Monday, 23 November 1987 The House met at 2 p.m. The Clerk-I inform the House of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker due to illness. In accordance with standing order 14, the Chairman of Committees, as Acting Speaker, will take the chair. Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, will be absent from Question Time today on official business. Any questions normally addressed to him should be directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett. Mr CONNOLLY —Is the Minister for Social Security aware that the three Sydney Smith Family centres have recorded an average of 250 people a day visiting for food, and 100 for clothing, that there has been a 16 per cent increase in people asking for assistance from the Smith Family and that half of the 100,000 people who asked for help in 1986-87 were children? How does the Government hope to achieve its target of having `no children living in poverty in 1990' if it continues to restrict the capacity of non-government organisations to help the poor? Mr HOWE —This question is rather rich, coming as it does from an Opposition which, when in government, was responsible for creating mass unemployment. Mr Tuckey —That is not so. Mr HOWE —Honourable members opposite can respond like that, but if they were administering social security in 1982 and had to cope with an additional 300,000 beneficiaries in one year, many of whom had dependent children, and if in subsequent years they had to deal with the situation in which the real value-- Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. The question is about the problems of people today. The Minister is giving us a yesterday answer. These people are suffering. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I call the Minister. Mr HOWE —I understand why the Opposition would want to rewrite history. The rate of unemployment grew to over 10 per cent of the work force; there was a doubling of unemployment in the last year of the previous Government. There was a massive increase in child poverty. The number of children of pensioner and beneficiary families in poverty grew from 330,000, which it was when we left office in 1975, to over 800,000 during the period of the previous Government. What did that mean for the Smith Family? It meant that a burden was placed on that agency and on other voluntary agencies. This Government's record in the area of income security stands high. We have lifted the level of pensions from 22.8 per cent to almost 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We have increased payments for pensioner and beneficiary children from $10 to $17 a week. This amount is about to be increased to $22. This Government has introduced-no government has done this before-an age-related allowance of an additional $6 or $28 for older children. Since we have been in government we have doubled the mother's-guardian's allowance from $6 to $12. We have not only increased rent assistance from $10 to $15 but also for the first time we have extended rent assistance for low income working families. For low income people with children at school, we have increased the payment for 16- and 17-year-old young people at school from something like $22 to $40, thus helping to achieve school retention rates where it is most crucial. From 1 January next year the amount will be increased to $50. Of course there is always concern that governments should do more for those most disadvantaged people within the Australian community. This Government has a record of creating nearly 900,000 jobs on the one hand and on the other hand of providing increased, additional and more targeted assistance for low income people. This has been done in spite of the economic constraints. The coalition Government ran away from office leaving a deficit for this Treasurer to manage of nearly $10 billion. This Government has not only made those social achievements but also balanced the books while it has been doing it. Mr LAVARCH —My question is also directed to the Minister for Social Security. Can he explain how the new earnings credit system will assist pensioners who take a temporary job as Father Christmas over the festive season? Mr HOWE —While the question clearly has a lighthearted tone, particularly as the Parliament moves towards the festive season, the fact that the Government has introduced the earnings credit scheme is, of course, very good news for people with part time or casual earnings. During the election campaign the Government promised a new earnings credit scheme to help pensioners beat poverty traps by giving them room to increase their income and Father Christmases across Australia will be among the first to benefit. The new arrangements mean that from 1 November they can earn up to $1,000 each from casual jobs without having their pension reduced or losing their fringe benefits. The typical Father Christmas may earn, say, $250 a week for four weeks during December. For some such people that will be their only annual income over and above the pension. Under the ordinary income test such a person would have his pension reduced by $105 a week and lose the pensioner health benefit card during that period. Clearly, that person has been discriminated against compared with the pensioner who earned $1,000 evenly over the year and maintained entitlement to full pension and fringe benefits. Under the new arrangement a single pensioner can save up earnings credits from weeks when he or she earns less than the $40 per week allowed as the free area. This initiative means that pensioners can accept full time jobs at some time during the year without having to worry about losing their pension, at least until their credit is exhausted. So Father Christmas will be able to work and to keep the full pension and the pensioner health benefit card. There has been some confusion between the earnings credit and the free income limit. Basically, if pensioners do not use up all of the free area, they can roll over the difference to increase the free area applying to future earnings. From now on we are giving pensioners $1,000 earning credit so anyone who has not used all of his free area since 1 January can earn up to $1,000 this Christmas and retain the full pension. In conclusion, I remind the House, particularly in view of the previous question, that in the last six months, despite the fiscal restraint and balancing the books, we introduced poverty trap measures from 1 July to increase the general amounts that pensioners can earn every week. By Christmas we will have increased pensions and we will have made it easier for pensioners to work without worrying about losing their pension or full benefits. Taking the pension increases, the earnings credit scheme and, indeed, the family assistance package, this Christmas will be a much happier Christmas for tens of thousands of Australian pensioners. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to a report in the Australian newspaper of 21 November indicating that Treasury officials have confirmed that key Budget forecasts for the economy have been revised in the wake of the crash. In view of the revised outlook for world economic growth, I ask the Treasurer whether the projected current account deficit of $11.5 billion for 1987-88 has been revised. If so, by how much? I further ask him: In light of the latest revision of key Budget forecasts, how can the Government's strategy for 1987-88 still be on track? Mr KEATING —The Treasury from time to time during the year does a forecasting round. We will be doing it again soon and often that does vary some of the forecasts which are laid down at Budget time. This in no way, of course, invalidates the general thrust of the strategy, so the last point in the question does not have much weight to it. The latest round of the joint economic forecasting group has not taken place, but the information which will be dealt with is in the possession of the Government. We make some of this information available as we see fit from time to time. Sometimes I do this in speeches to the Economic Planning Advisory Council but, frankly, this just depends upon some of the variables and whether in fact we think the debate is advanced by its release. Mr PRICE —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the estimated savings generated by the assets test and the revenue collected by the fringe benefits tax (FBT)? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Chifley for his question. I can inform him that the estimated savings from the assets test for 1987-88 are $160m. The amount is expected to grow to $300m by 1989-90. Madam Speaker-I am sorry, I should say Mr Acting Speaker; I am still recovering from the fishing. I note that yesterday the shadow Treasurer, who unfortunately seems to gave gone-no, there he is; come here, Andrew; cop it like a man-expressed, as it is quoted, a `firm view' that the assets test on pensions would go under a hypothetical Liberal government. In these circumstances, one has to wonder whether the shadow Treasurer has cleared his comments with the Federal President of the Liberal Party of Australia, who, as we know, is a well known supporter of the assets test. I simply remind honourable members of the very firm statement made by Mr Elliott, quoted in the Courier-Mail of 21 May this year. He was quoted at a Courier-Mail business dinner as saying: Opposition by some sections of the Liberal Party to means testing welfare payments was `disgraceful' and `welfare' payments should be based on need-not on right'. That clear statement by the Federal President of the Liberal Party attacking statements like those of the shadow Treasurer is firmly in line with the Government's approach to welfare payment. That is the underlying rationale behind the assets test which the shadow Treasurer now says he has a firm view to abolish. In regard to that part of the honourable member's question which asked about the fringe benefits tax, I can inform him that the fringe benefits tax is collecting around $750m a year and, together with substantiation requirements, it collects over $1 billion. Again with this matter we find another area of disagreement in the Opposition. I look at this morning's Australian Financial Review and I see the heading `Opposition softens on lucrative FBT in wake of crash'. Here we see the shadow Treasurer saying: We'll have to review the economic circumstances that we inherit, but we're not prepared to go back to the situation where rorts continue. In other words, the shadow Treasurer is now reported as softening on the fringe benefits tax. I ask honourable members to contrast that with the publicly stated position of the Leader of the Opposition. His statement is, `We'll throw it out lock, stock and barrel'. In regard to the fringe benefits tax he said on 7 October 1986: The principle of it is wrong and so is the administration. Here we have the shadow Treasurer and the Federal President of the Liberal Party in direct contradiction with one another and we have the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition in absolute contrast. It is interesting in those circumstances that we have the Leader of the Opposition saying on radio this morning: There is no way on earth any political party can ask the public to support it if it presents the impression of division at the top. What greater impression of division at the top can we have than this division between the shadow Treasurer, the Federal President of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition. They are hopeless. Mr McVEIGH —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It concerns World Heritage listing of the rainforests of north Queensland. Since the High Court of Australia might have to determine the conservation status of areas to be protected if Queensland challenges the World Heritage values of its rainforests and also determine whether the Commonwealth is making a de facto acquisition of State land, will the Prime Minister establish an inquiry similar to the Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests as a more appropriate way of examining Queensland rainforests for World Heritage values to determine whether some logging can continue? Mr HAWKE —I suggest to the honourable member that there can be no real doubt that the wet tropics of north-east Queensland are of World Heritage status. I do not think there is any doubt about that at all. The environmental values of the area have been well researched and well documented, such that there is no real point in holding an inquiry similar to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests inquiry. We are convinced on this side of the House that logging is incompatible with protection of the environmental values of the wet tropics of north-east Queensland. It is interesting that there is reference in this respect to a High Court challenge. I remind him that his Queensland National Party Leader for the time being, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, made it clear recently that there was little chance of any challenge against World Heritage listing succeeding and, therefore, has cast serious doubt on whether Queensland would proceed in any way with such a challenge. As I said on 5 June when announcing the Government's intention to proceed towards nominating rainforests for World Heritage listing, we had no choice in the circumstances but to proceed with this action. The Queensland Government refused to agree to stop logging of the rainforests. I point out to the honourable gentleman that the official Opposition environmental spokesman, Senator Puplick, has left no doubt at all as far as he is concerned as to where he stands on the issue. He said in his Press statement of 24 August this year under the heading `Queensland Wet Tropical Rainforests': I have expressed the belief that the Queensland wet tropical forests are worthy of inclusion on the World Heritage List: they are unique; they are of international significance; they contain one of the greatest and scientifically most significant concentrations of unique flora and fauna in the world. The Opposition spokesman said: Australia is the only industrialised country with remaining tropical rainforests and we have a responsibility to protect them. The Opposition spokesman said that on this issue. But, more significantly, even from the point of view of the honourable member, his own parliamentary Leader has refused to oppose World Heritage listing in principle, saying that he wanted at least some of the area protected and enhanced. I repeat to the honourable member that assistance will be provided to help create alternative employment opportunities in activities such as tourism and park and plantation management. I can assure him that no final decisions will be made on the nature or the level of assistance until consultations are completed. You, Mr Acting Speaker, will appreciate, and so will the honourable gentleman, that we accepted public submissions. They were received until 22 October. Therefore, I trust that the exposition of the position of the Opposition as a whole, the very qualified position of the honourable member's own Leader in this place and the refusal of his leader in Queensland to take any challenge to the High Court of Australia, will set this matter in appropriate perspective for the honourable gentleman. Mr SNOWDON —I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Is the Minister aware of a proposal to allocate a floor of the Royal Darwin Hospital to a private organisation known as Health and Life Care to operate as a private hospital? Can the Minister advise what impact this could have on the availability of Medicare services in the Northern Territory to those people without private insurance? Can the Minister also advise the House whether this proposal has the potential to impact on the contribution rates for those people with private insurance? Can the Minister say whether he will be seeking assurances from the Northern Territory Government that this proposal will not disadvantage Territorians irrespective of whether they have private insurance? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the rather unusual decision of the Northern Territory Government to turn over one whole floor of its public hospital to a private company to make of it a private hospital. I understand that the loss of those 72 beds has already caused considerable disorganisation in the hospital and concerns to obstetric patients by, for instance, the reduction of beds and often the putting together of rather inappropriate wards. This issue raises a number of major policy issues which I believe it would have been appropriate for the Northern Territory Government to have discussed with this Government. It raises the problem as to whether, as a result of giving away this whole floor, the Northern Territory Government can continue to guarantee unrestricted access to free public hospital treatment for uninsured people. There is also the question of whether an agreement has been made between the Northern Territory Government and the operators of the proposed private hospital to redirect all privately insured patients from the public hospital to the private beds. It is important that we get an answer to that. Whilst some of the newspapers in the Northern Territory have been pretending that Territorians were disadvantaged by not having this provision, people in the Northern Territory should understand the full implications of this proposal. Currently, Northern Territory people can get access to the Darwin Hospital and be treated as private patients at a cost of $120 a day for accommodation. Under the private hospital proposal, accommodation fees will rise to as high as $360 a day. That will certainly not benefit most Territorians with private health insurance. Indeed, it will mean a significant rise in private health insurance rates in the Territory. Moreover, a serious social problem arises if one decides within a public hospital to have a special floor set aside as a private hospital in that one may well develop special first class treatment for that one floor compared with the rest, so the result in the future will be that people in the public hospital-the poor, the Aborigines and others-will get second class treatment while those insured will get first class treatment on a special floor. Again I say, given the major policy implications of this decision, that I am surprised that the Northern Territory Health Minister has not approached me directly to discuss some of these major issues. I believe that Minister should initiate discussions immediately so that this Government can receive proper assurances about those aspects of the proposal. Moreover, one might ask, as a private hospital is to be built in Darwin within the next 12 to 18 months and within the hospital grounds, why it is necessary for the Northern Territory to cause all of this disruption to give over this floor of the hospital to a private firm. Finally, if the Northern Territory Government believes that it can simply authorise more private hospital beds, and systematically close down its public hospital sector in this way, it should understand that the Commonwealth will have to review the level of grants currently payable. Mr ANDREW —I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Will the Minister confirm that the Labor member for Adelaide recently flew to New York for the purpose of checking out the Australian Consul-General's facilities as a prerequisite to his acceptance of that position? Could the Minister inform the House whether Mr Hurford found the role sufficiently attractive for him to accept the position of Consul-General? Has the Minister spoken to the honourable member for Robertson, Mr Cohen, about his future? Mr DUFFY —I have no idea whether Mr Hurford has travelled to New York, and I have no idea about the reference made by the honourable member to the honourable member for Robertson. In relation to any appointments that this Government may make in the future, I have no doubt that those opposite will follow those appointments with interest and in due course will ascertain who has been appointed to where. Ms FATIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is the Minister aware of claims that the Government's child support scheme could result in hardship for sole parents? Is there any truth in the claims? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for her question. I am aware of the claim made by the honourable member for Bradfield, the shadow Minister, that the Government's scheme could cause hardship to sole parents. He claimed that a harsh assets test will apply, and will include the family home. This is simply not true. The Government's scheme links the family law and the social security systems. It is essential in this area that sole parents not be unnecessarily worried. Where maintenance is provided by way of capital or lump sum that maintenance will be income tested, just like with current cash maintenance. The Family Law Amendment Bill, which has been passed by the House, requires specification in the family law system of capital or lump sum maintenance as maintenance. Only when a capital or lump sum amount is identified in the court system as maintenance will it be income tested in the social security system. This is a fair and equitable way to treat maintenance. All maintenance, regardless of form, will attract the income test. The honourable member for Bradfield called on the Government to respond to the criticism of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) that the child support scheme will put many supporting parents into poverty. Of course ACOSS has never made such criticism. It has complained that the scheme will not do enough to lift those who do not receive maintenance out of poverty. I think it is important that the House know that when the child support scheme is introduced it will not lead to any sole parent being worse off. It will represent a significant attack upon the work disincentive for sole parents. Under the current arrangements a sole parent with two children, receiving $30 in maintenance for each child and earning $100 a week part time, could lose $48 a week because of that earned income. Under the new separate income test, that same pensioner will lose only $18 because of the earned income. This will turn maintenance into real income support to be received regularly, on time, each month. At the moment maintenance is an extra amount which is received sporadically, with no security for those who are lucky enough to receive it. The scheme will more than double the number of pensioners receiving maintenance, and all of those who get maintenance for the first time because of the scheme will be better off. The separate income test on maintenance strikes a fair balance between the interests of the taxpayers and the interests of the custodial parent. The custodial parent will get maintenance in the free area of $15 for one child plus $5 for each additional child. For maintenance above these free areas, pensions will be reduced by 50c in the dollar, as is the case in other social security income tests. In conclusion, it is important that people look at the whole of the Government's policies with respect to sole parents. If they do, they will see all those policies together as being the most significant attack on the poverty of sole parents, certainly in the time since changes to the Family Law Act in the 1970s. Mrs SULLIVAN —Has the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs called for a report on allegations that a former Queensland member of the Legislative Assembly, Mr Jack Aiken, has been running an immigration scheme based on claims of special influence, offers of arranged marriages, employer nomination for non-existent jobs and investment in business ventures in which Mr Aiken was a partner? If so, will the Minister inform the House of the outcome of his investigation? What action will the Minister take with respect to those immigration applications which would not have been approved had it not been for Mr Aiken's efforts to artificially structure them to fit Australia's immigration requirements? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for her question. It is true that certain allegations were raised in the Press. Prior to those allegations, information was given to the Department which was then handed on to the Australian Federal Police for further investigation. I do not have the follow-up to its investigations on this matter. The honourable member raised questions which have been of some concern to me since I have had this portfolio. We have gone about the business migration program in a totally unregulated manner. As the honourable member undoubtedly knows, I have now tried to give that some sort of structure because a number of members of parliament have found it appropriate to go into this business after they have left the various State and Federal chambers. Not only those ex-members of parliament but also hundreds and hundreds of others set themselves up as experts on business migration to this country. We have seen a rapid increase in the number of applicants in this area. I think that what I have announced in terms of business migration will be of benefit both in the quality and quantity of the business people that will be migrating to Australia. The question that the honourable member raises about whether people are dealing with these matters appropriately is very serious. It has been taken seriously. If I get any other information which I can make available to the House, I will certainly do so. Mr DUBOIS —Can the Minister for Employment, Education and Training advise the House what steps the Government has taken to increase the opportunities for girls in high schools to study mathematics and science subjects? Would these steps increase the likelihood of girls studying science at tertiary level? Given our shortage of scientists and engineers, does the Government place a high priority on such a program? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for St George for his question. Mr Tuckey —Give them something on accountancy, too. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr DAWKINS —The retention rates of girls in high schools to year 12 exceed those of boys. Indeed, the participation rate of girls and women, particularly in the age group 17 to 19 years, in tertiary education substantially exceeds that of males in the same age group. The important fact is, however, that there is a high concentration of female enrolments in tertiary education in the humanities, the arts and teacher education, and a very low participation rate in science, the applied sciences, engineering and so on. One reason seems to be that girls take decisions early in their secondary education not to continue with maths and sciences, thereby limiting their options for tertiary education study and denying the country a great pool of talent represented by girls and young women in the great technological challenges that face us. The solution to the problem is not simple. Insofar as it relates to difficulties in curriculum, the Government in the Budget announced a $1m project to conduct an exercise to see whether the curriculum might be improved in higher secondary school to encourage girls to continue study of these subjects. The matter is even more complex than that. It goes to the attitudes of teachers, parents and employers. This is a joint responsibility for everybody to try to encourage girls in particular, but also boys, to continue with maths and sciences in secondary school to ensure that more students are able to continue tertiary education in these vital subjects. This is a particular responsibility of employers. Young people in deciding what courses to undertake at university and college are keenly aware of where employment opportunities are to be found. If employers were to show a greater preparedness to employ graduates in sciences, engineering and other subjects, I think that we would see a quick response from young people in taking such courses. Mr ADERMANN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to reports in the Queensland media that Queensland businesses are paying more than $1m a year extra because poor Telecom account checking procedures resulted in overcharging, that telephone accounts in almost 60 per cent of cases were found to be inaccurate, that 60 per cent of Telecom business subscribers whose bills were inaccurate were found to have been overcharged, and the claim that, if this error rate is projected across Australia, nothing short of a national scandal exists? If the Minister's attention has been drawn to those reports, has he taken up the matter with Telecom and, if so, to what effect? If not, will the Minister urgently take up the matter with Telecom? Mr DUNCAN —I am not aware of the details of that matter. I shall obtain details for the honourable member and bring them back to the House in due course. Mr PUNCH —My question is to the Attorney-General. What is the Government's attitude in regard to calls by the business community for legislative changes to allow companies to buy back their own shares? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —At the last Ministerial Council meeting in September a report was received from the Companies and Securities Law Reform Committee. It had had this matter under deliberation for two years or more, and the Ministerial Council decided that it would deal with it at its next meeting, which is in December. I mention that because there has been some Press comment that the matter was before the Federal Parliament and has been delayed. In fact, it has not even reached that position. The merits of the proposal are that it would give companies opportunities to buy their own shares, a facility which at present is not available. That process would lead to shares being deemed to be more valuable, and it is thought that in the present climate that might be a satisfactory result. There are problems involved in the proposal, as the report mentions that the offer should be on a selective basis. One can see the difficulties that would be created if only certain shareholders were to be given the opportunity of selling their shares at above share market value. It would also affect creditors to the extent that the amount of money available for them would not be as great as if the money had been used in the utilisation of the purchase of the shares. Further, there is the fact that perhaps the directors might want to give themselves some insurance against any takeover offer. Thus, there are pros and cons. The Committee recommended that the articles of association be amended to provide that, if that were to be the provision, it would be reviewed every three years and would also require a special resolution. In other words, there are factors of some interest and it may well be that the scheme could be given some consideration. The real issue at the moment is what is in the best interests of the company and the shareholders. From a national point of view, we would be most anxious that companies would be more interested in expanding their production and increasing their productivity by utilising their capital, rather than merely insuring themselves against a takeover bid. Dr WOOLDRIDGE —My question is to the Minister for Community Services and Health. By way of background, I refer the Minister to an answer he gave to a question in this House on 3 November concerning remarks made by the Victorian Premier. The Minister replied that the Premier was incorrect in his criticism of the Federal Government because the level of private health insurance in Australia had remained static for the past 12 to 18 months. Is the Minister aware that figures released by his own Department and, according to his Department, approved by him before release, show that in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania the level of private health insurance as a percentage of the population is at historically low levels? In Victoria it is the lowest for three years and only in New South Wales, where there has been prolonged industrial disruption, is it marginally higher. How does the Minister reconcile his own Department's figures with his statement to the House on 3 November? Does he now concede that the Victorian Premier is correct when he states that the Federal Government's health policies are `illogical and distort incentives'? Dr BLEWETT —As I remember, I said on that date that the figures had remained relatively static over the past 18 months. If the honourable member examines the increase that has taken place in New South Wales, together with the marginal falls that have taken place in the other States, I think he will find that that is basically a correct statement. It is true, particularly in the past three months, that in all States except New South Wales there seems to have been a somewhat greater fall-off in the rate of private health insurance. But across the whole nation the figures have been relatively static during that 18-month period. Mrs HARVEY —Has the attention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs been drawn to an article which recently appeared in the Adelaide News stating that a particular Vietnam veteran would have to travel to Canberra at great personal expense to read the transcript of evidence given to the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam? If so, is it a fact that the veteran mentioned in the article would have to pay up to $9,000 to examine the material? Mr HUMPHREYS —I thank the honourable member for her question. My attention has been drawn to the article which I have here. It is headed `Mike's private war-Vietnam veteran takes his fight to Canberra'. The Vietnam veteran is Mike Schar. He is very concerned that he cannot see the transcript of evidence in Adelaide. It was reported that he was told that he would have to fly to Canberra to view the transcript and that he would have to pay 5c per page-it is a document of 6,500 pages-and $2 a sitting. He had also been told it would cost him between $1,000 and $9,000. I am happy to announce to the House-and especially to the honourable member-that there is a transcript of evidence in South Australia. It will be available in my Department's office there next week. So if the Vietnam veteran mentioned would like to go to my office and see the officers, they will make that transcript available to him. I do not know how long it will take him to sit down and read it, but I am sure the honourable member for Hawker will be happy to pass on to the Vietnam veteran that it will be at no cost whatsoever to him and he will not have to fly to Canberra either. Mr SHIPTON —I ask the Prime Minister a question about his imminent trip to the Soviet Union. Is it correct, as announced by the leader of the Soviet parliamentary delegation to Australia last week, that the Australian Government intends to sign a general trade agreement with the Soviet Union? Is this agreement a wide-ranging one, which includes six individual bilateral agreements, with agreements on sporting contacts, research and human contacts? If so, can the Prime Minister inform the House as to what, if any, undertakings have been given in relation to the human contacts agreement by the Soviet Union concerning the rights of Soviet Jewry and Christian prisoners in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Will the Prime Minister, on his trip, be lobbying Soviet authorities on the rights and freedoms of Soviet Jewry and the release of more than 400 Christian prisoners incarcerated for the mere crime of practising their religion? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am not going to go into all the details of the discussions that have gone on to this point in regard to the number of areas in which we will be seeking to conclude agreements with the Soviet Union. However, I assure the honourable member that I will continue the work that I and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade have done since we have been in office on the question of the rights of Soviet Jewry and human rights in the Soviet Union in general. The honourable gentleman will be aware-I know of his interest in this subject-of the success we have had in the positive responses by the Soviet authorities to the lists that I have put to the Soviet Union and that Madam Speaker also put to the Soviet Union on her visit there. We welcome the improvement in the numbers of people who have been able to leave the Soviet Union. Soviet Jews have been asking for that right. We believe that more can be done. Therefore, I can assure the honourable gentleman that I will be pursuing this matter. We will be talking about the general question of human rights which, as the honourable gentleman will appreciate, will embrace the other area he mentioned-those who have been incarcerated for the practising of their religion. The whole issue of human rights will be canvassed, as will be, in particular, the question of the rights of Soviet Jewry. Mr CLEELAND —Is the Minister for Resources aware of the activities of a company called Radiata Contractors of Australia? Has this company developed a method of cloning pinus radiata trees? Is this process capable of increasing rapidly the number of trees being planted in Australia for commercial purposes? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of the company and the very valuable contribution it is making to activities in this area. The honourable member very ably represented me at the opening of that nursery last Friday. Mr Tim Fischer —I was there, and the speech was too long. Mr PETER MORRIS —It was a very good speech. For that duty alone, the honourable member deserves the commendation of this House. I look forward to further opportunities when he will be similarly able to represent the Government and continue his efforts in and contribution to the development of this very important industry. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members and in accordance with past practice, I present, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), a document relating to the simultaneous dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives by the Governor-General on 5 June 1987. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —Pursuant to section 42 of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Health Insurance Commission, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1986-87. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business) —Pursuant to section 52 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970 and section 63h of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1986-87. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Halverson,Mr Jenkins,Mr Kent and Mr Milton. 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 Halverson,Mr Ruddock,Mr Tuckey and Dr Wooldridge. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the 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 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-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 Cowan. To the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in 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 Cobb and Dr Harry Edwards. 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 experimentation 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 Mrs Darling and Mr Ian Robinson. 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 Mrs Darling and Mr Tuckey. 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 Fife and Dr Hewson. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: 1. That we are totally opposed to the Government's 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 Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens, of Australia respectfully showeth: In respect of sole parents on the Supporting Parents Benefit or the Widows Pension, whose youngest (or only) child has turned 16 years old and who will lose their pension or benefit from September 3, 1987, regardless of whether that child is still at school. It will be difficult for them to support a child at school, especially in years 11 and 12, on unemployment benefits. It will be difficult for most of them to find employment due to their lack of work skills and the high unemployment rate. It will be difficult for them to undertake a retraining programme as the Austudy rate is even lower than unemployment benefits. We believe that these sole parents should be able to retain their benefit or pension at least until all their children have finished their high school education. We call on the legislature to change the legislation to this effect. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown. 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 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 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 Mr Ian Robinson 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 peoples 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 in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- We, the undersigned citizens, 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 sometimes the only contact relatives can have to check on the safety and well-being of those they care for. Also, when making business calls, you are quite often asked to hold the line or are transferred from one Department to another and this all takes time. We sincerely feel that the charges Telecom makes at the moment are quite adequate. Your petitioners therefore pray that Telecom will not introduce a time charge on local telephone calls. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that the community will be done a disservice as it will lose the nationally proud young citizens that are helping to strengthen the defence forces; in times when our defence forces are supposedly being built up, the reverse effect is taking place in this small town, which draws its Reserve members from a wide area. When the facilities and equipment are already to hand and the manpower is strong the reasoning behind closure is difficult to validate; that we call upon the Government to reverse its decision to close the Army Reserve Depot at Cootamundra. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposed nomination of Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland to the World Heritage List. The listing as a World Heritage of such a vast area, including areas of State Forest scheduled for Timber Harvesting on a sustained yield basis, will have a detrimental effect on the Timber and Allied industries and on the citizens and economy of North Queensland. The listing as a World Heritage of such a vast area will inhibit the future development of North Queensland on a broad economic base. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the listing of Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland as a World Heritage. And your petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. 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. We consider 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. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. 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. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: Ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and Reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Saunderson. 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: The Hawke Government's Australia card will be an attack on the civil liberties and privacy of all Australians, will not achieve the claimed results, will provide a boost to organised crime and will be an enormous burden to the private sector, especially small business, already snowed under with government charges, taxes and red tape. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: Abandon legislation for any type of national identity system and work toward building a society based on trust not suspicion. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card. That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. That we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. Petitions received. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to provide efficient delivery of social services leading to the spread of poverty. 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 Howe-Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. Does the honourable member for Bradfield have to be in the chamber to open his speech? He seems to have disappeared. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Without the honourable member for Bradfield I doubt that the matter can be called on. Mr Cobb-Clarrie will do it. Mr Millar-Mr Acting Speaker-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Without the honourable member for Bradfield the matter cannot be called on. Mr Hunt-Here he is. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(2.55) —Some years ago this country's Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: The challenges and responsibilities confronting us in the coming years are profound-let us ensure that by acting constructively together we discharge those responsibilities in a way that will secure full employment and a better standard of living for all people. In his Australian Labor Party (ALP) policy speech of 13 November 1984, he said: We offer a continuing, coherent program-a firm ordering of priorities to build a prosperous, fair and caring society. After five Budgets and numerous promises, it is not unreasonable that the Opposition should now take the Government to task on these issues. Right across the spectrum of statistics the same sorry story can be told. Let us look at domestic interest rates. Home loans in March 1983 were 12.5 per cent. In September this year they had risen to 15 per cent. The small overdraft rate had gone from 14 per cent to 19.25 per cent. Bankruptcies are surely one of the criteria for judging the success of an economic policy and the failure of a social policy. In 1982-83 there were 6,035 bankruptcies; in 1986-87 the number had grown to 8,597. Savings bank interest rates for March 1983 went from 12.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent, and the average home loan repayment as a percentage of median family income has risen from 19.2 per cent to 26.9 per cent. All the Government has done to solve that problem is to offer the poor a benefit of a mere $15 a week, which will have no impact whatsoever in the cities of Sydney and Melbourne. Public housing waiting lists-another criterion which has to be looked at to judge whether or not a government's economic and social policies have been successful-show the same depressing trend. In December 1982 there were 110,000 people on the public housing waiting lists. By December 1986-to which the most recent figures apply-the figure had risen to 154,000. Those waiting lists have increased by some 50 per cent since 1982. Even after the latest tax cuts, single income earners and families will be paying 42c and 57c in the dollar respectively more tax than when Labor came to power. So much for a policy based on the need to give the Australian people compassion and concern-especially concern for those who need support most. The ALP has claimed that old age pensions have improved across the board. But the reality is that, although they have now reached some 24.8 per cent of average weekly earnings, the purchasing power of average weekly earnings has fallen. As a result, it is no longer accurate to say that they are closer to that base than they were previously. The purchasing power of money under Labor has gone in one direction over five years, and that is consistently and inexorably down. The issue is quite clear: the Australian people today are clearly worse off than they were at the change of government. We recognise the reality that 1982 was a hard year for Australia. We had a massive problem with the drought and other matters. But the simple fact is that the promises made by Labor then and since-the promises which have been repeated over five Budgets-have simply not been delivered upon. Today we have 824,700 Australian children living in poverty. In 1982 there were 660,000. No one on this side of the House takes any joy whatsoever at that figure. But the simple fact is that the social policies of this Government have made the situation worse and not better. Now, after five Budgets, the Government has finally decided to bring in a family package-a package which was thrown together just before the last election, clearly with political intentions in mind, to try to shore up its own support in that range of seats in the western suburbs of Sydney and parts of Melbourne, where its own supporters are no longer prepared to believe that the Labor Party is one of compassion and concern and that the Labor Party is concerned about their affairs. These people voted in the only way open to them-they voted against Labor at the last Federal election. That trend has been emphasised since then by the Government's own Treasurer (Mr Keating), who made the point in his speech in Melbourne last week that the time has come for the Labor Party to try to win back its traditional support. The people who provide that traditional support, together with the middle income earners of Australia, have every reason to say that the situation is much worse today under Labor. Even the Prime Minister has said in this House and elsewhere that standards of living in Australia are falling. I will go further and say that, regrettably, standards of living in Australia under this Government will continue to fall. Let us look at the family debt crisis. Family debt amounts to $23 billion as a direct result of the Labor Government's policies which have taxed Australian families into poverty. The erosion of the relative tax position of middle income families is a disgrace. It is shown by the fact that every family is now carrying on average a debt of $6,000 to banks and lending institutions. That represents a 40 per cent increase in the last 12 months. Families today are committing 69 per cent of their weekly income to paying debts. It is the highest proportion for many years, yet once again this Government tries to delude people into believing that change is here, that we have nothing more to worry about, that the worst is behind us so let us proceed forward. The procession to the future will simply be a repetition of the disasters of the past. The National Institute of Economic and Industry Research pointed out that the number of Australians living in poverty has increased during the 1980s, that there has been a significant increase in poverty from 1981-82 to 1985-86, that the most important increases have occurred among families with two or more children and that the bigger the family, the higher the incidence of poverty. It is a fact which the Government, regrettably, has