Thursday, 5 November 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr TUCKEY —Today two articles appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian relating to my comments on future directions for health policy. The article in the Australian is wrong in representing that my remarks made to Mike Seccombe in any way indicated an increase in the cost of private health cover to the elderly. In my remarks I made it quite clear to both journalists that my preliminary thinking was predicated on the availability of private health cover being absolutely free to all elderly people. Let me repeat: the policy concept was to provide totally free cover to the elderly and the disadvantaged in our community. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 17 November 1987, at 2 p.m., unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with a request. Ordered that the request be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with a request. Ordered that the request be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Consideration resumed from 27 October. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: (1) That the House of Representatives, having con- sidered message No. 20 of the Senate, agrees that the Senate Standing Committee on Infrastructure, when sitting as a joint committee with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure to consider matters referred to in paragraph (1) of message No. 20 of the Senate, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory appointed during previous Parliaments. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution. Consideration resumed from 4 November. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: (1) That this House concurs in paragraphs (2) to (5), inclusive, of the resolution transmitted in message No. 37 of the Senate relating to the powers and proceedings of the Standing Committees on Infrastructure of the Senate and the House of Representatives when sitting as a joint committee. (2) That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (3) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.05) —I move: (1) That sessional order 28b be amended by omitting from paragraph (a) (vii) ``Infrastructure'' and substituting ``Transport, Communications and Infrastructure''. (2) That references to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure in resolutions of the House of this session be read as references to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. (3) That nominations notified to the Speaker of Members to be members of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure be nominations of Members to be members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. (4) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of part (2) of this resolution. This amendment merely alters the terminology of the title of the Committee, from `Infrastructure' to `Transport, Communications and Infrastructure', to describe more accurately the role it will play. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 29 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow this course to be followed. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.06) —The Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill, which are to be debated cognately, contain some major changes to the Family Law Act. In general terms, the Bills legislate for ex-nuptial children. They redraft, and make very important amendments to, the maintenance provisions in the Act, especially with regard to children. They redirect a lot of routine work away from Family Court judges, particularly to the magistrates courts, and they provide the judges in the Family Court jurisdiction with some additional non-family law work. The Bills contain amendments that will have far-reaching consequences for family law and the conduct of that jurisdiction in Australia. Some are designed to reduce delays in New South Wales. I understand that the delay in Sydney for defended matters-and many of those would be property matters-is up to 2 1/2 years. That is a very long time, and the old adage is justice delayed is justice denied. Some of the provisions in the Bills are designed at reducing those problems. Some are aimed at raising the status of the Family Court of Australia and others find their origins in the concern I think we all share for children, particularly children of broken marriages. The divorce industry, if I may use that term, has been calculated to have an annual turnover of $1.9 billion. Quite a lot of those funds are a cost to governments. The cost of running the Family Court this year, in 1986-87 prices, is estimated to be $33.3m, and a bit higher in nominal terms. The cost of legal aid this year, a fair proportion of which relates to family law matters, again in 1986-87 prices, will be around $84m. In 1986-87 prices, for every man, woman and child we spend something like $6.94 on those two aspects of divorce and legal aid. One might describe that as the cure cost. In contrast, the moneys we will spend on prevention-that is, expenditure on marriage guidance counselling-this year, using the same formula of 1986-87 prices, will total $5.4m. That works out to be 33c per head. I must say it is a matter of regret for many members on this side of the House that that figure has declined in the 1987-88 Budget. When so many other programs simply waste taxpayers' money, one has to be concerned about a government that does not have the sorts of priorities the Australian electorate would look to a government to have. It is a matter of concern that the Government is lukewarm on marriage guidance counselling. It is no good the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) shrugging his shoulders and regretting it but in the end there not being the political will to make the right sorts of decisions. We spend 33c on prevention and at least $6.94 on the cure. The old saying is `A stitch in time saves nine' but when it comes to matrimonial matters the ratio is about 20 : 1. I ask people to think about whether that is right. A lot of factors impinge on the state of families. Marriage guidance counselling is important but there are many other factors. Under this Government, families have had to bear very considerable increases in tax burdens. That has been the hallmark of this Government-it is the highest taxing government we have ever had in our history. Who pays this tax? The families of Australia pay Labor's taxes. I am glad that there are a few new members of the Government party in the House today. They have been told that family homes are not subject to the capital gains tax. I have taken an interest in this matter and it is not true that there is no capital gains tax on family homes. I ask honourable members opposite to look at the 19 circumstances on the Notice Paper which I have put to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and in which I have asked him to confirm whether family homes are subject to capital gains tax. After at least 12 months, if not longer, he has failed to give me a response. A letter from one of his staffers the other day said that the matter was so complicated that it was not possible to answer my question. Not only is the public in the dark; the Treasurer's own staff could not give me a definition of the circumstances in which families have to pay capital gains tax on the family home. Before turning to the detail of these Bills, I indicate that the Opposition is not impressed by the Government's indecent haste in bringing these matters on for debate in the House. These Bills contain very major changes to family law. They were introduced last week. There are 64 pages in the Bills and 79 pages of explanatory memoranda and, of course, many pages of second reading speeches. One Bill was introduced on Wednesday. The Attorney-General's Department or office very kindly brought a copy of the second Bill to me that night because its introduction had been delayed on the Wednesday because of a printers strike. The next morning, someone very kindly came around with a second copy. I said, `Thank you very much but I got a copy last night. Are there any changes from the first copy?'. The person said there were not. I started to compare the copies and found that the Government had been making changes to the Bill overnight. That sort of approach is just not good enough-for a major area of law to be changed this way and to be rushed and rammed through the Parliament with the attitude, `Don't worry too much. She'll be jake'. It will not be jake. Tens of thousands of Australian families will be affected by this legislation and virtually nobody has had a proper opportunity to sit down and go over the fine details. That should happen. For those reasons, at the conclusion of my remarks I will move that these Bills be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. In respect of the Family Law Amendment Bill, I will include an early date by which the Committee must report back to this House. The Bill implements proposals which have been coalition policy for a long time. The Bill needs to be passed as soon as possible. We have been calling for it for years. The Government has taken years to bring it in; now it wants to ram it through overnight and will put up a complaint about the matter going to a committee. We will suggest that this Bill go to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for 30 days. That is not a long period. It does not involve undue delay. It simply provides this Parliament with an opportunity to look at some of the fine details. From discussions with our Senate colleagues-I mention this particularly because I know what the Attorney-General's response might be-I am confident, despite the Senate's cut-off date rules, that the Bill will be given passage by Christmas. That is a sensible way to proceed. Unlike the Family Law Amendment Bill, the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill contains policy proposals which have not been the subject of considerable debate in this Parliament before. In view of our proposal to refer the Bills to the Committee, we will not oppose either measure in this place. In the event that the motion to refer the matters to the Committee is lost, I give notice to the Government that my coalition colleagues in the Senate will seek to ensure that the Family Law Amendment Bill remains on the table at least until the end of the month or early December so that the community has adequate time to make representations particularly on the details of the Bill. If we see the need for any amendments we will certainly move them in the Senate. On the jurisdiction Bill we will seek to have the issues that are raised in the Bill referred to the Senate's Standing Committee. Obviously, we would reserve our position to move any amendments in that place. However, I express the hope that the Government will accept the motion of referral to the House Committee. These are the very sorts of Bills for which these committees have been set up. It is silly that we can have a situation where the Government knocks back our proposal, sends the matter off to the Senate and with the support, perhaps, of the Australian Democrats-and I make that presumption-send the matter to a Senate committee that has plenty of things to look at. Yet in the House of Representatives we have a whole lot of backbenchers, particularly on the Attorney-General's side, who are sitting around twiddling their thumbs. They ought to do some real work to assist the Parliament in its central activity which is to look at Bills. I hope the Attorney-General will give careful consideration to that proposal. I now turn to the more specific aspects of the Family Law Amendment Bill. The Bill should be referred to as the Durack Bill in honour of Senator Peter Durack. This Bill has its origins in the last days of the Fraser Government. I do not think there is any doubt that, if in 1983 Malcolm Fraser had been returned, a Bill along these lines would have been brought in probably in late 1983 or early 1984. Those matters were under discussion between Senator Chaney as Social Security Minister and Senator Durack as Attorney-General. When Labor come to power it had difficulties, so it set up a committee. In a nutshell the problem had arisen, particularly at the end of the Fraser Government, through the social security system's provision of the supporting parent's benefit. The benefit was no longer a mere safety net. It provided income support to sole parents-mostly women-without first requiring both parents to meet their responsibilities to their children. People act rationally in that sense, and more and more have become reliant on the state. The Family Court of Australia, acting under the Family Law Act, was required to take into account the carer's eligibility for a pension when determining the maintenance obligations of the non-custodial parent. The ones who have borne the brunt of this system are the children and the sole parents and, of course, the long suffering taxpayer. The payments under that sole parents benefit have exploded. Studies have shown that what little maintenance has been paid has been pitifully inadequate and not surprisingly if we compare the position of custodial parents with their assets and general standard of living with non-custodial parents, say five years after the marriage breakdown, in virtually every case the custodial parent has been considerably worse off. That information has been brought forward by the Institute of Family Studies and the matter was recently looked at in the Law Reform Commission's report on matrimonial property. The Government discontinued the requirement-a requirement upon which we had insisted-that people first claim maintenance before applying for assistance from the public purse. It is reasonable that they should do that, and that is a proposition that the Government has now finally but reluctantly accepted in the Bill that is before us today. I shall give some of the history of the matter, as it is indicative of the manner in which the Government has failed to address this essential issue. The Government waited for the completion of its inquiry, it got the results of that inquiry, but then it did nothing. During this time, the patience of Senator Durack, not surprisingly, had worn rather thin. The coalition continued to demand action. We brought in a private member's Bill that sought to prevent the Family Court of Australia from taking into account eligibility for a pension when determining the responsibility of a non-custodial parent to pay maintenance for, usually, his children. The purpose of the first Durack Bill was basically to put a burr under the saddle. Perhaps that burr was not big enough, because the Government prevaricated and only now has it finally come to deal with the issue. In 1986 the Government announced its intention to establish a child maintenance assessment and collection agency. In fact, the Government voted against and defeated the Durack Bill. It did not do so because it disagreed with the policy embodied in that Bill. That was patently not the reason, because that policy is now contained in this Bill. It voted against that Bill because it was put up by a member of the Liberal Party; it is as simple as that. The Government is not prepared to look at the merits of propositions put forward by the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) says that the Government will admit its mistakes if it is wrong and that he wants to engage in constructive dialogue with the Opposition. The reality is that when it came to the crunch the Government voted against the Durack Bill for no other reason than the cynical one that it was put forward by the Liberal Party. Following the election we reintroduced Senator Durack's Bill. At last, after some prevarication, the Government introduced the Bill that is before us today. Of passing interest is the fact that there were to be two stages to this process. We were to have changes effected by means of a family law amendment Bill, and the child maintenance assessment and collection agency was to be established. That was to be stage 1. Stage 2 was to be the implementation of the formula. Now we have moved to having three stages, since the legislation establishing the agency has yet to be introduced. The Bill seeks neither to establish the agency nor to implement the formula. As I have said, the Bill that deals with maintenance matters embodies the Opposition's long-standing policy on such matters. To that extent I am prepared to congratulate the Government on implementing our policy. It is not the first Opposition policy it has implemented and I am sure that it will not be the last. However, I condemn the Government for taking so many years to implement that policy and for voting against this very proposal just because it was put by a member of the Liberal Party. The Bill also enshrines the Family Court decision in a case called Mee v. Ferguson. The Law Council of Australia and others have been calling for that to be done for months and months. Of course, the Opposition supports the principles underlying that case, and we are pleased that they have been embodied in this legislation. The Family Law Amendment Bill also covers ex-nuptial children. That is a matter that has been debated for more than 10 years. The problem is related to the jurisdiction of the Family Court and the fact that the Australia Constitution places limits on the matter that the Federal Parliament can address in establishing the jurisdiction of the Family Court. On a number of occasions the question of custody and other matters in relation to the children of one family have had to be dealt with in different courts simply as a consequence of the limited jurisdiction of the Family Court. That matter has been referred to in many places and has been the subject of a number of reports. It was the subject of discussion at the Australian Constitutional Conventions of 1975 and 1976. It features again in the report of the Advisory Committee on the Distribution of Powers of the Constitutional Commission. Page 51 of that report, which was brought down this year, reads: The Commonwealth Parliament's Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act 1980 recommended, among other things, that the States should, as a matter of urgency, refer power to the Commonwealth over the custody, guardianship and maintenance of ex-nuptial children and legitimate children of a previous marriage. It goes on to note: In December 1985, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, in its report on `In-Vitro Fertilisation and the Status of Children', recommended that, `The Commonwealth should seek to obtain from the States the power to enact legislation to deal with all issues of the status of children in law' ''. One of its recommendations was that the existing division of family law powers between the Commonwealth and the States should be changed. The second recommendation was that the changes should result in the Commonwealth power being extended to cover custody and guardianship of all children. There is much support for that proposal. The Opposition has no difficulty with it. I see that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) will speak today. He was the Chairman of the Committee to which I have referred. I am sure he will advert to the work of that Committee. As a consequence of the additional power conferred on the Commonwealth, this Bill covers matters that were previously the subject of State law, in matters such as paternity and child bearing expenses. There are quite a few detailed provisions and whilst there are no especially difficult policy matters, our proposal again to have a committee look at the details is obviously sensible. I now turn to the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill. Its purpose is to reduce delays in the Family Court and to improve the status of the Family Court by breaking down its specialist jurisdiction. It is hoped that, by being able to offer a greater variety of work, the status of the Court will be thereby uplifted. The additional jurisdiction cases will come from the Federal Court and will be transferred as a result of a process of consultation between the two chief judges of the two courts; that is, the Chief Judge of the Family Court and the Chief Judge of the Federal Court. The Bill still maintains the requirement that those matters be initiated in the Federal Court. The additional jurisdiction areas proposed arise out of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Reviews) Act, the Bankruptcy Act, the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Trade Practices Act. To allow the Family Court judges to take on additional jurisdiction, the Bill attempts to reduce the work load of the Family Court judges and it does so by three methods: allowing greater delegation to registrars in routine and minor contested matters; creating the new office of judicial registrar to also handle delegated matters; and by extending the jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction-that is the magistrates courts-to include applications for dissolution of marriage and to increase the monetary limit within which defended property matters can be dealt with. We in the Liberal Party in the last election, with the support of the National Party, recognised in our policy documents the need for a reappraisal of the operation of the Family Court. It was our policy position that the Family Court should not remain a separate and distinct judicial tribunal. We nominated some of the options that needed to be addressed and looked at and I think this Bill moves in that general direction. Basically, the reasoning behind this Bill is that the specialist jurisdiction for the Family Court has not been a success. The late Senator Murphy is often credited with its creation and, with the benefit of hindsight, his concept of a specialist court has been demonstrated to be not the best way to run a judicial system. I suppose that the person who is credited with raising these matters first was former Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs. He made a celebrated address at the Australian Legal Convention in Melbourne in August 1985. As recorded on page 2 of my notebook, he said: The need remains to make a complete and dispassionate assessment of the Family Law Act. He went on to say: It may have been a mistake to establish a separate court to administer the Family Law Act. He continued: The creation of that court has made it difficult to maintain the high standards in the making of judicial appointments. Lastly, he said: Past experience in Australia does not support the view that specialised experience is necessary to render a judge able to deal with matters of family law. Leading up to his considered views, in September 1984 at page 17, he said: The perceived need to create a variety of specialised tribunals may indicate a diminishing confidence in the ability of the ordinary courts to perform their functions. If so, it gives a warning to which the profession should pay heed. In that address he referred particularly to tribunals established under legislation directed at anti-discrimination, and he mentioned the New South Wales Equal Opportunity Tribunal. He said: To concentrate on one perceived evil may tend in the nature of things to distort its proportions and it is possible to become too zealous in the pursuit of a good aim. A specialised body set up in an attempt to eradicate one sort of objectionable conduct may find it difficult to maintain the sense of moderation and balance that is the characteristic of the common law and that the exercise of a more general jurisdiction is likely to preserve. I am not suggesting that marriage or divorce falls within the category of objectionable conduct, but I think he goes to the essence of what our courts are all about and what we are looking for in our judges. It is difficult to put on paper, but the word that comes to my mind is the concept of wisdom. Wisdom in dealing with the affairs of man comes from an experience and a knowledge of the whole scope of human activity and the way that we are. The Jackson Committee on the Australian Judicial System, in reporting on the Constitutional Convention, again looked at this need to create a sense of balance. It referred to the fact that family law matters can involve tax, superannuation, trusts, and property law-certainly a very wide gambit of human conduct. The Jackson Committee favoured renovation but did not come to a final view about integration within the Federal Court of Australia. It called for a closer review of the issue and that is a fundamental matter that I think the House of Representatives Committee should address. It would be only sensible to have a firmer view of the ultimate future of the Family Court. That is why I think we ought to send this matter to a committee. I think that there are merits in the proposal and I say that publicly to give the Attorney-General an indication of the views of a number of us. However, it is not surprising that there are different views around the place. There are two competing views within the Law Council. Again, I think that just emphasises the need to look at these matters very carefully. I note that the matter of robing was apparently the subject of some discussion in the Caucus. The Attorney-General has my support for the position he put. I understand that Caucus took another view about that but if we could get some sensible discussion going in the Committee again we might persuade Caucus to come to its senses. I am not terribly optimistic about that, but it is another basis upon which the Committee would have an important function to fulfil. The proposal for greater capacity in the Registrar and the creation of judicial registrars is less controversial; I do not think there is any doubt about that. I am not sure whether the Law Council initiated this proposal but it certainly initiated the proposal in regard to judicial registrars, and it calls them masters. The term `master' is another point with which I think Caucus had a few problems. I understand that there is a female master in Adelaide, and a good one at that. I do not have any problem with the word. The reality is that, when we are talking about status and traditions, that is a concept known in the law and a position of status within the law, and I really think we ought to stick to it. But again that is a matter that the Committee ought to have a look at. The more difficult areas relate to the additional jurisdiction for the magistrates courts. On defended property matters the limit has been $1,000 in nominal terms and, as I understand it, translated into today's money that is about $3,500. There is a lot of controversy about that issue. The Law Council, the Law Institute of Victoria and the Australian Council of Social Service have written to the Attorney-General all opposing it and they have said, `By all means look at means by which we reduce the costs of family law matters in litigation but let us not forget that in a lot of cases we are not dividing up property, we are dividing up poverty and those people ought to have access to the best possible specialists in this jurisdiction that we can obtain'. That matter, and of course, very briefly, the matter of whether divorce applications for dissolution ought to be heard in the magistrates court, are also matters of great controversy in the community. The Attorney-General shrugs his shoulders, but the reality is that very few people know about the proposal. The legislation was introduced last week. I have sent out a few copies, but I do not think enough people are aware of its implications. We simply say that these are important-- Mr Lionel Bowen —It is referred to in the report of the Advisory Committee to the Constitutional Commission. It is a matter of public knowledge. Mr REITH — But not everybody reads the reports of the Constitutional Commission's Committee. Of course, the Committee itself did not have a considered final view of the integration question. There are many matters of controversy and they ought to be the subject of further debate. I move an amendment in relation to the Family Law Amendment Bill in the following terms: That all the words after ``That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by 7 December 1987''. Mr Ruddock —I will second the amendment. Mr REITH —I foreshadow an amendment in relation to the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill in the following terms: That all words after ``that'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by June 1988''. Mr Ruddock — I second the amendment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(10.36) —I am pleased to speak in support of the Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill. Obviously, I am against the amendment moved by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). This morning I wish to speak mainly to the Bill which confers additional jurisdiction on judges of the Family Court of Australia. This is a serious area of the law. It is one that I would have thought the Opposition would not have trivialised by trying to score cheap political points. I found it somewhat amusing that the honourable member for Flinders spoke about robing. I would hardly think that litigants in the Family Court who have gone through a traumatic experience would be concerned about whether the judge was wearing a wig, a gown, or whatever. I think that would be the furthest thing from their minds. That is another example of the Opposition trivialising what is a very important and serious area of the law. I commend the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for his approach to the problem. It is a problem area of the law which seems to attract, at times, irrational behaviour from the public, some litigants and now even the Opposition. The Opposition whinges about the Government's attitude in this area, but it was a Labor government that introduced a jurisdiction to be covered by the Family Court. I suppose the Opposition would like us to go back to the old days of the Matrimonial Causes Act when the delays were even longer than they are now. The situation regarding expense and delays in litigation was very bad. In 1972-73 it cost more, in actual money terms at that time, for a litigant to get an undefended divorce than it does now. I suggest to the Opposition that, instead of whingeing about this, it should at least acknowledge that the Government is doing something about trying to make this area of the law a lot smoother and cut down the delays. The main thrust of the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill is that it will give jurisdiction in certain areas of the law to Family Court judges, but only by specific reference from the Federal Court. It will also create the office of judicial registrar, which is similar to the office of masters of supreme courts in the States. It will also empower Family Court judges to delegate to judicial registrars functions which have been handled by them up until now. In addition, it will extend the functions of registrars of the Court. At the moment, registrars simply attend to minor procedural matters, such as regulation 96 conferences. The Bill will also extend the jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction which presently handle minor family law matters, such as maintenance and very minor property matters up to a limit, I understand, of $1,000. The Bill gives power to the Federal Court to refer matters to the Family Court under the following categories: matters involved with the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, the consumer provisions of the Trade Practices Act, the Bankruptcy Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act. The additional jurisdiction and the appointment of judicial registrars which can now be conferred on the Family Court will, I am sure, be welcomed by the Family Court, by the judges and also by litigants and the public for the following reasons: first, they will reduce the substantial delays that have been experienced by litigants in the Family Court throughout Australia. In my State of Queensland contested custody, maintenance and property settlement applications can take years to finalise because the work load in this, regrettably, growing area of the law is increasing at an alarming rate. Whilst many of us in this House are happily married we have to agree that there are many people who are not. They find after a certain time that there is an incompatibility. Unfortunately, they end up in the Family Court. That is a fact of life which the Government is addressing. At the moment, simple applications for undefended divorces and requests for adjournments are being handled by the judges. Simple matters such as allocating dates of hearing are being handled at call-overs, again by judges. These matters will now be handled by judicial registrars, thus freeing up the judges for the more complex cases involving custody of children, maintenance and property settlements. Federal Court backlogs should also be reduced because that Court will be able to divest itself of cases in certain jurisdictions. This will benefit the Federal Court and the Family Court. This initiative by the Government and the Attorney will have a flow-on effect and will reduce the backlogs that are experienced by legal practitioners and litigants in these areas. Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the areas that I am sure the Attorney was considering when he was preparing these Bills was the problem in obtaining experienced members of the legal profession to become Family Court judges. Family Court judges will at least now have some variety in the work that they do. Whilst the Family Law Act can and does have a wide-ranging implication in the field of family law, it is still only one Act. Even magistrates in the courts of summary jurisdiction administer hundreds of Acts, but the Family Court judges administer only that one Act. Therefore, they are doing the same thing day in and day out. In my home town of Brisbane there are a number of top Family Court judges who were highly regarded at the Bar and as leading solicitors before their appointment as judges. Whilst, obviously, no one forced them to take up their appointments, I am sure that many of them have regretted the decision to take up appointment after enduring countless days, weeks, months and years of listening to the same thing-`the husband contributed that; the wife contributed that; she is to blame; the kids want to come with me', and so on. It is the same thing day in and day out and these Bills will give some variety to these judges: they will have the opportunity of being able to decide cases in other jurisdictions. Mr McGauran —But are a lot of them qualified-- Mr SCIACCA —I do not think the honourable member for Gippsland knows much about family law so I will not bother answering him. From my knowledge, one judge went from being one of the most popular barristers in town to gaining the reputation of being a nit-picker who took particular pleasure in pointing out typographical errors on application forms to legal representatives appearing before him, in an obvious attempt to humiliate the lawyers in front of their clients-presumably to relieve his boredom. Whilst many lawyers despised him for this attitude for many years and probably still do, I can understand how he must have felt. By the way, I was one of the lawyers he humiliated on a number of occasions. Hopefully, if he is not already too far gone, he might get some of his old friends back because these Bills will at last provide the variety that I am sure Family Court judges will welcome. The appointment of judicial registrars is a very good provision in this legislation because there is no need to have judges handling these undefended simple divorce applications. They are simply a matter of paper shuffling. By the time the applications get to the Court the applicants have already made up their minds. Marriage guidance counselling would have occurred beforehand and the marriage is usually too far gone in 99.99 per cent of cases. It is only a matter of paper shuffling in many respects. As I said, the judges look through the applications, they get evidence from the applicants and, if all the proper points have been proven in accordance with the Act, the applicants will get their divorce. There is no need for highly qualified judges who have been top lawyers in a number of fields to do this sort of thing, given that there are so many more important contested matters in which they have to take note of evidence and decide on questions of credibility. I think there is no question that most people will agree with the Government that their time would be better spent in handling those contested matters. Of course, the judicial registrar will, in effect, handle those more mundane procedural types of things. That will save a lot of time. The courts of summary jurisdiction will have some further powers extended. I note that the honourable member for Flinders made the point at the beginning of his speech that magistrates would handle most of the matters that were previously handled by Family Court judges. That is not correct. He tried again to trivialise the matter by saying that the Bills will hand over a lot of the jurisdiction to magistrates. That is not the case. Some matters will be handed over to the courts of summary jurisdiction, but only those in which the parties are in agreement that, for the sake of convenience, the matters will be dealt with by that court. That will obviously save them a lot of money and time. Surely, that is a good thing. It is something which I think the public and litigants will welcome. I am sure that that is one of the areas of the legislation that must be commended. I notice that registrars will be given additional functions. Again, that will cut down the delays and generally streamline the operation of the Family Law Act in practical terms. I confirm what I have said previously-that these Bills provide a sensible and practical means of alleviating some of the problems experienced by the Family Court throughout Australia. I commend the Bills to the House, and I congra-tulate the Attorney-General for his foresight in introducing them. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.47) —Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak in the debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 and the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1987. I regret the way in which the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca) endeavoured, I suggest, to malign the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), by commenting that he was endeavouring to score cheap political points and that he had trivialised the debate. It seems to me that the comments that the honourable member for Flinders made were spot on. In fact, when the honourable member for Bowman reads the transcript of his speech, he will notice that one of the matters on which he commented was the remarks of the honourable member for Flinders about delay and the problems of delay. Of course, the honourable member for Bowman in his speech substantiated that by referring to the delays in his own State. So far from trivialising it by raising the question of delay, I think the honourable member for Flinders put the matter very clearly in a proper perspective. Mr Sciacca —What about the wigs and gowns? Mr RUDDOCK —I will come to the wigs and gowns question. The matter of robing was addressed by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act in which a number of present Ministers, including the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in their capacity as private members, deliberated, along with me and other members of the Parliament, on that very question. It was seen as a substantial question, deserving of being addressed. It was not a matter of trivialising this debate to make the comment that this matter was thought important enough to be addressed by Labor Party members in their own Caucus. I do not want to spend all my time rebutting the remarks of the honourable member for Bowman, except to say that his own abysmal knowledge of this area was highlighted by his comment that judges would spend a lot of time dealing with the question of blame in divorce matters. In relation to the question of divorce-and it is still the case in maintenance and custody matters-I understand that the question of fault is not an issue. Even a most superficial knowledge of the Family Law Act would suggest that the honourable member's comments to my friend the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) were quite inappropriate. This is a debate about two important Bills. I want to make a number of simple points in relation to them because I see the reforms as being largely worthwhile, and ones which the Opposition broadly support. But we believe that the detail of the legislation, in each case, requires a little more work. One cannot be blamed, I do not think, for suggesting that this ought to be the case. The Attorney-General, in his own speech, when he introduced the Family Law Amendment Bill, said: For 11 years the Commonwealth and the States have been negotiating for a reference of powers from the States in respect of family law matters. I acknowledge that those negotiations have been going on for that time. We now have the result of that 11 years work. We have been given an opportunity to look at the result of that 11 years work in a period of eight days. That is the reality: eleven years work has brought forward a Bill which deals with a range of other matters as well, and are being asked to look at the detailed approach that the Government has brought forward, and to give it carte blanche approval in this House in one week and one day. The first piece of legislation was introduced last Wednesday and, in the case of the second Bill, on Thursday. Here we are, in the following week, looking at these Bills. As one who has an interest in this subject and one who invites other people to give me the benefit of their views, I have not had an opportunity to get the benefit of those views to enable me to contribute to this discussion today; notwithstanding that I have sent out copies of the legislation. I do not think that very many other members will have had that opportunity. I make the point, very strongly, that there is established a new legislative committee on legal and constitutional affairs which, at this point, has no references before it. If it is to perform any useful role, matters must be referred to it by the Parliament or by the Attorney. The fact is that this substantial Bill, involving 11 years work, according to the Attorney's remarks, requires consideration by the Parliament in a detailed and comprehensive way if it is to be dealt with adequately. Let us understand what these Bills are dealing with. The Family Law Amendment Bill, first, implements references of powers from New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania relating to the maintenance and payment of expenses in relation to children or child bearing, to include a wider range of children than the Family Law Act is presently able to deal with-essentially, those children who are born out of wedlock. It also extends the custody, guardianship of, and access to, children in those States and to apply the Act, as amended, to Territories in which the Act presently applies-that is, to the wider class of children. The second matter, in furtherance of the Government's proposals for child support, announced in the Parliament on 24 March, amends the child maintenance provisions of the Family Law Act to ensure that children receive a proper level of financial support from a reasonable and adequate share of the income, property and financial resources of their parents. I emphasise that this involves both parents. All of us know of situations in which children are left in circumstances where one parent carries that responsibility, the other parent walks away from that responsibility and, very often, picks up the responsibility for other children and another family. To this point, the second family is given priority for maintenance over the first family. Of course, there is then an expectation that the community will provide additional resources to enable that family that is broken, divided, to be able to live in two separate households. They are given greater resources from the State than the families that continue to live together in one household. In fact, those families have to subsidise the others. The injustice in that is patently obvious. Some 11 years or so after these matters were highlighted following examination by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act and after Bills were introduced by Senator Durack and Senator Chaney to deal with this question, we now have the Government's different approach to the same subject. It is a comprehensive approach but one that deserves to be examined and if it achieves its objective, supported by Parliament. The way in which the Government seeks to do it is a matter that ought to be examined in detail. The third object of the Family Law Amendment Bill, as set out in the outline provided, is: . . . to require that an entitlement of the applicant for maintenance to an income tested pension or benefit is not taken into account in awarding spousal and child maintenance; In the detailed explanations before us we are also told: The implementation of the reference of powers means that the provisions of the Act relating to the custody, guardianship and maintenance of children may now cover ex-nuptial children within the limits of the enlarged legislative power of the Parliament resulting from the referral of powers. But the explanation goes on to say: However, State courts of summary jurisdiction-which have traditionally dealt with these matters-in the referring States and Territory courts of summary jurisdiction will continue to have jurisdiction in these matters. The explanatory memorandum further explains that all maintenance cases and applications for payment of expenses of child bearing may be brought in a court of summary jurisdiction. I raise this matter in this context because the Joint Select Committee had some comments to make about these very questions. It proposed a slightly different method of dealing with the matter but I note that the Committee was broadly in support of the approach the Opposition advanced and which the Government says it is introducing in this legislation. The Committee had this to say: The Committee has concluded that the continued existence of the compulsory maintenance provisions has undesirable consequences for the administration of Family Law. They are the source of quite unnecessary complexity and confusion in this area and should be repealed as a matter of urgency. In reaching this conclusion we are not to be taken to support the proposition that the obligation to support relatives should be transferred from the individual to the State. On the contrary, we consider that that obligation should be made quite clear and enforced more effectively than it is now being enforced. The welfare systems should be self-sufficient. To the extent that it is necessary to proceed against the spouse of a social security client to obtain a contribution towards the support of that client, then the Department should be in the position to institute proceedings under its own legislation. The Committee went on to recommend: . . . that the Social Services Act be amended to delete section 62 (3) and 83 aad with a new provision to be inserted that would have the effect that: (1) the Department of Social Security will assess the means of the liable relative and determine what it is proper for him to pay the Department in or towards satisfaction of the money they have paid out; In other words, we were saying that the Department of Social Security should be able to pursue the defaulting parent and recover for the Crown maintenance or social welfare paid in certain circumstances to children or to a spouse. This scheme picks up that recommendation-admittedly through a different method. In accordance with the Government's March announcement we do have a more detailed scheme which gives effect to the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. To that extent they should be supported. I shall deal with the courts of summary jurisdiction when I deal with the second matter because it is also relevant to the cognate Bill, the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill. According to the outline provided, the purpose of this Bill is: (a) to provide for the Family Court of Australia to exercise jurisdiction in certain proceedings under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, the Bankruptcy Act, the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act and in taxation appeals under the Income Tax Assessment Act; (b) to create an office of Judicial Registrar in the Family Court of Australia; (c) to empower the Judges of the Court to delegate functions to Judicial Registrars and to extend the range of functions which may now be delegated by the Judges to Registrars of the Court; and (d) to extend the jurisdiction which may be exercised by courts of summary jurisdiction under the Family Law Act. In other words, it is to provide a more flexible arrangement for the consideration of Family Court matters to ensure that the capacities of highly skilled, highly paid and highly competent Family Court judges are better used in the more complex and detailed matters that are often in dispute in Australia's Family Courts. I must say I support the direction in which the Government is moving. It is an advance on the approach that the Joint Select Committee proposed in its own report. When the Committee considered the matter, back in 1976-77 or perhaps a little later in that decade, it had before it a number of submissions which drew attention to the anomalies in the creation of the Federal jurisdiction in family law exercised by judges appointed to a more junior level than that of their brethren in the Federal Court. The Government is desirous of moving to a position which the Select Committee did not support, but I want to put on record that I personally see it as advantageous. Ultimately we should move to a position where judges are of a capacity and ability to be able to serve not only in the Family Court, dealing with family matters, but also hear the wide range of other questions which came before the Federal Court. The Committee acknowledged that Family Court judges needed to be highly qualified, they needed not only to be people whose personal capacities enabled them to deal with family disputes but to be judges whose background and training in general law demonstrated that they were competent practitioners, well versed in commercial and property law. If judges are to deal adequately with family disputes they have to be able to look at the range of ways in which people organise their personal affairs. Otherwise it is impossible for them to be able to adjudicate properly on the division of assets in property matters which are very often before the Courts. If Family Court judges are seen as junior to Federal Court judges, is it any wonder the Government is having difficulty finding suitable people for these appointments? It seems appropriate to me that we should be looking to give Family Court judges a wider range of activities to deal with and we should be giving the judges sufficient work in the variety of jurisdiction that the Commonwealth has available to it to ensure they maintain and develop their skills. Ultimately we can move to a position where particularly those judges who might suffer a form of fatigue from dealing with family matters over a long period may be transferred to other areas of Federal Court activity and their skills can be properly used there. If that is the direction in which the Government is moving, I think it is appropriate. I want to see, and I think it is a matter the Committee itself ought to be in a position to examine, the way in which this proposal is to develop; the way in which the Act itself will operate when it is in place. Proposed additional section 15a of the principal Act provides that the Chief Judge of the Federal Court and the Chief Judge of the Family Court of Australia will consult with each other in relation to the transfer of proceedings pending in the Family Court whether generally or in relation to the transfer of particular proceedings. It seems to me that that is a proper matter in which a parliamentary committee ought to be able to ascertain that arrangements are in place for these proceedings to be properly undertaken. The further matter I want to deal with is in relation to the courts of summary jurisdiction. The Joint Committee, of whose deliberations the Attorney-General was a part, states on page 154 that it was very anxious to ensure that courts of summary jurisdiction, when dealing with family matters `or likely to exercise such jurisdiction, should be supported by the provision of services to enable them to provide the legal services under the Act that they are expected to provide'. It continues: Conciliation services such as counselling and pre-trial procedures should be available from these courts. In this connection our recommendation No. 46 in chapter that branch registries staffed by counsellors and deputy registrars of the Family court in remote regions should be noted. In the time available, which is very short, I want to make the point that we saw the resourcing of the courts of summary jurisdiction as being important. In the explanatory memorandum, the Attorney-General, dealing with financial consequences, makes no reference to the resourcing of those courts to better equip them to carry out the work that is to be given to them. It seems to me that another matter deserving of proper inquiry by the committee is the way in which that transfer of matters to courts of summary jurisdiction will occur and the way in which those courts will be resourced to enable them to act properly as family courts. That is also relevant to the Family Law Amendment Bill. It is certainly one of the questions that needs to be addressed in that context. In the inquiry I would also raise another matter that I would like to see examined and on which I would like to be satisfied; that is, the question of paternity. The Family Law Amendment Bill puts the courts in a position where, in a number of cases, they will have to determine paternity. One of the important matters that we will need to be satisfied on is that people who are required to attend the court and be questioned by the court will not be put in a position where they are offering incriminating evidence that might be used in other proceedings, such as in rape proceedings. We need to be able, in a proper committee inquiry, to satisfy ourselves as to those matters. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(11.06) —I support the Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill but I intend to confine my comments to the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987. I commend the Government for its initiatives in instigating these amendments, which reflect both attitudinal changes in our community and altered economic circumstances. This Bill contains several provisions but for the purposes of the debate I will comment on only two of them: Firstly, the clauses dealing with child maintenance; and, secondly, the provisions for ex-nuptial children. Section 66d of the Family Law Act deals with child maintenance and states, among other things, that in determining the level of maintenance to be paid by the non-custodial parent the court must disregard any entitlement of a child or the custodial parent to income tested pension, allowance or benefit. This means, in essence, that from the enactment of the legislation separating or divorcing parents, or judges of the Family Court of Australia, cannot simply assume that the custodial parent will receive a supporting parent's benefit, and work from there. The prime responsibility for support of a child will be thrown back on to the parents. If it transpires that the parents are unable to provide adequate support, then and only then will the state step in with a full or part supporting parent's benefit or some other form of assistance. The advantages of this will be twofold. Presumably it will prune back significantly our burgeoning social security bill, of which much of the growth in recent years has been due to increases in supporting parent's pay-outs. Also, it will discourage parents from abrogating their responsibility for maintaining their children on the assumption that, if they opt out, the taxpayer will pick up the tab. An essential adjunct to these provisions will be the establishment of the Child Support Agency, which was announced by this Government earlier this year and which will come into effect in a few months. The Child Support Agency will give teeth to the amendments in the legislation because it will provide the means whereby maintenance will be collected forcibly from the non-custodial parent. The social security review currently being conducted has identified families with young children as those most in need. These child maintenance amendments, coupled with the establishment of the Child Support Agency, are quite revolutionary reforms in the area of child maintenance and income support. They will assist immeasurably in the achievement of this Government's aim to eradicate child poverty. The second part of this Bill to which I wish to speak is the inclusion, under the powers of the Family Law Act, of ex-nuptial children. This is the latest in a series of legislative steps leading to the emancipation of these children. Until recent years, ex-nuptial children were legally discriminated against. They did not have the same rights and privileges before the law as children born within a marriage. Most Australian State parliaments, over the past few years, have enacted legislation dealing with the status of these children, according them equality before the State law. However, ex-nuptial children until now have not come under the ambit of the Family Law Act. This is an anomaly which has been recognised over the years, not least by Justice Elizabeth Evatt, the Chief Judge of the Family Court of Australia. In the preface to the 1983 edition of H. A. Finlay's Family Law in Australia Justice Evatt says: In recent years more attention has been given to family relationships which exist outside marriage. While they often reflect or are influenced by the pattern of relationships in marriage they sometimes result from an unwillingness on the part of one or both to enter into a legal relationship. For this and other reasons their legal regulation presents many difficulties. Nevertheless the existence of such relationships cannot be ignored in any treatment of family law . . . Legal problems arising from such relationships ought not to preclude the full recognition and rights of children whose parents are not married. Justice Evatt goes on: It is to be hoped that the division of power between the Commonwealth and States in regard to the custody and maintenance of these children can be overcome. Concern for the needs of children is a principal aim of family law whatever the legal relationship of their parents. This Bill seeks to overcome that division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States in respect of ex-nuptial children by bringing about the referral of powers from the States to the Commonwealth. The need to include ex-nuptial children under the powers of the Family Court is made even more obvious when we look at the growing proportion of children who are born outside marriage. In 1962, 5.4 per cent of live births in Australia were ex-nuptial. In 1967, the figure was 7.7 per cent; in 1974 it was 9.5 per cent; in 1980 it was 12.4 per cent; and in 1986 16.8 per cent of live births in Australia were ex-nuptial. I will not go into the possible reasons behind this trend or comment on its desirability, or otherwise, because this is not relevant. Suffice it to say that there is a large and growing proportion of Australian children who are born outside marriage and who, hitherto, have not come under the powers of the Family Court. It is time those children gained equal footing with other children. In all matters of child custody and maintenance, the welfare of the child is paramount and should not be affected by the legal status of the parents' relationship. One might ask why provisions for ex-nuptial children were not included in the original Family Law Act as it was passed in 1975. When one harks back to the furore which the proposed Act engendered one is not surprised. It is normal, when a Labor government proposes to introduce some far-reaching, much needed social reform, that the archconservatives and doomsayers emerge in force from conservative ranks predicting, among other things, the end of civilisation as we know it. The effect of the Family Law Act was to drag the whole area of divorce and family law into the twentieth century. However, I well recall some of the hysteria which was evident when these reforms were first proposed. One of the more bizarre claims I remember being made by the Opposition of the time was that the Family Law Act would lead to the legalisation of polygamy; that it would allow people, therefore, to have more than one husband or wife. The Bill was passed and here we are 12 years later and I have no evidence that polygamy is practised on a large scale in this country. There is no doubt that these reforms will have their detractors. Amongst conservative ranks there will be those who will object, because of their own various narrow-minded reasons, to the conferral of rights on ex-nuptial children. