I have said about the Minister. But I need to make the point that the time factor is relevant in all of this. When I make the suggestion that the Minister and his cohorts entered into a sordid deal over Australian Labor Party preselection in the Northern Territory, I believe that is so. There are two reasons for this. On the one hand, Senator Robertson was competing for preselection against the previous leader of the ALP in the Northern Territory. In addition to that there was an ALP candidate on the staff of the Central Land Council. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I do not think any of this has to do with clause 5 of the Bill. Mr CONNOLLY —Consequently, there was a need to delay the passage of the legislation through this House until those problems could be overcome. There could be difficulties with this legislation. Issues of legal aid and so forth will no doubt come forward. To some degree it will be the public who may well have to finance legal support for Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory if the issue gets to that point. I want to make the point quite clear that the Liberal Party's policy on legal aid for Aborigines was stated in the most specific terms. What we said was that, where States had adequate legal facilities and were able to look after the interests of Aboriginal communities, we would need to negotiate an arrangement with them. The point was that they had to prove to us that they had facilities adequate to look after Aboriginal interests. The Minister is as aware as I am that there are States in the Commonwealth, of which no doubt Western Australia is one-one could probably even argue a similar case in Queensland; certainly from the troubles the Minister has been having with the legal aid service in Queensland that appears to be so-where there are problems. But there is no justification in the longer term to have three sets of legal aid being provided to Australians across Australia, with the inconsistency that I now have Aboriginals-- Mr Holding —It is working and it is efficient. Mr CONNOLLY —I am sorry, Minister, but you do not seem to understand the facts on the ground. There are Aboriginals living in areas such as Parramatta who cannot get access to Aboriginal legal aid because there is no money. When they go and seek general legal aid at the State or Commonwealth level, they are told: `Sorry, you are an Aboriginal and we are not empowered to serve you'. The Minister has the audacity to come in here and suggest that everything is fine with Aboriginal legal aid. That is simply not so. The Minister should be aware of that. I have told him and I hope that he will do something about it. The question of medical services is relevant in this context. Mr Holding —It is being reviewed. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister knows as well as I do that over $50m is spent on Aboriginal medical services. Some have been working reasonably well and others are an absolute disaster. The Pitjantjatjara homelands are an example of that. I have spoken to the Minister about my visit to Kintore and I have spoken in the Parliament about it. It is an absolute disaster. The Minister has been saying that he will review these organisations for as long as I have been shadow Minister. But the fact is that the problems are still there. One of those problems is that, where there is a capacity to give support for local services at the State level, that capacity must be utilised. It is no good telling people that they have self-determination if self-determination also means that they have the right to die because they cannot get adequate medical services. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield is stepping quite a way away from his amendment to clause 5. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I bow to your judgment and thank you for your generosity. As I have said, this is the last debate that we will have on this subject in this House prior to the election. Your generosity is commendable. As I have said, the amendments that we have put forward came from the amendments in the Kilgariff Bill and cover a whole range of issues but primarily the question of the removal of the veto over exploration, which is the next step to the decision taken in this legislation. That is, it is a removal of the veto over mining in the context of approval being given for exploration. That is why we will let the legislation pass-because at least it is a step in the right direction. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(6.34) —Tonight members have an opportunity to see quite diverse policies in this chamber. We have the Government, which is maintaining the traditional veto which was given to the Aboriginal Australians by the Fraser Government. We have the Opposition which is proposing an amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) in an attempt to withdraw the veto. This is a disgraceful situation. Should that amendment be carried, we would be a laughing stock throughout the world. Members of parliament travel and the one question that people throw up to us in other countries is: `What are you doing for the Aborigines in Australia?' This was said to me in places such as El Salvador when I was there with a delegation in 1984. Even last year when I was in Germany people were horrified by the documentaries that they had seen on television about the treatment of Aborigines. The one symbol of hope that the Aboriginal people have and that traditional Aboriginals clutch is the right to control their own land. Tonight the Opposition wants to take away their right to say: `No mining on our land'. This legislation is quite commendable. It is really quite epoch-making because agreement has been reached with the Aboriginal people, with the miners and with the Northern Territory Government. A series of amendments is being put through to facilitate and smooth the whole mining process in the Territory. Black Australians have to live next to white Australians in the Territory. They must live in harmony. The Opposition has put forward an amendment which would destroy that harmony and take away the one right that was given to the Aborigines by the Fraser Government. I pay tribute to the Fraser Government for what it did. As the Minister has already said, when he went to North America and made inquiries and investigations he found that even stronger rights are given to the indigenous people of Canada and the United States of America. Also, rights are given to farmers to stop mining on their land. In this legislation there are even procedures that will stop traditional owners from being harassed, being pushed and jostled and worried by repeated applications being made to them. The legislation contains a provision that, if an application is rejected, a company must wait five years before any further approach can be made. The once great Liberal Party of Australia, in a moment of inspiration under Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister, said to the Northern Territory Aborigines, the people living in car bodies, the people often living in poorly situations: `You can determine what you want to do on your own land'. It is sad because the leader of one of the National parties today said: `We will look after the Aboriginal people in a paternalistic way. We will protect their interests but we will abolish the veto'. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) was not quite so brave. He said: `We have always been moving towards removing the veto'. He said that Malcolm Fraser somehow gave the veto but meant to come back and take it away a few years later. That is absolute rubbish. Malcolm Fraser saw the international scene. He saw the pressure on Australia to do something positive for the Aboriginal people. Those of us who have the opportunity to travel to the Northern Territory, to the Kimberleys, to the Pilbara or to north Queensland see the conditions under which black Australians live. We see their isolation and the prospects of the young people of only going back to their community and being on the dole after they have been away at school. In the health area, the glaucoma tragedy is a scandal. Australians really cannot hold up their heads in international forums when we think of the incidence of glaucoma that has been identified in Aboriginal children over the last 10 or 15 years. There are also educational problems in the outlying and isolated places where Aboriginals live. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I drew the previous speaker's attention to the fact that we are dealing with an amendment to clause 5, not Aboriginal health or education. Mr MAHER —Exactly. But it is relevant to this whole question of removing the veto. This is the nub of the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Bradfield. It is to withdraw the veto from black Australians. They will no longer have a right to say: `We want no mining. We want our land undisturbed. We want to leave it as it is'. On the eve of an election, the Liberal Party is bringing forward a gung ho amendment. It is not necessarily to support the miners; the mining companies agree with the veto. They are happy to live with it. It has never been an absolute veto. There has always been a public interest clause. The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia has had the right to intervene. If an Aboriginal community said that it wanted no mining, he could always intervene. Fortunately, an incident has never arisen where the Governor-General has had to exercise that power. He has not been asked by any government to overrule the local traditional owners' veto on mining, and that says something even for the former occupants of the post of Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Fraser Government. None of them ever called for the Governor-General to overrule a veto on a mining application. It is not my intention to delay the chamber tonight because the Minister has made many of these points. But I feel that this is a big issue in the Territory because 32 per cent of the Northern Territory, some 450,000 square kilometres, is Aboriginal land, land held by traditional owners. Of course most of it in the southern area of the Northern Territory is desert. Most of the mining applications relate to the northern part of the country, to the Northern Land Council, where there are mineral deposits. It is of great importance that members of Parliament clearly recognise that the amendment moved tonight by the honourable member for Bradfield seeks to take away the rights of indigenous people, traditional owners, to stop mining on their land. I believe it would be a tragedy if that amendment were to be successful in this chamber. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(6.41) —I also want to make brief comments on the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). The honourable member, in his comments, made some very wide ranging remarks. He began by reassuring everyone that in fact the Opposition really believes in land rights and in giving those rights to the Aboriginal people. But, of course, that is not in his control. We know very well who controls the Liberal Party in this area, and that is not only the mining interests but the most extreme elements in the mining interests, which have penetrated the New Right and made their comments in relation to this issue. What have those people said? Do honourable members think that they have recognised the rights of Aboriginal people? Not on your life! They have said that the Aboriginal people have no place in the rights issue in Australia and that there should be no land rights. Do honourable members think that the honourable member for Bradfield will have any influence over the New Right, which has taken over the Liberal Party under John Howard? He will have about as much influence as the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has on immigration issues; in other words, none whatsoever. The fundamental point is that we are retaining the crucial element; in the ultimate analysis the Aboriginal people will be able to say `no', if they do not want mining on their land. That is the fundamental difference that separates us from honourable members opposite and from this amendment. After the Aborigines have heard all the arguments and considered the matter, they will still be able to say no. That is a fundamental right that should never be removed. As I have said, in several speeches during this session in relation to this matter, we have a special obligation to the Aboriginal people, especially leading up to 1988. We have a special obligation to recognise their rights. We have a special obligation to recognise what has happened to them and to their culture in the history of this nation, and we have a special obligation to bend over backwards, if necessary, to give them their fair share, to give them land rights, to help them recreate the cultures which have been destroyed and to help them recreate the languages which have been destroyed by the plaguing and plunging that have taken place with the white man's attack on Aboriginal cultures. We have to learn to live together with the Aboriginal people, but we cannot have a basis upon which to work unless we also recognise their fundamental rights. We will not achieve that if we support the amendment. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to go into the whole moral argument as to why we should reject the Opposition's amendment. I say once again that we have a special obligation to the Aboriginal people, because of what has happened. I have already spoken about this in other speeches in this chamber. We should recognise that special obligation. I commend the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) for having negotiated through this whole situation. This is one of the positive pieces of legislation that has been put through the Parliament. Let us hope that with it we will go forward. We are happy to go into the Aboriginal areas and to fight and to stand on our record under this Minister, whom I congratulate for the work that he has done. We are confident, especially as we face 1988, that we will again get the support of the Aboriginal people in our efforts, to help them in the recreation of their culture and in gaining proper land rights. Amendment negatived. Amendments (by Mr Connolly)-by leave-negatived: (4) Clause 5, page 4, after proposed subsection 41 (5) insert the following subsection: `` `(5a) The applicant may cause a copy of the application to be sent to any Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the grant of the licence provided that the application has first been submitted to the Land Council.''. (5) Clause 5, page 5, proposed section 42, at the end of subsection (2) add the following word and paragraph: ``; and (c) agreed with the applicant that all the traditional Aboriginal owners (if any) of the land to which the application relates and all Aboriginal communities or groups that may be affected by the grant of the licence have been consulted.''. (6) Clause 5, page 6, line 19, after ``notify the applicant'' insert ``in writing''. (7) Clause 5, page 21, at the end of proposed paragraph 48f (1) (a) add ``or the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory''. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Amendments (by Mr Connolly)-by leave-negatived: (8) Clause 3, page 2, line 21, after ``holds'' insert ``, or has made an application for the grant of,''. (9) Clause 3, page 2, after paragraph (b) insert the following paragraph: ``(ba) by inserting `, or for which an application has been made,' after `granted' in the definition of `mining interest' in subsection (1);''. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 May. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 2, clause 2, lines 17 and 18, leave out ``the day on which it receives the Royal Assent'', insert ``a day to be fixed by Proclamation''. Motion (by Mr Holding) agreed to: That the amendment be agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 28 May. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, sub-clause 2 (1), line 9, leave out ``sub-section (2)'', insert ``this section''. No. 2-Page 1, after sub-clause 2 (1), insert the following new sub-clause: ``(1a) Paragraph 23 (1) (ea) and sub-sections 50 (2d) and (2e) of the Principal Act inserted by this Act, and section 34, shall come into operation on a day, or on respective days, to be fixed by Proclamation.''. No. 3-page 5, proposed paragraph 11 (1af) (b), lines 23 and 24, leave out ``referred to in sub-section 50 (2e)'', insert ``to which sub-section 50 (2e) applies''. Motion (by Mr Holding) agreed to: That the amendments be agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at a later hour this day. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at a later hour this day. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. House adjourned at 6.52 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Scholes to move- That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 3 June 1987, namely: The installation of traffic control signals in Parkes at the intersection of Kings Avenue with King George Terrace and Macquarie Street. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 3 June 1987: Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act-Order pursuant to section 6, dated 29 May 1987. Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Order-1987-No. 3-Marine, Part 16. Public Service Act-Determinations-1987- No. 15. No. 24 (in substitution for paper presented on 26 May 1987). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3969) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) What has been the sequence of events since mid-1985 of co-ordinated intervention by Western governments in foreign exchange and financial markets. (2) What instruments have been used and to what extent. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Because of concern over the potential problems posed by persistent imbalances in external positions and exchange rate misalignments (in particular, mounting protectionist pressure in the US Congress), the Group of Five (G5) countries (US, UK, Japan, West Germany and France) met in New York on 22 September 1985. The resulting G5 statement drew attention to changes in economic conditions around the world and noted that these changes had not been fully reflected in exchange rates. Amongst a number of declared policy intentions (covering fiscal, monetary and structural policies), the G5 statement emphasised the need for exchange rates to play a more substantial role in adjusting external imbalances. Importantly, the G5 countries indicated their willingness to co-operate more closely to encourage an orderly appreciation of the non-US dollar currencies against the US dollar. To that end, a period of concerted exchange market intervention by the G5 central banks followed. In addition, there was co-ordinated monetary policy action, first to narrow the interest differential between the US and Japan and then to lower the level of interest rates generally. Specifically: As reported in the February 1986 edition of the US Federal Reserve Bulletin, in the 6 week period following the G5 statement, sales of US dollars for marks and yen by US authorities totalled $US3.2 billion; in the same period, the central banks of France, Germany and Japan also sold about $US5 billion and the central banks of some other industrial countries sold more than $US2 billion. In late October 1985, following upward pressure on the $US against the yen, the Bank of Japan allowed Japanese money market interest rates to rise. In March and April 1986 co-ordinated reductions were made in interest rates in G5 countries. In the first round of cuts on 6 and 7 March the US, West Germany and Japan all cut their discount rates by half a percentage point to 7.0 per cent, 3.5 per cent and 4.0 per cent, respectively. On 18 and 19 April, following interest rate reductions in some other European countries, the US, the UK and Japan all reduced their discount rates by half a percentage point. Since April 1986 the US Federal Reserve has independently reduced its discount rate on two more occasions, first on 11 July and again on 21 August. On each of these occasions, the discount rate was reduced by half a percentage point, and it currently stands at 5.5 per cent. Since the Plaza Agreement, there have been further efforts among the major industrial countries toward greater international economic co-ordination: At the Tokyo Economic Summit, held in May 1986, the recent examples of improved co-ordination were welcomed, particularly in respect of interest rates and exchange rates, but it was agreed that challenges remained and that additional measures for economic policy co-ordination should be undertaken. The Summit Economic Declaration recommended that remedial efforts to address economic imbalances in the major economies should focus first and foremost on underlying policy fundamentals, while reaffirming the 1983 Williamsburg Summit commitment to intervene in exchange markets when to do so would be helpful. In September 1986, Japan, in response to US calls for stimulatory action, announced a supplementary budget aimed at increasing government spending by about Y3,600 billion in fiscal year 1986. In addition, following discussions with the US, Japan lowered its discount rate by half a percentage point to 3.0 per cent in November 1986. As part of this agreement, the US reaffirmed its commitment to reducing its budget deficit and agreed to consider joint intervention to stem the fall of the US dollar against the yen. In January 1987 West Germany reduced its discount rate by half a percentage point to 3.0 per cent. On 22 February 1987 the `G6' countries (G5 plus Canada) met in Paris and agreed to intensify their efforts towards economic policy co-ordination through a number of policy commitments designed to promote more balanced global growth and to reduce external imbalances (The ``Louvre Agreement''). The communique contained the following statements in respect of specific policy actions: The Government of Canada's policy is designed to sustain the current economic expansion through its fifth year and beyond. In the budget for 1987/88, the Government has cut the fiscal deficit for the third consecutive year and remains committed to further progressive reduction. Canada will propose shortly an extensive reform of its tax system. It will continue with its policies of regulatory reform, privatisation and liberalisation of domestic markets. It will vigorously pursue trade liberalisation bilaterally with the United States and multilaterally within the Uruguay Round. Monetary policies will continue to aim at the reduction of inflation and be consistent with orderly exchange markets. The Government of France will reduce the central government budget deficit by one per cent of GNP from 1986 to 1988 and in the same period will implement a tax cut program of the same order of magnitude (one per cent of GNP) with substantial tax rate cuts for corporations and individuals. It will pursue in 1987 its privatisation program (with a projected six to seven billion dollar sale of assets) and reinforce the liberalisation of the French economy, especially of labor and financial markets. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany will pursue policies to diminish further the share of public expenditures in the economy and to reduce the tax burden for individuals and corporations with a comprehensive tax reform aimed at reinforcing the incentives for private sector activity and investment. In addition, the Government will propose to increase the size of the tax reductions already enacted for 1988. The Federal Government will emphasize policies that enhance market forces in order to foster structural adjustment and innovation. Short-term interest rates, although already at a very low level in international comparison, have further dropped substantially during the last few weeks. Monetary policy will be directed at improving the conditions of sustained economic growth while maintaining price stability. The Government of Japan will follow monetary and fiscal policies which will help to expand domestic demand and thereby contribute to reducing the domestic surplus. The comprehensive tax reform, now before the Diet, will give additional stimulus to the vitality of the Japanese economy. Every effort will be made to get the 1987 budget approved by the Diet so that its early implementation can be ensured. A comprehensive economic program will be prepared after the approval of the 1987 budget by the Diet, so as to stimulate domestic demand, with the prevailing economic situation duly taken into account. The Bank of Japan announced that it will reduce its discount rate by one half per cent on February 23. The United Kingdom Government will maintain conditions for continuing the steady growth of GDP of the past five years and will continue to work to reduce inflation by following a prudent monetary policy. On external account the aim will be broad balance over the medium-term. The share of public expenditure in the economy will continue to fall and the burden of taxation will be reduced, while public sector borrowing is maintained at low level. These and other measures to strengthen the supply performance of the economy, such as the privatisation program, will reinforce improvement over recent years in the growth of productivity. The United States Government will pursue policies with a view to reducing the fiscal 