not adequately taken into account in its family package. The Institute also pointed out that the group with the highest poverty, which represents 31 per cent is that consisting of families with four or more children and that the next group in poverty is that consisting of single people aged 15 to 24, representing 26 per cent. The Institute study used the Henderson poverty line as its base. Maybe the Minister is not satisfied with the Henderson poverty line. If the Government is not prepared to accept the basis of the Henderson analysis after five Budgets, surely it is time it developed a new poverty line. That clearly has not been its purpose because to do so would almost certainly show a worse situation than that which is already known. The Institute also pointed out that families with three or more children are hard hit because increases in the poverty line have outstripped increases in the family allowance. While the allowance has risen at a greater rate than the poverty line for families with two children or one child, the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), for example, was critical of the Federal Government's failure to index supplementary payments to pensioners and beneficiaries. In an answer to a question today from his own side, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) alleged that ACOSS had no problems with the family package policy. I draw the Minister's attention to an article by Glenn Milne headed `Maintenance plan opposition grows' which states: The president of ACOSS, Mr Julian Disney, met with the Social Security Minister, Mr Howe, and told him the welfare lobby could not support the child support scheme unless income tests governing the payment of maintenance were relaxed and sole parents were given guaranteed basic maintenance. So much for the Minister's allegation that ACOSS is on his side. Quite clearly, from Julian Disney's own discussions with the Minister, ACOSS has very real and genuine problems in this area, problems which I have emphasised in this place and elsewhere. The Government has created a whole range of poverty traps which it has made no attempt to overcome. Now, in some cases, people will be paying over 100 per cent more tax on a dollar basis because of being able to have access to various benefits under this package. The value of the family allowance has in fact fallen by 29 per cent over recent years. The Minister has made the situation even worse by cutting it out at age 16. Where is the Minister's belief in horizontal equity? We can say as an Opposition that this Government has no belief in horizontal equity. Yet it is one of the very basic principles of any social security policy which must be taken into account. The Minister has gone out of his way to take out of the tax system any means of supporting families. He is working on the presumption that those who need the most support are those who pay little, if any, tax. The fact is that there are many taxpayers who are just above the poverty line who have large families and who are getting very little support from this child package which has been put forward by the Government. Another point I want to make in this debate is that the Government's handling of a whole range of policies in relation to the Department of Social Security leaves much to be desired. I recommended to members of this House that they read the two reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the various difficulties that the Department has faced over recent years. The simple fact is that the industrial relations record of the Department of Social Security since 1983 has been a disgrace. Throughout 1984 and 1985 every conceivable form of industrial resistance was brought in, especially against the Stratplan project objectives over that period. The Government was forced into a situation in which it finally had to agree with staff associations on the Stratplan and associated automatic data processing developments. The agreement is an extraordinary document which I recommend that honourable members read. It shows quite clearly that the Government backed down. Why did it back down? It did so because in the initial stages it did not even bother to negotiate with its employees or to discuss with them precisely what it wanted. Having stirred up the possum, it naturally created further difficulties for the trade union movement. The only way it could get its program moving at all was effectively to sign this agreement. It was nothing more than a give-away on a whole range of things. For example, on the question of compulsory redeployment, it states: Should the need arise for compulsory redeployment, the Department undertakes that: (i) staff will not be required to move domicile as part of any redeployment process: (ii) there will be no compulsory transfers of staff between a country town or country city to a metropolitan area or to another country town or country city: (iii) in any consideration of the need to compulsorily transfer any individual staff: (1) each case shall be considered on its merit, taking into account: excessive travelling time: extra costs: availability of transport: . . . . It is an extraordinary document, demonstrating once again the fact that the employers, in this case the Commonwealth using taxpayers' money, have effectively lost control of the machinery of government. The staff associations concerned with the industrial disputes were especially involved in health and staffing level reallocation. In October 1984 there were problems. Later in the same month we had a continuation of the situation. The simple fact is that the Department was not able to plan ahead. It did not anticipate having these difficulties with the changes introduced. Consequently, there was a two-day strike, work bans over compensation, closure on Wednesday afternoons, a ban on incoming phone calls and a veto on anti-fraud measures-the very same measures introduced by the Minister in an attempt to overcome the problems raised by the Opposition over the last two years about the degree of fraud and overpayment taking place throughout the system. There were rolling strikes. There was tension among staff of the Commonwealth Employment Service; it reached the stage where they would not even talk to each other on some occasions. Claims relating to repetitive strain injury (RSI) got out of all control. In fact 15 per cent of claims within the Public Service relate to RSI within the Department of Social Security. Annual radiation tests on visual display units were demanded, costing over $100,000. In spite of all this, the Minister then provides 500 additional staff at the very time when one of the criteria behind the introduction of Stratplan was that there would be a significant saving both financially and in terms of employment positions. The reality is that the Minister has not been able to administer his Department, to introduce the changes and to tighten up the procedures. Those of us who have been to the Department of Social Security offices have seen that access to unemployment benefit is still too loose. I have seen people standing at the counter, and the only test put to them was, `What attempts have you made to find employment?'. The answer was, `I have read a newspaper'. These people were well dressed and well spoken and in my frank opinion should have made a much more determined effort to seek a job. The social security area is of massive importance. It accounts for some 28 per cent of all Federal Government expenditure. It represents to a large extent the capacity of a government and an opposition to be able to apply their philosophy to maintain all Australian people in a state of dignity and with compassion. That does not mean that we encourage people to have access to social security. The simple fact is that it is very difficult through a social security system alone to be able to improve people's overall economic position and self-worth. The only way to achieve that is through an interaction between social security policies and economic policies. I come back to where I began: this Government has failed in its economic policies. We have now reached the situation of having more people below the poverty line, despite the Government's much heralded family package, than this nation has known. It is not a record of which any government can be proud. It is certainly not a record. The Australian Labor Party claims that compassion and concern are the hallmarks of its activities; here it has lost an appropriate sense of direction. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.10) —It is very surprising that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), in his inaugural matter of public importance in his current position as spokesperson on social security, should have raised so little of substance in his speech. After all, the question of interest rates is hardly a matter for social security. The Government's extraordinarily honourable record in the area of public housing is also hardly a matter for social security, although in passing I have to point out that, in terms of the number of houses built and the number of housing starts, no government has a better record than the current Government. The honourable member complains about the fact that pensioners receive only 24.8 per cent of average weekly earnings. Let me compare that with the 22.8 per cent of average weekly earnings that they received when the conservatives were in office. Of course that is a measure of relative standard of living, and it indicates that there was a devaluation of the real standard of living of pensioners under the previous Government. He talks of the family package as being something that was thrown together at the last moment. He ignores the fact that the genesis of the family package was in very extensive research work carried out as part of the Social Security Review chaired by Professor Cass. He neglects to mention that the short term policy recommendations of the Cass review were carried out in their entirety by the Government. This was no short term package, but indeed was put together as a result of a very significant review of aspects of the social security system. As in other areas of government change, those changes will reflect an overall approach often in line with the work being done by Professor Cass in her review. The honourable member for Bradfield made reference to increases in poverty. I think any student of the subject of poverty within the Australian community would be well aware that real poverty increased along with the increase in unemployment that occurred between 1976 and 1983. That is when a massive growth occurred in the number of people unemployed, and increasingly those people who were unemployed had dependent children. It was also during the Opposition's period in office that we saw a very significant growth in the number of sole parents. The number increased at about 11 per cent per annum, for example in 1976 and 1977, and in 1983-84 it was still 4 per cent per annum. In the period we have been in government we have seen a diminution in the rate of increase and, indeed in the last financial year, a real decrease in the number of sole parents. Between 1976 and 1983 we saw a massive blowout of unemployment and a very significant increase, at least a doubling, of the number of sole parents. During that time we saw a growth in the number of children in pensioner and beneficiary families, from a little over 300,000 to about 800,000. So when we came into government in 1983 one in every five children was effectively in a pensioner and beneficiary family. Faced with that situation, what has the Government sought to do? First of all, it sought to put Australians back to work. That was the commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in 1983, and it is a commitment that the Labor governments have honoured. We have seen a growth of nearly 900,000 jobs in the period we have been in government, a rate of job creation twice the level of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; it is a better record of job creation than almost any other country in the OECD. That is a statistic that the honourable member for Bradfield chose to ignore, because it is unfavourable to his case. Similarly, he ignored the Government's record with respect to inflation. We inherited an inflation rate which was running well over 10 per cent. Inflation has been substantially reduced, despite difficult circumstances, during the period that we have been in office. Again, he failed to mention that fact. In terms of the record with respect to employment and unemployment, of course, it is just as important that we reduce the number of people who are in receipt of the unemployment benefit. If we look at the most recent statistic, we will see that on 10 November 1987 there were 484,000 people in receipt of the unemployment benefit-a fall of 50,000 since November 1986. If one compares the present figure for average rates of beneficiaries with that for 1984-85, there has been a fall from 581,000 to 520,000 in the current year. Not only has employment grown, but the number of people in receipt of the unemployment benefit has reduced steadily over the period that we have been in government, and at a somewhat increased rate during the last 12 months. The coalition's policy, during difficult circumstances, when increasing numbers of people were unemployed, rather than maintaining a real level of benefit, sought to reduce the level of assistance to those who were unemployed, and particularly to reduce the real level of assistance to those who were unemployed with dependent children. Similarly the coalition, with respect to sole parents, rather than providing additional assistance to people on a class A widow's pension or a supporting parent's benefit during the period that it was in government, reduced that assistance very significantly. So the real value, for example, of payments for pensioner beneficiaries' children fell by over 30 per cent during the period that it was in government. It might be argued that that was perhaps an aberration, that the philosophy of the coalition at that time was a harsher philosophy than what might be expected from a present coalition government. Indeed, in a recent speech in the House, the honourable member for Bradfield recalled the marvellous dream of the Menzies years and said that that was the tradition to which the coalition might adhere today. Of course, during the marvellous traditions of the Menzies years, there was no supporting parent's benefit, and nothing equivalent to today's class A widow's pension. Let me refer to what the coalition's policies were at the most recent election in respect of sole parents. The honourable member for Bradfield has just put out a Press statement describing some of the measures that the Government has taken, with respect to reducing the qualifying age of a child of sole parents to 15, as harsh. In the course of this Press release he failed to mention that the coalition went into the most recent election saying that it would reduce the age for the qualifying child to the age of 10-that is, one gets a pension if one has a child under the age of 10; if the child is over 10, one does not get a pension. That was the policy that was announced. Of course, it would now like to walk away from that policy. Having announced it a few weeks ago, it now wants to forget it. The coalition does not like to be reminded of its history and it does not even like to be reminded of its current policies. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), recently said that, if a coalition government came into office, it would single out sole parents and the unemployed for special attention. Sole parents would be the victims and would pay the price of a coalition government. It is suggested by the honourable member for Bradfield that there has not been a reduction in poverty during the period that we have been in government and that, indeed, we have not made progress towards any anti-poverty objectives. Of course, when we came into office, a single pensioner beneficiary with two children and who rented privately was $28.10 per week, or 20 per cent, below the poverty line. In December 1987 that gap will be reduced to $3.95 per week, or 1.9 per cent. A married pensioner couple with three children renting privately were $7.65 per week, or 3.9 per cent, below the poverty line. In December they will be $3.55 per week, or 1.2 per cent, above the poverty line. A married beneficiary couple with three children renting privately was $21.50 per week, or 11 per cent, below the poverty line. In December they will be $3.55 per week above the poverty line. The December figures are still higher where children are aged 13 to 15 with an additional payment of $6. When Labor came into office poverty among pensioner and beneficiary families with children and in rented accommodation was scandalous. These people have been our priority ever since. The Government has substantially reduced the poverty gap and already raised many groups above that level. The Government has seriously addressed poverty among working families with children. Almost everyone in the community has enthusiastically supported the family allowance supplement which comes into effect two weeks from tomorrow. The honourable member for Bradfield said that we should pay more attention to horizontal equity. At a time when there has been wage restraint and when large numbers of people live in very low income households, the Government is right to put much greater emphasis on vertical equity. But at the same time the honourable member said that larger families would receive little or no benefit from the Government's policies. Is $28 per child or $22 per child a recognition of horizontal equity, a recognition of the significance of extending assistance to larger families? Against that we must recall what the Opposition has suggested. It has been on about horizontal equity to the tune of over a billion dollars in its family package, but the assistance foreshadowed by the Opposition was a maximum not of $15 per child but $15 per family. Not one cent of that $15 would go to a sole parent family. The poorest group in the Australian community, sole parents, would not be given a red cent by the honourable member for Bradfield. He is prepared to go around the welfare sector and to bleat and whine and suggest that somehow the Government is being unfair and unjust, but in the recent election he defended a party which intended to wipe out benefit for sole parents with children over the age of 10, a party that was offering a family package costing more than a billion dollars but with not a cent for sole parents and their children. If Opposition members are to talk about equity and social justice, they will have to change that policy. That policy is extremely unfair and shows no commitment to the poor. Honourable members can go to the Smith Family and St Vincent de Paul as much as they like, but if they say that they will go into the next election on the basis of a policy that would wipe out assistance to supporting parents with children over the age of 11 and not provide a cent to a sole parent family in their family package, let us see how they would fare in the welfare sector. The honourable member for Bradfield can be as glib, smooth and sensitive as he likes-he is certainly an improvement on the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt)-but the reality is that his policies are not believable in terms of compassion, sympathy and understanding. The Opposition's policy in the recent election involved sticking a boot into sole parents and of not giving support to family types Opposition members did not like. The Opposition's policy gave no additional assistance to low income families and there was no sense of targeting assistance, from a party with a record of diminishing living standards for the poorest group in the community year in and year out. In the coalition's period of government there was a massive increase in unemployment, the numbers of sole parents increased, and one in every five children were living in poverty. This Government makes no apology: those children are our priority. We are delivering to those children. In every Budget we have increased payments and now we are committed to indexation and to a lift in the standard of living of low income earners. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(3.25) —The House is discussing as a matter of public importance the alleged failure of the Government to provide efficient delivery of social services leading to the spread of poverty. It stands to reason that when we consider a budgetary outlay of virtually $23 billion-that is, 29.8 per cent of total outlays-we realise immediately that any inefficiency adds up to very substantial sums of money. I am also mindful that at first blush the proposition invites argument insofar as, over the last decade or so, governments of all colours have poured thousands of millions of dollars into relieving the needy only to find that the needy become more needy and numerous. Therefore, the term `efficient delivery' is the nub of the matter. It is not necessarily efficient delivery in a negative sense but efficient delivery in a positive sense. Insofar as circumstances and conditions predispose a situation where the government of the day must put increasing demand on the taxpayers-those employed-to accommodate those unemployed, increasing demands on our economy to meet the expectations of society have become divorced from the harsh reality that invariably there is a substantial gulf between expectation and entitlement. There is considerable truth in the remarks of another that when governments set out to relieve the citizens of their responsibilities, they in fact do not serve the citizens; they betray them. In his remarks, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) used statistical data, which I do not particularly challenge, and asked, `What are your policies for the next election?'