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) warned us that this Bill was in for a bit of filibustering in the Senate. This will no doubt give some of the more maniacal elements of that chamber a chance to do their stuff and at the same time whip up a bit of moralistic fervour in the community. There are many people in the community who still adhere to the old pre-Christian principle that the sins of the father shall be visited on the sons. I think in this case people are more concerned with the perceived sins of the mother. It was interesting to hear statements made recently by a Cabinet Minister in the Queensland State Government. She thinks that supporting parents should not receive the benefit after the birth of their second ex-nuptial child. In other words, she is seeking to punish the children and to deprive them of equal opportunity and support because of what she considered to be the irresponsibility of the mothers. These beliefs are still quite prevalent in the community. I support these two Bills. I oppose the Opposition's amendment. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(11.17) —I address my remarks specifically to the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1987. It might be said that this Bill attempts to rectify some of the problems presently besetting the Family Court of Australia. And boy, does it have some problems! Is it not appropriate that we should try to address some of the problems facing that Court? It really is no great exaggeration to say that the Family Court has been a failure. As we know now from subsequent events, it really was a mistake to set it up as it was as a separate court to give it the all-embracing powers that it has. The best thing to do about the problems facing the Family Court would be to admit now that it was a mistake and take some positive steps to have the jurisdiction transferred either to the supreme courts or other major courts of the States, or to a division of the Federal Court of Australia. When the judges of a court are subjected to assassination attempts-in one case successful-when there is a never-ending series of very substantial complaints by litigants about the treatment they have had handed out to them in the court, when there is a never-ending series of public complaints about the way in which the jurisdiction has been handled, when there are extensive delays, when there is almost universal dissatisfaction with the way in which the jurisdiction is presently being exercised, it is not illogical to conclude that something is very wrong with that jurisdiction. Something is very wrong with this jurisdiction. It is appropriate, therefore, that we should address some method of rectifying this problem. The Government has brought on this legislation today without much notice. Nevertheless, the Bill contains some of the Government's answers to the problems besetting the family law jurisdiction in Australia. The Bill proposes to tackle the problem from two ends. It starts with the assumption that we really have to give the Family Court judges some more interesting and challenging work to do. The Government says, `We will, in effect, dilute the work of the Court by giving it matters which have nothing whatsoever to do with family law. We will give it consumer actions under the Trade Practices Act, administrative appeals, bankruptcy cases and taxation appeals so that it will have more interesting and challenging work to do'. Given the major problems facing this jurisdiction probably that is a sensible thing to do, assuming that the consultations between the Chief Judge of the Federal Court and the Chief Judge of the Family Court-assuming that they are speaking-can result in appropriate judges being chosen to deal with these matters. Let us assume that there is some merit in the proposal. The first way in which the Government approaches this matter is to dilute the Court's work by bringing other factors into it. It is very curious, when we think about the proposal, that we will have bankruptcy cases dealt with by the Family Court. People will ask, `Where was the bankruptcy order made? The reply will be, `It was made in the Family Court'. People will ask, `Where was the taxation appeal dealt with?'. The answer will be, `In the Family Court'. It sounds very peculiar. The only way I can justify it is to say that it is the thin end of the wedge. It is one of the first steps along the road towards doing away with the Family Court altogether. Who knows, that may be a very desirable thing to do. This is a proposal which, although not for very good reasons, has some merit. The Government says that it will give the judges some other work to do. The Government proposes to tackle the problem from the other end. It says, `We've given the judges some other work to do and now we will take away the real work, which is divorces and related matters, from the judges of the Family Court. We will give that work to a judicial registrar-a position we will establish-and to the local court of summary jurisdictions-the local magistrates court, if you like'. It says, `We will dilute the work of the Family Court and we will look again at what is the real work of the Family Court. We will take some of that work away and give it to some other judicial personality lower down the scale'. If we are going to have the Family Court staggering along as it is at the moment, there is probably some merit in appointing judicial registrars who are non-judges but who, nevertheless, will exercise the jurisdiction of the courts. There is probably some merit in appointing those judicial registrars to do the work of the Court which is presently done by the judges. But there are two problems with that and with the best will in the world I ask the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to look at these particular problems I am about to mention. I advance them not only because of the merits of the argument but also because they are additional reasons why, as the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), said, this legislation should be referred to a committee. The two problems about giving the work to judicial registrars are, first, that the proposed new section 26 (i) will enable the judicial registrars to be appointed for very short terms. They can, in fact, be temporary appointments. They can be appointed for a term not exceeding seven years but they will be eligible for re-appointment. There is a very great argument going on in Victoria about the appointment of temporary judges. The legal profession and Law Society as a whole has been opposed in the past to appointing temporary judges because they do not have independence. They are in effect on a good behaviour bond. That is the reason that we have always been opposed to the temporary appointment of judges. It is of no use the Attorney-General saying in reply, as he may, that these people will not be judges but only judicial registrars, because the only way in which judicial registrars can be established constitutionally is by giving them the powers of the court so that they are, to all intents and purposes, mini Family Court judges. They should not be given temporary appointments. If there is any merit in the proposal, they should be appointed and it should be left at that. The second aspect of this proposal that concerns me is that proposed new section 26n provides: A Judicial Registrar holds office on such terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not provided by this Act as are determined . . . by the Governor-General. So, the Governor-General will set out the terms and conditions upon which these judicial registrars will be appointed. Those terms and conditions are not those that we have been told about in this Bill. We have learned the hard way that the Parliament is not told very much these days, and this is one more example of that. The judicial registrars will be appointed on terms and conditions specified by the Governor-General, not in accordance with matters set out in the Act. Frankly, we should be having a further look at this proposal. I do not oppose the concept of judicial registrars, but I suggest to the Attorney-General that he re-examine the proposal. He should have a committee of this House examine these two aspects, among others: firstly, that the judicial registrars of the Family Court will be temporary appointments and will be on good behaviour bonds, which is bad in principle, and, secondly, that they will be appointed on terms and conditions about which we know nothing because they are not set out in the Bill. Although it may not sound too much like it, that is the good part. Now we come to the bad part. Certainly there is an overwhelming case for a committee of this House to investigate further the proposal that, to put it bluntly, divorces will be able to be performed, carried out, granted by Local Courts, by magistrates courts. Although I agree that the whole Bill should be looked at by a committee, I must say that I am opposed to this proposal. I am opposed to it because it gives to the lowest rung of the judicial ladder, the magistrates court-I do not mean to denigrate them in any way by saying that-this quite major power of dissolving marriages. Giving that power to those at the lowest level of the judicial ladder really does denigrate the standing both of divorce and of marriage. I think that is undesirable. There must be a better way of doing it. If we had not allowed the Family Court to deteriorate into the mess that it is at present, we would not be faced with this problem. Faced as we are with the problem, this must surely be the worst solution to adopt-to give to the Local Courts the power to grant divorces. Where will this end? I suggest that it is the first step towards having Reno-type divorces, quickie divorces. We will finish up with a set-up similar to that in Nevada in the United States of America. I do not know where it will end. Perhaps the next proposal to be put forward is that divorces be granted by-- Mr Hunt —JPs. Mr N.A. Brown —By JPs, and, for all I know, by post offices. Perhaps some procedure will be introduced whereby a person can apply for a divorce by sending off an application with a self-addressed envelope. What will be the next proposal? Will divorces be granted by the local office of the Totalisator Agency Board or what? If the Government really proposes to lower the standing of divorce in this way, it should have a hard think about the consequences. I have learned the hard way: I do not expect the Government to take too much notice about what I am saying about this matter. However, I am strongly opposed to it. I ask the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy), who is at the table, to inform the Attorney-General that today we received representations from the Law Institute of Victoria, for a start. There is strong opposition from the Law Institute of Victoria to this proposal, as there is from other law societies throughout Australia, and also from the Anglican Church. I am glad that the Attorney-General has returned to the chamber so that he can hear my remarks. I repeat for his benefit that the Law Institute of Victoria has told the Opposition today in writing that it is vehemently opposed to this proposal that magistrates should be empowered to grant dissolutions of marriage and to adjudicate property matters up to the limit of the magistrates court's debt recovery jurisdiction. Among other reasons used is the way in which this will affect matters in country courts. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech held out this great new era that is about to be launched as being of particular benefit to the country areas. The New South Wales Law Society draws attention to the fact that that is where the problem arises. Many property matters in the magistrates court are marked `Not reached' at the end of the day's sitting. One can imagine the position of a magistrate who at the end of the day is faced with half a dozen divorce cases. He will not throw himself with renewed enthusiasm into tackling those proceedings. We all know that already there are substantial delays in the magistrates court-delays which this proposal will only make worse. I said that it was not only the Law Institute of Victoria which opposes this proposal. The Western Australian Bar Association opposes it, the Northern Territory Bar Association opposes it and I have a copy of a letter sent by the Archbishop of Melbourne on behalf of the National Social Responsibilities Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia which, as His Grace the Archbishop of Melbourne says, opposes the proposed transfer of powers from the Family Court to the magistrates court in connection with uncontested dissolutions of marriage and contested property matters up to a jurisdictional limit of $40,000. The law societies, the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne and the National Social Responsibilities Commission all make the points that I have made and indeed seem to echo what I have said-that one must acknowledge that marriage is significant and a solemn act, and the act of divorce and the way divorce proceedings are gone through must have a corresponding significance and standing. If one is to denigrate this process in this way by shoving it off to the local court, one will lower the standing and significance of divorce and with it of marriage. Many of us are opposed to that being done and at the least feel that the matter should be re-examined. I emphasise to the Attorney-General the absurdity of the proposals in the Bill. I know that many honourable members-and who can blame them?-do not read legislation in detail; I know also that the purpose of Commonwealth legislation these days is to prevent people from understanding what it is on about. But the way in which this proposal will work is that divorce proceedings will start off in the Family Court and bingo, they will be moved to the local court of petty sessions or the magistrates court, where the magistrate will discover that the proceedings are defended, and when he discovers that he has on his hands a defended divorce case, lo and behold, as a miraculous piece of juggling, the matter will be transferred back to the Family Court or to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. He might not send it to his own State necessarily, he might want to send it to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory for all we know, but it goes back the full circle. What have we done? Where have we got since 1975? We have established a Family Court and there have been assassination attempts on the judges, the whole court is grinding to a halt, the judges are becoming tired and emotional and it is difficult to get very good appointments made to the Family Court now. There are extraordinary delays in proceedings, almost universal public dissatisfaction with the way in which the Court has been functioning and then, to solve that pro-blem, we come up with the proposal under which divorce cases will be sent to the magistrates courts. If they are defended, where will we send them to be resolved after that-back to the Supreme Court of one of the States, which is exactly where we started off in 1975. Why do we not face up to the fact that we have all messed it up? The court is a major disappointment. We really have to tackle this and acknowledge the fact that the proceedings probably should be held in a division of the Federal Court or given back to one of the major State courts-the Supreme Court or the County Court as we call it in Victoria, one or the other, because we cannot go on the way we are. Let me just conclude-I have no choice as to whether I conclude or not, my time having almost expired-by saying that there are some thorny problems in this area. The only way this House can make a substantial contribution to resolving these problems is to have a committee look at these matters at length. Let us support what the honourable member for Flinders has proposed and have this wretched business sent off for further examination by a committee of this House. Mr KERR(Denison)(11.37) —I suppose I really should commence my remarks by expressing that I have a personal and vested interest in this matter. For a moment I was somewhat concerned at the persuasiveness of the remarks of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). He suggested that the process that we are now engaged in discussing might, by some strange process of tortured logic, by devaluing the significance of divorce, devalue the significance of marriage. As a person who on Sunday will become married and who is about to enter into a period which I hope will be a very happy and fruitful time in my life, I certainly feel no abashment whatsoever in supporting this Government's proposals, which I see as a sensible and measured response to certain difficulties which have arisen in the administration of the family law. It seems a peculiar situation where we are asked to refer matters to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of this House to examine proposals which have really not been criticised from any point of substance at all. No one has objected to the proposal to confer additional jurisdiction upon the Family Court of Australia, and no one certainly could object to the proposal to integrate the operation of the State and Commonwealth jurisdiction so that the jurisdictional tangles which have beset this area for so long can be overcome. Those jurisdictional tangles, the result of High Court decisions in cases such as Demack v. Demack and Plummer v. Plummer, are cases which have caused enormous difficulties to those who have both children of the marriage and ex-nuptial children. My colleague the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) will be discussing this matter and raising concerns of the one State that still stands outside this sensible arrangement to confer jurisdiction over all such disputes in the hands of the one tribunal so that there is not this endless process of appeals from one tribunal to another tribunal just on simple matters of jurisdiction, raising expense to the complete disadvantage of those who come before the system. I commend the action of my own State Government, the Tasmanian Government, for looking past what might have been a simple seemingly political objection to this legislation by dealing with it on a party basis and acting responsibly to confer the necessary powers on the Commonwealth so that this very important reform can be achieved. As to the matters of efficiency and cost, no substantive objection has been raised to the proposal to make the operation of the courts more efficient. The increased efficiency of the system is to be achieved in three ways. The most expensive elements of the system, the Family Court judges, will be used only for those matters where their expensive and lengthy training is appropriate. Family Court judges will be preserved from the need to handle routine and generally ritualistic work so that their skills can be brought to bear on more complex matters, particularly significant disputes about custody or property where their particular legal training and their skills over a wide range of issues are appropriate. They will be saved from having to deal with a series of interlocutory or procedural applications by being able to refer those matters to judicial registrars. At the same time, in cases where parties are happy with the process, uncontested divorce applications will be able to be heard and determined outside the strict Family Court structure by courts of request, civil courts, which will ensure that the process is correctly applied. The overburdened and delay-ridden courts will not be burdened with the simple processing of paperwork in cases where both sides are agreeable that their marriage has broken down and they do not wish to contest the divorce. Essentially, although considerable rhetoric has been expended on this debate, no one disagrees with the fundamental objectives of what the Government proposes. I wish to put on the record a very interesting and as yet undiscussed point relating to these proposals-the maintenance liability of step- parents. There has been some dispute in the past as to whether, under the Family Law Act, stepparents bear any liability for the maintenance of children of their marriage. This matter was discussed in the case of Mee v. Ferguson which was referred to by the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who said that he welcomed the Government's proposal to clarify the obligations of step- parents. Because those obligations may not be widely known, I think it is appropriate for me to raise them so that they become more clearly understood. In the 1960s all the Australian States and Territories enacted virtually uniform legislation relating to family maintenance obligations. Under the uniform provisions of that State law, the court could order a step-parent to pay maintenance in respect of a child simply on the basis that the court was satisfied that the step-parent had, without just cause or excuse, left the child without adequate means of support or that the step-parent was about to leave the State in question, leaving the child without adequate means of support. By way of example I refer to sections 4 and 15 of the Tasmanian maintenance Act. Because of the constitutional problem which meant-until this legislation-that there was a division between State and Commonwealth law, to a large extent those obligations were not pursued because most maintenance matters were pursued through the Family Court system. The State provisions were essentially regarded as not operational, although they remained on the statute books. Because this legislation brings together in one jurisdiction the capacity of one court to deal with family disputes, both concerning children of the marriage and illegitimate or ex-nuptial children, the law has now been made clear that the Family Court, or courts exercising family law jurisdiction, can make orders to impose obligations on step-parents to maintain their children, but only under very specific and limited circumstances. It is worth noting that that obligation, which is well expressed in the Bill, is limited to those circumstances where the court is persuaded that, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, a step-parent should have that obligation placed upon him or her. So it will not be as of course that such obligations will arise, but rather in exceptional circumstances where the court is moved to agree that, in the particular circumstances of a case, a step-parent should be required to assume those obligations. This is interesting. I welcome the remarks of the honourable member for Flinders, speaking for the Opposition, that he supports these initiatives which remove the one aspect of the Bill which I would have regarded as potentially controversial. Given that in substance the parties agree that these reforms are of merit and are important for the smooth operation of the system, it seems that it was merely as an exercise in raising rather spurious and cheap points that the suggestion was made that the Bill should be referred to a standing committee and be further delayed. Given the background that the chief complaint that has been raised by the spokesman for the Opposition is the delay in the system, these proposals, which will do so much to streamline the workings of the courts and to make sure that overlap and inconsistencies are removed from the system, should be welcomed by all honourable members in this House. Finally, I also welcome the comments of the honourable member for Flinders in relation to examining the kind of people who are appropriate for appointment to these courts. I do not have the sympathy that the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca) had in relation to a judge, with whom he has had dealings, who has acted abrasively and shown contempt towards those who appear before him. That is not an appropriate judicial response for those who serve in the Family Court of Australia. It should be a matter of the utmost priority that those charged with the responsibility of selecting judges for this court choose people who, by reason of their training, experience and personality, are suitable people to deal with matters of family law. That question of personality and approach in relation to exercising judgment upon matters which go to the heart of the family relationship is most important. In my opinion, there is no excuse for abrasiveness, for harsh treatment of litigants or for impatience by those who are charged with this very important responsibility. I draw to the notice of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) the fact that he should give regard to the need for directing particular attention, when it is his duty and responsibility to advise on the selection of judges, to those matters of personality. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(11.49) —I join in this debate because I want to spend the limited time available to me examining the one aspect of the Family Law Amendment Bill that deals with the maintenance of children. By way of background, I think it needs to be understood that families in Australia are treated very unfairly by our tax and social security system. Our system is far less generous than the tax and social security systems of most comparable countries. We say that we have a tax system that is based upon the principle of capacity to pay, yet when we look at the tax burden imposed on families where a single breadwinner is supporting a dependent spouse and dependent children, the provision made by way of tax rebates and tax concessions of one form or another to reduce the tax burden is considerably less than the amount that has to be paid by the Department of Social Security if those people who were dependent upon a taxpayer became dependent on the general body of taxpayers. This Bill, then, will have an effect in bringing some greater fairness into the system so far as one aspect only is concerned. It is my view that if this country is to survive, if its future is to be assured, we need a dramatic, radical change in our tax system which would provide to taxpayers who have and support children relief at least as great as the social security that is paid to children totally dependant upon the public sector. It is said by some that policies designed to encourage population growth or to prevent population decline have not worked in the past. I think that customary wisdom now needs to be challenged. We need to ask ourselves whether we are in a situation of negative population growth-a situation we have been in now for 10 years-simply because people are choosing to have smaller families and hence fewer children. I do not believe that pure choice is the only reason. If people want to make that choice for social and other reasons, they should be entitled to do so. But when that choice is forced upon them because of the high cost of maintaining children, I begin to question whether our tax and social security system is in fact influencing social behaviour in a way which is contrary to the long term interests of this nation. In today's debate, though, I cannot spend a great deal of time focusing on that general question. I have made my view quite clear: the tax relief to all families in respect of their support of dependent children should be at least equal to the cost of maintaining children who are totally dependant upon the public sector. That should apply whether the family has a middle income or a high income. For low income families, the tax relief should be delivered in the form of cashable tax credits or cash family allowances. But whatever the level of income, I do not believe that the basic cost of supporting children should be categorised along with all other consumption expenditure. Expenditure on children is expenditure on people and on the future of this nation. One area has provided a huge drain on the general body of taxpayers. This is largely because many non-custodial parents have defaulted in their responsibility to their children. Whilst all parents under our present tax and social security system are now called upon to pay, out of their disposable income-after they have paid their taxes, assessed on the basis of their being single with no dependants-for the support of their children, this one group, non-custodial parents, has failed in its responsibility. These people have left the support of their children to the general body of taxpayers who largely pay their tax, do the right thing and support their own children. There is a huge number. When we talk about supporting parents many people often think of young unmarried mothers. But those young unmarried mothers represent only 20 per cent of supporting parent and widow's pension beneficiaries. As at September of this year, there were 237,000 widow's pension or supporting parent beneficiaries. Of that number, fewer than 15,000 are widows or widowers in the true sense of the meaning of `widow' or `widower'-that is, their husbands or wives are dead. A total of 177,000 or 75 per cent, of that number are separated, divorced or deserted parents. The remaining 19 per cent are unmarried mothers. The figures imply that the separated non-custodial parent is still in Australia. Those parents are failing their children because the system under which the Family Law Act has been operating has not enabled adequate maintenance to be collected from them. I am pleased to read in this legislation a section that commences: The principal object of this Division is to ensure that children receive a proper level of financial support from their parents. That is directed primarily at parted families. Currently, the Family Court, in setting the amount of maintenance, takes into account the separated family's ability to obtain social security benefits. As a result, a huge amount-about $1,680m-is being paid out in a form of spousal maintenance to support the supporting parent, together with another $80m as rent allowance. In addition, nearly $500m is being paid out as child maintenance to families when, in the great majority of cases, that should have been paid by the separated, non-custodial parent. As a consequence, a separated family with one child which, before separation, had a single disposable income of $25,000 a year would, after making allowance for the dependent spouse rebate and the family allowance, have a disposable income of about $20,000. After separation, the income of those three people-that is, the two parents and the child-would rise to $26,800. If there were two children, it would rise to $28,300. So, as a result of separation, the income of those people would, at taxpayers' expense, rise by $6,800 in the case of a family with one child, and by just over $7,900 in the case of a family with two children. That is paid for, in most cases, by families which support their children and do not receive adequate benefits through the tax and social security system. As a result of the Government's decision to amend the Family Law Act in the way in which the legislation proposes, to establish a Child Support Agency, which I support, and to means test child maintenance, which I support-although I want to be able to examine the details of the means test to be applied-non-custodial parents will be called upon to pay more towards their children. Whilst all parents are required by the tax and social security system to make payments out of their after tax income for the support of their children, all children should be regarded as having a basic right to be supported by their parents. But thousands of children in the broken homes to which I have referred are being denied that fair go-a fair start in life. The main reason is that too often the parent who does not have custody of the child fails to contribute appropriately to that child's well-being. For the sake of those children, non-custodial parents who can afford to do so should be required to discharge their responsibility to maintain their children. Here, I differ from the current Government's proposals, and I hope that the Government will review the situation. I believe that the new procedures should be made to apply to all separated families, whether they separate before or after the legislation comes into operation. That could be handled in this way: when we come to deal with the maintenance formulas that have to be considered, we could deem the implementation of the maintenance formula to be a variation of any existing court order. There could be a hardship provision that, because of the circumstances in which some earlier order was given, a variation could be dealt with and heard by the courts. But it needs to be pointed out that in the case of a separated family with one child, the maintenance order would have to be at least $72 a week before the supporting parent would cease to be eligible for the child allowances and the mother's/guardian's allowance. So the maintenance order would have to be $3,000 or more a year for one child. In the case of two children, it would have to be at the rate of $113 a week before the additional child allowances, which are over and above those paid to an intact family, would cease to be paid to the supporting parent. I believe that the formulas that are being laid down and the guidelines that are set out in this legislation giving priority to the payment of maintenance by non-custodial parents over and above other expenditures and other indulgences that are now being undertaken by non-custodial parents, are aiming the law in the right direction to bring about equity as between intact families and separated families. When we achieve that level of equity, the next step will be to ensure that there is equity for families with children compared with households without dependent children in their care. There is much more that I had hoped to be able to say today, but the Government has indicated that it wants this legislation passed before lunchtime today and I know that a number of my colleagues wish to speak. So I will have to seek some future opportunity to bring to the attention of the House some other concerns that I have about this legislation. Very briefly, those concerns relate to the de facto introduction of a spousal maintenance provision through the suggestions that are being put forward with regard to the withdrawal of the basic pension from supporting parents as a consequence of increased maintenance payments. If they are maintenance payments for children, the money should be available for the children. This would relieve the public sector of the cost of providing extra child allowances and should not reduce what is, in effect, a carer's allowance or spousal maintenance. If it is to be spousal maintenance it should be ordered as that, and should come off the basic pension that is payable to the support- ing parent. But children should not be prejudiced by having the amount available to them reduced as a consequence of payments over and above the $72 in the case of one child and the $113 in the case of two children. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(12.04) —The whole thrust of the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 reflects the Government's commitment to protecting the rights of children. I am sure that all of us in this House are delighted with that. Child support is one of our society's most basic and important issues, yet it is one that has not been adequately discussed. While questions of public and private support for children and for single parents have recently been a major topic of debate, there has been little questioning of the values embodied in many social policies. Few members would argue that the present system of child support is satisfactory. There are conflicts in the different Acts. There are difficulties in the collection and enforcement of maintenance, level of payment of both public and private support are too low, there are serious inequities and there are disincentives to self-support. One of the most positive aspects of the Family Law Amendment Bill is the implementation of the reference of powers for New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania relating to the maintenance of children. I must say that it is extremely disappointing, and appalling, that Queensland is not prepared to hand its powers over to the Commonwealth, because there will continue to be disputes about what is the proper court to bring a particular matter to-the Supreme Court of Queensland or the Family Court of Australia. Let me give an instance. A young woman in Queensland could have a child out of wedlock and later on in life get married and have children. Then, through some unfortunate situation, that marriage may break down. The Constitution states that the Commonwealth has powers to make laws concerning marriage. Therefore, the first child, which was born out of wedlock, would be dealt with under the Supreme Court of Queensland and the other children who were from the marriage would be dealt with by the Family Court of Australia. That is a diabolical situation; it is an outrageous situation. There are enough problems when a marriage breaks down and children, unfortunately, do not know whether they are coming or going without having the extreme situation thrust upon them. I certainly hope that the powers that be in Queensland will start looking at the backward situation there, see a little light and think of the family rather than political point scoring by that State. This Bill seeks to ensure that children will receive a proper level of financial support from the income earning capacity, property and financial resources of both parents and that both parents share equitably in the support of their children. The Bill provides that the duty of a parent to maintain a child takes priority over all commitments of the parent other than the commitments enabling the parent to support himself or herself or any other person or child that the parent has a duty to maintain. Mr Deputy Speaker, for me this legislation is of paramount importance. I think every member comes into this House with some goal to achieve. Of paramount importance to me was to look after people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own and who really need somebody to look after them-the children of broken marriages. Before I came into this House I was part of a voluntary charitable organisation that comes across such people all the time. It is disastrous and very depressing indeed to see that young people in our affluent society today really do not have the love and care of a marriage and parents to look after them. In my area particularly I pay tribute to voluntary organisations such as the St Vincent de Paul Society, the Salvation Army and those churches that take this problem on board, trying to do what they can to hold the family together or, where there is an irretrievable situation, doing what they can to help the children or the parents that are in difficulty. I also acknowledge some of the tremendous work done in marriage counselling. In my area this has been very effective indeed. One of the mainstays in this area, Father Eugene Hurley, plays a tremendous role, an unstinting role, in trying to let young people know before they are married what is in store for them: that everything is not milk and honey, that there will be difficulties along the way. I would like to see a lot more done in this area of marriage counselling. Many members of this House could tell stories about battling mothers who sacrificially expend their diminishing financial and emotional resources upon children in their care. Nevertheless, it is fair to speculate that when parents separate, many dependent children receive little or no emotional support from at least one constant and devoted adult. It is reasonable to suggest that most children are adaptable, but a repeated denial of stable economic and emotional support will cause long term damage to their moral, spiritual and social development. How can an adult be expected to give emotional support to a child when that adult is experiencing emotional and financial crises? This Bill goes a long way towards overcoming some of those problems. At least we have one court, the Family Court, which will look at some of those difficulties, and that is a progressive step along the way to their solution. There are many other points on which my colleagues will expand. Unfortunately, I have limited time to speak on this Bill, but I commend the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for introducing this progressive legislation, and I urge all honourable members to support it. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(12.11) —I commence by expressing, and placing on record, my very deep concern over the fact that the time to debate this very significant piece of legislation has been cut short. I was informed only an hour ago that I had to condense my speech almost by half, so I will not waste any more time by mentioning that matter any further. We are considering today very significant social and legal legislative matters. The Family Law Amendment Bill ventures into the very sensitive areas of the determination of parentage of children born of artificial insemination, the determination of maintenance arrangements, and the determination of parentage and paternity. It also introduces amendments to the Family Law Act in the areas of counselling in Family Court matters and custody and guardianship. The Opposition supports the thrust of this legislation. In general it reflects our stance in this policy area. Aware of the significance of the area addressed by the legislation, and sensitive to the disquiet and concern over family law in the community, we are, however, arguing that the legislation be examined in detail by the appropriate parliamentary committee and that an examination of the Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill allow for community consultation and input. I want to reflect not so much on the finer detail of the various sections of the Bills before us, but on what the Bills tell us about the nature of government and about our role in the interplay of policy and morality, government and citizen. Proposed new section 66a in the Family Law Amendment Bill states that the principal object of division 6 of the Bill `is to ensure that children receive a proper level of financial support from their parents'. That division's particular object includes ensuring that children have their proper needs met from reasonable and adequate shares in the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of both of their parents. It is intended to ensure that parents share equitably in the support of their children. Proposed new section 66b declares that the parents of a child have `the primary duty to maintain the child'. These sections seem to embody common sense. They reflect the moral truisms of our Christian heritage. They echo the principles of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which declares that the child shall enjoy special protection, and that for that purpose the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration. But what we must realise, in this place and as a community, is that we are considering this legislation today because too many of our citizens treat such common sense and moral norms with contempt. The reality in Australia today is that too many of our citizens shirk their parental obligation, tear up marital commitments and abuse their spouses and children. Today the state, in the form of the Parliament and Government, is forced to intervene. Edmund Burke wrote: Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it within, the more of it there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. If I were to try to encapsulate the reasons for the maintenance provision of the relevant Bill that is before us, I could not go past Mr Burke's commentary that I have just quoted. The law and government are the principal protections of the weak against the strong. The legislation before us is, in many ways, yet another intervention by the Government, via the law, to protect the weak-in this case, children and the many thousands of deserted and struggling spouses. It should be said, however, that this legislation is not just reactive. It will now have a positive, preventive function, which much of our family law quite obviously does not. It has been said that the first question of government is: How should we live, or what kind of citizens do we want our citizens to be? The American commentator and philosopher, George Will, in reflecting on that question, observed that much legislation is moral legislation because it conditions the action and the thought of the nation in broad and important spheres of life. He defined the legislation of morality as the enactment of laws and the implementation of policies that: proscribe, mandate, regulate or subsidise behaviour that will, over time, have the predictable effect of nurturing, bolstering or altering habits, dispositions and values on a broad scale. Political philosophy, Mr Will writes, is about the policy which includes: all the institutions, dispositions, habits and mores on which government depend and on which, therefore, government should strive to have a shaping influence. He warns us that our society: continues to live improvidently off a dwindling legacy of cultural capital which was accumulated in sterner, more thoughtful eras. That legacy is a renewable resource but it will not regenerate spontaneously. Regeneration is a political choice, a political chore. We are here today involved in that political chore of regenerating our cultural capital in possibly the most significant area of social relations-the family. Can there be any doubt that the social security blowout and the educational, health and employment problems which arise out of marriage breakdown are a threat to good government? Can there be any doubt that much of our marital breakdown and child poverty could be prevented if we could nurture the values represented in this legislation? I think not. That is why we have this legislation before us. It is not just a reaction to irresponsible behaviour by certain citizens, an intervention on behalf of the weak; it is also an attempt to set before our citizens what is right and wrong. It champions certain values which we all believe are crucial to the good of our community and its individual members. It is not often that we discuss in this place, or the party rooms, what we are here for. The failure to work out our philosophy of government has, in fact, been a major cause of some instability in my own Party. The coalition supports this legislation. I am not sure whether many of my colleagues are aware of what this legislation represents in terms of a philosophy of government. I think that that could be true of many Government members as well. This legislation is timely not only because of the urgent and immediate social and legal problems that it addresses, but also because of the opportunity it gives us to address the fundamental question to do with what we in Parliament are here for. I hope we take it very seriously. This legislation is important, as I have said. I think that the Government still has to address the inadequacy of its preventive measures, as reflected in the pitiful allocations for marriage education and marriage counselling. I have raised these views with the relevant Minister each year at Budget time, and I know that he shares my concern. As well, I think there is a need to review seriously the resources and guidelines provided in Family Court counselling. We all know the problems facing the Family Court. However, I believe that we do not take seriously enough the fact that in many cases the inadequate resources available to the courts and the informality of counselling result in injustice and grave harm to many individuals before our courts. Finally, I think there is also a need for the community itself to take seriously the matter of national values and social morality. It has been said that one of the great delusions of this world is the hope that its evils can be cured by legislation. It has been said that the role of the state in Christian society is to encourage virtue, not to usurp it. It has been said that government will always reflect the character of its citizens. Ultimately, the severe social and moral problems that we face must be tackled by our citizens in their homes and in their schools as a matter of priority. But it has also been said that today we are less threatened by big government than by an abdication by government which amounts to a withering away of the state regarding concern for the intangible prerequisites of free government. This legislation is one step towards reversing that process. I commend the Government for its introduction. While its implementation is urgently required, nevertheless, I ask for some further analysis and community input so that we do not end up with legislation which exacerbates our family law problems. I urge the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to give that very serious consideration. That analysis would be obtained by reference of the Bills to the relevant committee. Finally, I urge those listening to this debate to encourage community discussion of the legislation, the values that it embodies and the role of government that it represents and at the very least, to report the views expressed to their local members to be passed on to the Attorney-General. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(12.22) —My brief discussion of the Family Law Amendment Bill allows me to reflect on the Family Law Act 1975, the purpose of which was expressed by the late Hon. Mr Justice Lionel Murphy in this Parliament in 1974 when he said: . . . to eliminate as far as possible the high costs, the delays and indignities experienced by so many parties to divorce proceedings under the . . . Matrimonial Causes Act. Of course, the Family Law Act came into operation throughout Australia in 1976, repealing the matrimonial causes legislation. The Family Law Act removed the notion of fault as a ground for divorce and replaced it with the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, evidenced by 12 months separation and there being no reasonable likelihood of reconciliation. Those people who fail to support the Family Law Act simply do not understand that the intricacies and complexities of any human relationship make it impossible to attribute blame fairly in the breakdown of marriage. Some 12 years on, the Family Court of Australia is a credit to the ideals and hopes of those people who succeeded in effecting change in the form of the Family Law Act. The judges, registrars, counsellors and staff of the Family Court deserve praise for their success in achieving greater understanding and humanity in such a difficult area. Much of the cost, delay and indignity of past eras has been removed. Of course, there will always be critics and there is no painless way to deal with the human tragedy of divorce. It has long been held by many conservatives that the breakdown in the family-whatever that phrase means-stems from the passage of the Family Law Act. In fact, all that happened after the passage of the Act was that an enormous tide of sadness was released and relieved. People who could not bear the emotional or financial cost of divorce proceedings could finally and fairly be released from the prison of a broken marriage. In the period from 1971 to 1975, divorces were running at 1.3 per thousand marriages. The number of divorces jumped, for the reasons I have just mentioned, in the period 1981-1985 to 2.8 per thousand. However, by 1986 the trend was down. The rate is now 2.6 per thousand. In fact, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, since 1982 the total number of divorces has fallen each year. In 1982 there were 44,088 divorces in Australia. In 1986 there were, despite population growth, 39,417 divorces. In my region the divorces filed in the Brisbane, Rockhampton and Lismore registries this year are 7 per cent less than for the same period last year. The figures speak for themselves. The Family Court has been able to bring down the true divorce rate in Australia, by its mature and open methods of reconciliation and judicious use of the law. The main aim of the court has been to encourage parties to make their own decisions with the assistance of trained lawyers and social workers. The fact that less than 5 per cent of cases actually proceed to trial before a judge seems to indicate that the system is working, and working well. Those who are unable to resolve their differences no longer have to endure years of delay. For instance, in Brisbane the delay from the date of filing an application to the date of a final trial is nine months. If the case is not heard within that time it is usually because the parties or their solicitors have made a decision to delay because, for example, the parties are still negotiating. Despite the commendable job being performed by the Family Court, some judges of other courts and some members of the legal profession seem to have an inflated sense of their own importance and have been extremely critical of the Family Court-not because of any failure properly to discharge the court's duties under the Family Law Act but because of the conscious decision to abandon the mystique and paternalistic approach of divorce under the Matrimonial Causes Act. Recently, I was speaking with a former Queensland Supreme Court judge who spoke quite disparagingly about the Family Court. He said that in the good old days he used to deal with the matrimonial matters in a morning. I have since learned that this particular judge had a dreadful reputation in this area as being excessively inhumane. It seems that for some any decision, no matter how ill-conceived, is the solution. I mourn any mistaken belief that the Family Court needs to improve its standing. Standing in whose eyes-in the eyes of the public, the legal profession, judges in other courts or perhaps its own judges? Gone are the days when a woman forfeits all property rights upon marriage, thereby becoming, in some instances, just another chattel. Gone are the days when a woman forfeits all rights to property, maintenance and custody of the children simply by moving out of an unhappy or violent marriage. Today, the distribution of any proceeds from a marriage will depend on the needs of an applicant, on the ability of a respondent to pay, and on the contribution made to the marriage by both parties. Prior to the Family Law Act, an applicant for divorce had to wait for five years after separation before filing for divorce. A party had to prove adultery or cruelty, thereby causing extreme heartache and stress for all the family, particularly the children. The Family Law Act makes the children of the marriage of paramount importance, rather than merely providing a venue for the venting of anger and blame. Under the present system the sole ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Either or both parties may file for divorce and a divorce will be granted upon the Court being satisfied that the parties have been separated for 12 months and that proper arrangements have been made for the children. At any stage before or after separation confidential counselling is available for the parties and each Family Court registry employs its own staff of qualified psychologists and social workers. If, after counselling, there is no hope for the marriage, the counsellor will assist the parties to come to terms with the separation, and then to work out immediate problems such as where they are to live and who is to have responsibility for the care and maintenance of the children and maintenance of the joint property. When the parties are at a stage when they have to sort out questions of property and maintenance, the registrars of the Court, who are experienced lawyers, step in and discuss the problems with the parties and their solicitors. During this confidential conference an attempt is made to arrive at a settlement. If no agreement is reached the case is listed for trial. It is evident that, unlike any other legal system in Australia, every opportunity and assistance is offered to parties to work out their own problems. Despite the extensive system designed to aid the couple, it should be stressed that it is not essential that the parties go through the court system. If they are able to resolve their own problems, they need not go near the Family Court. However, if there is a later problem in that one party reneges on an agreement, the Court can enforce only orders made by it and if there are no orders then the whole matter will be looked at by the Court. Under the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1987, it is proposed that certain matters now the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia will be able to be dealt with by the Family Court, essentially in those cases where a Family Court matter is pending-for example, a family law property settlement or an income tax appeal. If the parties consent, the Federal Court matter may be transferred to the Family Court so that all financial issues may be decided at once. There is no power to file Federal Court applications in the Family Court, thus any combined jurisdiction will depend on transfer between courts. The number of such cases would be limited but in appropriate circumstances it is anticipated that all matters can be disposed of with less delay and cost to the parties. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a position of judicial registrar which is akin to a master in a State Supreme Court. It is the intention that judges will be free from interim matters to deal only with final trials. It is to be hoped that delays will be further removed. The Bill provides for the transfer of certain powers by the judges of the Family Court to the judicial registrar and in order for such a position to be of maximum assistance it should have a fairly extensive power base to deal with all interim hearings of custody, access, injunctions and so on. It is anticipated that all judges will then be available for hearing final trials. The Bill extends the jurisdiction of the local magistrates courts to deal with undefended divorces and property matters to the value of the civil debt jurisdiction. The reason for this proposed amendment is once again to free up the Family Court system to deal with major and more complicated disputes. The main beneficiaries of such an amendment will most likely be those parties residing outside a city. But as applications for divorce must still be filed in the Family Court and upon request transferred to a magistrates court one would hope that such dual handling would not add to, but rather diminish, the delay to the parties. I am sure it will be a successful move and one that should be monitored. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.32) —The Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Powers) Bill propose major and sweeping amendments to the Family Law Act and to the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia. Let me run very briefly through some of the changes which are made by the Family Law Amendment Bill. Under that Bill the jurisdiction of the Family Court will be extended, in the case of four States, to ex-nuptial children. Provision is made for dealing with children who have been conceived by artificial procedures. That measure is very sensible but, as everybody knows, it is new. Under new section 63c provision is made for persons who may bring proceedings concerning the welfare of children so that, effectively, any person who is judged by the court to have an interest in the welfare of children-for example, grandparents-may come before a court. Under new section 63f the custody of children will be joint unless otherwise ordered. That is very sensible and is in accordance with the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia in this area. New division 6 deals with maintenance; it runs to some 13 sections. Much of the material is new, for example, the statutory statement of the duty to maintain children which is found in sections 66a and 66b. New division 7 deals with presumptions of parentage. I suppose it is very sensible to have some presumptions of parentage written into the Family Law Act but I confess it taught me something about conception that I did not know. I had thought that nine months was the usual period for conception. I have had that view for the last 40 years or so and I have just learned that it is wrong. However, I am glad to have it pointed out to me. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is nodding; obviously he has learned something too. New section 66q reads in these terms: A child born to a woman who, for a period of at least 6 months ending not more than 10 months before the birth, cohabited with a man to whom she was not married shall be presumed to be a child of that man. All I can say is that a few men are going to run into some rather curious problems. Let me tell honourable members how it works. Let us assume that A, a man, lives with B, a women. Ten months before a child is born A and B decide to call it a day. A goes off to the other side of the country or overseas and decides at that time to cohabit or, indeed, get married to some other women. B, the women, decides that she has found a very attractive fellow that she would like to live with. She does so. She leaves A and, immediately, 10 months before the birth of this child, she moves in with the next partner. Mr Gear —This happens all the time. Mr SPENDER —Yes, as my colleague on the other side of the House said, it happens all the time. I do not say that the honourable member has any personal knowledge of these matters but obviously he is an observer of life. What happens is that B, having found this new partner-with whom, let us assume, she stays for only three months-has a child. The child is conceived during the time that she is with this new partner. But the problem is that they stick together for only three months. So, under this interesting new rule of evidence, the person who is presumed to have fathered the child is the person who left one month before the child was in fact conceived and, let us assume, is 3,000 miles away. All I can say is that that is a pretty interesting way of conceiving children. Mr Carlton —It is inconceivable. Mr SPENDER —As my friend the honourable member for Mackellar has said, it is inconceivable. I should be delighted if the Attorney- General, in his reply, would address the application of this presumption and the reasons for it. I draw attention to it because, along with a new division which deals with matters concerning the calling of evidence to prove the birth of children, it illustrates how wide and sweeping are the changes which this legislation brings about. On the subject of parentage, I draw the Attorney-General's attention to the fact that in new division 8 provision is made for the ordering of medical procedures requiring: . . . a person to submit to a medical procedure, to provide a bodily sample or to furnish information relevant to the person's medical or family history. This may also be very sensible; probably it is. But we understand that there are people who conscientiously believe that they should not take medical treatment of any kind. Obviously, that will be an area of some contention. That, of course, does not mean that the provision should not be there. It is sensible that it should be there. But again it illustrates the need for some public debate on this legislation. It is public debate and the opportunity for the public and the Houses of Parliament to focus on the issues in this legislation that we are asking for. New division 9 provides for child bearing expenses. It provides that fathers will be liable to contribute when otherwise they would not be. Again, that is very sensible but, again, it is a change. New division 10 provides for child welfare agreements and for the registration of child welfare agreements so that parents will be able to agree on what maintenance provisions should be made for children, can then register the agreement, and do this in place of consent orders as is now the case, so they will not have to go to court. In my view this is desirable but once again it is a significant change in law. As well, there is a provision in what is going to be section 70e for an authorised person or authority to bring maintenance proceedings on behalf of a child. This is quite new. It is probably a sensible change but once again it is the sort of thing that should be looked at closely and on which we should have really informed public debate. There are other changes in the Bill, but I do not, in the short time that we have here, intend to try to cover them also. I will move on quickly and say something about the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill. My learned colleague the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), has spoken about the changes that this Bill will effect. It confers additional jurisdiction on the Family Court. In my view, this is very sensible, but once again we have not had a full examination of it and there are some questions as to the advisability of some of the matters that will be turned over to the Family Court. Is it, overall, sensible? What it does as well is this: whilst making provision for certain new jurisdictions to be given to the Family Court and recognising, as the shadow Attorney-General pointed out, that the concept of a specialist court has proved ill-founded, it does not come to grips with the real problem. The real problem is simply this: what is to be the future of the Family Court? Is it to remain a specialist court, separate from the mainstream of the Federal jurisdiction, or is it to be integrated into the general court system, either by giving it back to the States or, more likely, by integration with the Federal court system? I believe that the Attorney-General's disposition is to integrate the Family Court with the main Federal court system. What this Bill does is to nibble at the question, but evade it. After all these years of seeing how the Family Court works, after coming to an understanding that it works badly and, for all that some honourable members have extolled the way in which the court works, overall it is not proving to be a satisfactory court. Surely, the time has now come to make a decision as to what is to be done. I would be glad if the Attorney-General, when he sums up the debate, would address himself to the issue. Our policy, which is the policy that I drew up before the last election on behalf of the Liberal Party, is very plain. The Family Court should be integrated, whether it goes back to the State courts or to the Federal system. It should not remain a separate court. There are many reasons for that and I shall touch quickly on some. First of all, it is becoming increasingly difficult generally to get leading lawyers to go on to the benches. That is a problem experienced throughout our systems, both Federal and in the States. It is even harder to get good lawyers these days to go on to the Family Court. It is not thought generally to be a court of high distinction. That may be fair or unfair, but that is the general perception among lawyers. The general perception would also be that the work is too constricted and that it can result in what I would call `judicial burnout'. Spending all one's time concentrating upon problems which have great emotional overtones and being concerned about the welfare of children can result in judges becoming, as it were, emotionally burnt out by the kind of work on which, day in and day out, they have to concentrate. I ask the Attorney-General to address himself to the question of the future of the court, how he sees it and what his time scale is for any further action about the court. The shadow Attorney-General has moved that the Bills be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by 7 December 1987. He rightly said in the second reading debate that if these Bills do not go off to that Committee, a committee set up by this Government only a short time ago, then what sort of legislation are we going to send off to it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for North Sydney will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr GEAR(Canning)(12.45) —I move: That this House commends the Hawke Government for- (1) the steps it has taken to increase the retention rate among 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. In so moving, I am aware of the proud achievements of the Hawke Government in education in the four years in which we have been in government. They are indeed impressive, but they are made more impressive by the appalling record of our predecessors. Back in March 1983, the retention rates in our secondary schools-that is, the number of young people finishing secondary schools-stood at an abysmal 36 per cent. Currently it is 50 per cent and we have set ourselves the goal of raising that to at least 65 per cent by the early 1990s. I would compare that, Mr Deputy Speaker, with the industrialised and technologically advanced country of Japan, where currently 97 per cent of their young people are finishing secondary school. I suppose that there are times when we start to look at barometers by which we may measure a country's performance, a country's well-being, its economic health. Certainly we cannot use our natural resources as a barometer, because if it was our natural resources Australia, above all countries, would be very affluent, but we are not. Indeed, it is its human resources. As can be seen from the example of comparing Australia with Japan, Australia has many physical resources. What we have not done in the past is develop our human resources and that is where the Japanese have really left us standing, have really left the rest of the world standing. It is also clear that in the past Australians really have not known the value of education. We have never really seen education for what it is-and education, as I have said, does lift a country's stocks; it does lift the well-being of a country, both in its economy and also in its society. Going back to 1983 and prior to that, the conservative governments in this country ran the education system like they ran the economy and the taxation system-very sloppily, indeed, by any measure; across the education field up until 1983, there were large areas of deficiency. I will point out some of those as I go along. In fact, the education system did mirror the economy of this country. What the conservatives really thought was that our potential were wheat fields and holes in the ground and our education system was geared to that-`Let us dig up some rocks and send them overseas-that is really all we have to do. Do not use any intellectual input to change those rocks or to put them into finished products. Let us send them to Japan and then we will buy them back again'. That is what their whole philosophy was about. The resources boom in the early 1980s just goes to show that that was the case. As to educational outputs in the previous Government's term, about 10 per cent of our young people ended up with an undergraduate diploma. As I have said, 54 per cent of kids did not even finish high school. They were really aimed at low level jobs. There were not many high level jobs in this country and that is why only that small number of our young people were coming out of universities. Resources given to private schools illustrate another bias in the previous Government's educational policies. In fact, from 1976 to 1983 the funds given to government schools went down by 10.9 per cent and to private schools went up by a massive 76.9 per cent, showing the bias. Also built into that, of course, was the taxation system that allowed, before the fringe benefits tax, some more affluent taxpayers to pick up some of the cost of sending their children to private schools. Let us move on to higher education under Mr Fraser and contrast that with what we are doing now. Mr Fraser commissioned the report of the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education, Training and Employment in 1979. I will always remember the words of Myer Kangan, who brought out the Kangan report Technical and Further Education in Australia in 1974. He said that whenever you set up a committee the committee will invariably come back with a report that matches the aspirations of the government, that meets its philosophy. Let us have a look at the Williams report and see whether that was so. The then Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, said about the Williams report that it was extremely valuable because it identified the key problems in Australian education. What did it do? An article which appeared in the National Times of the day said: The real winners from the committee's report are Australia's 19 universities, largely elitist in their own views of themselves and increasingly fearful about their roles being threatened. There was the grand strategy for the Liberal Party for the future and the Education Minister of the day said that it had addressed the problems. What did the report say? It said protect the universities, those elitist structures; in fact, make sure that they cannot be threatened; do not expand them, do not make sure we get more people through them, but just maintain them at the present level. That gives us an indication of what the previous Government thought of higher education. What about youth support? Here are a couple of views from two vice-chancellors, and I will read from the Australian Financial Review of 26 August 1981: Describing last weeks Federal Budget as a `heartless' one for tertiary students, chairman of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Professor Don George, renewed the AVCC's call for an inquiry into all aspects of student financing. He said the Budget suggested the Federal Government- that was the Fraser Government- was out of touch with the needs of young people and would confirm the `widely held belief' that the Government had no coherent policy on student access. Here is another article on Mr Williams, the guy who brought down the report. It states: The terms of reference of that inquiry instructed it to have regard to the Government's policy commitment to a widening of educational opportunities. `This Government has not lived up to its declared commitment.' He said that since 1975 there had been a 30 per cent decline in the number of undergraduate students receiving some form of government financial support. There you have it. In higher education the Fraser Government supported the elitist structure that was always there, but would not support the young people who needed assistance to get in there. Let us contrast that with what this Government has done. I would like to give an example of a family of three children, one at each level of educational assistance. Let us say that there is one in tertiary education, one over 16 years and another aged 14 years and, therefore, not eligible for Austudy. The family income, we will assume, is $300 per week. In 1988 this family will receive family allowance of $5.25 per week, a family allowance supplement of $28 and Austudy payments of $50 a week for the senior secondary child and $60 a week for the child at a tertiary institution. The total is $143.25. In 1983 the same family, at the same level of weekly earnings, would have been earning $199 a week. The total help they would have then received would have been $69.28, which when adjusted up to 1988 dollars would be $101. From that illustration it is clear that, under this Government, the assistance given to that needy family has gone up by 40 per cent in real terms. Let us go a little further than higher education and see what the former Prime Minister had to say about the link between education and employment. This is very illuminating. A report in the Canberra Times in March 1982 said this, when quoting the then Prime Minister: Young people who have not done well at high school should not leave with a sense of failure, the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said yesterday. He said it could be that the school system had failed them. Further on it quoted Mr Fraser again: `Not being able to master the academic courses, they quite wrongly got a sense of being failures and this sense compounded the difficulties of many students who found it harder to get a job when they left school.' There he is getting stuck into the schools and blaming them for the fact that young people could not get jobs. He went further. He went to a talkback radio show in Esperence, and you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a long way from anywhere down to Esperance so maybe he thought he could speak a little more frankly down there. A newspaper report stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, yesterday criticised the school system for helping create unemployment among the young. He was going a bit further there. What the former Prime Minister tried to do was to make a link between the education system and his failure to provide the jobs. Let us see what the reaction was to that. The Acting General Secretary of the Australian Teachers Federation, Mr David Widdup, said that the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, should realise that a great many people, including many teachers, were better educated than he was and would not accept unquestionably his decisions on the economy. Mr Widdup said that Mr Fraser could look forward to strong criticism when he, or anyone else, tried to shift the ills of the economy on to schools. Another spokesman for the Australian Teachers Federation said that the Government had to create jobs because education could only shuffle the pack in the dole queue. In Adelaide the Acting Director-General of Education had this to say about the Fraser Government: One of the fundamental failures of the Federal Government was that it had not provided enough jobs for young people and the sense of identity that went with the jobs. Here we have the Prime Minister of the country at that time blaming the education system for the fact that there was a rising level of unemployment. The main reason, of course, was the shabby state that his Government left the economy in. In the last year of that Government 270,000 jobs were lost. The way it ran this economy was absolutely tragic and to try to shift the blame on to education does not do it much justice. Mr Deputy Speaker, since the 1983 election the Hawke Government has dramatically increased student participation, not only in secondary schools, as I have already indicated, but also in higher education. I had a look at some numbers last night and comparing like periods-that is, the last four years of the Fraser Government with the first four years of this Government-we find that in universities there has been a 185 per cent increase in the number of young people. In colleges of advanced education there has been an increase of 172 per cent and in technical and further education there has been a massive increase in participation of 266 per cent. So that not only in our secondary schools are the retention rates going up but in higher education the participation rates have been significantly increased by this Government, as they have in apprenticeships. The dramatic decrease in the number of jobs in the last year of the Fraser Government also affected apprenticeships. They went down to 36,000, just about an all-time low. We have lifted that to 54,000 and it would have been greater had there been a greater intake in the last year of the previous Government because of the fact that apprenticeships are spread over time. We have increased the number from 36,000 to 54,000. This Government has also created the traineeships to pick up an area of training that was always denied to those people who left school at 15 and either did not get an apprenticeship or a job, or did not go on to higher education. I can say from experience of speaking at some of the traineeship graduation ceremonies that industry values them, the students value them, industry benefits, the students benefit and so does Australia because the stock level of the skills in this country is lifted by having the traineeships in place. It might seem inconceivable to anybody from anywhere else in the world that prior to 1983 there were no direct links between industry and our universities. The former Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, set up two committees-the Standing Committee on Industry and Education Links and the Industry Reference Group which comprised unions and industry. There were no public servants on that particular committee but they did give advice and valuable feedback on where education was going in the higher education field to try to make it more relevant to the education system. Even though we have gone a long way, there is a long way to go and there are some challenges we really have to face. One challenge for the future is that we have to increase our research efforts in this country. The present Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) has for the first time set up a body that can bring all those areas of research together to co-ordinate them in a more meaningful way. We have been supported by the efforts of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, and his Department to make sure that the research effort in this country is lifted significantly. We also have to increase the participation rates. We come close to the bottom of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in the number of graduates we get through higher education. Under Mr Fraser it went from 11 per cent back to 9.6 per cent. It is currently about 11.5 per cent. That is an all-time high but it is not good enough; we are going to have to lift that further. We will have to change attitudes to education and I believe that is happening. It is reflected in the participation rates in our high schools and the number of young people who want to get into our higher educational institutions. We also have to find the resources for the expansion of higher education because, if we do realise our ambition of achieving 65 per cent or more of our young people finishing secondary school, a lot more of those people will have to go, or will want to go, on to higher education. Our present policy of funding higher education, I believe, and I have said in this place before, is the wrong one. I no not believe our higher education should be funded totally from the Commonwealth Budget. I believe in many ways it is doing Australia harm in that we cannot get everybody into an institution who wants to gain a place. Depending on the numbers used, about 13,000 to 20,000 missed out this year and that is a tragedy. So the resourcing of education and the expansion of education are one of the challenges this Government has to face. Certainly we have to broaden the resources that come into higher education. Maybe industry can help out there, but maybe so can the students themselves. I will quote from Skills for Australia put out by the Minister. On page 19, talking about resources for skills, it says about higher education: Finally, there is a need for more diversified sources of finance for education and training. Governments alone should not and cannot carry the full financial burden of improvements in our skills formation arrangements. Corporations and in appropriate cases, the individual beneficiaries of training, will have to carry more of the load. That is another challenge this Government will have to take because it is one of the problem areas. It is also a highly political one, as we saw in the last election when Opposition members could not bring themselves to spell out how they were going to resource their educational effort. Certainly the educational achievements of the Hawke Government have been considerable. In our third term we are going further. We have established the Department of Employment, Education and Training. We are seeking to rationalise and streamline the advice given to government so that Australia's economic and social objectives can be addressed. There will be further reforms in higher education. Reform of education is an important component of the Government's strategy of moving Australia away from the agrarian society to an industrial and technological society. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not go further because I would like to leave some time for the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon). In conclusion, all I can say is that there will be a lot of tough decisions that have to be made. Certainly our past record has shown that when those tough decisions have to be made we have not shirked them. I believe that, as in the past, Australia has benefited from those decisions and the decisions we will make on education in the future will, I am sure, lead Australia to be a much better place than when we inherited that messy old economy back in 1983. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Johns —I second the motion. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(1.3) —One of the problems about this chamber and the reason it tends to be in some disrepute with the general public is that speeches of the kind made by the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) are all too frequently heard. There are paeans of self-praise for the Government and, of course, an attack of a particularly tendentious nature on the Opposition and on the previous Government. It does not really do much for the standard of debate for things to be conducted in this way. Samuel Butler said that the advantage of doing one's praising for oneself is that one can lay it on so thick and exactly in the right places. This is precisely what the honourable member for Canning has done. There were three areas of self-congratulation in his speech: firstly, the question of retention rates of secondary students in our schools; secondly, the availability of university places; and thirdly, the proposals by the current Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) to develop skills to meet the needs of industry. These areas of self-congratulation were accompanied by huge dollops of propaganda against the Fraser Government and against the Opposition. There is a need to get some balance into the debate. I am not going to say that the present Government has done nothing good in the area of education. A number of its objectives and proposals are worthy of support and a number of its achievements are worthy of our attention. But let us look at some of the things that the honourable member for Canning said about retention rates and put them into some sort of perspective. It is just simply not true that the lift in secondary retention rates is wholly the work of the Hawke Government. Retention rates have certainly improved in recent years but the major improvement began under the Fraser Government. The table on page 57 of the Commonwealth Schools Commission report In the National Interest shows that because of the transition education program which commenced under the Fraser Government in 1979 retention rates for students went up quite substantially. Taking the main points from that table and taking the whole period of the Fraser Government, first of all retention rates for secondary students went from 34.1 per cent in 1975 to 40.6 per cent in 1983. Again in 1984, where one could hardly say that new Hawke Government initiatives had taken hold, the retention rates went up to 45 per cent. So they went up from 34.1 in 1975 to 45 per cent in 1984 and that was essentially under the policies of the Fraser Government. In 1986, the last year noted in this table, the figure rose to 48.7, certainly an achievement for the Hawke Government which has to be applauded, but noting that the main lift occurred under policies initiated by the Fraser Government. Looking specifically at female retention rates, these went up from 33.6 per cent in 1975 to 43.9 per cent in 1983, over a 10 percentage points rise; in 1984 they rose to 48 per cent; and they have gone since then only up to 52.1 per cent in 1986. So the main lift in female retention rates occurred under the Fraser Government and the upward curve began from the transition in education program of 1979 of the Fraser Government. I turn to the question of retention rates for Aborigines. In Aboriginal retention rates between 1977 and 1982-the figures I have are from a different source-there was a 50 per cent increase because of the very great efforts of the Fraser Government to try to improve the very dismal performance in that area. But the main lift in non-Aboriginal retention rates began with the transition in education program of the Fraser Government in 1979. It continued under the policies of the Hawke Government and State governments. We all agree on the need to improve retention rates in secondary education. I think it is silly to suggest that only one government has all the positive points in this area, but the serious question to be raised, which was not even raised by the honourable member for Canning, is what happens to the students who are retained in the schools. I have had occasion over the last three or four weeks to interview a number of teachers from the schools-the teachers who have to deal with the students who are now there and who were not previously there-and there is a very serious situation in the capacity of the schools to deal with these students. Coming from primary into secondary education are students who cannot read properly, whose basic mathematics are not satisfactory and the management systems and resources and arrangements in the secondary schools are simply not there to deal with them. So there is the terrible situation of a whole lot of students in year 7 who can barely read or write and who cannot add up their sums. They go from year 7 to 8 to 9 to 10 and, heaven forbid, under increasing retention into 11 and 12 and they still cannot read or write properly because the management systems, the resources and so on are simply not available there. So, if we are not tackling that side of the equation as well as the mere number retentions, we are failing those students in a very serious way and I have had direct evidence in recent weeks of that problem. Let us go on from the secondary education area to the question of university places. Again, the honourable member for Canning diminished his argument by overstatement. He was boasting about the achievement of the Hawke Government in increasing the number of university places but I suspect that his arguments were designed more to hide the Government's embarrassment over the fact that in 1987 20,000 Australian students who were qualified to have places in higher education were unable to gain a funded place. And, in the higher education statement made to the House earlier in this session, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training said that by the end of the century, without major changes in policy, some 75,000 qualified students would be denied entry into higher education. The fact of the matter is, despite the selective use of statistics by the honourable member for Canning, that the Hawke Government has not done any better than the Fraser Government in terms of available places. The Budget Papers, published by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) a few weeks ago, show the increase in full time equivalent places in higher education; that is, taking into account the difference between part time and full time and the equivalent full time places, which is a measure of the basic availability of educational space in higher education, the increases each year at the moment are lower than they were when the Fraser Government left office. When the Fraser Government left office in 1983, the increase in full time equivalent places in higher education was 2.9 per cent. In this current calendar year, the increase is 2.6 per cent; it is lower than it was in 1983-I remind the House that 1983 was a recession year-and for 1988, the projection in the Budget Papers is 2.1 per cent. So the increase in full time equivalent places for the Fraser Government was 2.9 per cent in 1983, and for the Hawke Government in 1988 is projected at only 2.1 per cent. It is not surprising that, with those figures, there are 20,000 qualified students knocking at the door of higher education and unable to gain admittance. The Government has a real problem that the honourable member's noise is designed to hide. Where will the money come from to provide the additional places for qualified students? If indeed we have to increase the resources going into higher education-and I think we all agree that we are falling behind the rest of the world in a number of ways; we agree with the Government on that analysis-where will the money come from to expand resources for higher education? The tax dollars are simply not available. Taxpayers are already complaining about the excessive cost of government and excessively high tax. We are also going into a period where a lot of the remarks of honourable members opposite about the economic performance of the Fraser Government are going to be placed in a most interesting context. If we are entering into a period of recession, and all the signs are that we probably will be, unfortunately, the number of tax dollars from general revenue will be under even greater pressure than they have been to date. Where will the money come from? The Government does not like private universities, which are a source of private capital funds and also private fee income; but it does not like them. Senator Ryan, the previous Minister for Education, was utterly opposed to them, and the present Minister is reported as not liking them much, but, in the case of the Bond University, is just having to accept that it is there. The Government rejected the Opposition's proposal during the last election campaign to allow the institutions to take on extra fee paying students over and above the free places. That would be a way of allowing the institutions an additional source of private money over and above what they get from the taxpayer and also some more flexibility in dealing with their own requirements and matching their resources to the needs of the students and of their own staff. So, in this area, I would ask Government members to focus on the future; the argument about how many places have been made available in the past is a sterile argument. I have shown already quite clearly, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the assertions of the honourable member for Canning are somewhat tendentious. He has made a selective choice of statistics and I have shown quite conclusively that the increase in university and other higher education places over 1987 and 1988 is considerably lower than the increase in 1983 when the Fraser Government left office and despite the effects of the recession of that time. So let us forget about all that argument about the past. Let us focus on the future and let us combine to work out how to get those 25,000 applicants knocking on the other side of the door over on this side of the door. The third area raised by the honourable member for Canning was the development of skills formation. I shall quote part of the motion which praised the Government for its work. It commends the Hawke Government for: (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. I agree with that. I commend the proposals. But they are only proposals. I remind the House that the Hawke Government has been in office for four and a half years and now we have proposals to develop skills formation so that our education system will be better able to respond, and so on. The honourable member for Canning painted this extraordinary picture of Australia under previous coalition governments of a rural and mining backwater without any educational system worth its salt. This is just a silly, ridiculous characterisation of Australian education over the last 20 or 30 years and it is grossly insulting, may I say, to all those professionals who have been working in the system over that period. The honourable member ignored what happened in tertiary education under coalition governments since the Menzies commission of the Murray Committee in 1957, the Martin inquiry following that looking into colleges of advanced education, and the extraordinary expansion of technical and further education under the Fraser Government which was concerned with this very same problem and, in fact, was the last major push in this area up to the time that the present Minister was making his proposals. Under the Fraser Government between 1975 and 1980 technical and further education enrolments went up from 521,000 to 702,000, and on a different statistical base, from 1981 to 1983 the number of students in TAFE went up from 692,000 to 793,000 and the numbers have not advanced all that much since then. We welcome the new-found interest of the new Minister for Employment, Education and Training-the previous Minister for Education did not address this problem satisfactorily at all-and we certainly do join with the honourable member for Canning in commending the Minister for his proposals. We shall be looking for results and the results will have to be a jolly sight better than the Government's results under the Priority One program for youth, for example, where there was a wonderful set of proposals but absolutely no performance. We will be watching very closely for performance. We will support the Government where we believe its proposals are sound. We will give it due credit where it has done good works but we reject silly and stupid debate using distorted figures to try to claim that the previous coalition governments did nothing or that Australia was an educational wasteland over the last 20 or 30 years, because that simply is not true. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(1.18) —Once again from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) we have heard considered opinions in debate and we should thank him for that. Nevertheless, it does give me great pleasure to second the motion of the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). I want particularly to concentrate on the rising retention rate among secondary school students and on the expansion of places available in the tertiary sector. I remember when I was in year 11, the old fifth form, at a suburban state high school and my mates and I would talk about what we would do in the following year. Some of us wanted to go on to sixth form to try for our matriculation. Some had no desire to go and others simply had no aptitude or student ability to continue that far in the academic stream. I was shocked, though, that some of the best and brightest students, many of whom were girls, told me that they would not be going on, that they would be leaving school that year. They were not going on to study at a technical and further education (TAFE) college-there were none then-or at its equivalent, the technical school, which was very much the preserve of boys at that time. That realisation that the school system was not the perfect vehicle for sifting people on the basis of merit has stuck with me ever since. Similarly, a year later, shortly before I was to sit my matriculation examination, teachers came to ask me to fill out a form for entrance to university. There was I, a successful student, living no more than three miles from one of the oldest and best respected universities in the country and I had no idea what a university was, or that it might be the next step in the education ladder. Ignorance of the system, low achievement horizons, prejudice, insufficient income and lack of encouragement are all reasons why at that time not only some of the best and brightest were left out of the education system, but also many others who deserved at least some of the education pie. That was before the Labor governments of Whitlam and Hawke. These two governments lifted education out of the pack. Education has been given its rightful prominence by these Labor governments which have in turn encouraged and in some cases dragged State governments kicking and screaming to lift their educational performances. The crowning achievement of all the work that has gone before is the establishment of the Department of Employment, Education and Training. For the first time the concerns of the academic stream, the skills stream and of industry and trade unions and the economy will be recognised as being intimately connected. This breakthrough has been achieved following the great leap forward in education, the enormous jump in the secondary retention rates, the enormous expansion of retraining places, the implementation of incentives to pursue further education through Austudy, the elimination of disincentive by adjusting dole rates and the great successes of the innovative programs for the disadvantaged. The breakthrough-that is, the establishment of the super-department-will prepare the education and training sector, particularly tertiary institutions, for the next step forward. A major priority of the Labor Government in this third term is the achievement of a much greater participation by children in senior secondary education. The Hawke Government has set itself a goal of having two-thirds of our school children completing year 12 by the early 1990s. This figure represents almost double the retention rate which existed under the Fraser Government. Already the Labor Government is well on the way to achieving its goal and resolving the mess the Fraser Government left in secondary education. Secondary retention rates have increased rapidly under the present Government. In 1982 the figure was 36.3 per cent and by the end of 1986 it had risen to 48.7 per cent. By the end of this year the figure is expected to reach 50 per cent. The retention rates have risen dramatically in the government school sector from 29.6 per cent in 1982 to 42.3 per cent in 1986. Most important, from the point of view of a party and a government which are committed to equity, are the changes in the general socio-economic profile of children completing year 12. The goal of having two-thirds of our school children completing year 12 by the early 1990s cannot be seen simply in terms of the determination to upgrade the educational base of Australia's work force, nor can it be seen merely as part of the wide range of programs such as the Australian traineeship system and schemes for Aborigines and other disadvantaged students which are designed to improve the skills and employability of students who are unlikely ever to go on to higher education. There is another branch to the retention rate goal which has always been present in Labor's education policy and which has begun to bear fruit. I refer to changes in the general socio-economic profile of children who are completing year 12. Recent research indicates that year 12 completion among the lowest socio-economic groups has been growing at a quite dramatic rate in recent years. Importantly, the research revealed that children from the very lowest socio-economic category, the most underprivileged 10 per cent, were by 1985 completing their full secondary education in almost the same proportion as that great bulk of children in the middle range of socio-economic measurement. Only towards the very top of the scale did participation rates take off to figures well above 50 per cent. It appeared that from 1982 to 1985 the number of children from that lowest group completing year 12 increased at an average annual rate of around 10 per cent in Queensland and in other States. Nationally 35 per cent of children in that lowest socio-economic category were completing year 12, not far below the then national average. It appears to me that this phenomenon owes a great deal to State and Commonwealth Government efforts to provide special assistance to students, families and schools with the greatest needs. Even more recent evidence suggests that quite apart from special programs for identifiably disadvantaged groups, participation beyond compulsory schooling by the children of the poorer sections of our society is continuing to rise dramatically. One of the main reasons is the success of the reforms to Austudy. Of the 215,000 Austudy applicants approved for payment of allowances so far this year there were no fewer than 94,000 secondary students. This is 24,000 more than last year and nearly twice the number who were receiving equivalent allowances when we came to office in 1983. The numbers can confidently be expected to rise again next year as the community learns of further increases in rates and more people accept that student allowances are a much more attractive proposition than the unemployment benefit. The significance of the trend cannot be overstated. I am suggesting that at last we are moving towards the real breakdown of the old socio-economic barriers to entry into tertiary education; barriers which, at most, have been marginally lowered by the abolition of tertiary fees by the Whitlam Government. At the very least these figures confirm that parents and children across the economic spectrum now recognise the increasingly strong link between achievement in the education system and prospects in the employment market. The recognition of that link is wasted, however, unless families are physically able to support the educational efforts of their children. In that regard, a combination of Austudy and other family support measures by government becomes relevant. I want now to demonstrate with a brief comparison how this Federal Government has improved the educational opportunities of the less fortunate. Using an example similar to that used by the honourable member for Canning, take the case of a family entering the new year with three children at home; one in tertiary education, one over 16 and in secondary school and another aged 14 and therefore not eligible for Austudy, in junior secondary school. The family income is $300 a week. In 1988 this family will receive family allowance of $5.25, family allowance supplement of $28 and Austudy payments of $50 a week for the senior secondary child and $60 a week for the child at a tertiary institution. That is a total of $143.25 a week towards the support and education of the children. In 1983 the same family at the same level on the weekly earnings ladder would have been earning $199 a week. Without canvassing the details of the family allowance, the family income supplement, secondary allowance and tertiary education assistance, the total help they would then have received from government was $69.28. I am not claiming that assistance of this kind has therefore doubled since the Hawke Government took power, but after allowing for the intervening effects of inflation, that 1983 figure becomes $101.18 in 1988 dollars. In other words the assistance available to this low income family will be $43.07 more in 1988 than it would have been had pre-Labor arrangements continued unchanged. This is an increase of more than 40 per cent in real terms. I think these figures provide a telling explanation for the most encouraging movement in participation rates among what might be called the ordinary battling family as opposed to specifically disadvantaged groups. Turning to the overall picture, government schools programs received a real increase in funding in the recent Budget. Funding for schools has been framed to support that key objective I mentioned earlier. Two-thirds of Australia's students will be completing secondary schooling to year 12 by the early 1990s. The impetus for the Government's success in this area will be maintained in 1988 by, among other things, a further increase in per capita rates for general recurrent grants. Funding for teaching English to newly arrived students from non-English speaking backgrounds has been doubled to $24m and the special education program will receive an additional $0.7m for the support services element. All the other ongoing school programs will be maintained at the same level in real terms as in 1987. In times when it is necessary to exercise continuing economic restraint, and indeed when we achieve the first balanced Budget for more than a decade, this Budget outcome shows the high priority the Government affords to schools funding. The second area of achievement by this Government is its considerable achievement in lifting the performance in the higher education sector. I draw from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's document, Selected Higher Education Statistics 1987. It is clear that there has been a marked increase of 56,176 in the number of full time students over the period 1980 to 1987. The big jump was in 1983 and the ensuing years when increases were recorded year on year. In particular, there has been a significant increase of 18,909 from 1986 to 1987, almost 9 per cent. Moreover, the figures for participation rates in higher education for 17 to 19-year-olds reveal starkly the record of this government. The figures clearly demonstrate that participation by this key age group has recovered from the trough of the early 1980s and has surpassed the previous peak of 1976. The peak in 1976, based on the last Whitlam Labor Budget, was 95 per 1,000 which dropped away under Fraser to a low of 78 per 1,000 in 1981 and has now been restored to almost 100 per 1,000. This overall performance belies participation rates in tertiary education for different States. For instance, Queensland has below average participation in the three tertiary sectors-university, advanced education and technical and further education. Most notably though, participation in Queensland in TAFE is more than 20 per cent below the national average. I would remind the House that opportunities in TAFE are, of course, primarily a State responsibility. The participation rate for Queensland in universities is 16 per 1,000 compared to 18 Australia-wide; 20 in advanced education compared to 21; and 67 in TAFE compared to 87 in Australia as a whole. There is obviously a need for action to increase higher education opportunities and TAFE opportunities in Queensland. For the Commonwealth's part it has already taken action on higher education. In the last few years Queensland has experienced above average growth in the higher education load relative to population. Between 1983 and 1986 the number of students in universities in Australia rose by 6.1 per cent. In Queensland they rose by 9.3 per cent. In the area of colleges of advanced education, Queensland increased in the period by 18.6 per cent with Australia rising at 11.8 per cent. That participation in higher education in Queensland is now so close to the national level due, in large measure, to the significant emphasis given to providing new places in Queensland in recent years by the Hawke Government. The next great step in tertiary education has been heralded by the Green Paper recently released by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). This Government has played many of its fiscal cards and has lifted the participation rates in higher education magnificently. But the next step must break new ground. I commend the Hawke Government for its efforts in education and I look forward to participating in the next great leap forward that will see higher education rates surge to the great benefit of the Australian economy and all Australians. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(1.33) —I rise to speak in this General Business debate with a feeling bordering on despair. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) just mentioned the Austudy scheme. Certainly if the Austudy scheme was working it could prove a very great benefit to students. I can tell the member for Petrie that the delay in the payment of those Austudy payments is causing great concern in my electorate. The students have to wait months and months and then, of course, it has another effect on those hostels in rural or isolated areas which rely on that money for their very existence. They are finding it very hard to remain in business. I further despair when I learn that the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), who moved this General Business motion, is a former teacher in technical education, an area of education that has had its funding severely decreased by 5.4 per cent this year, or an amount of $20.9m. The Government, of course, would agree that this loss has been offset by increases in funding for the various labour market training programs, but, of course, we all know about Priority One which was going to create many thousands of jobs for young people and has turned out to be another very expensive Hawke Government flop. Mr Deputy Speaker, can you imagine an educationist, particularly in technical and further education, raising this subject as a General Business item? He obviously is much younger than I am and does not remember the very poor situation that existed in the late 1950s and the 1960s when technical colleges that were training tradesman were the cinderella institutes of the education system. The Fraser Government, of course, raised their profile and things have improved dramatically since those days, but in its usual stop and start motion this Government appears determined to take money from this section to fulfil its other political promises. Heaven help us if we return to the bad old days in technical education. I notice also that the honourable member for Canning has a bachelor of education degree. I wonder how he feels about his colleagues now studying a few tertiary subjects who are caught up in the $250 fee payment for that privilege even though they are studying only part time. Most of them are studying to improve their teaching skills and also to increase their chances for promotion and in so doing obtain an increase in salary. Like the member for Canning, I have had some experience in technical education teaching and I can understand the situation those teachers now face where many who were studying can no longer afford to do so. Of course, this applies in the general education sphere also. Like many others, those teachers are realising that the Australian Labor Party has forsaken its traditional base and is now interested only in big business, big unions and big government; in other words, the corporate state. There is no place there for the little Aussie battler. The honourable member for Canning spoke about the steps the Government has taken to increase the retention rate among secondary school students following the Fraser years of government. Certainly, no one could argue that the retention rate in high schools, particularly for year 11 and 12 students, has increased, but no one could prove that this is due to positive government action. One reason for the improved retention rate is that, under this Government, young people are finding it ever more difficult to obtain work and they have, therefore, found it more beneficial to remain at school. More recently, in a move that I totally agree with, unemployment benefits ceased for 16-year-olds and this has forced many of them back into the school system. Unfortunately, while the idea to retain students in year 11 and 12 is admirable, there is truth to the saying that teachers may give lessons in reading, but whether the student is learning to read is another matter. There appears at the present moment, as always, to be a debate about where education is going and we have certainly seen many changes occur over recent years. On the one hand, some say education has moved too far to the left, being too socially orientated, while on the other hand, if senior students are to be retained, for various reasons alternatives to the generally accepted school subjects must be provided. What it boils down to is that decisions on education seem to be made in the short term as a result of just about every minority group exerting pressure, and the Government trying to appease them. Whether it be the social welfare group, affirmative action, reduction of sexism, ethnic orientation, Aboriginal studies, sex education in schools, peace studies, the list goes on and on, and all this is on top of trying to prepare some students for further discipline studies in technical and further education, in advanced colleges or in universities. All this is expected to be provided without really saying what resources are to be made available. Some educationists have informed me that, in the state school system, there are many good schools existing in this nation, but there are some very poor ones and the gap between the very good and the very poor schools is widening. Apparently, there are some schools where it is neither physically nor emotionally safe for many of the students or the teachers. This can be seen in some high levels of absenteeism in particular schools. In my opinion, most schools of which I am aware in my electorate can do anything, but they cannot do everything. What needs to be done is for a cross-section of the community, including parents, teachers, industry and commerce and government representatives, along with anyone vitally interested in education, to get together to decide exactly what we want from our education system, how much it will cost, and then give that system priorities based on how much can be afforded. It does not matter if that inquiry takes some time, but let us get it right this time and let us have a clarity of purpose that is presently lacking. The honourable member for Canning has suggested that there has been some achievement in expanding the number of places in universities. I would like to remind him that one of the problems facing tertiary institutions has been the dramatic cuts in funding over the past decade, with a Labor Government having been in office for nearly half that time. Despite a funding decline between 1975 and 1985 the system produced 33 per cent more graduates and, according to William West in yesterday's Australian, the strain on the system has increased since then. The capacity of universities and colleges to absorb further real funding cuts has been exhausted. Any further cuts would lead to reducing either access to higher education, or educational standards or both. According to a survey by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals, between 13,000 and 20,000 eligible students missed out on getting into higher education this year. This was 20 per cent more than the 11,000 to 16,000 who missed out last year and next year, of course, the situation is going to get much worse. As I stated earlier, a big contributing factor to the numbers wishing to enter tertiary education is the Government's wish to keep students at school until year 12, in a bid to reduce unemployment. So on one hand we have more students expecting a place in tertiary educational institutions and, on the other hand, the institutions themselves with not enough funding. The third matter raised by the honourable member referred to proposals to develop skills formations in Australia that will enable the system to better respond to the needs of industry and thus materially assist the development of a successful and internationally competitive Australian economy. This, as the honourable member for Canning has stated, partially refers to new initiatives by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), and he is accepting advice, of course, from the so-called purple circle in relation to tertiary education. The actions of the Minister have met with a mixed response from academics throughout Australia, with sustained argument from people such as the Vice-Chancellor of Queensland University, Professor Brian Wilson, and Wollongong University's Professor Ken McKinnon. Amongst those to welcome the Minister's action is Professor Mal Logan of the Monash University, who is himself a member of the so-called purple circle. The Australian Committee of Directors and Principals has aligned itself with the Minister also. What is the Minister's new direction for tertiary education? According to Professor Logan, under the new directions tertiary education institutions are being forced to adopt a new approach characterised by leadership, efficient management and priority setting, client orientation, accountability and service. The purpose of all this is to lift Australian participation rates to a level comparable with that of its main trading partners and, heavens knows, that is needed. Whilst I agree with the general thrust of the Minister, I should remind him that he could be placing under threat the whole concept of what a university is. William West states: Universities are communities of scholars dedicated to pushing back the frontiers of knowledge as well as imparting it. Universities cover the whole range of disciplines from the humanities to professional studies and the social and natural sciences at a very high level. Universities are about turning out educated people, not only those schooled in the skills that will earn them a living. I would remind the Minister of the six criteria that a team from the Harvard University has come up with that define the education of a man or woman. A summary of these criteria was given earlier this year by the Chancellor of Queensland University, Sir James Foots. Members will recall that Sir James had a distinguished career in the mining industry which included periods in Broken Hill and Mount Isa. If anyone would be inclined towards obtaining technical skills, he would be. He is highly educated and a great man, a great Australian; he reminds us that an education must equip a person first to be able to read and write English. On this point I am afraid our school system has let us down badly. I do not blame the teachers for this but I certainly blame the policy makers. Many students today cannot write legible English because of the continuing changes in scripts taught over recent years and in some cases that I have come across, the spelling and grammar are atrocious. For example, this week I received a letter from a student who has been accepted as an exchange student. He wrote and advised me that he had been `excepted' as an exchange student. Does this mean he is an exception as an exchange student and will not be going overseas? No, I am sure he has been accepted. He finds difficulty in spelling because the system has let him down. This is no isolated case in my general experience and how very important it is that we should all be able to communicate with each other. I once received a letter from a primary school teacher that I could not understand because I could not read the writing. The second criterion suggested that an educated person should have a critical appreciation of the ways in which knowledge is gathered through the sciences, the social sciences and the humanities. It is my hope that the Minister's blitzkrieg does not interfere with that process. The third criterion suggests that a person have some rigorous thinking through a study of history and philosophy about moral and ethical problems. The next criterion is one on which we badly fall down if reading student magazines is any indication. This is that a person should have good manners and high aesthetic and moral standards. While the majority of our tertiary students would have those values, they are apathetic enough to allow those people who create an image for them through university magazines and other media outlets to depict them as bizarre, sex-crazed, uncouth booze artists with little respect for authority or anything of value. Finally, an educated person should have some depth of knowledge in at least one field, whether it be history, economics, law or whatever. In principle, universities see no problem in helping the manufacturing industry solve its problems but they fear that if the emphasis is placed on technological skills without building up the whole system, the university system will fail. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to say a few words on this important subject raised by the honourable member for Canning in General Business today. There are many other issues that I would like to touch on in the education system, such as the provision for handicapped persons, particularly in New South Wales where the Government has a policy for those people who are handicapped to come into the mainstream of education. While that is its policy, of course, it does not provide the funding and there are a number of students in my electorate who will not be able to go on to high school education because of that problem. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 109 as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mrs Kelly) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of Notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr HICKS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that the honourable member for Canning, as a former educator in a very important area, is not fooled by his own Party's rhetoric and sees the present situation as it really is. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(1.46) —I would like to thank the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) for his contribution. Mr Cowan —It was a good contribution. Mr SNOWDON —It was a fine contribution. Unfortunately he was in error in some areas and I hope to point them out. I would also like to thank the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) for his contribution and to highlight the contributions made by the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns). In addressing the House in this debate, I would like to point out that, like the member for Riverina-Darling, I too have a background in education as has the honourable member for Canning. I hope that both the honourable member for Riverina-Darling and other educators who have come to this place can share a common concern and a common interest in the question of education because it is my view, and I am sure that it is a view which is accepted by all honourable members of this House, that unless we have a joint approach and adopt a very progressive attitude towards the educational needs of our society, we will not be able to compete in the international arena as we would hope to do. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, my purpose in speaking today is to address the first part of the debate, the first point that is raised in the motion, and that is the steps that this Government has taken to increase school retention rates. It is my view that the steps the Government has taken in this area leave the Opposition flushed with shame, despite what the honourable member for Mackellar has had to say. During the years of conservative governments that this country has had to bear, our greatest resource, our young people, was constantly neglected. This Government has done something that the Opposition, when in government, was not capable of. This Government has fulfilled its promises in regard to rebuilding retention rates in secondary schools. Since the Hawke Government has come to office, secondary school retention rates have soared. I would like to reiterate the points made by the honourable member for Petrie. At the demise of the Fraser Government, secondary school retention rates were a shade over 36 per cent. By the end of 1986, this figure had leapt to almost 49 per cent, an increase of 13 per cent and a concrete demonstration of this Government's commitment that I have mentioned earlier. However, because of the paucity of vision and all those unfortunate years of conservative government after World War II, Australia has found itself left with one of the lowest secondary school retention rates among the developed nations of the world. For example, in comparison with countries like the United States and Japan, we lag considerably. In 1982 in the United States, 78 per cent of 17-year-olds were still at school and in Japan, 94 per cent of 17-year-olds were remaining at school. These figures demonstrate the legacy of educational malpractice indulged in by the conservative governments that ran this country for great periods of time since 1949. This Government, aware of the fundamental importance of education to the development of this nation's human and material resources, has made a commitment to have a 65 per cent retention rate to year 12 by the early 1990s. May I say that, given the record of this Government so far in this area, one would expect that it would in fact exceed that target figure. A new affirmative approach to making the final years of secondary schooling more attractive and more relevant to our secondary students is the basis of this increased retention rate. This Government is taking major steps towards increasing retention rates among secondary school students following the disastrous performance of the Fraser Government. However, this cannot be done without money. I would like to quote from the Budget night address of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) and his Budget night Press material that effectively demonstrate how this Government follows election commitments with direct action. The Minister said: Overall, general recurrent grants will rise by almost $60m, a real increase of some 4.8 per cent over 1987. The budget for schools has been framed to support the Federal Government's primary objective that by 1992 two-thirds of Australia's school students will be completing their secondary schooling to year 12. He also said that the Government would maintain this impetus by further increasing the per capita rates for general recurrent grants amounting to a total of $1.3m; by doubling funding to $24m for teaching English to newly arrived students from non-English speaking backgrounds; by funding a $1m curriculum development project aimed at encouraging girls to study maths and science in senior school; and by maintaining the level of capital grants at $220m. No conservative government ever demonstrated this sort of commitment to public education in Australia. No conservative government ever cared enough for our young people to make this sort of commitment. No conservative governments would be capable of this because their policies are now run by those New Right think tanks who run off at the mouth about education as a labour market commodity. Their education policies are not relevant or appropriate and that is yet another reason they were rejected by the people in the July 11 election. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have read recently in an article called `Youth in Transition' by M. E. Poole from the Review of Recent Research in Australian education that key educational changes during the period 1978 to 1982 were to halt the previous period of expansion which one would assume was during the Whitlam years and to cut back on educational spending. Real public outlays on education declined in 1979-80 and remained at a low level in 1980-81 and 1981-82. It is no small wonder that there was not the improvement in retention rates in the Fraser years that was required by the people of Australia, and no small wonder that the previous Government's policy has once again been soundly rejected by the Australian community. The Fraser Government had one of the most short-sighted policies this country has seen. Instead of investing in our future and supporting education it hacked away at it. In the Fraser years the interest was in building tax shelters for business instead of futures for our children. The Hawke Labor Government has finally broken the barrier that meant unemployment allowances were worth more than educational allowances and this must be seen as a positive incentive towards high school retention rates and educational retention rates in general. Following announcements made in the Budget the Minister for Employment, Education and Training told the House that unemployment benefits will no longer outstrip educational allowances, providing strong incentives for young people to remain in education or training. This fundamental reform, which will encourage younger people to stay at school longer instead of leaving for the larger employment benefit payment, started in 1985 as a central part of the Government's youth strategy. Mr Deputy Speaker, from next January the Government will take the following measures which will continue to encourage young people to stay at school: a job search allowance will replace unemployment benefits for 16- and 17-year-olds. This allowance provides for a basic rate of $25 per week and an income tested supplement of up to a further $25 a week. Increased Austudy rates will equal the job search allowance. On 1 January 1988 the Austudy allowance will rise from $40 to $50 which is at the at-home secondary rate. This rate is means tested. So far this year 215,000 applicants have been approved for payment of Austudy. Of these, 94,000 are secondary students, an increase of 24,000 on last year's total. As the honourable member for Petrie pointed out, what has happened in this instance has been the targeting of the disadvantaged groups in our community. The most disadvantaged of our socio-economic groups within the Australian community are being given direct incentives to have their children stay at school. It is a direct incentive which this Government is keen to promote and to continue to promote so that there is equity in educational outcomes within the Australian community. The Government is budgeting for further increases next year and will remove the previously available allowance for young people to undertake short term training. All these steps will provide encouragement for young people to stay at school. It is actions like these that have helped and will continue to help the retention rates at secondary schools to rise. However, it is the area of retention rates for Aboriginal secondary students that causes me some concern. The report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aboriginal Education published in September 1985 states: The retention rate of Aboriginal secondary students is significantly lower than that for the rest of the community. The Commonwealth Department of Education noted that in 1984 the retention rate to year 12 of Aboriginal students receiving Aboriginal secondary grants was 13.1 per cent. This compared with a retention rate of 45 per cent for non-Aboriginal students. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island students seem to suffer more than the rest of the population with regard to educational outcomes. In particular, in the Northern Territory, year 12 retention rates are only one-third of those for the Northern Territory as a whole. Although Aboriginal students make up 33 per cent of the 17- to 64-year age group in the Northern Territory they comprise only 7 per cent of the student population in that age group. In the last Budget the Government increased the amount to be spent on Aboriginal student assistance by more than $7.8m. Since 1983 this Government has doubled the spent amount on the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme (ABSEG) and the Aboriginal study grants scheme (Abstudy); consequently the number of students assisted has increased from 30,000 in 1982 to 46,000 last year. Applicants for allowances under ABSEG and Abstudy will continue to be exempt from the income test, another positive incentive for Aboriginal students to remain at school. Students over 16 years of age receiving ABSEG and those over 21 years of age in Abstudy will receive higher rates of allowance if they are enrolled in employment oriented courses. Madam Speaker, the Government's major concern is to involve more Aboriginal students in all forms of educational training which are likely to facilitate increased employment. Nowhere is this more important than in the secondary education field. It is the secondary retention rates that I am most concerned with. I would highlight the efforts of educationists in this field, the professionals who have the job in the work place to promote the retention of students by offering courses and providing professional stimulus to the outcomes of those students. I would like to point particularly to the developments that have been made and the efforts being made by the teachers in the secondary school system within the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory over the last two years there has been the development of secondary colleges. There has been much public debate over the development of those colleges. In 1985 the Northern Territory Government said that no secondary college in the Northern Territory would contain more than 1,000 students. What we have found, Madam Speaker, is that this year Casuarina College in the northern suburbs of Darwin-the only secondary college in Darwin-will have 1,240 students, creating severe restrictions on the ability of the teachers to cope, although they have responded magnificently, and they are to be applauded for their efforts. It is important to recognise that whilst the Commonwealth has taken the initiative to promote high school retention rates and retention rates for Aboriginal students in particular, the State governments should take up the gauntlet which has been thrown down to them by this Government. It is very important that they accept their responsibilities to provide the resources which are required if students are to remain at school and provide the incentives that are required for those students to stay at school. That means providing courses which the honourable member for Riverina-Darling was not quite sure were appropriate. It might well mean that not all students want to do maths and science at year 11 and 12 levels. It is important to recognise that those students' needs must be recognised by educationists and by the school system. It is very important to recognise that if we want to manage our human resources in an appropriate and adequate way we have to provide our students with the skills that are required. It is my view that this Government has done more than any other government since the Second World War in promoting the needs of education and retention rates in secondary schools and should be applauded for doing so. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104 as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence of General Business has expired. The honourable member for the Northern Territory will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Mr HOWARD —I address my question to the Prime Minister and in doing so I welcome him back and trust that he has recovered from his recent indisposition. Will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that, beyond the survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which is now awaiting his examination, there will be no inquiry into wealth in Australia? Mr HAWKE —What I have said is that I will examine the report that has been given to me. I will be discussing it with my Ministers and colleagues in Caucus. I will be announcing the decision of the Government in the light of those discussions. Mr KERR —I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What action have the Government and/or the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody taken to ensure that the families of those Aboriginals who have died in custody are advised of their rights in respect of the Commission and in particular of their rights to appear before the Royal Commission themselves or to be represented by legal counsel? What action will the Government and/or the Commission be taking to ensure the protection of Aboriginal and other witnesses appearing before the Commission? Mr HAND —I thank the honourable member for his question. A number of members on both sides of both chambers have raised with me the points covered by the question. When the Royal Commission was announced, the Prime Minister indicated that legal aid would be made available to all families of the deceased. In September I asked the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretariat, known as NAILSS, in consultation with the Committee to Defend Black Rights, to develop a strategy for the provision of legal aid. NAILSS is currently developing a strategy in consultation with Aboriginal legal services around the country. Most of the families and relatives of the deceased are known to the legal services; they have provided representation for many of the coronial inquiries. I emphasise to all members of the families of the deceased that legal aid will be provided to them by the Government. It is an important point to make. We have stressed that point and I want it understood by all the families that they are entitled to legal aid and that has always been the case. The Government has allocated $900,000 this financial year for this purpose. The Royal Commission has also advertised its establishment widely in the Press, and in advice to the legal services, including advertising in local news- papers in areas where the deaths in custody have occurred. Counsel assisting the Royal Commission, Geoffrey Eames and Bob Bellear, are in the process of visiting or contacting legal services in all States and the Northern Territory and where possible meeting with families of the deceased to inform them about the Commission, including how they can be represented in the Commission hearings. The Commissioner has indicated that he considers it of paramount importance that experienced legal representation be arranged as soon as possible for persons likely to be interested or involved in the Commission, particularly the families. If anybody has concerns about their legal representation or has general inquiries about the Commission, he should contact the nearest legal aid service or call the toll free number of the Commission, 008 026374. Opposition members-Oh, Come on! Mr HAND —It is interesting that after an event in this place the other day a number of people expressed concern about the issues raised by those people. Mr Tuckey —Well, make a statement. Mr HAND —I would expect the honourable member not to be interested. This is a matter of grave concern in the community and I am doing what I can to enlighten those people on what provisions have been made available by the Government. I would have thought that a little bit of silence and respect for those people would have been of benefit to everybody. The matter raised in the second part of the question was the protection of witnesses. That matter has been raised by honourable members on both sides of the House. The legislation under which the Commission operates, including certain State legislation, provides the Commissioner with very wide powers for ensuring the protection of witnesses. As the counsel assisting, Mr Geoffrey Eames, outlined on radio last week, it is an offence for any person to interfere with, threaten or prejudice a witness in any way either before or after he or she has given his or her evidence. If it appears that the protection of witnesses may be required after a hearing or beyond the Commission's life, the Commission will make a recommendation to the appropriate government or agency to ensure that means are set up whereby surveillance and regular contact and quick or unimpeded communication are available to those people. In addition, the Commissioner has very broad powers to deal with instances of contempt of court and interference with witnesses, and such actions also fall under this category. I table a background paper made available to me by the Commission, for the information of honourable members. I am really amazed that Opposition members find this funny. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the disturbances in the foreign exchange market in January this year when the cross rate between the Australian dollar and the Japanese yen fell to a low of 99 on 14 January, prompting the Reserve Bank of Australia to tighten monetary policy and the Government to announce that it would bring down a May economic statement. As the Australian dollar-yen rate has fallen to about 92-well below that recorded in January-I ask the Treasurer: Can the Government maintain the current setting of fiscal and wages policy? Mr KEATING —What a foolish proposition! What a totally absurd predication for a question! The implication of the question is that the Government continued the tightness of monetary policy because it keyed off some cross rate with the Japanese yen at some time in January, during the European monetary system realignment. That is so ridiculous as hardly to warrant comment. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Opposition members are giggling. I mean, really! Over a period the Government has tightened fiscal policy to relieve some of the burden on interest rates. We introduced a rapid adjustment to fiscal policy in the 1986-87 Budget, a further consequent reduction in the May statement and a further reduction in the Budget this year. We have seen interest rates decline because we wanted to see the inhibitions to higher levels of investment removed. The only way of weighting policy off monetary policy was to take an ambitious approach to fiscal policy. That is the basis of the change, not some proposition about tying the rate of the Australian dollar to the yen. If that is the best question the shadow Treasurer can ask, the Opposition is in real trouble. Mr GEAR —I address my question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Mr Cunningham —It will be better than Andrew's. Mr GEAR —Anything would be better than Andrew's question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get on with his question. Mr GEAR —Will the Minister inform the House as to the benefits of a universal health insurance system and the need for retaining the community rating principle in health insurance? Dr BLEWETT —The health policies of the Government have been based on three basic principles: firstly, universal cover; secondly, that payments for health cover should be related to a person's ability to pay; and, thirdly, that private insurance, for those who want it, should be based on community rating. This week we learned that the Liberals had abandoned their election policy on health and were to produce a new health policy. The first thoughts on that policy-I shall not describe them as anything more than that-were widely circulated in the Press this morning. This year 1987 is rather an annus mirabilis for health policies from members of the Liberal Party. This is the third set of thoughts they have had on health policy in the one year. What we learn from the latest thoughts is that all of those three basic fundamental principles will go: universality of cover will go; payment based on relation to ability to pay will go; and community rating will go for private health insurance. Let us just look at the consequences of those kinds of decisions. First of all, if universal cover goes, we go back to the Liberal past when over two million people were without cover in health insurance. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The point of order is that two million people were not without cover. Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member knows that it is not a point of order. He will not raise such a point again. Dr BLEWETT —Apart from the return to the past when two million Australians were without insurance cover in this country, the result of getting rid of the system of paying according to income means that the very high costs of health impose an impossible burden for many people. Even in the area of community rating in relation to private insurance this Government supports community rating, will go on supporting community rating and will take further steps to ensure community rating because unless all of those insured are bearing that burden it means that the sick and the elderly have to pay much more. What is being advocated by the Opposition is an approach to the American system of health care; that is, an open competitive system. In the United States today 12 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) is spent on health, yet costs are exorbitant, fees for medical treatment are very high and 35 million Americans are without health cover. In Australia we spend only 7.5 per cent of GDP and we have 100 per cent of our population covered. I remind the Opposition and the Opposition spokesman when he has his further thoughts on health that he should take notice of the very wise comment of his own Party's policy at the last election. It states: Our promise to tear up Medicare disturbed the most dangerous of all political sleeping dogs. No subject is more important and we promised to alter it yet again. A significant number of people still care about social values as well as balance sheets. I recommend he consider the wise thoughts of the honourable member for Boothby. Mr SHACK —I direct my question to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer of the statement made in this House on 18 September by his colleague, the Minister for Industrial Relations, when that Minister said that productivity improvements under the second tier in 1987-88 would not be significant. I also refer the Treasurer to the fact that Australia's rate of wage and price inflation is higher than that of our trading competitors. I ask: Because of these facts, will the Treasurer be advising the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) that further wage increases which are not offset by productivity improvements are entirely inappropriate and that Australia simply cannot afford them? Or is the Treasurer expecting to receive from the ACTU his riding instructions about the wages policy? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The last part of the question is out of order. The Treasurer will answer the first part of the question. Mr KEATING —I would have thought it would have penetrated the honourable member's mind that an improvement in work practices and a change in productivity flows through the system over time, coming from the beginning of those changes, and that the simple idea that is in the mind of some members of the Opposition that a 4 per cent agreement on the part of some of the parties to pay a 4 per cent improvement in nominal wages has to be instantly offset by a 4 per cent productivity increase is, of course, nonsense. It has never been the Government's intention, never argued by the Government and should have been comprehended by the Opposition. What we are seeing is the capacity of the economy to keep two things in focus: that is, the growth of nominal wages and unit labour costs. That keeps the issue of productivity under focus. We now have, with the maturity of wage fixation under this Government, a wage system which has an eye on those three things-nominal wages, productivity and unit labour costs. This system is unwinding restrictive work practices put into place broadly in the years when the Opposition was in government and had no interest in the matter. Certain management practices occurred in the years when the Opposition was in government but it never saw fit to worry about them. The unwinding of these things will improve the productive capacity of the Australian economy so that we can have a higher level of nominal wage growth while at the same time being able to see a substantial improvement in real unit labour costs. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we have seen a decline of about 10 per cent in real unit labour costs over the last 3 1/2 to four years. That is in marked contrast with the wage mayhem which existed in the years of the last coalition government, particularly in the last couple of years of the Leader of the Opposition's period as Treasurer. I can see no point in the Opposition trying to continue to mount a case in the House by implying that a 4 per cent improvement in wages has to be offset instantaneously by a 4 per cent improvement in productivity. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the criticism of Stalin made by Mr Gorbachev in his recent speech in Moscow? Are there any implications for Australia in this? Mr HAWKE —There is no doubt that the question of the role of Stalin continues to trouble Soviet politicians, theoreticians and historians. I noticed that Mr Gorbachev in his speech on the occasion of the seventieth anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution made a number of criticisms of Stalin, of the crimes committed under his rule and of his cult of personality. He announced that a new commission had been set up to study rehabilitation of the dictator's victims. Western attitudes towards the Soviet Union will necessarily be influenced by the degree to which the authorities will be able to deal objectively with the role of Stalin. No doubt the Soviet Communist Party will continue to grapple with this tragic and troubling historical legacy. It is clear that there is a very considerable way to go before we can say that justice has been done. I notice that something very similar is happening in this country in the Liberal Party of Australia. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —This is very serious indeed. I notice that the recent Stalin figure of the Liberal Party, Malcolm Fraser, is building up his own cult of personality-- Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw to your attention to the fact that the question in no way related to the Liberal Party or a former Prime Minister. Under standing order 145 the Prime Minister should be directed to return to the first part of the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I trust that the Prime Minister will be relevant with his analogy. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I always want to be relevant. I remind you that I was asked whether there were any implications for Australia in this. I noted that the recent Stalin figure in the Liberal Party, Malcolm Fraser, is in the process of attempting to build up his own cult of personality through such historical treatises as that of Dr Philip Ayres. These treatises purport to show that that former figure did nothing in his period of seven years but spread sweetness and light and deregulation. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Farrer, the Prime Minister was asked a question about Mr Gorbachev, his recent speech and implications for Australia. Silly as it is for the Prime Minister to engage in this diversion, it is also, in my submission, clearly out of order and irrelevant. I would ask you to so rule. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I hope that the Prime Minister is answering the part of the question concerning implications for Australia. I expect him to return to that aspect. Mr HAWKE —I had hoped that honourable members opposite would have understood that I was drawing a light-hearted analogy. I was trying to draw an analogy with the attempted rewriting of history which is going on in this country with regard to the Liberal Party. I conclude by saying that we are watching the attempts of certain people, such as the current Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, to dissociate themselves now from what happened in that period. In regard to the period of Stalin, there was one great and morally unavoidable question which had to be asked of those people who were following him: `What were you doing at that time?'. It is appropriate that a similar question be asked now of the Leader of the Opposition and those who would now seek to denigrate the previous Prime Minister: `What were you doing at that time?'. Mr Shipton —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I ask you to rule on two points. The first is that the analogy that the Prime Minister has drawn that a former member of this House and Prime Minister is Stalinist by nature is unparliamentary language. I ask for that ruling, Madam Speaker. My second point of order is that the Prime Minister should be made to withdraw his comments about the Leader of the Opposition. I refer to what Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice says on page 460 in relation to references to and reflections on members and relate that to the Stalinist nature of the Prime Minister's answer to the question. Pettifer states: The practice of the House . . . is that a Member cannot direct a charge against another Member nor reflect upon his character or conduct unless he does so upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. I believe that the matters to which the Prime Minister referred in relation to the Leader of the Opposition should be the subject of a substantive motion and not answered in the way in which the Prime Minister is doing in Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I say to the honourable member for Higgins that it did not occur to me at any time that the Prime Minister was in any way impugning the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to Stalin. In regard to the honourable member's first point raised, there is no point of order. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I conclude by saying that the Liberal Party certainly needs, and as quickly as possible, the equivalent of a Mr Gorbachev who can rewrite the history of the period of the last seven years. Until that is done the credibility of the Liberal Party will continue to be as it is now-in tatters. Mr LLOYD —My question is addressed to whoever is representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, as I understand the usual two are swanning around the world at present. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will just ask the question. Mr LLOYD —My question is: Will the Minister confirm that the Government has almost doubled the insurance premium rate for Export Finance Insurance Corporation cover for Australian Wheat Board sales to Egypt and also reduced the percentage cover from 85 per cent to 80 per cent for the next three years? Why is the Government discouraging desperately needed agricultural exports to our third largest wheat market when there is a satisfactory repayment arrangement in place between the Wheat Board and Egypt and when our major competitor grain exporter countries, Canada and the United States of America, provide 100 per cent grain export cover, and at lower premium rates? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia for his question. Let me say at the outset that no action is being taken by this Government to discourage a much needed increase in wheat sales abroad; in fact, the opposite is the case. The efforts of this Government to expand our international sales and international trade and to expand Australia's efforts abroad are well known. I would have thought the honourable member would have joined in those efforts rather than seek to deprecate them in this way. Mr Lloyd —Why is the Wheat Board considering no longer exporting to Egypt because of your action? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has asked his question. He cannot keep on asking. Mr PETER MORRIS —The extent of national interest insurance cover for wheat credit sales is reviewed each year by Government. The Government has decided to continue national interest insurance cover for the sale of wheat on credit to Egypt in 1987-88. There will be a small reduction in the level of cover but this will not prevent the Wheat Board from making a sale. Negotiations with Egypt in respect of the sale will take place next week. The reduction in the level of cover reflects the increased risk of selling into Egypt. A significant proportion of Egypt's external debt is currently the subject of rescheduling, and this includes a proportion of amounts outstanding on Australia's previous credit sales of wheat. The Australian Wheat Board, under its insurance policy, will be able to make a claim on the Government for the insured portion of this debt. The Government recognises the importance of the Egyptian wheat market to Australia and it has decided that, even in the year of lowest supply, cover should be provided to facilitate the Wheat Board in continuing to service this market. However, the Government also took the view that because of the larger risk now involved in selling wheat to Egypt the Australian wheat grower should bear a larger proportion of the risk. Mr Lloyd —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The Minister has made no reference to the $2 1/2m extra premium that now is required of the wheatgrowers of Australia. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. Mr Peter Morris — I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. The answer I gave covered quite comprehensively the points raised by the honourable member. Madam SPEAKER —That is not a point of order either-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —And I can say that without help from my left. Mr CLEELAND —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade Negotiations. I preface my question by quoting from the Sales Tax Amendment Bill 1986 debates in this place on 26 September 1986. The honourable member for Mackellar, the Opposition spokesman on economic matters at that time, in commenting on the Government's decisions in relation to tax on wine, said: The doubling of the tax also runs contrary to the Government's policy of encouraging exports. This is an export industry. Can the Minister inform the House of the impact of the tax on wine exports? Can he inform the House of the latest figures? Do the figures show that yet again Opposition economic spokesmen have been proved to be incompetent? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for McEwen for his question. He of course has a particular interest in this matter, representing the electorate that he does. I am pleased to advise the honourable member for McEwen and all members of the House that the volume and value of Australia's wine exports in 1986-87 were the highest on record. The volume of exports nearly doubled from 10.8 million litres in 1985-86 to 21.2 million litres in 1986-87. The value more than doubled from $20.5m to $44.6m. There has been an increased acceptance of Australia's wines in key markets, particularly in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Sweden. Sweden, which is the largest single market, takes over five million litres, while the United States recorded the sharpest growth, both in volume and value-a trebling-and was the highest priced market. I am pleased to advise the honourable member that exports have continued to increase strongly in 1987-88. Mr DOWNER —I refer the Prime Minister to the impending treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union on intermediate range nuclear weapons. I remind the Prime Minister that the major remaining obstacle to this treaty is disagreement over verification procedures. Is it correct, as was reported in the Australian newspaper last Monday, that the Soviet Union is demanding surprise inspections of United States facilities or plants anywhere in the world which may be in some way associated with intermediate range nuclear forces and that it argues that these include the joint facilities in Australia? If that is correct, in those circumstances would the Australian Government allow the Soviet Union to inspect the joint facilities at either Nurrungar or Pine Gap? Mr HAWKE —In the briefing that I received from the representative of the Secretary of State in Dubrovnik a couple of weeks ago, immediately following the discussions that had been conducted by Mr Shultz in Moscow, there was no indication in that very lengthy briefing that the question of the sort raised by the honourable gentleman would arise. I would imagine that, given the fact that the Secretary of State had gone to such trouble to ensure that we got a briefing as quickly as possible, if there had been any suggestion whatsoever from the discussions that had taken place between himself and the representatives of the Soviet Union, that would have been conveyed to us. I can only conclude that, as is the case with so many other things that we read in the media these days, this hypothesis and speculation is totally removed from the realities of the discussion between the Soviet Union and the United States. I can only say that I hold the view that all members of the House will welcome the assiduous efforts that have been pursued by the United States and the Soviet Union in this matter. We look forward to the signing of this agreement between the representatives of the Soviet Union and the United States-that is, General Secretary Gorbachev and President Reagan-at the beginning of next month. As I say, I have no reason to believe that this quite hypothetical situation that has been raised by the honourable member for Mayo in fact reflects any realities involved in the discussions. Mr CHARLES —Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade advise the House whether the French Government has released details of its new statute of autonomy for New Caledonia. Can he further advise the House of the Hawke Government's response? Mr HAYDEN —The full details are not yet available, at least to me. However, the general thrust of what has been proposed in principle has been put down publicly on a number of occasions and variously-for instance, by Prime Minister Chirac and Dom-Tom Minister Pons on visits to New Caledonia. They seem to include expanded and modified decentralisation involving greater self-management within the institutions of the French republic; greater devolution of responsibility for internal affairs to regional and communal levels; new regional divisions; and the incorporation of characteristics of the traditional hierarchy into the new structure. What is clear, however, is that the proposed statute will not accord New Caledonia the same degree of autonomy as that enjoyed by French Polynesia. The powers accorded to the regions will not be as wide as those under the Fabius-Pisani Statute of the previous French Government. It should not be concluded that the proposed statute is being greeted with universal applause in France. On the contrary, there is deep anxiety in many important areas of France about the potential implications of what is taking place in New Caledonia. Immediately after the announcement of the statute, President Mitterrand expressed great concern about aspects of it. Only last month he went on record in a major French national television interview to express more detailed criticism of the proposed statute. He said: Distribution of land and wealth, which is so unequal and unjust . . . He went on to give considerable detail, and then continued: For as long as this continues, New Caledonia will remain in a colonial-type situation and what must not happen is that a statute of internal autonomy serves to set the situation in concrete, creating a sort of game preserve for those who have been the hunters for so long. Continuing this intense criticism of what has been proposed by the Chirac Government of France, he added: A statute that on the one hand leaves the New Caledonians in their present situation-a stand-off-that runs the risk of having dramatic consequences if the profound colonial-type inequality is perpetuated. I stress the repetitious manner in which President Mitterrand has expressed his concern and invoked the colonial-type situation in New Caledonia. It is considered statements like that by leading statesman, public figures in France, that cause us some concern about the medium to longer term implications of this proposed statute. Mr COBB —My question is directed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. Is it true that Qantas Airways Ltd, which has one flight a week into and out of Harare, has decided to put on seven extra flights to Harare over the Christmas period? Will the Minister confirm that passengers destined for South Africa on these Qantas flights now connect with Air Zimbabwe or South African Airways to Johannesburg? Will the Minister also confirm that Qantas has conferred with South African Airways and requested South African Airways to put on extra flights from Harare to Johannesburg to coincide with Qantas's extra flights? If this is true, is it not somewhat hypocritical in view of the Government's frequent condemnation of the South African Government, or was the real purpose of banning South African Airways from Australia to increase Qantas's revenue from its Harare route? Mr DUNCAN —I am not surprised that the honourable member for Parkes has asked that question, given the long history he has of support for the racist regime in South Africa. He has a long history of supporting that racist regime, as everyone knows. The situation is quite simple and I will explain it to the honourable member. It was anticipated when the Australian Government took the steps it did to stop South African Airways from continuing its services into Australia that South African interests both in South Africa and in this country-such as the honourable member-would bleat at great length about it. This is part of the continuing campaign. There is no doubt that interests who are sympathetic to South Africa will continue to be critical in a general sense and in a specific sense of Qantas's services to Harare following the termination of the agreement between Australia and South African interests. Qantas is planning to operate seven additional services to Harare over the Christmas holiday period-four in December, two in January and one final additional service in February. I understand discussions have taken place between Qantas, Air Zimbabwe and South African Airways about the provision of additional services into and out of Harare. This is a normal commercial practice in which Qantas is perfectly entitled to indulge. So far as I am concerned, Qantas is well entitled to take the profits to be gained from that route over Christmas if it is able to do so. Qantas has been operating into Harare since 1982. The passengers it picks up from Harare are not solely South African; they come from all over Africa. In the circumstances it is not un- usual to increase the number of services over the Christmas holiday season. That has been done in the past and it is being done again on this occasion. Mr HURFORD —I address a question to the Minister for Trade Negotiations. While commending him, the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Government for their intense efforts to reduce trade barriers through multilateral negotiations, I ask: Is it a fact that no quick results can be expected with the Uruguay General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade round of talks likely to be measured in years, not months? Will the Minister give an assurance that, in the meantime, bilateral efforts will be pursued to increase Australian trade? For instance, can he do something about the Japanese non-tariff barriers? In particular, as brandy is made in former Prime Minister Nakasone's prefecture, and as he is no longer Prime Minister, can we expect under Prime Minister Takeshita to see some competitive, good South Australian brandy in Japan? As much as I would miss the Minister while he was undertaking more trips, would he do so to negotiate better bilateral trade negotiations? Mr DUFFY —This is a matter which the honourable member has raised with me on a couple of occasions. It is true that Australia, in coalition with other medium and smaller trading nations, has placed a great deal of effort into getting results out of the new round of multilateral trade negotiations. As the honourable member quite rightly puts it, progress in multilateral trade negotiations is measured more in years than in months. Nevertheless, progress in the current round has been quite remarkable. The achievements to date are very encouraging. For countries such as Australia, it is imperative that we get fairness back into the international trading system. That has to be fairness for all countries, not just fairness for the major trading countries and not just what they consider to be fair for and between them. That was spelt out very articulately by the Prime Minister recently in Geneva. One of the biggest threats we face at the moment is that the multilateral trading framework will fail unless fair rules for all are developed and adhered to. The real risk is that major players in world trade-and we should recognise that that does not include us-may develop special arrangements among themselves for access to products and may also divide up world markets with little regard for other trading countries such as Australia. While we have worked very hard on multilateral trade reform, we have also taken the opportunity to raise the types of issues which the honourable member for Adelaide is concerned about. We have taken every opportunity in bilateral discussions to ensure that our products have the best possible access to individual countries. For example, in the United States (US), as well as concentrating on that multilateral area, we concentrated on access to United States markets for sugar, lamb, wool, coal and steel. We also raised the specific matters which were being considered in the trade Bills which could affect our bilateral relations. In Canada we also pressed, on a bilateral basis, exports in areas including lamb and horticulture. I note that in the debate earlier this week in this place on the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill concern was expressed-and I can understand that concern-by the honourable member for Murray as to the possible effect on us if a Canada-US free trade agreement is finalised. The areas of concern to us include canned fruit, sugar and zinc. I can assure those honourable members of the House who are interested in this matter that all of those interests were dealt with bilaterally in both the United States and Canada. During my visit to North America I stressed the importance that we attached to continued fair access to the North American market on a bilateral basis. This, of course, especially applies in the case of Canada. We have arranged consultations next month, under the Canada-Australia trade agreement, with the Canadians, particularly in relation to the effects of the Canada-United States free trade agreement if it is ratified. Many of these issues were discussed at the recent European Community-Australian ministerial talks. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy is currently on a visit to Japan. The exchange of investment missions with Japan is an important step in improving the bilateral economic links across all industry sectors. The same can be said for our increasingly broadly-based relationship with China. In summary, while the efforts on the multilateral trade front have been substantial, as I indicated earlier, and have received considerable public attention, particularly because of the involvement of the Prime Minister in Geneva, I can assure you, Madam Speaker, and all honourable members of the House who have an interest in this matter-I hope most of them have-that this Government is continuing to press our bilateral interests with individual countries. Mr BEALE —My question is directed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. I remind the Minister that on 7 May this year the then Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation said, in response to a question, that there was no legitimate reason why the Coastwatch contract should not have been let to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd and that Amann `has a responsibility to carry out its obligations'. Is the Minister aware that on 21 May, two weeks or less after the then Minister's response, the then Minister's office expressed to the Department `the Minister's grave concern at Amann's ability to fulfil his contractual obligations'? Will the Minister concede that the then Minister grossly misled the House on 7 May? If not, will the Minister outline what occurred between 7 May and 21 May? Mr DUNCAN —I am not aware of those details but certainly I would be confident that the Minister did not mislead the House. I will obtain details of the matter for the honourable member. Mr Beale —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a record of conversation from inside the Federal Department of Transport dated 21 May 1987 when the remarks I quoted were given effect to. Leave not granted. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, I seek your guidance on a point of procedure. During Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in answer to a question from an honourable member from his side of the House, sought to draw, what he saw in an historical sense, an analogy between the former Prime Minister of this country and Joseph Stalin. I did not interject or seek to take a point of order because I guessed that the purpose of the question was directed at me, and I did not want to deny the Prime Minister the opportunity of having a go. However, now that Question Time has concluded I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to the fact that on 31 March 1987 you reproved me for drawing an analogy between Joseph Goebbels and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Joseph Goebbels, the House will recall, was the propaganda Minister. I drew the analogy because of the Treasurer's propensity to repeat a lie often enough in the hope that people will believe it. I was enjoined on that occasion to withdraw that reference which I did out of deference to you and out of deference to the sensitivities of honourable members opposite. I point out that there are many people on this side of the House, particularly given the splendid record of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser in relation to Soviet Jews, who find quite offensive any analogy by this Prime Minister, joking or otherwise, between Malcolm Fraser and Joseph Stalin. Madam SPEAKER —No standing orders of this House relate to former members. I think the Leader of the Opposition would be well aware of that, as he has been a member of this place since 1974. Apart from standing order 157, which relates to condolence motions, no standing orders relate to former members. As I pointed out when the Prime Minister was speaking, I did not take his analogy to equate the Leader of the Opposition with Stalin. In regard to the point taken about the former Prime Minister, no standing orders cover former members. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I also raise a matter of procedure. I notice that it has become the habit during Question Time for a member of the Opposition to take a point of order in the course of a reply by a Minister-- Mr Sinclair —Why shouldn't he? Are you trying to stop that? Mr KEATING —Just be quiet for a moment. Or they raise, under the guise of a personal explanation, a matter at the end of Question Time. It seems that this tactic is being employed so that the question and answer are not included in the rebroadcast of Question Time in the evening. Madam Speaker, I ask you to provide me with some advice as to what criteria are applied by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in the rebroadcasting of Question Time and whether it has become a deliberate abuse of procedures on the part of the Opposition to raise points of order for the express tactic of having the question and the answer deleted from the rebroadcast. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the House and to the Treasurer that under Standing Orders when a member of this House stands to take a point of order the Chair must hear and will hear the point of order. In regard to the point taken by the Treasurer about the rebroadcasting of Question Time, the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings sets down the standards for such broadcasts. The Serjeant-at-Arms monitors that situation daily. It is not in my hands to do that. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I raise a further point of procedure. I do not know whether this matter would be better raised during Question Time, Madam Speaker; but, as it is a matter for your administration, I ask you. If a decision is to be made with regard to a statue of Her Majesty the Queen of Australia in the new Parliament House and the siting of that statue in the new Parliament House building, will you ensure that that matter is brought to this Parliament before any decision is taken and that decision is not taken by a committee outside this place? Mr Young —This is not Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It may not be Question Time but, in response to the point raised by the Leader of the National Party, certainly notice of that matter coming before a committee meeting will be given, and I imagine that each of the party representatives on such committee will discuss that fact with the leaders or members of their parties. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Madam Speaker, I refer again to the matter I raised with you earlier. Of course, I both accept and understand your point that the Chair has no option but to recognise an honourable member who stands to take a point of order. But if this procedure is being abused for the express purpose of having questions and answers deleted from the rebroadcast of Question Time, will you at least give me some advice as to what approach ought to be made to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings to have the criteria for deleting questions and answers amended? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the Treasurer that I do not consider it is within the prerogative of the Chair to make such judgments. Madam SPEAKER —I desire to remind the House that the Address-in-Reply will be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House at 4 o'clock this afternoon. I shall be glad if the mover and seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany me to present the Address. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —For the information of the House, I present an information paper on policy guidelines for Commonwealth statutory authorities and Government business enterprises. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1979, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission for 1986-87. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources) —For the information of honourable members, I present the minutes of the twenty-ninth meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council held in Perth on 9 July 1987. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission report of razors and razor blades. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on the tobacco growing and manufacturing industries. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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 Beale,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Dobie,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Beale,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cobb and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond 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, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Maranoa 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, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID Card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. 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 Bundaberg electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID Card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. 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 Monto electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID Card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. 