Tuesday, 15 September 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I seek leave to make a statement relating to changes in the structure of the Ministry and the system of government departments. Leave granted. Mr HAWKE —Following the recent general election at which the Government was returned for a third term of office, I announced a range of significant changes to the structure of the Ministry and of government departments. The Parliament will shortly consider the legislation which gives effect to or flows from aspects of those changes. For the information of the House, I wish today to outline the overall intent of the changes and their impact, including ways they may be reflected in the operations of the Parliament. Since our first election in 1983 this Government has consistently developed policies to reconstruct our economy so that it can meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world trading environment. It is not simply a task for our trade-exposed sectors like agriculture, mining or, increasingly, manufacturing and tourism. It is a task for the whole economy, because all sectors can suffer if one is inefficient. In applying measures to deal with the responsible reconstruction of the economy, we are determined to apply the same rigour to the Government's own household. Honourable members will be aware that early in its life, this Government embarked upon a program of reform of public administration. In pursuing a sound administrative basis for the development of its policies, the Government has addressed fundamental issues and implemented far-reaching reform measures. The reforms were given a legislative basis in the 1984 Public Service reform package, and have been augmented progressively by Budget reforms, the 1986 streamlining measures and, perhaps most importantly, the arrangements I announced in July last. The Government has been concerned with two basic objectives: to enhance ministerial control over the Public Service and to give to departmental managers more responsibility for day to day management. By establishing mechanisms for greater ministerial control, we have been intent upon increasing the responsiveness of the bureaucracy to the Government's wishes and upon increasing democratic accountability, through Ministers, to Parliament and the community. The second of the objectives, greater responsibility for departmental management, has entailed the devolution of management functions from central agencies to individual departments and a new emphasis on the development of management skills in senior public servants. With greater freedom to manage, departments are in a better position to demonstrate their success in achieving the dual aims of increased efficiency and financial savings. The Government's previous reform measures have resulted in considerable progress towards the achievement of our objectives. The revamping of Budget processes has given Ministers more direct involvement in the way resources are used within their portfolios. The introduction of program and staff budgeting has allowed the Government to tighten up resource allocation, while giving to Secretaries and other departmental managers greater freedom and responsibility in applying resources to the implementation of Government policies. The major package of measures I announced last year resulted in an important streamlining of personnel management practices. With this experience behind us, I decided after the Government's re-election to proceed further along the path of administrative reform. The administrative arrangements approved by the Governor-General in Council on 24 July represented perhaps the most far-reaching reshaping of the Federal machinery of government and of public administration in our history. The number of departments has been reduced from 28 to 18, providing scope for savings through economies of scale and the removal of overlap and duplication across many areas of hitherto separate bureaucratic units. To provide for enhanced ministerial control over the new range of departments, many of which are significantly enlarged, I decided, following receipt of an opinion from the Solicitor-General, that it was time we adopted a two-level ministerial structure and increased the number of Ministers. Under the new arrangements, the burden of administering departments is shared, and portfolio Ministers are released from some detailed administrative work, enabling them to give greater attention to strategic directions of policy and priorities. All portfolios are represented in Cabinet without the need for Cabinet to be expanded to an unmanageable size. I am pleased to report that these arrangements have been in place now for seven weeks and are working well. Portfolio Ministers are ultimately responsible for the administration of their entire portfolios and will be accountable to the Parliament for the overall operation of their portfolios. All Ministers, however, have a clear accountability within specific responsibilities allocated to them. This accountability includes responding to questions without notice in the Parliament. I announced the allocation of responsibilities on 11 August, but for the information of the House, and as a guide to honourable members in the direction of questions, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list showing the division of functions. Leave granted. The list read as follows- DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN PORTFOLIOS PRIME MINISTER-(The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, ac, mp) Special Minister of State-(Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan) Assist the Prime Minister in relation to the status of women and the bicentenary, and generally across the portfolio. Senator Ryan will also assist the Minister for Community Services and Health and have responsibility for: housing assistance functions, which includes the housing assistance programs of the former Department of Housing and Construction and the Supported Accommodation Assistance program of the former Department of Community Services; the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse; the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission; workforce issues, including the Medical Education Inquiry; implementation of the Australia Card Program; biethical issues, including the establishment of advisory structures. Senator Ryan will also be closely involved in the development of the women's health strategy and will assist Dr Blewett generally in the portfolio. ATTORNEY-GENERAL-(The Hon. Lionel Bowen, MP) Minister for Consumer Affairs - (The Hon. Peter Staples, MP) Responsibility for all consumer affairs matters (including relevant statutory responsibilities under the Trade Practices Act) and representation of the Government on Commonwealth-State ministerial committees related to consumer affairs. Mr Staples also assist the Treasurer in relation to prices. Parliamentary Secretary for Justice - (Senator the Hon. Michael Tate) Bankruptcy; policy and administrative reponsibility for legal aid and financial assistance, including carriage of negotiations with the States on new legal aid agreements (but with the Attorney-General retaining overall responsibility for the negotiations with the States); remissions of fines and penalties; prisoners; marriage celebrants; policy and police liaison including membership of appropriate Commonwealth-State committees; Protective Services Coordination Centre; Territories matters coming within the Attorney-General's portfolio (other than the matters involving the ACT); Criminology, including youth and crime; Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills. MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY, TECHNOLOGY AND COMMERCE - (Senator the Hon. John Button) Minister for Science and Small Business - (The Hon. Barry O. Jones, MP) Science policy and activities including CSIRO and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and the encouragement of effective linkages between the research community and industry; Policy in relation to small business; Management and day-to-day decision making in connection with the Customs Service; Day-to-day administrative matters associated with the building industry. The two Ministers will work together in such areas as the National Industry Extension Service, the Management Investment Companies program, and policy in relation to the information industries. MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS - (Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, QC) Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support - (The Hon. Peter Duncan, MP) Land transport policy and programs including road safety; Operational aviation matters including airport operations, airway systems, flight standards and the Bureau of Air Safety; General maritime safety matters; Radio frequency management and broadcasting services; Support in areas where Senator Evans has prime carriage including broadcasting, telecommunications, postal policy, domestic and international airline policy and major airports projects. MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS - (The Hon. Michael J. Young, MP) Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government - (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reynolds) Local Government and regional development. MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE - (The Hon. Bill Hayden, MP) Minister for Trade Negotiations - (The Hon. Michael Duffy, MP) Day-to-day responsibility for the administration and implementation of Australia's bilateral and multilateral trade policy and negotiations, including relevant Ministerial meetings and diplomatic contacts; Coordination and conduct of Australia's position in the ``Uruguay Round'' of multilateral trade negotiations-and more generally the promotion of a more equitable international trading environment; Administration and implementation of the agreement on Closer Economic Relations with New Zealand; Implementing Australia's relations with UNCTAD; Responsible for operations of trade related councils involving the Australian business community. Mr Duffy also assists the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy in relation to major commodity negotiations and export promotion. MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING - (The Hon. J. S. Dawkins, MP) Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs-(The Hon. A. C. Holding, MP) Employment and Training - Community Employment Program, including New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, JOBSTART, Mobility Assistance (Relocation Assistance Schemes and Fares Assistance Scheme), existing programs of Industry and Regional Employment Assistance, Community Youth Support Scheme, Community Training Program, including Information Technology Centres, Community Volunteer Program, and Training for Aboriginals Program; Commonwealth Employment Service-network operations, including responsibilities under Unemployment Benefit and Job Search Allowance arrangements, youth access centres, and job search training; Education programs and services-national language policy, multicultural education, and Aboriginal education, including National Aboriginal Education Committee. Mr Holding also assists the Treasurer in a range of matters referred to him, including taxation, foreign investment, loan raising and debt management, and functions of an administrative nature. MINISTER FOR DEFENCE-(The Hon. Kim C. Beazley, MP) Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Science and Personnel-(The Hon. Ros Kelly, MP) Defence Science and Technology, including development of policies and programs for the marketing of products; Oversight and administration of service personnel policies relating to members and ex-members of the Australian Defence Force and their families; Defence Housing Authority; Some categories of Australian Defence Force assistance to the civil community; Community matters arising from, and in conjunction with, Australian Defence Force operational training activities; Development of a strategy to ameliorate the difficulties created for Service personnel on postings arising from differing States laws and requirements relating to education, transport etc. MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY-(The Hon. John Kerin, MP) Minister for Resources-(The Hon. Peter Morris, MP) Energy programs; Mineral commodities; Natural resource management; Fisheries matters; Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service; Bureau of Mineral Resources; Bureau of Rural Science. MINISTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-(The Hon. Stewart West, MP) Minister for Home Affairs-(Senator the Hon. Robert Ray) Electoral matters; Parliamentary and ministerial services (including the New Parliament House Executive Wing, the National Media Liaison Service and Ministerial Press Pool) Information coordination; National Archives; Honours and national symbols policy. MINISTER FOR THE ARTS, SPORT, THE ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND TERRITORIES-(The Hon. John Brown, MP) Minister for the Environment and the Arts-(Senator the Hon. Graham Richardson) Cultural affairs, including support for the arts, film, national collections and national heritage; The environment and conservation; Antarctic matters. MINISTER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES AND HEALTH-(The Hon. Neal Blewett, MP) Minister for Veterans' Affairs-(The Hon. Ben Humphreys, MP) Administration and policy development of services to veterans. Mr Humphreys will also assist Dr Blewett in day-to-day administration of: The Home and Community Care program; and The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs-(The Hon. Gerard L. Hand, MP) Administration of Commonwealth Aboriginal affairs responsibilities. This will include the development of the new Commission to replace the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Development Commission. Mr Hand will also assist Dr Blewett in the day-to-day administration of the Childrens Services program. Within the portfolios not covered in the above list, other Ministers have not been appointed. Mr HAWKE —I thank the House. Within their areas of responsibility all Ministers will be available to answer questions in the Parliament, and will, of course, take an active role in the legislative process. Within the Parliament, the changes will bring a number of benefits. The combination of the additional Ministers, and of portfolio Ministers having a wider spectrum of responsibility across major sectors of government activity, means the Ministers will be placed in a better position in both chambers to be responsive to the Parliament and its members. This will apply particularly in the Senate where the number of Senate Ministers will have been increased from six to eight, after Parliament enacts the relevant legislation, thus augmenting the capacity of the Government to respond to the concerns before that chamber. I should add that, in the meantime, pending the amendment of the Ministers of State Act to permit the appointment of 30 Ministers, there are three Parliamentary Secretaries, two of whom are in the Senate. It is intended that the people holding these positions will be sworn as Ministers as soon as possible. Until that time, as they are not Ministers, they will not answer questions without notice, carry legislation or perform chamber duty. In allocating functions among departments we have been able to provide for improved co-ordination and broader perspectives within portfolios. We have increased our capacity for imposing functional and strategic directions on government activity in the major areas of economic reform on which Australia's response to the challenges of a highly competitive international environment depends. The new arrangements allow for greater speed and consistency in the delivery of services and advice to the public. The abolition of the Public Service Board takes its place in this package of reforms designed to eliminate duplication of functions and as a further step in the process of increasing departmental responsibilities. All operational aspects of personnel matters are now to be devolved to departments. A new Office of Public Service Commissioner will have responsibility for the policy aspects of recruitment, promotion, mobility, discipline and retirement, and for monitoring continuing progress in relation to equal employment opportunity. A part time Public Service Management Advisory Board will advise the Government on significant issues relating to the management of the Public Service. Public Service pay and conditions matters are to be transferred from the Board to the Department of Industrial Relations; and some aspects of classification issues have been transferred to the Department of Finance. The services of Mr David Block, of which the Government has been most appreciative, will continue to be available to me and the Government. His unit, now called the Administrative Reform Unit, is currently overseeing the preparation of reports on matters such as the possible integration of Social Security and Commonwealth Employment Service local offices, the use of the Department of Social Security as a payment agency, a single foreign service and the future of the National Capital Development Commission. The task the Government has set itself in this area is wide-ranging and ongoing. To ensure that it receives proper co-operation and sustained momentum I have set up a special committee of the Cabinet, under the chairmanship of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), specifically to address Public Service reform. The revised ministerial and administrative arrangements which I have summarised today are an important part of the Government's strategy of concentrating on its policy priorities while working within a streamlined structure which reflects both the need for financial restraint and the importance of responsiveness and effectiveness. I believe that the arrangements will provide a sound basis from which to undertake the task of meeting the present and future policy needs of the nation. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-The Opposition welcomes many aspects of the changed administrative arrangements which were announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) after the election and which have been explained in more detail by him today. The concept of having a number of Ministers sworn to administer a particular department is certainly a concept that the Opposition supports. I welcome the fact that apparently the legal advice flowing to government on this subject has become a little more adventurous and a little more positive than it apparently has been to successive administrations over the years. But the Opposition does, nonetheless, welcome that as a very sensible administrative change. I think there is merit in the concept of having a number of Ministers sworn to administer the same department. The old idea that one had to create a shell department in order to have another Minister performing in the same general area as an existing Minister was an anachronistic one. I am very pleased indeed that the Government has been able to put that behind it. A number of the amalgamations and consolidations of departments that have been announced by the Government are also welcomed by the Opposition. They mirror, in a number of quite crucial areas, declared policy positions taken by the Opposition. I therefore welcome the opportunity of saying to the House that the Opposition will be able to support large elements of the reforms announced by the Prime Minister. We will have an opportunity when legislation dealing with this, and also with the increase in the size of the Ministry which falls into a slightly different category, comes before the Parliament. But I say to the Prime Minister that any bureaucratic reform, no matter how adventurous, how far reaching and how sweeping it is, will fall to the ground unless the whole cornerstone of our system of government-that is, the concept of ministerial responsibility-is rigorously observed. The real test of the third Hawke Government in the area of administrative conduct and administrative behaviour will be whether the standards that were not imposed during the first and second Hawke Ministries on ministerial conduct are, in fact, imposed during the third Hawke Ministry. The first test will be whether the Prime Minister responds appropriately to the behaviour of a number of his Ministers regarding the coastal surveillance debacle. If ever we had an example of the Westminster principle of ministerial responsibility applying, it ought to apply to the former Minister for Transport. His conduct is not a failure by a Minister, it is not a dereliction of ministerial duty and it is not a failure of ministerial responsibility. According to the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) all that happened was that there was a systems failure. That is the new euphemism for a Minister not doing his job. I wonder what the present Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) would have thought of that back in April 1982 when he said: Nothing is more important than the way in which these people who are called Ministers behave themselves and set an example to other people in Australia. Nothing is more important than the relationship between the Government and the people of Australia. The reality is that on the Amann Aviation scandal the Government was warned four months ago that it was not doing its job. The Government was told four months ago that the company to which it had awarded the contract was not adequate to the task. The Minister dismissed those objections and said that the right tendering procedures had been followed. He said that everything was in order and that we were simply listening to scuttlebutt and rumour mongering, but he was wrong. By any decent canon of the Westminster principle, the Minister should resign and he should not be sitting on the Government front bench. All the fancy words about departmental rearrangements, all the solid achievements of David Block-a person whom I know well, for whom I have considerable regard and who has done a good job-and all that intelligent work will be destroyed at one stroke unless, at a political level, the Prime Minister is prepared, during his third Administration, to apply the standards that he did not apply to the present Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and to the former Minister for Trade, now the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), and did not apply in a number of other areas. The real test of whether the Prime Minister will be different in his third term is whether the former Minister for Transport, who clearly breached his ministerial duties over the Amann debacle and has no right to sit on the front bench of the Government, remains. If he does remain, all these great reforms will be reduced to an administrative nothing. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy, left on 11 September on overseas duties in the United States, Canada and South America. He will return on 29 September and questions which would normally be directed to Mr Duffy should be addressed to the portfolio Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom, led by Mr Robert Hicks, MP. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr SINCLAIR —Does the Treasurer agree that, for the purposes of assessing the effects of his Budget tonight on the financial markets and economy, it is the borrowing requirement which that Budget will impose upon them which is fundamental? Does he further agree that borrowing requirement is represented by the sum of whatever deficit will appear in the Budget, plus any proceeds from sales of government assets which have been credited to receipts for the purpose of arriving at that deficit? Mr KEATING —One can determine objectively who won the last election by those who are putting the question and those who are answering it. If we are talking about fiscal policy, the sham tax policy introduced by the Opposition in the election campaign would have, on the figuring of the Labor Opposition, reduced the Budget deficit in this year by only about $250m-that is, from its forecast $3.5 billion for 1986-87-so those honourable members opposite who are content with a Budget deficit of about $3.2 billion for 1987-88 will see how that stacks up against the Government's work. That estimate was on the most charitable interpretation of the Opposition's figuring. The correct figuring would have added $2.5 billion to the Budget and in a full year about $5.5 billion, because as we on this side of the House all know, and indeed as Max Walsh pointed out so eloquently yesterday in his argument, there would have been a massive gaping hole in the deficit because the savings would never have been made. The pressure groups would have started and the internecine battles between the various interests in the coalition would have begun. The idea of giving tax cuts now and saving later would have been exposed for the hollow sham that it is and we are indebted for the further exposure of that by the shadow Trea-surer, the honourable member for Kooyong, who last week ditched the disgraceful, shameful fiscal and tax policy of the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Mackellar proposed during the election campaign. With that background, let me deal with that model of fiscal rectitude, the right honourable member for New England. Apparently the puny implication of the question is that assets sales should not be credited as savings against outlays. I can only make the obvious point that if the right honourable member is arguing that case he should therefore, consistently, say that if, for instance, the Government were to buy a building that should not be an addition to outlays. If he does not think that that is the case, he would be right in assuming that we are observing all the correct accounting conventions in reducing outlays by sales of government assets. If he cavils at any contribution to the Budget from sales of government assets off outlays, all I can say is that he would then need to adjust 50 years of previous Budgets for the purchase of those assets which came from the recurrent Budgets. If the right honourable member is not arguing that, he is really arguing for a general services Budget and a capital Budget; that is, that capital items be taken off the Budget and not be funded out of recurrent budgetary revenues. If he is not arguing that but is arguing therefore that we ought to fund acquisitions and capital programs out of the Budget, it is then entirely consistent for the Government to say, as it is saying and as the accounting conventions say, that any sales of assets are proceeds to be taken off outlays. Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Is he aware of the current criticism of the criteria used in the selection process of persons wishing to immigrate to Australia? Can he inform the House of the action the Government is taking to address these concerns? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question and also for the interest he has shown in this very important issue which has come before the Parliament frequently over the years. Australia is a country that can take only about 10 per cent of all those people who apply to come here; so the Parliament from time to time must lay down the criteria by which we are going to be guided as to who should or should not be allowed to come into this country. Of course, our experience is that after a period of years each system has had sufficient criticism for the government of the day to seek to revisit those criteria and review all the standards that may have been set. It has been my experience over the past six or seven months-and, I am sure, that of all members in this Parliament who have a lot to do with this area-that there are some very major criticisms of the present system, particularly the concessional points system. But I sometimes find that the criticisms are quite confusing because they vary depending on the communities one meets; they all have different criticisms. It has been my view that there should be an opportunity for some of these communities, together with the Australian community in general, to sit down and discuss these matters and the criticisms which they have. As a result of my experience in this portfolio over the period leading up to the election, the Prime Minister announced the intention of the Government to produce a Green Paper on Australia's immigration policies, including the points system. I hope to be in a position early next week to announce the committee and its terms of reference. There are a couple of matters which I should add: A couple of the basics of our immigration policy are not up for review. We are not reviewing a non-discriminatory immigration policy. The Parliament a long time ago decided that we would have a non-discriminatory policy and we are not asking for a review of that policy because I do not believe that the Parliament is seeking that. The second thing is that members continually have their views sought as to the wisdom of this Government or this Parliament agreeing to another amnesty to those people in this country illegally. On the last occasion it was the Fraser Government that declared an amnesty in Australia. It was the Fraser Government with the support of the Labor Opposition which said that that would be the last amnesty in Australia. I want to reiterate that point to the Parliament because I think that the Parliament agrees that amnesties are not the answer to an orderly immigration policy. Therefore, I want everyone to know that the question of an amnesty is not one to be reviewed by the committee and that it is not part of its terms of reference. The other important feature of this review is that people should not think that it will be a review entirely concerning the ethnic communities in this country. This is a matter that concerns all Australians. All Australian community groups will be invited to participate by communicating to the committee, in written or verbal form, their views on the impact of migration-the numbers of migrants, the social impact and the future population projections for this country. I believe that this matter is not just a question for the Government. The only successful immigration policy this country can have is one that has the overwhelming support of the Parliament. It will be my aim and the aim of the Government that, arising out of the review and the production of the Green Paper, the criteria laid down after this exercise will see us well through to the year 2000. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer that on 17 October 1985 in this chamber he stated: I cannot believe that any leader of a major party would come into this Parliament and seek to have restored one of the most blatantly abused tax shelters in the system where people can minimise their income by running interest cost deductions against property. To try to defend this behaviour, this outrageous rort, on the basis that it helps some renters is extraordinary. The great majority of rental properties are not affected by negative gearing and negative gearing has not succeeded in providing an adequate number of rental properties. I ask the Treasurer whether this is still Government policy. Mr KEATING —The question, of course, begs a comment on recent Press reports and the possible content of tonight's Budget, which will need to remain until then. However, let me make a few points in the abstract about costs and offsetting costs within the tax system. Let me simply say that before the introduction of capital gains tax in this country, the principle of deductions for interest was recognised by the Commissioner of Taxation on the principle that money spent in the pursuit of income was deductible. But the deductions were recognised and validated by the Commissioner on the basis that a taxable income would be brought to tax in the final analysis. Of course, as we know, under the arrangements which existed under the former Government there was no capital gains taxation and therefore all that ever happened was that there were massive losses to the revenue by the deductions of interest and costs for all manner of property, but of course, there was no taxable income because the taxpayers sold the properties off free of capital gains and realised the capital gains free of tax. That position no longer obtains in this country. It no longer obtains since the Government introduced a proper, well-constructed and thought through capital gains tax. I make two further points. The Government has introduced a number of changes to the tax system which follow the general principle of offsetting deductions. The Government introduced the offsetting of group losses between companies within a group in establishing the principle that crossed deductions were entirely appropriate so long as they did not distort the shape of a company. The Government made the decision to remove the quarantining of farm income because of the problems between diffe-rentiation of on-farm and off-farm income in what were otherwise primary industry activities. Honourable members may recall that the Go-vernment published a paper prepared by the Treasury on the question of interest deductions as they relate to the acquisition of shares which came down strongly in favour of the principle that offsetting deductions should be available, particularly in the presence of a capital gains tax. I say that only by way of background because I cannot give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition an indication at this stage about the express matter he raised because it will be attended to in some way in the Budget tonight. Mr PRICE —Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade inform the House of the detention and subsequent release of Mr Pantelich in Yugoslavia? Will he also advise whether the Government was able to contribute in some small way to the welcome outcome of that case? Mr HAYDEN —Mr Pantelich is an Australian citizen of Yugoslav birth and, accordingly, has dual nationality. He was recently arrested and charged in Yugoslavia for a number of offences covering, in some cases, conduct in Australia which would not have been an offence here and, in other cases, conduct in Yugoslavia which, if it had occurred here, would not have been an offence here. The Government made vigorous representations over an extended period in defence of Mr Pantelich's rights and I was somewhat under the impression, but presumably it was an illusion, that we did contribute something towards his release. I laboured under that illusion until about a week or so ago when I heard a radio interview between the honourable member for North Sydney and an interviewer who seemed to be named John Spender, both of whom spoke about the same person. It seemed that they were agreed that he had done a splendid job, and had done so all by himself, in having Mr Pantelich released from prison. So I am very pleased to be able to put the record straight and to acknowledge credit where it is due. But perhaps honourable members will understand my misapprehension when I point out why I thought that we had made at least some small contribution. We have an ambassador in Belgrade named Mr Hoyle who, not on the odd day but for weeks, had been making representations, fulfilling Government directions about defending the rights of Mr Pantelich; we have staff in Belgrade, including consular staff, who complemented Ambassador Hoyle's work; and we have a number of people in Canberra, some of whom are in the branch which handles Europe and some of whom are in the consular and legal branch, who devoted a great deal of attention to this matter, I repeat, not over a few days but over an extended period. So I think that honourable members would forgive me for presuming, wrongly as it would appear, that we had something to do with it. I gather that the honourable member for North Sydney, in his mild mannered way, fixed it all up. Accordingly, I trust that he can contact Mr Pantelich who was foolish enough to allow himself to be quoted in yesterday's Australian as saying that he believed he would still be in prison without the Australian Government's support. He went on to say: If I had not had the Government of Australia behind me I would not have been freed. I will quote from a note sent by Dr Harris, the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, from Belgrade covering comments which Mr Pantelich made to him on 11 September in Belgrade: Mr Pantelich who appeared overwhelmed by his sudden release and by the attentions of the media expressed his deep gratitude to Dr Harris for all that the Australian Government had done to assist in his case. He did not know how to thank Dr Harris enough. All I can say is: how ungrateful Mr Pantelich is for not once mentioning the honourable member for North Sydney. However, the honourable member for North Sydney-- Mr Howard —This is pathetic. Mr HAYDEN —It gets better. I practised it before the mirror this morning. I think an assessment can be reliably made as to the impact the honourable member for North Sydney made in Belgrade when we consider, firstly, the people he aimed at reaching to address on this matter; secondly, the people he actually reached; and, thirdly, the people he said he reached. There is a substantial variation. I wish the honourable member for North Sydney would smile. The honourable member for North Sydney asked to see the Yugoslav Foreign Minister, the Federal Minister for Justice, the Serbian Minister for Justice, Pantelich's lawyers and the United States Embassy. Mr Griffiths —He saw the cab driver. Mr HAYDEN —He was probably briefed by the cab driver, and he has not paid the cab driver any of the fees. When he came back he said to the media that he saw senior members, anonymously described, of the Yugoslav Government-the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Assistant Minister for Justice. In fact I will tell the House whom he did see: he saw an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at assistant secretarial level; he saw an official of the same sort of level in the Federal Secretariat for Justice; he saw an official of the US Embassy; he saw the Serbian Orthodox priest; and he saw Pantelich's lawyer. The honourable member for North Sydney is the one who complained to the Australian mission in Belgrade that the level of officials he saw was far inferior to that which he expected to see, given his status. What he is saying by implication is that, if he was to be taken seriously and be influential, the status of the people he saw and the officials with whom he dealt was far less than was appropriate. Without making this relevant to the particular case, all I can say is that there are ways of conveying diplomatic messages, and I think this may have been one. If he says that the status of these people was less than appropriate in order for him to exercise influence in these matters, it is marvellous that he alone was able to bring about this result. So the mild-mannered honourable member for North Sydney wishes to be the Clark Kent of the Australian Parliament. Clark Kent used to pop out from behind telephone booths. The honourable member for North Sydney leaps out from behind the occasional international airline ticket to complain selectively about particular matters. He has not complained about the plight of Miss Gillian Bertwistle, who faces a quite outrageous situation in Greece. The Australian Government is handling that. He has not complained, as far as I can see, about the plight of George and Hannah Holec and their baby. This Czechoslovak couple came to Australia and are now seeking a reuniting with their infant. The Australian Government is making representations on these matters, and no doubt, after they are all over, presuming we are successful, we will again labour under the misapprehension that we did it all by ourselves. We will then discover that the honourable member sent a letter to the respective capital cities of the countries where these problems have arisen and fixed them all up. The fact is that the Australian Government made representations on this matter effectively over a long period and the intrusion of the honourable member for North Sydney in the initial stages put Mr Pantelich's situation in grave peril. Mr HOWARD —Will the Prime Minister give an unequivocal guarantee to the House that personal information on Australian citizens to be stored in the Government's identity card computer system will be totally secure from interference, leakage and publication? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I observe that over recent times there has been an extraordinary number of unfounded allegations about the lack of security that will attach to the data associated with the Australia Card. Let me make it clear, Madam Speaker, that there will be no leakage, release of information of the sort that is referred to in the question by the Leader of the Opposition. I make it quite clear that there will be no secret files containing personal information on Australia Card subjects. It should be understood that individuals will have access to all information about themselves, including access to information relating to program management of their card. That will be free of charge once a year. The Australia Card Register will contain only basic identifying data such as name, address, postal address, date of birth, sex, whether permanent or non-permanent resident and digitised photograph and signature as well as the administrative details necessary to assist the authority in the management of the program. That will be limited to such things as where and when such cards were issued, details of any replacement cards and details of amendments made to information held on the Register. Knowledge of the structure of the Australia Card database would be absolutely useless to so-called hackers without an ability to access that database. This will be prevented by a range of security and protection measures which include non-transmission of information via public telephone lines which could be intercepted by unauthorised users, the encryption of all data transmissions, thereby making the information meaningless in the unlikely event that it were intercepted. Also, sophisticated security software will be used to control and record access, to authorise inquiries and to update the Register. There will be no other computers linked to the Australia Card Register. The only access will be through terminals connected to a dedicated communications network. In those and in other ways there will be total security of the information associated with the Australia Card. I repeat, as I said before the House resumed, that this Government remains committed to proceed with the implementation of the Australia Card because it is the only system of integrity which will ensure bringing an end to the tax cheats and the welfare frauds and bringing in a net $1 billion almost to the public revenue. Mr SCIACCA —Has the attention of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories been drawn to the stories and editorials in today's Courier-Mail and Daily Sun concerning the Queensland Government's decision to allow Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) Australia to build a caustic chlorine plant on a property previously owned by the Commonwealth in the Brisbane suburb of Lytton, which is in my electorate of Bowman? Is the Commonwealth Government satisfied that all environmental safeguards and studies have been met in regard to this proposal given the Queensland Government's sudden turnaround on the issue after the Federal election? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for Bowman for his question, the level of which I am sure will be typical of the honourable member's future career in this House. I am aware of the reports in today's Press in Queensland about the irresponsible decision made by the Queensland Premier. Yes, I am concerned, as the honourable member is, about first of all the environmental difficulties posed by this proposition and also the danger to the health of people living in Lytton which, I might tell honourable members, is in the metropolitan residential area near the mouth of the Brisbane River. The Lytton industrial site is only 1 1/2 kilometres from large residential estates. The proposition would never have been allowed if it had come under the purview of the Commonwealth Act-the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In what is a typical, cavalier, Queensland fashion, the Premier is railroading this decision. The only environmental impact study was conducted by ICI, the proponent of the plant. No independent study of the effects of the proposition has been put into place. The environmental impact study is certainly inadequate. In an article in the Daily Sun on 31 August it was admitted that there were serious risks associated with this project. No consideration has been given to alternative proposals or alternative sites. As I understand it, Denison Resources, a local Australian-owned company, is proposing to build a much bigger chlorine plant in Blackall, way out in the sticks. That has not been allowed. ICI, a multinational company, has been given this extraordinary permission to build the plant in Brisbane. The Deputy Premier, Mr Gunn, has even offered an alternative site in his own electorate of Somerset, which is west of Brisbane. Of course, he has also been denied that opportunity. The honourable member made a very good point. In the Federal election period the matter was pushed aside. People were told, `Don't you worry about that.' But now that the election is over, the Premier has made this irresponsible decision to put this chlorine plant in a residential area. He has alienated his own Party. Sir Robert Sparkes has distanced himself from the proposition. Even the Minister for Industry and Technology, Mr McKechnie, who is in no way a genius, has said, `It is not politically acceptable to have the plant on Lytton Industrial Estate'. How right he is. This is a disgraceful decision that has been made by an arrogant and increasingly senile Queensland Premier. It is no wonder that the Australian Labor Party now holds more than half the seats in Queensland. All of the characters opposite who represent fairly marginal seats in Queensland should have a serious look at the behaviour of their Premier, because on this occasion he has certainly exceeded any reasonable bounds in allowing this proposal to go through. It is a deplorable decision to allow an industrial proposition of this type to be built in such a position. It will pose grave environmental dangers. More importantly, it poses great risks to the health of the people living nearby. The quicker that this decision is reversed by the Queensland National Party, and the quicker that the Queensland Premier, increasingly stupid as he is, is made to retract, the better. Mr TUCKEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications. What is the difference between a normal Telecom Australia line and the `landline' that Senator Ryan and, now, the Prime Minister say will be used to interconnect the various computers and computer terminals that will carry confidential information accessible by the ID card number? Is the line referred to by Senator Ryan and the Prime Minister in fact a dedicated Telecom line? Will this line still require linkage through Telecom exchanges? Would such a line be more easily identified by interested persons because of its dedicated status? Can the Minister guarantee the absolute security of such a connection in light of recent evidence of phone tapping? Mr DUNCAN —I am happy to answer this question. In fact, I am delighted that the honourable member for O'Connor was the first person to address a question to me. I think that it shows a degree of concern on his part, which I appreciate. However, the question was of such a detailed nature that I intend to go away, do my homework and get a very detailed reply for him, so that all the technical details can be taken into account and I can provide him with all the details that he wants. I am sure that the people of Australia would want a detailed reply to that sort of question, and not a simple off-the-cuff answer. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. There are 16 million Australians wanting this answer. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will sit down. It is not a point of order and he knows it. Mr LEE —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware of the widespread concern in the veteran community following a recent Federal Court of Australia decision on the entitlements of totally and permanently incapacitated veterans over the age of 65? Can he advise the House what action the Government intends to take to ensure that elderly TPI veterans do not lose their disability pensions? Mr HUMPHREYS —I am very pleased that the honourable member for Dobell has asked me my maiden question. I can assure honourable members that he is a very hard-working and dedicated member of this Parliament. Actually, he sent me a telegram on the very issue on which he has asked a question. Mr Beale —Will you put it on notice? Mr HUMPHREYS —I do not intend to put it on notice. I am certainly aware of the widespread concern in the veteran community and the widespread concern of all honourable members on both sides of the chamber, especially the honourable member for Farrer, who is now shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. I had the pleasure of addressing the executive committee of TPI pensioners in Canberra and I was informed in no uncertain circumstances that if we did not fix up the problem pensioners would be marching on Parliament House with fixed bayonets. I can assure honourable members that I was very concerned about that so I reported the matter to the Prime Minister. I must say also how appreciative I am of the support I have received in the Cabinet on this very issue. The recent Federal Court decision threw into doubt the entitlements of TPI and intermediate rate pensions to be paid for life by implying that veterans might cease to be entitled once they passed the retiring age. I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister announced the Government's decision at the Returned Services League national conference on 31 August 1987. The Government will not allow the Federal Court's interpretation of the new Veterans' Entitlements Act to stand. An amendment to the legislation will be introduced in the Parliament as soon as possible so as to ensure that TPI and intermediate rate pensions, once granted, continue to be payable indefinitely, except where there is evidence of fraud, a significant improvement in health or a resumption of employment. The Government's decision reflects a strong commitment to ensuring that the veterans receive what is due to them as compensation for their services to the nation. Mr DOWNER —Madam Speaker-- Government members interjecting- Mr DOWNER —I am a great favourite of the Australian Labor Party! I refer the Minister for Community Services and Health to the penalty provisions of the identity card legislation and remind him that, under the legislation, if someone employing a baby-sitter fails to pass the baby-sitter's identification card number to the Australian Taxation Office, the employer of the baby-sitter will be fined the incredible amount of $20,000. Why has the Government chosen absurd and draconian penalties of this kind to enforce legislation which is, in itself, a major threat to civil liberties? Dr BLEWETT —The honourable member for Mayo may not know that under the existing taxation laws there are significant penalties for not reporting in these matters. In minor matters, such as baby-sitting and housekeeping, the tax laws have always behaved in a tolerant way. Opposition members-Ah! Dr BLEWETT —I simply repeat for all members of the Opposition that they should go back and read the laws that presently exist in these areas. The reason that there are penalties in the present tax laws and penalties in the Australia Card law is to deal with significant cases of abuse. If there is significant abuse the penalties are available. When honourable members on that side of the House are not fantasising for the public they know that these issues have always been matters of administrative discretion. As under the present tax laws they are matters of administrative discretion so under the Australia Card law they will be matters of administrative discretion. Mr GEAR —Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware of claims by the Australian Privacy Foundation that there will be a secret section of the Australia Card Register? Can the Minister inform the House as to the accuracy of such a claim? Dr BLEWETT —The allegation that there would be a secret file on the Australia Card Register is simply another kind of fantasy, another kind of alarm that people seek to spread about the Australia Card. We saw a moment ago an effort to blow up a minor matter of tax administration into the same order. There would be no secret file containing personal information on the Australia Card Register. It seems that the Privacy Foundation in New South Wales, which apparently is the source of this latest fantasy, has discovered after reading the legislation for some 12 months-it has been around for something like 12 months-that under sub-clause 25 (2) of the Australia Card Bill the Health Insurance Commission may include on the Australia Card Register such information as is reasonably necessary for the efficient performance of its function, and by that is meant recording on the Register such things as the time a card was issued and any lost card and report of that. In order to have an efficient administration of the program those program management points would be made on the Register. Of course, all that information is available to the person to whom the card relates. So it is possible for a person to get that information, automatically once a year or at some other stage, if he or she requires it, for a small fee. Nothing on the Register is on a secret file. It is all openly available to the card subjects themselves. I also point out that the material on the Australia Card Register is the sort of identifying material that most Australians provide at least once a month to some private or public bureaucracy. They fill in a form once a month. It is rare for Australians during a month not to have to fill in some identifying information such as their name, address, and date and place of birth. That is the basic material contained on the Australia Card Register plus the management details to which I have just referred, both of which are available to any card subject who wishes to get that information. In addition, there are further protections to that Register. Under the Act, the logging of any access by any bureaucrat to that Register is recorded and that information too will be available to the individual. As the Prime Minister pointed out, there is the use of sophisticated security software to control and log that access so that no bureaucrat can make those inquiries without his name and that of the agency turning up on the Register so that people can get that information. That should make a much better provision of security about government files than anything previously offered in this country. Finally, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, extra security devices such as the scrambling of the information to prevent unauthorised access will be used. Mr McGAURAN —I wish to ask a question on behalf of Australia Card subjects, and it is directed to the Minister for Science and Small Business. Will he advise the House how Australia's 650,000 small businesses can authenticate the cards presented by new employees so as to avoid the $20,000 fine and keep to their statutory obligations? How is it to be done? Dr BLEWETT —Madam Speaker-- Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: this is a matter related to small businesses. Why is the Minister for Community Services and Health answering? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Minister will decide which questions he answers. The matter is not to do with the honourable member for O'Connor or with the Chair. It is a matter for the Minister. May I point out that, as well as Party leaders being vigilant in ensuring that the Chair is fair and impartial, they should also ensure that their members behave with decorum in the House. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, with the greatest of respect, may I say to you that, to start off the proceedings of the new Parliament, just because there has been a vigorous exchange between the Government and the Opposition and just because they do not-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I am making it clear as we start off the new Parliament that I appreciated your comments yesterday. I believe that you have a responsibility to be vigilant about what the Chair does. However, there is an equal responsibility on the three party leaders to ensure that the Chair is not continually ignored when asking that members cease interjections, and that goes for both sides of the House. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, I have absolutely no argument with that as a matter of principle, but the use of that admonition at this stage of the proceedings implies that in some way the Opposition has not been behaving correctly or with decorum. I will say, with the greatest respect to you Madam Speaker, that I do not accept one iota of that admonition. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may not accept it, nevertheless the admonition is for all members of the House. Dr BLEWETT —The question asked by the honourable member for Gippsland related to the authentication of cards by small business employers. That is very much a task which falls within the Australia Card program, so it is appropriate that I answer the question. It also gives me the opportunity to deal with another misconception about this matter which has been spread widely. First, the only task of the employer is to request a card and a card number. If that is given it is a responsibility of the employer to provide that information when he provides other details of tax to the Australian Taxation Office. If the employee does not produce a card to the employer all that the employer is required to do is take out tax at the top rate so that the tax system is secure. He is not required to get a number from a person who refuses to give a number. There are other sanctions to protect the income tax system in those situations. If the employer, for instance, is given a forged card or forged number the responsibility rests with the employee, not the employer. Mr LINDSAY —Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade inform the House of the attitude of the Australian Government to the recent referendum on independence conducted in New Caledonia? Mr HAYDEN —The referendum which was held in New Caledonia over the weekend was certainly held according to principles stipulated by the French administration. Whether it will be regarded as an authentic expression of the aspirations of a pluralistic society is yet to be established. My inclination is that pressures from the independence movement within New Caledonia, the Kanak movement, will continue to be manifested not in spite of but because of the outcome of this referendum. The referendum was altogether too stark in the alternatives it offered: either to remain with France or to be cast adrift. The referendum held by France on 13 September was also inconsistent with the requirements of the United Nations for the processes for decolonisation as laid down by the Committee of Twenty-four. It was inconsistent for these reasons: co-operation with the United Nations was refused; there was no political education regarding the options; there was no dialogue among various parties; the choice was restricted, as I mentioned, to two quite stark options; punitive consequences were implicitly, and occasionally explicitly, attached to the independence option; and the French Government campaigned hard for its preferred option, continued attachment to France. A new statute has been foreshadowed following the referendum but the form of that statute has not been elaborated by the French Government. It seems unlikely that the conflicting positions of the two principal bodies of opinion in the territory will be changed by the referendum. This is a matter of direct concern to the Australian Government. It concerns matters which arise in our immediate region of interest, a region in which we prefer to see stability and amity. We sincerely trust that these problems can be sorted out. We believe that they would have been sorted out satisfactorily if the earlier Fabius and Pisani plans, which provided for an option of independence in association with France, had been proceeded with. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.08) —I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition presenting forthwith an Australia Card Referendum Bill 1987 which, in conjunction with an amendment to be moved to the Australia Card Bill 1986, will require the proposed introduction of an Australia Card to be submitted to, and approved by, a referendum of the Australian people. There are five reasons why, in my view and in the view of the Opposition, this motion to suspend Standing Orders to permit me as Leader of the Opposition to introduce immediately an Australia Card Referendum Bill should be accepted by this House. It is perfectly clear to anybody in this Parliament and anybody observing this Parliament as a media commentator, as a card subject or, as I prefer it, as an Australian citizen, from today's Question Time that an identity card-and I will not dignify it until and unless I am forced by parliamentary procedure to do so with the description `Australia Card', which is a disgraceful use of the name of our nation to give the card some kind of cheap bipartisan dignity-is being rejected more and more every day by the majority of Australian people. All I can say to the Government is that if it believes the result of the last election was evidence that the majority of the Australian people support the proposed identity card, it is totally and completely deluding itself. The Government knows as well as I do that there is growing disquiet within its ranks about this legislation. The Government knows that groups that would normally support the Australian Labor Party on other issues are turning against the Labor party on this particular matter. But, worse than that, the Government knows that even if the legislation were to pass a joint sitting of this Parliament, ahead of the Government is 18 months or two years of absolute political purgatory in getting the Australia Card mechanism established. The Government knows that ahead of it over the next 18 months or two years there will be a series of guerrilla attacks; there will be warfare waged against the identity card legislation by those in the community who are totally opposed to it. It is worth reminding the House that in October of last year, when the Liberal and National parties in this Parliament decided to oppose the identity card legislation, our stand at that time was criticised by not only the Government but just about every major media outlet in the country. The conventional wisdom at that time was that the identity card legislation was a very good idea. Mr Simmons —It still is. Mr HOWARD —Of course, the honourable member's opinion that it is still a good idea stands very much alone. I wonder whether that view is shared by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent). I ask the honourable member for Calare whether he remembers what has been said by the honourable member for Hotham, who sits on the Government benches behind the Ministers who have introduced this legislation. He stated: I reject the necessity for the introduction of the card. That it is called the Australia Card is an exercise in cynicism in itself. Nothing can be more un-Australian than the need to prove one's identity on the call of an official, be it a politician or a bureaucrat. Those are not the words of a Liberal or National Party member of parliament-although every one of us on this side would echo those sentiments. I remind honourable members opposite that they are the words of the honourable member for Hotham-one of their colleagues. Honourable members know darned well that this issue is causing very deep divisions within their own ranks. They know that they have sold their own supporters a bill of goods on this issue. They know that when it was pushed through the Parliament in October and November of last year-when we in the Liberal and National parties almost alone with the Australian Democrats came out against the card-they thought they had everybody on their side. The Australian newspaper, in its editorial, criticised our stand against the card, saying that it was a far from brilliant move from the electoral point of view. That editorial said that it was a decision that would backfire. It said that we were behaving like the friends of tax avoiders. The Sydney Morning Herald said that we were being too clever by half. Most of the political correspondents in the Federal Press Gallery came out against our stand. That was 10 months ago. Now, in September 1987, the stand that we took then has been vindicated. Honourable members opposite only have to move around their electorates to see that is so. Honourable members opposite know, as well as do our own members, that they have lost the Australian public on the subject of the identity card. If the Government thinks that it can go ahead with this identity card in the teeth of mounting public opposition, if it really believes that it can introduce an identity card that no other common law nation in the world has introduced, if it believes that it can ram down the throats of the Australian public draconian penalties of between $20,000 and $100,000 for not properly reporting employment details, if it really believes it can introduce an identification database that will expose every Australian citizen to a potential invasion of privacy such as we have never before seen in this country, if the Government believes that it can get away with that-it really has totally lost touch with reality. The truth is that the great bulk of Government members know, deep down that, they are not on a winner with this issue and that the public is against it. We are saying to the Government: put aside all this phoney nonsense about mandates. If the Government really believes, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) keeps telling us, that the great majority of the Australian people want an identity card, if it really believes that it is in the interests of the Australian public to have an ID card and if it really believes that it will collect $1,000m of evaded tax by introducing an ID card, why does it not have a referendum? Why do we not go to the Australian public and have a clear, unvarnished vote? If the Government is so confident of its ground, why do we not have a vote on this issue and on this issue alone? The only reason that the Government is not prepared to accept that is that it knows that if it had a vote on the card it would lose overwhelmingly. The Government's smear campaign on the identity card has not worked. The Government is very good at running a smear campaign. It operates on the simple principle that if somebody disagrees with what it intends to do that person is either a crook or a tax cheat. Mr Simmons —That's right. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for Calare says, `That's right'. Everybody who was opposed to negative gearing was either a crook or a tax cheat. Yet tonight negative gearing is to be brought back. We know why it is being brought back. It is being brought back because Barrie Unsworth wants it brought back. It has absolutely nothing to do with tax morality or anything else. The same situation applies with the identity card. If a person is against the identity card it is not that he does not have legitimate privacy concerns and a legitimate concern about the size of government and that he does not genuinely believe that it may be possible to collect all of the evaded tax by using existing methods and procedures. No! If a person is against the identity card he is, ipso facto, as far as the Government is concerned, a crook or a tax cheat. I have to say to Government members that, according to their definition, there must be millions of crooks and tax cheats in the Australian community. By any measure of any politician with any experience, the majority of the Australian people have turned against the identity card. If the Prime Minister and Government members doubt our assessment of this, if they really believe that the Australian people have bought their argument about people opposing the card being the friends of tax dodgers, why do they not put that belief to a test at a referendum and not hide behind the argument that there is some kind of mandate out of the last election? That suggestion is invalid not only in terms of the number of votes cast but also on the simple proposition that when people vote at an election they do not vote on only one issue. The mandate theory of politics from the point of view of proper analysis has always been absolutely phoney. The one thing that would not be phoney would be if this Government had the guts to submit this proposal to a referendum. That is why there is urgency. It is clear from public concern and the atmosphere in the House today that the No. 1 political issue in Australia at present is the Government's ID card. The only way to resolve the issue and the only way, ultimately, to accept the judgment of the Australian people is for us to submit it to a referendum. If the Government is so sure of its ground, if it believes that it can nail us with the smear of being friends of tax avoiders and tax cheats, why does it not have the courage to take the proposal to a referendum? It will not do so because it knows that it would be overwhelmingly beaten. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! Is the motion seconded? Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.19) —I second the motion. The motion calls for the suspension of Standing Orders so that we can introduce a Bill to ensure that the whole question of the identity card will be subjected to proper scrutiny by the Australian people and that there be a vote by the Australian people. Why is the Government running scared? Barrie Unsworth now recognises that the card is no good. We know the left wing's views and we have heard the comments of the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) on the card. They think that the card is no good. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and a very substantive majority of the Australian electorate thinks that it is no good. There are three basic reasons why we see it essential that this measure go, by way of a private member's Bill, to a referendum to ensure that the Australian electorate at large can vote on whether or not there should be an identity card. Without any doubt the first is that the identity card proposal breaches the fundamental privacy of every Australian citizen. `Card subjects', we heard the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) call Australian people during Question Time. The Special Minister of State, Senator Susan Ryan, has said as far as privacy is concerned that messages through the computers will go into some sort of dedicated Telecom line so that they will not be subject to hackers. She can tell us that one again. Quite obviously, the very nature of the transfer of computer data involves the use of ordinary communications in such a way that they can be accessed. We all know the degree to which that happens. So in terms of privacy there is absolutely no doubt that the rights and privileges of ordinary Australians will be prejudiced by this legislation. The second quite fundamental reason it is necessary that Standing Orders be suspended and that we have a Bill to ensure that before the identity card proposal becomes law there is a referendum is the penalties within the legislation. We had a very interesting Question Time today. There were a series of questions to various Ministers, including some who were not allowed to answer. The poor old Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones)-- Mr Howard —The Treasurer won't let him answer and now the Minister for Community Services and Health won't let him answer. Mr SINCLAIR —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) will not let him answer anything to do with science and nothing to do with prices, and we found out today that he is not even allowed to answer anything in respect of small business. The poor old muted Minister for Science and Small Business has obscured the whole problem. If one is a small businessman or, as my colleague the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) put it, somebody employing a child minder to care for his children, unless he asks the employee to produce an identity card he might be subject to a penalty of up to $20,000. If an employer hires a cardless person, he or she can be fined up to $20,000. We should remember that that is the maximum penalty, but the person can also be gaoled as a result of not paying the fine. What will this Government do to thousands of ordinary Australians conducting their ordinary affairs around the country? It will gaol them if they do not produce their ID cards. So the second reason it is essential to have a referendum is the penalties-the obnoxious character of the penalties, the degree to which they intrude on the ordinary affairs of Australians and the extent to which they are grossly excessive. The card will impose undue obligations on the way in which the ordinary men and women of this country conduct their affairs. The third and quite fundamental reason we see it as essential that this Bill be allowed introduction and passage is that the cost benefit analysis, as revealed by the committee examination of the whole proposal before it was introduced, shows that the Government, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and all his Ministers are totally deluding the Australian people in terms of the benefits that are supposed to result from it. We all know that it is not designed to cover in any way tax rorts or social welfare fraud; the whole concept is really to regiment the Australian society. There will be 2,000 more public servants. We know that the cost of introduction will continue until the first time the card can be applied, which we understand is three or four years hence. So the whole concept is costly, it will not achieve what the Government seeks, it is grossly abusive of personal privacy and the penalties are excessive, and the Government should put it to the people by way of referendum. We are now in our second parliamentary sitting day. The Government has come to us saying that it has a mandate. Why is it so concerned, if it has a mandate, about putting this proposal to the people? The Bill was not voted on by the people at the election; it should now be voted on. For that reason I urge the Government to accept the measure that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has put to us. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.24) —I have listened to the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), and I am not persuaded to adopt the course they offer. As honourable members would know, when these sorts of tactics are used by the Opposition it means that matters of public importance do not come on. The Opposition is wasting the time of the Parliament, and I think it is just a technique adopted to stop the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) speaking. I just have that feeling. It is very good to see a defeated army coming back from the war so frisky on the first day. As I understand it-I could be wrong-the judgment of the Australian people on 11 July was that the Hawke Government should continue, and should continue with an enlarged majority. For those new honourable members who were not here previously, this means that we set the agenda for the Parliament, we put the legislation forward, we decide what business will be dealt with each day. It is really asking something of us on the first day of normal debate after an absolute landslide victory for the Labor Government-we are taking up half the Opposition benches with more Labor members-to ask us to hand over the business of government to the Opposition. The other amazing feature of asking us to do this today is that the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, and the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England, have today, after two major debates on the identification card, made their first contribution on it. Neither of them thought it was important enough to speak in the debates in the Parliament previously. Honourable members know what the Leader of the Opposition is like; he crumbles at the slightest bit of pressure. I think some of the theories being put forward about why the Opposition was defeated on 11 July are absolutely outrageous. Some people have been so audacious as to say that the Leader of the Opposition had something to do with it. I think that is terrible! I think it is absolutely right that Opposition members should put all the blame on Joh and let it rest there and go on convincing themselves that somewhere under the tree of knowledge that Sir Robert Menzies left them the honour- able member for Bennelong is still leading them to that great victory somewhere in the future. Mr Rocher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I was under the impression that we were debating a motion to suspend Standing Orders so that the Leader of the Opposition could proceed forthwith presenting an Australia Card Referendum Bill 1987. The Minister has not addressed the question in his later remarks and I ask that you get him back on to the question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The Minister, as I understand it, is speaking to the reasons why the Government does not intend to allow the suspension of Standing Orders and is quite within the terms of the question. Mr YOUNG —If I may say so, Mr Deputy Speaker, I sat with great patience waiting for the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party to give some reason why Standing Orders should be suspended rather than debating the ID card. Obviously the honourable member for Curtin, who just raised a point of order, was not listening or thought he could sympathise with the breach of Standing Orders by the Leader of the Opposition but raise a point of order only when a Government member is speaking. The practice should work with a little tolerance both ways. I had to listen to all the rubbish coming from the other side. I am just reminding honourable members opposite that the Leader of the Opposition thought the ID card was such an important political issue that when the matter was raised by way of legislation twice previously in the last Parliament he did not speak on it. That is how important he thought the legislation was. Mr Rocher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. For the information of the Minister, I did not speak either because he gagged us all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Curtin will resume his seat. Mr Rocher —We were not allowed to debate that measure in this chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Curtin. Mr YOUNG —If the honourable member for Curtin had spoken I would have listened to him but the honourable member for Bennelong is something else again. I must say that this is a rather extraordinary tactic to adopt. The discussion of a matter of public importance has been proposed. The honourable member for O'Connor has been appointed by the Opposition to be the spokesman on the ID card. He has been cut off in mid stream after proposing the matter of public importance debate by the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Honourable members opposite know how the Parliament works. Mr Sinclair —No, he will continue to speak later. Mr YOUNG —As generous and tolerant as I am as Leader of the House, I cannot on the first normal business day back say to the Opposition, `Yes, take over the business of the Parliament. Take up as much time as you like in debating the suspension of Standing Orders and then give another couple of speakers a go on the matter of public importance'. Of course there are many questions about the legislation surrounding the ID card. As members of parliament we receive them in our electorates every day. Of course people want more information. The matter has a much higher profile than it has had previously. The debate in the chambers of parliament now are whether the questions can be answered adequately. That is what the debate in the Parliament is about. Mr Downer —That was in Question Time. Mr YOUNG —The legislation will be introduced. During Question Time the honourable member for Mayo asked about a baby-sitter. I would be interested to know how he fills out the taxation form for his present baby-sitter. Does he have a baby-sitter? Does he pay the baby-sitter? Does he take out the tax? Does he adhere to the laws that are already laid down as far as taxation is concerned? I no longer have babies; I no longer have a baby face. Talk about the height of ridiculousness! It is no wonder that the honourable member for Mayo is ensconced three rows back from the front bench. He did not last long on the front bench. The debate will take place in the House of Representatives. Perhaps it will not be for as long as honourable members opposite would like, to enable all of them to speak, because we have debated the matter twice. It will go to the other chamber, where there is a mixture of political views. The Senate will debate it. I understand that about 20 hours has been allocated for the second reading debate there so that people can pose questions and have answers given to them in the process of the debate. That is what the Parliament is about. In regard to the referendum, if the honourable member for Bennelong ever became Prime Minister we would have a referendum every Saturday. He could not govern without one, because he bends all the time. The slightest pressure sends him racing to the airport to see Joh, John Elliott or somebody else, in order to try to keep the ship of state together, because he has always crumbled. He can never stand up to any of these issues. The only reason that he now makes his first contribution to the ID card debate is that he has looked at the latest polls and says, `They're changing a bit'. He is following the crowd. He is the Leader of the Opposition, but he thinks he can wait for the crowd to go past, join the back of the crowd and yell out to the crowd, `Wait for me; I'm your leader'. That is the classic style of leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. I continually hope and pray that honourable members opposite observe and analyse their politics in the same way that they have done since 11 July. For God's sake, do not blame the Leader of the Opposition for anything that took place on 11 July. Leave him there forever. That will ensure the continuation of a Labor government in this country for a long time. The Leader of the Opposition cannot even handle the pressures of his shadow Ministry. He has to try to juggle things among the wets, the dries and the States. He has no strength or guts. He crumbles all the time. He is unable to reach the level of political leadership that is needed in this country. Of course, as he said on 11 and 12 July, `If it weren't for Joh, I'd be Prime Minister'. Poor old Joh! All that Joh did was to threaten him in January. The Leader of the Opposition absolutely crumbled. He jumped on a plane, went to see Joh, came back and told the Parliament, `Joh and I have a lot in common. We're going down the same path. We're going round the corner and down the path. We all know where we are going'. That was the explanation for his political leadership in February. Of course, he faltered in July. Now he wants to blame Joh for everything. In addition, having led the Opposition to the greatest defeat in contemporary Australian politics-the greatest defeat that the Liberal and National parties have suffered-he wants honourable members opposite to sit there like dummies and blame somebody else. I say to members of the Opposition: Good luck to you. I do not know what they are thinking about or what observations they have made regarding 11 July; it is beyond me. But what is not beyond me is the decision not to hand over the business of the Parliament. I am very sorry and I have sympathy for members of the Opposition. The frustrations of opposition must sit on their shoulders for another three years. That is a fact of life. We can no longer tolerate this intrusion, by way of juvenile tactics, into the very good administration of government by this side of the House. The day after the opening of the Parliament, members of the Opposition have to show that they have hair on their chests by moving for the suspension of Standing Orders. I give honourable members opposite a bit of advice: They should grow gradually. They should not peak too early. The next election will be held in three years time. They must win a lot more seats at the next election than they won at the last. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The Minister's time has expired. The time for the debate has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W.Goodluck, B. J. Webster, A. P.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Woods, R. L.Hewson, J. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. 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 Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charlesworth, R. I. Langmore, J. V.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. 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. Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Macphee, I. M. Brown, RobertSullivan, K. J. Morris, AllanRuddock, P. M. Duffy, M. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Pursuant to standing order 18, on behalf of the Speaker, I lay on the table the Speaker's warrant nominating the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Resolutions of the House providing for the registration and declaration of members' interests require the Speaker at the commencement of each Parliament, and at other times as necessary, to appoint an officer of the Department of the House of Representatives as the Registrar of Members' Interests. The Speaker has appointed Mr L. M. Barlin, Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives, to that position. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Pursuant to the resolution of the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984, on behalf of the Speaker, I present a report on the release of evidence and records of the House of Representatives and joint committees for the period 11 February 1986 to 5 June 1987. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —On behalf of the Speaker, I present the report and financial statements of the Reserve Bank of Australia for the year 1986-87, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon. This action is required of the Speaker pursuant to the Reserve Bank Act. Copies of the report were forwarded to honourable members before the House met. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Joint House Department for the year 1986-87. Mr McVEIGH(Groom) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McVEIGH —On Thursday 4 June 1987 on the Carleton-Walsh Report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Richard Carleton stated that I had refused to appear on his program on the basis that I had advised him I had a 16 per cent majority. The facts of the matter are that the said Richard Carleton had endeavoured for many weeks to have me on his program. I refused him on each occasion. On the day in question he contacted my secretary on at least three occasions. I did not return his calls. I answered the telephone in my office at 7 o'clock and indicated to him that, because of previous engagements, time did not permit me to appear on his program. He asked me to pre-record. I refused to do this and indicated that my appearance on his program probably would not be beneficial in the present circumstances. He indicated to me that it would be valuable to me locally to appear on his program. I refused, stating that in my opinion my appearance on his program would not be beneficial to me in any way. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SPENDER —Earlier today, in answer to a planted question, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) made what might be described as an attack upon me. I felt as though I had been attacked by an angry rabbit, but perhaps that is neither here nor there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member might stick to where he has been misrepresented. Mr SPENDER —Nevertheless, in the course of his misrepresentations of my position he said a number of things which need to be corrected. First of all, he said that in the course of a radio program I said effectively that I had done it all by myself in having Mr Pantelich released from prison. I have never said that. I said that I had had a major effect or that I was a major element in it. I gave some credit to the Government, which reluctantly took a tougher position, and to others, including trade union people, who interested themselves in this matter. Secondly, the honourable gentleman also said on another matter-and I refer to this now-that `He has not complained about the plight of Miss Gillian Bertwistle who faces a quite outrageous situation in Greece'. In fact, I issued a Press release on the subject of Miss Gillian Bertwistle on 2 September 1987 in which I referred to the flaws in the present system as had been highlighted by the unfortunate case of Miss Gillian Bertwistle. I have since been in very regular contact with the Greek authorities to ascertain what her position was. As the honourable member will know, she is out on bail. So that is another misrepresentation. Amongst other things, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said that I had misrepresented the people that I had seen in Yugoslavia. He stated: When he came back he said to the media that he saw senior members, anonymously described, of the Yugoslav Government-the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Assistant Minister for Justice. In fact I will tell the House whom he did see: he saw an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at assistant secretarial level; he saw an official at the same sort of level in the Federal Secretariat for Justice; I have in my hand a note from the Australian Ambassador to me of 24 August 1987 in which he states: The following two appointments have been arranged for you tomorrow morning: Call on Mr Predrag Matovic, Assistant Federal Secretary (Minister) for Justice . . . Call on Mr Dusan Strbac, Assistant Federal Secretary, Federal Secretariat for Foreign Affairs. They were orally described to me as having the rank of Assistant or Deputy Ministers and the confirmation is to be found in this document which I seek leave to table. Leave granted. Mr SPENDER —The Minister then referred to an official of the American Embassy. The person that I saw was Mr Presel, Minister Counsellor of the Embassy of the United States in Belgrade and, in fact, the acting head of the United States Embassy in Belgrade. He also said that I saw some lawyers. Indeed, I did. I saw Mr Pantelich's lawyer in the appeal, Mr Perovic. I saw Mr Radulovic, a Sabac lawyer who had also acted for him. I spent a great deal of time with those people and I spent an hour and a quarter with each of the two Assistant Ministers, one of whom said very specifically to me-it was the Assistant Minister for Justice and no doubt if the record of the conversations come back to him this would appear-that my going to Yugoslavia had given greater weight to Mr Pantelich's position. The last thing I say about the matter is that in addition to those people I saw Father Rankovic, who is the editor of the Voice of the Church magazine of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Sabac, with whom Mr Pantelich had been working for about three months before he was arrested on 2 April, an arrest which seemed to occasion no public protest from this Government. This Government has never protested the claim of the Yugoslav Government to try Mr Pantelich for what he did in this country, which is a shameful error. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should stick to where he has been misrepresented. Mr SPENDER —As well as seeing that gentleman and as well as spending considerable time with Mr Perovic, who specifically said to me that he would welcome my presence at the hearing of the appeal which was to come on on the second day of my visit there-it could not, in fact, come on on that day because of an error made by the Yugoslav authorities and it was brought on the following day-I saw in New York Helsinki Watch which safeguards and oversees the Helsinki accords and in London I saw Amnesty International. The whole burden of this expert opinion was that the kind of political and public protest I was making was what was required in this sort of case. I commend to the Foreign Minister to get in touch with some of those people and talk to them about this kind of case. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will point out to the House where he was misrepresented. Mr SPENDER —I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that covers the waterfront. I was glad I was able to assist in securing Mr Pantelich's freedom. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel I should defend myself against these-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HAYDEN —I seek to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented by this noisy but ineffective paladin of the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will refer to members by their title. If the Minister claims to have been misrepresented he may proceed. Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) asks us to have confidence in his ability to lead in these matters, but after seven years in this Parliament he still requires a Repidex to find his way round the building. Why would we be expected to have confidence in the sort of presentation he would provide? Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It does not really matter what these mighty midgets say about one in this place, but let us have-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have drawn the Minister's attention to the fact that he should refer to members by their titles to ensure that the honourable member for North Sydney was treated with proper respect. I hope that he will not persist in causing this matter to continue. If the honourable member for North Sydney wishes to refer to the Minister he will refer to him by his title. Mr Spender —Yes, I will afford to him the same courtesy he affords to me. Mr Deputy Speaker, the point I wish to make is that I pointed out in some detail the way in which the Minister had misrepresented me. What he is seeking to do now is to have a little debate. If he wishes to debate the Pantelich matter and his handling of it, I will be delighted to debate it at any time, but he cannot misuse the forms of this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Minister has claimed to have been misrepresented. The Chair will hear the Minister on where he has been misrepresented. Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member for North Sydney claimed that I had misrepresented the level at which he had met representation in Yugoslavia. I would have to correct him on that. The facts are that the title `Minister' is used more easily and loosely in many Eastern bloc countries than would be the case here. My Department advises me that the level at which he was met was about First Assistant Secretary and that, according to the honourable member for North Sydney, was well below that which he thought appropriate. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister is simply debating the issue. He answered a specific question-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat unless he has a valid point of order. Mr Spender —The point is very simply this: what he is now seeking to do is to justify a case which he put here in Question Time. He is not seeking to show that he has been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. If the Minister is making a case that the honourable member for North Sydney has misrepresented him the Chair will hear him on that matter. Mr HAYDEN —Exactly. I am trying to correct and get accurate the facts on this matter. The First Assistant Secretary level is a level which the member for North Sydney described as inappropriate to the status which he thought he held in going to Yugoslavia for these consultations. The Yugoslavs explained that their more important people were away on holidays and they could not meet him. But if I could make this point quickly-- Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for North Sydney that we might hear the Minister. Mr Spender —I have, in fact, been further misrepresented by this gentleman. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair is having difficulty, with members on my left interjecting all the time, in trying to hear where the Minister claims to have been misrepresented. I think we are fast getting to the point where we have canvassed this matter far enough. Mr HAYDEN —If I can make the point, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not a question of indulgence; it is a personal misrepresentation. Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member for North Sydney has said that my descriptions were not only wrong, but were wilfully wrong. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take the same point of order again. Let us have a ruling upon it because the Minister is seeking to re-open the matter by way of an indulgence. He is entitled to give a personal explanation of where he has been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair is listening to where the Minister has claimed to be misrepresented. If we have fewer interruptions we may be able to deal with this matter in a moment or two. Mr HAYDEN —If the honourable member for North Sydney will sit down, I will give him my handkerchief and continue with the correction. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister will tell the Chair where he has been misrepresented. Mr HAYDEN —I will draw an analogy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister will get directly to the point. Mr HAYDEN —If the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) were to be the equivalent of the Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman from Yugoslavia coming to Australia, I would ensure that he was met at a higher level than a First Assistant Secretary. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise the same point of order. There are rules that apply to both sides of the House. I made a personal explanation pointing out the detail of the misrepresentation that had been made about me. The Minister is now seeking to justify some comments that he made and add a little bit of gratuitous abuse which is neither here nor there. He must keep to a statement of where he has been misrepresented in what I have said. He should not try to justify again the false statements that he has made about me. Mr HAYDEN —I will not proceed because I am too cruelly and painfully cut up by the personal explanation of the honourable member for North Sydney to be able to do so. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 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 Aldred,Mr Beazley,Mr Cohen,Mr Dawkins,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Holding,Mr Hunt,Mrs Kelly,Mr Langmore,Mr Lindsay,Mr McArthur,Mr Mildren,Mr O'Keefe,Mr Peacock,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shack,Mr Shipton,Mr Snow,Mr Spender,Mr Webster and Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. This cut has reduced the base for future adjustments. The Government has promised to restore the base as soon as economic circumstances permit. Having regard to state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government during the recent election campaign, your petitioners humbly pray that the Government restore the pension base in the 1987 budget. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. 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. by Mr Aldred,Mr Hawker,Mr Holding,Ms Jakobsen,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Kent,Mr McArthur,Mr Milton,Mr O'Keefe,Mr Peacock,Mr Reith,Mr Scholes,Mr Scott and Mr Snow. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Carlton,Mr Dobie,Mr Hawker,Mr Jull,Mr Moore,Mr Peacock,Mr Reith,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Carlton,Mr Dobie,Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Jull and Mr Moore. To the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle tax and social security fraud in the most cost-efficient and effective manner. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Millar,Mr Shack and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Page electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. 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 oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephone and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Duncan,Mr Jull,Mr Kerin and Mr Lindsay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) the large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Peacock and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned draw to the attention of the House of Representatives our concern at any change to the Australian Flag without first holding a Referendum to assess the opinion of the citizens of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to make no changes to the Australian Flag without reference to the citizens of Australia in the form of a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively sheweth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action nor permit any action to be taken to make any change without the approval of the Australian people by referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shack. 