. That touches on the raw nerve because within the parameters of democratic government, governments and aspiring governments have a predisposition to concentrate on that which might conceivably enhance their electoral prospects, but not necessarily the economic and social well-being of our country. In that respect we have failed as a parliament to deliver services efficiently because we have imbued the recipients with the notion that, somehow or other, governments in the ultimate can relieve them of their responsibilities. Without being devoid of compassion, I question the point of an increase in family allowances if, in all too many instances, this simply has the effect of buying a few more stubbies and a few more packets of cigarettes to dull the agony arising from the sense of futility in present circumstances. That is not an efficient delivery of services. The Government is the government of the day. There is no point in charging oppositions with their past derelictions. The game continually changes and the Government has the responsibility for making pragmatic judgments as to what is necessary for the social well-being of our community. I venture to say that there would be no demur whatsoever within this House on the proposition that, on current trends of social welfare expenditure, by the mid 1990s there is no way that we will be able to foot the bill. We are in an ever decreasing circle which must inevitably lead to an explosion of our social and economic circumstances. That is inefficiency and irresponsibility. Putting the Government's electoral prospects aside-and our circumstances are such today that we can no longer luxuriate in our electoral ambitions-we must tell the country what is wrong with it. We must imbue our citizens both with a realisation and a resolve to co-operate with government to achieve that which will substantially relieve the need to succour those who, through real or imagined misfortune, have become conditioned, almost in a parasitical fashion, to living off government. Having used that expression, I stress that pensioners and the like cannot be categorised as such. But all too many have become conditioned to believe that the Government must preserve their expectations and their circumstances. Again we see in evidence that virtually $200m has been outlaid for Aboriginal affairs in this Budget. Does it not strike the House as extraordinarily strange that, with the outgoings of thousands of millions of dollars since 1968, we have a situation today in which those with an empathy for the Aboriginals or those with a mischievous intent, seeing the opportunity to stir up social discord, can plead the shocking circumstances of the Aborigine? What has gone wrong? Clearly the money has been misplaced or it has not achieved its intended objective. It has further reduced our society to a state of disarray. The Government has the responsibility to come clean, to use simple terms, with our society and with welfare beneficiaries, and say, `There is only one way we can relieve your dilemma in the end, and that is for you to accept the circumstances in which the country is placed'. We have to give people the opportunity to paddle their own canoes. We have the notion that we should be maintained in our own circumstances, or own environment. Unhappily, I am old enough to remember that in the 1930s-I must insist that I was a child of very tender years-people took to the roads. They walked from one end of the country to another looking for a job. Perish the thought that we should ever return to those circumstances. It was a state of mind. Now if one cannot get a job in one's own backyard somehow or another one is immured from the responsibility of looking for work. We suffer from a social malaise, inevitable because of the good circumstances we enjoyed post-war. It is a sad commentary on our society and on man as a creature that historically whenever he has had a full belly he has had an empty head. He is blinded to the reality of the circumstances which should dictate his fortune. If the Government picks up the challenge to acquaint society, the poor, the oppressed-all people-of the need to develop the right attitude to our country's future, the Minister and the Parliament will find how much more effectively the brain starts to function when the navel gets closer to the backbone. Until we realise our circumstances we will not move from them. There is an inefficient delivery of services. We are relieving our citizens of their responsibilities. We are imbuing them with the notion that somehow or other government will look after them. But government cannot look after them on a continuing basis. The day will arrive when we have total disarray. Those in good jobs, earning $800 to $900 a week, will be totally indifferent to the well-being of their fellow workers in the same industry. If a company becomes non-viable, is there any suggestion that the workers may adjust their salaries to the economic parameters of the company to keep their colleagues in employment? Not on your sweet nellie. They will maintain the conditions they enjoy, disregarding the fact that the best job conditions on earth are not worth a crumpet if they have the effect of putting their employer out of business. They would rather see their colleagues go on the unemployment list than meet their predicament and, therefore, enjoy, across the broad, a better social situation. The proposition put by the Opposition today devolves on the words `efficient delivery'. We are not talking about an unending supply of money and it is just a question of to whom we will give it and how we will give it. The Government is deluding the electorate into believing that there is an unending supply of money to accommodate its expectations and is betraying it in the process. For too many years now, for reasons I have alluded to, we have gone on enhancing our electoral prospects, deluding society into believing that what it seeks is synonymous with what it is entitled to. In that respect the Government's policies are becoming increasingly inefficient because we have gone further down the track. We are wiser than we were a decade ago, or five years ago. But we perpetuate this nonsense of engaging in the inefficient delivery of social services and inefficiently addressing our economic problems on the premise that somehow or other it will all work out in the end, that things will fall into place and that we will escape the penalty we should attach to our folly. If this country persists in the notion that by taxing more heavily and by engaging in total economic and social irresponsibility people can be accorded what they wish for, as history tells us all to clearly, the end will be totally predictable-we will have a total breakdown of our society. Mr LEE(Dobell)(3.35) —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has promised that a number of his shadow Ministers will be rotated to the back bench according to a revolving door principle. Having heard today's contributions by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), I can think of no better case for promoting the idea of a revolving door. As usual, the honourable member for Wide Bay has given a speech with a great deal of integrity and after a great deal of consideration. Unlike the honourable member for Bradfield, he sought to make the topic of today's debate the question of the efficiency of the delivery of services to those in need. I will reply to a few of his comments. In my electorate I have seen the Department of Social Security's new policy of decentralising its offices take effect. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, visited my electorate during the life of the last Parliament and opened the new Wyong office of the Department of Social Security. By creating more decentralised offices the Department has improved the efficiency of the services it is delivering. In addition, the Minister has been responsible for the establishment of the review teams that go into areas and ensure that people are not claiming unemployment benefits when they are not entitled to them. I believe that this Minister and this Government can claim to have been quite successful in improving the efficiency of the Department of Social Security. I wish to return to some comments made by my friend the honourable member for Bradfield. I do not agree in any way with the comments he has made today. He worked himself into a lather with ludicrous claims that this Government is the only group in society that is responsible for poverty. I find it a little strange that the honourable member for Bradfield, the current shadow Minister for Social Security, the man who just launched the matter of public importance today, represents perhaps the richest electorate in Australia. He comes from the North Shore of Sydney, an area in which, I understand, since the stock market crash there has been increased interest in the extent of poverty. He represents suburbs such as St Ives, Lindfield and Killara. I often question the depth of knowledge of the honourable member for Bradfield which was demonstrated in a debate on social security legislation last week. In that debate he confused the suburbs of Mount Druitt and Campbelltown. I found it amazing that a member who represents an electorate in Sydney did not know the difference between Mount Druitt and Campbelltown. He sought to cover that up by altering the Hansard record, deleting the reference to Campbelltown. But the truth is that he mixed up those suburbs. To help the honourable member for Bradfield to understand the difference between poverty in areas such as Mount Druitt, Campbelltown and my electorate and Bradfield, I have asked the Parliamentary Library to dig up some statistics on the proportion of families with incomes of less than $12,000. According to the 1986 census, in the electorate of Bradfield one in 20 families has an income of less than $12,000. In the electorates of Chifley and Werriwa, covering Mount Druitt and Campbelltown respectively, one in six families has an income of less than $12,000. In my own electorate of Dobell one in four families has an income of less than $12,000. Given those statistics, I can understand the honourable member for Bradfield, who represents the very wealthy North Shore areas, not appreciating the extent of poverty in our community. The honourable member for Bradfield was a member of this Parliament during the Fraser years. What was the Fraser Government's record on poverty? What did it do to stop poverty increasing? It successfully increased the number of people receiving pensions and benefits from 300,000 to 800,000. That was the result of a massive increase in unemployment following the collapse in Australia's internal economy. That was the previous Government's contribution to the fight against poverty. Australia's industrial infrastructure collapsed. The steel industry was going out of business. The dollar was fixed and overvalued, which meant that Australian producers could not compete on world markets. Since this Labor Government has been in office we have had, not a reduction in employment of 100,000 which we saw under the previous Government, but an increase of nearly 900,000 jobs, which the Minister for Social Security has pointed out is nearly twice the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. That demonstrates that this Government can hold its head high in the world. Under the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, we have had plans for the car industry, the steel industry, the ship building industry and, of course, the heavy industry package, which will ensure that employment continues to expand. What better way to raise a family out of poverty than to ensure that the main breadwinner has a job? This Government can rightly claim that its new proposal to introduce a family allowance supplement is a reform of historic proportions. It continues a great Labor tradition which was begun in the 1930s by people such as Jack Lang in New South Wales and was continued by the Curtin and Whitlam Labor governments. I believe that the family allowance supplement will fulfil the Labor Government's promise to ensure that no Australian child need live in poverty. The way we will do that is to target the families who are the poorest. We will try to direct the Government's scarce resources to those who are in greatest need. Many people are not aware of the great amounts of tax free cash which they will be able to receive through the family allowance supplement. Many people are not aware that from December they will receive up to $22 per week per child for children under 13 years of age and, because it costs more to raise a teenager, families with children between 13 and 15 years old will receive $28 per week per child, again tax free. Those families will receive an additional $15 per week if they are renting privately. This family allowance supplement will benefit more than 200,000 working families in the community and will provide a real increase in the standard of living for more than one million Australian children. That is something of which any Labor government can be rightly proud. In addition, a very important reform is that the income test of the new family allowance supplement is more generous than that on the family income supplement scheme which it has replaced. I will give two examples. A family with a gross income of $400 per week with two teenagers and renting will receive $27 a week tax free. This is equivalent to a pay increase, which is taxable, of $45 a week. The same family on $350 a week gross income will receive $52 a week tax free. The family allowance supplement will provide great benefits to working families. In addition, this Government has not neglected the pensioners. The base rate of the pension has been increased from $77 a week, which is what it was when honourable members opposite left office, and from mid-December this year it will be $116.10 a week. The honourable member for Bradfield incorrectly claimed that this Government made promises that were never delivered. He gave the old example that this Government had not raised pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. What was the record of the Liberals when they were in government? Pensions fell to 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings in the Fraser years. That was the Opposition's record. Pensions fell from the high of the Whitlam years, when they were 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, to only 22.7 per cent under the Liberals. Under this Government and this Minister for Social Security the base rate of the pension has been raised to 24.8 per cent of average weekly earnings, a great achievement. We have carried out other reforms. We have relaxed the income text, abolished taking separate income into account for rental allowance and, as part of the Government's family package, we are increasing the child supplement which is paid to pensioners so that they will receive $22 per week per child under 13 years of age and $28 per week for those children between 13 and 15 years of age. The Opposition has a lot of gall to seek to argue that this Government has not done enough to reduce poverty when its record shows that it created a great problem which this Government has addressed. Any Labor government could be very proud of the reforms which this Government and this Minister have introduced. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The debate on the matter of public importance is concluded. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —As required by resolution of the House, I table a copy of the Register of Members' Interests for the Thirty-fifth Parliament and copies of notifications of alterations of members' interests received by the Registrar of Members' Interests during the period 17 to 20 November 1987. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Acting Speaker, I seek your indulgence. In relation to the document that has just been tabled by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), it has come to my attention that, in a technical sense, I may not have fully complied with one of the requirements in that I listed in my return, as an additional item of property, a painting but I did not indicate from whom the painting came. It came from the artist mentioned in the return and I will be writing to Mr Barlin today informing him of that fact so nobody will think for a moment that I have not fully complied with the rules. Mr Peacock —They wouldn't think that of you. Mr HOWARD —No, but I want to make absolutely certain. As much as I do not agree with the rule, I will fully comply with it as I am a law-abiding citizen. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —As I understand the procedure, the honourable member is required to write to the Registrar and advise him of that matter. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.46) —The Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1987 seeks to expand the powers of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to include a wider range of banking and investment services as well as to introduce other measures to increase the effectiveness of the bank's operations. At this point, and bearing in mind the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), I should state an interest; I am a satisfied client of the Commonwealth Bank. It is maintained by the Government that these changes will improve the competitiveness of the Commonwealth banks and enhance their profitability and should give rise to increased dividend payments in future years. However, these amendments will not address the fundamental inadequacies involved in public ownership of otherwise purely commercial operations. In the past public enterprises have become capital deficient because governments have failed to set the correct expenditure priorities. Therefore, whilst the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill, I will be moving the following second reading amendment: 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 (a) notes the undercapitalisation of the Commonwealth Bank and the subsequent constraints this imposes on its efficient administration, and (b) calls upon the Government to undertake a review to assess whether the sale of the Commonwealth Bank would be in the best interests of the Australian people'. Why do we raise the issue of privatising the Commonwealth Bank? The Opposition has decided to review this question. In our schedule of publicly owned assets, businesses and corporations that we believe ought to be privatised, the Commonwealth Bank is not listed. Therefore, we have determined, particularly in view of matters that I will raise, namely, the undercapitalisation of the bank, the need to examine whether the bank ought also to be privatised. The amendment which I will move calls upon the Government to do the same. Whilst not denying the passage of the Bill, we will move the amendment and, amongst other things, suggest that, in view of remarks to which I will refer later, particularly by Senator Gareth Evans who referred to the undercapitalisation of bodies such as Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd and the Commonwealth Bank, it is now timely with this Bill before us that this matter of privatising the bank be reviewed. There appears to be more than a few problems with the bank. Only last week we saw Press reports of a decision by the Commonwealth Bank to reduce the number of staff by up to 5,000 over the next four years as a direct result of the Government's refusal to address adequately the bank's capital base funding needs. However, before I go into more detail on this issue, let me provide a brief synopsis of the major features of the bank. The bank provides a range of commercial and savings bank services. As at June 1987 it had some 33,071 full time staff and 5,124 part time employees. The bank has the largest network of branches and agencies of the four major banks in Australia. In June this year it had 1,273 branches and 5,131 agencies. The Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia enjoys approximately a one-third share of the savings bank market in Australia, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia enjoys approximately 20 per of the trading bank business. For the financial year 1986-87, the Commonwealth banking group reported a net profit after tax of $197.2m; that is in fact down some 33 per cent on the previous year's result. Admittedly, the 1985-86 result was particularly good. The result for that year was in large measure due to substantially high foreign exchange earnings. Indeed, research has shown, and I note the work by Mr Paul Coughlin, an investment analyst, on this topic, that in the last decade the Commonwealth Bank, compared with its three major privately owned competitors, has regrettably-I say `regrettably' because I declared my interest by saying that I am a satisfied customer of the bank-shown consistently lower rates of asset growth, consistently lower rates of return on assets, consistently lower rates of return on equity and consistently lower earnings per employee. These are the real measures of success, or lack of it, of the bank. Over the same period the net return of the Commonwealth Bank to its owners is very poor compared with the record of, say, the National Australia Bank Ltd, a slightly smaller bank but one with a similar emphasis on retail branch borrowing. Some will agree that these results simply reflect the focus of the Commonwealth bank, as a so-called people's bank, on providing a concessionary structure of fees and charges. However, the figures show that there is little difference between the charging policies of the Commonwealth Bank and its major competitors. The answer seems to lie more in the costlier operating practices. One of the contributors to these problems is the inadequate capital base. In December last year in a letter to the Australian Financial Review, the then Managing Director of the Bank, Mr Vernon Christie, registered public concern that the non-availability of capital was hampering the bank's growth strategies. Indeed, a recent report by Mr Greg Crough of the University of Sydney, prepared on behalf of the bank's own in-house union, the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association, shows deep concern for the need for reform. It is interesting, and to some I would think surprising, that even that union paper is prepared to canvass the possibility of a partial sale of the bank. However, I am intrigued to note that while the paper produced for the union claims to `oppose vigorously any moves to privatisation' it is happy to talk in terms of commercialisation or corporatisation. It seems to me to be a rose by any other name. There seems to be an inability to deal with the term `privatisation' on the part of those influenced by honourable members opposite, who for so long denigrated the Opposition for proposing privatisation but are now themselves so doing-to put it rhetorically, facing themselves, it would appear, coming the other way. A rose by any other name is a fair description of the Government's attitude because we all know that the Australian Labor Party is not into plain speaking in this day and age, particularly on this subject. It is at sixes and sevens over the whole privatisation debate. We all recall the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) raising a diabolical spectre in relation to those who supported privatisation. He sought to paint a monstrous prospect. He did so in this very House on 21 November 1985. I quote the Prime Minister: They know, as anyone who thinks about the issue of privatisation knows, that it would mean higher prices, higher costs, higher taxes and higher fares- all of which, I might add, the Government has already managed to bring about quite well. In the period of this Government Australians have experienced the highest of prices, costs, taxes and fares. All of this has come about under this biggest spending and highest taxing government in the history of Australia. After the recent election, this very same Prime Minister, who exuded condemnation of privatisation in any form, began to talk-it was only a couple of months ago-of the absolute necessity of reviewing the Government's privatisation policy. I will not worry here about the fact that his senior Ministers seemed more than a little confused about the manner in which the Prime Minister initiated the debate. I can remember both hearing on television and reading in newspapers the comments of Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Button, those Ministers carrying the major responsibility for bodies ripe for sale, criticising the current Prime Minister for his lack of finesse and, indeed, for his blundering style-and well they might on this issue. Black, in the Prime Minister's mind, has quite correctly become white. But that is their criticism, not just ours. What of the Treasurer (Mr Keating)? The man who would be king was silent on this matter, just as he was on the Australia Card. Despite the arguments of the enormous economic benefits that, according to this Government, would allegedly flow from the Australia Card, we have heard precious little from the man who would be king regarding privatisation, perhaps until recently-although honourable members will recall that when we were seeking to determine where he stands on this issue, he said in this House on 23 August 1985: The Prime Minister, other Ministers and I have made it abundantly clear that we see no case for the so-called privatisation of the great public enterprises of this country. Well, the Treasurer could not possibly be switching his views in the current era, could he-not once again after the negative gearing switch, the foreign investment switch and the capital gains switch? He said that we would never have a capital gains tax but then we had one. One gets the impression of one Minister spinning like a top. However, there are reports in some papers today, certainly in yesterday's Sydney Sun-Herald, that in a submission to Cabinet the Treasurer now indicates that public enterprises will need to be sold if they are to achieve the necessary market discipline and management. This Government has shown an extraordinary propensity to plagiarise the policies of the current Opposition. Yet again, in the twilight of its term-notwithstanding having just been returned to government-it sees the reality and the strength of the Opposition's arguments in favour of privatisation. All we ask in regard to the Commonwealth Bank is not that there be an announcement that the bank will be privatised, but that the Government will set about a review of the possibility of privatising the bank and recognise what its own Ministers are telling it-that the bank is undercapitalised. The submission I have just referred to is also reported as indicating that there is little alternative if the Government wishes to avoid a blowout in the borrowing requirement of Commonwealth authorities under Loan Council arrangements. Last week in an address to a conference, the topic of which was `Privatisation in Australia', Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister for Transport and Communications, to whom I referred earlier, said: One merely has to multiply the scenario elsewhere to contemplate a quite major budgetary problem looming ahead for the Government: from three enterprises alone-Qantas, Australian Airlines and (if it is to broaden its asset base) the Commonwealth Bank-the budgetary outlay required will be, over the next few years, of the order of $1 billion. At this moment what I am concerned about is the reason why the Government is so obviously changing its story. I doubt whether the real reasons in fact have much to do with the allocative efficiency of resources. The reasons lie more at the heart of the Government's inability appropriately to address the need for outlay reductions. The Government is scared of the prospect of payments from the Budget because it knows that it has not made, nor is it prepared to make, enough quality cuts in expenditure to provide room for more legitimate types of capital expenditure such as these. It is obvious that a main reason for the Government now contemplating privatisation is that it has forced itself into a corner. In fact, I am concerned that the Government, with the rate of enthusiasm it is showing for privatisation programs-albeit I endorse the reality that it is now looking at privatisation-may be forced into unnecessarily quick sales to the detriment of Australian taxpayers because of its inability to make the necessary outlay cuts elsewhere. Nevertheless, given these concerns and the fact that the Government's reasons are basically confused, the results it achieves by selling many of these authorities hold