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 Warrego electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID Card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experimentations on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Ruddock. The Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern- About the evil caused by the fact that x-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And your Petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Rocher. 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 Labor 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 are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; That we call upon the Labor 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 Dobie and Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: 1. That we are totally opposed to the Governments discriminatory Anti-Smoking legislation in the workplace bans and on Domestic Airline travel. 2. Note that so called Environmental Tobacco smoke has not been proved as a major pollutant either in the workplace or on aircraft. 3. This legislation will discriminate against thirty per cent of the citizens of Australia, and 4. Call upon the Government to lift all bans and not proceed with any discriminatory smoking legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free and Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe 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 Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many post office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that The House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to time local telephone calls gravely concerns all country people. Isolation and communication was the second biggest problem facing rural women according to the `Survey of rural women' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will only add to this problem not decrease it. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. 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 Cobb. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that the petitioners are concerned that the Minister for Health proposes to delete from the Medical Benefits Schedule those item numbers covering the treatment of sun-damaged skin and warts by specialists. They fear that those patients suffering chronically from these problems cannot always be treated successfully by a general practitioner. They protest that they will be financially disadvantaged. They also realise that their problems require early detection and expert treatment, if the petitioners are not to be exposed to increased risk of skin and other cancers. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the abovementioned items in the medical schedule to be reinstated. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- We object to the proposal of Telecom to charge for each three minutes of a local call, as we feel this would disadvantage the elderly and people who are unable to leave their homes. The telephone is often the only contact relatives can have to check on the safety and well-being of those they care for. The inordinate time span which elapses between connection to a business premises and speaking, as the caller holds the line or is transferred between departments, would also disadvantage subscribers who can ill afford it. Your petitioners therefore pray that Telecom abandons the proposal to time charge local telephone calls as we believe that the charges Telecom makes at the moment are quite adequate. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: We are concerned that- (a) the proposed changes in legislation to Unemployment Benefit for young people adds to the already ill-conceived and over-bureaucratic welfare system and (b) the abolition of CEP and the inadequacy of other training programs and (c) cuts in funding for education, public housing and other welfare areas mean that young people's needs are being neglected by the Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Commonwealth Government immediately takes steps to: (a) establish an anti-poverty level of income for all young people regardless of whether they are in training, retraining, education, employment or unemployment. The first step in achieving this is the full reinstatement of Unemployment Benefit for sixteen and seventeen year olds with automatic indexation linked to CPI increases. (b) increase educational opportunities for all young people. The first step in achieving this would be to create 120 000 new places in higher and further education. This would make up for the 100 000 people turned away from TAFE courses and 20 000 people from universities and CAEs this year. (c) establish a long term job creation program. The creation of 53 100 jobs for those young people who have been unemployed over 12 months is required immediately. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully 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 to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. 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 Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Gymea Bay be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels, cash Pension cheques and transact banking. Many of us are Pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Office is 2.3 kms away with no convenient transport. We maintain that the purpose of the Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Gymea Bay Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable house direct that the existing 4 (C4) zoning on the Kurnell Peninsula, in New South Wales, be removed and that this be replaced by a zoning more appropriate to the unique ecology of the area and to the historical significance of the Kurnell Peninsula, being the birthplace of the nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. 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 shows: That we consider the replacement of the $25,000 defence service homes loan with a grant of $10,000 to be a serious erosion of an established condition of service and the government has induced an unnecessary penalty on all serving and ex members of the Australian defence forces in order to help balance the September 87 Budget. We believe that the reorganisation of this scheme will create a resignation rate that will accelerate the already depleting level of expertise in the ADF. We strongly oppose the government's actions on this matter but unlike the public sector unions we are unable to defend ourselves against this blatant disregard for our welfare. Your petitioners therefore strongly urge the government to consider the following options. 1. Extend the termination date of the loan to June 88 to enable long serving members to avail themselves of this benefit. 2. Retain the scheme in full to allow eligible personnel who enlisted prior to May 85 to continue to apply for what we believe was a condition of service on enlistment. 3. Increase the amount of loan to encourage retention of personnel. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the government to consider the options before a final decision is made. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 the state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government in recent months and the interaction between Social Security pensions and the above mentioned adjustment, your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to restore the pension base for the calculation of future adjustments and that the restoration be effected in conjunction with the Social Security adjustments in November 1987. 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on the 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 most humbly pray that the parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10th October 1986 to 1st July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9th 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 the Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, your petitioners, humbly pray, that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to legislate for the Australia Card Bill, and your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The decision by the Department of Defence to close down the Macksville Sub-Section of 41 Battalion, Australian Army Reserve, is of grave concern to the unit members and citizens of the surrounding districts. The decision to direct unit members to Coffs Harbour, some 60km distant, would impose sufficient hardship to prevent many continuing in the reserve and be a major deterrent to potential members. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: Intervene to stop the proposed closure and sale of land at Wallace Street, Macksville, and initiate action to have a permanent Depot built on the Army's Macksville land. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, call on the Federal Government to give notice to terminate the lease of the US base at Pine Gap before October 1986. We believe that in the interests of world peace and the Australian people, this lease should be terminated and the base closed because Pine Gap is a spy base and a war base: Since it was opened in 1969, it has eavesdropped on Australian telephone and telex communications. Information obtained in this way was used by the CIA to destabilise the Whitlam Government in late 1975. It provides communication facilities for CIA activity in countries throughout the world, much of which is connected with overthrowing other country's governments. Last year it became clear Pine Gap was spying on Greece. The electronic and photographic information its satellites receive is used to select nuclear targets in the territory of the Soviet Union and its allies. Many US military activities short of nuclear war are also co-ordinated by Pine Gap. These include the war against Vietnam and the invasion of Lebanon by US marines in 1984. Pine Gap spends only a tiny percentage of its time monitoring arms control agreements, and even then the data gathered is so top-secret Australia has no access to it. Pine Gap's role will be expanded under Reagan's Star Wars scheme to extend the arms race to outer space, threatening the existence of our planet. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government 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 it's availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. 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 Webster. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. Naval and defence equipment including ammunition stored on and in the waters around Spectacle and Snapper Islands in Sydney Harbour are a potential danger to residents of and property on the foreshores of Drummoyne and Hunters Hill and also to pleasure and commercial craft that use the waterways near the islands. 2. All naval and defence equipment and ammunitions should be removed from on, and in the waters around, Spectacle and Snapper Islands. 3. In celebration of Australia's Bicentenary, Spectacle Island and the naval museum housed thereon should be opened to the general public of Australia. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Dr Woods. 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: The Hawke Labor Government's Industrial Relations Bill will increase industrial disputation, bankrupt companies, and give the union movement total and absolute power over the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's Industrial Relations Bill to save Australia from the actions of militant unions and give our economy a chance of recovering. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: 1. We reject in principle the need for a national I.D. card on the basis that it will be a gross violation of individual liberty. 2. We reject the notion that the government can claim a mandate for the proposed legislation and state categorically it does not reflect our will. 3. We believe that, as with the proposed Bill of Rights legislation, the government's methods and arguments in promoting this legislation have been under-handed and undemocratic. 4. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation will result in further attacks on individual freedom and responsibility, the family and the Church and that the real intent is the promotion of a powerful secular humanist ``big brother'' government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, together with the Senate, take action to reject this proposed legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament. This petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory shows the attention of the House: To the erosion of City Hill for car park construction. Your petitioners therefore request that further destruction of parkland and recreational areas within the city cease. by Mrs Kelly. Petitions received. Mr MILES(Braddon) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MILES —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MILES —I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review of Tuesday, 3 November headed `Some home-grown truths on black, white and sepia' which refers to the phrase `non-Aboriginal people', terminology which I used. The article states: One assumes, however, Miles is not overly concerned that the Aboriginal Affairs opinion meisters will overlook the country's Vietnamese citizenry on their interrogatory rounds. No, we're talkin' 'bout white folks here. I was talking about all other non-Aboriginal Australian people, not just white folks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The culpable negligence of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in allowing the Australian economy to become so vulnerable to external economic shock. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.04) —The Opposition has frequently said that one of the besetting criticisms of this Government is its supreme arrogance and complacency. No better is that epitomised than by the behaviour of both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Today we had Nero's brother returning to grab hold of the fiddle. The Prime Minister came back and sat with the Treasurer and the two of them represented the pinnacle of smugness, complacency and arrogance about the Australian political scene. But every so often, when one is arrogant, one trips oneself up. This has happened with the present Treasurer. Let me take honourable members back a mere six weeks to 18 September 1987. The Treasurer, when he was on the Midday Show, had this to say: This is the great coming of age of Australia. This is the golden age of economic change. When asked `How much credit do you take?', the Treasurer stated: Oh, a very large part. I want to say that, for once, I agree with the Treasurer: he can take a very large part of the credit for the mess that Australia is in at present. He will have played out in front of him, week after week and month after month, the stark economic and political reality that the policies he has followed over the last 4 1/2 years have left this country more vulnerable and more exposed than it otherwise should have been. I am not surprised that the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) is in here to deal with today's matter of public importance after the mess that the Treasurer made yesterday of the difference between the money supply and capital outflow. We have had Banana Republic Paul and the other things that we could call the Treasurer on occasions, but yesterday we had Professor Paul. We had a lecture from the Treasurer. After 4 1/2 years as Treasurer, with all the vast resources of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia at his disposal, he still does not understand the way in which a floating exchange rate operates. He came into this House yesterday and purported to give a lecture to me and Senator Stone, the former head of the Treasury, about the way in which capital outflow affects the level of the Australian dollar. He said that Senator Stone and I were the dinosaurs of the economic debate in Australia. All I can say, after listening to his answer yesterday, is that if we are the dinosaurs on the subject he is the amoeba of the economic debate in Australia. He demonstrated a total and chronic misunderstanding of a very simple fact-that the dollar goes down if there are more sellers of the Australian dollar than there are buyers. That is normally associated with a capital outflow. What the Treasurer did not understand was that everything he said yesterday related to the effect of fluctuations in the Australian currency on the money supply. Our complaint about the Government's handling of the economy is not that we blame it for the fall in world stock markets. No rational opponent of this or any other government would dare or presume to do that. But what we do blame the Government for is that it has left this country more exposed than it should have. We blame it for the fact that this country now owes the rest of the world 42 per cent of her gross domestic product (GDP). Yet, in June 1983, just after this Government came to power, the figure was only 21 per cent of GDP. Before this Treasurer goes around the world lecturing President Reagan, Margaret Thatcher or anybody else about economic policy, he ought to put his own house in order. He ought to realise how exposed he is. I notice now that not even one Government frontbencher is in the House. That is a measure of the Government's supreme contempt. I see that the Minister for Trade Negotiations has returned. Our complaint is twofold. The Government has left this country exposed; our situation is deteriorating; and we are suffering more severely, as a result of the changed economic circumstances, than just about any other Western country. I say to the Prime Minister, Senator Walsh and the Treasurer that we will go on pointing that out. The Prime Minister has a great double standard. He wants a one-way bet as an opposition. If everything is going swimmingly, we have to stand up and applaud the Prime Minister, but if everything is going badly we have to keep quiet because to criticise him is to be un-Australian and unpatriotic. That has been so time and time again, on all sorts of issues. I have an even greater criticism of the Prime Minister and the Government. I see that the Treasurer has entered the chamber. The amoeba has returned! Not only has this Government left this country more exposed to the economic turmoil the world is now experiencing but on top of that it is now showing all the signs of sitting on its hands in the hope that it will not have to take any action because it might damage the electoral prospects of its right wing mate in New South Wales, Barrie Unsworth. There are a lot of people who want to know how is it that a Treasurer who says he is in favour of fiscal rectitude can pronounce benediction on a State Budget that increases expenditure by 3.3 per cent in real terms. How can he look approvingly on the New South Wales Budget which was given the lemon of the year award by the Institute of Public Affairs? How can he look with equanimity on a State government that is responsible for 40 per cent of the economy of this nation bringing a Budget down which is inimical to the national and State economic interest of Australia and New South Wales at present? One is left with the suspicion that this Government is now going to compound its neglect, its delay, its benign-even malicious-neglect of the last 4 1/2 years by sitting on its hands to try to save Barrie Unsworth's hide. That is what the Government is now facing the judgment of people on. If the situation is as bad as the Treasurer claims, if we are all for fiscal rectitude, why have the Treasurer and Prime Minister said that the New South Wales Budget is appropriate for the circumstances? What circumstances-the re-election of Barrie Unsworth or the national economic interest of Australia? What is the Treasurer's responsibility? He is no longer the Sussex Street king; he is now the Treasurer of this country and he has to apply the requirements and the standards of that office to the responsibilities with which he is now faced. After hearing that incredibly inept lecture about the exchange rate yesterday all I can say is that prior to that lecture I was worried about the economic stewardship of this country but after hearing that lecture I am plain scared, because anybody who after 4 1/2 years as Treasurer does not understand the difference between the money supply and capital outflow is more inept in the job than even his fiercest critics on this side of the House would allege. The criticism that this Opposition has bears repetition because it is the crucial point of the economic debate: although the whole of the world is suffering from the fall in international stock markets and although I would be the last person in this Parliament to blame the Prime Minister and the Treasurer for that fall having commenced, we are doing worse than we should be. We are doing worse than most other countries because the Government's policies for the last 4 1/2 years have not been the right policies. That is the simple fact of economic life. There comes a time for any government when it runs out of external excuses. It cannot blame all of its problems on its predecessors and the rest of the world but when conditions get a bit better say that it is all due to its brilliance, and when conditions become worse again go back to blaming its predecessors and the rest of the world. Yet that is the cop-out, that is the one way bet that the Treasurer wants at present. The Australian people are not that gullible. They remember the rhetoric. They know that this Government has now been in office for 4 1/2 years. They know that from the beginning of 1985 until it was dragged screaming to action in the middle of 1986 it sat and watched our external position burn in front of its eyes. It did absolutely nothing about it. The Australian public knows that we are running an inflation rate which is more than double that of our trading partners. The Australian public knows that the Government can blame the rest of the world for a certain time but in the end it has to take some of the responsibility itself. The Treasurer has to explain to the Australian people why it is that our stock market has been discounted by 44 per cent; why it is that our dollar is now valued at 91 or 92 yen and yet at 99 yen a tightening of fiscal policy was necessary. The Treasurer pretends to this Parliament that one can continue to see the value of our currency fall, and that that is a costless thing. No currency devaluation is costless. Every time our currency falls, our overseas obligations go up. I remind him, by way of comparison, that in 1981 the overseas debt of the Argentine was 29 per cent of her gross domestic product and it is now 67 per cent. In 1983 our level was 21 per cent and it is now 42 per cent. That is all his own work. He cannot blame anybody else for that, because he presided over the policy. This is the golden economic age that the Treasurer talks about. One can look at all the indices-our overseas debt, our inflation rate, our interest rates, our unemployment level which is locked at 7 1/2 per cent to 8 per cent, our level of bankruptcies, and our current account deficit which was the worst in the industrialised world in 1986 and which will be the second worst in the current year. Yet this same man travels around the world, lecturing the Reagan Administration. He goes to the United Kingdom and says, `You have to get your house in order'. Britain is only the second largest creditor nation in the world, after Japan, but she must get her house in order. They are not up to the Keating mark. The United States has an external debt of 13 per cent of GDP, but it must get its house in order. Its current account deficit is about half of what ours is, but it must get its house in order. Presumably, it will not be long before he tells the Japanese and the Germans that they have to get their houses in order. I agree that Budget action by the United States Administration is required. Nobody could seriously argue against that. But the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and this Government have engaged in the ultimate cop-out of saying that all of our problems are the fault of the rest of the world. The Treasurer has a lousy economic record, and he will leave this nation a debt-ridden legacy when he ceases to be Treasurer-a debt-ridden legacy that will dog the children and grandchildren of this and future generations. It is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian public for him, day after day in this Parliament, to blame the rest of the world and wash his hands of any responsibility for the economic stewardship of this country. The Australian public is entitled to hold both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer accountable for their supreme complacency and their indifference to the effect of their neglect and delay between the beginning of 1985 and 1986. The Australian public is entitled to say to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, `You have now been in power for 4 1/2 years and we are going to hold you accountable for what you have done and for what you have neglected to do, which has left our economy in a supremely vulnerable and exposed situation, and will further reduce our standard of living as a result of the changes that are now occurring'. They are the two guilty men of the last 4 1/2 years and the Australian people realise it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.18) —I have heard some lacklustre performances in recent times but that really takes the cake. It establishes that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) is all ambition, but he has no structure, no thought, no thought process and no framework. It is all about a manic determination to be Prime Minister and nothing else. Never was this revealed so clearly than in the last election campaign. The great myth about J. W. Howard is that he has a thought-through position. The great myth that he sold the Press Gallery and anyone else who would listen was that he was the man with the serious agenda, he was the man with the structure and he was the man with the framework. To him would fall the proper mantle of leadership from his predecessor who, he said, lacked these things and he-the man with the structure-would lay down the framework for Australia's economic salvation. He had the conservative but rational alternative to Labor. He had the framework. The fact of the matter is we now know he had no framework. We know he now has only one reservoir left to draw upon-that is, his own rampant ambition to be Prime Minister of this country without the slightest understanding of the reason why. Despite the fact that the honourable member for Bennelong had been Leader of the Opposition for almost two years before the election, and that when he went to the Press Gallery before September 1985 and laid down his serious agenda and a serious framework, what did we see in the election campaign? Nothing except opportunist waffle and the jettisoning of all decent tenets of economic policy. It was a manic run to the wire with an unfunded tax cut-the oldest trick in the political book. Now we have a noisy, cheap throwaway matter of public importance, a noisy, cheap speech from a politician who is not interested in developing a framework for economic policy or a framework for government. He is interested in nothing; he just makes cheap attacks on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and puts forward no thoughtful alternative, no serious response to Australia's condition, and no serious conservative framework for addressing it. It is no wonder that Malcolm Fraser was stung by this charge that he was some great ogre sitting against all change while this earnest tearabout was trying to put all these great changes on to the statute book. What do we find in the writing of history from someone who has had all the documents available? We find no great thrust for deregulation, no great thrust for market orientation. Fraser's point is a strong one. He says we should look at what was put up and look at what was accepted by Cabinet. Not much was put up but what was put up was accepted by Cabinet. Where was the generator of this change, this great burning crucible of change? He was in a little meltdown on the lower ground floor where he had been for the previous few years, not knowing where to go but making predictions on the state of the economy every day, like a radio commentator. He was no force for change. When I inherited this job and went to the Treasury, there were no burning embers of deregulation left there. I had to ask Mr Martin from the Commercial Banking Co. of Sydney Ltd whether he would please chair a body to freshen up the recommendations of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System as they were so dead and there was so little support for them from within the bureaucracy. There were no expectations. This is the record of change of the former Treasurer. Of course he is stung by the remark about the golden age of change. But it is. The total orientation of the country has been changed from an inward, protected place-a country looking at itself, protected by tariffs, managed exchange rates and closed financial markets-to one that now looks outwards, looks at the world as its market and places its currency and its financial markets on the world market. Of course it is a period of great change, and it gives Australia its only hope to be competitive and make its way in the world. Of course the Leader of the Opposition is stung by it. He keeps coming back to that point. He hates it, because he thinks he squandered his opportunity-which he did. He now wants history to treat him more kindly than he is entitled to be treated. He wants to be able to say he was really a force for change but Fraser would not let him. The truth is he had no guts and he would not push. He had no ideas, no heart, no belief and no passion. He got nothing through because in the end there is not much to him. That is what comes through in all these debates-there is not much to him. He is now using hollow words. I have been here 18 years and I have heard a thousand of those speeches-a thousand useless, empty bits of rhetoric about what the Government should do. He had the sheer hide to raise this proposition concerning the culpable negligence of the Prime Minister in allowing the Australian economy to become so vulnerable to external shock. Who bet everything on commodities? Who left this country totally vulnerable to commodity prices? Malcolm Fraser and John Howard did. They said that coal would save us. The capital stock started running down in the middle 1960s. It was in a state of deterioration but nothing was done to repair it. There was no sensible policy on wages. The attitude was, `Attack the unions. Put out a Press release; a cheap throwaway in the Press boxes-that will handle it'. When the big test came, in 1982, on the metal trades case, when the monetary aggregates were running all over the place, haemorrhaging and financing this, the former Prime Minister was prepared to jettison the discussion to clear off to Prince Charles's wedding. The then Treasurer, who was left holding the bag, dropped it very quickly. That wage response went into place. Our inflation rate went up and our economic sovereignty was blown to pieces. That is the record of the former Government on shocks to the external economy. We had a managed exchange rate. One would think that the penny would have dropped. When the wealth of the Arab states increased dramatically when oil went up in price, and our oil and oil substitutes went up in price, why did we not get wealthy? If we were laden with oil substitutes, why did we not become wealthy? One of the reasons was that our exchange rate was manipulated and overvalued and that is one reason why our agricultural producers suffered in this period and were robbed of the decent incomes they were entitled to get for their produce. It is one of the reasons why the country was never allowed to adjust. I stung the honourable member for Bennelong yesterday by calling him a dinosaur-which he has come back to today. He is a dinosaur, along with Senator Stone. I remember the debate in the early days of my period as Treasurer. We would find out what the banks had bought in their foreign exchange dealings each day. When the price is a set price the central bank takes all that comes. It buys all the foreign currency at the price. Then it sterilises that with bond sales. This is the framework those opposite are in-a fixed rate of capital income and capital outflow. They see transactions with traders buying and selling the Australian dollar to settle their accounts around the world as evidence of some sort of capital flight. The immaturity of it is rooted in the practice of the 1970s; that is, a fixed exchange rate. Those people have never moved out of that model. Senator Stone in the 1970s told us for a long time that we needed more imports. Remember his famous speech that what Australia needed was more imports? Those imports were just decimating our secondary structure, tearing it to pieces. This is their thinking. Now the gang of three is back. It was not content to destroy the place in 1982. Only members of the coalition could get together and propose, as a management group again, the mob that wrecked us last time round-Mr Howard, Mr Stone and Professor Hewson. That is the gang of three, the 1981-82 squad. They are back. They are now meeting in some room to see whether they can do it all again. Those opposite really have to make a great effort as a party to say, `We got kicked out in 1983 because we made a total mess of it. Can we possibly make certain that everyone understands that we will do it again by getting the same three people involved again?'. We know about Senator Stones's description of Professor Hewson as a meretricious player, his contempt for the honourable member for Bennelong, and the contempt of the honourable member for Bennelong for Senator Stone. They are all back together, all back in place, ready to kick the place apart again. The fact is that they will not get the chance. They may feel good saying, `You will not be the Treasurer or the Government for long'. We will be here for a long time-those opposite had better believe it-because the people will not take them. Why would the people take them? What proposition do they have? Yesterday I talked about the supply-side focus of the policies of those opposite and what that has done to ruin the rest of the world in terms of the imbalance of the United States fiscal position, which everybody has agreed is now underpinning a lot of the uncertainty in the markets. The honourable member for Bennelong made a personal explanation-the usual performance after Question Time. He said, `No, there was only $1 billion, in my calculation, in the election campaign put down to supply-side effects'. Therefore, that is all right; he is not a supply-sider. Apparently, all the rhetoric, all the language about incentivation, about cutting taxes to lift incentive, to get everyone out there producing because the 38 per cent tax rate has been dangled in front of their noses is to be forgotten. The Opposition says, `How dare the Government say that we are interested in supply-side economics'. It is not only that one-seventh of the proceeds to the Commonwealth of such a tax cut were attributed to the supply-side, but also that a large part of the other six-sevenths was illusory. That is why I say with utter conviction that the Opposition's tax cut proposition at the election campaign would have had the effect of haemorrhaging our fiscal policy seriously, dramatically and catastrophically. Given what has happened, one can just imagine the financial market response to a country like this doing that sort of thing-paying ourselves more through a tax cut at a time when the world sliced $10 billion off our commodities. This is the truth of the Opposition's position. There is no policy. The Opposition talked about our malicious neglect; that was the expression used. Was the dramatic overhaul of our fiscal position from 4 1/2 per cent of gross domestic product to zero malicious neglect? Was the floating of the exchange rate to restore our competitiveness a malicious neglect? Was the 10 per cent reduction in real unit labour costs in four years malicious neglect? Was the deregulation of our financial markets malicious neglect? Was the restoration of parts of our industrial base under the Government's industry plans malicious neglect? This is the sort of cheap claptrap, cheap argument, that is thrown around by the Opposition without its addressing a serious framework and saying, `This is what we would do in the circumstances'. We hear none of that. The Leader of the Opposition says, `Our policies at the election were right'. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), as the shadow Treasurer, attempted to say that the policies were wrong. He was hauled back very rapidly by the Leader of the Opposition who said, `Listen, our policies were right'. If the election policies are right, the Opposition has no bases for any attack upon the Government at all, it having campaigned on the most incredible and disreputable policy. If, however, the view that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would like to be associated with prevails, it means that from that day hence the Leader of the Opposition's position is in tatters and the only course left for him is resignation. That is the position, and that is the position the Opposition is caught on. It does not have a policy. It has not had a policy for years. I ask the House to remember the political assassination of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) at the hands of the Leader of the Opposition on the basis that he had the serious agenda, that he was the burning heart of change, that he was the one who would map out the future. It did not happen. There is no agenda for change. There is not going to be an agenda for change. The only changes taking place come from over here. That is why we got support at the last election. The Government will keep up the changes. As I have said, the Government will make the appropriate policy responses as it sees fit but it is not going to be pushed and shoved into panicky measures by an Opposition that does not understand where it has been or where it is going. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -The debate is concluded. I suspend the sitting until 5.30 p.m. in order that Madam Speaker may present the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House. Madam Speaker would be pleased if the mover and seconder, together with honourable members who wish to, would accompany her to present the address. Sitting suspended from 3.34 to 5.30 p.m. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that, accompanied by honourable members, I waited today upon His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House and presented to him the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency's Speech on the opening of the first session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament, agreed to by the House on 24 September 1987. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: Madam Speaker: Thank you for your Address-in-Reply. It will be my pleasure and my duty to convey to Her Majesty the Queen the message of loyalty from the House of Representatives, to which the Address gives expression. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-In the period 9 to 26 October, I visited the United States of America, Canada, Ireland, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. In making this report to the Parliament on my visits, I will focus most closely on four themes. First, a central element of my activities abroad was the continued advocacy, in a number of important forums, of the cause which stands as essential to Australia's long term prosperity; that is, trade liberalisation. Second, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Vancouver, I pursued a number of issues of importance to Australia including, most particularly, the situation in Fiji and Southern Africa. Third, my visits to Ireland and Yugoslavia allowed me to cement even more firmly the close and productive ties of kinship that link Australia and those countries. Finally, I engaged in constructive talks with the United States Secretary of State, George Shultz, relating to Australia's vital alliance with the United States. TRADE LIBERALISATION There should be no dispute with the statement that the interests of both Australia and the world would be best served by the freeing up of the international trading system. Yet the political will needed internationally to translate that logically unassailable truth into effective reform of the trading system, and to defy the rising tide of protectionism, still needs bolstering-and, of most immediate impact for Australia, there needs to be the political will to phase down and ultimately eliminate the high and growing levels of agricultural subsidies. Accordingly, I took every opportunity during my trip to argue the merits of trade liberalisation, to marshal support for that goal, to demonstrate Australia's active commitment to it, and to help show the way forward towards it. In particular, I addressed the issue of trade liberalisation in public speeches in San Diego and Geneva, and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. It was also an important element of my bilateral discussions, to which I will return later. San Diego The chief purpose of my visit to San Diego was to deliver a speech to the Australian-American Chamber of Commerce on bilateral and multilateral trading issues, and their impact on the close relationship between Australia and the United States. San Diego was an especially appropriate venue for my address, for two reasons. First, because San Diego is on the Pacific Rim, it is part of the fastest growing and most dynamic region in the world. The fortunes of the countries of the Pacific Rim, including Australia and the United States, will depend crucially upon the success of the new round of multilateral trade negotiations and upon the ability of the major economies to remedy their structural imbalances through the right macroeconomic and industry restructuring policies. Second, San Diego is the home base of the United States Pacific Surface Fleet and the site of significant defence-related manufacturing. Australia is the second largest cash purchaser of American defence equipment-a fact which contributes significantly to the favourable United States balance in trade with us. The theme of my San Diego speech was that world economic tensions, reflected in massive external imbalances, could be resolved satisfactorily only if the major economies implemented appropriate domestic policies coupled with open trading policies. I noted that there is some evidence that domestic policies and the external imbalances had begun to adjust appropriately in certain countries but that much more needed to be done. Subsequent events in the financial markets have dramatically underscored the latter point. I noted with particular concern, however, that in some quarters in America, protectionist pressures had been intensifying. Australia has a first class alliance with the United States, which we value, and we are a nation of significant strategic value to the United States. Our alliance is firm and secure, yet Australians may be the victims of the mounting protectionist pressure within the United States Congress. We are also concerned at the possibility that the United States may seek to resolve its trade imbalance with Japan at Australia's expense through non-commercial deals. In short, I told my American audience that Australians would not tolerate being regarded by the United States as first-class allies but second-class friends. I noted that the Administration had shown great determination in resisting those pressures to date and called upon it to maintain that resistance in protecting Australia's legitimate trading interests and with it, the strength of the Australian-American relationship. Vancouver The Commonwealth, as an association of nations ranging in size and wealth from the populous and the economically powerful to the debt prone and the minuscule, speaks with a unique and powerful voice on world economic issues. It was my honour to lead the CHOGM discussion on the world economy. After outlining major developments on the world economic scene since the Nassau meeting of CHOGM I identified the main challenges for the future. In examining global economic prospects I repeated my message of San Diego that the enhancement of world growth depended upon the commitment of governments to steady rectification of fundamental domestic and external imbalances, coupled with an open trading system. Owing to their size and influence, the major economies had a special obligation to rectify their structural imbalances and I called on the Commonwealth to use all its influence to encourage those major countries to accelerate the processes of adjustment and to maximise low inflation world growth. In turning to the particulars of international trading problems I acknowledged one important step forward that had been taken since Nassau-the launching of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations. Nevertheless, protectionist pressures are still grave, especially because of the trans-Atlantic agricultural subsidies war and the increasing strength of calls for bilateral solutions to trade deficits. I suggested that the Commonwealth could make a valuable contribution by supporting the momentum for trade reform. Consequently, I supported Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's idea of a Declaration on World Trade by Commonwealth Heads of Government. I proposed that the Heads of Government declare that we remain gravely concerned by and firmly opposed to protectionist measures; that we stand for trade liberalisation; that we support a strong, credible and working General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); and that we agree on the crucial need for reform of all distorting and indefensible agricultural policies. Such a declaration was drafted and was adopted by the Commonwealth leaders. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the Vancouver Declaration on World Trade. Leave granted. The document read as follows- THE VANCOUVER DECLARATION ON WORLD TRADE The Commonwealth leaders representing a wide range of both developed and developing countries note with grave concern rising global protectionist pressures. Continuing implementation of protectionist measures would be counter-productive, would increase the risk of further exchange rate instability and would exacerbate the problems of development and indebtedness. Trade restrictions affect particularly the exports and growth prospects of developing countries and their ability to service debt all of which in turn impact adversely on the economies of the industrial countries. We welcome the progress of negotiations in the Uruguay round covering a range of important subjects. We will work for a balanced outcome to develop a more open, viable and durable multilateral trading system to promote growth and development. We recognise the growing importance and the asymmetrical position of developing countries in the trading system. This underlines the need to give special consideration to their interests within the agreed framework of the Uruguay Round. It is essential that the Punta dal Este commitments on ``standstill'' and ``rollback'' be fully respected and implemented. We agree on the crucial need for reform of all trade distorting agricultural policies, both domestic and international. We urge early action on agriculture in the Uruguay Round so as to reduce the uncertainty, imbalances and instability in world markets. This will benefit both developed and developing countries. A strong, credible working GATT is essential to the well-being of all trading countries and is the best bulwark against mounting protectionist pressures. The function of the GATT should be improved through enhancing its role in maintaining an open multilateral system and its capacity in the area of dispute settlement. We hope that the negotiations will make sufficient progress on agriculture and other key subjects to enable a mid-term ministerial review of the Uruguay Round as allowed for in the Punta del Este Declaration. We welcome the assistance which the Commonwealth Secretariat is providing to member governments in the trade field, including the re-establishment of a Trade Adviser's Office in Geneva and increased levels of technical support, and we request the Secretary-General to continue to give priority to work in this field. In addition, the larger states of the Commonwealth undertake to assist developing countries, including smaller states, through regular consultations and trade policy training programmes. Mr HAWKE —I thank the House. It is entirely consistent with the thrust of the Government's policies on international trade and will serve as a useful reference point to reinforce the pressure we will be seeking to maintain on this vital issue. Geneva My visit to Geneva was primarily for the purpose of addressing representatives of the contracting parties to the GATT. That address allowed me to do two important things. First, I announced that Australia was prepared to negotiate a broad package of measures to reduce overall levels of effective assistance to Australian industry-including tariffs-as part of a broad-based multilateral approach. I said that in this context Australia was prepared to eliminate, over an appropriate implementation phase, all quantitative import measures designed to protect domestic industry. This means we would phase out all our quantitative restrictions, including tariff quotas, licensing and embargoes. I stressed that we would be looking to our trading partners to reciprocate this offer by making similar reductions in their effective rates of industry assistance-not only tariffs but also the range of non-tariff measures and subsidies. Second, I had the honour on behalf of the Cairns Group of Fair Trading Nations to present the Group's proposals for agricultural trade reform. Honourable members will recall that the Cairns Group was established following a meeting, held in Cairns in August 1986 under the chairmanship of the then Trade Minister, John Dawkins, of representatives of 14 fair trading nations. Cairns Group members were frustrated by the slow process towards freer trade being made by the major economies-in particular the United States, the European Community and Japan. Since that meeting the Cairns Group has established its credentials as the vital third force in agricultural trade negotiations. The Cairns Group's proposal which I launched contains three elements: a long term objective of the elimination of subsidies and market barriers, within 10 years at most; a framework for the rules and parameters necessary during the phase down period and a set of priorities for change; and immediate relief from the worst subsidies and market distortions, in recognition of the crisis facing world agricultural trade. Unlike the proposals of the United States and the European Community, the Cairns Group proposal focuses in detail on the reform period and the mechanisms required to achieve a free and open agricultural trading system. It gives priority to phasing out those measures that most disrupt trade and provides for the greatest distorters to make the greatest contribution to reform. In my address I also noted the importance Australia attaches to developing rules and procedures to encourage freer trade in services. This is an area long neglected by GATT which needs to be addressed in the Uruguay round. My address was the first in the GATT's 40 year history made by a head of government, and I trust it will have augmented the prestige and influence of that organisation. I believe the speech was well received and gave Australia, and the Cairns Group, new prominence in GATT at a crucial stage of the negotiations about the future of world trade. COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Vancouver from 13 to 17 October addressed a very wide range of issues and also provided a valuable opportunity for bilateral discussions with many of the other 44 countries represented. In describing the outcome I shall not attempt to be comprehensive; I draw the attention of honourable members to the communique of the meeting. CHOGM provided the first opportunity for the Commonwealth to consider the tragic events which have taken place in Fiji this year. It permitted those countries which, like Australia, are members of the South Pacific Forum, to carry forward the consultations held in Apia in May. Our discussions were frank and intensive. Without in any way detracting from the admirable commitment and steadfastness of the Governor-General through the crisis, it was clear by the time CHOGM convened that Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau no longer exercised authority in any other than a purely formal sense. Therefore, we recognised the need to address the situation in Fiji as it was, rather than on the basis of wishful thinking or a fiction about who exercised real authority in that troubled country. This was clear to me from the outset of the gathering in Vancouver and was accepted by virtually everyone to whom I spoke. Some who were either unable, or refused, to grasp this fact, and in consequence made a number of quite silly observations at the time, were quickly exposed in the light of immediate developments. On 14 October, Heads of Government were informed that the Governor-General of Fiji had advised the Queen that his endeavours to provide constitutional government had proved in vain. He had requested the Queen to relieve him of his appointment with immediate effect. We were informed, as background for our discussion, that a republic was now to be regarded as in being in Fiji and that the Queen had ceased to be Head of State in Fiji. Importantly, Her Majesty expressed the hope that Heads of Government would have uppermost in their minds the question of how best the interests of all the people of Fiji, of whatever race, could be safeguarded under a republican form of government. The discussions at CHOGM proceeded on that footing. Notwithstanding differences of nuance, in particular national positions, a common view was evident at Vancouver on a number of key propositions. All those present at CHOGM considered the principal challenge in the period immediately ahead to be the need to achieve a new political structure in Fiji which was satisfactory in terms of the legitimate aspirations and rights of all the people of Fiji. A fundamental point of agreement was that the problems confronting Fiji were ultimately for the people of Fiji themselves to resolve. Above all, I consider there was an agreement on the key objective which now needed to guide our thinking: encouraging those in authority in Fiji to adopt policies of moderation, and to chart a course offering the hope of a republic, decent and democratic in character, rather than oppressive and authoritarian. Accordingly, there was a willingness in Vancouver for the Commonwealth to offer to help Fiji, during the critical formative period in which the new political structure will be fashioned. Heads of Government attached importance to foundations being laid which were consistent with the Commonwealth principles which I have described. It was clear, furthermore, that the character of the future government in Fiji will influence views taken by Commonwealth countries on the question of Fiji's readmission to the association. This, then, was the thinking which informed the statement made by CHOGM on Fiji and which I quote: Commonwealth leaders acknowledged that on the basis of established Commonwealth conventions Fiji's membership of the Commonwealth lapsed with the emergence of the Republic on 15 October. They viewed with sadness the developments in Fiji and hoped for a resolution of the problem by the people of Fiji on a basis consistent with the principles that have guided the Commonwealth. They agreed that the Commonwealth would, if requested, be ready to offer its good offices towards such a resolution and, on such basis, if the circumstances warrant, to consider the question of Fiji's membership of the Commonwealth if asked to do so. This outcome is entirely consistent with my Government's own policies. Indeed, it reflects the initiatives which I took at the meeting of South Pacific Forum leaders at Vancouver preceding CHOGM, and in the lengthy discussions at and during the conference. Australia deplores the overturning of democracy in Fiji. We believe we can speak for all Australians in saying that the friendship of Australia towards the people of Fiji is undiminished. We are deeply concerned, not only about the political uncertainty now facing Fiji, but about the economic costs and the disruption to Fiji's international relations which have resulted. We recognise, as a matter of fact, that the future political system in Fiji will be different from the one existing before the military intervention. But we attach high importance to the evolution of a political structure which represents a return to basic democratic principle and which recognises and protects human rights. We hope that all those leaders in Fiji capable of exerting influence and playing a role to that end will do so. We consider it to be a matter for the people of Fiji to determine their political path. Inevitably, however, Australia's relationship with Fiji-both in terms of its general quality and in terms of specifics such as aid and defence co-operation-must be affected by the direction Fiji takes internally. Put bluntly, we could not have the same relationship with a military dictatorship as with a representative civilian government. We support the Commonwealth, as we earlier supported the South Pacific Forum, in the offer to assist Fiji in its present political difficulties. Those offers are on the table and I believe deserve close consideration by the authorities in Fiji. I turn now to southern Africa, the political issue of greatest importance for the Vancouver meeting as a whole. Aside from the meeting in London last August of seven Commonwealth countries, Australia included, Vancouver provided the first opportunity for Commonwealth leaders to assess events since the major decisions taken at Nassau in 1985. In the intervening period the situation within South Africa itself had deteriorated; instability and violence had increased; the Government had become more oppressive; the efforts by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group to facilitate dialogue and negotiation had been rejected by the South African authorities; South Africa had put increased pressure on neighbouring states; the southern African region as a whole had faced a combination of military and economic destabilisation; and the root cause of all of this, the abhorrent system of apartheid, remained fundamentally unchanged. At Vancouver we discussed the issues against that background, and Heads of Government issued a Statement on southern Africa and Program of Action. This document makes the important judgment that: In spite of the Pretoria regime's increased intransigence since Nassau, we remain convinced that only through negotiations can catastrophe be averted. It calls for the South African Government to accept the negotiating concept developed by the Eminent Persons Group, which remains as valid today as it was when the Group put it forward. The decisions of Vancouver, including on sanctions, need to be seen in that context: not as contradicting dialogue and negotiation but as promoting them. The approach adopted at Vancouver was to secure the universal adoption of the measures which have now been put in place by most Commonwealth countries and others, including the United States and the Nordic countries. At the initiative of Australia an expert study will be undertaken of South Africa's relationship with the international financial system, a system which has itself imposed significant pressure on the South African economy in the past. I wish to comment briefly on the effectiveness of sanctions, since clearly this was an issue which, at Vancouver as in the past, divided Britain from the rest. Ironically, and most uncomfortably for those who deny that sanctions are effective, at the time CHOGM was meeting the South African Government itself conceded that sanctions were hurting. On 15 October the South African Finance Minister, speaking at the National Party's Natal Congress, said that the negative economic effect of sanctions should not be underestimated. South Africa had, he said, accumulated billions of dollars worth of non-productive assets, such as oil, which had to be stockpiled because of sanctions. He asked his audience to imagine what could be done if, for example, South Africa had certainty regarding supplies of oil and other strategic commodities and was able to release these reserves to finance development and infrastructure. Moreover, critics of sanctions tend to have a simplistic view. They seem to be saying that unless the measures adopted bring an economy to its knees then they have failed. But the