1988 deficit to 2.3 per cent of GNP from its estimated level of 3.9 per cent in fiscal 1987. For this purpose, the growth in Government expenditures will be held to less than one per cent in fiscal 1988 as part of the continuing program to reduce the share of Government in GNP from its current level of 23 per cent. The United States will introduce a wide range of policies to improve its competitiveness and to enhance the strength and flexibility of its economy. Monetary policy will be consistent with economic expansion at sustainable non-inflationary pace. On 9 April 1987 the G7 countries met in Washington and reaffirmed the commitments made in the Louvre Agreement. In late April/early May 1987 President Reagan and Prime Minister Nakasone met in Washington and reaffirmed the commitment made at the Tokyo Summit to strengthen international economic policy co-ordination. In particular, Prime Minister Nakasone announced that the Bank of Japan would lower short-term interest rates. Between the September 1985 G5 Statement and 21 May 1987 the US dollar weakened considerably against all major currencies, falling by 41 per cent against the yen, 37 per cent against the DM and 18 per cent against sterling. On a trade-weighted basis the US dollar declined by around 26 per cent over this period. (Question No. 4438) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) What was the average delay between the date an employer nomination is lodged with his Department and the date it is forwarded to the overseas post. (2) How does the present delay compare with that of (a) 3 months ago, (b) 6 months ago, and (c) 12 months ago. (3) What was the average delay between the receipt of an employer nomination by an overseas post and its approval or rejection. (4) Does the delay vary substantially between different posts; if so, (a) what post has the shortest average delay and what is it and (b) what post has the longest average delay and what is it. (5) How do the present levels of these delays compare with (a) 3 months ago, (b) 6 months ago, and (c) 12 months ago. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1 and 2) The average delay is estimated to be 4-5 weeks. This was the estimated average delay 3 months ago, 6 months ago and 12 months ago. (3) The median delay between the receipt by an overseas post of an application for migration by an employer nominee and its approval or refusal is currently around 13 weeks (based on cases finalised in the period July 1986 to February 1987). (4) Of the posts with a large enough ENS caseload to allow calculation of an ``average delay'' (median processing time), the range is from 11 weeks (London) to 18 weeks (Hong Kong). Median processing times of major source posts as at 28 February 1987 were: London...11 weeks Dublin...12 weeks Edinburgh...12 weeks Manchester...14 weeks Pretoria...14 weeks Cape Town...15 weeks Singapore...17 weeks Hong Kong...17 weeks (5) Median processing time for employer nominees has been at approximately the same level for the past 18 months. (Question No. 4758) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) How many applications have there been from residents of South Africa to migrate to Australia in each year since 1980. (2) How many of these have been under the (a) Business Migration Program, (b) Refugee and Special Humanitarian Program, (c) Employer Nomination Scheme, (d) Occupational Shares System and (e) Family Migration Category. (3) What percentage of these applications in each category have been successful. (4) How will the policy of not allowing South Africans with marked racist attitudes permanent residence in Australia be implemented. (5) Are applicants under the Business Migration Program required to undergo a settlement assessment to determine their suitability to fit in with Australian values prior to leaving their countries. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) Numbers of applications received are not recorded against the category of migration sought. The numbers of visas issued (by person) to residents of South Africa since 1980-81 have been: Year Family migration Occupational shares system Employer nomination schemes Business migration program Refugee and special humanitarian program Other Total 1980-81... (a) 3642 1981-82... 3866 1982-83... 3086 1983-84... 2018 1984-85... 649 210 360 54 24 846 2143 1985-86... 702 593 1296 103 27 1881 4602 (a) Breakdown by category not available prior to 1984-85, when a different system of reporting was introduced. (4) and (5) One of the fundamental principles of Australia's global migration policy is to promote social cohesion. Migrants are assessed on their ability to settle into the Australian community, for their own benefit and that of the whole society. People likely to import actively divisive social attitudes are perceived as possible settlement risks and in extreme cases this can render them ineligible for migration. In the South African context, such assessment procedures are carried out with particular thoroughness. Applicants undergo a rigorous settlement assessment to screen out extremists, including racists, holding views inconsistent with Australia's multi-cultural and multi-racial society. Applicants (in South Africa and elsewhere) must provide evidence of their tolerance and flexibility. A key part of the assessment of an applicant's eligibility involves ascertaining: The applicant's understanding that the Australian community includes people of various races, religions and cultures; The applicant's acceptance of the values embodied in Australia's multicultural society; Whether the applicant holds extremist views which would conflict with Australian social values; The extent to which an applicant is aware of these issues and is willing to consider them. These requirements, including the interview and settlement assessment, apply to all categories of migrants from South Africa. (Question No. 4849) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: (1) Does he appear in a video distributed by the Australian Trade Commission on the National Export Drive; if so, who suggested he appear in the video. (2) Which companies and persons received copies of the video and how was the distribution list compiled. (3) What was the cost of producing the video and who produced it. (4) Was any advertising agency employed in connection with the National Export Drive; if so, what remuneration was paid. (5) Is he able to say whether the Information Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism was involved in the National Export Drive; if so, were normal guidelines on the selection of advertising agencies followed. (6) Will a study of the effectiveness of the National Export Drive be undertaken; if so, will he provide the results of the study. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At AUSTRADE's invitation, I have appeared in three videos, along with leading Australian business people, prepared for AUSTRADE by Film Australia as part of the National Export Drive's effort to encourage a greater commitment to export. (2) The videos have been distributed to a wide range of companies and organisations covering all aspects of Australia's export trade in goods and services. As a matter of policy, AUSTRADE does not make lists of this sort public since their compilation depends in part on information (such as export figures and market interests) acquired on a commercial in confidence basis. (3) The videos were produced by Film Australia. I am advised that the cost of the three videos was $41,931. (4) AUSTRADE has advised me that, while it has obtained assistance from a public relations firm, no advertising agency has been employed in connection with the National Export Drive. (5) The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism is not directly involved in the National Export Drive but there is informal liaison as appropriate. As regards the second part of this question see the answer to Question (4). (6) Pursuant to its enabling legislation, the Australian Trade Commission is required to report annually to me and I would expect that this report will cover the National Export Drive. As is required of me, I shall cause the Commission's annual report to be presented to the Parliament. (Question No. 5041) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Is he able to say what percentage of workers' compensation awards made at the (a) Federal and (b) State levels to (i) males and (ii) females are related to industrial deafness. (2) Are the majority of injuries received involving industrial deafness preventable. (3) What sum has been allocated to the operation of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC) since its inception. (4) What action has the NOHSC taken to reduce the percentage of awards involving industrial deafness in the total number of workers' compensation awards made. (5) In view of the most recent statistics, has any action that the NOHSC may have taken in this regard been both inadequate and ineffective. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On the latest statistics available, which are for the financial year 1984-85, the relevant Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures are as follows: WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS FOR INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS State Number of cases of deafness Percentage of total workers' compensation claims Claims by males for deafness as a percentage of all claims by males Claims by females for deafness as a percentage of all claims by females New South Wales... 7298 6.31 7.85 0.56 Victoria... 850 2.92 2.74 0.18 Queensland... 820 1.53 1.80 0.09 South Australia ... 347 2.96 3.72 0.41 ABS figures are not available for Western Australia or the Northern Territory. Unpublished data from the ABS for Tasmania indicates a total of 2 cases representing 0.02 per cent of all claims and these relate solely to males. The unpublished ABS data for the ACT indicates no claims were made in 1984-85. At the Federal level, published and unpublished data obtained from the Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation show that for Commonwealth employees there were a total of 905 cases which represented 1.53 per cent of all claims. No information was obtained on the respective percentage of males and females in this group. It should be noted that the above percentages are related to industrial deafness as a percentage of all claims, that is, injury and disease, and further, that there is no direct correlation between the number of claims for industrial deafness as a percentage of total claims and the total payment for industrial deafness as a percentage of total workers' compensation payout. (2) Yes. (3) The Act which established the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission was proclaimed on 20 December 1985. Prior to that date, moneys for the operation of the non-statutory Commission were appropriated to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Moneys allocated, by appropriation, for the operation of the Commission since its inception were $5,490,700 for 1984/85, $23,700,000 for 1985/86 and $17,816,000 for 1986/87. Actual expenditure for 1984/85 was $4,398,342 and for 1985/86 was $18,439,711. (4) Recognising the costs associated with the incidence of industrial deafness, the National Commission has actively sought the involvement of the States in undertaking a series of initiatives designed to address the problems of noise induced hearing loss in the workplace. The Commission has: established a tripartite Working Party which is developing a draft document on principles and standards for occupational noise regulations, and a draft model code of practice for protection of hearing at work; made resources available to assist the Commonwealth Department of Health in the engineering management of the new facilities at the National Acoustic Laboratories at Chatswood, NSW, which will be used inter alia for research and testing in this area; commenced work in collaboration with the Australian Deafness Council and the Commonwealth Department of Health on a proposed pilot study for an ear health campaign in the workplace to raise community awareness of the dangers of noise induced hearing loss and to reduce its incidence; and pursued a policy of assisting research efforts on occupational health and safety matters. In relation to the specific problem of industrial deafness it recently commissioned a research project at the University of Western Australia to combine two relatively new engineering noise control tools (Statistical Energy Analysis and Sound Intensity Techniques) for the identification of industrial machinery noise and vibration hot spots and the subsequent optimisation of noise control procedures. (5) The most recent statistics are those available for the financial year 1984-85. These figures relate to a period which corresponds to the establishment and formation phase of the National Commission. However, as will be seen from the answer in (4), above, the National Commission has been prompt in applying its resources to the important area of industrial deafness. (Question No. 5113) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: (1) Is the ABC a Government authority. (2) Is the Friends of the ABC organisation a pressure group lobbying for more funds for the ABC. (3) What Government funds are provided to the ABC (a) in 1975-76, (b) in 1980-81 and (c) what Government funds will be provided in 1986-87. (4) Is ABC Enterprises the commercial selling arm of the ABC. (5) Has his attention been drawn to an announcement by ABC Enterprises that it extends a 10 per cent discount to all persons who are Friends of the ABC. (6) Is it acceptable for the ABC to be subsidising persons who are Friends of the ABC. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based upon information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (1) The ABC is a statutory corporation established by the ABC Act 1983. (2) I am advised that friends of the ABC is an incorporated association of members which aims to encourage a high standard of television and radio on ABC to oppose all political and commercial censorship of television and radio and to lobby for adequate funds for the ABC so that it may carry out its functions effectively. (a) $132,800,000; (b) $184,061,800; (c) $412,800,000. (4) ABC Marketing manages all revenue-producing activities of the Corporation, except Concerts. ABC Enterprises is part of the Marketing Division and is responsible for the retailing of books, records, videos, spoken-word cassettes and other products through the ABC's mail order service and shops. (5) Yes. (6) The ABC notes that it is common business practice to extend discounts where it is judged there is commercial advantage in the arrangement. While it is understood that membership of Friends of the ABC numbers no more than 1,000 throughout Australia, a mere handful avail themselves of the 10 per cent discount each year. (Question No. 5115) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: (1) What has been the total growth in the number of employed people in Australia since 1 July 1983. (2) What proportion of this growth has been in the private sector. (3) What proportion of this growth has been in (a) Commonwealth Government (b) State Government and (c) local government employment. (4) Is he able to say what has been the cost of employment since 1 July 1983 in salaries and administration for each of the categories in part (3). Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) produces two series of employment estimates-the monthly Labour Force Survey and the Survey of Employment and Earnings. The Labour Force Survey includes all employed persons, and thus is most appropriate for determining growth in total employment. The Survey of Employment and Earnings only covers wage and salary earners, excluding those in private agriculture, but provides the only accurate measure of the split between private and public sector employment. The Labour Force Survey seasonally adjusted estimate of employment in July 1983 is 6,286,600 persons, and by April 1987 this had increased to 7,084,500 persons, an increase of 797,900 or 12.7 per cent. This increase includes the effect of the revised definition of employment introduced by the ABS in April 1986. The revised definition resulted in an increase in employment of 34,900 in April 1986. The most recent Survey of Employment and Earnings figures are for December 1986. The series is not seasonally adjusted and the employment estimate for July 1983 is thus not strictly comparable with that for December 1986. The number of employed wage and salary earners has risen from 5,038,400 in July 1983 to 5,673,800 in December 1986, an increase of 635,400 or 12.6 per cent. (2) The Survey of Employment and Earnings shows that the number of private sector employed wage and salary earners rose by 547,200 or 16.1 per cent between July 1983 and December 1986, representing 86.1 per cent of growth in the total number of wage and salary earners. (3) Of the growth in the total number of employed wage and salary earners, (a) 32,100 or 5.1 per cent has been in the Commonwealth Government, (b) 43,300 or 6.8 per cent has been in State Government, and (c) 12,700 or 2.0 per cent has been in local government employment. (4) The Survey of Employment and Earnings provides data on gross earnings of employed wage and salary earners on a quarterly basis. Reliable information on the cost of administration is not available. The table below shows the earnings of employed wage and salary earners for 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, and the September and December quarters 1986. Total earnings for each category from 1983-84 to the December quarter 1986 inclusive have been $32,845.6 million for Commonwealth Government, $82,665.1 million for State Government, and $9,886.2 million for local government employment. GROSS EARNINGS OF EMPLOYED WAGE AND SALARY EARNERS ($m) 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 September & December quarters 1986 Commonwealth government... 