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 sheweth 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 N.A. Brown,Mr Cunningham and Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respect- fully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe 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 Andrew and Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That, as a consequence of the Hawke Government's decision to introduce a two dollar coin in 1988, Whereas the introduction of a one dollar coin was only a twofold increase in the maximum value of coinage, the elimination of the two dollar note represents a five-fold increase before a note can be used It will have taken eighteen years from decimalisation to go from the fifty cent piece as the highest value coin to a one dollar coin, but only a further four years to replace the two dollar note with a coin The lowest value paper note will be five dollars, forcing a dramatic increase in the weight of coinage carried and dislocation of the retail industry Many people, particularly the elderly, will mistake the value of the coin for that of another lower value coin just as many now confuse a one dollar coin with the ten cent piece That the addition of the two new coins in four years will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins and this will accelerate the cost of living, particularly the cost of food where numerous items are involved and future price rises would need to be five cent increases on every item on every occasion. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the proposed two dollar coin not be proceeded with by the Hawke Government, and no future Government proceed with this proposal for several years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Moore. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore and Mr Snow. The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T. in respect of X rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and its availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography peddlers are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use. Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Shack. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned strongly protest 1987 cuts to ESL programs for adults, conducted by the Adult Migrant Education Service (AMES) in New South Wales. Evening ESL classes have been cut by 25%. The ESL Correspondence course is to be abolished in a few months time. The English-in-the-Workplace Program has been reduced. Full-time on-arrival courses have been abolished. AMES day centres have had their teaching hours reduced. Community programs have lost teaching hours. We call for- (i) the full and immediate restoration of AMES teaching programs in New South Wales to at least 1986 levels and (ii) a substantial increase in funding to AMES programs in the 1987 budget, in view of the recently announced increases in the immigration intake. by Mr Webster and Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the intention of the Hawke Government to unionise independent contractors, sub-contractors, the self-employed, partnerships, sole traders and family businesses will remove the freedom of independent small business to- (a) set their own prices (b) work their own hours (c) control their own businesses (d) negotiate their own contracts; and will create impossible working conditions which will include the payment of- (a) union superannuation (b) compensation (c) payroll tax (d) annual leave loadings (e) public holiday loadings (f) PAYE tax deductions (g) limited incomes (h) inflexible awards and conditions; and (i) fixed hours of work. We the undersigned call upon the Government to restore incentive and opportunity to the Australian economy and to abandon these coercive measures. 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 the Parliament Assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Podiatrists are primary contact health practitioners, and as such require the highest standard of education. 2. The panel appears to be ill-informed about current podiatric practice, not only in Australia but throughout the world. The majority of recent graduates world-wide enjoy degree status, and Australian graduates should not be pegged to a standard lower than that of their overseas counterparts. 3. Considerable advances have been made in the field of podiatry, as well as associated medical sciences. Degree level education should be the minimum requirement for the analysis and evaluation of findings required in these fields, and to enable proper application to the needs of the patients. 4. From the industrial point of view, any health practitioner who has his qualifications downgraded will be severely disadvantaged in terms of reward for labour. Moreover, the practitioner's respect and credibility in the eyes of the other health practitioners will be reduced. 5. The panel was required to be constructed of independent members according to its own terms of reference, yet the panel consists of two medical practitioners out of a total of three. This could amount to one profession sitting in judgment of another. Your petitioners therefore pray that the above decision and recommendation are not implemented. by Mr N.A. Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We your petitioners, humbly showeth: That Australia is passively contributing to the escalation of the nuclear arms race and its misdirection of financial and human resources by allowing: The stationing of foreign military bases that deny our national sovereignty and have an aggressive first strike nuclear capability. The visits of nuclear armed and powered warships which have an active role in any nuclear war, and the potential for disastrous accidents whilst in port, which could never be covered by adequate port safety plans. The mining and export of uranium, which cannot be adequately safeguarded against being used in nuclear weapons, and testing. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House disengage Australia from the nuclear arms race by removing all foreign military bases from Australia; halting the visits of nuclear powered and armed warships of any foreign power; banning the mining and export of uranium, except for medical use. by Dr Charlesworth. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Pain, suffering and death are occurring as a result of the action of sections of the medical profession and private health insurance companies. People are being forced into private health funds and denied treatment until they do so. We call on the Government to take action against these doctors and private health insurance companies who are engaging in this practice. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fitzgibbon. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the undersigned believe freedom of thought, expression and choice is in jeopardy by the action of minority groups, to ban the sale and hire of video movies with a rating of ``R'' classification notwithstanding that such ``R'' movies could be shown at cinemas and on television. 2. That examples of titles of video movies with ``R'' classification include such well known movies as: ``One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'' (Jack Nicholson) ``First Blood'' and ``Cobra'' (Sylvester Stallone) ``Dirty Harry'' and ``Sudden Impact'' (Clint Eastwood) (`Make my day!') ``Midnight Express'' ``The Godfather'' ``Apocalypse Now'' (Marlon Brando) ``Crimes of Passion'' (Kathleen Turner & Anthony Perkins) ``Mad Max'' (Mel Gibson) ``The Deer Hunter'' (Robert DeNiro & Meryl Streep) 3. That we the undersigned believe that very little thought has been given to the devastating consequences of the economic impact on the video retailing industry of banning the sale and hire of ``R'' rated movies. 4. That we the undersigned are concerned video library members, all over the age of 18 years, many of whom are parents who believe that they should retain certain basic freedoms namely: (a) the right to view video movies of their own individual choice and not that imposed by Governments or minority groups; (b) The right to exercise their own discretion and control over their own childrens' viewing habits in lieu of the control sought to be imposed by Governments and minority groups. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that all legislation proposed to the banning of the sale of hire ``R'' classification video movies be immediately stayed pending: (a) an informed public debate on an issue which in essence involves freedom of thought, expression and choice; and (b) a thorough review is made of the economic impact of banning ``R'' classified movies on the video retail industry. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Holding. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal; Is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud, and to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud, Will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private matter, Will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the tax payer, and Cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned do respectfully showeth that pornographic material relating to children is deleterious to the health and welfare of children and society as a whole. We respectfully urge the Government to ban all child pornography from entering or from being produced in Australia. And your petitioners, in duty-bound, will every pray. by Ms Jakobsen. 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 destabilizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to out 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 weapons 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. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: In respect of Aboriginals in custody in Australia. 1. Their numbers in custody, as compared to the size of their population, are disproportionate to the number in custody in relationship to the rest of the community, by a factor of ten to one. 2. There are numerous Aboriginal deaths in custody. 3. Coronial inquiries into such deaths often return either verdicts of deaths by misadventure, heart attack or open verdicts. 4. Most often no blame or criticism is directed against the persons in custodial authority, despite the fact that they are the sole persons in attendance prior to and at the time of death. 5. Many of the deaths are associated with acts of violence and brutality, and often the deceased goes through a period of physical and mental suffering which is unrelieved by any medical treatment. We believe that the custodial systems as aforesaid are urgently in need of review and change. We call on the legislature to appoint a Federal Royal Commission for this purpose. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the proposal by the NCDC to construct a road along the eastern boundary of the National Botanic Gardens, adjoining CSIRO, to be detrimental to the area's ecology and to the peaceful enjoyment of nature, which the Gardens presently provide. We consider also that the proposed road, which is intended as a link to the new town of Gungahlin, increases the spoilation of the eastern side of Black Mountain, and its foothills, Bruce Ridge and O'Connor Ridge to the north, thus detracting from the amenity of the area and from the important bushland backdrop visible from inner north Canberra, which is the gateway to Canberra for many of its visitors. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: (a) The proposed road, along the National Botanic Gardens-CSIRO boundary and along the eastern side of Black Mountain and its foothills, be not built. (b) Alternative measures for access to Gungahlin be implemented instead. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with mismanagement of the Otway forests in Victoria, and we pray that: The constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant public expressions of concern, e.g. petitions by some action, e.g. referendums or committees of inquiry. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Australia Card will be an attack on the civil liberties and privacy of all Australians, will not achieve the claimed results, will provide a boost to organised crime and will be an enormous burden to the private sector, especially small business, already snowed under with government charges, taxes and red tape. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to abandon legislation for any type of national identity system and work toward building a society based on trust not suspicion. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House, actions of the Administration at the Defence Support Centre, Woomera, to disband the permanent Professional Fire and Ambulance Services currently provided and replace them with paid volunteer personnel. Your petitioners therefore pray that, the permanent Professional Fire and Ambulance Services remain for the protection and security of the citizens of Woomera. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to show restraint with equity. In particular, the decision to defer the November pension adjustments has resulted in a loss of $25.62 for a single pensioner and $21.36 for each married pensioner. The prospect of a further deferral of the May adjustment will result in the loss of another $35.10 for a single pensioner and $29.10 for each married pensioner. When you are scrimping to make ends meet, as is the case with many pensioners, you can't afford such a cut in living standards. Pensioners are looking for a new deal from politicians-more of the same is not good enough! Your petitioners request an immediate return to payment of May and November C.P.I. increases, and as is duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament call upon the Video Committee to release its recommendations to ban violent and damaging videos forthwith, and desist with the plan to re-impose X rated videos in all states wherein they have been banned. We entreat that the ACT be brought into line with other states in the banning of X rated videos, and that the Committee be not allowed to further delay its findings until after the polls. Because we have waited for a long-time, patiently, but are becoming alarmed over their evidence, p2770, 3008 and 2989, 2990, and call upon Parliament to end the Canberra connections. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest attention. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependent Spouse Rebate to $1851 per annum, and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income earning spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair. 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: The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's ``Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card'' which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: ``The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2000 public servants within the HIC [Health Insurance Commission], with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors, and updates information on every person in Australia.'' (Report, 4.55, page 148) Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia, and should the Bill be nevertheless re-introduced, that the Members of the House without regard for party should unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. that serving members of the Australian Defence Forces are frustrated and disillusioned at the continuing erosion of their conditions of employment, benefits and entitlements traditionally provided in recognition of the burden placed on themselves and their families by service in the Defence Forces; 2. that the Government's decision to discount by 2 per cent the retirement benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces has broken a trust that should exist between servicemen and the Government concerning the financial security of themselves and their families in retirement; 3. that the Government's decision to discount the retirement benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces has seriously lowered the morale and commitment of servicemen and will further increase the number of experienced servicemen leaving the Defence Forces. Your petitioners humbly pray that you establish or expedite reviews of conditions, salary, allowances, entitlements and benefits for servicemen and reverse the decision to discount by 2% retirement benefits for servicemen. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that; Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to repeal its anti-business, anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth that: 1. the effect of present Government policy in not returning a fairer share of road taxes and fuel excise to the community for road construction and maintenance is totally iniquitous; and 2. unless immediate action is taken to redress this funding situation, our road network will disintegrate beyond reasonable repair. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Mildren. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully request that Road Funding be increased to a level that will arrest the constant deterioration of the road system and enable roads and streets such as Sutton Street, between Sebastopol and Delacombe to be reconstructed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Mildren. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House, the Federal Government's proposal to legislate in favour of the introduction of the I.D. Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will vote against this legislation, and oppose it with every means at your disposal. by Mr Peter Fisher. Petition to the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned senior citizens and pensioners indicate that they are gravely concerned at the inadequate nursing home accommodation in the local government area of Maitland. We urgently request the establishment of an Allandale type nursing hospital in our area. by Mr Fitzgibbon. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Gwydir electorate respectfully: Condemn the Hawke Labor Government's high tax policies and state our total opposition to the introduction of any new taxes including a wealth tax on the net wealth of individual Australians and Australian business. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to not introduce an investment destroying wealth tax into the House of Representatives. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the people of the Upper Hunter. Respectfully showeth their concern regarding the proposal by Telecom to meter local calls. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House be aware of the immeasurable psychological damage this proposal will cause as it will inhibit the user because of the cost incurred, and we call on Telecom to abandon this proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell uranium to France, against ALP policy. The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell uranium to France. by Mr Milton. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Prime Minister to heed or explain adequately the legitimate concerns of the Australian people regarding the effects and effectiveness of the Australia Card. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, J.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Brown, Robert Macphee, I. M.Morris, Allan Sullivan, K. J.Duffy, M. J. Peacock, A. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.17) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of this session: Days and hours of meeting Standing order 40 be amended to read- 40. Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business- (a) in the first sitting week, on- Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m. Thursday, at 10 a.m. Friday, at 10 a.m., and (b) in the second sitting week, on- Monday, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m. Thursday, at 10 a.m. From the termination of the last sitting in the second week, the House shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on the third Tuesday after the termination, unless the Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each Member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting. The 4-weekly cycle will then be repeated. Adjournment and next meeting Standing order 48a be amended to read- 48a. At 10.15 p.m. on each Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 7.15 p.m. on each Wednesday and at 3.45 p.m. on each Friday the Speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question will be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting; and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted; Provided further that, if at 11 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 8 p.m. on a Wednesday or at 4.30 p.m. on a Friday the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p.m. or 4.40 p.m., as the case may be, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p.m. or 4.40 p.m., as the case may be, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. Routine of business Standing order 101 be amended to read- 101. The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Monday and Tuesday 1. Questions without notice. 2. Presentation of papers. 3. Ministerial statements, by leave. 4. Presentation of petitions. 5. Matter of public importance. 6. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday 1. Notices and orders of the day. 2. Grievance debate or general business (at 12.45 p.m. on Thursday only). 3. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 4. Presentation of papers. 5. Ministerial statements, by leave. 6. Presentation of petitions. 7. Matter of public importance. 8. Notices and orders of the day. Question time New standing order 101A be inserted- 101A. At approximately 12.45 p.m. on each Wednesday and Friday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that questions without notice can be called on at 2 p.m.: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Precedence for government and general business Standing order 104 be amended to read- 104. Unless otherwise ordered, government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of all other business, except that on the sitting Thursday alternate to the sitting Thursday to which standing order 106 applies, general business shall have precedence of government business commencing at approximately 12.45 p.m. At 2 p.m. the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House and forthwith call on questions without notice: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Grievance debate Standing order 106 be amended to read- 106. Notwithstanding standing order 105, the first order of the day, government business, on each alternate sitting Thursday commencing with the first sitting Thursday after the Address in Reply to the Governor-General's Speech has been adopted shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker ``That grievances be noted'' to which question any Member may address the House or move any amendment. The order of the day shall stand postponed until 12.45 p.m. and, if consideration of the question has not been concluded at 2 p.m., the debate thereon shall be interrupted and the Speaker shall put any questions then before the House, and, after resolution of those questions, shall forthwith call on questions without notice. General business and grievance debate New standing order 106a be inserted- 106a. At approximately 12.45 p.m. on each Thursday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that general business or grievance debate, as the case may be, can be called on: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Matter of public importance Standing order 107 be amended by omitting ``at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the House'' and substituting ``not later than 12 noon on each sitting day''. General business-priority to notices Standing order 109 be amended by omitting ``for 2 hours after the meeting of the House'' and substituting ``until 1.45 p.m.''. Petition to be lodged with Clerk Standing Order 112 be amended to read- 112. Every petition shall be lodged with the Clerk by 5 p.m. on the working day previous to the meeting of the House at which it is proposed that it be presented. Notices of motion Standing orders 133, 135 and 139 be amended to read- 133. Notice of motion shall be given by a Member by delivering a fair copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table. The notice must be signed by the Member and seconder and show the day proposed for moving the motion. A notice of motion which expresses a censure of, or want of confidence in the Government, or a censure of any Member, shall be reported to the House by the Clerk at the first convenient opportunity. 135. Subject to the provisions of standing orders 105, 133 and 211 the notices shall be entered by the Clerk on the Notice Paper, in priority of orders of the day, in the order in which they were received: Provided that- (a) general business notices shall be entered on the Notice Paper in such an order that, as far as possible, priority shall alternate between Opposition and Government Members, and (b) 2 notices received from the same Member shall not be placed consecutively in priority of a notice received from another Member during the same sitting. 139. A Member who has given a notice of motion may alter its terms by notifying the Clerk in writing within such time as will enable the alteration to be made in the Notice Paper. Initiation of bills Standing order 211 be amended to read- 211. (a) A bill (unless received from the Senate) shall be initiated by a motion for leave to bring in a bill specifying its title, by an order of the House, on the calling on of a notice of presentation, or in accordance with the provisions of standing order 291. (b) Notice of intention to present a bill shall be given by a Member by delivering a copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table. (c) A notice of intention to present a bill shall specify its title and the day for presentation, and shall be signed by the Member and, at least, one other Member. (d) The standing orders shall, to the necessary extent, be applied and read as if a notice of presentation were a notice of motion. Divisions and quorums In all standing orders, except standing order 200a, relating to the taking of a division or the counting of the House or committee for quorum purposes, any reference to 2 minutes be omitted and 3 minutes substituted. The alterations are very minor. In standing order 40 the reference to `Mr Speaker' is changed to `the Speaker', as ought to have been done some time ago. The second alteration is to modify standing order 135. It previously referred in part to general business notices received on the first day of meeting of a new session. As a sessional order can be effective only for the duration of the session in which it is passed, it is not possible for it to affect what happens on the first day of meeting of a new session. These words therefore have been omitted. We have a great deal of business to deal with. I have chosen not to make any significant changes to the sessional orders. However, honourable members who were in the previous Parliament would be aware that there is a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure which I was anxious to deal with prior to the closure of the last Parliament and which I will seek to have dealt with as quickly as possible in this Parliament. In view of our wish to have some of the new members make their maiden speeches today, I will not dwell on this; but I give the Opposition notice that the report which I will seek leave to table will be a subject for debate in this Parliament as soon as time can be made available. The ramifications are such that we will require the co-operation of both sides of the House, particularly backbenchers, in seeking to have better use of the Parliament. The Government has rejected many of the recommendations made by the Committee. Nevertheless, the report will be coming forward for debate and the Government has left many of the decisions to the Parliament. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.20) —The motion of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) carries forward the procedures that applied during the last session of the last Parliament. Because of the undertaking given by the Minister that the Government is ready to respond to the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, the Opposition supports the motion. However, I ask the Minister to provide ample time for the Opposition to consider the Government recommendations so that having studied those responses as well as the recommendations of the Procedure Committee we will be in a position to respond. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.22) —I will not delay the House because I appreciate the time constraints. However, I want to place on record my concern that the recommendations associated with the stabilised sitting schedule, albeit, I assume, referred to by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) in his response, in fact have not been picked up to operate for this Budget session of 1987. The recommendation on the stabilised sitting schedule which essentially involves sitting from Monday to Thursday and never on Fridays, with a two weeks on, two weeks off cycle of sittings, has now been before the Parliament for some considerable time-such length of time that one suspects it will get the old heave-ho and never be properly addressed by the Government. This is especially so since we have a forecast of sittings which once again does not pick up that stabilised sitting schedule pattern. I add that the formal papers circulated yesterday cast some doubt on the proposed sitting pattern. However, I understand that the original forecast sitting pattern circulated by the Leader of the House is the correct one. At least we know what days we are to sit. However, my objection is that the stabilised sitting schedule recommendation is rapidly being pushed to the sidelines. It should not be so treated. It should be addressed firmly and fairly by the House and by the Government at the earliest opportunity. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.23) —I seek leave to table the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and to have it incorporated in Hansard. I would like to say to the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) that the Government has looked at the recommendation of the Committee and that he will see from the report I am tabling that we do not accept the recommendation. I think that executive government does require one non-sitting day before a two-week sitting for its Cabinet meetings, Cabinet committees and so forth. That is a matter on which the honourable member may wish to deliver his views during the debate. If those views are very persuasive, we might adopt them; but they will have to be very different from those put forward by the Committee. Leave granted. The document read as follows- GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SECOND REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE-DAYS AND HOURS OF SITTING AND THE EFFECTIVE USE OF THE TIME OF THE HOUSE The attached schedule sets out the Government's response to the recommendations made in the second report of the Procedure Committee. The response was discussed with the Procedure Committee prior to the double dissolution. Before making some general observations about the report I should express the following qualifications to the Government's acceptance of changes. Any revised sessional orders which are adopted will be subject to review-the fact that they are being advanced as sessional orders indicates that they would be `on trial'. As well, I find myself in agreement with the Member for New England when he said during debate on the report that `it will really be quite necessary for us to review the whole of our procedures and practices in the new Parliament House'. We shall have to see how any revised orders which are adopted work, and we will have to consider further changes in the light of experience in the new Parliament House. Turning to the report, the principal area of agreement between the Government and the Committee is a recognition of the need to foster opportunities for private Members. The Government believes that the best opportunities for Members come in the course of debate on legislation before the Parliament, but it acknowledges the value of the other forums provided especially for private Members. The Government has worked to ensure that these other opportunities are not lost in the pressure of Government business, and a look at the statistics over recent years will demonstrate a steady improvement. The number of sitting days was increased in 1986 to 79, compared with 66 in 1985. The sitting pattern this year provides for 77 sitting days. The result has been that the Government has been required on fewer occasions to call on business at the expense of grievances, general business, the adjournment debate or discussion of matters of public importance, and has been able to accommodate lengthy debate on the more significant pieces of legislation coming before the House. I note also in passing that the Government, like the Committee, is conscious of the need to safeguard the health of Members in what is a difficult and demanding work environment. We have worked successfully over the last couple of years to dramatically reduce the number of sittings extending beyond 11 o'clock, and despite the Committee's recommendation we will retain the early rising on Wednesday nights as the general rule. To further facilitate opportunities for private Members, the Government proposes, in line with the Committee's recommendation, to turn Thursday mornings, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., over to private Members' business. I have suggested to the Procedure Committee that the order of business might be Prayers, presentation of petitions, presentation and consideration of committee reports, private Members' business (incorporating notices and orders of the day), grievance debate and a period for 90 second statements. The Government does not oppose the suggested selection committee which would determine priorities for business on Thursday mornings. The future of private members' time will depend to an extent on the attitude of members themselves. If successful, it might in time be extended and lead to further opportunities. If, however, it were to prove disruptive or suffered from poor organisation or participation, its days may be shortlived. So as not to significantly reduce the time available for Government business, the daily adjournment debate would be shortened from 45 minutes to 30. Amongst the other recommendations which the Government accepts as adding to the efficiency of the House are: revised procedures for tabling of ministerial papers; discontinuation of the procedure of announcing messages from the Senate where no further action by the House is required; ensuring that second reading speeches are kept as brief as possible and that non-critical matters of detail are included in explanatory memoranda; and revised procedures for the presentation of petitions on Thursday mornings (although the Government sees no reason to vary the practice of the Clerk reading petitions in favour of the Chair making the announcement). The Government does not oppose several other recommendations advanced by the Committee but believes that they are matters on which all members should be able to express their views freely. These are: firstly, that the quorum of the House be reduced from one third of the whole number of the members to one fifth. The Government notes the very much smaller quorum size in comparable Parliaments, and the fact that previous attempts have been made to reduce the quorum, but has no firm view on the recommendation. The Government is, however, opposed to the development of a House duty roster in the way suggested; secondly, that there be a return to the prohibition on reading speeches (subject to the exceptions outlined in the report); and thirdly, that changes be made to the procedures relating to discussion of the matter of public importance. The Government notes that the Committee refers to this as de facto Opposition time (even though the Government can initiate matters) and will not force changes on the Opposition if it disagrees with the recommendations. In several areas the Government does not accept the recommendations of the Committee. On the question of days and hours of sitting, the Government does not accept that there should be a prescribed minimum number of sitting weeks. As I have mentioned, we are moving towards a 20 week sitting pattern as a natural adjustment to the amount of business before the House and the increased numbers, but the Government believes it important that it retain the flexibility to set the pattern according to circumstances. Nor does the Government believe it possible to adhere to a rigid two week on two off pattern. We aim for this, but in practice it is very difficult to achieve. For example, in developing the pattern an effort is made to minimise sittings during school holidays and public holi- days, State visits and the like, and this does not sit easily with a regular two on/two off pattern. The Government gave considerable thought to the recommendation that the fortnightly pattern be altered to provide for two weeks of Monday/Thursday sittings before deciding against any change. Great significance is attached to having a clear day at the start of a 2 or 3 week sitting period to accommodate Cabinet or other meetings, and I suspect that the opposition parties attach similar value to the time. In coming to its decision the Government was also influenced by the fact that 34% of Members canvassed thought that there should be no change to the pattern. The strong response in support of strict adherence to the 11.00 o'clock rising has also been noted. The Government will not be bound by an 11.00 o'clock rising, but is sympathetic to the concerns underlying the recommendation and will continue its effort to ensure that late sittings are kept to a minimum. I once again invite Members to review our efforts over the last couple of years. The Government does not accept the recommendation for the establishment of a business committee. The Honourable Member for Herbert in his dissenting report quite correctly points out that the programming of the House must remain the prerogative of the Government of the day-both to carry out its policies and to respond to contingencies. Finally, the Government is not convinced of the need for legislation committees as recommended in the Report. It agrees with the comments made in the dissenting report of the Honourable Member for Herbert: the Committee has adduced insufficient evidence to support the establishment of such committees; there exists sufficient scope within the procedures of the House to ensure that legislation is given close scrutiny; and it is the duty of the House as a whole to undertake the deliberative legislative processes for the passage of a bill. Committee recommendation Government response Total Hours of Sitting That the House sit for a minimum of 20 weeks (80 days or 670 hours) each year. Not accepted. The Government is responding to the pressure of business and the increased numbers by sitting longer. The House sat for 20 weeks last year and is scheduled to sit for 19 weeks this year. But the Government believes that it should retain the flexibility to adjust the number of sitting weeks according to demand. Patterns of Sitting That: the current pattern of 2 sitting weeks followed by 2 non-sitting weeks continue; The Government aims for this, but in practice it is very difficult to achieve while attempting to avoid clashing with school holidays, public holidays, Ministerial commitments etc. sittings be from Monday to Thursday each sitting week; Not accepted. The Government believes it important that there be a non sitting day at the commencement of each parliamentary sitting period. sittings commence at 2 p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays and 10 a.m. on Wednesdays and Thursdays, there be regular meal breaks and the House rise by 10.30 p.m. each sitting day and if the adjournment is negatived, the House rise at 11 p.m. after an adjournment debate of 30 minutes. Not accepted. The Government is aware of the importance of the adjournment debate and the need to ensure that late sittings are avoided wherever possible. However, there will be occasions when it is necessary to negate the adjournment and sit beyond 11 p.m. Business Programming That a business committee be established, comprising the Speaker (or Chairman of Committees) as non-voting Chairman, the Leader of the House (or nominee), the Manager of Opposition Business (or nominee), the Government Whip (or Deputy Whip), the Opposition Whip (or Deputy), the Chairman of the proposed Selection Committee (or nominee from the Committee) and 2 back bench Members. Not accepted. The Government agrees with the views contained in the dissenting report by Mr Lindsay that programming must remain the prerogative of the Government. Private Members' Opportunities That 2 hours each week be set aside for private Members' business and a unique method of selection be introduced by giving a role to a selection committee comprised largely of back bench Members. Accepted. The Government would be prepared to support a block of four hours (from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.) rather than the two recommended by the Committee. So as not to significantly reduce the time available for Government business the daily adjournment debate would be cut to 30 minutes. The Government does not oppose the selection committee as recommended nor the procedures proposed. Members' Statements That 15 minutes each day be set aside for Members' statements when Members could address the House briefly (up to 90 seconds) on matters of interest. Not accepted. The Government would, however, have no difficulty with 90 second statements forming a part of private Members' business on Thursday mornings. Adjournment Debate Provided a period of 15 minutes for Members' statements is introduced, the adjournment debate be of 30 minutes duration and it be broadcast on days the House is broadcast, the moving of the closure be prohibited and provision for negativing the adjournment be retained with the provision that there will be an adjournment debate of 30 minutes duration and the House rise by 11 p.m. A reduction in the time available for the adjournment debate would be a consequence of giving time to private members on Thursday mornings. Given that 4 hours of private Members' business would be broadcast each Thursday morning, the Government does not consider the costs and staffing implications for the ABC in broadcasting the adjournment can be justified. As mentioned above, the Government does not accept a compulsory adjournment debate. Grievance Debate That provided there is a guaranteed adjournment debate, a 15 minute period for Members' statements and a 2 hour block of private Members' business, the grievance debate procedure be abolished. The Government believes that some time might be given to grievances during the time allotted to private Members on Thursday mornings. Matters of Public Importance The procedure be renamed Matters of Public Interest (to more realistically describe the nature of discussion), discussion be limited to one hour on three sitting days each week and speech time limits be restricted to 10 minutes. The Government is not opposed to this recommendation but would be influenced by the Opposition's reaction. Presentation and Consideration of Committee and Delegation Reports That procedures be regularised, 45 minutes being set aside each week for the presentation of and debate on committee and delegation reports. The proposed Business Committee would have a decisive role in determining the order of business and times for debate. The Government accepts that time should be made available for committee and delegation reports. The Government considers that presentation and debate of committee reports should form part of the routine of business on Thursday mornings. (See previous comments on Business Committee.) Legislation Committees That legislation committees be re-introduced to examine in detail such Bills as are referred by the House on the recommendation of the Business Committee. Not accepted. The Government believes that it is the duty of the House by itself, or as a committee of the whole, to undertake the deliberative legislative processes for the passage of a Bill. (See previous comments on Business committee. Removal of Procedures From the Chamber Procedures for presentation of ministerial papers be streamlined (with Ministers retaining the option to present papers individually should they so wish) and the Business Committee having power to recommend to the House that papers be scheduled for debate or reference to a parliamentary committee. Accepted. However, as previously noted, the Government does not accept the recommendations for a Business Committee and it would be for the Opposition parties to indicate those papers which they wanted noted. That announcement of messages from the Senate on which no further action by the House was required be discontinued. Accepted. Reading Speeches That subject to certain exceptions a prohibition on the reading of speeches be reintroduced. The Government is not opposed to this recommendation but considers this to be a matter on which Members should be free to express an opinion. Ministers' Second Reading Speeches That guidelines for the preparation of second reading speeches be reviewed to ensure that matters of detail not critical to the speeches are included in explanatory memoranda. Accepted. Petitions That the announcement of petitions be restricted to one day each week, lodgment being by 6pm the evening previous to that meeting; that the announcement include the number of signatories (counting to be the responsibility of the Member lodging the petition) and the aggregate number of signatures for identical petitions; that petitioners be required to state their addresses; that petitions obviously promoted by Members be ruled out of order; that Ministers be given the option to respond to petitions. Accepted. The Government believes that the announcement of petitions should be the first time of business each Thursday morning. The Government does not agree, however, that the Chair should make the announcement rather than the Clerk. Reading of petitions by the Clerk is long-established practice and does not in any way diminish its importance. That storage and disposal arrangements be developed and implemented. The question of making resources available for the assessment of the administrative and research value of petitions stored in Archives, and the development and implementation of appropriate storage and disposal arrangements is being taken up by the Speaker. Quorum That legislative action be taken to reduce the quorum to one-fifth of Members and each party represented in the House roster one-fifth of its Members for House duty to ensure a quorum is present at all times. The Government is not opposed to a reduction in the Quorum size but as in the past this is a matter on which Members should be free to vote. However, the Government opposes the development of a House duty roster, believing it to be unworkable. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(4.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 11 July this year, the Australian people elected the Hawke Government to govern this country for an historic third term. The Government was returned with an increased majority and the renewed mandate of the people following the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament on the basis of the Senate's failure on two occasions to pass the Australia Card Bill 1986. Today I bring before the House for the third time the Bill to enact the Australia Card program, and I do so in what will probably be the vain hope that on this occasion our opponents will participate in a rational and constructive debate. The vilification of the Australia Card in recent weeks has simply debased intelligent argument in this society. Twice the Opposition and the Australian Democrats have forged an unholy and rather contradictory alliance in the Senate to deny to the Australian people what in the Australia Card is the single most effective weapon available to combat tax evasion and welfare fraud. Twice they have blocked the best single instrument available to government to ensure fairness and equity in our tax and welfare systems, and to protect honest Australians from the tax evaders-`the pin-stripe criminals', in the eloquent words of my old colleague, Ralph Jacobi-and from the abusers of the welfare system. Because of obstruction in the Senate, the Australia Card program has been delayed so far by a year, with a long-term cost to the Australian people of almost $900m-money denied to the system by tax cheats or taken improperly from it by welfare fraud. Honest Australians should not be subsidising those who are operating dishonestly within the tax and welfare systems. Honest Australians have a right to expect Government to protect the community as a whole from fraud and abuse against the tax and welfare systems. They have a right to expect that the Government ensures as best as it can that everyone contributes their fair and reasonable share of tax. They have a right to expect that welfare benefits are paid only to those who are truly entitled to those benefits. They have a right to expect that immigrants to this country who are operating within our system are here properly and legally. They have a right, too, to expect that the Government seek the most cost-efficient way to protect the community. The great advantage of the Australia Card is that unlike all other proposals suggested-for example, the tax file number, withholding taxes, identity cards just for social security recipients, or new ways of inhibiting illegal immigrants-it provides a single weapon to strike at a range of major problems. Both for Governments and for citizens it will ultimately prove at once less costly, less demanding and, indeed, less intrusive than the messy and duplicatory alternatives being suggested. (Quorum formed) Finally, and very importantly, the Australian people have a right to expect that, in going about achieving these fundamental goals, governments will always seek to get a proper balance between the needs of the community and the rights and liberties of individuals. We believe that that balance is achieved in this measure. As this Bill has already been presented to this House on two previous occasions, I do not intend to dwell on the detailed structure of the Bill. These details have been set out in previous introductions to this Bill, and I refer honourable members to those introductions. It is true that some now argue that the Government has acted in `undue haste' to introduce the Australia Card without it being thoroughly explained and debated. Nothing could be a greater perversion of the truth. Over the past year no issue has been the subject of as much public debate and discussion, and no other piece of legislation has taken up as much of the time of the Parliament. The Australia Card was first endorsed by the Government at the Tax Summit in 1985. A joint select committee comprising representatives of all major political parties was established, and it called for submissions and held public inquiries throughout Australia before releasing its voluminous reports-a majority report in favour of a national identification system using tax file numbers and a minority report in favour of a national identification system using new and more secure numbers called Australia Card numbers. The legislation now before the House and the explanatory memorandum have been publicly available for nearly 12 months and have been debated in both Houses at great length by an array of speakers. To suggest inadequacy of discussion on this issue is nothing less than a claim to ignorance. Equally nonsensical is the claim that because there was little debate on the Australia Card during the election the Government has no mandate for its introduction. It is the clarity with which a government makes its future intentions clear, not the extent of the debate, that is the crucial issue in mandate theory. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had the Parliament dissolved because of the Senate's rejection of the Australia Card and in order, if successful, to secure the numbers to pass the Australia Card legislation. The very first Australian Labor Party election advertisement was on the Australia Card. The Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that the first task of a re-elected Labor Government would be the re-introduction of the Australia Card legislation. No one who had followed the debate could have been unclear about the Government's intentions. The reason that actual debate was limited is obvious. It takes two to tango, and from the Opposition there came scarcely a squeak during the election. The Australian Financial Review noted in a report on Thursday, 20 August: According to Liberal sources, the Opposition did not campaign strongly against the ID Cards in the last election, mainly because market research showed 64 per cent of the electorate were in favour of the cards and it was judged too difficult to turn around during the election campaign. In short, the Opposition made a deliberate decision to play down the issue because it was afraid of the electoral backlash from those who rightly recognised the Opposition as weak on tax evasion and welfare fraud. Such opportunism from the Opposition should not surprise us. Its whole record on the Australia Card is a sorry one. At the outset many of its leaders displayed a public enthusiasm for the Australia Card that outdid anything on the Government benches. I will not weary the House with a reiteration of their many statements. They are firmly on the public record. Then, during the Select Committee, they supported the rather shoddy alternative, the tax file number. Some eight weeks later, perhaps recognising its shoddiness, they abandoned the tax file number. From then on negativism has been their only stance. The Australia Card program has a limited and specific purpose. It is designed as a cost-efficient means for establishing a highly reliable and secure means of identification in three areas: in matters relating to taxation, for the payment of welfare benefits, and simply for convenience to replace the Medicare card. In order to combat tax evasion the Australia Card will be required for identification with certain financial transactions directly related to taxation; for example, securing employment, for deposits and accounts with financial institutions, for investment and share transactions, for real estate and primary producer transactions, and for foreign remittances. All of these uses relate directly to the protection of the tax system against abuse, and the uses of the card in these matters is designed for that protection and that protection alone. Welfare beneficiaries are already required to establish their identity as a basis for securing social security benefits, but the lack of a high integrity identification document imposes undue burdens and hassles on officials and beneficiaries. A high security identity card will obviate many of these difficulties and ensure that welfare benefits are paid only to those who are truly entitled to those benefits. Just as now a person's Medicare card entitles people to claim for medical benefits, so in future the Australia Card will provide the basis for that claim. Despite the fevered imagination of our critics, the sole purpose of this use is to minimise the need for most Australians to use more than one Australian government card, and, of course, to reduce to taxpayers the cost of unnecessary duplication. Much has been said by our opponents about the supposed imposition of having to use the Australia Card for these specified purposes. Before anyone gets carried away with this notion, he or she should first think back to the last time they were able to open a bank account or claim welfare benefits without first providing proof of identity. In nearly all of these cases a person is already required to provide personal identification information-more information than will appear on the Australia Card, and in general roughly equivalent to what will appear on the Australia Card Register. In most of these cases, proof of that identity is already required; this requirement for proof of identity is increasing, and will increase further even without the Australia Card. In fact, the Australia Card would streamline this process, making it easier for citizens and institutions to comply with such requirements. The only additional information which this legislation in itself makes it necessary to record and report to the Australian Taxation Office is the Australia Card number. Thus when an employer or a financial institution provides details to the Tax Office on an employee or client, they will include the Australia Card number along with the personal information currently required, such as name, address, and levels of income. This could hardly be termed much of an imposition. It could scarcely be termed some new infringement on civil liberties. As well, in nearly all instances a person's Australia Card will need to be produced and the number recorded only once-when first opening an account with a financial institution, stock broker, or produce agent, on initially obtaining employment or on initially establishing a claim to welfare benefits. The major exception to this is Medicare, where just as now the Medicare card is used whenever a claim is made, the Australia Card will take its place. Indeed, as most people do not change jobs frequently, and do not regularly open new financial accounts, the overwhelming majority of Australians will find that the most common use of the Australia Card will be for the claiming of Medicare benefits. While the Australia Card program is very basic and simple, the use of unique identifying numbers will nevertheless prove extremely effective in countering taxation and welfare fraud. The Tax Office, by linking all sources of a person's income to that number, and thus being able to ascertain total income, will be able to ensure that the correct amount of tax is paid. A companion system will apply to companies and incorporated bodies, to ensure that the corporate sector also contributes its fair share of tax. The Department of Social Security will, by using the number, be able to ensure that applicants for benefits are indeed who they claim to be and that their level of income does not preclude them from receiving benefits. The Tax Office will be able to detail cases of welfare overpayments due to understatement of income because it will be better able to collate all sources of income. In addition, the Australia Card will help to weed out and inhibit illegal immigrants by making it more difficult for illegal migrants to obtain a job or claim government benefits. This means more jobs for genuine migrants, less undermining of the wages system, and a fairer immigration system. The benefits of the Australia Card program in terms of revenue speak for themselves. Over a 10-year period, savings on recouped taxes and on welfare payouts will total more than $5.4 billion. The costs of establishing and maintaining the program over the same period will be $759m. The net gain will be $4.7 billion. That is money which will be available to improve the living standards of all Australians, either through improvements in services-schools, roads, hospitals-or through reduced taxes. These costings have been carefully and thoroughly prepared, scrupulously and cautiously presented, and have withstood detailed scrutiny over the past 18 months. Indeed, for those who have sought to analyse the costings in an objective manner, the consensus is that the savings from the Australia Card are understated. Even the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which included three Opposition members, considered that the estimate of tax savings was conservative and that considerably greater savings could be anticipated. Of course, the program requires a card and a number tied to a register which contains basic identifying information. This relatively simple proposition, characteristic of every card system already in existence in this country-for example, Bankcard or other credit cards-has produced an extraordinary emotional outpouring in recent weeks. Mike Steketee put it in an article `Much ado about a host of wild misconceptions' in the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 September: For emotional claptrap, it is hard to go past the present debate on an identity card. There has seldom been a subject on which there has been so much misunderstanding, so much misrepresentation, and so much downright irrational fear. One would have thought to read the recent outpourings that no Australians had ever made use of numbered cards based on their identity, or that no Australians had ever been placed on a data bank, private or public. But all Australians are numbered under the Medicare system; no Australian citizen can travel overseas without a passport with a number and a photograph; no Australian can drive a motor car-and for most of us that is not really a choice-without a numbered driving licence, in all States now linked to an identifying register and in some States now requiring a photograph; and most Australians use credit cards whose registers contain much more detailed and revealing personal information that anything on the Australia Card Register. There are few in Australian society who would not be already attached to one or more number identification systems. Drivers' licences, credit cards, passports, Medicare cards and tax files all use numbering systems to attach the individual to varying amounts of filed information, much of it sensitive and personal. Most people would not have any idea as to the amount of information held on them in the private sector, much less be allowed access to that information. In the case of departments such as Tax and Social Security and Medicare, a vast amount of personal information is already held by government. None of this personal non-identifying information will be held on the Australia Card, nor on the associated Australia Card Register-I repeat, none. There will be no dossier gathering, as our opponents would like people to believe; no amalgamation of information into one central computer. Tax information will stay with the Tax Office and social security records with Social Security, while Medicare information will remain separate and secure. The Australia Card legislation allows for no exchange of information between departments other than that which is already allowed. The Australia Card itself will contain only basic identifying data, specifically the holder's name, photograph and signature, the expiry date of the card and a unique identifying number. Information verifying the authenticity of the card will be kept on a personal file register, the Australia Card Register. The Register will contain a very limited amount of additional personal information about the card holder, information which can be used only to verify the holder's identity. This includes date of birth, sex, residential and postal address, and any other name by which the card holder is entitled to be and wishes to be known. Such identifying information is regularly supplied by Australians to private and public bureaucracies. Most of us probably do it once a month. The Register will also contain administrative details such as a date of card issue, details of any amendments made to the Register, where and when changes were made and by whom. All this is set out very clearly in schedule 1 of the Bill. This is all the Register will contain. I want to stress that there will most certainly be no central register of personal, non-identifying information about such things as medical or employment history, religious beliefs, education, income or credit history, martial status or voting intentions. What the Australia Card does is provide a high integrity identification system for the specific purpose of securing our tax and welfare systems against cheats. We believe it achieves the right balance between the privacies of wealth, income and property-the only privacies with which the Australia Card is concerned-and the community's interest in fair and protected tax and welfare systems. In the area of civil liberties fantasy appears to have taken over from reasoned debate. This is perhaps not surprising given the motley array who have gathered under the civil liberties banner. While there are no doubt many genuine civil libertarians with concerns about the Australia Card, the Premier of Queensland scarcely arouses confidence as a defender of individual liberties, while some of the private doctors opposing the card have previously displayed no interest in any liberty other than the liberty to plunder their patients without interference from any source. Arguments generated by such people that the Australia Card is the start of a totalitarian or police state need to be dismissed for the nonsense they are. Such arguments neglect historical precedent, contemporary situations and a host of inconvenient facts. Equally absurd is the argument that the Government would have access to a welter of personal details which will be used to deny ordinary Australians their civil rights. The perpetrators of these myths are confusing the means with the ends. Totalitarian societies can easily compile dossiers on their citizens without going to the trouble of producing an identity card, and it would be a rare kind of totalitarian regime which allowed its citizens not only to see their file entries but also to change anything shown to be incorrect. Of course, an Australian Government, if it were so minded, could today compile dossiers on its citizens from its information banks. The privacy protections associated with the Australia Card program would in fact enhance protection against such activities by any future Australian Government. The great bulk of Western democratic societies now have some form of basic identification system, some of them much more comprehensive than that proposed for Australia, and many of those countries are now engaged in updating and improving their systems. Yet no reasonable person would argue that the Scandinavian countries, France, and the United States, for example, are somehow less democratic, more totalitarian than Australia because they have such identification systems. It is disappointing, however, that significant issues concerning privacy and civil liberties which merit detailed consideration have been so muddled by these absurdities. The Government has been acutely aware of the necessity of ensuring that a proper balance is maintained between the need to protect the interests of the community and the need to preserve citizens' rights to privacy-thus the very limited nature and the strict controls on the use of the Australia Card and the Australia Card Register, and the protections built into the program in general. The Bill provides detailed safeguards to protect the integrity and security of the information held on the Register. It does this by strictly limiting the nature and amount of information kept, the purposes for which it can be used and who can obtain access to it. Every single access or attempted access to the Register, the date of access, reason for access, and identification of the officer looking at the file will be recorded and will be available for inspection by the individual. Any unauthorised use of the Register is illegal and punishable by heavy fines, gaol, or both. I want to emphasise this: no private agency has access to the Register, no government agency other than those specified in the legislation-that is, the Health Insurance Commission, the Department of Social Security, and the Tax Office-has access to the Register, and no cross-matching of information is possible other than that which already occurs. It has been claimed that despite these safeguards, computer hackers will get into the system and a flood of intimate personal details on every citizen will be available to the unscrupulous for all sorts of nefarious purposes. As I have already made clear, if anyone were able to access the Register illegally, the only information he would obtain would be simple identification information. Additionally, hackers gain access to computers through telephone lines. The Australia Card program will use dedicated landlines, not telephone lines, thus inhibiting such access. An unnatural and unwarranted fear has also been whipped up about public servants releasing masses of personal information in relation to tax, social security and Medicare. That information will not be available on the Australia Card Register. It is already held in government departments, and there is no reason why public servants who currently have access to those files would suddenly be more corruptible. However, severe penalties are included in the legislation in the event of such a breach. The Bill establishes the Data Protection Agency (DPA), a powerful and independent watchdog body which will establish, maintain, and review guidelines for the operation of the Australia Card program. The DPA will have powers equivalent to those of the Ombudsman to investigate any complaints about breaches of these guidelines. It will also have the power to direct the authority responsible for the administration of the Australia Card to adhere strictly to privacy principles. The DPA will also administer privacy safeguards in relation to the protection of personal information contained in all government computer banks. The privacy protections contained in the Australia Card Bill, together with the provisions of additional privacy legislation which will be introduced in this session of Parliament, will create the most broad-ranging and effective privacy safeguards ever seen in this country. The Bill also specifically states that the Australia Card does not have to be carried at all times. One does not need one's card to play sport, cash a cheque, make a will, go shopping, pick up a pension or for the great mass of everyday activities. Like any other cards or identifying documents possessed now by Australians, it will be needed only for limited and specific purposes. The Bill is also quite specific that no unauthorised person-not the police, not the local supermarket, not the local publican-can ask to see one's card as a means of identification. Any unauthorised person asking for a person's card, or even suggesting he wants to see it, is committing a serious offence punishable by a heavy fine or gaol or both. The Bill does not place any legal obligation on a person to produce a card in relation to employment. However if an employee is not prepared to produce a card to verify identity so that all income earned can be appropriately taxed, the employee will be taxed at the highest marginal rate, and any adjustments can be made at the time of the annual tax assessment. Another area where the ill-informed have created grave and totally unjustified concern is over penalties faced by individual Australians in relation to their use of the card. No one will be fined if he loses his card or it is accidentally damaged or stolen. As is currently the case with credit cards or other benefit cards, there is an obligation on the holder to notify the issuing authority when he becomes aware that a card has been lost or damaged. This is to ensure the integrity of the system, to prevent unscrupulous people attempting to fraudulently use the card, and to ensure that the card can be replaced as quickly as possible. Lost or damaged cards will be replaced quickly at no cost to the individual and there will be negligible inconvenience to the individual requiring use of a card during the replacement period. This is because all the information contained on the card will also be held on the Australia Card Register and it will be a very quick and simple matter to verify identity through the Register. Nor does the Bill specify penalties for non-production of the card in those few circumstances where it is required. However, just as no one can claim Medicare benefits without producing a Medicare card number, it will not be possible to claim benefits-except in emergencies-or to engage in some financial transactions without an Australia Card. This will ensure that the system works effectively and securely to weed out tax cheats and welfare defrauders. There are no penalties for unintentional clerical errors. All penalties are maxima and would be set by a court of law after due democratic process. The present scare campaign against the Australia Card is similar to those whipped up over the assets test, the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. All of those measures, like the Australia Card, are designed to ensure that we have a fairer society, that everyone pays his fair share of tax, and that benefits go to those in need. Over time the Australian public has come to see the benefits and basic fairness of those initiatives; equally I believe that the great majority of Australians, who will benefit from the Australia Card, will see through the sham and hysteria of the present campaign, particularly as they come to recognise that their legitimate concerns about privacy have been met. The Australia Card is an essentially simply program with a straightforward objective-to provide the single most effective weapon to eliminate tax and welfare cheating in this society. It is an objective that will have the full endorsement of all honest Australians. I urge honourable members to read the Bill with care and to reject the wild assertions of the opponents of the Australia Card. I ask the House to give the Australia Card program its endorsement. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Privacy Bill, and the associated Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill, is to regulate the collection, handling and use by Commonwealth departments and agencies of information about individuals so as to provide them with a level of privacy protection that is consistent with efficient government administration. These Bills are the same Bills as were passed by this House on 14 November 1986. The only changes made are to take account of the passage of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and minor drafting corrections. The Privacy Bill will establish a comprehensive set of rules regulating such dealings with personal information and provide an effective means for monitoring compliance with the rules. The rules will, however, mesh with and avoid overlapping existing legislation which coincidentally protects privacy, such as the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. At common law there is no enforceable right to privacy as such. There are, however, various existing legal rights that protect aspects of what are generally regarded as individual privacy. Thus the existing law on defamation, breach of confidence, copyright and passing off can be used to prevent unauthorised circulation of personal information or comment in various circumstances. In recent times there have been enormous developments in technology for processing information, providing immense opportunities for building up and using information on individuals. This has focused attention on the need to provide more comprehensive measures for protecting privacy against the threat posed by misuse of this technology. This has been recognised during the development of the Australia Card by the decision to establish the Data Protection Agency (DPA). With the greater range of services being provided by government, the greater is the accumulation of personal information about individuals. More than anything else, the capacity of modern computers to search and process information offers the greatest potential for invasion of personal privacy by misuse. The greater the accumulations of personal information, the greater are the possibilities of inaccurate material being included amongst such information. Decisions based on wrong information are oppressive to the individual concerned and hinder efficient administration. Internationally, guidelines for the enactment of legislation protecting personal privacy in the processing of information have been developed by the Council of Europe and by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), of which Australia is a member. Most European countries, the United States of America and Canada have enacted privacy protection legislation. In December 1984, Australia formally signified its intention to introduce legislation along the lines of the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. The Government has been giving detailed consideration for some time to comprehensive information privacy protection legislation. In December 1983 a very detailed report and recommendations were received from the Law Reform Commission following a reference to the Commission in 1976. The recommendations included draft legislation which drew on the OECD guidelines. The scheme of the Bill is to enunciate a series of rules, called information privacy principles, which are based on the principles recommended by the Law Reform Commission in its draft legislation. They will apply to Commonwealth departments and agencies to the same extent that the FOI Act applies to them. Privacy complaints against security and intelligence agencies, which are not subject to the FOI Act and thus are exempt from this Bill, will be able to be dealt with by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Under the principles, Commonwealth agencies must have a lawful purpose for collecting personal information, and the purpose must be related to the functions or activities of the collector. An agency collecting personal information from the information subject must see that the latter is generally aware of such things as the purpose for which the information is being collected and, if such is the case, the fact that collection is authorised or required by law. The principles require agencies, when both collecting and retaining information, to see that it is relevant to the purpose of collection, is up to date and is complete. Before using any information, they must also check its accuracy. `Personal information' is widely defined to include anything-fact, true or false, or opinion-that reasonably identifies the information subject. However all the principles are concerned only with personal information in a record or collected for inclusion in a record or a publication, so unrecorded conversation, for example, is not covered. The principles require agencies to store information records securely against loss or misuse. If asked, they are to provide information about the types of personal information they hold. Subject to FOI Act exemptions they are to provide access to them if sought by the information subject and to make corrections for accuracy, relevance and completeness. Subject to certain specific exceptions, notably to law enforcement and preservation of life, information that was sought from the information subject may not be used for a purpose or disclosed to a person other than with the agreement of the information subject. Commonwealth agencies will be required to comply with these principles. A breach of the principles will be deemed by the Bill to be an interference with privacy. Under the Bill the DPA to be established by the Australia Card Bill will undertake the functions of investigating alleged interferences with privacy, attempting to resolve the allegations by conciliation and, failing that, reporting to the Minister where it finds that there has been such an interference. The DPA's powers in conducting investigations will be those prescribed in the Australia Card Bill. The DPA's investigation and reporting functions will be exercisable not only on complaint but also of its own motion. Remedies such as injunction and declaration will be able to be sought against interferences with privacy to the extent that they are available under existing law. However, the Government has decided that, at this initial stage, it should not be possible to recover damages for interferences with privacy by agencies. Nevertheless, when reporting a finding that an interference with privacy has occurred, the DPA will be able to make a recommendation for compensation to an individual affected by the interference. To help agencies achieve compliance with the principles, the DPA will be able to give advisory opinions, issue guidelines and examine proposed enactments for privacy implications. Where an agency believes that a current or proposed practice that may breach the principles is nevertheless important to its operations, it will be able to seek from the DPA a determination allowing the practice to continue or go ahead without risk of its being found to be an interference with privacy. Such a determination may be granted only if the DPA is satisfied that the public interest in permitting the practice substantially outweighs the public interest in adherence to the principles. I mentioned earlier that the law of confidence is an important existing means of protecting privacy in some circumstances. The Bill includes some limited extensions of the law of confidence recommended by the Law Reform Commission which will further enhance privacy protection. The companion Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill includes amendments of the FOI Act to extend the opportunities for access to personal affairs records by record subjects and establish the requirement for record subjects to be alerted to requests for access to those records by others. The proposals contained in the Privacy Bill and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill are expected to have direct cost to the Government of $800,000 in a full-year operation. International instruments to which I have referred, overseas legislation and the Law Reform Commission's report recognise that there are important interests that compete with the right to privacy, including effective government administration, law enforcement and free flow of information. The Government considers that the Privacy Bill, applying as it does to Commonwealth agencies, strikes a fair balance between the right of the individual to privacy against the equally important concern of the individual, as a taxpayer, that the Commonwealth administration is not overburdened. It would thus expect, for example, that the legitimate needs of law enforcement would be taken into account by the DPA when giving advice, issuing guidelines, or making public interest determinations. What will be achieved by the Privacy Bill is a comprehensive code of information privacy protection standards. It will be the first such legislation anywhere in Australia. It will also provide a practical means for persons who have been adversely affected by a failure to comply with those standards to seek redress. I commend the Bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memoranda to this Bill and the following Bill, the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a companion measure to the Privacy Bill which I have just introduced. The main amendment made by this Bill is to the Freedom of Information Act, or FOI Act, to introduce reverse FOI for personal affairs documents. That is, where documents requested under FOI include a record of personal affairs of a person other than the requestor, the record subject must, if possible, be consulted and given an opportunity to seek exemption from disclosure to the requestor of that record. Another amendment to the FOI Act will slightly restrict the circumstances in which a ground of exemption from access can be used to prevent access to a record of personal affairs by the record subject. Otherwise this Bill makes essentially machinery amendments to ensure that privacy complaints wrongly directed to other agencies are transferred to the Data Protection Agency for investigation under the Privacy Bill without inconvenience to the complainant. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Ms Crawford, for the committee appointed to prepare an Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General, presented the proposed Address, which was read by the Clerk. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Before I call the honourable member for Forde, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(5.06) —I move: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: May it please Your Excellency: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. I am deeply honoured to move this motion on behalf of the Government and my Party. I thank my colleagues for the privilege. The Governor-General's Speech, to which we are replying today, is the parliamentary expression of the commission given to a government by its people. I come before the House in my first parliamentary duty as the member for Forde, proud to be part of the historic third Hawke Labor Government. I thank the people of Forde for the trust that they have bestowed on me. I also place on record my personal appreciation to my family and to my friends within the Australian Labor Party for giving me the opportunity to hold this position. My election is a tribute to teamwork. It is only through this type of co-operative effort that we can transform our society. The outstanding feature of the electorate of Forde, which I represent, is its cultural diversity. The society we have built in Australia has been fortified by new generations. Our society has been greatly enriched by the diversity of language and cultural experience of all our new Australians. This is what has made us a multicultural society. The electorate of Forde is named after a Queenslander, Frank Forde, who had a long and distinguished career in this place. One aspect of Frank Forde's career of which all Australians should be proud was his participation in and leadership of the delegation that laid the groundwork for the establishment of the United Nations. A prominent member of that delegation was Jessie Street. In her long and active life she worked for social reform with restless energy. This fine tradition of dedication to social reform is represented here today by women such as our Madam Speaker, and, of course, our Cabinet Minister, Senator Susan Ryan. Women in many places, here and in the trade union movement, have exhibited qualities of fortitude, courage, commitment and generosity of spirit. Our Government acknowledges these qualities and is proud of the increasing number of females who are elected as representatives to participate in our country's decision-making process. I, too, am proud to be part of that process. As much as we are proud of the outstanding women in our history, and women who have positions of prominence and leadership, such as the appointee of the Hawke Government to the High Court of Australia, Justice Mary Gaudron, we should also recognise that it is the millions of women with untold stories who have contributed to the Australia in which we now live. For women to achieve their full potential, and for our society to gain by that contribution, our schools must truly offer equality of opportunity for all. This inequity of choice has been acknowledged by our Government in its national education policy for girls. Traditionally, girls have been restricted in their choice of educational courses and this contributed to their staying at school for a far shorter time than their male counterparts. This limitation has meant that women have been unable to fulfil their potential. The acknowledgment that this is so and that steps must be taken to remedy this within society at large will mean that women will achieve their real goals. Societal attitudes ultimately bring about real reform. The contribution of women to the establishment of Australian society has never been fully recognised. Women, from our early history to the present, have performed tasks which society has demanded of them. As mothers, their contribution to Australian society is one we, as a Government, acknowledge. A very real commitment to the support of families is made by providing child care through a wide range of programs. Women who have dedicated a major part of their lives as providers of family care should be able to choose to return to paid employment, when the demands of their families are not as great or, if circumstances alter, if they so wish. Society will once again gain from their vast experience of life. During this time of family care women have invariably worked in school tuckshops and meals on wheels and have participated in any number of sporting, cultural and supportive organisations. Society is very much the richer for this contribution and in many instances women have combined part time employment with this heavy voluntary involvement. Indeed, on my own staff are two different examples of women who provide excellent role models. One, a mother of six, entered university at the age of 36 and successfully completed her degree while working part time. Despite the pressures this imposed on her, her consciousness was raised in terms of peace, land rights and social justice issues. She participated fully within the institution in society and church for the advancement of these causes whilst pursuing full time employment. These acquired skills that she applied to the campaign successfully led to my election as the first woman representative for Forde. For this she has earned my lasting gratitude. It is this ability to combine all these facets that is the hallmark of the modern woman. Indeed, many women spend much of their time juggling the demands of the role of motherhood, of voluntary involvement and of employment. On the other hand, another member of my staff, a mother of three who is now the provider for her family, gave much of her time to sporting and social organisations in a voluntary capacity while she raised her family. Because of her commitment to the marginalised in our society she began part time work in one of our Commonwealth youth support schemes. Her dedication in this field, beyond job description, developed her own confidence and she has taken the opportunity to pursue such work on a full time basis. The life histories of these women complement my own single status. Single women experience different pressures while sharing the experience of discrimination and prejudice because of gender. The women I mentioned earlier, along with our male member of staff, provide the pulse of our team in Forde and are an example of how male and female can work together. Working together we can achieve the reconstruction of society. The experience, talents, knowledge and integrity exhibited by people such as my staff members reflect in Forde the attitude of our Government's committment to a just society. Women should be educated out of their dependent, secondary role. For far too long they have been prepared to accept situations which limit their growth and reinforce their position as `slave of the slaves'. Indeed, women in black society have alerted women in white society to the many injustices which have been inherent in their domination. Women have taken leading roles in that struggle for equality and nowhere is there a greater need for justice than in the education of the blacks of our country. The Bicentennial offers an opportunity for Australia to become united while accepting differences. We must acknowledge past mistakes and work for justice now and in the future. Women within all facets of our society are seeking equality and dignity. Women have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the spiritual dimension of our world. Christian women in the role of the traditional Christ have suffered humiliation, exploitation and excommunication. An example of this is Mother Mary McKillop who was vilified by the very institution which now seeks to elevate her to the pedestal of sainthood. The majority of women demand the traditional gospel value of equality. If the church is to impose certain moral attitudes on the legislators of our country that same Christian church must apply similarly rigid standards of equality and justice to its own internal structures and practices. Our Government has directed all aspects of its activity within the area of social welfare towards the task of reconstruction. In Forde, priority must be given to the training of the unemployed. For those with disabilities the emphasis is now one of control and choice over one's life. Policy has been progressively reformed and many of those worst off will receive the greatest possible assistance. The majority of those who are marginalised in our community are women. Indeed, the feminisation of poverty has been a tragic hallmark of this decade. If we are to work for a fairer, just and more compassionate society, all of us must be able to participate in the wealth of our country. An important commitment by our Government is the removal of children from poverty by 1990 and so ensure the future of our great nation. Along with the many difficulties facing us we must recognise that one of our great strengths is the ability to pull together. This attribute will be needed in our fight against the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) where education is vital. AIDS does not restrict itself to one section of our community so we must work together for the benefit of us all. All Australians share our unique and natural heritage. This Government stands above all others in its commitment to the preservation of the natural environment, including the forests of the south, the wetlands of the north and, of course, the awesome Uluru in the centre. It is important for us to express our gratitude to those members of the community whose vigilance has ensured that generations of Australians will enjoy this rich heritage. To ensure that justice is for all, we must balance the needs of today's society and its demands for change with our caretaker role for posterity. Frank Forde was the son of an Irish immigrant. I share that heritage. Frank Forde's distinctive quality was his strong and constant commitment to the policy of his party and loyalty to his leader. The commitment I give to the electors of Forde is the same-one of dedication to our Government's programs, which will bring about a fairer, just and more compassionate society. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Before I call the honourable member for Denison I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr KERR(Denison)(5.21) —I second the motion. Mr Deputy Speaker, the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his maiden speech on 26 November 1980, stated: As we have moved into the 1980s under this Government- the then Liberal Government- we have moved inexorably towards that destabilised and dangerous position described by Disraeli as `two nations', the nation of the privileged and the nation of the poor. There can be room for legitimate argument between competing policies when the country is confronted with times of economic difficulties. But there can be no room for the attitude . . . who have accepted with complacency this increasing division in our society . . . I will return to this, which I regard as a fundamental theme, shortly but first I would like to ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to pass my congratulations to the Speaker and to congratulate her on her re-election to the high office that she holds. I have followed her political career since her election during the Whitlam Government and I am delighted to find myself in a House of which she is Speaker. I also ask you to pass my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees on his re-election and on the esteem in which he is held in this House. I can more directly express my congratulations to the honourable member for Forde (Ms Crawford) on her impressive advocacy, particularly in relation to the rights of women, when moving the Address-in-Reply. My own election marked the end of an abnormal period of 12 years in Australian politics during which time no member of the Australian Labor Party was returned to the House of Representatives from Tasmania. We have put that behind us. A healing process has begun. It is important that this healing process be consolidated. In that regard I put on record my gratitude for the return to Tasmania by the Prime Minister so shortly after the election. It was a welcome one. For the past decade Tasmania has been battered by controversy concerning the environment. In a small society in which the people of the State were divided amongst themselves between those who gave priority to nurturing the natural environment in order that we might survive and pass on to future generations our natural heritage and those who sought to exploit the environment for economic reasons, the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania itself became wracked by internal tensions and found itself crudely caricatured as anti-development or, worse, anti-Tasmanian. I do not pretend that all this is behind us. The Franklin debate still has not been forgotten and divisions within families still persist in Tasmania, but the recent election represents the beginnings of an historic reconciliation. What Denison symbolises for the Australian Labor movement is the trust we now hold on behalf of the people of Australia, to care for both jobs and the environment. It imposes upon us a profound responsibility to both the present and the future. I will be working to ensure that the people who put their trust in the Government to protect both jobs and the environment at the same time will have that trust vindicated. I commenced this speech by referring to the maiden speech of the now Prime Minister. I share the concern he expressed lest we become `two nations'. Hobart, which is largely encompassed within my electorate of Denison, will serve to demonstrate the persistent divisions which remain in our society. Hobart is a microcosm of Australian society and illustrates exactly what I mean when I speak of a divided Australia. If we look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics census of 1986, which was released on 1 September, it illuminates the differences between the poorest and richest suburbs in average levels of unemployment and income. What emerged from the Hobart profile was a picture of appalling inequality. To gauge some understanding of this inequality, the unemployment rate for the city as a whole for males was 9.7 per cent and for females it was 8.8 per cent. However, in the suburb of Gagebrook, in the electorate of Franklin, which also takes in part of the greater Hobart district, the overall unemployment rate was 44.6 per cent. In my electorate of Denison, Goodwood had an overall unemployment rate of 21.4 per cent. By contrast the lowest rates of unemployment among the 36 suburbs which comprise the Hobart statistical district were 2.8 per cent in the suburb of Tranmere and 4.3 per cent in Lenah Valley in Denison. I ask the House to consider the plight of those in the 15- to 19-year-old age group, where the overall unemployment rate for Hobart was 22.2 per cent. In Gagebrook the unemployment rate in that age group was 51.9 per cent, and in Goodwood it was 51.6 per cent. For those in the 20- to 24-year-old age group, Gagebrook had an unemployment rate of 58.4 per cent and Goodwood, 29.5 per cent. An examination of average family incomes illustrates further these savage contrasts. The suburbs in Denison with the highest median family incomes were Sandy Bay with $34,875, and Mount Nelson with $32,157. The lowest were Goodwood with $17,886 and East Moonah with $19,201. I was born, grew up and was educated in Claremont, part of the less socially advantaged northern suburbs, and as the member for Denison I am naturally concerned with the effects of this structural inequality in my own electorate. But nationally the picture is also stark. Over the past two decades there have been significant changes in the Australian economy, evident particularly in the occupational structure of the labour market and corresponding changes in employment opportunities for both men and women. The overall result has been a trend towards two-income families amongst the middle and high income earners employed in professional, para-professional and administrative occupations, with a corresponding increase in family incomes. But, by contrast, as has been noted by Adam Jamrozik of the Social Welfare Centre of the University of New South Wales: At the lower end of the scale, there has been an increase of dependence on income support from the Government. . . There are now approximately 700 thousand dependent children in families of pensioners or beneficiaries. The main cause of dependence on the state for income support is undoubtedly unemployment. In times when a two-income family becomes increasingly prevalent, unemployment also tends to affect both parents in a family . . . The distribution of wealth is even more unequal than the distribution of income. While the data on wealth distribution is hard to obtain and not many researchers address this issue, recent estimates indicate that the top 50 per cent of households in Australia own 84 per cent of total wealth. The top 20 per cent own 53 per cent of wealth, the top 10 per cent own 36 per cent of wealth, and the top 1 per cent own 9 per cent of wealth. Jamrozik concluded: The changes in the Australian economy and the corresponding changes in the structure of opportunities provided by the labour market have led to increasing inequalities among families. While the position of some families has clearly worsened in recent years, mainly through the experience of unemployment, the changes in the structure of the labour market have given other families a distinct advantage. Thus, parallel with the growth of family poverty has been the growth of family affluence. Against this background, the Government's commitment that by 1990 no Australian child need live in poverty creates a major benchmark and reflects the determination of the Prime Minister, the Government and the Labor movement neither to acquiesce in the moral and political conceptions of the status quo nor to leave things to be settled by how contending social and economic factors work themselves out. His Excellency the Governor-General observed in his address: . . . the major preoccupation of economic policy over recent years has been to redress the consequent deterioration in our balance of payments on foreign debt positions. With increasing evidence that the recovery and structural adjustment processes have begun, I trust that it will be said of our present Parliament that our major preoccupation was to build not merely a stronger, more efficient economy but also a fairer and more egalitarian society. In closing, I wish to make some personal observations. I owe more than I can ever adequately acknowledge to my mother and father and to my grandparents. I might just intersperse this with a couple of personal