Government has indicated frequently that the aim is not to bring South Africa to its knees but to bring it to its senses. Changes in public attitudes and in the attitudes of a government as locked into the past as are South Africa's may well take time. Far from helping this process, easing up on external pressure would be utterly counter-productive. As the Eminent Persons Group report says: If the South African Government comes to the conclusion that it would always remain protected from such measures the process of change in South Africa is unlikely to increase in momentum and the descent into violence would be accelerated. Nor can the view be sustained that the Commonwealth is not in a position to exert significant pressure. That ignores the catalytic role of the Commonwealth in raising the consciousness of the international community and in encouraging measures on the part of the major economic powers. Opponents of sanctions also seem to ignore the fact that some situations are so abhorrent that it would be inadequate simply to declare them wrong, without making a tangible expression of that abhorrence. They would leave the Western countries with no concrete means of demonstrating support for those striving for change in South Africa, support which they have every right to expect from countries espousing liberal democratic principles. But it is also a matter of self-interest. To refuse to lend forthright support is a recipe for alienating from the West the future leaders of the post-apartheid South Africa. It is to undermine those leaders of the struggle who have the moderate objective of political equality, social justice and economic prosperity for all citizens regardless of race. CHOGM also addressed what the Eminent Persons Group appropriately called `the external face of apartheid', the security and economic problems of South Africa's neighbours. We decided to initiate an enhanced program of co-ordinated Commonwealth assistance. This will be directed towards the front line and neighbouring states, particularly Mozambique. I note in this context that the Government in the last Budget provided for an increased program of assistance to the southern African region amounting to $55m over three years. Another important element of the CHOGM decisions was a new effort to reach into South Africa through, among other measures, the provision of assistance to the victims of apartheid such as detainees and their families and support to the trade union movement. I draw attention also to the establishment of a mechanism by the Commonwealth to provide high level impetus and guidance on the southern African issues between meetings of Heads of Government. This will take the form of a committee of Foreign Ministers which will meet periodically. Australia will be represented on that committee. As I said at the outset, CHOGM addressed many other political and economic issues of interest to Australia, ranging from the welcome improvement in East-West relations, through prospects for progress in arms control to such important regional issues as New Caledonia and international economic questions such as debt. Our decisions are reflected in the communique. Finally, I note that reaffirmation at Vancouver of the value of functional co-operation between Commonwealth countries. It is important to recognise that of course there is a limit to how much the Commonwealth should do or how widely it should spread its activities, particularly at a time of tight budgetary restraint. My Government does not take the view that Commonwealth programs should forever expand. But equally we do recognise that there are areas where the Commonwealth can and does play a valuable role. In that connection I mention the steps which the Vancouver meeting decided to take to facilitate distance education. This has real promise and potential. Australia, with our experience in distance learning, should be able both to contribute to and benefit from the co-operative arrangements which are to be established. In closing this section, I pay tribute to Brian Mulroney, the people of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia for their hospitality during what was a very well-run and friendly meeting. Ireland and Yugoslavia My visit was also devoted to the task of forging closer links with two European nations which are of particular importance to Australia: Ireland and Yugoslavia. About one in three Australians today claim Irish ancestry. Mr Howard —Do you include yourself? Mr HAWKE —No, I am a fringe dweller; but a devotee, I can assure the honourable member. About one in three Australians today claims Irish ancestry, since there has been a steady flow of immigrants to Australia from Ireland dating from the first day of European settlement of this land. More recently, significant numbers of Yugoslavian people have chosen Australia as their new home. These links of kinship with Ireland and Yugoslavia were reflected in the warmth of the welcome I received in both countries. Nor are our ties with these countries merely of an emotional nature. We share a number of valuable commercial interests and we are affected by the broad range of pressing global political issues. I took the opportunity in my discussions with leaders in both countries of exploring Australian concerns in these fields. Ireland Nobody who has ever sung an Australian folk song, become involved in Australian politics or participated in Australian sport could have done so without recognising the profound and generous contribution of the Irish people to the development of our nation. Outside Ireland itself, there is no country more Irish than Australia. As I told the Irish Taoiseach, Mr Charles Haughey, on my arrival at Dublin Airport, I felt as if I had arrived home, so friendly and familiar was the atmosphere. As Australians approach our Bicentennial, it is appropriate that we look back over 200 years of Irish involvement in the broadest spectrum of our economic, political, religious and cultural life. And as we continue in the creation of a truly multicultural society, it is appropriate that we recall the struggle for equality of opportunity and cultural freedom fought by the Irish, who constituted our first and largest ethnic minority. On my visit to Ireland, I discussed these links of kinship in an address at University College, Dublin. This college is the home of the Keith Cameron Chair of Australian History, a professorship jointly funded by the Australian Government and Mr Tony O'Reilly, a generous benefactor of Ireland and Irish culture. I also had the pleasure of witnessing contemporary manifestations of the Irish-Australian heritage at Croke Park Dublin-namely, the first test match between Irish and Australian footballers. Although Australia lost by a narrow margin, it was a highly enjoyable game of football. I was pleased to note that the Australians have since gone on to win the series. I wish the organisers well in their continuing efforts to seek a compromised form of rules to allow the unique Australian and Gaelic codes to be contested at the international level. The Irish Dail, or Parliament, gave me the honour of an invitation to address them. This was only the third time the Dail had extended such an invitation to a foreign head of government, my two predecessors being President Reagan and the late President Kennedy. As I told the Dail in my address on 21 October, their choice of two Americans and one Australian reflects the historical truth that, though Ireland is the most anti-imperialist of nations, it is the head of a spiritual empire-an empire of Irish kinship, character and commitment-of which Australia and the United States are the principal provinces. Australia's historical links with Ireland are particularly important as we approach our Bicentenary. I thanked the Irish Government on a number of occasions for its generous involvement in our bicentennial celebrations which will include the gift of microfilm records of the 40,000 Irish men and women transported to Australia from Ireland in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, it would have been inappropriate if my speech to the Dail, or indeed my entire visit to Ireland, dwelt solely on the historical elements of our relationship. As medium-sized industrial economies which share and nourish the same commitment to democracy, Australia and Ireland can bring important perspectives to resolving the range of pressing contemporary issues we face. Australia has chosen the path of a firm alliance relationship with the United States and is in the process of enmeshing itself in the dynamic Pacific rim, while Ireland has chosen neutrality and membership of the European Community. But both countries share the same aspirations for peace, arms control, human rights, the principles of national self-determination and the elimination of apartheid. Just as successive Irish governments have been committed to enhancing the prospects for international peace-through, for example, their contribution to United Nations peacekeeping forces-they have been dedicated also to the achievement of peace on their own borders. I told the Dail that Australia supported the efforts of the Irish and British governments, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to end the communal strife in Northern Ireland. And I know all honourable members would support me in giving an assurance to the Irish Government that we would do all within our power to discourage any Australian citizen from adding in any way to the violence in Northern Ireland. On economic issues, the Taoiseach and I discussed strategies of consensus and co-operation through which our nations could create the self-discipline needed to meet the economic challenges we face. We found common ground in the observation that countries like Australia and Ireland cannot afford to live beyond their means. Governments must take the hard decisions to reorder our priorities, reduce deficits, attack indebtedness, tighten spending and question the assumptions of the past in order to secure long term economic health. In my speech to the Dail, I added that all these hard adjustment decisions would avail a nation little if it faced a hostile international environment-particularly one which damaged the international trading system. Consistent, then, with the overall thrust of my trip, I told the Irish, as members of the European Community, that the EC's policies of agricultural subsidisation were damaging not just countries like Australia but ultimately the perpetrators of protectionism as well. Yugoslavia Australia and Yugoslavia have an active and constructive relationship based in particular around Yugoslavia's pivotal position in East-West relations and its prominent role in the non-aligned movement and, on a bilateral basis, around the 300,000-strong community of Yugoslavian descent now living in Australia. My discussions in Belgrade with Prime Minister Branko Mikulic focused largely on economic and trade matters. They were frank, informal and very friendly. I outlined to the Prime Minister the Australian position on international trade and the efforts we had been making in a number of fora, including my address to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, towards liberalising world trade. The Prime Minister indicated that Yugoslavia shared Australia's concerns and supported our efforts to free up world trade, especially in agriculture, since Yugoslavia had been suffering from the United States-European Community's subsidies war. In the area of domestic economic policy, the Prime Minister and I discussed our respective policies of economic stabilisation and economic reform. I was particularly indebted to Prime Minister Mikulic for his extremely frank and detailed exposition of the reforms being pursued in Yugoslavia in an effort to remedy the very significant economic problems facing the country. The reforms it is undertaking are clearly market oriented. They are designed to overhaul the economy and, particularly, to ease the country's significant external debt problem. In my judgment the Prime Minister's exposition reflected a sound understanding of the nature of the problems and the remedies that are necessary. The explanation consisted in part of saying that Yugoslavia had been living beyond its means during the 1970s and that inevitably, therefore, adjustments had to be made. He referred to the fact that during the 1980s real wages had fallen in the order of 25 per cent. Prime Minister Mikulic expressed his frustration and that of Yugoslavia that many Western countries seem still to regard Yugoslavia as part of the Eastern bloc. He pointed out that it is not; it is non-aligned. He explained, for example, that for 1987 to date more than half of Yugoslavia's trade was with the West. Yet this perception, he said, had been damaging for the prospects of economic co-operation between Yugoslavia and the West. I undertook to the Prime Minister that I would do all I could to dispel the misconceptions held by Western countries. In particular, I undertook to talk to our friends in the United States to the effect that it would make sense for them to be more forthcoming in economic relations with Yugoslavia. Prime Minister Mikulic and I agreed to formalise our bilateral economic relations to seek to enhance trade, and to extend joint ventures-building on the success of Rudi Cajavec's enterprise with the Telectronics company of Australia to assemble and to manufacture Australian designed heart pacemakers for use in Yugoslavia and for export from Yugoslavia. We also will be looking at ways of promoting scientific and technical co-operation. We have agreed that there will be an initial meeting of officials to be held at the earliest practicable opportunity. That meeting of officials will then seek to formalise the form that the annual meetings between our two countries will take. The presence in Australia of so many people of Yugoslavian origin is overwhelmingly a positive link between our two countries. But as I told Mr Mikulic, it would be foolish of both sides not to recognise that on occasion it can create some awkwardness in our bilateral relations. People, in exercising their right to free speech in Australia, may say things which touch old wounds and scrape sensitive nerves. We are determined to maintain this right of people to speak freely even if they may say things with which we disagree. That is their right as free Australians as long as they do not move towards violence, which the Australian Government will not tolerate. Although this is a problem that is, thankfully, diminishing with time, it still occasionally occurs. What is encouraging is that, in recent instances, the recognition by both of us of the strength and importance of our friendship, together with the discretion and common sense shown by the respective governments, have enabled us to find solutions. Yugoslavia's leading role in the non-aligned movement and its strategic position and independent approach give it a particularly interesting perspective on issues of importance to Australia. In Belgrade, I had the opportunity to exchange views on foreign policy issues of common interest with President Lazar Mojsov, a distinguished international statesman. We had useful discussions on East-West relations, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Indo-China. THE AUSTRALIAN-AMERICAN ALLIANCE Honourable members will recall that the United States Secretary of State, George Shultz, and Secretary for Defense, Caspar Weinberger, visited Sydney in June for bilateral ministerial talks with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and myself. Those talks confirmed the strength of the alliance between our two countries and the close and friendly nature of the Australia-United States relationship. On my recent overseas visit, I had the opportunity to spend several hours in discussion with Mr Shultz, in and around San Francisco on 10 and 11 October. Mr Tim Fischer —Who won the golf? Mr HAWKE —We won. I found these talks particularly useful. They took place against the background of important developments in East-West relations, the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, and the world economy. I drew Mr Shultz's attention to the speech I had made in San Diego on United States trade policy and Australian-American relations, to which I have already referred. We discussed developments in the Persian Gulf and, in the light of the forthcoming visit of the Secretary of State to Egypt and Israel, which has since of course taken place, the prospect for an international conference on the Middle East. We exchanged views about the Philippines and reiterated the firm support of both our governments for President Aquino. I gave Mr Shultz our appreciation of developments in the South Pacific. Without seeking to exaggerate the situation, I expressed the view that the overthrow of parliamentary democracy in Fiji and France's insensitive policy in New Caledonia were among the factors which had made it a less stable region than was the case at the beginning of the decade. Mr Shultz previewed for me his visit to Moscow, which took place two weeks ago. From Australia's point of view, I expressed the importance we attach to the conclusion of an intermediate range nuclear forces agreement, both for its own sake and as a step towards reductions in strategic nuclear arsenals and other areas of arms control. The Secretary of State very kindly offered to send a member of his delegation to brief me on the outcome of his talks with Mr Gorbachev and Mr Shevardnadze, immediately they were concluded. Accordingly, Mr Tom Simons, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, a Soviet specialist, flew straight from Moscow to Dubrovnik and gave me and my party a detailed and very informative account of the meetings and some interesting impressions of the important developments now taking place in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Overall, my visit confirmed very clearly that Australia's relationship with the United States is in excellent shape. Australia must continue to push hard on the issue of trade liberalisation. I am happy to report that my efforts overseas to make progress on this front were well received. Although negotiations will inevitably be slow and painstaking, I believe Australia has established the credibility of its voice in urging an early harvest of results. I am also pleased to report that our role remains a prominent one in that valuable global association, the Commonwealth. Our alliance relationship with the United States remains soundly based. Our friendly bilateral relationships with Ireland and Yugoslavia have been put on a new and even more constructive footing. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made this statement to the Parliament about his recent visit overseas. I have some positive things to say about the statement and the visit, and I also have some negative things to say. Mr Cleeland —That would not surprise us. Mr HOWARD —And neither should it. I say to the Prime Minister, firstly, that I welcome the fact that his Government no longer regards the Commonwealth with the same scorn as did the then Leader of the Opposition and present Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) in 1979 when he described the Commonwealth as a rather useless body to which Australia should not belong. The Liberal and National parties have always regarded the Commonwealth's association as important. It brings Australia into contact not only with countries sharing a very strong historical affiliation with Australia but also with a multiracial world. That is very important to the future of this country and it is very important as far as our strategic position is concerned. The Prime Minister, to the extent that he, on behalf of his Government, pursues overseas the cause of trade liberalisation, will have the total support of the Opposition. To the extent that he argues, has he must as Prime Minister of Australia, for a fairer trade deal for Australia and for agricultural exporters generally, he will have the support of the Opposition. To the extent that he says to the United States Government that our relationship entitles us to speak frankly and sharply to the Americans and he emphasises our concern, even our anger, at the way in which we have been treated on trade matters, he will also have the total support of the Opposition. He is acting in those matters as a trustee for the interests of so many concerned Australians. However, to the extent that the Prime Minister, either by his own silence-I note that it was not referred to in his speech tonight-or by the statements of his Ministers allows the issues of trade and the strategic position of Australia to be mixed in any way, he will have the total opposition of the Liberal and National parties. Under no circumstances would we ever support a policy that put the maintenance of the American joint facilities on the table with trade matters. We have joint facilities in Australia because they are beneficial to Australia. We do not have them in Australia predominantly because they are beneficial to the United States. Those in the Australian Labor Party and elsewhere who continue to question the existence of those joint facilities make the fatal mistake of assuming that in some way we are doing a great favour to the rest of the world. In fact, we are doing a favour to ourselves and we are making a major contribution to the strategic position of the entire Western world. I say to the Prime Minister that all Australians, both of his political persuasion and of mine, welcome the remarks that he made about the association between Australia and Ireland. It is a very deep, a very important, a very emotional and a very profound relationship. I know that many people who have come to Australia from Yugoslavia since the war will welcome the fact that an Australian Prime Minister has gone to Yugoslavia and, I hope, contributed a little towards improving the links that exist between our two countries. Having said that, I must say to the Prime Minister that many Australians resented the supercilious, contemptuous remarks that he apparently made about the British at his Press conference as reported on 27 October 1987. It does nothing for his reputation or for the reputation of this country for him to say, in answer to a question: Because I don't give a stuff about the Brits. The story then says: Mr Hawke spat, turned on his heel and walked off. Mr Hawke —Inaccurate. Mr HOWARD —If that is inaccurate, something should have been said about it before now. I have to say to the Prime Minister that that kind of behaviour does him no credit, his Party no credit and this country no credit. Just as many Australians will welcome what he had to say about the Irish and the Yugoslavians, an enormous number of Australians regard that kind of remark as absolutely absurd. The reason is that the Prime Minister has allowed the British Prime Minister to get under his skin and has made the fundamental mistake of allowing his personal dislike of somebody else to colour his political judgment. To that extent, that is one of the negative things I have to say about the Prime Minister's visit overseas. A lot of what the Prime Minister had to say about Fiji was unexceptionable and we would agree with it. I think the Prime Minister was engaging in a bit of retrospective whitewashing of his role in predicting what Her Majesty might do in relation to Fiji. I think the Prime Minister has been guilty-I will come to this matter in a moment-of a touch of double standards in relation to trade sanctions and in relation to his attitude towards the takeovers in Fiji. If the Prime Minister is adopting an attitude of pragmatism and realism towards Fiji, that is understood. However, the Prime Minister will recall that when one of my colleagues, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), adopted the same attitude at the time of the first coup he was called everything under the sun by the Prime Minister and was denounced as being out of sympathy with democratic principles. The overthrow of the Bavadra Government in Fiji remains nothing other than a military coup. In character, it is no different from the overthrow of other democratically elected governments. It is inevitable that there will be erected in Fiji a constitution and a form of government based on racial discrimination. However much they may colour that and however much they may think it is a little more benign-because we all have a benign, amiable, rather sentimental attitude towards Fiji because of its nature and character and the character of its people-the Prime Minister and the Government ought to understand that, in essence, there are no substantial differences between the way in which the Bavadra Government was overthrown and way in which other governments have been overthrown and regimes established in their place. That brings me to the question of southern Africa and the remarks that the Prime Minister made about South Africa. It is here where we disagree most sharply with what the Prime Minister had to say and where the Government stands. We do not disagree in our attitude towards apartheid, but we do disagree in our attitude towards the imposition of economic sanctions. The Prime Minister in his statement misrepresents the case against economic sanctions. It has never been my argument, nor has it been the argument of the Opposition, that economic sanctions do not have an effect; they do have an effect. Our argument is that they have the wrong effect. The effect that we want any action taken against South Africa to have is to bring about a convergence of action and view between the moderate blacks and the liberal whites and a state of affairs where their attitudes and their desire for change and reform will gradually gather sway and come to the fore in South Africa, replacing the present extreme dictatorial attitudes of the extremist whites. It is for that reason, because we do not believe that economic sanctions are having that effect, that we are opposed to those economic sanctions. Of course, if we impose sanctions against a country it will have an enfeebling effect. Of course, the South African economy would now be stronger if it were not for economic sanctions, but unfortunately those economic sanctions are having the effect of driving more and more whites in South Africa into the hands of the extreme right wing Afrikaner political movements. The results of the recent South African elections are a condemnation of the political wisdom of imposing economic sanctions. The Prime Minister talks and exhorts about the need to have regard to moderate voices in South Africa. I remind him that on 5 September this year, a bare six weeks ago, Chief Buthelezi, the head of the largest black nation in South Africa, said: It is we blacks who are paying the price for sanctions and disinvestment which have not had the effect they were designed to have. That was not P. W. Botha; that was not some mad right wing Afrikaner ratbag; that was Chief Buthelezi, the head of the Zulus. He was saying that the Government had got it wrong. He was saying that sanctions are strengthening the hands of the extremist whites and that they are hurting the blacks. It is on that basis that we are opposed to economic sanctions. The sheer moral bankruptcy of the Government's position on South Africa was revealed this afternoon when the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) admitted that there was a cooked up deal between Qantas Airways Ltd and South African Airways (SAA) to ensure that we get a bigger slice of the action via Qantas. Where is the morality in that? The Prime Minister gets up here and says, `Oh, we have all got to make some sacrifices in the name of fighting apartheid'. Yet he admits there is some sleazy deal between SAA and Qantas. That is a morally bankrupt policy. Yet he will sit on a podium with the leaders of Zimbabwe and Zambia, who have not participated in democratic elections for a long, long time, and presume to lecture on the motives of the leader of one of the most democratic countries in the world. I think the Prime Minister's policy on South Africa is politically misplaced. I do not think it is on firm moral ground. The case against sanctions has been condemned not only by people such as Chief Buthelezi; it was condemned recently by Helen Suzman in the following words: The imposition of sanctions and other punitive measures such as disinvestment have not only been ineffective but actually counter-productive. Alan Paton, the author, said at the same time: A second and lesser reason for the recent election results in South Africa- the first being security concerns- was the ill-advised sanctions campaign of the West. Those remarks were made not by an extreme Afrikaner, a spokesman for the British Government or Margaret Thatcher but by Alan Paton, Helen Suzman and Chief Buthelezi. They are there. They speak with more authority, more feeling and more understanding. Instead of listening to this shrill, ill-advised campaign that is conducted on sanctions, I think that we would be reacting with a great deal more common sense on this subject if we understood that the case against sanctions is not so much that they do not have an effect but rather that they are having the wrong effects. The real tragedy of South Africa is that the more we drive the whites into isolation, the more we will drive them upon themselves. Those honourable members who believe the sanctions will work fail to understand the enormous military might of the whites and the enormous manic determination of many of those people to preserve their way of life, which I detest and do not support. My great fear is that this isolation process of the West will eventually bring about the very conflagration, the very bloodbath and the very reaction of a contained ghetto which down through the years have been the experience when men are treated in that fashion. I think the Government is hopelessly wrong and I think those who support sanctions, on whatever side of politics, are hopelessly wrong on this issue. I think that they will bring about the very tragedy that all of us hope will never occur in that country. The Prime Minister's statement dealt at very great length with trading matters. I return to what I said at the commencement of this speech: to the extent that the Prime Minister, in going to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade meeting, in talking to the United States and so forth, is arguing a case for freer trade, a better deal for our exporters and, to the extent that he is genuinely committed-and I hope his Government is-to the kind of staged reductions in industrial protection that he put on the table at the GATT meeting, he will have the support and the goodwill of the Liberal and National parties. Of all countries, none is more in need of a liberal trading environment than Australia. I know from my own experience some years ago, as Minister for Special Trade Negotiations, in dealing with the European Economic Community, that no group of countries over the years has been more insensitive in trading matters than the European Economic Community. The present Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) has not only my goodwill but also my sympathy in dealing with the countries of the European Economic Community. I say one other thing: when we are apportioning and balancing blame so far as trade matters are concerned, whilst, understandably and properly, we vent criticism and, on occasions, our spleen at the attitudes of the United States Congress and, perhaps, of the United States Administration, I believe that the real culprits in the agricultural protection issue are the members of the European Economic Community. I do not believe that they have made a serious attempt over the last 15 years to bring about any substantial dismantling of the protective barriers. Their predatory trading practices have, in large measure, provoked the reaction of the United States. I conclude by saying that whilst I unqualifiedly welcome the speech of the Prime Minister, because I believe it is important that the Prime Minister report to the Parliament on his visit, like the curate's egg, it was good in parts, but in many parts I found not only his policies to be misplaced and his explanations to be self-indulgent, but also his strategic vision absolutely absent. Sitting suspended from 6.33 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.00) —Before the debate was adjourned some hours ago I was concluding my remarks by asking the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for the reasons why the Government would not agree to what the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), has proposed, which is that the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill be referred to a committee set up by this Parliament so that it can be examined and that the committee have until June to report and that the Family Law Amendment Bill also be referred to the same committee and that the committee have one month to report. By that means the Government's legislation program and the Family Law Amendment Bill will be met because the legislation will then go to the Senate. If we do not use committees for Bills of this importance, what use are they? The Government set them up. Every honourable member knows that the Bills before the House are of profound importance to ordinary Australians because one-third of the marriages in this country ends up before the courts. If there were ever a case for sending Bills to a committee, these Bills are such a case. I therefore ask the Attorney-General, who I think takes a very sensible view about the use of Parliament's time, why these Bills should not be sent to a committee. If they were, we would have the opportunity, through the committee, of properly examining this legislation. Honourable members should bear this in mind: last week I tried to get hold of a copy of the Family Law Amendment Bill, which is over 40 pages long. A copy was not available. So I have seen it for the first time this week and almost everybody else is in the same position. Either we treat the Parliament as an important forum or we say, effectively, that it is not more than a place for grinding through legislation on a sausage machine basis. We either treat the committees as important, as having a real function, or we say, `These committees are so much window-dressing. They were set up for one reason only, and that was to appease some of the factional problems within the Australian Labor Party'. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(8.03) —I thank the Whip for allowing me to enter into this debate tonight on what I consider to be very important legislation. I also approach the Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill with a sense of sadness because I am in agreement with some of the comments that were made earlier in this debate by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster). He looked very closely at the breakdown that is occurring in society that has led to the need for legislation of this type to be put into the statutes. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) in his contribution a few moments ago alluded to the fact that it is a very sad state of affairs that the rate of marriage breakdown in the Australian community is not diminishing but increasing. At present something like two in every five marriages end in divorce. A very sad corollary of that fact is that currently more than 250,000 lone parents are on some sort of benefit attempting to care for 450,000 children. For most of these households, the pension or benefit is their only source of income. For years we have talked about Australia being a lucky country but we have to reflect upon the very sad fact that we have to have legislation that establishes precedents in the family law courts for people who, for one reason or another, suffer from family breakdown and who have no other recourse than to seek divorce. In marriages where there are children divorce obviously has lasting psychological and sociological effects, not only on the parents but also most certainly on the children of those marriages. What we have seen in society in recent times often is a reflection of that sad state of affairs. We have seen an increase in violence, particularly in child violence. Quite often this is a factor that has led to the necessity for divorce laws to be put in place, to enable people living in those horrendous conditions to get away from them. As I have indicated, it is my belief that the social and psychological scarring that emanates from that is very distressing. The high proportion of marriages throughout Australia ending in divorce has also meant the growth of an industry which, again, I would rather not see occur. I refer, of course, to the marriage counselling industry. In my area of the Illawarra, a number of these agencies have operated most effectively over a period of time. I am not suggesting for one moment that the work they do has in any way not been good or necessary; my concern is that that work has to be done because of the problems society has caused which have led to the breakdown in marriages and problems for children. There are a number of these marriage counselling services throughout the Illawarra region. I can understand that because of budgetary constraints and the broad fiscal concerns this Government has been faced with, unfortunately funding levels for some of these marriage counselling services have not been able to be sustained to the degree the services would want. That is one of the big problems we are facing. I know that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) shares the concerns I have because I have spoken with him at length on this issue. It is an unfortunate fact of life associated with the budgetary processes within government that the provision of certain services has been affected by the necessary decisions of government to prune expenditure across the board. Hopefully, in the future, there will be a reconsideration of funding for those services. I hope that the support of other members on both sides of the House might be forthcoming, as I know it is from the Attorney-General. One of our major concerns is that, with the number of marriages that end in divorce and the fact that 450,000 children may be affected because they have only a single parent, more than 70 per cent of parents no longer living with their children will not pay any regular form of maintenance. I commend the Attorney and this Government for taking the steps necessary to ensure that those children who are affected by these sorts of situations are catered for by this legislation. Not surprisingly, therefore, we find that sole parenting is becoming more and more recognised as the most serious poverty trap in our society. Following extensive consultation within the community the Government has devised a strategy for child support reform with the primary and overriding goal of lifting Australian children out of poverty, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated recently in the Government's policy speech. Given that inadequate support by non-custodial parents contributes to the poverty of their children and that it also contributes to the heavy demand on our social security system, the underlying concept of child support reform is that the responsibility of both parents to maintain a child takes priority over all the other commitments in terms of income. The House will be aware that, unfortunately, such a concept is novel for something like 70 per cent of non-custodial parents. I give one particular example, which ably illustrates the concern that I have here. Recently a situation was drawn to my attention where a professional person was contributing a pittance to the maintenance of his two teenage sons, who were living in a household largely dependent on a pension. This was because of a marriage breakdown. He justified his lack of financial support for his two children by arguing that he and his working second wife were paying off a house, a swimming pool, their cars and so on and could not afford the maintenance of his two children from his former marriage. I have listened to some of the arguments put by people, both in debate in the House today and in other forums, where people have argued that when marriages break down and remarriages occur, it should not necessarily be the responsibility of the new parents to pick up maintenance. There is some degree of truth in that, but there is also a very strong degree of truth in the fact that many parents simply walk away from their responsibilities for children of former marriages and are not prepared to pay any maintenance whatsoever. I conclude with what I began by saying: It is a sad reflection on Australian society today that legislation of this type is necessary. I would hope that all honourable members are concerned-obviously they are, from what has been said in the debate so far-about where Australian society is heading. There are no miracle cures for the problem of divorce in Australia, but as legislators we have to be sure that we are making allowances for those people who are affected by divorce, that we are making it as painless as we possibly can and that we are making adequate compensation available, particularly for the children of divorced parents. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(8.12) —The Opposition has moved an amendment on the grounds that we believe that the legislation should be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry, and we object to the way that this very important and complex legislation is being pushed through. No doubt it will go to the Senate, which will go through the procedure of referring it to a committee and the immense amount of work that it has before it will slow down the legislation. As the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), said, had we been returned to power in 1983, many of the things that are being implemented now would have been implemented some years ago. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in his second reading speech, said: The Bill makes substantial changes to the Family Law Act with respect to the maintenance of children. Further on he said: The Minister for Social Security said in his statement that the Government would consider changes to access laws and the enforcement of access orders after it received the reports to be made by the Family Law Council on access and the Law Reform Commission on contempt of court. Those reports have now been tabled in the Parliament and the Government will be assessing the public reaction to the reports. Further amendments may be made to the Family Law Act in the light of that consideration and of the Government's consideration of the separate report on matrimonial property by the Law Reform Commission. For starters, the Attorney-General said that the Government will be waiting for a public response on the two reports, one of which is Access-Some Options for Reform, a report hurriedly put together by the Family Law Council and its access sub-committee. That is a 40-page report and no doubt will sell for about $3, so it will be within the financial reach of most people. However, we have the other report on which the Attorney-General expects the public to comment and it has 642 pages. I know a lot of Australians have the capacity to lie awake in bed at night reading reports such as this, but most of them could not afford the $39.95 price. I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect, that to be waiting for public response to these reports is a little unrealistic. I suggest that the report by the Family Law Council titled Access-Some Options for Reform should be compulsory reading for every member of the Parliament. That does not mean that I agree with every recommendation it makes. The report canvasses, in a fairly substantial way, the problems which exist in the field of access. As we know, this legislation is an attempt to tighten up the laws covering maintenance. As an experienced politician I know that a considerable degree of seething unrest is displayed, particularly by males, on the question of access. The report by the Family Law Council goes to great lengths to say that maintenance and access should not be seen as one, but the reality of life is that it is often seen as a hand in hand affair. A lot of the avoidance of maintenance payments has arisen as a result of the antagonism and bitterness often displayed between parting couples when the custodial partner frustrates access provisions which may have been stamped with approval at the time of the dissolution of the marriage. Whilst the Law Council might go to great pains to try to emphasise the need to keep maintenance and access apart, I know that there are many parents-fathers in particular because they are the ones who seem to suffer in terms of access-who have been frustrated and locked out because of broken arrangements and their former spouse continuing to seek revenge. These people say, `To hell with it. If I'm not going to gain access to my kids, I'm not going to honour any maintenance obligations'. I am not for one moment suggesting that where there has been cruelty or abuse the person responsible should have the right to access. It is not a God-given right. Access is something that has to be decided by the courts because some people are simply unsuitable to be entrusted with children; they are cruel or have a history of sexual abuse. The question of access is almost a volcano in the community. It has been bubbling under the surface for a dozen years now and I do not think we can continue to ignore it. Even the Government's request to the Family Law Council to prepare a report was met with a qualification. The report states: The Council's committee was hampered in its enquiry by a lack of adequate research and statistical information relating to access to children in this country. The report goes on to say: The Council believes that action to rectify these deficiencies- meaning the lack of material that has been collated over the years- should be taken as a matter of urgency and has made many recommendations on it in the past together with statements in its Annual Reports about the inadequacies of Family Court statistics. I have known the Attorney-General for a long time and I have considerable respect for him. I ask him to go to Cabinet, as Deputy Prime Minister with all the persuasive power he possesses-when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is well again-and say to his colleagues that it is time we bit the access bullet. The situation is volcanic and if we continue to ignore it we will see more mass suicides and more murders and the judiciary will share the brunt of the ill-will existing in the community. I thank the Attorney-General for the courtesy he has extended to me in allowing me to speak tonight. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.20) —I thank the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for allowing me a few minutes indulgence in this matter. The changes proposed in the Family Law Amendment Bill are very far-reaching and affect an extremely complex and emotional area of the law. It is for this reason that the Opposition believes that greater discussion is essential on the many issues contained in the legislation which have been highlighted by my colleagues this evening. I, too, am concerned that the public and the Parliament have been given far too short a time to consider the ramifications of these most fundamental changes. As the Attorney-General is well aware, family law traditionally has been bipartisan. In fact, in many cases there has even been a free vote on these matters. Therefore, the Opposition believes that on issues of such fundamental importance as the difficulties which arise from breaches of marriages and the problems relating to the children of those marriages, the Parliament should have been much more involved in the examination of the implications of these proposals than has been the case. It is principally for that reason that we have moved the reference of this matter-which I support-to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to examine its full implications. The whole problem of breakdown of marriage and child maintenance, which is at the bottom of the amendments proposed, is of fundamental importance. There is an increasing number of single parent families and their poverty and the growth in government expenditure demand a fundamental reassessment of private and public roles in providing support for these families. As a proportion of all families in Australia, the number of sole parent families rose from 9 per cent in the mid-1970s to the current figure of 14 per cent. This was due in part to the increased number of divorces-39,417 cases in 1986. The proportion of sole parent families on social security has also risen, with the result that some 85 per cent, or 250,000 people, are now on pensions or benefits in this category. The expenditure estimate in the 1987-88 Budget for the widow's pension class A was $1,011.5m and that for the supporting parent's benefit has risen from $1,509.8m to a total, combining pensions in both class A and class B, to $2,521.3m. Obviously this is an extremely serious financial problem. For that reason the number of recipients of the supporting parent's benefit, which was introduced in 1974 and which then cost $40.6m, has escalated from 26,000 in that year to about 180,000 today. The evidence gained by various organisations and universities throughout Australia demonstrates clearly that many single parent families are living in poverty, with 15 per cent earning less than average weekly earnings. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Family Law Act reported in 1980 that a maximum of nearly 40 per cent of Australian maintenance orders were fully complied with and another 40 per cent were never paid at all. Statistics show that only 25 per cent of sole parents in receipt of pensions are receiving maintenance from the non-custodial parent. Therefore, for this reason the proposals in this Bill are of fundamental importance. We are telling the courts that it is now their responsibility to ensure that in the determination of maintenance orders they do not consider whether people have access to social security benefits. Over the years the evidence has been quite conclusive that because the courts have taken into account supplementary forms of finance, the effect has been that less pressure has been brought to bear on non-custodial parents, in particular, also to make a financial contribution to the maintenance of their children. The whole basis of this set of reforms, which, as my colleague the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) pointed out earlier, we agree with in principle, is to ensure that parents, irrespective of what the relationship may have been in the past, who have brought children into the world are responsible for their maintenance. To say, as so many have obviously done, having broken a marriage and having taken the approach that there has been a clean break-to use the expression which was rather familiar back in the 1970s-that that automatically entitles them to assume that they have no further financial responsibility whatsoever, is a view which the Opposition and, I presume the Government simply do not accept. That is one reason why this legislation and these amendments are being put forward this evening. In that particular context I should also pay tribute to the work of Senator Peter Durack whose own private member's Bill last year, and again quite recently, was really the basis of some of the reforms contained in this legislation. He not only referred to the first point which I have just made in relation to preventing the courts from taking account of access to benefits, but also he required that the courts should consider the costs of maintaining children. Again, that is a worthwhile reform contained in this legislation. The Institute of Family Studies claims that the costs of maintaining children today are in excess of $50, and yet the average maintenance rate, if I recall, is somewhere around $23. Clearly, therefore, there is a fundamental problem ahead of us as to how we are going to be able to get non-custodial parents to be prepared to bridge the difference between $23 and the actual cost of maintaining children. I have not the slightest doubt-no doubt the Minister has not either-that many people will be concerned about this and there will be various arguments as to their financial capacity to pay. For that reason one of the other very worthwhile amendments in this proposal is the introduction and the application in law of what are known as the principles outlined in the Mee v. Ferguson case. The substance of that particular case is very relevant in this case. That was simply because the judgment laid down that this Act now provides that non-custodial parents must put the financing of the welfare of their children over all other supplementary costs. All children, whether from a first or subsequent marriage, are to be treated equally for this particular exercise, but the need to maintain those children takes precedence. There have been cases before the courts involving the need to pay off loans on fast sports cars, bigger houses, yachts and goodness knows what else. The importance of this reform is that the court now knows quite categorically, as directed by Parliament, that the primary responsibility in the determination of maintenance will be that that financial responsibility takes first priority over all others. That is something which the Opposition strongly supports. The fact of the matter is that at present one-third of marriages in Australia are failing. I think one has to ask whether it is adequate for us simply to put so many resources and so much effort into trying to make a family law system work when so many people, especially those who have gone through the courts, clearly find that it is deficient. I think we need to ask through this Parliament some very basic questions: for example, whether we should not be requiring greater consideration by potential married couples of the responsibilities of marriage. We have in law at the moment that under the banns of marriage concept there must be a delay of a month before the marriage can actually be carried through. One would suggest perhaps that while it is not practicable to talk about a compulsory system of counselling, nevertheless there is, quite clearly, a need for people from the time they are at school onwards-I do not think that is too early-to start to realise that it is no good going into marriage expecting that it will be the key to nirvana. Marriage, like any other contract in this world, needs two parties and they have got to work very hard at it to make it successful. I think there is a tendency to believe that marriage is easy to get into and there is a perception that it is equally easy to get out of. I think more effort needs to be made at the initial stage to make sure that prior to marriage people are much more aware of the implications of the decisions they are taking and that they are also aware of the legal constraints which will be upon them in terms of what their responsibilities will be for the maintenance of the children of that marriage. These are fundamentally important questions. Australia now has a birth rate of 0.8 per cent. In other words, we are not able even to keep up with our death rate. Yet we talk about a nation with a future. If it were not for immigration, the Australian population would be going backwards. One of the fundamental reasons for the institution of marriage is not just friendship and the association between man and woman but the mechanism by which it is possible to bring children into the world and give them a reasonable status. Whether the relationship be de facto or de jure is a wider issue. The fundamental concern of this Parliament must be that we should not take legislation such as this purely in vacuo. It is not just a case of amending an existing Act, whatever its weaknesses may be. There is a need to look more deeply at the fundamental problems facing marriage today. Why are so many families breaking up? What are the impacts on those children? What will be the ultimate social cost to this nation because of the failure of those marriages? Above all, what can we do through our social and economic policies, as well as through legal legislation such as the Family Law Act, to try to build an environment in which more marriages will succeed and, consequently, more children will be able to live in a happy and economically secure environment? As I said earlier, the biggest weakness in the Family Law Act today is that over 230,000 Australian children are now living either on or below the poverty line. We cannot allow that situation to continue. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford Smith-Attorney-General)(8.32) —I thank all honour- able members for their contributions to the debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 and the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1987. It has been a debate of some length. Fifteen members have spoken. They have all mentioned the problems of the family and the problem of divorce, which is what this legislation basically is about. Many of the good speeches have been about preserving the family, but we have to have law for divorce. I do not want to criticise anybody who has spoken, but this is not the first time it has been suggested that family law legislation be sent to a committee. There was such a committee, the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) was Chairman of it. I was on it. We sat for some time. We were looking at the problems of the Family Court of Australia. We furnished a report in 1980. It was able to identify some of the problems. This evening we are in unanimity on the question of maintenance. It became very clear in those days that something had to be done. In 1980 the Committee recommended that something be done about maintenance. I say with the greatest of humility that I suggested to the Committee that one way to enforce maintenance orders would be through the tax deduction system. That may be introduced soon. I do not want it to be thought that anybody is criticising Senator Durack. We are not. It was felt early in the 1980s that something had to be done. As the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has just said-it may have been the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson)-over 220,000 people now receive some form of supporting parent's benefit. The statistics are not quite accurate. Some of those people are widows and, therefore, they should not be part of that total. But it is clear that about nine-tenths of them should. Is it any wonder that the Committee of which I was a member started to take interest in the matter? We were sitting during 1979. The cost had escalated by that stage from about $500m to $900m. I say to the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who is handling this matter on a non-party basis, that it was very obvious to me, even when I was in opposition, that something had to be done because, as I said, the figure had risen by then to $900m and was escalating. We were making recommendations on that basis. With the greatest of respect, by 1983-the dear old government of the day had been in office since 1975-the figure had gone up to $1,500m. We did not see any legislation, though, because the problem is difficult. But it is not a new problem. It is not a matter that needs to go to another committee which will say, `My God, what are we going to do now?'. Honourable members might not have known that somebody in the Department of Social Security produced a guideline so that we would not need to ask an applicant whether efforts had been made to collect maintenance. That was a real weakness. We do not need a committee to do that. I can tell honourable members now that that guideline has been removed. In future, any applicant will be asked, `What about pursuing the maintenance route first?'. It was not habit. It was deemed to be out of fashion, even though that obligation was in the Social Security Act. I am saying to all honourable members, `We have not handled the passing of laws in this matter too well in this Parliament'. Even though we knew about the great leakage in the maintenance area we still have not done anything about it. This is not a criticism but it is not much good for honourable members opposite to suggest that a distinguished senator thought of it only recently. It was thought of in 1979 and 1980, a report was made and nothing was done. So it is unfair for the rest of the taxpayers to have to be weighing in $1.7 billion. Honourable members all agree that this is a good approach. For the first time now there has been some suggestion that there should be support for dependants and this is what this legislation is about. I say that to honourable members with the greatest of confidence and I am sure that they will appreciate what I am saying. The big problem here this evening is that we are all agreeing on something but honourable members opposite are saying, `We still want to take it away and have a look at it'. Mr Reith —We just want to read it. It is not asking for the world. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —With great respect, the worthy honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) had no difficulty comprehending within a week any legislation I introduced here and he did a brilliant job with it. I do not want to criticise the honourable member for Flinders, but he had not only the week but also my staff for four hours. If he does not understand the legislation now he should listen to me. We can encompass this debate very quickly this evening. We all know that there has been a massive haemorrhage in the maintenance area and nobody has done a thing about it until now. That is the important thing. Mr McGauran —It is a long time coming. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I agree; since 1978. How about that? The next question is a reference of powers. The distinguished honourable member for Dundas got up and said, `It must go to a committee because, obviously, if it has been simmering for 11 years, it must be important. Because it has taken 11 years to get here we had better have another look at it'. The reason it took 11 years to get here is that the States would not give it to us. In 1975-76 I was at a constitutional convention where we passed motions stating this very fundamental thing: `Why can we not look after ex-nuptial children that are part of a marriage partnership, even though they are not necessarily the children of both partners?'. Do honourable members think the States will give us that power? Even now I can get it from only four States. So what is the great concern about the 11 years? The concern is that the States will not hand over the power. In Queensland we have the ridiculous situation where an unfortunate child, who is not part of a marriage, cannot be dealt with under the Family Law Act. Tonight nobody is criticising the fact that at least some States have shown an initiative. I want to congratulate the Tasmanian Attorney-General. At least he has said, `Let us be sensible about this thing'-that is, the reference of powers. Those are the two fundamental matters. When some of the speeches that were made with a fair amount of eloquence go over the air waves it will cause no end of trouble to this poor unfortunate Court. I am not criticising honourable members but it has been said that the Court is a failure and there is something wrong with it. These judges who have had to bear the brunt of this for 11 years were established in premises that most often were not courts. I have had to build courts in Parramatta, Brisbane and Newcastle in a very short time. I am trying to get a site in Sydney. Honourable members may ask why. It is because people from the Sydney Court have been out in the street 25 times this year because of bomb threats. As honourable members know, one judge has been murdered and the wife of another judge has been murdered. We have this enormous heat where everybody who goes into the building obviously is concerned about this issue which all honourable members have identified; that is, the anger and revenge of dissolution. Everyone who goes into these buildings is body searched. It is costing millions of dollars for security. There is no need for honourable members to tell these judges that they are failures. They are not real happy about it. They are sitting in premises that are not good; the staff are threatening strikes. Honourable members opposite have to recognise the fact that at least these members of the legal profession have accepted the difficulty of being Family Court judges and are working very hard indeed in this very difficult jurisdiction. To their credit-and this applies to the counsellors as well-94 per cent of people dealt with solve their own troubles. We are dealing with the remaining 6 per cent. So there is not a failure in terms of what we are trying to do for people. The problem is that some people, in their own terms, will not accept the fact that there will be a breakup of the marriage on terms that are unacceptable to them. They will accept a breakup if they get the children and the property; they will not accept it any other way. Honourable members opposite have identified this problem. We in this Parliament passed the Family Law Act on a non-party basis. We took the approach that if there is a breakdown one files for a dissolution-and that is what people do. So, in my view, the concept of family in respect of the Family Court has misled these people; it is the divorce court and the document has been filed. But some people do not understand that. They may hold the view that, if someone has left them and they feel they have done nothing wrong, they should get the children and the house. That is where the anger builds up. They do not understand our view of the law-that one party can say that a marriage has broken down and therefore there will be a separation. They will not accept that. That is why we have all the anger and heat. I will tell honourable members my own point of view. I think it would be an excellent idea if before too long we set up mediation centres to which these parties go along and first discuss their problems and then file for dissolution. I am impressed with Noble Park-which I have seen once-because it is attached to a court, Dandenong Court. If we want to talk about what we should be doing in the future, perhaps we ought to be saying: `Before you start your dissolution, let us get you to a mediation centre where there could be some marriage guidance or discussion as to what will happen with the children. You will talk across a table. You will not have this problem of having to litigate the situation-of getting in the witness box and being examined and cross-examined while the lawyers are there using their skills'. This litigation does not help these people. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with only 6 or 7 per cent of people, I think this idea has a lot of merit and it will save us a lot of money. It will take money to establish these centres, but I would think that that would be a much more constructive position to take the heat off these judges. Honourable members opposite should not regard them as failures. We would be the failures if, while talking about families, we were not able to understand what a family needs when it is under pressure-and it does not need litigation. It needs conciliation and mediation. Maybe we could get the marriage guidance groups to join in the mediation centres so that people could go there at an early stage and talk about their problems. I think that is the point. We could talk here about this legislation until we are blue in the face about this. I just want to say this: it is also known-and this is no criticism of the present judges-that the most talented members of the legal profession will go nowhere near being appointed to the Family Court because they regard it as having no more law in it. They will not be saddled with this threat to their lives or those of their families by people who feel that they have not had justice. The whole concept has lost its importance in the minds of some people with marriage problems; they think the Family Court in somewhere they can go and have a discussion-and it is not; it is the divorce court. What we are doing tonight is really non-contentious. Honourable members opposite all agree with the fact that we are going to collect maintenance from those who should pay. Surely they would all agree that the ex-nuptial child should be dealt with-- Mr Spender —What about the presumption? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will save the best until last. The point I want to make is this: I was anxious to lift the status of this Court. I have spent an enormous amount of time talking to the Federal Court of Australia judges about whether there could be a meld. They say no, for reasons that we will not go into at any length here, but they are concerned about having judges who can cope with a number of other matters. Honourable members opposite know that as well as I do. So this Court has been orphaned off; it is subject to all the abuse and all the wrong media. It is working very hard indeed in an area that is a no-win situation. I can understand why the judges are concerned and why the legal profession does not want to be involved. If we give the judges an additional jurisdiction, such as bankruptcy, taxation or trade practices, which is remitted by the Federal Court, some of the judges would say `I'd love it' and some would say `I can't do it; I'm no good at that'. That is fine, it would not go to those who cannot do it. But at least it would be a start in giving the Family Court status somewhere near that of the Federal Court so it is not deemed to be something that is so inferior, because it is deemed to be a failure-though it is not-that nobody wants to be associated with it. That is the rationale behind trying to say, `If we can get the right sort of people on the Bench, people with wider skills, they will do first-class Federal Court work'. The Federal Court is a top court. It is one of the best courts in Australia. That is because of the people on the Bench and the way in which they are able to handle the business. The Jackson report on the Australian Judicial System-Jackson was a member of the Federal Court at the time-talked about renovating the Court, building it up and making it acceptable in terms of it being able to do other work. A lot of progress has been made in educating people to look after their own troubles. Figures which I have before me show that in 1986 about 33 per cent of people appearing before the Court appeared for themselves. That was a good effort. They did not need the lawyers; they had probably solved most of their troubles. That is the way the Western Australian Family Court operates. Mr Justice Barblett uses the concept of pre-trial conferences. About 60 per cent of people before the Court in Western Australia appear in person. The other point I make is that if two parties can solve their troubles, they should be dealt with speedily rather than being put to the difficulty of having to file documents and wait their turn in the problem areas which I have outlined-such as being searched as they enter the premises. Why should they go through all that when the matter could be dealt with by consent at the court of summary jurisdiction? Such a system would also give people in the bush a chance to have their matter dealt with more quickly as they would not have to wait for the often infrequent circuit court sittings. It has been said, quite unfairly, that magistrates are the lowest card in the pack and why would we let people go to a magistrate. Let us look at the work that the magistrate is now doing. He or she is dealing with 85 per cent of all maintenance cases now, as well as domestic violence cases. He or she deals with all the issues-- Mr Reith —Paternity. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, even paternity. We should not be saying that the magistrates court is the wrong place to go. Magistrates might have more knowledge of a particular family than anyone else. For instance, a magistrate could have dealt with a family in cases involving domestic violence, truancy, juvenile delinquency, interim maintenance and even interim custody. Surely he should be able to deal with these matters when the parties say, `We are happy about the situation; we merely want to put evidence before you that there has been an irretrievable breakdown'. I do not know that magistrates would want to take on that jurisdiction readily, but if it is able to be arranged with the States why should they not do so? They are doing so now; they are dealing with most maintenance cases. I thank honourable members for their contributions. The honourable member for North Sydney, as usual, raised a couple of interesting matters. I am happy to say that I think we have an answer for him which probably he will not be too happy about. The honourable member gave the example of a man who had cohabited with a woman for 10 months before the birth of a child, but the woman's subsequent cohabitation with a different man led to the conception of a child and the first man thought that it was not right that he be presumed to be the father. I know that the honourable member is a married man and understands all the problems, but they tell me that sometimes people get the dates wrong. I know that the honourable member's precise legal mind says `You can't have a variation in this', but you can. Somebody might muck up the first day and, also, a baby might not readily come down at the time one wants it to come down. Sometimes babies delay their arrival for four weeks. If the honourable member has that right, we have solved the problem. Mr Reith —Tell him to stick to the law, hey! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, it would be better to stick to the law. The honourable member for North Sydney also raised the issue of a conscientious objection to undergoing a medical test procedure. I am advised that under proposed new section 66w (5), the court may draw inferences from the failure to undertake a medical procedure. The court is also able to accept other evidence which would refute any such inference that may be drawn from the failure to undertake the medical procedure. This evening I have been trying to approach this matter on a non-party basis. If anybody ever wants the job of Attorney-General, I will tell him that he will spend most of his time dealing with issues relating to the Family Law Act and the problems of the Family Law Court. This is not because there is anything wrong with what we have, but because it is not complete enough. What we have is not complete enough when we look at it from the point of view of custody in particular. It might be far better if the issue of custody were continually reviewed by some sort of group that would determine whether a child is neglected, and that has happened. Sometimes when judges are forced into making a decision they can make it the wrong way. Problems can be caused if a party tries to beat the system by moving the children to another State. I think we can solve the problems in respect of maintenance if this legislation is passed and enforced. In terms of custody, I remember a High Court judge saying that it is always interesting that the people who fight the hardest are the ones who love their children the most. They fight because they do not want to part with them. Luckily the children grow up and make their own decisions. But we are dealing with a small group of 6 or 7 per cent. This legislation will certainly help the court and it will not hinder the litigants. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Attorney's time has expired. Mr Donald Cameron —Give him a few more minutes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It has been suggested that the Minister's time be extended. Mr Lionel Bowen —I think I have spoken for long enough. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I must say that I echo what was said by the Opposition. It was a most interesting speech. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(8.54) —I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by June 1988'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Donald Cameron —I second the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. (Quorum formed) Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(8.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 22 September 1987 I released the guidelines to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) for 1988. The Commission responded with detailed recommendations on higher education. I now table the Commission's report Higher Education Recommendations for 1988. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987 has been prepared following consideration of the Commission's recommendations. It also gives effect to the Government's Budget decisions on Commonwealth assistance for technical and further education (TAFE) in 1988. The purpose of the Bill is to provide the legislative basis for the distribution of Commonwealth funds for tertiary education in the States and the Northern Territory for 1988. A total of $2,708.1m will be legislated for. As I explained to the House when I delivered my statement on higher education on 22 September, the Government is treating 1988 as a year outside the normal funding process. This deferment of the next funding triennium will enable the Government to reassess the overall direction of higher education policy and to develop new funding programs to take effect from the beginning of the 1989 academic year. The Bill provides $2,423.8m for the higher education sector for 1988. This represents an increase of 2 per cent in real terms on the previous year. The allocation of additional resources reflects the Government's resolve to increase participation, particularly among young people, and to make the higher education system more responsive to the needs of the national economy. The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendations on the detailed allocation of student places and financial resources with one exception. The Commission had recommended that planning funds be provided in 1988 for the proposed relocation of the Sydney College of the Arts and the rationalisation of facilities at the Western Australian College of Advanced Education and the University of Western Australia. However, this recommendation made no provision for a firm forward commitment of funds against these projects. The Government agrees that these projects should proceed and they will be supported within the future Commonwealth capital programs. In these circumstances, the $500,000 `planning' funds recommended by CTEC will not be required and will be used to support a student residence project at the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, which is important for future student growth. Key features of the allocation of higher education funds for 1988 are: An additional $23m in general recurrent grants to fund an extra 3,500 to 4,000 intakes for school leavers; An increase in capital grants of $12m to allow for the continuation of 35 projects and the commencement of 13 new major works projects; An additional $3m in equipment grants; The redirection of $5m from general recurrent grants to universities to fund an expansion of special research centres and key centres of teaching and research as well as targeted research activities in the advanced education sector; and Unallocated amounts totalling $42.7m for equity projects, superannuation and the special assistance scheme for students to be distributed after further advice from CTEC. In arriving at its funding decisions for 1988 the Government has been conscious also of the need for effective forward planning of physical facilities to support expected future growth in enrolments. Accordingly, since the Budget, it has examined further the likely capital needs of higher education over the next few years, and decided that the higher level of capital funding approved for 1988 should be maintained into 1989 and 1990. This measure will not only add significantly to the funds available for new capital projects in 1989 and 1990, but should also assist institutions in the longer-term planning of their future capital programs. Subject to appropriate agreements with the States concerned, the two projects deferred from the 1988 capital program recommended by CTEC will have first call upon the additional capital funds to be made available in 1989. Further commitments against these funds will be made during 1988 following completion of the Government's Policy Discussion Paper on Higher Education and the satisfactory resolution of the issues raised in the paper. The Bill also provides $284.3m for expenditure on TAFE programs. As announced in Skills for Australia, the Government believes that considerable restructuring of Commonwealth grants for TAFE is required to meet a number of objectives, including: Further increases in vocational education and training and an expansion of total training capacity; Improvements in the relevance of TAFE provision; Productivity improvements and efficiency gains in the use of existing resources; Greater industry involvement in TAFE; An enhancement of the labour market prospects of the unemployed and other disadvantaged groups, especially among the young. Under new funding arrangements set out in this Bill to apply from 1 January 1988, the Government will continue to place a strong emphasis on the national development of technical and further education, through both an infra- structure and a general recurrent program. The existing capital grants, special equipment and minor works and equipment for traineeships programs will be combined into a single TAFE infrastructure program. An amount of $174.8m is provided for this purpose in 1988. The existing fees reimbursement and designated purpose recurrent grants are largely replaced by a general recurrent program which will be subject to resource agreements with the States covering: A commitment to pursue improvements in productivity in 1988; Agreed target growth rates in designated courses of high priority to meet skill shortages, equity objectives, or of strategic importance to future economic development; and Changes in administrative arrangements to enable TAFE colleges to retain revenues from entrepreneurial effort. An amount of $103.1m is provided under this program in 1988. Achievements against program objectives will be subject to regular monitoring and evaluation. The level of funds to be provided to the States for TAFE in 1989 and future years under the general recurrent program will be dependent on achievements in 1988, particularly in relation to productivity. Three existing special purpose programs for which funds are currently available under the designated grants programs are to be maintained. Grants for advanced English language courses for migrants will continue to be administered by the Commonwealth, as will the allowance paid to participants in such courses. Grants for adult literacy and for non-government adult education will be maintained and rolled in with funding to be allocated under the national language policy for adult literacy purposes. A total of $6.4m is provided for these programs in 1988. The processes of allocating these grants will be reviewed during the year. The Bill also provides for continuing Commonwealth assistance to non-government business colleges. This Bill gives effect to the Government's decision to permit a limited relaxation of the prohibition on fees in higher education and TAFE in 1988 and beyond. Higher education institutions will be able to seek my approval to charge fees for specialised post-graduate award courses catering for students already in employment who are seeking to upgrade their vocational skills and income. The Government's decision has been taken in response to requests from sections of the higher education community itself and there will be no compulsion on institutions to charge these fees for these courses. The revenue raised by this measure will be retained by the institutions concerned, and the Commonwealth will not reduce its grants on account of revenue generated from these fees. Institutions will also be able to exempt certain students or categories of student from the payment of the fees. Similarly, the relaxation of the TAFE fees prohibition is not intended to affect the great majority of TAFE courses which involve the initial acquisition of skills by young people. It is intended to apply to courses undertaken for the purpose of upgrading skills and income by students well established in employment. The aim of this new provision is to provide a further basis for industry and individual contributions without threat to the public financing of TAFE. The Government will not reduce the level of the general recurrent grants on account of any fees revenue generated under these arrangements. Incorporated in the Bill are the changes made to the higher education administration charge which were announced in the Budget. The categories of needy students exempt from the charge have been extended. These further exemptions cover almost 9,000 students, which will bring to around 139,000, or almost 35 per cent, the number of students who will be exempt from, or reimbursed for, the charge in 1988. The Bill has been tightened to make students withdrawing from a course after teaching has commenced liable for the charge. In line with the Government's commitment not to increase the charge beyond the effects of inflation, the charge will rise from $250 to $263 in 1988. In its latest report CTEC has reiterated its views on a number of topical issues in higher education, including those publicised in its recent Press release on portfolio advisory arrangements and structures. The Government's position on these issues was set out in my statement of 15 October 1987 announcing the findings of the task force chaired by Mr Charles Halton. As I foreshadowed at that time, an extensive process of consultation is now under way with interested parties, and I expect to announce final decisions on the new advisory framework towards the end of the year. The Government welcomes the very positive reaction to its proposals to date and notes that the views expressed in the CTEC report are sharply at odds with majority opinion. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(9.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 to adjust for cost movements in tertiary education grants to the States and the Northern Territory. The principal Act provides grants to the States and the Northern Territory for tertiary institutions for the 1985-87 triennium. The Bill will adjust recurrent grants from preliminary end March 1987 prices for university academic salaries and actual end March 1987 cost levels for the advanced education and technical and further education (TAFE) sectors to the end of June quarter 1987 prices in accordance with the Government's agreed procedures to make retrospective adjustments for cost variations. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $3m, made up of increases of $4.1m in grants for universities and intersectoral purposes in higher education, offset by reductions totalling $1.1m in grants for advanced education and TAFE. The latter reductions result from the final non-salaries index for 1987 being lower than the preliminary index used when the relevant grants were last supplemented. The Bill also accommodates changes necessary to transfer responsibility for administration of the Act from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to the Department of Employment, Education and Training. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(9.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian National University Act 1946 to enable the university to operate on an equal footing with institutions in the States consequent upon the proposed changes under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987. This Bill will enable the Australian National University to apply for a limited relaxation of the prohibition on fees for specialised postgraduate award courses catering for students already in employment who are seeking to upgrade their vocational skills and income. The Bill will also permit the introduction of changes to the higher education administration charge. From 1988 the categories of student exempt from the charge will be extended and students withdrawing from a course after teaching has commenced will be liable for the charge. In line with the Government's commitment not to increase the charge beyond the effects of inflation the charge will rise from $250 to $263 in 1988. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(9.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967 to enable the college to operate on an equal footing with institutions in the States consequent upon the proposed changes under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987. This Bill will enable the Canberra College of Advanced Education to apply for a limited relaxation of the prohibition on fees for specialised post-graduate award courses catering for students already in employment who are seeking to upgrade their vocational skills and income. The Bill will also permit the introduction of changes to the higher education administration charge. From 1988 the categories of student exempt from the charge will be extended and students withdrawing from a course after teaching has commenced will be liable for the charge. In line with the Government's commitment not to increase the charge beyond the effects of inflation the charge will rise from $250 to $263 in 1988. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(9.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Maritime College Act 1978 to enable the College to operate on an equal footing with institutions in the States consequent upon the proposed changes under the States Grants (Tertiary Assistance) Bill 1987. This Bill will enable the Maritime College to apply for a limited relaxation of the prohibition of fees for specialised post-graduate award courses catering for students already in employment who are seeking to upgrade their vocational skills and income. The Bill will also permit the introduction of changes to the higher education administration charge. From 1988 the categories of student exempt from the charge will be extended and students withdrawing from a course after teaching has commenced will be liable for the charge. In line with the Government's oft-stated commitment not to increase the charge beyond the effects of inflation the charge will rise from $250 to only $263 in 1988. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(9.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purposes of this Bill are to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984 to implement decisions in the recent Budget on Commonwealth programs for schools in 1988 and to supplement for cost increases grants already appropriated for schools programs. There are detailed appropriations in the Bill for specific purpose and capital programs for government and non-government schools in each State and the Northern Territory. The principal Act already contains the per capita grants under the general recurrent program for government and non-government schools for the period 1985-88. This comprehensive long term program continues to provide authorities with stability and security in the planning of school operations. Most programs are being maintained at the same real level as in 1987 while a few will increase in real terms. The general recurrent grants program will increase by an estimated 4.8 per cent in real terms to $1,339m. The per capita amount for the new arrivals element of the English as a second language program has been doubled and the special education program will receive an additional $0.7m in 1988 for the support services element. Funding of the participation and equity program and basic learning in primary schools program will not continue beyond the end of 1987 in accordance with the period set for those programs. The Bill also provides for the full implementation of block grant funding arrangements under the non-government schools element of the capital grants program. The legislation was amended earlier this year to provide for the approval of block grant authorities. These amendments will enable capital grants for non-government schools in 1988 and subsequent years to be allocated as a block grant for distribution by approved block grant authorities. Block grant arrangements, by providing greater involvement by school authorities in the delivery of the capital grants program, offer an enhanced capacity for the achievement of Commonwealth objectives. The Government is not, however, forcing schools to join block grant authorities. Non-government schools which do not wish to participate in block funding arrangements will be able to compete for funds from a national pool in a similar way to existing arrangements. There are also several amendments of a minor nature. Firstly, benefits under the English as a second language program and ethnic schools program are being restricted to students having permanent resident status. Established administrative practice has restricted benefits in that way but an amendment is required to put beyond doubt the authority for doing so. Secondly, an amendment provides for the inclusion in the Act of a definition of a `full fee paying private overseas secondary student' that had been made by regulation. Definition by regulation was an interim arrangement pending full incorporation in the Act. The financial impact of this Bill will be to appropriate an estimated $1739m for 1988 programs and an additional $9m for 1987 programs. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(9.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983 to adjust for cost movements the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the participation and equity program for 1987. The Bill provides new schedules for 1987 showing the allocation of funds to the States and the Northern Territory, and to the education sectors. The cost adjustments proposed are in accord with the Government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost adjustments for this program. They are consistent with adjustments being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bills, which are also before the House today. The financial impact of this Bill will be to provide an additional $109,000 in 1987. Total provision for the participation and equity program is $45,928,000 in 1987. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on the motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(9.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1987 seeks to amend the Student Assistance Act 1973, which is the legislative basis for the provision of student assistance under Austudy and for the grant of post-graduate awards. The proposed amendment to section 10 of the Act relates to the range of institutions at which courses are approved for Austudy. Approved institutions currently include secondary schools, technical and further education colleges, colleges of advanced education, universities and a limited number of tertiary institutions in the private sector providing courses funded by the Commonwealth. These private tertiary institutions mainly comprise denominational teacher training colleges and certain business colleges. The Bill responds to a decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Darwin earlier this year, in a certain case, which established that students attending the University College of the Northern Territory could be regarded, for Austudy purposes, as undertaking study at the University of Queensland-by virtue of an agreement between the two institutions under which the university, for a fee, allows the college to teach the university's courses. The amendment is needed because the wide interpretation the Court has given to section 10 opens the way to a range of wholly private institutions-including private universities, academies of dance and art, cooking schools, chiropractic colleges, receptionist and beauty colleges and non-approved business colleges-to gain access to Austudy contractually, by-passing ministerial screening. The decision also enables those private sector institutions that have gained Austudy approval for certain of their courses to expand their Austudy offering. Section 10 allows the Minister discretion to approve or revoke approval of courses. The proposed amendment will allow a further discretion to determine the particular institutions in the private sector which are not appropriate institutions for Austudy purposes. The discretion would be exercised where institutions that have made contractual arrangements seek Austudy approval of a course. It is not intended that this discretion should be exercised so as to deny Austudy to students who currently benefit under contractual arrangements. Students at the University College of the Northern Territory will not therefore be affected. An amendment is being sought to the Student Assistance Regulations to classify the college as a `university' for the purposes of the Act, thus allowing the college equal standing with universities in the States, and the right to seek Austudy approval of any course that it may wish to offer independent of the University of Queensland. Where teaching arrangements are shared between public-funded and private institutions, it will continue to be possible for the courses concerned to be considered for Austudy assistance. Non-government secondary schools will not be affected, since those that currently have State or Territory teaching certification are, and will continue to be, approved for Austudy in their own right. As the law now stands, an ever-increasing flow of Austudy funds into private sector tertiary institutions must be expected. Although the financial implications for the Commonwealth are not at this stage quantifiable, they will become significant. The proposed amendment is needed to restore to the Commonwealth the right to determine those institutions where Austudy should be provided and to maintain existing Austudy policy that limits the provision of Austudy to students undertaking courses that are wholly or substantially funded from public sources, whether Commonwealth, State or Territory. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the first report of the Committee entitled Improved Opportunities for Private Members: Proposed Sessional Orders, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MOUNTFORD —by leave-This report, the first report of the Procedure Committee for the Thirty-fifth Parliament, recommends the adoption of sessional orders which will have a significant effect on the House and will substantially enhance the role of private members. In particular, the sessional orders proposed provide for: The allocation of at least 1 1/2 hours to private members' business every Thursday morning; A grievance debate of 1 1/4 hours be held every Thursday; The allocation of 15 minutes to members' 90-second statements each Thursday; Revised procedures for the presentation of petitions; and The allocation of a set time for the presentation and consideration of parliamentary committee and delegation reports. There are other proposals that I will refer to shortly but, first, let me refer briefly to the background to the proposals. In May 1986 the Procedure Committee's second report, Days and hours of sitting and the effective use of the time of the House, was presented to the House. A motion to take note of the report was debated in November 1986 and, following discussion with the Committee earlier this year, the Leader of the House (Mr Young) tabled the Government's response to the second report on 15 September. The Government accepted some of the recommendations of the second report, accepted some with modifications and rejected others. This, the report I have just tabled, recommends that the House adopt a set of sessional orders prepared within the framework of the Government's response to the earlier report. The most significant recommendations concern an altered routine of business on Thursday mornings. I draw the attention of honourable members to the diagram at page 8 of the report which sets out the proposed routine of business from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. each Thursday. The routine, following prayers, is the presentation of petitions, the presentation and consideration of committee and delegation reports, private members' business, grievance debate and members' statements. Petitions It is proposed that the announcement of petitions lodged for presentation be made on Thursdays only. The announcement will include the aggregate number of signatories to each petition and it will be the responsibility of each member to certify the numbers of signatures contained in the petition. There are a number of other changes proposed to the petitions procedure and I direct the attention of honourable members to the detailed notes in Appendix I of the report. Committee and Delegation Reports As recommended by the Committee in its report into days and hours of sitting, it is proposed that a set time be set aside each week for the presentation and consideration of committee and parliamentary delegation reports. It is proposed that, following the presentation of petitions each Thursday, this item of business will have precedence up until 11 a.m. The order of presentation and consideration will be determined by the proposed selection committee and members presenting reports and one other committee or delegation member will be accorded priority in making statements. Following the presentation of reports orders of the day for the consideration of reports presented earlier will be called upon for consideration. Should there be a limited number of reports or no reports set down for presentation and consideration, the House would proceed to private members' business. Private Members' Business The most significant changes proposed are the improved procedures for private members' business. These are the ones that will be of interest to honourable members. Private members will be allocated 1 1/2 hours every sitting Thursday for consideration of motions and Bills. This compares very favourably to the 1 hour 15 minutes currently allocated to General Business each alternate Thursday. The order and timetabling of business will be determined by a selection committee composed of 11 backbench members who, it is proposed, will be experienced members who enjoy the confidence of their peers. The general principles the selection committee adopts for the according of priority to items of business will be subject to adoption by the House and it is proposed that the order of precedence and times allotted to debate on each item will be published on the Notice Paper on the first sitting of each week. For the information of members, the selection criteria adopted by the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Private Members' Business is appended to the report. It may well be that certain motions will be allotted only limited time for debate and this could well be in accord with the wishes of the sponsor and the House generally. Other motions or Bills may be debated over a number of Thursdays. Could I point out that if a Bill passes the second reading it is proposed that the remaining stages will take precedence over other private members' business. For the purpose of these sessional orders a private member is any member other than a Minister and the Speaker. As explained in the report, this Committee expects that the general principles adopted by the selection committee for the allocation of precedence will include the principles that priority be allocated in accordance with party strength and that the Opposition executive or any individuals do not dominate. In other words, the Opposition executive will just have to take its chances with the rest of us. Details of the procedures are set out in the report but could I point out that one provision novel to this chamber is the proposal that divisions called for in the House, unless upon a motion moved by a Minister, will stand postponed until 12.30 p.m. It is hoped that this provision will enable members and Ministers to plan their Thursday morning duties knowing that they will have a division free morning. Another provision that is novel to this chamber is contained in sessional order 102d. The Committee was concerned that members rising on controversial yet legitimate issues might be subjected to disruptive tactics. It is therefore proposed that the Chair be given certain discretionary powers to deal with these situations. Grievance Debate and Members' Statements At the suggestion of the Government, grievance debate has been retained and it is now proposed that it be held every sitting Thursday rather than on alternate Thursdays, as is the current practice. Again, this is a significant gain for private members. Members' statements will be called on following the conclusion of grievance debate and will conclude prior to Question Time at 2 o'clock. The practice of members having the opportunity to make short statements to the House for a set time each sitting has been a feature of the proceedings of the Canadian House of Commons since 1982. I trust that the procedure will be as popular here as it is in Canada. It is proposed that members may make statements for not more than 90 seconds on matters of concern and importance during the 15-minute period prior to Question Time. The Committee's views on the operation of the procedure are set out in detail in the report. In its recommendations, the Committee has proposed that the revised procedures for Thursday mornings operate from the second sitting week of 1988. It is therefore proposed that the selection committee be established quickly to enable this to occur. Matters of Public Importance and Reading Speeches There are recommendations in this report to alter the public importance procedure and to reimpose a prohibition on reading speeches in the House as earlier recommended by the Committee. In its response the Government stated it was not opposed to the altered procedures for matters of public importance but would be influenced by the Opposition's reaction to the proposal. The Government considers the question of reading speeches to be one on which members should be free to express an opinion. The Committee of the last Parliament believed that the prohibition on reading speeches would improve the standard of debate in the House. In the sessional order proposed there are certain exceptions to the rule and I direct members' attention to these in proposed sessional order 62. The Government has made it clear to the Procedure Committee that the implementation of the changes will be on trial and subject to review in the light of experience in the new Parliament House. This Committee also will be monitoring their operation closely. Before concluding, I thank all members who served on the Committee in this and the preceding Parliament. I especially mention Len Keogh, the former chairman. These reforms, if implemented, will in no small measure be a tribute to his patience and perseverance. I would also like to thank the secretariat, particularly Mr McRae, the secretary, for expert assistance, and the Clerk and other officers of the House for the work they performed in drafting the sessional orders for the Committee. Finally, I thank the Leader of the House for the support he has given the Committee in his willingness to support such significant changes to private members' opportunities. I urge all members to put the interests of the House first and give the new procedures a fair go. I believe the potential for future reform rests in the successful adoption of these changes. I thank the House. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —by leave-As Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I join with the Chairman in recognising the contribution of the former member for Bowman, Mr Keogh, who, until the last election, was responsible, as Chairman, for the progress that was made. I will be very frank: when I was appointed to the Committee I was extremely cynical in that I believed that no government had the capacity to agree to change in any area such as this; but I have been proven incorrect. I also acknowledge the co-operation and even to a degree the assistance and guidance of the Leader of the House (Mr Young). It is a pity he is not in this chamber to hear me saying something pleasant about him for a change. The Committee has recommended reform. Some of the recommendations are simply waiting for approval by the Parliament. I guess that some recommendations will cause some controversy. The recommendation of the abolition of reading speeches in this chamber will cause some heartburn and probably some opposition. I clearly recall my maiden speech, which I did read. I am glad I was able to read it. Perhaps some of the speeches I have made since then would have been better had I read them. But the reality is that the homespun speech, the one that is made extempore, is more of a speech that should be part of this place. I assure those honourable members who spend their lives dotting the i's and crossing the t's so that Hansard looks good that if they think that Hansard is one of the nation's best read publications, they are totally wrong. The only people who ever read Hansard or the speeches of any of us in here will probably be our grandchildren, who will reach for the Hansard to find out what grandpa or grandma was really like. That would probably be the extent of it. I say to those who are fearful of the proposal, `Be brave. March forward'. Mr Porter —But I read your speeches. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Barker reads my speeches. He gets some of his greatest inspiration from reading my speeches. My view is that the Chairman of the Committee has really left very little unsaid in outlining this report. I recommend it to the entire Parliament. I thank the Clerks, and the former members of the Committee who were fallen soldiers at the last election. They included not only the former member for Bowman, Mr Keogh, but we also had a QC on our Committee-none other than the former member for Denison, Mr Hodgman. The other night his ghost came back to haunt us when, for some reason, some proposal that we had dismissed a couple of years ago as being impractical was reintroduced. It concerned the approval of legislation by the Senate and the Governor-General, and that was on its way; but just through quickness of mind someone retrieved that legislation only three or four nights ago. Very few members of the public would have any reason to wonder about it, but the number of hours that would have been put into the work of the three reports would probably be well into the hundreds. Meetings were held in Sydney and here at Parliament House, sometimes late at night and early in the morning, to get this job done. I congratulate the Government for its rare display of generosity and for being open-minded. I am positive that the title of the report, which is Improved Opportunities for Private Members, will be a reality. I suggest that this Parliament is probably on the verge of becoming the most generous parliament in Australia in terms of the rights which it extends to non-government members. That is a step in the right direction and I hope that it is an example that will be followed-- Mr Porter —You mean non-ministerial members, not non-government members. Mr DONALD CAMERON —`Non-government' means that one forgets about the Ministers, which is quite pleasant for four hours of the week; it makes it more worthwhile. I hope that the example we are setting in the Federal Parliament will be followed by the State parliaments, because I am led to believe that in some of those institutions unless one is a government member one has absolutely no rights whatsoever. What we have done is an example to everyone. Mr ROCHER(Curtin) —by leave-I want to dwell on the matter which my colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) spoke to. I have spoken about this before. I make no secret of the fact that when it suits me in this chamber I shall read speeches. I shall read speeches because, given the time made available to us by the Government to speak in this chamber, it is very often necessary to prepare thoroughly for speeches in this place. To get them out and to get the points made in the time that is available to us as backbenchers it is necessary to prepare thoroughly. I concede to the honourable member for Moreton, and to my colleagues on either side of the chamber, that they may be able to make the points they want to make on complex legislation within the speaking time of 20 minutes which is allowed in general debate. I do not have that ability and, I suggest, most honourable members do not have that ability either. If Ministers, with all the resources that are available to them to prepare and present their case, came into this place and made their second reading speeches off the cuff, I would happily come into this place and debate them on the same basis. The truth is that that is not the case. Given the erosion of and intrusion into members' speaking time, it is a nonsense to propose that we should cop the suggestion that we should not read our speeches. On occasions in this chamber matters are of such complexity that we need to refer either to written speeches or copious notes. Having been a Western Australian senator, which I am very proud of, I know of the charade that goes on in the other place where a similar standing order exists that there shall be no reading of speeches. Senators cop the plea-it is not quite the fifth amendment-when they are challenged by senators opposite, or occasionally by your equivalent in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they are reading from copious notes whereas, in fact, they are reading from prepared speeches. It is all very well for the Government to say, `We support this proposal; it is a great idea, because reading speeches might detract from the quality of debate in this place'. I suggest that no honourable member could debate, logically and in detail, complex legislation such as the tax Bills that are coming up or those that have been debated in the recent past. It is a fact that honourable members need to refer to notes and to prepare thoroughly. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you, I, or other members do not prepare thoroughly, we might as well not start because we cannot contribute to government legislation, we cannot criticise it and, even if we disagree with it, we cannot contribute in a way which will enhance it and eliminate errors. If I get the opportunity to debate a particular omnibus Bill which is coming before the Parliament very soon I will point out that it is impossible, in debating legislation which amends 87 separate Bills and repeals 24 other Bills, to make a sound contribution unless one is thoroughly prepared and that preparation, in large or small part, should take the form of a written presentation. I will never accept the proposition that members in this place cannot read their speeches. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest to you that if such a standing order were introduced it would be subject to the same abuse and it would place the same terrible decision-making onus on the Chair as it does in the Senate-the other chamber in which I was proud to serve. The day that that happens it will make your job and my job impossible. I know that I should be in the chair. I am sorry to have to make you sit there for another five, six or eight minutes, but I will correct that in a moment. Mr Ewen Cameron —One minute. Mr ROCHER —The Whip, who is standing over me, tells me that I have one minute. There must be some arrangement. It will be an impossible situation if that condition is imposed on members in this place. I happen not to be reading right now. I can talk and waffle for 20 minutes. I suspect that I am starting to do that now so I will sit down shortly. But that is the very thing that happens. Members who have not prepared, pad their speeches, muck around and fill them up with all sorts of inconsequential nonsense. They play the political game when making speeches in second reading debates and they forget about the legislation. That occurs for a whole range of reasons that I will not go into tonight, but I will do so, if I get the opportunity, on the omnibus Bill which I mentioned earlier. I strenuously oppose this nonsense. My former colleagues in the Senate and some of my colleagues on either side of this chamber have said that if people cannot debate legislation off the cuff they are not worth their salt. That is a load of rubbish. First and foremost we are legislators and, secondly, we are politicians. We play the political game in this chamber but it is overemphasised because of a certain attitude in this place. Because a government-whichever government it happens to be-has the numbers in this place we tend to play the political game. This is a political chamber. It has become less and less of a legislative chamber for a number of reasons which, again, I need not go into. I do not intend to add my name to these proponents of making it worse than it already is. This should equally be a legislative chamber as is the Senate. I think we are going too far with this sort of nonsense. It is nonsense and I will never support it. Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Debate resumed from 28 October, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987 concurrently with the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(9.55) —It is pleasing finally to get the call to discuss some very important legislation. Whilst I realise that honourable members regard the procedures of this House as also being important, I think that the public of Australia should hear during the broadcast of the proceedings of this chamber just how incompetent the Government is in terms of broadcast policy. It is interesting to note that there are actually more ministerial advisers in the chamber than there are Government members. The benches are nearly empty-and well they might be, because Government members are all embarrassed about the Government's incompetence and about its inconsistent, inequitable and rapidly changing policies in this area of broadcasting. We have three Bills before the House tonight-the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3), the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4). The Broadcasting Amendment Bill represents the complete abandonment of a measure announced in the Budget. When the Budget came down the Government said, `We will auction new radio licences'. The Budget came down in September of this year. It is now early November and the Government has abandoned that proposal-that is how well thought out it was. Another Bill we have before us tonight is the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2). That provides for conversion fees for the change from AM licences to FM licences. In the Budget the Government said that the fee would be 30 per cent of gross annual revenues. The Bill before us tonight provides for 50 per cent-another change on the Budget. The third Bill relates to television licence fees. As is symptomatic of this Government's approach to everything, it proposes to increase the revenue that is to be gained from television licences. No wonder this Government has increased its revenue by 75 per cent in five years. Let me briefly run through the major provisions of these Bills before I address the Opposition's views on them in some detail. As I said, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) abandons a measure announced in the Budget-evidence of the Government's deep thought on its broadcast policy. It made a statement in its Budget; about eight weeks later it is out the window. It is out the window because of factional problems and because someone told the Government that there would actually be some problems in going ahead with the auctioning of these licences. The Bill sets up establishment fees, which are approximately 100 per cent of gross revenue for radio stations. It is evidence of the appalling administrative capacity of this Government. The proposal for auctioning the licences was in itself retrospective. The change, again, is retrospective because some people who have made application for these licences did so on the basis that there would not be an auction or an establishment fee. Later in this debate the Opposition will move an amendment to the second reading motion which has been circulated in my name. We will also seek leave to suspend so much of Standing Orders as would prevent my referring this entire Bill to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure-because it is about time that someone gave some serious consideration to the implications of what the Government is trying to do in communications. Government members are not allowed to do so in Caucus. Every time Caucus has a good talk about the matter someone waltzes in and says, `Listen boys, we know what is going on in this country. We are running the Australian Labor Party. You are just here to make up the numbers. You come in when the bells ring and vote, because that is all you are good for. We who are running the place run the show and you do not have a right to make any contribution'. In fact, it will be very difficult for some members of the Labor Party even to get the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) to make a reference on communication to the various House standing committees, because the last thing this Government wants is a decent inquiry into communications policy-and we all know why. We know what the views of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) are. We know what he said around the Cabinet table, because some members of Cabinet who were at that table leaked what he said. We know whom the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) goes fishing with on occasion. We know exactly what is going on in the Labor Party. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) recently made reference to the embarrassment caused to those genuine members of the Labor Party by the preparedness of some sections of their party to fawn over the so-called wealthy people in our community. At the committee stage of this debate we will move amendments to exempt four applicants for new licences-applicants for licences on the Gold Coast, at Gosford, at Geelong and at Shepparton. We will be doing that because these people prepared their applications in good faith on the basis that there would not be an auction and that there would not be establishment fees. Perhaps more importantly than that, the people who live in those areas have been waiting for new radio licences for heaven only knows how long. This Government, because of its inept approach to broadcast policy, and because of its continual changes of mind, has delayed the bringing about of choice or variety of radio broadcasts available to those people. To put those applicants for licences through another administrative procedure will, again, only delay the granting of new licences and, again, delay the provision of alternative services in those four very large areas. It is an absolute disgrace that, after nearly five years in power, this Government has done nothing to provide a second radio licence on the Gold Coast. The sixth or seventh largest city in Australia has only one radio station. That is not because people have not applied to get a licence but because, in five years, this Government has not been able to get its act together. Mr Peter Fisher —Seven years in Mildura. Mr BLUNT —Seven years in Mildura. Gosford, which is on the Central Coast of New South Wales, still has no local radio station variety because-notwithstanding the tremendous efforts of that soon to be retiring member for Robertson (Mr Cohen)-this Government has done nothing to provide the services that the people of the Central Coast of New South Wales deserve. Mr Leo McLeay —Are you still looking after Doug Anthony? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member for Grayndler knows better than to interject from a place other than his chair. Mr BLUNT —I do not mind the interjection. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —But I do. The honourable member for Richmond will not respond in that way. The honourable member for Grayndler knows better. I call the honourable member for Richmond. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your protection. The Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) provides for a fee for conversion from AM to FM. That is quite significant because FM is the latest technology in radio broadcasting in Australia. The Bill also formally imposes an establishment fee, as I said earlier regarding another Bill. But, again, there is a variation of a Budget decision. The Government, in the Budget, said that it would charge 30 per cent of gross annual earnings or revenues-however it defines the term, which is the advertising revenue of the radio station-for the conversion. When the Bill hit the House, notwithstanding the Budget statement, the rate had gone up to 50 per cent. It is up to 50 per cent not because the Government has done some detailed analysis and has to move it up to 50 per cent because it is equitable-presumably it set the rate of 30 per cent on the basis of that analysis-but to compensate for the drop in revenue that will arise from the abandonment of the auction process. If it did it for any other reason I would be interested to hear the Minister's justification. If the Government has got it right now, it got it wrong before. It cannot have it both ways. Let us hear where the mistake was made, or whether it was just a grab for money to give the Treasurer his balanced Budget, which he has Buckley's of achieving right now. The sooner he admits it and tells the Australian people that this country is in trouble, that his Budget done with mirrors is not going to work, the better we will all be. Then we can all get on with the job of paying back some of his grossly inflated overseas debt. The Opposition will also be moving an amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time. The Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3) again is nothing less than a revenue raising exercise. It was announced in the Budget and it is so typical of this Government grabbing every dollar it can get at any point. As I have said, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) is a backdown on the Budget decision. It means moving away from the auction principle to the implementation of establishment fees. How did we come to have the auction proposal in the first place? It was a knee-jerk reaction to the sale of a certain Perth television licence. Some people in the Labor Party said, `Oh my goodness, we are handing out licences for broadcast facilities in this country and they are going out gratis. People make solemn undertakings that they will not do anything with them and then they sell them. We've given them away for virtually nothing-just the cost of the application and all the procedures involved-and then they sell them for millions of dollars. What shall we do about that? We'll auction them. What a great idea'. But they really did not think about the implications of that auctioning process. It has some very significant implications for who will be able to operate the licences. Tonight we are debating radio licences. One of the impacts of auctioning radio licences is that it could effectively price out of the industry local applicants for regional licences, particularly in view of the Government's announced intention to set new ownership limits for radio stations in this country which will facilitate networking. If one has the capital backing to establish a radio network in this country, one has the capital backing to go to an auction for a radio licence and buy the plum licences. One can set up the best network and leave the not so attractive licence situations to those who do not have the big capital backing of the big networks. Few people in the Australian Labor Party are aware of that. The industry, local interests and we on this side of the House are aware of it. We are concerned that the Government did not bother to think it through before it made the announcement. That is why it has backed away from it. This decision is ill-conceived and the Government has given no consideration to the practical problems that will arise from it either for current and prospective licence holders or the range and quality of broadcasts that will be available to the communities, particularly the regional communities, of Australia. I think it is fair to say that the Government has backed away from its auction proposal strictly as a result of factional pressure. It is pleasing to see that the Caucus is flexing its muscles and has actually achieved a victory. What has happened is probably symptomatic of the state of the Labor Party. The Caucus has even nailed Keating to the wall. It is about time Caucus did something. What it has achieved in regard to the auction proposal is very much a pyrrhic victory at this stage, but let us see how the Labor Party goes on the really tough issues that will come up in a few months time. We all know what they are and we will see how much guts there are in the Labor Caucus when they come up. The Government has whipped in establishment fees to replace the auction. The auction system was introduced not only to stop the Perth television licence proposal; it was also going to enable the Government to collect a lot of money and help balance the revenue. The fee payable on the grant of a new licence is going to be considerable. The fee will apply to four very significant large and rapidly growing areas where people have been applying for licences for years without any auctions or establishment fees. Those areas are the Gold Coast, Gosford, Geelong and Shepparton. By any standards, the Government's proposal in this area, be it auction or be it establishment fee, is retrospective. I know that when it comes to dollars the Treasurer does not concern himself about retrospectivity. He is quite happy to grab money any way he can. But there have to be some principles in government. We have seen examples of this Government's commitment-its real genuine commitment to the principles of the Labor Party. We have seen this in its communications policy and we have it in its transport policy; we have seen who runs the Labor Party. So we have an establishment fee. Someone should have a good hard look at the implications of what the Government is doing. That is why we are proposing that this entire Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. Mr Leo McLeay —Hear, hear! Mr BLUNT —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am quite amused by the antics of the honourable member for Grayndler. In fact, I think that his behaviour is typical of the Labor Party's double standards. I know what the honourable member's attitude is when he sits in the chair. I invite him to continue to act in that way but I might remind him of the way he has behaved the next time he takes the chair. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that is a valid point and I think the honourable member for Grayndler recognises it as such. He cannot claim as an excuse the fact that it is now 10.10 p.m. As I was saying, it is about time someone had a good serious look at communications policy. This ought to be done in public, not behind the closed doors of Caucus which means that we have to rely on leaks to find out what was actually discussed. These matters should not be discussed as part of the factional brawling that goes on in the Labor Cabinet, in which case we again have to rely on leaks to find out what has happened. We ought to have a good open inquiry. We ought to be able to see what has been done and the position that this Government has put us in in terms of communications policy. We ought to know about the position that the Department of Transport and Communications has put us in terms of what it has done with the frequencies. I think it has a bit to answer for in that respect. No doubt some of the advisers are squirming over this question. Perhaps they could be asked why radio on the far north coast of New South Wales does not have access to the FM band. Let me tell the Government that this is because spots on the band were granted to television stations without the whole thing being thought through. That is the sort of mess that we have got ourselves into in terms of communications policy in this country and that has happened because no one has sat down and taken a comprehensive view of it. The Opposition will move at the committee stage an exemption for the four existing application areas that I have mentioned from the establishment fees to facilitate the granting of licences in those areas without further delay. I would like to spend some minutes looking at the impact of establishment fees on the operations of a new applicant. That impact will be quite considerable. The establishment fees will relate to estimated gross annual earnings in a particular area. The cost of servicing that fee, which is a capital payment up front, is going to be considerable. I have received a submission from a group associated with this industry which knows what it is talking about. It mentions an establishment fee of about $2m. The assumption is that interest on the $2m will be at the rate of about 18 per cent. Under the current Government, that is probably fair: interest rates may be a little below that rate now but I wonder whether they will be below it in the not too distant furture. To service $2m at 18 per cent per annum the station would have to sell 277 commercials a week at $25 each just to pay the interest on the establishment fee-not to repay the principal, not to pay the operating costs of the radio station, but just to pay the interest on the establishment fee. We can see the impact that that would have on the subsidy of a regional operator-we are not talking about big city operators; in most cases we are talking about fairly small regional areas-to provide quality programming for the people who live in the area. Another thing that has been drawn to our attention in the submission is the concentration of ownership that is likely to arise as a result of this establishment fee. Just as at an auction where people who have capital backing can afford to set up networks, the same people with capital backing can afford to pay the establishment fees in the better areas. The Government has not thought this through. The eyes can be picked out of new radio licences and the interests of the local community, the commitment to making sure that broadcasting is relevant to the local community, can be overridden by the power of large capital resources. That is a very significant consideration and it is one which should be examined carefully by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. The submission also refers to payment procedures. The legislation proposes that the establishment fee will be paid within 30 days. But let us look at what the legislation provides for in terms of the granting of the licence in practice. The licence will not be granted, effectively, within 30 days of the announcement. Twenty-eight days from the announcement as to who will be granted the licence is the term of the appeal procedure, so there is a 28-day delay before one starts. Then, of course, the successful applicant has to negotiate the final technical conditions of the licence with the Department, and that will take time. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal normally refrains from the formal issuing of the licence until close to the on air date to ensure that the applicant gets the maximum five-year operational period out of the licence. So some time will be involved there because no one applying for a licence would go ahead and set up the studios and buy all the equipment until he has actually been granted the licence. So once the licence is granted there will be the lead time actually to set up the facilities. It is about at that stage that the Tribunal would grant the licence. But under the provisions the Government has introduced which we are dealing with tonight the applicant will have actually paid several million dollars and will have been paying the 18 per cent interest on that amount so that will compound the servicing cost into the future. Another important point is that the proposal requires a substantial payment for the licence up to 12 months before the licensee could hope to create a cash flow to service the payment. Consideration should be given to varying the requirement to pay this establishment fee. As I mentioned earlier, the Government's motive in this area is to raise revenue because it brought down a balanced Budget, so called-with a $26m deficit-and in that Budget are figures for revenue from the auctioning of radio licences. Now that proposal has been dumped in favour of establishment fees but the establishment fees have to go ahead and the money has to be grabbed very quickly to go into this year's Budget, irrespective of the commercial impact of that decision on the new applicant. That is typical of the approach of this Government to communications: it has to balance the Budget so damn the impact on the applicant, it wants to get on with getting the money into Treasury as soon as possible. There is one other thing that should be mentioned in terms of the Government's approach to granting new licences. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Staples-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. [COGNATE BILLS: RADIO LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 BROADCASTING AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1987] Debate resumed. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —There is one other issue that should be considered in terms of the first Bill, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3), to which I am referring tonight, and that is the rather cavalier approach of the Minister. The Minister is renowned for sending an F111 aircraft to take spy photographs of Tasmania at some stage, and I know he is infamous for introducing the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, or for saying something about it. But let us have a look at what he says when it comes to commercial considerations. On 18 March of this year he wrote to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and asked for certain information which related to the advertising revenues of existing radio operators. In that letter, in which he asked for this fairly confidential and sensitive commercial information, he implored the Chairman of the Broadcasting Tribunal not to make this information public. He said: In view of the commercial sensitivity of this information, it will not be published or divulged in any way that would enable identification of any individual station's advertising revenue. He said, `Give me the information and I will not make it public'. Of course, if we look at the Minister's Press release of 28 October, he had this to say: Based on the revenue of the incumbent licensee in the most recent year for which figures have been provided to the ABT- I remind the House that in the letter to the Chairman he said this would not be divulged- the relevant individual amounts are expected to be $4 million for the new Gold Coast licence, $3.2 million for Gosford, $2 million for Geelong and $1.8 million for Shepparton. They were the estimated amounts he gave for the new licences. I think the Minister should apologise at the very least for that flagrant breach of an undertaking to the Chairman, and he should apologise to the existing licence holders. If this Government had any real commitment to ministerial competence and responsibility, the Prime Minister would sack him. But the Prime Minister has not sacked any one of a number of transgressing Ministers, so I guess it is a forlorn hope that he will do anything about the Minister for Transport and Communications. But that standard of behaviour is a disgrace and should not be countenanced. The very least the Minister should do is publicly apologise for what is a disgraceful breach of confidentiality, compounded by the fact that he gave an undertaking that it would not happen. Either he does not read his Press releases or he deliberately set out to do it-one or the other. If he deliberately set out to do it, it compounds the error. If he does not read his Press releases, he ought not to be the Minister. Another Bill we are considering here tonight is the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2). The most notable feature of that Bill is the increase, from 30 to 50 per cent, of the conversion fee for AM to FM licences. As I mentioned earlier, it represents a change from the initial statements made by the Government in the Budget. It said it would be 30 per cent; it is now 50 per cent. As I said before, it has been increased because the Government needs the money. It backed away from the auction proposal and it is going to get less money out of establishment fees for new licences, so it needs to raise the cost of conversion of AM to FM. There is nothing wrong with establishing a conversion from AM to FM. Limited spaces are being allocated on a frequency band. Again it is indicative of the lack of consideration and detailed thought and analysis that has gone into this whole question by the Government. We have a limited number of spaces on this band. It really does not matter where the operator comes from, whether he is a new operator or an existing industry operator moving on to the FM band-a space is a space is a space, and one space is as valuable as another. There may be some technical differences, but one space is equivalent to another. Under this proposal we have an inconsistent and, dare I say it, an inequitable method of allocating those spaces between two types of applicant-a new applicant and a converting applicant. Again, it is further evidence of the lack of analysis that has gone into this area by the Government and further support for the need to have a public detailed inquiry into communications policy in Australia. In regard to the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987, I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading: That all words after ``That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes the need for the maintenance of localism in broadcasting and the proper representations of local interests in the ownership of television licences''. The amendment will be seconded by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). I return to the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill. The whole question of FM licence policy is very important. Earlier I alluded to the fact that the Government has been in office for nearly five years and we are still waiting to see its policy on FM conversion and FM licences in metropolitan areas. There are many AM operators in metropolitan areas who would give their eye teeth to convert to FM. But for five years the Government has been mucking around and we still do not have a policy. I wonder when we will see a policy in this area. Again, it is something that should be considered by the parliamentary committee. There should be a public inquiry into that aspect. The Government is, quite frankly, making a mess of its media policy. It does not know where it is going. It is inconsistent. It is scared of what is going on. It is not prepared to have a public debate on it. It tries to gag Caucus. There is tension within the Government, within the Cabinet. There is tension between the Executive of Government and its back bench. The Minister is, I believe, reluctant, to put it mildly, to allow either the Senate Standing Committee on Infrastructure, which is to deal with communications, or the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure to have a genuine inquiry in this area. It is for that reason that we will refer this Bill to the House of Representatives Standing Committee. I know that the Government probably will not allow the referral, but there is a very good chance that the Senate will agree to it. So the people of Australia will get an inquiry into communications policy. They will get some opportunity to look at the consequences of recent legislation that has affected their television stations and radio broadcasts, that has had implications that have flown through to their daily newspapers-who owns what papers in what States, who owns what television stations and in what areas of Australia, and who owns radio stations and who will establish the networks in these new mediums. It is an extremely important question for a country to face. The distribution of news and the provision of entertainment in a community are major determinants of community attitudes. This matter has political and financial overtones and it is something that cannot be swept under the carpet. Unfortunately, that has been the attitude of this Government for too long. It is about time that it was dragged out so that we could see it in the light of day, so that we could see with the benefit of some objective analysis what the consequences of the Government's previous decisions have been, not only for radio but also for television, and what flow-on effects there have been for newspapers. It is very important that we have an objective assessment of where we can take communications and broadcast policy in Australia in the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, at a later stage I will move the other amendments that have been circulated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the amendment in relation to the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987 seconded? Mr McGauran —Yes, I second the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.24) —We have heard some humdingers of speeches in this Parliament but, by golly, the one we have just heard just about takes the cake. After 30 minutes of speaking, we have yet to discover one iota of policy emanating from the Opposition. I gather that its whole policy hinges on nothing more than an inquiry. We are all going to hold our breaths and hang on waiting for the result of an inquiry. Indeed, up until the last couple of minutes of his 30 minute address to the House, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) had spoken on the legislation only for four minutes. In fact, at one stage he said that the Government back bench and the factions in the Australian Labor Party were all a pack of wimps. In the next breath he was saying that the back bench had stood up to the Government and made it change the legislation. The honourable member cannot have it both ways. We cannot be wimps on one hand and be strong men on the other hand. I ask the honourable members to make up his mind because he said both those things in the course of his 30-minute address. He could have sat down after 60 seconds and have said just about everything sensible he had to say-and that is stretching the imagination somewhat. This Government is the only government that has had a coherent policy on communications in what has been in the last few years and in what will continue to be a very rapidly evolving industry as a result of the technological advances in communications and telecommunications. Indeed, the previous communications Minister, bar one, in the conservative Government, from the same party as the honourable member for Richmond and now the present Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), was so hopeless in this area that in fact the Prime Minister at that time, Malcolm Fraser, shifted him to the portfolio of defence. Mr N.A. Brown —What did he do then? Mr CHARLES —The then member for Diamond Valley, now the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), took over that portfolio. I must admit that he at least grasped some idea of what the portfolio was about. The broadcasting Bills we are debating tonight represent the start of a revolution in the radio industry, just as the Government had already moved to revolutionise the television industry earlier this year. The Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) proposes an establishment fee of 100 per cent for new licences in the regional radio areas. That establishment fee is equivalent to 50 per cent of the gross earnings of the incumbent in the service areas that the new licence is being issued for. That is the first thing. Secondly, we have the introduction of a two-year hold on the licence for the person or company that is granted the licence. They cannot be granted the licence one minute and sell it the next; they must hold that licence, except under the extraordinary conditions that are set out in the legislation, for at least two years. Thirdly, we see the conversion from AM to FM frequencies. In other words, broadcasters in regional areas may wish to convert to FM. Not all broadcasters will want to convert and the conversion is not compulsory. I do not, in fact, see why people in some areas would wish to convert. However, if they wish to convert they can do so for a cost of 50 per cent of a new licence. If they already have a licence they will actually pay only for the cost of the conversion, in contrast to the people who are applying for new licences who pay the full fee. This package of legislation also relates to an announcement made by the Government on 28 October in regard to various changes within the radio industry. The first change was the lifting of the ceiling on the number of radio licences that one can hold from eight licences to 16 licences. Further, there is a limit of one licence per person in a particular service area. For example, if there were two stations in the Bendigo area an individual could not hold both licences but only one. Also, there is a limit of 50 per cent on the number of licences an individual may hold in relation to the total number of licences in one State. In my recollection there is no one who has anywhere near that 50 per cent ownership of licences at this time. Whilst we are doubling the number of radio licences one can hold, this should be looked at in the context that in 1935 when the eight station rule was introduced there were 65 licences in Australia. We estimate that in the next couple of years there will be 176 licences. Therefore, the doubling of the number of licences that an individual can hold from eight to 16 is, in fact, still a lesser percentage of the overall total than it was in 1935 when the original rules were set in place. Part of the announcement by the Government was that there will be new cross-media ownership rules. That will mean that anyone owning a radio licence in a monopoly area will not be able to have a prescribed interest in television or newspapers in that area. The prescribed interest will be 15 per cent. I must make it clear that that 15 per cent relates to radio as against radio and television and radio and newspapers. At present the prescribed interest with regard to television as against television and print is 5 per cent. It is another debate for another time about whether the Government should move to increase that figure to 15 per cent or whether it should come up with another set of rules. I make it quite clear to the House that the announcement of 28 October should not be seen as a precedent that we will automatically be lifting the 5 per cent to 15 per cent with regard to television. That decision has been made regarding radio because I believe that radio is a less powerful medium than television and print and it is a different basket altogether. The lifting of the number of licences allowed and cross-media ownership are very important matters. I reiterate that cross-media ownership will mean that for the first time a person will be able to hold, in a general sense, only radio, television or print licences in the one market. From a Melbourne viewpoint-I assume the honourable member for Menzies would agree, being a Melburnian-that is a great thing because, not so long ago, one could have listened to the one organisation which had all three media in the one market. One could wake up in the morning and go to bed at night and listen to the radio, watch television and read several newspapers and yet hear the one voice. When I worked in the industry the news broadcasts for both radio and television used to be run out of the one booth. That was with the Herald and Weekly Times. That has all changed under this Government and people are only just starting to realise the ramifications of the cross-media ownership rules that this Government has been able to introduce. That debate will occur more fully when the legislation is introduced into this House, I would assume early next year, but it is all part of the package that forms part of this legislation. Part of this legislation relates to licence fees. We heard an incredible statement from the honourable member for Richmond that licence fees are only a revenue raising item. They have never been anything different since the year dot. I and a number of members-I am sure the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) would agree-feel that the licence fees for radio and television are too low and should be higher. They have always been a taxing mechanism such as sales tax and many other taxes. As I have said, the honourable member for Richmond spoke for 30 minutes but I am still waiting to hear one ounce of policy. He asked what policies the Government had. That is what cross-media ownership is all about; that is what we have been debating. There have been massive changes in the industry. People have been saying that the Government has introduced too many changes into the industry yet the Opposition did not say tonight that it would change anything, only that it would have an inquiry. As a politician who has been a member of this place for a while, I know that when one does not know what one should do, when one wants to put a matter on the back burner and think about it for a while, one gets a committee to look at it or one has an inquiry. It would have been much better for the honourable member for Richmond if he had said, `We don't know what we are damned well doing so we will have an inquiry'. That would have been the most honest thing he could have said all night but he did not say anything in the 30 minutes in which he spoke. It was absolute tripe. Our time is limited, especially at this hour of the night. I could speak at great length. I do not believe that the establishment fee will have a great effect on the entrepreneurs who are applying for the new licences or that this fee will bleed them all to death. I do not believe that the market is full of, shall we say, little Aussie battlers who are all going to the wall. Some of the fees are as follows: Gold Coast, $4m; Gosford, $3.2m; Geelong, $2m; Shepparton, $1.8m; and for most of the other companies coming on stream down the track, the cost will probably be in the $1m to $1.5m area. I am quite sure the companies will be willing to pay that goodwill as many people do in other businesses. In many businesses, such as in the service industry, people really pay that money up front, not for bricks and mortar but for goodwill, sometimes purely just for a name. We are saying, `Here is your licence. You are able to go out and broadcast with what we have granted you. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will grant you that licence. You can have the licence for ever if you do the right thing. You can hardly not make a profit in a good area if you run the company properly. But for all that there will be an establishment fee'. That establishment fee is set down so that they all know what they will have to pay before they apply for the licence. The package of decisions the Government has made are absolutely correct. I congratulate the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) because there was a lot of discussion on this within the Government. The package is very good. I can hardly wait for the debate on the other half of the legislation which will come in early next year. I commend this package of legislation to the House. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(10.37) —I commence by saying briefly in reply to the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) that the Opposition certainly is not bereft of ideas as to what should be done with respect to communications or media policy. Honourable members will recall that the honourable member for Isaacs threw a few barbs in our direction simply because we had asked for an inquiry into this legislation. He went on from that to say, `You have no ideas; no policy; nothing to suggest at all'. Let me simply give the honourable member for Isaacs a few propositions to reflect on over the coming few weeks which I think will keep him busy and will enable him to conclude that there are areas in media and communications policy which this country should address and would be well advised to address. They are matters to which the Opposition has given consideration and will continue to give consideration. The first suggestion is: why not issue some new licences? There are areas of Australia-metropolitan and others-where there is scope for new licences in television and radio. Why not liven up the industry by issuing some new licences? The second point is: why does the Government continue to set its face against cable television and radiated subscription television when, if it simply allowed the establishment of those forms of media, it could unleash enormous investment and the provision of very extensive new services for viewers. There is a very strong case for cable and radiated subscription television. The Government not only has set its face against those reforms but it seems to have done its best to rival the Luddites of the past. With respect to radiated subscription television the Government says, `Not only will we not allow it to be introduced, but we will legislate'. Can you believe it, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government says it will legislate-as it has done-to put an embargo on radiated subscription television. The Government says, `We do not care whether people want to invest in it or establish subscription television; we will make it illegal for four years or so'. The Government has done that by legislation. There must be few examples in the history of the civilised world where a Government has said that it will not only now allow a new scientific and technical process to be used but it will make it illegal for it to be used. Those are just two proposals which we think have merit and which the Government would do well to think about. I want to address a few remarks in particular to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) and in passing to the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3) and the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2). The Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) imposes what is called an establishment fee for new radio licences that are about to be issued, and one may say at the outset that this is the latest in a whole series of ad hoc measures in communications and media, which the Government is introducing. Of course, the establishment fee which we are debating tonight is not a proposal to which the Government has given months of thought and over which it has agonised. It is something that has been plucked out of the air over the past couple of weeks. It must be remembered that, on 15 September, the establishment fee had not been heard of. When the Budget was introduced on 15 September, we were going to have an auction or tendering system, under which the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal would decide those competing applicants who were fit and proper people to hold radio and television licences, and then the licences were going to be put up for tender or auctioned and the company that could produce the highest tender for them would get the licence. That proposal lasted from 15 September until only a few days ago, when it was abandoned, to be replaced by the so-called establishment fee. It was a good thing that the Government abandoned the auction system, because nothing could be more calculated to keep ownership of the media in the hands of the rich, and to keep out new players and new entrants in communications, than an auction or tender system. At least the Government deserves some marks for that. It has abandoned what was nothing more than a proposal to keep the rich, well-heeled big companies in media, and to exclude new players, new entrants, smaller companies and smaller businesses from the communications field. That is all out. The tender system or auction system has gone, and we have had it replaced with the latest fashion, October's fashion, which is an establishment fee. I suppose one must concede that it is at least an appropriate name, because the whole approach of this Government in communications and media has been to help the establishment in that industry as much as it can. It is very appropriate that the establishment fee should bear testimonial to that. Then again, we really should not be very surprised that the Government now comes forward with this establishment fee, which itself will be an embargo to stop new companies, new entrants and small businesses from getting into the media field. We can note that the establishment fee itself will do its own bit to keep out of the media field potential new entrants. It will be just as effective as the tender system would have been, because the hefty fee that will be levied when new radio licences are granted will impose an enormous burden on those companies that are applying for licences. It will make it just as difficult for new entrants in communications to get into the field as the auction or tender system would have. Of course, that is entirely consistent with the Government's approach to the media, and that approach is: help your friends, keep the rules of the game fixed so that the present players are protected and make life as difficult as possible for everyone else, particularly for those who might want to get into this new and expanding industry. We have just seen that in practice. We have just seen the whole way in which the Government's communications policy operates for the benefit of its friends and for the benefit of those in the know and against those who are on the outside but who want to get into this industry, into this field. We have seen that so clearly in the last two takeovers of groups of radio stations in this country. Let me illustrate this point because I am putting a very serious proposition. Those two takeovers have come about as a result of and as part of the recent changes announced by the Government in the number of radio stations that one licensee is able to hold. The first of these two takeovers of groups of radio stations is quite extraordinary. It is the takeover by Wesgo Communications Pty Ltd of the eight radio stations owned by AWA. The reason it is extraordinary and calls for some explanation is this: until 29 October, not long ago, one owner could own only eight radio stations altogether. On 28 October the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) announced that the limit would be increased to 16. The number was to be doubled, so one licensee would be allowed to hold 16 radio stations. Wesgo until then owned eight stations, and, wonder of wonders, on the very day that the Minister announced that the limit would be lifted to 16 Wesgo bought the AWA company's eight stations for over $70m. What remarkable footwork. Does anyone believe that on that one day Wesgo was able to marshal its resources, enter into negotiations and make a deal that would fit comfortably into the new rules that were announced by the Minister on the same day? Does anyone believe that it was not in the know before that announcement was made? Does anyone believe it could have done all that on the one day? Does anyone believe it did not have advance notice? I suggest that this takeover calls for some explanation. It calls for the Minister to give some answers. Clearly that company was in the know. But what a remarkable coincidence it was that Wesgo owned eight stations and bought another eight bringing its ownership to 16, which was the precise limit announced by the Minister on 28 October. How did it come about that it was in the know? One of the interesting questions is who owns Wesgo? What do we find when we look at its shareholdings? We find that 3,400,000 shares in this company are, in effect, owned by the Australian Labor Party-3,400,000 shares are owned by 3KZ Radio Pty Ltd, the licensee of station 3KZ in Melbourne. The parent company of 3KZ is Industrial Printing and Publicity Co. Ltd. To all intents and purposes it is the Labor Party's company. It owns 3KZ. It owns the Industrial Printing and Publicity company. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) had to resign from his directorship in that company not so long ago to avoid a conflict of interest. It owns 3,400,000 shares in Wesgo which, miraculously, on the day that the Minister announced the increase in the number of stations from eight to 16 suddenly ups and does exactly that. What a remarkable series of events. If that is not a potential conflict of interest on the information that I have, I simply do not know what a potential conflict of interest is. At the very least it calls for answers. Were these people in the know? What discussions were there between the Minister for Transport and communications, his friends, his Party members and that company and other participants in the industry before that announcement was made on 28 October? Were there no discussions; were there no meetings? Was there no advance information given? Was there no inside knowledge? Was this not the `insider trading' that the socialists condemn so much, so often and so vociferously? Was this not such a case? If it was not such a case, let us be told that. Let us be told that the Minister had no discussions with the big league of the media industry before this announcement was made. Frankly, I think that this sort of matter should be subjected to very close scrutiny. If honourable members think that the events I have described represent a miraculous coincidence, they should try this one on for size. The other major takeover we had was that by Hoyts Media Ltd of the radio stations owned by Northern Star Holdings. Mr Wheatley, who is the Managing Director of Hoyts Media Ltd, gave an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's radio program PM on 12 October-many days before the Minister announced that the limit on the number of radio stations to be owned by one person was to be increased. The interviewer commented that it was very strange that there was a limit of eight radio stations for one person, yet Hoyts had just brought another nine. He asked, `How did this come about? Aren't you in breach of the law?' In reply, Mr Wheatley said: We have discussed our position with the Department and the Minister and we are hopeful that, yes, they are going to change the laws to allow us to be able to hold more than eight stations. If ever there were a case of advance inside knowledge, that must be it. To extemporise a bit, I must say that here is a case where the purchaser of these radio stations is saying that what he was doing was not authorised by the law at that time, but he had had a chat with the Minister in the way in which these matters are settled in the Australian Labor Party these days-with a few cigars and a bottle of whisky, a wink here and a nod there and a blind eye to the provisions of the Broadcasting Act-and he was confident enough to put up more than $100m for this new chain of radio stations. This was all done on the say so of a bit of chit chat with Senator Gareth Evans. It is not good enough for public policy and public administration in this country to be run in that way. It is not good enough to do something that it is not authorised by the law and to do it on the basis of a bit of a chit chat, a few whiskies with the Minister before the law is changed and in reliance on what the Minister says. That is not good enough and those are some of the reasons why these matters should be investigated by a committee. Government members interjecting- Mr N.A. Brown —If I could have a bit of quiet, I will conclude by making this point: the structure of media in this country is not now as one would believe if one accepted what the honourable member for Isaacs and other Government speakers have said. This is not some new golden age of more competitors competing vigorously, free from government involvement. The new golden era in communications has not yet dawned. As a result of this Government's actions, certainly in television, we have a situation in which there are now fewer big owners than ever before. A lot of slick deals have been done. A lot of big, fast money has been made and after all this, we still have the exclusion from the market of new entrants who want to start up in a small way, whether in radio or any other area of communication; we still have barriers against them. Cable television and subscription television, for people who want to get into it, are all out, all illegal and all prohibited all so that the Government can rig communications for its fast and fancy friends with their big money. The Government has done nothing for the consumer of communications and media in this country, but it has done a great deal for the very rich and the very powerful. I suppose one day the Government will wake up to it. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(10.56) —I have listened to the contribution of the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). He has spoken about us looking after our mates and doing all sorts of deals. The very fact that people are able to buy television and radio stations and breach the current ownership laws can be sheeted home to those opposite, because when they were in government in 1981 they introduced the changes to the ownership rules requiring prior approval. Mr Beale —Did you condone the breaking of the law? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Deakin should not interject out of his place. Me Beale-I will go to my place, then. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —And then he shall not interject from there either. Mr SAUNDERSON —They introduced these changes in 1981 to look after their mate, Mr Murdoch. The only other substantial thing they did about television ownership was when they introduced the two-station rule, and that was to look after their mates as well. In the 4 1/2 years that we have been in office we have reformed the whole system of television and radio ownership and we have updated and increased the number of licences available. The only contribution that those opposite can make is to say, `you are looking after your mates'. Since we changed the level of television ownership there are more substantive owners. We introduced cross-media controls, which means that we have separated the link between print and television. These amendments will separate them even further so that in future we will be separating the links between radio, television and print. In the last few years people have been able to acquire licences and make substantial gains. Television and radio licences allow people to utilise the public airwaves. The most disgraceful event in the last few years was the Perth television case. The case heard by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on whether a third licence should be issued ran for two years. The licence was finally issued to an individual who had stated the principles under which he would operate the licence. Within a short period of getting the licence, without ever going to air, he sold the licence to somebody else, making substantial profits. That is a disgraceful situation. We cannot allow such abuse of the public radio and television licences. We are introducing a two-year moratorium, which means that the people who now apply for licences must be fair dinkum and concerned about getting programs to air and providing services to the community. Any radio or television licence issued to individuals gives them the opportunity to raise substantial amounts of money and make a substantial profit. The current establishment fee that is charged is $500. Quite obviously, that is a ridiculously low amount, given the substantial amounts of money people can earn. We are proposing a fee which will raise the amount of money collected from the issuing of licences. We recognise that the original proposition of auctioning licences had some disadvantages. We are now proposing a fee which will be clearly known to all applicants. It is not a guess game. It is not a matter of upping one's ante to try to make sure that one gets the licence. Every applicant who wants to present a case for being issued with a licence will know exactly how much the establishment fee will be. It can be added into the applicant's budgeting program. It will mean that everyone bidding will be on a fair level financially. Under the auctioning system they would have been at a disadvantage in not knowing what the price would be and, therefore, having to up the ante. One cannot argue against that concept. One cannot sustain an argument that the current establishment fee of $500 is adequate. It is totally inadequate. One cannot argue for an auctioning system which puts one at the mercy of the wealthiest, most cashed-up individuals at the time, those who can bid more for a licence to put other contenders out of the running. We have provided a reasonable establishment fee which puts every applicant on the same basis. The honourable member for Menzies, who must be the new back bench spokesperson for broadcasting policy, said that we should be issuing new licences. Mr Milton —Another failed Minister. Mr SAUNDERSON —I was not going to mention the fact that he was a previous failed Minister who was dropped from the front bench. I was going to say that he has opted for the proposal given some credence by the previous communications spokesperson, who is now no longer spokesperson. We have had quite a few Opposition spokespersons on communications. The honourable member was talking about issuing new licences. There is a crazy notion that one can deregulate the airwaves and that, if one wants a licence, one just goes along and asks for it and a licence is granted. The notion is that everyone can have a licence and that radio and television stations are just put to air. That takes no account of the fact that there is a very valid argument in this area concerning viability. There is a need to ensure stability in this industry. No one is going to invest in or support local Australian television program production if the ridiculous situation exists whereby anyone who wants to set up a television station can do so when television stations go off air because they cannot sustain a profit as too many people are competing for the limited advertising market. Nobody will invest in the rest of the infrastructure. People will not be trained to operate cameras. They will not be trained in production and the things that are the backbone of the industry. So there must be some viability and stability in the industry in terms of issuing licences. It is a nonsense argument to say that we should simply issue unlimited numbers of licences to anyone who wants them. We have looked at the question of radio licensing in regional areas. There is an underservicing problem. We have announced a program under which about 30 new licences will be issued over the next three years. We have instituted a funding program which will raise substantially more money for the Government and, at the same time, provide a fairly consistent base. I believe that there is only one area which the Government needs to address-that is, supplementary licences. Whilst I appreciate that in some areas full viability does not exist for open competition, I am of the view that in areas where a supplementary licence may be issued, we should charge a substantive fee for such licences. We are raising licence fees this year by lifting the top rates that are paid. The current 8 per cent limit on the maximum earnings of television stations is being lifted to 9 per cent in cases where television licensees earn in excess of $100m. What we have done is a rational way to lift the earnings from television licences. I think there is still some way to go before we realise the full potential of this area. I hope that the Government continues its program of gradually increasing television licence fees over the next few years. I commend the Bills to the House. I believe that what is proposed is a new move and it provides an advantage, particularly for people in regional areas who have suffered from a lack of variety in their radio programs. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. House adjourned at 11.06 p.m. until Tuesday, 17 November at 2.00 p.m. unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative date or hour of meeting in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 67) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Are Commonwealth public servants and employees of Commonwealth statutory authorities who use screen based equipment given the option to undergo an eye examination at Government expense; if so, can these examinations be carried out by optometrists. (2) What fee is paid to an optometrist for the examination. (3) What interval between the initial test and a follow-up test is recommended. (4) What has been the cost to the Government for eye examinations since the inception of the scheme. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) On 28 May 1985, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters approved interim arrangements for eyesight testing of Screen Based Equipment (SBE) operators at Commonwealth expense. They apply to staff required to operate SBE for more than 25% of their time on duty; (b) Under the arrangements, testing is on a voluntary basis and comprises the following six tests: distance visual acuity near visual acuity Oculomotor co-ordination colour vision slit lamp examination of the eye ophthalmoscopic examination of the ocular fundus. The last two tests are to be conducted by an optometrist. The first four tests can be administered by trained nursing staff inhouse e.g. through Regional Offices of the Department of Community Services and Health or all six tests can be conducted by an optometrist. (2) The approved fees-for-service paid to optometrists is $15.85. (3) Current guidelines suggest retesting after an interval of 2 years. However these arrangements are interim: Worksafe Australia has set terms of reference for an Expert Study Group on Eyesight Testing of VDU Users and this Group's first meeting took place on 29 September, 1987. The study group is chaired by Worksafe Australia with the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists, and the Australian Optometrical Association each providing a representative. The expert study will investigate: The need and justification for, and reliability of, eyesight testing and diagnosis for Screen Based Equipment use; The nature and frequency of any tests which should be conducted in relation to SBE use; The most economical and efficient means of conducting any tests found to be necessary; and The categories of employees to be tested. (4) A survey conducted by the Public Service Board, of its related agencies, in August 1986 indicated that up to that date some 60% of eligible staff had been tested and of these less than 2% were prescribed spectacles. The cost to the Federal Government has been approximately $330,000, an average of $13.00 per individual tested. No further surveys have been conducted. (Question No. 70) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 15 September: How many (a) federal and State government departments, (b) universities, (c) commercial organisations, (d) private individuals and (e) overseas bodies used the National Climate Centre's central data service during (i) 1984, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1986 and (iv) 1987 (to 16 September 1987). Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Bureau of Meteorology, which operates the National Climate Centre, does not keep records of the number of organisations using the Climate Centre's services. The figures below are the total number of requests for services processed by the Centre for each calendar year from 1 January 1984 to 30 June 1987 (later figures for 1987 are not yet available), but may include several requests from the same organisation or individual. 1984 1985 1986 1987 Government ... 457 552 420 199 Universities ... 152 146 128 86 Commercial ... 385 531 441 202 Private ... 575 729 490 131 Overseas ... 84 102 45 40 Many requests for National Climate Centre services are made through the Bureau's Regional Offices. As the method of keeping records of requests varies from office to office, the figures given probably represent a slight underestimate of the true figures. The Bureau also handles many other requests for data services which are dealt with at a Regional Office level and without reference to the National Climate Centre. (Question No. 99) Mr Reith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: What is the estimated cost of conducting a referendum in 1988. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Electoral Commissioner has advised that the cost of conducting a referendum in 1988 based on the staffing requirements and advertising costs associated with the recent general election would be of the order of $35 million. (Question No. 193) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: In relation to the Australian Trade Union Training Authority, in each year since 1984-85, what was the (a) total number of employees, (b) total number of employees receiving workers' compensation payments, (c) gross expenditure on workers' compensation payments, (d) value of the average compensation claim and (e) number of compensation cases as a percentage of total employees. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 (a) ... 114 120 119 (b) ... 5 9 7 (c) ... $56,738 $9,970 $5,723 (d) ... $11,348 $1,108 $818 (e) ... 4% 8% 6% (Question No. 200) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: In relation to the Australian Electoral Commission, in each year since 1984-85, what was the (a) total number of employees, (b) total number of employees receiving workers' compensation payments, (c) gross expenditure on workers' compensation payments, (d) value of the average compensation claim and (e) number of compensation cases as a percentage of total employees. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Total number of employees 1984/85-840 (includes 43 inoperative staff) 1985/86-888 (includes 47 inoperative staff) 1986/87-976 (includes 35 inoperative staff) (b) Total number of employees receiving workers' compensation payments 1984/85-51 1985/86-81 1986/87-75 (c) Gross expenditure on workers' compensation payments 1984/85-$114,625 1985/86-$141,430 1986/87- $63,507 (d) Value of the average compensation claim 1984/85-$2,247 1985/86-$1,746 1986/87- $847 (e) Number of compensation cases as a percentage of total employees 1984/85-6.07% 1985/86-9.12% 1986/87-7.68%