the prospect of being very beneficial. We in the Opposition have always preferred free enterprise over government ownership. The associated incentives that involves will, in the main, deliver society its greatest potential. Our reasons for calling a review of the sale of the Commonwealth Bank come from the need for a calm and rational debate within the community. In the process, the return of a publicly owned asset to private hands will not be detrimental but rather advantageous to the consumer. It will remove further burdens from the taxpayer. In regard to that, in introducing the original Commonwealth Banks Bill in 1911, the then Labor Prime Minister, Andrew Fisher, who was also Treasurer, stated: This will be a bank belonging to the people and directly managed by the people's agents. These are nice sounding words but with great respect to Mr Fisher he also should have talked about the people's best interests. The question remains whether the public ownership of the bank is in fact in the best interests of the people. Basically, the value of public ownership of the bank to the Government is the present value of future dividend flows. It is certainly arguable that the sale of the bank would save more in interest payments, if the proceeds of the sale were used to reduce the public sector debt, then the Government would receive in dividends from the bank if it were not sold. I again note that privatisation requires gradual implementation and thorough investigation of available options. We do not want any bargain basement sales. The Opposition, of course, has a set of guidelines on asset sales which we hope the Government will adopt. Firstly, there must be demonstrable benefits to consumers and/or taxpayers. Secondly, the position and job security of existing employees will be given special consideration and the sale of shares to employees will be encouraged wherever possible. Thirdly, the quality and availability of services to remote areas will not be allowed to deteriorate and any large-scale sales will be timed so as to avoid disruption of capital markets. Fourthly, sale proceeds will not be used to finance new government expenditure but will be directed towards reducing the accumulated public debt. I stress that point because this year, in the phoney balanced Budget that the Treasurer brought forward, not only did the Government benefit from profits from the Reserve Bank of Australia but also it benefited from $1 billion from the sale of assets. It projected the proceeds of the sale to shore up its budgetary position rather than to service and retire our debt. In the case of a possible sale of the Commonwealth Bank, the private shareholders would presumably be governed by the Banks (Shareholdings) Act which prevents any one shareholder or related shareholders from holding more than 15 per cent of shares. Normally, when we privatise an enterprise, we attach to the criteria what the British term a golden share, thus allowing the Australian Government to ensure that foreign interests could not have more than 50 per cent of the holding. We could exercise the golden share to ensure that the shares were held in the main by Australians. In the case of the banks that is not necessary because there is a 15 per cent and 10 per cent limit in any case without the Treasurer's intervention. Before I conclude I wish to refer to two specific aspects of the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill. The Bill expands investment powers of the bank to put it on a more equal footing with the private commercial banks. We do not oppose such motives. Nevertheless, further analysis suggests that the expansions of the bank's powers to provide insurance services may raise concerns. The intention in clause 14 of the Bill is to allow the bank to provide modest insurance services so as to remain competitive with other banks. Our concern is based on the possibility that too wide a scope for expanding services will allow the potential establishment of a full blown government insurance office. This would be, in our view, an undesirable result. That is especially so in light of the blowout in State government owned insurance office net borrowings in recent years. In some States these offices have been incurring large deficits on an accrual basis in their compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance and workers compensation cases. There is legitimate concern that these problems have arisen because government insurance offices have not been allowed to operate on purely commercial grounds. This is even more pressing given the involvement of the Burke Government in Western Australia in the operations of the Western Australia State Government Insurance Commission with respect to the rapid purchases of land and shares from struggling entrepreneurs. More than $500m of the Commission's funds are being used for that purpose. Therefore, the Opposition will be moving at the committee stage a series of amendments to ensure that the extended insurance services will be only those ancillary to other banking activity. Finally, I note that the Bill introduces a dividend requirement from the Commonwealth Development Bank. The introduction of such a dividend policy is in itself reasonable on efficiency grounds. Nevertheless, given this Government's past record it appears that once again it has used this cover to introduce further revenue raising measures. This exercise simply looks like yet another grab for cash. As I said before, this Government is the highest taxing government in Australia's history-some record! It is a record spending, record taxing government. The Government concentrates far too much on the revenue side of the Budget. It should be looking to recurrent expenditure reductions. That fact has led us to say time and again that the process of adjustment of domestic policies in the face of the blowout in our external difficulties is just too slow. The Treasurer may be critical of the United States of America not doing enough at present in the measures reported over the weekend. It announced that it will be introducing in the next fiscal year $30 billion worth of cuts off the deficit. The reality is that Australia is relatively worse off than the United States. The Treasurer calls on the Americans to do more but throws up the smokescreen that we cannot panic and do anything here. He is seeking, firstly, to slip into next year so that, secondly, he does not do too much on the eve of the State election of his mate Barrie Unsworth and, thirdly-the greatest smokescreen-slip into the next calendar year which means that he can raise the smokescreen of alleging to cut more off expenditure when in fact he will be cutting only off the Forward Estimates; the wish list and the bids of the departments. Instead of cutting into the programs now, he will make cuts on the Forward Estimates and claim that he has made far more significant cuts than in reality occurred. The duplicity of that act has already been seen through and we will be seeing a lot more of that down the line. The Government has been failing the thrust of the nation on the macroeconomic front. Its vacillation on the issue of economic reform and privatisation shows it is also failing us on the microeconomic front. The third Hawke Government was to have microeconomic policies as its central feature. It was going to show the way to the world on how it would handle microeconomic policies to increase the allocative efficiency of resources and to enable Australia to respond better to international market conditions. One element of that was privatisation and there it is in a total unmitigated mess. The Left is opposing what the Prime Minister has said; the Centre Left is advocating that it cannot proceed; and elements of the Right, particularly at the trade union level, are saying that, even if Hawke goes on a frolic on his own, Labor will not privatise. At the end of my speech I shall move the amendment I foreshadowed earlier, requesting the Government to review the question of privatising the Commonwealth Bank. I reiterate that the Opposition is considering a review to see whether it should add the Commonwealth Bank to the list of authorities to be privatised. I request that the Government give that same consideration. We will see how dinkum it is in pursuing effective privatisation programs and we will see whether it can get beyond the sale of minuscule authorities to deal with the effective ones. For the reasons that I have outlined in this address, the economic programs of this Government are increasingly seen to be a charade. Let us see whether the same applies to one particular element of them, namely privatisation. I move: 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 (a) notes the undercapitalisation of the Commonwealth Bank and the subsequent constraints this imposes on its efficient administration, (b) calls upon the Government to undertake a review to assess whether the sale of the Commonwealth Bank would be in the best interests of the Australian people'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Spender —I second the amendment. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(4.11) —I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate after having listened to the born-again economist, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). It seems to me that he spent most of his time talking about the question of privatisation and in fact did not spend much time looking at the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill and the benefits of it. While some of the provisions of the Bill have attracted opposition, particularly from the insurance industry, I am confident that the general thrust of the amendments will boost the overall efficiency and competitiveness of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Some of the more important changes will confer upon the bank the ability to provide insurance services and to provide a wider range of banking and investment services, including trusts, stock broking, futures and commodity dealings. In the past the bank, because of its charter, has been unable to involve itself in this significant area of commercial activity which, following the deregulation of the financial system in recent years, has become a very profitable area of banking activity which many other banks have enjoyed for some time. I listened with much interest to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he said that in his opinion the bank was under-capitalised. Perhaps that is so to some extent; but this has been addressed in the Bill. The amendments will give the Commonwealth Banking Corporation's Board a formal role in the determination of a dividend payment to the Commonwealth. Under the existing Act the question of the dividend payable was determined solely by the Treasurer without reference to the Board. This Bill will give the Board the ability to make a recommendation to the Treasurer as to the dividend payable, but only after having given due regard to the need for both the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia to achieve a reasonable rate of return on capital, to increase reserves, to fund expansion of activities and to meet prudential requirements. However, the Act does not take away from the Treasurer the overall power to insist on a dividend payment of up to 45 per cent of profits. The general activities of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, which include the Commonwealth Savings Bank and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia (CDB) have for some 20 years been of special interest to me, having commenced my full time employment at age 17 with the Commonwealth Bank. For that reason I was very interested to contribute to this debate. In the past the bank has always been regarded as the people's bank and was originally established in 1912 by an early Federal Labor Government, the Fisher Government, specifically to provide a banking service that catered for the general public. Whilst with the advent of the entry of foreign banks into this country and the deregulation of the financial system it has become imperative for the bank to involve itself in the more lucrative areas of sophisticated financing, it is regrettable that the bank seems at times to be losing sight of its original charter. One area of activity of the bank in which I have a lot of personal experience and in which the bank was heavily involved was in the provision of financial services to the migrant community. The migrant information service of the Commonwealth Bank in Brisbane was, from my personal knowledge, one of the more important areas of the banks activity in that State, and I understand also in the rest of Australia. The staffing level of that service has now been dramatically decreased. I remember that that service was so efficient that not only did it assist newly arrived migrants in matters relating to finance but also it helped them to establish themselves in the country and in the community. A very good friend of mine spoke 13 different languages and was employed by the migrant information service. He did a fantastic job in helping migrants to settle in this country. The bank's activities in this area were highly commendable and represented an active involvement in general community affairs, which I believe nowadays is sadly lacking. I strongly urge the Board not to lose sight of the purpose for which the bank was originally established. I am sure that the amendments in this Bill will allow the bank not only to achieve greater profits by the expansion of its permitted areas of activity but also to provide that little extra to the ordinary man and women on the street which is certainly not available from other banking institutions. It is no secret that there are strong sections of the community, indeed the Liberal Party of Australia and members of the Opposition, who would like to see the Commonwealth Banking Corporation privatised. I hope that these amendments will go a long way towards ensuring that there is no need for the Government to consider this option. In the past the Commonwealth Bank has been seen-I am sure it will be so seen in the future-as a publicly owned organisation which not only is run efficiently but also provides that little extra to the community, as it was originally intended that it should do. I for one believe that this distinguishing factor would be lost if the bank were to be privatised. For this and many other reasons I am totally against any suggestion that this public enterprise should be sold off to the private sector. On the issue of insurance services, I cannot over-emphasise the enormous benefits available to the bank in getting involved in business opportunities that are offered in insurance. One of the more significant amendments will allow the bank to become actively involved in insurance. I completely reject what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said about the bank's becoming involved in insurance services. This is something in which the bank should be involved. Other major banks have done so and are making a lot of money out of it. Frankly, I think that the Commonwealth Bank should do exactly the same thing. I was not surprised to see in recent Press reports that the insurance industry strongly opposes this legislation. I guess it has probably lobbied the Opposition on this. The opposition of the insurance industry convinces me that this area of the Bill is one of great merit. The insurance industry can hardly complain, given the massive profits made by it on a consistent basis. One has only to visit the business districts of major capital cities to see tangible proof of these profits. Every second major building is owned by an insurance company and, without doubt, the majority of Australian insurance companies, it can be said, have a licence to print money. The insurance industry generally is so protective of its market that it is no wonder that it whinges and whines at the prospect of another competitor in the market-place. I strongly urge the bank's Board to market vigorously in this area of its expanded activity and to provide cheaper premiums wherever possible. Its existing customer base will ensure the bank's success in this new field of activity, and I am certain will strongly contribute to its profit-earning potential. In line with my belief that these amendments will give the Commonwealth Bank the scope for higher earnings, I strongly suggest that the bank resist the temptation to introduce transaction fees. I have already publicly expressed my strong opposition to such a fee and I believe that the private banks that are contemplating the introduction of transaction fees should be condemned for their greedy and uncaring attitude towards their customers. The imposition of transaction fees could quite easily result in pensioners, fixed income earners and small depositors becoming prime targets for petty criminals. The tendency will be for these people to keep cash on hand rather than pay a fee for the pleasure of withdrawing their own money. I suggest that, by not charging such a fee, the Commonwealth Bank would attract the many thousands of small depositors who would undoubtedly leave the private banks who charge such fees. I was most concerned to learn recently that the bank intends to reduce staffing levels by 14 per cent in the next four years. This would mean that, in an effort to improve productivity and to cut costs, up to 5,000 jobs will be lost. Whilst I am aware that no retrenchments are envisaged and that the loss would be through natural attrition, I am sure that the magnitude of the loss of these jobs would be viewed with great concern. I strongly urge the Commonwealth Bank Board to reconsider its decision in this area. These amendments allowing the bank to involve itself in expanded areas of financial activity and in the general insurance industry could well be the answer to at least part of this problem. I find it very difficult to comprehend how the Board could contemplate such drastic cuts in its work force and at the same time prepare itself for a significant increase in its sphere of business activity. Such a significant loss of jobs in any industry is a matter of great concern to the Australian work force and I earnestly hope that again the Board remembers that its original charter confers upon the bank a general obligation to operate not only efficiently and productively but also in the interests of the Australian community generally. I understand that the major reason for the proposed cutbacks is the Board's concern that its profit for the 1986-87 year was 15 per cent lower before tax than the previous year's. In its annual report the bank itself admits that the previous year realised buoyant levels of profit. I suggest that, whilst it is natural that the Board would be desirous of continuing such high levels of profitability, there is no reason for it to be so concerned at the profit drop as to cut its work force drastically. Before ending my contribution to this debate, I wish to make particular mention of the activities of the Commonwealth Development Bank. The Commonwealth Development Bank has a special role as a supplementary lender handling the finance of borrowers unable to obtain finance elsewhere on reasonable terms and conditions. Under its charter the bank provides finance to primary producers and small to medium size businesses for any business purpose. In some cases it may also provide equity finance. I believe, and I think this is something which may not be well known, unless people are actively involved in the bank or have some relationship with the bank as a customer or whatever, that in recent years the Commonwealth Development Bank has become extremely conservative in its lending policy. Whilst I can appreciate that the bank is no doubt sensitive in the area of the attraction of bad debts-all banks are-I remind the Commonwealth Development Bank that its charter is such that it should be taking higher risks if it means saving businesses from folding and if it means allowing a business increased capital to expand its activities and thus create further employment. I am aware of one particular instance of a small manufacturing plant in my electorate of Bowman, which employs some 20 people, which is being prevented by the bank from expanding its activities by refusing to allow the first mortgagee, a private bank, to make further capital available to the proprietor of the plant. I understand that to ensure the viability of the business, capital is required to purchase new machinery, which would lead to greater production and the ability of the business to employ increased staff. I am told that on each occasion a proposition has been put to the first mortgagee the CDB has torpedoed the proposed budgets because it holds a second mortgage over the business and will not allow the first mortgagee appropriate priority on its first mortgage security. The owner has more than adequate security to substantiate a larger advance, but is being frustrated in his expansion plans by the Commonwealth Development Bank. I say that with much regret. I would strongly suggest that the Board conduct a review of the lending policies of the Commonwealth Development Bank with the aim of ensuring that it sticks to its original aims and objectives of assisting small to medium size businesses rather than frustrating their efforts to stay viable and to expand. Obviously I oppose the amendments. The insurance part of the Bill is probably one of the best parts. I support the general thrust of the Bill and commend it to the House. Mr COBB(Parkes)(4.23) —We are debating this afternoon the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill, which requires that some increased powers be given to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, which the coalition would agree with. These increased powers are needed because of the deregulation which has taken place in recent years. This has opened up new vistas for banking and financial activities, both domestically and internationally. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca), said, the Commonwealth Bank was established in 1912, and today it has a staff of about 33,000 employed full time, and 5,000 employed part time. It is interesting to go back and look at the Hansard of 15 November 1911, when the Bill to establish the bank was first brought into the House. Mr Fisher, the then Prime Minister and honourable member for Wide Bay, as he was, and also Treasurer, said: This will be a bank belonging to the people, and directly managed by the people's own agents. Later, when speaking on the intent of the Bill to set up the Commonwealth Bank, he said: This is a business concern pure and simple, and not a matter for idealism. I was interested to see that during the debate the then honourable member for Parkes interjected that the Commonwealth Bank, if set up, would come into competition with the existing banks that had been previously set up in the States. The Prime Minister, in responding to this interjection, conceded that the Commonwealth Bank would and could have an advantage over these banks. But Mr Fisher assured the House that any profits paid from the Commonwealth Bank would go to paying off government debt and would not be paid into consolidated revenue. He said: No Government can benefit a single penny piece from the profits of the bank . . . How times have changed. Today the Commonwealth Banking Corporation consists of three main entities: the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which is really the trading bank, the Commonwealth Savings Bank and the Commonwealth Development Bank. As well as that, they have various associated financial companies. Close to 1,300 branches have been set up in Australia and overseas. It is interesting to note that for the last financial year, 1986-87, the bank brought down a total profit of $192m. This was a drop of 33 per cent on what was brought down the previous year. In commenting on that fall in profit, the bank said that three main factors were influencing the lower profit: namely the fringe benefits tax, for which the bank had to pay out almost $25.7m; bad debts, which was a reflection of the high interest rates and the difficult times in the rural industry and other areas; and also the increase in company tax which had gone up from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. However, it is worth remembering that all other banks had to operate under the same conditions as the Commonwealth Bank, those banks including, of course, the Westpac Banking Corporation, the National Australia Bank and the ANZ Bank Ltd. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing how the major banks fared in 1987. I have shown this table to the Minister for Employment (Mr Holding). Leave granted. The table read as follows- HOW THE MAJOR BANKS FARED IN 1987 Westpac National ANZ C'wealth Net profit... $409m** $328m $385m $192m +0.6%(cf.1986) +8% +22.1% -33% Bad and doubtful debts... $309.9m $200.3m $332.8m* $131.8m +30.8% +91.3% +68% +121% Taxation... $397.6m $276.5m $427m $180.8m +48% +41.4% +73.8% +15.6% Group assets... $70.3bn $47bn $85.3bn $43.9bn +15.8% +11% +15.3% +10.6% Return... 14.8% 12.5% 13.1% Not applic. Previous... 15.8% 13% 13.1% Annual div... 28.5c 24.75c 21c Not applic. Previous... 28c 24.1c 20.6c Return on shareholders funds (%)... 15.3 12.5 13.1 8.5 Return on assets (%)... 