observations. My grandfather first sailed to Australia as a Scottish mariner, and arrived in 1901, the year of Federation, bringing with him, as ballast in the sailing vessel in which he was a young apprentice, pipes that are now part of the historic pipeline linking Coolgardie and Perth. Later, the itinerant seaman that was my grandfather settled in Australia, and my father grew up here. The war came, and my father served in the armed forces, which took him through the Pacific region to Japan. There he met my mother who was part of the medical reconstruction team in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, looking after the medical problems caused by the atomic bombs. My parents met in those dark circumstances, formed a union, and decided to come to live in Tasmania, where I was born. My life was made rich by their love of me and they gave me a wide background of experience and a sense of value that persists to this day. I have come to this House by a complex route. After leaving school, I studied law at the University of Tasmania and then undertook a post-graduate degree in social work at the then Tasmanian College of Advanced Education. Although I worked briefly as a social worker with the Tasmanian Education Department, my background now is that of a lawyer, specifically in constitutional and administrative law. In that role, I have held the positions of Crown Counsel in Tasmania and Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Papua New Guinea. I have also worked as Principal Solicitor for the Aboriginal Legal Service of New South Wales. I have had the honour to represent the Tasmanian Government both before the High Court of Australia and in the United States of America. I wish to reflect briefly on my experience as a lawyer working in Aboriginal legal aid because I propose to retain an active interest in this area. In the House three Government members, myself and two colleagues, share a background of employment with Aboriginal organisations. My colleagues are the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon). By a curious coincidence, the honourable member for Hughes and I both served as Principal Solicitor for the Aboriginal Legal Service in New South Wales, perhaps suggesting a new career path towards politics. We cannot claim to be a united Australia until we face up adequately to the dispossession of the nation's original inhabitants. I welcome the commitment on Aboriginal Affairs made in the Governor-General's Speech and in particular the Government's intention to explore how best to reflect a proper recognition of over 40,000 years of Aboriginal history. It is of course impossible to thank everyone who has contributed over the years to the gaining of such wisdom as I have, but I place on record my debt to Roger Jennings, the former Tasmanian Solicitor-General who encouraged me to strive for excellence, and who remains a close personal friend. I must thank all those who contributed to our successful Denison campaign, particularly my campaign team and my campaign manager, Di Stow. A campaign in the heart of a Tasmanian winter is not without hazards and the enthusiasm of those who put in so much time and effort is something that I will always treasure. I should also make a slight personal comment. On election night, something occurred which I hope will stay with me forever. From early scrutineers' reports I learnt at about 6.30 that I had been successful in the election, and in an outburst of enthusiasm I asked a young woman whether she would marry me, and she said yes. She has been attending the House with me over the last few days. Unfortunately, she had to go back to work today so she is not present now, but I want to record that my success was doubly sweet for the reward that she was able to give me by accepting my proposal. I now set out on the task of representing the people of Denison. I pay my respects to my predecessor, Michael Hodgman, but will walk in no man's shadow. I pay tribute to John Coates, a former member for Denison and now a senator for Tasmania, who, before my election, was the last Australian Labor Party member to hold this seat. Tasmanians bear a heavy burden in national politics. They must often plead a special case, because their case is special. I shall not shrink from that obligation within the Government or within the House and I look forward to the co-operation of my colleagues, both state and federal, in ensuring that Tasmania has a voice in Denison that will be listened to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Before calling the honourable member for Forrest, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(5.39) —I wish to speak tonight about four areas that affect my electorate-investment, industrial relations, employment and training and the pesticides residual level that we are experiencing with our beef exports. On the first, it is common ground among economic commentators that present levels of investment are inadequate and remain at the lowest level at which they have been for the past 4 1/2 years. The outlook for private expenditure in capital equipment is depressing to say the least. In 1985-86 gross private fixed capital expenditure on equipment fell by 5.7 per cent in real terms and in 1986-87 by a further 3.9 per cent. The Australian Bureau of Statistics forecast no real increase in business confidence in the coming year, and said that it is likely to remain at its present levels and negative in real terms. We need to look at why there is a lack of investment in the areas of which I have spoken. The first point to be raised in that regard of course, concerns high interest rates. Despite falls recently in interest rates to around 15 per cent our interest rates still remain high compared with those of our competitors. Interest rates here are 5 per cent higher than those in Canada, 4 per cent higher than those in the United Kingdom, twice those in the United States of America and nearly five times those in Japan. Quite honestly, the J-curve is not working; it has not stimulated investment in the small business and industrial sectors in Australia. Uncertainty in the value of the Australian dollar is another factor affecting investment in the manufacturing sector. We were told quite some time ago that we would be competitive if we had a lower dollar value. Let us look at what really happened to our dollar. Between January 1985 and now our dollar has fallen by something like 49 per cent against the yen. Our other major competitors suffered a similar fate so we did not really get any of the economic advantage that we were told we would get. Not only that, but our manufacturing sector that we were told would benefit from this devaluation did not get a competitive edge, particularly in the Japanese market. Let us look at examples among our overseas competitors. The United States dollar in the same period devalued against the yen by 43.5 per cent. In Canada the dollar devalued by the same amount, 43.5 per cent. In New Zealand the figure was 25.3 per cent and in Brazil it was 94 per cent. One does not need to ask who is gobbling up our iron ore export markets to Japan and markets for other commodities. Brazil would have to be near the top of the list of those doing so. The figure for South Africa was 43.4 per cent and that for the United Kingdom was 19.1 per cent. So much for the great competitive edge we were told we would get with the devaluation of the Australian dollar. Lack of investment in industry is a major reason why we are not back on the road to recovery in the manufacturing sector. One needs to look at the real incentives to invest in the manufacturing sector in Australia. We need to look at the losses that the Labor Government would have sustained through high interest rates. Let us consider a company that borrows $1m. If interest rates were at 10 per cent $100,000 would be tax deductible. At an interest rate of 20 per cent, $200,000 is tax deductible. In effect, the Government misses out on another $49,000 of company tax at the higher interest rate. The investment incentive is still there in the property sector. High inflation diminishes the repayment of the capital debt and inflation in capital growth assists the property market. There is no real incentive to invest in the manufacturing sector. I believe that we need a positive program to get people to invest, employ people in the manufacture of Australian goods and stop the import of goods. In regard to industrial relations, the two-tier wage fixing system clearly has not worked all that well. The second tier trade-off has disadvantaged those companies that have run an effective and efficient business. The Government says to those companies that they need to trade off work practices; but when they have never engaged in work practices clearly they have nothing to give. Other companies have gained the benefits for whatever reason. They may have had sloppy management which has given away incentives over time. We need to get back to a system in which employers and the employee unions do not race off to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to let it set a figure. Clearly there needs to be a better way of doing things. The Government has not delivered the goods in restructuring our industrial relations system. Until it does we will not see any positive signs of a turnaround in the business sector. Employer groups, to a certain extent, bear some of the blame because they do not represent all employers. All too often the small business sector is disadvantaged by award rates and conditions struck on major projects. The small business sector pays the price. We need to reintroduce a system where it is worth while employing people and worth while small business being involved in that area. Concerning unemployment and youth training: our unemployment level still stands at 8 per cent. Youth unemployment is at an unacceptably high figure of 22.7 per cent. Despite the Government's recent report, the training programs for youth remain inadequate. The apprenticeship system that we have today is not working. No plans have been set afoot to correct those imbalances. Quite clearly, businesses are not employing people because it is not worth their while. In many instances in my business, families and parents have asked me to employ their children and they have said they would subsidise the balance of the wage. Of course, that is not permitted and it is not on. Perhaps it reflects the fact that people genuinely want their children to have a job and training and we do not have any system in place which allows that. Perhaps we should return to the way the old craft unions used to work, in that apprentices paid for their training. That seems to have gone out the window. It is the case that the employer pays a hell of a price for the privilege of employing apprentices. We need to get a system where it is worth while people and companies employing the youth of this country. If we do not correct that imbalance we will never solve our long term problems. In regard to pesticide levels: in the south-west of Western Australia, particularly in relation to our meat exports in recent times, rural properties worth many millions of dollars have been placed in jeopardy by the use of pesticides on farming properties over the years. Since the problem first came to light about three months ago little has been done to resolve it. This problem is threatening one of my State's major exports. Meat processors in my area in Western Australia meet the highest health standards in the world. At this stage they appear to be taking the blame for this problem which was caused by a lack of foresight by State and Federal governments. The problems of pesticides should be well known by the Deputy Secretary to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy in Canberra, Mr Noel Fitzpatrick, who, for a number of years, was the Director of the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia. Urgent action must be taken to devise methods to correct this problem now. As well as beef, the south-west of Western Australia exports fruit, vegetables, mutton and lamb, all of which could be affected by the pesticide levels in the soils. These problems affect the electorates of Forrest, Brand and O'Connor. The problems stem initially from the growing of potatoes. Many years ago this was a major crop throughout the entire area. In fact, in years gone by over half the land was cleared for the production of potatoes. The Government must be prepared to bite the bullet and undertake a massive education program of property management for farmers as well as seeking solutions to neutralise the residue in the soils. We should not leave the problem until it becomes another major rural crisis for Australia. Our State Government recently provided over $600,000 for assistance to farmers. At this stage, the Federal Government has been surprisingly quiet. I get back to the point that each of these industries has an effect on my electorate and probably on many electorates in Australia. The problems are those of investment, industrial relations, employment and training, particularly for our youth, and protecting the markets we have. I am disappointed that the present Government has not tackled adequately any of those problems. We need to get proper investment in what I call the dinky-di area of employing people-the manufacturing sector. We need to take away the disincentives to invest in those areas. If a major manufacturer invests in an export industry and the dollar floats wildly, what happens to the markets that he has just spent millions of dollars on to capture? This problem needs responsible economic management from a government that I do not believe is offering that choice to the business sector. Debate (on motion by Mrs Harvey) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 5.51 to 7.30 p.m. Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(7.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam Speaker, the Budget for 1987-88 is in balance. The deficit has been cut to just on zero, a mere $27 million. This Government, having inherited a prospective budget deficit of almost $10,000 million, the largest in the nation's history, has in the space of just 5 budgets wiped that dismal legacy out. What is more, this monumental achievement has been accomplished while keeping to our election commitments not to increase taxes and not to make major additional spending cuts. Relative to the size of the economy, tax revenue is down on last year. On the same basis, government spending is down two percentage points compared with the level confronting us in 1983. This Budget incorporates nonetheless significant new initiatives. We have provided $250 million to meet our election commitments to a Family Allowance Supplement for low income families. We have financed the massive $4,500 million cost of the personal income tax cuts introduced in December last year and July this year. We have introduced a new company tax system which eliminates the double taxation of dividends. These achievements have been made possible while simultaneously balancing the Budget by the most wide ranging and detailed review of government spending ever carried out. This Budget incorporates a 2.4 per cent real reduction in Commonwealth spending, the biggest cut in the 35 years for which comparable records are available. This Budget also lays the foundations for sound budgets over the life of this Parliament. The decisions which have cut outlays by $3,500 million this year will produce the same reductions next year. In other words, the savings are on-going. The Government's Economic Strategy Madam Speaker, this fundamental shift down in the Commonwealth budget is making a crucial contribution to the process of economic adjustment that Australia has been undergoing since the collapse in our export prices in 1985-86. Unlike almost any other economy in similar circumstances, the Australian economy has not been driven into recession. The Government's policy response has been innovative, strong, and most of all, right. Notwithstanding the enormity of the trade difficulties we have faced, our economic strategy is now bearing fruit. Australians have responded earnestly by lifting the national export effort and successfully seeking out new markets. No less than half of Australia's export growth last year came from the sale of manufactured goods-a remarkable achievement given the parlous state of manufacturing only 4 years ago. We are also developing services such as tourism into major earners of foreign exchange. At the same time we have cut imports by making locally more of the goods we used to buy from overseas. Taken together, increased exports and reduced imports accounted for all of Australia's economic growth last year. One hundred and forty thousand new jobs were created. Our trading bill was cut by $1,000 million from 6 per cent of Gross Domestic Product to 5 per cent. In this coming year we forecast that it will decline further to 4 per cent. These achievements are extremely gratifying. They have exceeded the expectations of almost everybody. Madam Speaker, as successful as we have been, the magnitude of our trading problem is such that we still have a long way to go. The big trade deficits since the early 1980s have built up a substantial foreign debt burden. Our external deficit, although falling, remains too high. To reduce permanently our debt burden we must go further in reducing our dependence on overseas savings by lifting the level of Australian savings. This is why we have acted to cut the demands of all levels of government on savings, releasing them for private investment to enhance our trade performance. But that is only part of the story. If Australia is to sell more abroad-and if our manufacturers are to win a greater share of the domestic market-we must ensure that the goods we produce are priced competitively. In particular, we must make sure that labour costs in Australia are competitive with those of our trading partners. The Australian community has shown enormous maturity and common sense in responding to the trade crisis by exercising wage restraint. This has helped sustain the new-found competitiveness of Australian industry. Most importantly it has ensured that the difficult international trading conditions have not led to a surge in unemployment. This is being reinforced by the two tier wage system which for the first time in our history is requiring efficiency and productivity improvements at an industry and enterprise level as offsets for wage increases. In the public sector the Commonwealth is insisting that any second tier wage increase granted to its own employees be offset by genuine productivity and efficiency gains. Employment, Education and Training Madam Speaker, if Australia is to compete successfully in the international market place we must also raise our educational standards. We are now redirecting our spending so that it better conforms with Australia's economic priorities. In May I announced a major restructuring of unemployment benefits and study allowances which greatly increases the incentives for our young people to stay in the education and training system rather than moving onto welfare. The centrepiece of those reforms was the abolition of unemployment benefits for 16 and 17 year olds and the substitution of a modest job search allowance. This restructuring of study allowances has been carried further in the Budget by changes to the student assistance schemes for Aboriginal children, isolated children and the children of veterans, bringing them more into line with mainstream income support programs. The Government also recognises that if we are to encourage young people to stay in the education system, we must provide more student places. Consequently we have approved an extra 5,800 higher education places for young school leavers in 1988. Our reforms in education and training have also been geared to getting better value for money. From 1988 funds for new TAFE capital works will be allocated on the basis of competitive bidding by States and individual colleges, with priority being given to projects in economically important areas, such as computing studies and hospitality, and areas which involve joint funding with industry. Funding for the Australian Traineeship System-which provides young people entering the workforce with a mixture of on-the-job and formal training-is to increase from $14 million to $45 million. This will provide places for 13,000 new trainees. At a cost of $31 million, a new program to provide short-term vocational training opportunities for unemployed young people will be introduced. My colleague, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, will issue tonight a comprehensive paper explaining the Government's skills formation strategy. Among other measures, $15 million will be provided in 1987-88 and $28 million in a full year to implement a National Policy on Languages. Funding for the Aboriginal Employment Development Policy will be increased by $26 million in 1987-88 and by $49 million in 1988-89. Family Assistance Package Madam Speaker, the Hawke Government has always believed that only those in genuine need should be entitled to social security payments. We have systematically implemented measures to exclude welfare cheats from the system. In the May Statement I described a range of further initiatives to crack down on fraud and abuse. Already these are proving very successful. As a result of these measures we will save more than $100 million in unemployment benefit payments in 1987-88. We have consistently held that people who can readily support themselves should do so, rather than putting their hand out to the taxpayer. But we have not shirked the Australian Labor Party's historical commitment to assist the most needy in our community. This Budget further strengthens that commitment by implementing a landmark social reform in the shape of the Family Assistance Package. From Christmas this year this package will provide help to more than half a million families in need. More than one million children will benefit. Subject to an income test, the new scheme will provide a Family Allowance Supplement of $22 per week per child. Recognising the higher costs associated with teenage children, the payment for each child aged 13, 14 or 15 will be $28 per week. In addition, we will provide low income families renting privately with an extra allowance of up to $15 a week. This means, for example, that families with incomes up to $324 per week who rent privately and have three children, two aged under 13 and one 14, will receive a supplement of $87 per week free of tax. That is an increase of up to $69 per week on what they would have received under the old Family Income Supplement. The most any of these families would have received under the discredited election tax policy of the Liberal and National Parties would have been $20.46. This new Family Allowance Supplement is additional to the existing Family Allowance and will be paid directly to the primary carer of the children, generally the mother. It is structured so that it will increase the incentive for unemployed people to find work and will provide a positive inducement to avoid welfare dependency. In terms of assisting low income families in genuine need, this new Family Allowance Supplement ranks with any initiative introduced by any Australian government in any period. As I said earlier this is a landmark change in social policy and a source of much pride to the Government. Health As promised in the election campaign, the Government will provide $25 million to the States this year and next to reduce waiting lists in public hospitals. Expenditure of $20 million will be provided for prevention and education measures to combat the spread of AIDS. Following a review of requirements, repatriation hospital staff numbers are to be increased by 337. Staff and Administration The Prime Minister recently announced a major restructuring of Commonwealth departments. These changes are estimated to produce savings of $107 million in a full year and to cut 3,100 off staffing levels by 1988-89. Asset Sales In May I announced a program of asset sales estimated to yield about $1,000 million in 1987-88. In order to maintain maximum flexibility in aviation policy, and in the light of our election commitment to deregulate the industry, the Government has decided not to proceed with the sale of its international airport terminals. Notwithstanding this change, however, we still expect the other elements of the program of asset sales announced in May to raise at least $1,000 million in 1987-88. In the 1988-89 financial year we will be selling the loans portfolio of the Defence Service Homes Corporation and other defence assets, producing savings of around another $1,000 million. As well as generating important efficiency gains, this will add a recurrent quality to the budgetary numbers as far as the disposal program is concerned. Revenue Turning to the revenue side, I repeat that we have adhered to our election commitment not to increase taxes or introduce new taxes. We have been able to cut spending and taxes at the same time partly because we are now reaping the benefits of earlier actions to restore integrity to the tax system and to upgrade its administration. The capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and related measures like many things that are new, were controversial at inception, but are now fulfilling their proper structural function by massively broadening the tax base. It is largely because of these measures that despite legislated lower tax rates and subdued economic growth, 1986-87 tax collections came in $1 billion above budget-time estimates. Not only are they yielding the revenue but they have made the system much fairer than it has ever been. The Government is firmly committed to continuing its efforts to make the tax and welfare systems decent and secure, and consequently we will proceed with vigour to implement the Australia Card national identification system. This system will return up to $1,000 million a year in revenue that is presently being evaded or defrauded. To further reinforce our anti-avoidance measures, this Budget will fund the Tax Office to establish special audit teams of highly qualified and experienced officers to mount more effective and detailed scrutinies of potential tax avoidance activities, particularly in the corporate sector. Madam Speaker, as most Australians are aware, some people in this country have accumulated substantial wealth because of booming stockmarket and property values. Under the old tax system much of those profits would have gone tax-free. That is no longer the case. We have made the system fairer and those who have previously benefited from tax-free capital profits are now making a substantial contribution towards the costs of government services like schools, roads, social security, and so on. The impact of this new, fair tax has been a fundamental factor in the Government's review of tax deductions for investors in rental property. Since we have restored the integrity of the tax system by subjecting capital gains to tax, we are now in a position to permit the restoration of deductions against taxable income without exposing the revenue to the threat which existed before July 1985. The full interest costs of owning and maintaining rental property will now be deductible against income from any source. In the recent past the Government has canvassed in detail the principle of allowing tax deductions for interest costs in the case of both rural investments and equity investments. In both cases we decided in favour of allowing offsetting deductions. Tonight's decision restores the symmetry between investment in property and other assets such as shares or farms. It will enhance the attractiveness of investment in both commercial and residential rental property and have a beneficial effect on the supply of residential accommodation in particular. In the light of this decision the 4 per cent depreciation allowance for both residential and non-residential construction is to be reduced to 2 1/2 per cent for new properties. This will moderate the cost of these concessions, which has been growing at an annual rate of $55 million, while still representing a substantial concession to construction activity. New Policy Directions Following introduction of the Government's revolutionary full imputation system for company tax-to remove the double tax on dividends-I have now instituted a complementary review within the Treasury of the remaining structure of the business taxation system. The overriding objective of this review is to identify options for financing reductions in the company tax rate through sensible broadening of the company income tax base. This is in line with similar recent reforms in a number of major Western economies, including the United States and Britain. I will announce the outcome of this review either in or before the next Budget. Madam Speaker, in the coming term the Government will be concentrating its energies on the quest for efficiency throughout the economy. We have already foreshadowed the removal of outdated regulatory arrangements in the crude oil industry and the aviation sector. More reforms of this nature will follow as we review and remove impediments to doing things better in different sectors of the economy. Future Prospects Madam Speaker, Australia's economic performance will continue to be constrained until we overcome the fundamental problem of our trade imbalance. Even so, in the coming year Australia's economic growth rate is estimated to increase modestly from 2 per cent last financial year to 2 3/4 per cent. This should generate over 100,000 new jobs-meaning that by the end of our Bicentennial year one million new jobs will have been created since the Hawke Government first won office. Continued buoyancy of employment, and the tax cuts, will lift household purchasing power from last year's low. But the cuts we have made to government spending will restrain total domestic demand and avoid any spillover into unsustainable import pressures. Now that we have eliminated the budget deficit we will be repaying $1,000 million of Commonwealth overseas debt this year and the same amount of domestic bonds. No other Commonwealth government in more than 50 years has made repayments of both external and domestic debt in the same year. This year we have seen significant falls in interest rates, both for businesses and for home buyers. The withdrawal of the Commonwealth Government as a net borrower this year will further reduce pressures on financial markets and help to sustain those lower interest rates. While fiscal policy is now carrying more of the burden of policy, monetary policy will continue to play its proper role in containing domestic demand and cost and price pressures. Lower interest rates and an improving economic climate should contribute to a lift in business investment of at least 4 per cent in real terms and much more than that in the areas taking advantage of new export and import competing opportunities. We therefore expect that Australia will make further substantial progress in reducing the current account deficit in 1987-88. It should fall to around $11 1/2 billion, 4 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. With the worst of the inflationary impact of the depreciation of the dollar behind us, and wage restraint under the Accord, inflation is expected to fall from over 9 per cent last year to around 6 per cent by the middle of 1988. Conclusion Madam Speaker, I have described tonight how Australia is successfully responding to the most adverse external economic difficulty we have faced since the Great Depression nearly 60 years ago. We could have reacted to this trade deterioration by pushing all the economic policy levers into reverse. That has been tried in the past, both here and in other countries. And where it has been tried it has not produced the quick results hoped for and it has resulted in sharply higher long-term levels of unemployment, declining living standards and destructive social conflicts. We have rejected that path and the events of the last 18 months have shown that we were right. We have turned the corner and the big gaps in the trade accounts have begun to close. Essential to our success to date has been cutting the size of government and pulling down the budget deficit from the near $10,000 million that we inherited from Mr Fraser and Mr Howard to just on zero. This is an achievement of historic proportions. It is one of which the Government is justly proud. We have done it the right way-by better targeting government spending and by repairing and reforming the tax system. The needy have been protected and assisted; the cheats have been caught and made to pay their way. This is responsible government, the Labor way. Governing with compassion and authority, good sense and confidence. I commend the Budget to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I present the following papers for the information of honourable members in connection with the Budget for 1987-88: Budget Statements 1987-88 The Commonwealth Public Account 1987-88 Portfolio Program Estimates 1987-88 Commonwealth Financial Relations with other levels of Government 1987-88 Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1987 National Income and Expenditure 1986-87 Income Tax Statistics Australia's Overseas Aid Program 1987-88 Commonwealth Capital Works Program 1987-88 Australian Capital Territory Budget 1987-88 Ordered that the papers be printed. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members I present the following paper in connection with the Budget of 1987-88: Women's Budget Statement 1987-88. Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of certain proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(7.