8,418.8 9,194.7 9,938.8 5,293.3 State government... 21,399.0 23.089.5 24.797.2 13,379.4 Local government... 2,540.3 2,792.6 2,946.2 1,607.1 (Question No. 5124) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: (1) What Government schemes are available to assist business. (2) What involvement does the Commonwealth have with Queensland in the provision of assistance to business, including assistance through the Queensland Industry Development Corporation, the Small Business Development Corporation and the Department of Primary Industries. (3) Will the Minister, following discussions with the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Primary Industry, the Treasurer and other relevant Ministers, prepare a comprehensive booklet or directory on ways in which business can be assisted by both the Commonwealth and State Governments. (4) What has been the total Commonwealth contribution since 1983 in assisting business by way of (a) grants, (b) interest subsidy, (c) special tax deductions, (d) excise duty rebates, (e) research and development assistance, (f) market research and development and (g) other areas. (5) Will the Minister, in co-operation with the States, establish a scheme where capital can be made available to worthwhile and proven projects which are ineligible to receive research and development funds to assist them to become established. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Commonwealth through the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce (DITAC) and various other portfolios has a comprehensive range of schemes available to assist industry to become more internationally competitive, export-oriented and innovative. Emphasis is being placed on: restructuring and revitalising existing industries; facilitating the emergence of new industries and innovative firms; supporting the development of generic or enabling technologies such as biotechnology, new materials and information technology which are seen as essential to industry competitiveness in the 1990s. Main areas of assistance to manufacturing industry are: Innovation and Technology Development 150% tax concession for research and development designed to encourage Australian firms to increase their research and development (R&D) expenditure. The concession reduces the after-tax cost of R&D to the firm to around 27 cents in the dollar. Grants for Industry Research and Development Scheme (GIRD) provides a 50% Government grant towards the cost of approved R&D projects undertaken by small, innovative, start-up firms that have insufficient tax liability to utilise the 150% tax concession. The Government has also developed a number of mechanisms to help create a climate that supports entrepreneurship and risk taking in industry, including: Innovation Centres which bring together the research, manufacturing and marketing skills needed to launch new products; an International Licensing Network Link that gives Australian manufacturers access to overseas product and process technologies; and Centres for the Development of Entrepreneurs that give practical training in the business skills required to commercialise technology based product and process innovations. Development Finance Management and Investment Companies (MICs) Scheme established to attract management and financial support for the launching of Australian companies with potential for rapid growth and export sales, using innovative technologies. Investors in MICs are able to claim full tax deductibility of funds invested. Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) the Government-owned AIDC is an innovative financier operating on commercial principles providing tailored long term debt and equity finance. As well as being an important source of risk capital for start-up and expansion purposes, the AIDC is playing an increasing role in promoting the restructuring and revitalisation of industry. Commonwealth Development Bank the Bank's charter has been expanded to give it greater flexibility in lending to the small business sector. The expanded charter also allows the Bank to provide equity funds to small business. Extension and Advisory Services National Industry Extension Service (NIES) NIES was officially launched in March 1987 to improve and upgrade the delivery of the great variety of Commonwealth and State advisory services to industry. NIES aims to encourage firms to use the most modern management and production systems, including appropriate marketing, design, engineering, and quality control techniques. NIES operates in each State through a single contact point (in Queensland telephone 008 077000 toll free). Directed specifically at small to medium sized businesses, the service provides information on the spot or passes enquiries on to specialist consultants in either private or public agencies. Developing Market Opportunities AUSTRADE Programs The establishment of AUSTRADE and the launching of the National Export Drive, consolidates the Government's export marketing efforts into a ``one stop trade shop'' including overseas representation, export market development grants, export insurance, pre-shipment finance, commercial insurance and overseas project work. Offsets Program the Program is aimed at developing internationally competitive technology-intensive industries in Australia. The Program has recently exceeded $1,000m in benefits to Australian industry. Offsets achievements are currently running around $230m p.a. and new initiatives are expected to greatly increase this volume in the medium term. Government Purchasing Commonwealth and State Government purchases of goods and services provide a potentially powerful instrument for industry and technology development. The Government is currently considering the report of the committee, chaired by Sir Brian Inglis, reviewing purchasing of high technology goods services by Government. `Buy Australian' Campaign one of a number of complementary initiatives taken by the Government to make the community more aware of the wide range of quality products produced by Australian companies. Market Expansion Services under NIES a range of information and advisory services are provided under NIES which promote and/or assess opportunities for the development of domestic and international markets. Sectoral Assistance Tariffs and Bounties tariffs have traditionally provided the principal means in Australia for providing assistance to import- competing industries. However, to enable and encourage closer integration of Australian industry with opportunities and incentives of the world economy, the Government is moving gradually towards reduced reliance on barrier protection. Bounties rather than tariff related measures are being used to provide assistance to certain industries. Normally these are industries whose products form a major cost component of downstream or user industries, or where the local industry is too small to supply the majority of the Australian market. Special Sectoral Plans the Government has introduced special sectoral policies, both for mature industries where real competitive problems needed to be addressed (such as passenger motor vehicles, textiles, clothing and footwear, steel and heavy engineering), and for potential growth industries where a catalytic role for government can be helpful (e.g., the communications equipment industry, the information industries and the space industry). (2) The Commonwealth's main involvement in Queensland in the provision of industry assistance is through DITAC's links with the Queensland Department of Industry Development. DITAC and the Queensland Department of Industry Development jointly administer a number of industry programs which fall within the NIES framework and which include: Queensland Innovation Centre established to increase the flow of innovative products and processes to Australian industry; Centre for Manufacturing Technology an advisory body which industry can approach to obtain advice on modern manufacturing processes; Centre for Development of Entrepreneurs provides practical advice and ``hands on'' training in relation to entrepreneurship; Small Business Technology Centre will bring suppliers into contact with small businesses which need exposure to new technology; and Enterprise Workshop Provides basic training for potential technology or small business entrepreneurs and will focus the attention of the community on the need for such skills in Australia. (3) The provision of information on Commonwealth and State Government services to industry is one of the priorities of NIES. The network of one stop reference services established in every State and Territory provides information on both public and private sector assistance and advisory services. It is considered that this approach provides the most appropriate way of covering the diverse assistance arrangements that exist at State and Commonwealth levels and the constant development and refinement of such arrangements by governments. However, summaries of services to industry provides by governments can be found in the following publications: NIES catalogue of industry extension services provided by government and government sponsored organisations in Australia 1985-86 Directory of Commonwealth industry development measures, Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce August 1985 Directory of State and Territory industry development measures, Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce August 1985 Australian Industry and Technology Council Annual Summary of Proceedings 1985-86 (Appendix 3) (4) Since the Government came to office in 1983, total industry assistance by way of budget outlays has increased by nearly 10% from $1109m in 1982-83 to an estimated $1218m in 1986-87. This assistance includes outlays to industries in addition to manufacturing, e.g., forestry and fishing, agricultural and pastoral, mining, tourist and export industries generally. Assistance to manufacturing industries since 1983, through the Industry, Technology and Commerce portfolio includes: (a) grants: which have mainly been in the form of bounties and assistance to the passenger motor vehicle industry have increased by nearly 75% from $139m in 1982-83 to an estimated $243m in 1986-87; (b) interest subsidy: a $30m concessional loan finance scheme is being provided for new investment in plant, equipment and productive buildings for the heavy engineering industry ($2.5m in 1986-87). The AIDC provided $0.3m during 1985-86 and is providing another $0.6m to cover costs of interest forgone in 1986-87 to a joint venture to produce an anti-malaria vaccine; (c) special tax deductions: The recently introduced 150% tax concession for R&D expenditure is estimated to cost around $150m (revenue forgone) in 1986-87; the MICs scheme in 1985-86 provided $20m (revenue forgone) as venture capital finance for young, innovative businesses and will provide another $20m (revenue forgone) in 1986-87. (d) excise duty rebates: comprises rebates on beer, spirits, tobacco and petroleum products and amounted to $5.7m in 1985-86; $5.6m related to petroleum products; (e) research and development assistance: R&D expenditure has increased from $52.8m during 1982-83 to an estimated $58.5m in 1986-87 (this excludes the $150m revenue forgone from the 150% tax concession for R&D expenditure but includes grant commitments under the former Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme); (f) market research and development: $5.3m was allocated in 1986-87 for management improvement in the heavy engineering industry; $0.4m was allocated in 1986-87 to assist development of the communications equipment technological infrastructure and to meet costs associated with the implementation and further development of a 10 year strategy for the industry; and (g) other areas: assistance under this category has increased from $4m during 1982-83 to an estimated $20.7m in 1986-87 ($17.5m relates to the establishment and development of NIES). In addition, the AIDC was given a $25m capital injection in 1983-84 and $12.5m in 1985-86. Total assistance, which includes direct outlays and revenue forgone through special provisions in the taxation system, provided to industry through the DITAC portfolio has increased by over 155% from $196m in 1982-83 to an estimated $500m in 1986-87. Full details are set out in the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce 1986-87 Budget booklet, copies of which are available from the Department. While not exclusively directed to manufacturing, substantial assistance is also provided to industry through other portfolios; for scientific research and development (e.g., by CSIRO), export promotion and employment and training. The total cost of these activities is estimated at $563m in 1986-87. (5) The Government has taken steps to ensure that finance is available for worthwhile and proven projects across the entire manufacturing spectrum Since coming to office, it has sought to introduce greater flexibility into the operations of institutions such as the AIDC and the Commonwealth Development Bank and has also introduced new funding mechanisms such as MICs By introducing the 150% R&D tax concession and GIRD Scheme (referred to in Question 1 above) comprehensive support is now available at the research and development end of the spectrum. Deregulation of the Australian financial market has substantially improved the availability of funds for development projects as well as for new ventures. In addition to Commonwealth initiatives, development finance is also available through various State agencies. Taken together these measures have substantially improved the availability of finance to industry. The Government is satisfied that further measures are not warranted at this time. (Question No. 5165) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) How will the Government amalgamate the ABC and the SBS by 1 July 1987 when the legislation to do so has not been passed by the Senate? (2) If the 2 broadcasters are to be amalgamated without the legislation in place, why was the legislation considered necessary in the first place. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Prime Minister announced on 26 April 1987 that the Government has decided to take the ABC/SBS amalgamation proposal of the Government's agenda and the legislation will not be reintroduced. (Question No. 5182) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 18 March 1987: Will he bring up to date the answers given by a former Minister for Industrial Relations to question No. 982 (Hansard, 30 October 1981, page 2813) and Senate question No. 1558 (Senate Hansard, 27 November 1981, page 2763) concerning International Labour Organisation Convention No. 107-Indigenous and Tribal Populations, 1957. Mr Willis —I refer the honourable member to my answer to a question asked by Senator Bolkus regarding the ratification of this Convention (Senate question No. 1659). (Question No. 5194) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: What is the average period between the notification to an individual that his or her application to migrate to Australia under the Family Re-union Scheme has been accepted and the subsequent arrival in Australia of that migrant. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Visas issued under the Family Migration category may be valid for up to 1 year, and migrants may travel at any time within the validity of their visa. The delay between the approval of an application to migrate to Australia and the arrival of that migrant in Australia is a matter for the individual migrant concerned, and depends on factors such as the time taken to finalise personal affairs and make travel plans. My Department has no control over these factors, records have not been kept of the periods involved. I recognise, however, that this matter is of interest to those involved with migrants and their welfare, and is relevant to planning the annual migration program. For this reason, my Department is currently developing a system which will provide details of how long migrants in various categories take to arrive in Australia. A recent survey of extended family migrants arriving in Australia in 1985-86 showed that 15% had arrived within less than a month of receiving their visas, while nearly 70% had arrived within 2 months, and well over 90% had arrived by 4 months. (Question No. 5318) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 1 May 1987: Do the aerobridges at the new Perth Airport terminal have a 1 in 12 gradient which is too steep for wheelchairs unless pushed by 2 persons; if so, why was it necessary to have such a steep gradient. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The International Terminal Building aerobridges have two prime components; a static link to the building which is approximately 24m in length and a vertically adjustable link which is approximately 18m in length. The static length has a fixed gradient of 1 in 12 which is allowable under the relevant SAA code to which the building was designed. This code (AS1428) is the Australian Standard Design Rule for access by the disabled. This gradient was decided upon as the most desirable as it minimises the size and therefore the cost of the aircraft parking apron and also minimises the distance which all passengers need to travel. The vertically adjustable link naturally enough has a variable gradient determined by the type of aircraft being serviced. The gradients fall within the allowable limits of SAA Code AS1428. (Question No. 5319) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 1 May 1987: Has any of the carpet at the new Perth Airport terminal been relaid; if so, (a) why was this necessary, (b) how much was relaid and (c) what was the cost to relay the carpet. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Approximately 2500 square metres of carpet will shortly be replaced in the International Terminal Building at Perth Airport. The carpet supplied did not comply with pattern matching requirements. The carpet will be replaced at no cost to the Commonwealth. (Question No. 5384) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 11 May 1987: (1) Who are the current members of the Advisory Committee on Overseas Promotion. (2) What are their terms of appointment and remuneration. (3) On how many occasions has the committee met since its establishment and what recommendations has it made to him since then. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The current members of the Advisory Committee on Overseas Promotion are: Mr Wilf Barker, Media Consultant (Chair); Mr Don Morris, Managing Director, MOJO MDA; Ms Anne Deveson, Director Australian Film, Radio and Television School; Mr Neil Harrold, Marketing Consultant; Mr Sam Lipski, commentator on international affairs; Mr Malcolm Smith, Managing Director, Cumberland Newspapers. (2) I announced on 15 May 1986 the formation of the Advisory Committee on Overseas Promotion to advise me on policies, programs and activities designed to promote Australia overseas with specific reference to the operation of Promotion Australia. Members receive no remuneration other than travel expenses. (3) Seven. I have received an interim report from the Committee and further advice is being prepared. (Question No. 5398) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1987: What safety checks are conducted at Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, N.S.W. on new electrical work or repairs performed by contractors or day labour. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: All electrical work, whether new work or repairs, whether carried out by contractors or day labour staff, is inspected for safety in accordance with Australian Standard AS 3000-1986 ``SAA WIRING RULES''. Sydney County Council Inspectors and/or Department of Housing and Construction Electrical Works Supervisors carry out the inspection. (Question No. 5402) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 12 May 1987: Is the Flight Service Office on Lord Howe Island to be closed after 30 June 1987; if so, what alternative arrangements have been made for (a) essential weather reporting and forecasting for pilots in the area and (b) emergency situations similar to that which occurred in May 1987 when the Flight Service Officer was on hand to confirm to a pilot in distress that his faulty undercarriage had locked into place for landing. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The actual closing date of the Flight Service Office has not been announced pending further consultation with the association representing the affected staff, however, it will occur in the near future. (a) Weather reporting will be provided by the Bureau of Meteorology who will continue to operate their office on Lord Howe Island. (b) Emergency situations will be handled by the Flight Service Centre at Sydney in the same manner as occurs at the many aerodromes which do not have Flight Service staff. In the case in question the advice was given by the pilot of another aircraft on the ground at Lord Howe Island. (Question No. 5409) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, 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 annual recurrent expenditure to maintain the EEO unit. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There was no staffing allocation made specifically for the development and implementation of EEO programs when the 1984 Public Service Reform legislation was introduced. The introduction of EEO in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has been an integrated part of its Corporate Management program. It is therefore difficult to separate the specific costs associated with the implementation of the EEO program. (2) As part of the Department's Corporate Management program the following staff resources were diverted for the initial introduction and implementation. It is expected these resources will be reintegrated into other Personnel Management functions in the future. (a) One full time Clerical Administrative Class 9 ($36,305 per annum) (b) 50% Clerical Administrative Class 7 ($14,630 per annum) Nominated EEO contact officers are in place in all regional offices to carry over EEO responsibilities. (3) Annual recurrent expenditure is estimated as follows: EEO staffing 50,935 (introduction only) Training and consultations 7,000 Total 57,935 (Question No. 5436) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1987: How many prescriptions were paid for, and what was the cost, under the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in each month since June 1986 for (a) aspirin tablets 650mg (enteric coated), (b) aspirin tablets 650mg (sustained release), (c) codeine phosphate tablets 30mg, (d) codeine phosphate with aspirin tablets 30mg-325mg, (e) diclofenac sodium tablet 50mg (enteric coated), (f) diflunisal tablet 250mg, (g) indomethacin capsule 25mg, (h) indomethacin suppository 100mg, (i) ketoprofen capsule 50mg, (j) ketoprofen capsule 100mg, (k) ketoprofen suppository 100mg, (l) naproxen tablet 250mg, (m) naproxen tablet 500mg, (n) naproxen suppository 500mg, (o) piroxicam capsule 10mg, (p) sulindac tablet 100mg and (q) sodium salicylate tablet 600mg (enteric coated). Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The provision of data as requested on a monthly basis would require an unreasonable diversion of the Department's resources to extract the information. However the data requested are readily available for the period July to December 1986 inclusive, and are outlined below: Item No. of prescriptions paid for July to December 1986 Total dispensed cost $ (a) ASPIRIN Tablet 650mg (enteric coated) ... 29,959 182,976.58 (b) ASPIRIN Tablet 650mg (sustained release) ... 1,616 8,742.94 (c) CODEINE PHOSPHATE Tablet 30mg ... 5,407 35,516.11 (d) CODEINE PHOSPHATE with ASPIRIN Tablet 30mg-325mg ... 7,344 56,998.86 (e) DICLOFENAC SODIUM Tablet 50mg (enteric coated) ... 181,240 1,602,132.00 (f) DIFLUNISAL Tablet 250mg ... 57,379 505,838,96 (g) INDOMETHACIN Capsule 25mg ... 53,545 323,712.84 (h) INDOMETHACIN Suppositories ... 10,335 106,092.32 (i) KETOPROFEN Capsule 50mg ... 599 5,702.09 (j) KETOPROFEN Capsule 100mg ... 2,455 36,152.56 (k) KETOPROFEN Suppositories ... . . . . (l) NAPROXEN Tablet 250mg ... 89,456 747,366.84 (m) NAPROXEN Tablet 500mg ... 255 3,477.39 (n) NAPROXEN Suppository 500mg ... 5,095 55,720.26 (o) PIROXICAM Capsule 10mg (NHS 1.11.86) ... 1,538 18,801.57 (p) SULINDAC Tablet 100mg ... 61,005 485,432.93 (q) SODIUM SALICYLATE Tablet 600mg (enteric coated) ... 1,102 6,602.98