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1987-88 totalling $5,403,980m. Of this amount $2,397,522m was authorised by the Supply Act (No. 2) 1986-87. The balance of $3,006,458m will be authorised by this Bill. The Bill provides for proposed expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites and buildings, certain advances and loans, items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital expenditure and expenditure on new policy initiatives for which legislation has not been approved previously. Provision is also made for grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory. An amount of $140m is included under the Advance to the Minister for Finance, $10m more than was provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1987-88 which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. The need for the increase reflects the experience of recent years whereby peak calls have been progressively pressing closer to the limit of the Advance, albeit pending Additional Estimates or at year end. I would add that this is the first increase in the level of the Advance since 1983-84. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in schedule 4 to the Bill and the main features were outlined in the Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments announced. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate moneys of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the recurrent and capital expenditures of the parliamentary departments for the year ending 30 June 1988. The total amount sought is $71,859m. Of this amount, $23,716m was authorised by the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1987-88, the balance of $48,143m being sought in this Bill. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in schedule 2 to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (General Revenue) Act 1985 to implement decisions made at the May 1987 Premiers Conference relating to the level of financial assistance grants and identified health grants to be distributed among the States in 1987-88. The Bill also incorporates amendments relating to the decision announced in the Budget requiring States to contribute to the costs of higher education superannuation schemes. In respect of the agreements reached at the Premiers Conference, the Bill seeks to fix the actual dollar amount of financial assistance grants and identified health grants in 1987-88 at levels estimated to be sufficient to maintain their value in real terms. These provisions modify the arrangements agreed at the May 1985 Premiers Conference. At that time, the Commonwealth and States agreed that, during the triennium beginning 1985-86, the level of financial assistance grants and identified health grants to be distributed among the States would be determined having regard to actual increases in the all groups consumer price index (CPI) in the year ending in the March quarter of each year. The level of grants was to be maintained in real terms in 1985-86 and increased by 2 per cent in real terms in each of the following two years. These arrangements, which were reflected in the States Grants (General Revenue) Act 1985, applied in both 1985-86 and 1986-87. It is necessary, however, to amend them in respect of 1987-88. This decision constitutes part of the Government's policy of reducing the calls made by all levels of government on the nation's savings. The May statement on initial Budget measures for 1987-88 announced various decisions designed to give effect to the Commonwealth's endeavours in this regard. That statement also indicated our intention to seek agreement, at the Premiers Conference on 25 May 1987, to savings of $1,000m on the forward estimates of general purpose payments to the States and the Northern Territory in 1987-88. At the Premiers Conference, the Commonwealth and State governments agreed to the level of financial assistance grants and identified health grants to be distributed among the States in 1987-88 being maintained in real terms. Specifically, it was agreed that the total pool of such payments to the States would be fixed at $13,539m. This amount was calculated on the basis of the estimates at the time of the Premiers Conference of the level of the grants in 1986-87, increased by 8 per cent, representing the forecast rise in the CPI in the year to March 1988. The decision to hold these grants and analogous grants to the Northern Territory at the same real level accounted for $285m of the $1,000m savings against the Forward Estimates. The outcome of the Premiers Conference reflected a general acceptance by the States and the Commonwealth of the need for all levels of government to cut back their borrowing and spending. The Bill also covers matters dealing with the decision announced in the Budget that, commencing on 1 January 1988, the Commonwealth will limit its contributions to State higher education superannuation schemes operated on an emerging cost basis. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) will be making a separate statement on higher education which, among other things, will provide greater detail on this decision. All States except Queensland will be affected. The Bill places an obligation on those States to make a payment to the Commonwealth covering their share of higher education superannuation costs. It does so by making the payment of financial assistance under the Act conditional on such a payment being received by the Commonwealth by 31 May 1988. The precise amount for each State will be determined by the Minister by 31 March 1988. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's endeavours to effect adjustments to fiscal policy in Australia. I commend the Bill to the House and present the related explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Smith) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act 1985 so as to authorise payments in 1987-88 arising out of decisions, taken at the 25 May 1987 Loan Council meeting, which fall outside the provisions of the Financial Agreement Act 1928. Specifically, this Bill seeks to authorise: the payment of general purpose capital grants to the States in 1987-88; the prepayment of capital grants during the first six months of 1988-89, pending passage of similar legislation in that year; and the alteration of the amounts that may be nominated by the States and the Northern Territory from the borrowing component of their Loan Council programs for the purpose of public housing in 1987-88. It also makes provision for each State and the Northern Territory to provide a certified statement as to the expenditure of funds nominated for the purpose of public housing. Capital Grants to States Since 1970-71 a portion of the State governments' Loan Council programs have been provided by the Commonwealth as interest-free capital grants. The grants were introduced to help States finance works, such as schools and other capital works, from which debt charges are not normally recovered. The effect of these grants, therefore, is to relieve the States of those debt charges-that is, interest payments and sinking fund contributions-which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the overall financial positions of the States. In addition, there are no conditions attaching to the manner in which the grants are applied by the States. In the 10 years prior to 1985-86 the grants represented one-third of the State governments' Loan Council programs. In 1985-86 and again in 1986-87 the portion of the programs provided as a capital grant was temporarily increased by 7 per cent to approximately 35.7 per cent, with the loan portion being reduced by an equivalent amount. For 1987-88 the Loan Council agreed that the grant component of the State governments' Loan Council programs and equivalent general purpose capital assistance to the Northern Territory as a whole should be one-third. However, due to changes in the distribution between the States and the Northern Territory agreed at the Loan Council meeting, the proportion of the program provided as a capital grant will vary slightly from State to State. The total amount to be provided to the States as a capital grant is $176m out of a total program of $533m. Public Housing Nominations The arrangements whereby the States and the Northern Territory are able to nominate part of the borrowing component of their Loan Council programs for public housing were introduced in 1982-83. The arrangements have contributed considerably to the financing of public housing in the States and the encouragement of the States to increase their own housing expenditures. As a condition of the payment of these funds, a State or the Northern Territory must be able to meet its matching requirements for the purposes of the Housing Assistance Act 1984. Subject to that, the nominated funds will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory at the loan terms and conditions set out in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, and hence will bear interest at the concessional rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum and will be repayable over 53 years. At the Loan Council meeting on 25 May 1987 it was agreed that the States and the Northern Territory would be allowed to nominate the whole of the borrowing component of their programs for public housing in 1987-88. This Bill seeks to give effect to those decisions. Should the States and Northern Territory nominate the maximum amounts allowed under this Bill, $414m will be provided to them as loans on concessional terms for public housing. Statement by State in Respect of Public Housing The Bill provides that the States and the Northern Territory will be required to provide the Commonwealth with certified financial statements detailing the expenditure of loan funds nominated for public housing. This change will formalise existing reporting arrangements already agreed to between the Commonwealth and the States, and is consistent with those applying to assistance provided under the Housing Assistance Act 1984. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory and I therefore commend the Bill to the House and present the related explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(8.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the financing of the prospective Budget deficit in 1987-88 together with the associated prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Legally, payments from the Consolidated Re- venue Fund cannot exceed moneys available to that Fund. In order to meet any prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund it is customary to seek legislative authority to charge defence and other Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditure to, or reimburse the Consolidated Revenue Fund from, the Loan Fund. This Bill therefore seeks authority to borrow money in 1987-88 for defence and other purposes and to enable certain other expenditures to be met from the Loan Fund rather than from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In addition, and for the first time, the Bill provides for continuity of that authority by the inclusion of a supply clause. In the past, borrowing authority under the annual Loan Act ceased to be available on 30 June until the next Loan Act was passed, usually by urgent passage in the Budget sittings. Borrowing authority during the supply period for next financial year will be limited to the amount included in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1988-89 for defence purposes, that Act having been passed by the Parliament prior to the end of the 1987-88 financial year. Apart from a comparatively small amount attributable to the expenses of raising loans under the authority of this legislation, the Bill does not authorise defence or other expenditures additional to those otherwise authorised by Parliament under annual Appropriation Acts and under Acts providing for special or standing appropriations. The Bill is simply a machinery financing measure-the provisions of the Bill in fact explicitly prohibit borrowings for expenditures additional to those authorised by the Parliament. Successive governments have, for many years, introduced legislation in the form of an annual Loan Bill to authorise the issue of moneys from the Loan Fund to meet defence expenditures or to reimburse the Consolidated Revenue Fund from the Loan Fund in respect of certain non-defence expenditures. In the Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that the Budget deficit in prospect for 1987-88 is estimated to be some $27m. This gives rise to a prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of around $2.4 billion-the Consolidated Revenue Fund differs from the Budget deficit as some CRF expenditures and receipts are classified as financing transactions in the functional classification of Budget outlays and, for the purposes of the Budget figuring, certain Budget outlays are met direct from either the Loan Fund or the Trust Fund. Existing standing authorities enable some $1.2 billion of expenditure to be charged to the Loan Fund in 1987-88, leaving a shortfall of some $1.2 billion for which separate funding authority is required. This Bill seeks authority to borrow moneys accordingly. The amount of borrowings that may be undertaken pursuant to the proposed legislation is, in the case of defence expenditure, the amount for which appropriation is sought for defence purposes in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1)-some $7.1 billion in 1987-88-and any moneys for defence purposes that may be appropriated in the Supply Act (No. 1) for the next financial year. The effective limit in 1987-88 is likely to be significantly less than appropriations as defence expenditures cannot be charged to the Loan Fund until the legislation is enacted. The legal limit for borrowing for non-defence purposes is determined by the level of borrowing authority approved by the Loan Council. It is estimated that the 1987-88 limits will be sufficient to enable the financing of the Budget deficit. In concluding, I emphasise that the Bill does not in any way impinge upon the Parliament's prerogative to appropriate public moneys but simply provides a mechanism for financing expenditures previously approved and appropriated by the Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Smith) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —For the information of honourable members, I present the following report: Skills Formation in Australia. Ordered that the report be printed. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Duncan, and read a first time. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(8.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985 to give effect to recent announcements made by the Government on Federal road funding in the May statement and the 1987 Budget. In the May statement the Government announced that 1987-88 payments under the Australian land transport program (ALTP) and the Australian bicentennial road development program (ABRD) would be maintained at the same level as last year, $1,250m. This level of expenditure has been confirmed in the Budget. However, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced in the Budget that $1m of this amount would be used to offset ALTP administrative costs attributable to the Department of Transport and Communications. The legislation already provides for the States to recover part of their own administrative costs. To achieve $1,250m expenditure in 1987-88, the Government has decided to run down trust fund balances and adjust the ALTP rate of excise. This Bill reduces from 1 July 1987 the rate of customs duty and excise on petrol and diesel earmarked to the ALTP Trust Fund by 0.723c per litre. It authorises the repayment from the ALTP Trust Fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the revenue generated in the period from 1 July 1987 until the legislation comes into force by the 0.723c per litre adjustment after taking into account subsequent indexation adjustments and interest earned by these funds. The Bill also provides for administrative expenses incurred by the Department of Transport and Communications in administering the Australian land transport program to be recovered from the ALTP Trust Fund. This will be limited to $1m in 1987-88 and be achieved by expanding the existing research and road safety component of Trust Fund revenue from 0.618c to 0.752c per litre to include administrative costs and making a compensatory reduction in the national roads share of revenue. These amendments in no way change the Government's commitment to the development of a road network which will meet Australia's national economic objectives. This commitment is clearly demonstrated by our decision to maintain the current road funding level despite difficult economic circumstances and to extend the 2c per litre surcharge on fuel currently levied under the ABRD program for five years from 1 January 1989. The Government's economic agenda clearly focuses on establishing the basis for Australia's long term economic security. An efficient national transport and communications infrastructure is needed to assist in achieving this objective. The Government has clearly indicated that it will give high priority to improving this sector. Let me now turn to the details of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 contain the usual citation and commencement provisions. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill provide for the rate of excise payable to the ALTP Trust Fund to be 3.241c per litre from 1 July 1987 by the insertion of section 14b into the principal Act. This varies by 0.723c per litre the rate which would otherwise have applied from 1 July. Provision is also made for the continuation of the indexation provisions to apply to the new relevant rate of 3.241c per litre. Clause 13 of the Bill provides for the revenue generated by the 0.723c per litre adjustment, in the period prior to these amendments coming into force, to be paid out of the ALTP Trust Fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In accordance with the established indexing procedure for the rate of duty of excise on motor spirit and diesel fuel under ALTP, this variation of 0.723c will be indexed with the associated revenue to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund in due course. It also provides for any investment income which may accrue to these moneys whilst they are held in the ALTP Trust Fund likewise to be paid to Consolidated Revenue. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill make provision for the declaration of an approved administrative organisation. The Department of Transport and Communications will be declared. Clause 8 of the Bill enables payments to be made from the ALTP Trust Fund to an approved administrative organisation. Clause 9 of the Bill includes administration of road programs within the limit of allocations under section 18 (2). It also increases the percentage share for this category from 0.618 per cent to 0.752 per cent with a compensating adjustment to the national roads percentage share. There will be no variation to funding for arterial and local roads. Clause 10 of the Bill provides for payments to an approved administrative organisation on closure of the Fund. Clause 11 of the Bill provides for the Minister to request that a proposed program be submitted to him for approval from an approved administrative organisation. Finally, Clause 12 amends the current audit certification requirements for annual statements of expenditure to be provided by the States and approved organisations pursuant to section 30 of the Act. This is to bring the certification requirements into line with current audit practice. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(8.28) —I move: 1. That the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Act 1980 (in these Proposals referred to as ``the Act'') be altered as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals. 2. That, notwithstanding the alteration made by these Proposals, the Act as in force immediately before the commencement of the operation of the alteration continues to apply to, and in relation to- (a) Alligator Rivers Region uranium concentrate loaded on to a vessel before the commencement of the operation of the alteration for export from Australia; or (b) Alligator Rivers Region uranium concentrate loaded on to a vessel after the commencement of the operation of the alteration for export from Australia as part of a consignment of Alligator Rivers Region uranium concentrate for export from Australia the loading of which on to that vessel commenced before the commencement of the operation of the alteration. 3. That this alteration shall operate on and from eight o'clock in the evening by standard time in the Australian Capital Territory on Tuesday, 15 September 1987. Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Proposals No. 1 (1987), which I have just tabled, introduce a Customs Tariff change relating to uranium exports foreshadowed in Budget paper No. 1 tabled by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Keating) earlier this evening. The proposals, which operate from 8 o'clock this evening by standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, increase the export duty on uranium concentrate produced from uranium ore obtained from the Alligator Rivers Region in the Northern Territory. The duty, which applies to anhydrous triuranium octoxide, known more familiarly as U308, contained in the uranium concentrate, is increased from 80c to $1.02 per kilogram. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Smith) adjourned. House adjourned at 8.29 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Howard to present a Bill for an Act relating to the submission to the electors of a question relating to the introduction of the Australia Card. Mrs Darling to move- That this House expresses concern at the effects of road trauma on Australian society and commends the Australian Government for policies aimed at lowering deaths and injury of drivers on Australian roads. Mr McVeigh to move- That this House- (1) notes the international recognition given to our artists in theatre, ballet, opera, painting and literature, and (2) requests the Government to ensure adequate funding is given to the Australia Council, their artists, institutions, and the various training and academic institutions to ensure a continuation of world class artists. Mr Wright to move- That this House condemns the decision by the ANZ Bank to introduce a fee for withdrawals from savings accounts believing that- (1) such a fee is unwarranted, unjust and unfair, particularly to pensioners, low income families and others who depend on savings accounts for the protection and management of their finances, and (2) it is commercially immoral for a bank to charge a depositor for the right to withdrawn his or her own money. Mr McVeigh to move- That this House- (1) notes that international sporting contacts have been a method of easing international tensions and improving conditions for people in poorer countries, and (2) calls on the Government not to discriminate against amateur sporting bodies, their members, and sportsmen and women who have had or will have official contact with South Africa. Mr Gear to move- That this House commends the Hawke Government for- (1) The steps it has taken to increase the retention rate among Australian Secondary School Students following the disastrous fall in numbers during the years of the Fraser Government; (2) Its achievement in significantly expanding the numbers of places in universities, and (3) Its proposals to develop skills formations in Australia so that our education system will be better able to respond to the needs of industry and thus materially assist the development of a successful and internationally competitive Australian economy. Mr Cadman to move- That this House- (1) deplores the delays in the processing of applications for immigration and change of status; (2) criticises the uncertainty of business, independent and refugee immigration programs, and (3) calls on the Government to upgrade and streamline the administration of immigration policy. Mr Tuckey to move- That this House calls upon the Government to withdraw or repeal the Australia Card legislation. Mr Lamb to move- That this House commends the Hawke Government for the decisive action it has taken to increase employment for all Australians, particularly through- (1) Developing Training programs to assist young people, the disavantaged, and those effected by technological and structural change, and (2) providing financial support for the development of innovative training schemes designed to assist the Australian workforce become a highly-skilled part of an internationally competitive economy. Ms McHugh to move- That this House congratulates the Government on developing and implementing a comprehensive and integrated program of care for aged people which enables older people in the community to maintain the best possible quality of life, and in particular through the- (1) Home and Community Care program which enables the aged to remain in their own homes rather than prematurely seeking admission to an institution; (2) the Government's emphasis on providing a greater range of residential options whereby the aged can now receive the level and type of care most appropriate to their needs, and (3) the development of quality of care standards for nursing homes, aged people requiring nursing home care, will be assured of high quality treatment. Mr Sharp to move- That this House condemns the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories for his complete lack of understanding of the proper needs of Australia's tourist industry. Mr Lloyd to move- That this House recognises the need to maintain a strong and expanding trade relationship with the USA and that to this end the Government should- (1) invite a delegation of key US Congressmen to visit Australia for talks with key farm and government personnel as a matter of urgency; (2) devote more resources to the promotion of Australia's primary industry produce in the US, as less than half of one per cent of Commonwealth outlays go to the Primary Industry Portfolio, even though Australia's primary industries account for some 40% of export earnings; (3) establish a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Primary Industry, with US trade a matter for immediate discussion; (4) seek to arrange further talks between Australian parliamentarians and US Congressmen and farm leaders, and (5) maintain regular and direct contact between US administration leaders and Australian Ministers, including the Prime Minister. Mrs Darling to move- That this House expresses concern at actions of the Queensland Government which are adversely affecting the environment and supports federal Government action to protect the environment for Queenslanders and all Australians. Dr Charlesworth to move- That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on its commitment to a health insurance system based on the principles of fairness, simplicity and efficiency; (2) calls upon the Government to maintain a universal system of health insurance funded by a fairly applied levy arrangement; (3) condemns attacks on the universal health insurance by sectional vested interests, including some members of the medical profession; and (4) rejects the Opposition health policy requiring most families to pay the first $250 of their health bills. Mr Downer to move- That this House expresses its deep concern at the negligent way the Government has conducted Australia's relations with the South Pacific nations since 1983. Mr Moore to move- That this House rejects the ongoing use of taxpayers' funds for public enterprises which would be more appropriately funded by the private sector. Mr Wright to move- That this House condemns the recent charge introduced by the Metropolitan Building Society in Queensland on accounts under $100, believing that such a charge is particularly unfair to small depositors, most of whom would be the aged, the young and the low income citizens. Mr Tickner to move- That this House- (1) views with concern the emergence of the extremist New Right in Australia and the increased influence of these forces on Australian institutions and society; (2) believes that this development poses a threat to the well-being of the Australian community and (3) calls on concerned Australians to unite and participate in the democratic processes in order to preserve the Australian way of life. Mr Ian Cameron to move- That this House condemns the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs for the lack of funding and the new arrangements for the distribution of funds for the 800 local government councils in Australia. Mr Blunt to move- That this House expresses serious concern at the Government's insincere and uncaring attitude to people with disabilities and its failure to develop and implement programs providing them with effective assistance. Mr Milton to move- That this House- (1) recognises the vital and creative role which public enterprise has provided in the development of Australia's economy and, in particular, the significant contributions made by the Commonwealth Bank, Telecom, Qantas, and Australian Airlines, and (2) places on record its view that they should remain in public ownership. Mr Scott to move- That this House congratulates the people of Palau in their struggle for the retention of their nuclear-free status, by rejecting on numerous occasions since February 1983, attempts to modify their Constitution that would then allow the presence of nuclear weapons on and in their Territory. Mr McGauran to move- That this House condemns the Attorney-General for the Government's failure to restrict distribution of `X' rated videos in the ACT, thereby allowing State laws to be easily circumvented and family life undermined. Mr Miles to move- That this House deplores this Government's inept handling to the relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Mr Scott to move- That the Government promote Australian agriculture produce as being free from nuclear contamination and non-irradiated. Mr Connolly to move- (1) that the Government's failed social and economic policies have caused widespread poverty among Australian families which will not be overcome by the Government's new family assistance package, and (2) the Government must reverse the record interest rates; high unemployment; high marginal tax rates; housing shortages; high rents and falling value of family allowances if it is to offer real assistance to Australian families. Mr White to move- That this House recognises that the separation rates from the Australian Defence Force are seriously eroding the effectiveness of the Force and that urgent action is required to improve pay, allowances and conditions of service to stop this debilitating wastage. Mr Langmore to move- That, in view of the severe constraints on global economic growth and on the development of lower income countries caused by severe trade imbalances, high real interest rates, massive debts of many countries, historically low commodity prices, and industrial and agricultural protection, this House urges the Group of Seven major Western industrial countries (the G7-the United States, Japan, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Canada) to- (1) co-ordinate their national fiscal and monetary policies so as to reduce trade, exchange rate and interest rate imbalances and instability; (2) strongly encourage current account surplus countries to adopt expansionary macroeconomic policies so as to increase their imports and stimulate world trade; (3) reduce their wasteful military expenditure and urge Warsaw Pact countries to do the same so as to reduce fiscal imbalances, reduce interest rates and increase resources for economically and socially useful activity; (4) establish facilities through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for phased, partial debt forgiveness and rescheduling; (5) increase overseas aid for developing countries to the greatest extent possible with the ultimate goal of reaching the UN target of 0.7 per cent of Gross National Product; (6) support a new issue of Special Drawing Rights by the International Monetary Fund allocated to developing countries to allow relaxation of their balance of payments constraints; and (7) convene a global conference on reform of the international monetary system. Mr Tim Fischer to move- That this House condemns the Government for the lack of real progress in revamping the Defence Service Home Loan Scheme, in particular its failure to transfer the Defence Service Home Loan Scheme to the private sector as announced by the Treasurer in May 1985. Mr Tuckey to move- That this House calls upon the Government to recognise and remedy the ever increasing cost and falling standards of Medical Services to ordinary Australians. Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House expresses its concern at the Government's administration of ACT affairs. Dr Theophanous to move- That this House reaffirms its commitment to the establishment of a multicultural society in Australia and in particular recognises that- (1) Australians of all backgrounds are free and able to participate at all levels in the political, administrative, legal, economic, cultural and artistic life of the nation; (2) there should be freedom to maintain one's cultural heritage within the context of a common legal and political system, with English as the accepted national language; (3) all Australians should be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or culture, and should have equality of opportunity and equitable access to programs and services; (4) programs and services provided to the community as a whole should, as far as possible, be made accessible to all Australians by being sufficiently adaptable to cater to the specific needs of those born overseas and those whose preferred language is other than English, as well as the Australian-born, but, where necessary and appropriate, separate and specialised services should be provided; (5) programs and services should be designed and developed in consultation with all potential client groups, including those born in Australia and those born overseas, and should involve their active participation, and (6) a just and equitable society should be promoted which accepts all people irrespective of their ethnic and cultural backgrounds. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 15 September 1987: Bounty (Books) Act-Declaration of recognised educational institutions pursuant to subsection 4 (1), dated 5 August 1987. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Notices for the purposes of subsection 13 (1a), dated- 3 June 1987. 28 June 1987.