0.62 0.73 0.63 0.45 * The ANZ charged $174m to profit. The $158m balance was surplus from creation of a new pension fund. ** Westpac charged an abnormal $75 million provision for bad debts to its bottom line. Mr COBB —I thank the House. When we examine this table, it leads us to think of the benefits of privatisation which the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), spoke of in his speech, because no matter what factor we look at in comparing the Commonwealth Bank with the other private banks, it would seem that the Commonwealth Bank does not perform as well as some would perhaps think. For example, we see that the Commonwealth Bank return on shareholders funds was 8.5 per cent, but Westpac returned 15.3 per cent, ANZ returned 13.1 per cent. and the National Australia Bank returned 12.5 per cent. So the Commonwealth Bank was well behind there. Mr Downer —What year was this? Mr COBB —This was for the last financial year, 1986-87. If we look at the return on assets, we see that the Commonwealth Bank returned 0.45 per cent, whereas the other banks were substantially up on that, about 50 per cent greater. If we judge the Commonwealth Bank by the tax paid, to see what benefit it is returning, the three major private banks fare much better. For last year the Commonwealth Bank paid almost $181m in tax, but the ANZ bank paid $427m, the National Australia Bank paid almost $277m and the Westpac Bank returned almost $398m. If we look at the net profit after tax, the same sorts of proportions come up again. So there seems to be no great benefit in having the Commonwealth Bank in government hands on those factors alone. The Commonwealth Bank does have one advantage over the other private banks in that it has the lowest exposure to Third World debt. While the ANZ has an exposure to Third World debt of about $1.5 billion, Westpac of about half a billion dollars and the National Australia Bank has an exposure of less than a quarter of a billion dollars, the Commonwealth Bank has an exposure of only some $30m, so it does have an advantage there. Now that the Government is looking at privatising various entities, including the Commonwealth Bank, it is interesting to look at how it has somersaulted on what it has said. I refer to a quote of the Treasurer, Paul Keating, in Hansard of 23 May 1985, in which he said that the sale of the Commonwealth Bank-he goes on to list other organisations: . . . is simply vandalism of Australia's great public authorities . . . The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said at the Nunawading by-election campaign on 21 July 1985: Privatisation is a one-off fire sale, a sale of the century, of your assets-the assets of the people of Australia. They will transfer then into the hands of a privileged few to the cost of every one of us. He reinforced that statement on 21 November 1985, when he said: They know, as anyone who thinks about the issue of privatisation knows, that it would mean higher prices, higher costs, higher taxes and higher fares. Apparently, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others have had second thoughts. There are, of course, many reasons why we would want to privatise organisations. I believe that there are 22 different ways of doing so, but they boil down to three main methods. First, there is the sale of an asset. One may transfer the title of the asset from the public sector to the private sector. One can do this in a number of forms, either in part or in whole. One can do it by sale to a single entity, by sale to a group, or by sale to a large number, such as by selling shares in it. The Government used this method when it offloaded the Belconnen shopping mall. A second way of privatising is by contracting out various duties to the private sector, such as the cleaning of government buildings. That is a well recognised way of doing it. The third main method is by the use of vouchers that people can use for certain goods or services. This method is used in Australia with regard to health and medical benefits cards. Government ownership and control of the Commonwealth Bank, I believe, when one studies the facts and figures of the bank, is only holding it back. The bank has to operate under some restrictions that do not apply to private banks. When one thinks about it, the Commonwealth Bank is just another bank. Why should it be owned by the Government rather than by private owners? The Commonwealth Bank, of course, has about one-third of the savings bank market and about one-fifth of trading bank business, so it is a very large bank in this country. But it appears that there is no advantage to the Government in actually owning the bank. The net return to the Federal Government over the last 10 years has been actually below zero. The Government would have been better off if it had been privately owned-if it had been run in the way in which other banks are run, and had been paying tax like the other banks. If one looks at the bank from the point of view of earnings per employee, the Commonwealth Bank is well behind the private banks. In the financial year 1984-85, the Commonwealth Bank earned about $6,000 per year per employee, whereas Westpac and ANZ earned about $8,500 per year per employee, and the National Bank in that year earned about $12,500 per year per employee. If one looks at the figures for the Commonwealth Bank for its expenses as a proportion of net income-that is, the gross income less interest paid out-one will see that it has a higher expense regime than its competitors. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a second brief table which shows this quite clearly. Again, I have shown the table to the Minister who is on duty in the chamber. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 12.9 Operating Expenses as a Proportion of Gross Income Less Interest Payments (% p.a.) ANZ NAB Westpac Common- wealth 1978-79... 68 73 72 78 1979-80... 67 73 73 80 1980-81... 65 69 70 84 1981-82... 70 74 77 86 1982-83... 71 75 79 84 1983-84... 66 68 75 80 1984-85... 70 66 73 78 Sources: Bank's Annual Reports Mr COBB —I thank the House. If one looks at the growth of the Commonwealth Bank in recent years, one will see that it also lags behind the three major private banks. So from whatever point of view it is examined, it does not shape up well. Of course, if the Government sold the Commonwealth Bank by whatever shape or form, it would be of interest to know what it would bring. There have been various calculations made in recent years as to what it is worth and what it would bring on the open market. Most of the valuations are between $1,500m and $2,000m. Of course, if the Government sold all of the bank in one hit-I doubt whether even the coalition would go along with that-the money could be used to pay off debt, which Prime Minister Fisher alluded to in 1911. If it did this, the Government would save more in interest payments on the debt than it would receive in dividends from the bank. The Government should ponder that very strongly. So from the point of view of benefit to people there is a very strong case to review the question of privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank. On the evidence that I have spoken about today, I would be a very strong supporter of privatisation. I want to deal briefly with a couple of clauses in the loan contracts between the Commonwealth Bank and its clients, because these contracts have disadvantaged people in my electorate. I refer both to the Commonwealth Bank as a whole and to the Commonwealth Development Bank. The first case concerns a Mr Robert Senior from Forbes, who took out a loan of $170,000 from the Commonwealth Bank to develop his property. He took out that loan some time ago, at an interest rate of 20.25 per cent. He subsequently learnt that the State Bank could offer the same loan at a rate of interest that was 3 per cent less-17 1/4 per cent. It represented saving on interest of about $5,100 per year. However, a clause in his contract read: In the event of prepayment or partial prepayment of principle to the Bank, the Bank shall, at its option, be entitled to an early repayment fee not exceeding the equivalent of three months interest on the sum so paid. When Mr Senior paid out that loan early, in order to transfer it to the State Bank, the Commonwealth Bank hit him with three months interest, which came to $8,500. I wrote to the bank about this. It wrote back and said that the option is exercised invariably in cases such as this one, where a term loan is being retired from finance from other institutions. In other words, if the borrower had won Lotto and paid out the loan, the three months penalty clause would not have applied, but because the loan was being transferred from one financial institute to another, the bank saw fit to apply the clause. That is quite ridiculous. This sort of clause is outdated. It was probably brought in somewhere near the beginning of this century when interest rates were only a quarter of what they are now. It also acts to eliminate competition between financial institutions. The Minister should look at modifying this clause some time in the future. Another constituent, Mr Barry Fragar, who used to live in Trundle in my electorate, but who has since moved to Queensland, took out a loan of $300,000 from the Commonwealth Development Bank to purchase a property, but because of drought, high interest rates and other difficulties, he was forced to sell his property. He gave the Commonwealth Development Bank seven weeks notice that he would pay out the loan. Again, this three-month penalty clause was applied and he had to shell out $13,500 which, I believe, is quite outrageous. It is high time that this anomaly was modified. In conclusion, the coalition supports this Bill. In particular we support the amendment to the motion for the second reading that the shadow Treasurer has moved. We hope that the Government will support it. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(4.39) —The Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill, which is before the House, will help to place the Commonwealth Bank on a firmer commercial footing. The measures contained in the Bill are in keeping with the Government's actions in 1984. The Commonwealth Banks Amendment Act 1984 was formulated with a view to improving the administrative and financial structure of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, enabling the constituent banks to better compete with other banking and non-banking institutions. It is also in keeping with the actions of the Whitlam Labor Government. In 1974 that Government extended the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank, allowing it for the first time to provide finance for tourist development projects. Placing this great Australian institution on a more commercial footing similar to that of its private competitors and encouraging it to compete is a sensible objective, particularly in view of the fact that the economy, and especially the banking system, has been deregulated to a greater extent than at any other time in its history. While enhancing competitiveness, and indeed encouraging competition, we should not overlook the great differences between the Commonwealth Bank and the private banks. In many ways it is not appropriate to compare the performance of the Commonwealth Bank with that of its private competitors. This is an error that is often made by those who look at the bank as a potential subject of privatisation. The debate about the future of the bank has tended to revolve around the so-called funding crisis of the bank. The main argument of the advocates of privatisation is that the bank needs a capital injection-figures ranging from $200m to $500m have been suggested in the Press-and that a share issue is the only appropriate means of raising this sum. In the second reading stage speech on the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill in May 1984, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) mooted the possibility of a 20 per cent share issue. My concern is that the debate has unfolded as if this were the only way to broaden the bank's capital base. However, there are alternatives to a share issue on some percentage of the bank. These alternatives are not getting as much coverage in the public debate as they should. As a first option the Government could forgo its dividend. As a second option the Government could waive some or all of the bank's taxation obligations. In 1986-87 the taxation revenue from the bank was $181m. A third option is that the bank could issue an appropriately designed subordinated debt. In the United Kingdom the Government permits public authorities-those that are left-to make up one-third of their capital base in this way. It is interesting to note that Westpac Banking Corporation has raised over $2 billion in subordinated debt. Though I acknowledge that not all Westpac's new capital of this kind has been used to meet that authority's prudential requirements, it has been used to fund expansion and, in Westpac's case, overseas expansion. On that note, I will read the following comment from the Reserve Bank of Australia's report and financial statements of 30 June 1987 when dealing with the arrangement that it made with the trading banks back in September 1986 that it increased its minimum capital ratios to the vicinity of 6 per cent of total assets. It commented that some of the banks had moved to meet the requirement by way of increasing shareholder funds, but also that they had used other means. I quote: Several banks raised substantial amounts of foreign currency subordinated perpetual debt in acceptable form. But this is a form of fund raising that the Commonwealth Bank has chosen not to pursue. A final option is for the Government to increase its paid up capital in the bank, not funded directly from the Budget, but by the issue of a special long term bond. Privatisation is far from the only alternative. It is also relevant to examine in more detail the so-called funding crisis that faces the bank. It is alleged that the bank requires a capital injection in large part to meet the Government's stricter prudential requirement-that is, a fixed ratio between a bank's assets and its capital. There are a number of points that should be made which take account of the vast differences between the Commonwealth Bank and its private competitors. Firstly, the rationale for requiring the Commonwealth Bank to meet the Reserve Bank's strict prudential guidelines is dubious. Prudential requirements are imposed on banks to ensure that deposits are safe. The capital base acts as a cushion to absorb losses arising from unforeseen circumstances. The imposition of these requirements also acts to assure depositors in a private bank of the willingness of shareholders to back the bank. In relation to private banks, prudential requirements are logical and sensible as the ownership of private banks is diverse and, to a large extent, grouped in nominee companies. However, the Australian people, through their Government, own and stand behind the Commonwealth Bank. I remind the House that Labor Prime Minister Andrew Fisher, who has already been quoted by Opposition members in this debate, in his second reading speech on the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank in November 1911, stated that it was to be: . . . a bank belonging to the people, and directly managed by the people's own agents. Surely there can be no greater assurance of its viability. Nevertheless, even if prudential requirements continue to be imposed on the Commonwealth Bank, some account must surely be taken of the government guarantees that back the institution. At present, zero value is placed on the government backing of the bank when calculating its various capital requirements. Consideration should also be given to varying capital requirements according to the level of risk involved in the bank's assets and activities. The Commonwealth Bank is a low risk institution. It focuses mainly on the domestic market, a situation which would suggest that its prudential capital requirements should be relatively lower. It is interesting to note in the Reserve Bank's annual report the following comment dealing with the prudential requirement of different banks: The current approach to capital adequacy relates capital to total assets. This does not take account of differences in risk attaching to various classes of assets in a bank's portfolio nor of the risks associated with its off-balance-sheet transactions. There is growing support among supervisors in other countries for a `risk ratio' approach to the measurement of capital adequacy. This assigns risk weightings to the various categories of assets and off-balance-sheet business and then relates the aggregate assessed risk of the bank to its capital. The Bank- that is the Reserve Bank- is holding discussion with banks on technical aspects of moving to a `risk ratio' approach. I contend that a risk ratio approach would better serve the needs of the Commonwealth Bank. According to the advocates of privatisation, if the bank does not receive the necessary injection of capital, not only will it fail to grow, it will wither on the vine, forcing a massive scaling down of operations. Like many of the pro- privatisation arguments, this consists of the hot air of a public relations campaign rather than a rational approach to the issues. On the one hand, the Commonwealth Bank's needs for funds for capital investment are modest. As I have said, the so-called funding crisis stems largely from the need to meet stricter prudential requirements. On the other hand, when we consider what is most likely to result in any reduction in the level of service, privatisation-either in full or part-is surely not the solution but the greatest threat. With private shareholders, even as a minority, the bank would be forced to increase its profit distribution simply as a means of making the shares attractive. It is not difficult to imagine a situation where each aspect of the bank's operations would need to justify its existence by returning a prescribed level of profits. I suggest that it is under such circumstances that services will be lost to the public. Let us be reminded of what services we are talking about. The Commonwealth Bank has the largest share of personal accounts. It is the largest institutional lender for housing with loans totalling more than $7 billion. It has the largest branch network, some 1,300 branches and 500 automatic tellers, including an extensive coverage of country and remote areas. The bank is used extensively by pensioners and other low income groups. It provides a free cashing service for pensioners and social security recipients. Seventy per cent of social security recipients bank with the Commonwealth. It provides a migrant information service, although I note the comments of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca) about the way that this service is being wound down. I hope that the Commonwealth Banking Corporation will note my colleague's suggestion. The bank is Australia's largest lender to local councils, semi-government authorities, public corporations and boards, and non-profit organisations such as schools and churches on terms more generous than other banks. We should also note the role of the Commonwealth Development Bank and its great assistance to small business and the farming sector. I quote from a letter that I believe was sent to all honourable members from the Chief General Manager of the Commonwealth Development Bank, Mr J. W. Fletcher: The rapid growth of the CDB's business in recent years demonstrates, I believe, the need for our special role supplementing the more usual sources of finance. Without access to finance on reasonable terms, many of our customers, major generators of employment, would have found it impossible to grow and prosper. Privatisation in any form presents a grave threat to these and other services by which the `people's bank' fulfils its social obligation. Partial privatisation, corporatisation, commercialisation, capitalisation, or whatever one wants to call it, is, for all intents and purposes, the same as a total sell off. In conclusion, I would like to return to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition on the occasion of his speech in the second reading debate on the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill in 1984. In connection with his proposal to sell off 20 per cent of the Commonwealth Bank he stated that the sale would be `not to dreaded multi-national companies, not even to large Australian companies, but to ordinary Australian shareholders'. This is a classic piece of Thatcherism-people's capitalism, the shareholding masses. Of course, in Australia we have the benefit of examining the British experience of people's capitalism and we know it to be a sham and a fraud. I take British Telecom as an example. Amidst all the rhetoric and hyperbole about people's capitalism, the sobering reality is that institutional and large investors now hold 86 per cent of British Telecom shares. Small shareholders, that is those with fewer than 800 shares, constitute only 14 per cent. Of this 14 per cent, employees now hold only 2 per cent. Already, as was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 August, some of Australia's best known big businesses-Larry Adler's consortiums and Kerry Packer's Australian Consolidated Press-have indicated that they would be in the bidding if the bank were to go on the auction block. People's capitalism is a myth behind which the Thatcher Government has flogged off public enterprises to big business. There is no reason to assume that the same would not occur here. This Bill will enhance the bank's competitiveness. It will lead to the bank's providing a more efficient and innovative banking service to the Australian community. That is not to say that in different ways the bank has not tried to contend with becoming a more efficient organisation. I briefly give as an example the agreement that the Corporation has come to with the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association about the second tier wage agreement. The bank has come up with a quite innovative form of package. Of the second tier wage increase, 3 per cent will be an across the board increase and one per cent will be paid into a performance pool. This performance pool will be distributed on a performance basis, as shown in the usual annual assessment of staff. This is a recognition that the Corporation must deal with its resources in a more efficient way. The first Labor Government with a majority in both Houses-the Fisher Government-established the Commonwealth Bank as the people's bank. In the people's hands it should remain. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(4.53) —As other speakers in this debate have pointed out, the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill extends the functions of the Commonwealth Banks following the review by the Treasury and the Commonwealth Banks themselves into the operation of those banks. The legislation is designed to improve the efficiency of the Commonwealth Banks and to define more precisely the relationship between them and the Government. There are a couple of points I would like to make in relation to the extension of the functions of the Commonwealth Banks which falls under the heading of improved efficiency. First of all I note-this is a point that has been made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer (Mr Peacock)-that the legislation provides for a wider range of insurance services offered by the Commonwealth Bank. That is being done so that the Commonwealth Bank can compete more effectively with other banks which provide that wider range of insurance services. I have a very real concern that if this wider range of insurance services is to be taken too far by the Commonwealth Bank we could end up by having yet another government insurance office at the Federal level. I think most members of this House would be well aware of the reservations I and many other people in the community have about the role of government insurance commissions and the way those bodies have been used and manipulated for purposes other than to provide effective insurance services. There is no suggestion in this legislation, as it stands, that the Commonwealth Bank is intending to move down that particularly dangerous path. But I warn honourable members that theoretically that could happen under this legislation and that is one reason why the suggestion of the shadow Treasurer that we should restrict fairly carefully the insurance functions of the Commonwealth Bank should be supported by both sides of this House. There is also a concern-as has happened with the State government insurance commissions-that there could be a substantial blowout in borrowings by those particular financial instrumentalities. Again, we would not like to see that at the Federal level. I certainly agree very strongly with the proposition that the insurance functions of the Commonwealth Bank should be restricted precisely to being ancillary to the banking services that the Commonwealth Bank provides. The second point I make in relation to the new and extended functions of the Commonwealth Bank is that they are being extended quite broadly to trusts, stockbroking, the futures market, commodity dealings and so on. Of course, the argument is very strongly put forward that this is necessary if the Commonwealth Bank is to provide the sorts of services provided by other banks, such as the National Australia Bank Ltd or Westpac Banking Corporation, and compete with them. That is perfectly comprehensible. I can understand the concerns of the Commonwealth Bank in not being able to provide the same services as other banks and therefore not being able to compete properly. The difficulty here is that we are ending up with a nationalised bank-a government owned bank-which is extending itself into areas such as stockbroking, the futures market and commodity dealings. In my own State of South Australia the State Bank of South Australia has now bought 50 per cent of a real estate company, Myles Pearce and Co. Pty Ltd. This means that the largest real estate company in that State is effectively owned by the Government. Most members of this House will agree that we very strongly support the private sector of the economy. Healthy private sector competition is a view that has been widely held in recent years on both sides of this House. When we see the increasing and growing role of State banks and the Commonwealth Bank in areas which are the traditional preserve of the private sector, that is something to be wary of. We are left in a difficult situation because if we actually oppose this legislation and the proposition that the Commonwealth Bank should extend its services into those areas, we are saying that the Commonwealth Bank should not be able to compete effectively. It is only reasonable to suggest that that argument does not make an awful lot of sense. The Commonwealth Bank has to be able to compete and compete effectively. I do not think anyone wants to inhibit it from competing. The next question that this legislation raises is whether it is really saying that we should move towards private ownership of the Commonwealth Bank, rather than it being owned by the Government. When addressing that issue one has to ask what justifications there are in the first place for having a government-owned bank or series of banks, as we have in Australia. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, such banks do not exist, whereas for many years we have had a government owned bank at the Federal level and a whole series of government-owned banks at the State level. Let us look at the role of a government bank. The first role is as a central bank. As far as I know, all countries' central banks are understandably owned by their governments. I think the last privately owned central bank was the Bank of England which was nationalised, from recollection, in 1944. That is quite a long time ago. If the Commonwealth Bank were still the central bank there would be a strong argument for retaining it in public ownership but it is not and it has not been since 1959. The second argument in favour of a government bank is the argument the Fisher Government used when it created the Commonwealth Bank; it was reiterated by the Liberal Government in 1959. It was argued that a government owned bank would provide more effective competition in a market which had insufficient competition. There was something to be said for that argument. Nowadays, when we have more domestic banks than we had in 1959, or than we had 10 years ago-16 foreign banks now operate in Australia-nobody who knows anything about banking, and most people know something about it, would deny that there is very strong competition at last in the Australian market. So the argument that we need a publicly owned bank to provide competition no longer carries any substance. The third argument is perhaps the most important argument. Does a publicly owned bank provide some sort of social function? To be specific, does the Commonwealth Bank provide some sort of social function? The Commonwealth Bank has more branches than any other bank, so it could be argued that by having a very extensive branch network it is thereby providing some sort of social function. But the other major private banks, such as Westpac and the National Australia Bank, also have extremely extensive branch networks. Westpac, for example, has just under 1,000 branches. The Commonwealth Bank has just under 1,300 branches. So the argument that because the Commonwealth Bank has more branches it thereby provides a more effective branch network than any other bank has some justification, but it is an extremely marginal justification. If we were to make the Commonwealth Bank compete more effectively in the market-place-it claims that it does anyway-and if that were to lead to the closure of some of its branches it would still not lead to major social dislocation. Another aspect of the social function would be to ask whether it is providing loans to people which the general banking system does not provide. That was originally the case. It certainly is not the case any longer. It provides a higher proportion of savings bank loans than any other bank, but that is an historical accident. It does so because of its history. However, it charges the same interest rates as other banks on housing loans. Access to those loans and to other banking services is no different from access to the other private banks. So it does not seem that in that area it is providing any kind of social function. There is the argument that because the Commonwealth Bank is a government owned bank it will provide greater security for people who have savings with the bank. When one asks people whether they are in favour of the sale of the Commonwealth Bank to the private sector, and they say that they are not, and one asks why they are not, the reason often given is their concern about their savings. The implication is that one's savings are less safe with Westpac or the National Australia Bank. I am sorry to keep using those two examples; I am not really doing any advertising for these two banks, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will choose some other examples when they come to mind. Their advertising is obviously more effective because their names are more strongly in my mind. Those two banks provide great security for people who have their savings with them, as does the Commonwealth Bank. All the major banks-the Commonwealth Bank, but particularly the major private sector banks-are very strongly protected by the Reserve Bank of Australia. There is no question that the Reserve Bank-it cannot, anyway-would simply turn its back on the major Australian banks if they were to run into difficulty. So the argument that the Commonwealth Bank, because it is publicly owned, is performing some major social function does not have a great deal of substance. A fourth argument was used during the South Australian State election in the context of the possible privatisation of the State Bank of South Australia. The argument is that the Commonwealth Bank provides revenue for the Government and that, if it were to be sold, the Government would lose that revenue base. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me remind you, in case you are being lured by that argument, that in 1985 the Federal Government received more money in income tax from the three major banks than it received in revenue from the Commonwealth Bank. So that argument is not sustainable. If the Commonwealth Bank were to be owned by the private sector-I will explain why in a second-it would have some competitive advantages that it does not have at the moment and would generate significantly increased revenue, not just for itself in the form of profits but also in taxation revenue for the Government. Because the Commonwealth Bank is publicly owned it suffers from a series of competitive disadvantages. The reason for the 1984 legislation and for this legislation is to try to help overcome some of those competitive disadvantages. That is why, on balance, I welcome this legislation. There is evidence in the profit performance of the Commonwealth Bank that it has been hindered by its competitive disadvantages. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) went through many of the figures. Of all the major banks, the Commonwealth Bank historically has had the lowest levels of return on both assets and equity. It has the lowest level of earnings per employee. In 1984-85, quite dramatically, the Commonwealth Bank's earnings per employee were only about half of those of the National Australia Bank. That is a very substantial profit performance differential. It is argued by some that the Commonwealth Bank, to put it in a pejorative sense, is a consistently poor performer. I would say not that it is a poor performer but that it is a performer which has not been as effective as the private banks. I will run through a handful of examples of why the Commonwealth Bank is disadvantaged because it is owned by the public sector. Firstly, decisions on important matters, such as operating off-shore, have to be referred first to the Treasurer. So political considerations are brought into play. There has been a reluctance by the Commonwealth Bank to operate off-shore because of political considerations. The new Managing Director of the Commonwealth Bank recently said: If we didn't have this restraint- that is, the suggestion that the bank should not operate too extensively off-shore- we may well have decided to become a world bank. That quotation is important. Most banks are now moving into the global economy, the global market. If the Commonwealth Bank gets left behind it will not have the same opportunities to maximise its profitability. Secondly, the Commonwealth Bank is hindered by having to pay and adhere to public sector salary and wage guidelines. The bank has introduced greater flexibility in recent years at the lower level of its hierarchy but at the top level it still cannot pay comparative wage or salary rates for management paid by the private sector. Some figures have been given to me in the last few hours which I have not been able to check. I understand that the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Bank earns about $95,000 a year, whereas his private sector counterpart earns about $250,000. I could stand corrected on those figures but they illustrate the basic disadvantage which the Commonwealth Bank suffers. Thirdly, from time to time the Commonwealth Bank is subject to political interference. In the context of operating off-shore I have made it clear that that is one way political interference can put the bank at a disadvantage. The appointment of the new Managing Director some time ago created turmoil within the bank, another minor example of the effect of political interference on the performance of the bank. Another example is that when industrial disputes break out in the bank they cannot be unilaterally settled by the bank. They have to be referred to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Again that puts the bank at a disadvantage-in that instance, I would argue, a very great disadvantage. Fourthly, theoretically it is an advantage that the Commonwealth provides de facto guarantees for the Commonwealth Bank, but when the Commonwealth's credit rating is continually being downgraded, as it has in the last couple of years, that advantage turns quickly to a disadvantage for the Commonwealth Bank. Finally-this is the key to the whole argument of privatisation-the capital base of the Commonwealth Bank is too small. This point was made by the previous Managing Director, Vern Christie, and is repeatedly made in the public debate now. It is argued that the bank needs an injection of up to $500m of additional capital. Where will it be able to get that money from? If it does not get that money, it will not be able, under prudential requirements, to expand its deposits and that will again put it at a competitive disadvantage. As the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) mentioned, the Reserve Bank of Australia is now demanding an improved capital to assets ratio. Again, for as long as its capital is restricted, the Commonwealth Bank will not be able to compete in the way the other banks can. The Commonwealth Bank could raise extra capital by retaining profits and having greater flexibility in its dividend payment, and this legislation will help it to do that. But it is unlikely to be able to raise sufficient funds from that source. It could raise money through an injection simply from the Treasury-from general revenue-but to ask for $500m in the present climate, I suspect, would be more than ambitious. The honourable member for Scullin suggested that it could extend its indebtedness: the Commonwealth could issue special bonds, for example, for the Commonwealth Bank; it could operate a system of subordinated debt and so on. I suppose one cannot ignore that suggestion but we have to ask why we are always talking about increasing indebtedness. Are not there better ways of improving the capital base than extending the debt either of the Commonwealth or of the Commonwealth Bank, thereby raising prudential issues? I suppose the Commonwealth Bank could raise additional capital by stripping some of its assets, by selling off its investments in merchant banks, financial authorities, travel, and so on, but I would not support that. That would be counter to the spirit of this legislation which is for the bank to be able to provide a whole range, rather than a very limited range of banking services. If it were to make those sales it would not be able to provide the extensive services that it provides and, therefore, it would not be so competitive. So I do not think that that is much of an option. This leaves us with the one substantial option-the one which Senator Gareth Evans clearly supports and which obviously some honourable members on the other side of the House support, although I understand they are in the minority-and that is for the private sector to be able to invest in equity in the Commonwealth Bank, call it privatisation if you like. The Opposition has said that it will review its policy on the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank. I more than support that move. I believe that privatisation will be the best option, the best solution, to the future of the Commonwealth Bank. Any opposition to that measure is not practical opposition; opposition to that is based on a notion, an ideology. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) keeps saying, we need an intelligent debate on these matters, not a debate which is consummated by ideological considerations. The Government might consider going down the Bank of New Zealand track and allowing, I think, 13 per cent of private sector investment in that bank. It may allow more than 13 per cent; it may allow 49 per cent or whatever, or it may go the whole way. The Government has to be intelligent and serious about examining those options if it is to be fair dinkum about making the Commonwealth Bank a genuinely competitive bank. At the moment it is hamstrung in the way I have described and if the Government does not take action in the future, the bank will wither while others prosper. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(5.13) —The Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1987 seeks to amend the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959 and as such it represents the implementation, with regard to both the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and its member banks, of the Government's policy on Commonwealth statutory authorities and government business enterprises. The provisions in the Commonwealth Banks Amendment 1987 and the major amendments made to the Act in 1984 are in line with the general overhaul of Commonwealth public sector administration in fulfilment of a commitment undertaken by the Hawke Labor Government in its 1983 statement on Labor and quality of government. The main provisions of the Bill are sixfold. First, the Bill seeks to expand the charter of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Savings Bank to enable them both to provide insurance services where, in the opinion of the Board, this is necessary for the bank to remain competitive with other banks. Secondly, it proposes to expand the powers of the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank to include a wider range of banking and investment services. Thirdly, it requires the Board of the Corporation to prepare and to submit to the Treasurer a corporate plan stating the objectives of the Commonwealth banks and outlining the policies and strategies to be pursued in achieving those objectives. All of those objectives of this legislation are, I believe, laudable. Fourthly, the legislation seeks to provide the Board of the Corporation with a formal role in the determination of dividend payments by the Commonwealth banks. Fifthly, it proposes to introduce a dividend requirement for the Commonwealth Development Bank. Finally, it proposes to give the Corporation greater flexibility in staff management. The Bill and the contributions made in the debate this afternoon give rise to the opportunity to make some comments on the Government's policy with regard to Commonwealth statutory authorities and government business enterprises. The Bill also gives us the opportunity to consider, particularly, implementation of the Government's policy in the case of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, through this legislation. The aim of the Government's policy with regard to statutory authorities and government business enterprises is to provide incentive, to enhance efficiency and to improve public accountability. Those are three very important points that we must not lose sight of. This Government, in endeavouring to seek to achieve those three aims, is committed to ensuring that public enterprises operate in that way. It is intended that these objectives be achieved through a package which combines removal of unnecessary central controls which detract from enterprise performance, with greater emphasis on bottom line performance. It surprises me that the contributions of honourable gentlemen opposite this afternoon sought to draw attention to the fact that they do not understand, or they fail to see, how publicly owned and operated enterprises can be as efficient as privately run enterprises. I fail to see just why that should be the case. I am not blinded by some philosophical dilemma or some position of faith which has been adopted within the ranks of the Australian Labor Party. It is my view that in this Government review that will take place within the realms of the Labor Party over the next few months on this whole question of publicly owned and operated enterprises the Party will decide; we will decide what we consider to be best and we will act accordingly. I do not believe that we will be pressured by any particular group within the general community to arrive at those decisions. Government attention, as far as this Bill is concerned will be focused on strategic issues which are properly a matter for ministerial responsibility. That comment, which pertains to the Commonwealth Bank, applies equally to a broad range of public enterprises. Therefore, we see in the provisions of this Bill an attempt to implement streamlined, performance-oriented, management practices based on devolution of responsibility with appropriate accountability for results. The provisions also demonstrate the Government's commitment to achieving the highest levels of operational and financial efficiency in the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and its member banks. This commitment is derived from the belief that these banks are part of a group of business enterprises which constitute an important business sector providing a significant proportion of the infrastructure on which the rest of the Australian economy depends. That is a very important point. It goes to the point that was raised by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) in his contribution: the Commonwealth Bank is part of that major infrastructure on which the rest of the Australian economy depends. There are a number of other reasons prompting the Government to seek greater efficiency and performance from these banks. First of all, through the Government all Australians have a significant investment in these enterprises. The Government needs to ensure that this investment earns an adequate rate of return. I suspect that this is one of the key factors in this debate, and it will loom as a key factor in this debate, on the question of public versus private ownership of enterprises currently in public ownership. Concomitant to this the Government is committed to maximising the public benefit by efficient operation of these enterprises. Furthermore, the degree to which efficiency can be enhanced has a major bearing on the success of the Government's program to improve Australia's international competitiveness. This is the key to the living standards of all Australians. In line with Government policy the Bill provides for a strategic corporate plan to be advanced and for financial targets to be set. The Government will be closely monitoring the implementation of policy, not only in regard to this Bill but in regard to all Commonwealth statutory authorities and government business enterprises. While some fine tuning may be necessary, the Government believes that this policy provides a suitable, coherent, consistent and flexible approach to the oversight of authorities and enterprises. In fact, this is a view which is shared by the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Bank, Mr Don Sanders. On 27 October he said: The capacity to offer a more extensive range of banking, financial, insurance and investment services will enable the bank to cater for virtually all the financial requirements of our many customers . . . Planning is well advanced for a range of insurance services to be launched in 1988, and details of these will be announced at the appropriate time. So clearly the Commonwealth Bank is looking to the future. It is looking to the implementation of Government policy and providing a range of services which will enable it to remain competitive amongst all those privately owned banks. Mr Sanders also went on to welcome the greater autonomy and flexibility the bank was to have in managing its staff as a result of the removal from the Act of various detailed provisions governing procedures for appointment, promotion and discipline. He stated that adaptations and developments would proceed with the consultative process built up over many years with the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association. Again, that is a policy which this Government fully supports. Confrontation is out; consultation is in. Despite recent media reports that the bank is to sack 5,000 workers, I believe that this figure is greatly inflated and that only some 1,000 jobs have been targeted for rationalisation-all of which will be achieved through natural attrition. Given that the Commonwealth Banking Corporation experienced a 15 per cent decline in before tax profit in the 1986-87 financial year, reflecting the competition from both new and established players in the now deregulated financial system, I am sure that any rational person would agree that the Bill before the House, designed to increase the competitiveness of the corporation, is in the best interests of the Australian people. I conclude by saying that it is my view that the amendment that has been moved by the shadow Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is really nothing but an opportunity to take advantage of what he might perceive as some divisions within the Government ranks on this whole question of public ownership. Mr Peacock —I reckon there are. Mr MARTIN —Let me assure the honourable gentleman that no such divisions exist, as is usual within the Government. I think he will be saved from further embarrassment on this issue following the Caucus meeting tomorrow. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.23) —I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. Basically the argument developed by members of the Opposition centred largely on an amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). In a sense, this amendment gave him the opportunity to address the House on the broader issues of privatisation and express the views and philosophy of the Opposition on that matter. That is a legitimate exercise within the framework of parliamentary debate. But I can only say to the honourable gentleman that he will be well aware of the fact that the Government is considering all aspects of the range of arguments that are being put forward in respect of that matter. The one thing we will not do is allow our positions, as they develop in respect of any of those matters, to be pre-empted by the Opposition in terms of any arguments that come forward. I know that the shadow Treasurer would regard that as an equally legitimate position for the Government to adopt. I would remind the shadow Treasurer that, in introducing these amendments to the Act, the Government is mindful of the need to ensure that the corporation group maintains a sufficient level of capital to support the further development of its operations. One source of capital for the Commonwealth banks is retained earnings. In this regard the amendments to the Act introduce new arrangements for the determination of dividend payments which will enable the board to make a formal recommendation to the Treasurer on the level of dividend. The Treasurer will be able to accept the recommendation or, where the dividend proposed is less than 45 per cent of the amount available for distributing, vary the dividend payment up to a maximum of 45 per cent of net profits. This will ensure that at least 55 per cent of the profits of the Commonwealth Bank are retained, and allows for an even greater proportion of profits to be retained where this is considered appropriate. These amendments will serve to promote the more efficient conduct of the operations of the corporation and its member banks to improve the profitability of the corporation group. Increased profitability of the Commonwealth banks will, of course, enable them, to improve their capital position through a higher level of retained earnings. The flexible dividend arrangement will also mean that the banks can pay a dividend lower than the statutory maximum of 45 per cent where this is considered appropriate. The Government is aware of the need to ensure that the Commonwealth banks are adequately capitalised and will keep under review whether there is a need for additional measures to supplement the above arrangements. The other aspect, which was dwelt on for some time by members of the Opposition, went to the insurance arrangements which were proposed in the Government's amendments. The Opposition proposed a series of amendments in this regard which the Government cannot accept. The Government was perfectly aware of the insurance industry's concerns in respect of the legislation and the amendments proposed giving the Commonwealth banks a greater capacity for competitiveness in the open market. The arrangements to apply extend to the bank's insurance operations, so that it will be able to compete on an equal footing with private insurers. The Opposition's amendments, as proposed by the shadow Treasurer, seem aimed at producing precisely the same result, but they may well result inadvertently in the bank's finding itself at a competitive disadvantage. For those reasons the Government will not accept those amendments. I foreshadow to the House an amendment which I propose to move in respect of clause 27 at the committee stage. The effect of this clause is to require the corporation to adopt proceedings in making appointments, promotions or transfers which preclude patronage and favouritism. However, the clause, as it was originally worded, would have required formal applications to be submitted for all promotions and transfers in the corporation. This is at variance with existing staffing arrangements whereby officers may be considered for promotion or transfer without necessarily having to submit formal applications, and the clause would have made staffing procedures in the corporation more unwieldy. The proposed amendment to the Bill will avoid the need for the corporation to seek formal applications for all promotions and transfers. However, it will not affect the requirement for the corporation to adopt procedures which preclude favouritism and patronage in approving promotions or transfers. I will present an explanatory memorandum on this amendment, but I foreshadow it now. I understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already been provided with a copy, but I felt it appropriate to put the House on notice and move the amendment formally later so that any honourable member who wants to address himself to this issue will not be at any disadvantage. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 20-by leave-taken together. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(5.30) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 14, page 6, lines 5 and 6, omit all words from and including ``, in'' to the end of proposed subsection 28 (1A), substitute ``those services are directly related to the general banking business of the Commonwealth Bank''. (2) Clause 15, page 6, lines 26 and 27, omit all words after ``otherwise)'' to the end of proposed paragraph 29 (2) (g), substitute ``those kinds of insurance, re-insurance, assurance, annuity guarantee and indemnity business related to the general banking business of the Commonwealth Bank''. (3) Clause 19, page 9, lines 12-14, omit all words from and including ``, in'' to the end of proposed subsection 41 (1a), substitute ``those services are directly related to the general banking business of the Savings Bank''. (4) Clause 20, page 9, lines 32 and 33, omit all words after ``otherwise)'' to the end of proposed paragraph 42 (2) (g), substitute ``those kinds of insurance, re-insurance, assurance, annuity guarantee and indemnity business related to the general banking business of the Savings Bank''. The amendments, which have been circulated, relate to clauses 14, 15, 19 and 20. They cover the Opposition's concerns that any extension of the Commonwealth Bank's services regarding insurance services should be limited to those directly related to the general banking business of the Commonwealth Bank and the Commonwealth Savings Bank. In my speech at the second reading stage I outlined our concern that too wide a scope could permit the future establishment of a large government insurance office. I will not go over the same ground at this stage; suffice it to reiterate that we wish the insurance services to be ancillary to those conducted by the bank and to relate to the general banking business of both the Commonwealth Bank and the Commonwealth Savings Bank. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —(5.32)-by leave-I move: (1) Clause 27, page 13, line 8, after ``appointment'', insert ``or be considered for''. (2) Clause 27, page 13, line 11, omit ``applicants'', insert ``persons considered for appointment, promotion or transfer, as the case may be''. (3) Clause 27, page 13, line 16, omit ``applicant'', insert ``person so considered''. I have already explained to the Committee the reasons for moving these amendments. Copies have been circulated. Amendments agreed to. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 4 November, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(5.33) —The Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 is very important. The Opposition recognises the importance, and I think all members of the Australian community also recognise the importance, of aged care. We have no argument with the Government's policy direction. We think that direction is correct. We have a major argument with the implementation of the policy. Our major concern is the absolute lack of consultation between the Department of Community Services and Health and the industry. In fact, it is entirely appropriate to describe the Department's approach to this legislation as autocratic. That is not my word; it is the word used frequently by the industry, both by the private sector and by the voluntary aged care sector. It concerns me that the Department has developed a tendency towards autocracy, not only in terms of aged care but also in terms of child care. The capacity of the Department to conduct meaningful consultation seems to be almost non-existent. Later in my remarks I will address the industry's concerns about this particular issue. What concerns me is the increasing politicisation of the approach of the Department of Community Services and Health to issues that it deals with. We have seen it at the forefront of the debate over public child care and we see it using the Government's policy on aged care for political purposes. During the last Federal election campaign the Department of Community Services and Health placed advertisements in Victorian newspapers. The ads said: The nursing homes scandal is over. A fair deal for nursing home residents. Some greedy nursing home operators claim recent government changes will disadvantage residents. This is not true. The changes will provide a better deal. I remind the House that Victoria, the same State in which these advertisements were placed, has just had a crisis in nursing homes. The confidence of the residents of those homes, their families and the community at large has been destroyed as a result of government policy which the Government was busy trumpeting at taxpayers' expense before the election. Mr Holding —It would be interesting to hear what they say. Mr BLUNT —The Minister is busy shaking his head. I hope he sits in the House to listen to the rest of the remarks I intend to make today. I will quote to you what the industry thinks of the Government's policy and I will tell you what the Government is doing to the residents of nursing homes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister might contain himself and the honourable member might address his remarks through the Chair. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was provoked. As I said, the industry is particularly concerned at the way the Department is conducting the Government's policy. The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), who is not in the House at present, has a tendency to create the impression that nursing homes are being exploited by private entrepreneurs who are making money out of the frail aged in our community and the taxpayer through Government subsidies. Let me quote from the Australian Affiliation of Voluntary Care Associations (AAVCA). The associations are not private entrepreneurs. They are voluntary groups. They are church organisations and charitable organisations. They are extremely concerned at the way the Government is going about the implementation of its policy. The president of this organisation, Reverend Don Stewart, has written to the Secretary of the Department expressing those reservations. He refers to `consultations' in his correspondence in inverted commas because he does not regard them as meaningful consultations. He said: I remind the Department that-the Australian Nursing Homes Association aside-consultations with other consumer representatives-the ACTU (representing the nurses) and other groups-should not be allowed to distort reality. The reality is that unless there are healthy and flourishing care provider organisations then words, policies, pontifications and pious hopes for better care are just so much rhetoric. He goes on to discuss the issues. He supports the remark that I made earlier that residents' confidence in the system is being impaired by the Government's implementation of its policy. He goes on to address a number of problems that are currently the subject of much debate within the industry and increasing public debate about resident classifications and the needs of communities. He goes on to say that the Department is unrealistic in its provisions for crisis respite care. In terms of exempt beds the proposal as outlined is not acceptable and is unlikely to attract participation by AAVCA member organisations, not the private organisations but the community based charitable church organisations. On consultation with this organisation he said: We believe that we have much expertise to offer the Department in the formulation of policy and programs, but if our only involvement is to criticise the Department's proposals when they are prepared we feel this is an inadequate approach. A far better use of AAVCA expertise can be obtained by our involvement and consultation in the formulation of policy and program proposals. That is not possible with the present procedures. However, I must point out that the failure of the Department to advise us of the introduction of the legislation- the legislation we are debating in the House today- and the nature of the legislation has left us with feelings of uncertainty for the future. That is the President of the Australian Affiliation of Voluntary Care Associations speaking. Similar attitudes have been expressed by State organisations. An urgent telegram from the Executive Director of the New South Wales Branch of the Voluntary Care Association says: The Association finds it unbelievable that during eight hours of discussion the legislation issue was not mentioned. The fact that no contact was made with the AAVCA Executive on the Friday after the discussions questions both the integrity and the sincerity of departmental officers. It goes on to make reference to the utter disdain that officers obviously have for the industry. It makes the point that there has been a major submission made to the Government, some 23 pages, with vast numbers of questions, to which to date it has received no response. Again it is important to recognise the depth of criticism and the depth of concern in the industry over this matter. As I said, and I must stress this again, it is not the private operators, it is the voluntary operators, the people who keep vast numbers of elderly Australians in some degree of security in their latter years, that are concerned. To give honourable members some idea of the range of this concern, the Voluntary Care Association of South Australia-again a voluntary organisation, which has 110 affiliated organisations, approximately 13,000 aged tenants and about 10,000 staff-is also very critical of the Department. It refers to the Department's seemingly autocratic attitude. The association criticises the Department's method of approach, the lack of time to consider the issues and the number of documents that have been compiled by Federal and State public servants. It says in its correspondence: Much of the documentation received from Canberra leaves the impression that the initiators have little or no practical experience with, or awareness of, the real issues relating to `Aged Accommodation and Health Care'. While they are prepared to listen to those who are best qualified to contribute, they appear to take little notice of what is said. In terms, such as `quality of life', et cetera, are used in departmental documentation, whereas the real issues are about money, theory and control, that is, the Government's and the bureaucracy's diminishing financial input over time, together with the desire for total control through regulation and funding with increasing strings attached. The views of this organisation are summed up in the following terms: It is surely in the best interests of Australian governments to ensure that non-profit organisations, providing quality accommodation and care services, especially those caring for the frail aged in nursing homes and hostels, remain viable. Conversely, there is certainly no mileage for any government if that does not. If the Department is really genuine in its belief that the proposals contained in its documents are realistic, then it will demonstrate its conviction and accountability by unreservedly guaranteeing to reimburse Aged Care organisations for any financial losses sustained as result of its recommendations and subsequent regulations. We are not talking about a private entrepreneur; we are not talking about a nursing home operator that needs to make a profit. We are talking about nursing home operators who are charitable organisations, voluntary care associations. They are not interested in profit, they are just interested in maintaining the viability of their operations, and they are concerned at the impact of the legislation that the Government proposes to bring down. It is for that reason that we will propose a second reading amendment. We will also be moving certain committee stage amendments to this Bill. We will also propose, to ensure that the industry has an opportunity for meaningful consultation, that this entire Bill be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs, to give the Committee, with its representatives from both sides of this chamber, the industry and the public of Australia-because the interest of the public in this issue is very widespread-an opportunity to see what the detail of the Government's policy on aged care is and how the implementation of that policy will affect elderly Australians and those people contemplating their retirement years. I have received vast amounts of correspondence from other sections of the industry. I will not delay the House unduly by quoting extensively from the correspondence, but the tenor of all this correspondence is exactly the same. I have not quoted from the private sector, but it is appropriate to ensure that its views on this legislation are also recorded for the benefit of the Minister. Its opening remarks begin: It seems relevant to ask what has happened to the Hawke Government's 1983 policy stance that life in this country would be centred around consensus and consultation. It goes on in its submission: The Government is playing a strange game. On the one hand it has sent officers of the Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health scurrying around the country holding rushed, hurried and perfunctory meetings which it terms as `consultations' with an avowed objective of talking with providers, consumers, unions and others with an interest in aged care matters. On the other hand it has introduced yet another Bill (the last was the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987) in what is nothing less than a fait accompli without intending to consult at all at what amounts to some major changes in approach and practice. In the correspondence the private sector refers to the actions of the Department on 11 November 1987, refers to the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S303 `Standard for Nursing Home Care', and states that this: . . . was dropped on an unsuspecting industry, again without consultation, purporting to place into legal terms the so-called Outcomes (Living in a Nursing Home) Manual. But in actual fact it is an awful hotchpotch of an amateurish attempt that runs counter to medical, nursing and legal realities and practices. This is the opinion of the industry about this Government's implementation of aged care in Australia. We have had damning criticism from all branches of the Voluntary Care Association. We are receiving the same damning criticism of the same type, that is, no consultation, an amateurish implementation and lack of practical knowledge about the implications of what the Government is proposing. The submission by the Australian Nursing Homes Association said, and it is relevant to look at some of these other criticisms: The Government constantly declines to do so- referring to consultation- preferring to suffer the constant mess and aggravations of its blind pursuit of what now is simply change for the sake of change. The Nursing Homes Association goes on to make a number of specific comments concerning the content of this Bill that we are considering tonight. Basically it is concerned about the discretionary power that appears to be granted to the Minister. It is concerned about the implications for business in giving the discretion to the Minister. It believes that business that is skilled in running a particular type of nursing home, for example, one for geriatric patients, may be directed to conduct a new home as a result of ministerial discretion for, say, disabled persons or some other specific purpose, perhaps an area in which they have no expertise and perhaps inappropriate equipment, and it considers that to be unrealistic. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on the scope of the discretion that this Bill gives him and on the concerns of the industry. It is concerned about clause 27, that it was supposed simply to clarify ministerial power to review the Secretary's decisions. A key concern that it has is: . . . the review powers of the Minister would be restricted so as not to allow for consideration of appeals on matters outside the Principles, even though such matters could be the result of human errors. The present law allows for such a review process by the Minister. In fact there is less capacity under this legislation for the Department or the Minister to react to mistakes and problems as a result of the removal of that particular area of discretion. There is also concern about the Government's commitment to establish a Standards Review Panel. In its submission it says: There is no real commitment on the Government's part to the establishment of a Standards Review Panel in each State. A pilot scheme was proposed for New South Wales, but is not yet operative. A firm commitment needs to be given for all States . . . That having been said, it raises a number of other points. It raises the question of what happens in the case of a nursing home dispute in the opinion of the Standards Review Panel. Is there an appropriate appeal mechanism from that particular panel? It questions the Government's intentions in this area. It is again a case of failure to consult, concern within the industry and a degree of insecurity as to what is happening in this industry. We are not talking about only the vast capital investments that it takes to provide aged care in this country. I am sure that all honourable members know that aged care is a rapidly growing problem for our community, a problem which is going to absorb increasing resources in years to come. As I said in my opening remarks, the Opposition has no real criticism of the Government's direction in this area. Our concern is the concern of the industry-that is, that the policy is being implemented by bureaucrats in Canberra who do not have the capacity or the willingness to consult effectively with the industry and, as a result, there is growing disquiet, growing alarm and growing concern among industry operators, both voluntary and private, and that concern is flowing through to the residents. We are talking about people who have a limited capacity to look after themselves in physical, mental and financial terms, and that concern is spreading through to the community. The damage that has been done to the credibility of the Government's policy in this area by the crisis in Victoria is immense. The possibility of it spreading to other States is real. We must regard the comments of the industry in this area as most important. The Australian Nursing Homes Association has a number of other criticisms of the provisions of this Bill. It refers to a clause which proposes to introduce a harsh penalty when the Department is approaching the defining of the records required to be maintained. It says that the definition is highly questionable and highly disturbing. It says, again, that the lack of practical knowledge and experience in running a nursing home has already led to extravagant and inappropriate requests being made, to the consternation and frustration of the industry. It refers extensively to the consequences of clause 30. At a later stage in the debate we will make specific comments and move amendments regarding this matter. Many other individual operators in the industry have raised with me their concerns about specific aspects of this legislation. One large operator, Mr Doug Moran, a private operator, someone who is interested in making a profit on his investments in this area, has written at length about the ministerial review of decisions under section 40ae and the records to be kept for the inspections and questioning of proprietors. As an existing operator in the industry, he has practical experience of the provisions and also the impact of the provisions on operators in the industry. In his letter to me he stated: Currently section 60b and 61 empower an authorised officer of the Department to demand that- (1) Proprietors furnish certain records and books; (2) Proprietors keep records and books in a certain manner; (3) Additional records and books have to be maintained; (4) The records are available for inspection at any reasonable time. That seems to be a reasonable undertaking from anyone who is in receipt of government funds for the conduct of an activity. Mr Moran adds that he understands that the Department has successfully prosecuted some nursing home operators who operate their nursing homes in a fraudulent manner under the existing legislation, with access to the existing records required under the existing legislation. He says: They consider the amendments to the Act to encompass the questioning of the proprietors and the obtaining of statements is unduly severe, given the success of the current Act. The amendments proposed appear to indicate that the use of Gestapo-type tactics to harass and intimidate proprietors may be applied to extract information. That is a very significant criticism, in light of the general criticism that has been made by the industry about the lack of consultation and the lack of a genuine practical understanding about the day to day operations of a nursing home. Mr Moran suggests that the Department, in drafting this Bill, has not given due consideration to the rights of a proprietor and in his opinion it could be an example of the denial of natural justice. In his letter he makes reference to the impact of the Government's policy on nursing homes in Victoria. He states: . . . several nursing homes in Victoria are being administered by an Official Manager owing to the introduction of the nursing homes and hostels review from 1 July 1987. Many other proprietors are experiencing cash flow problems owing to the relatively low amount set for the standard aggregate module (SAM). It is hoped that some information could be obtained as to when the level of SAM may be reviewed. That particular section of the correspondence is particularly relevant because it has a distinct bearing on why the Opposition is moving an amendment which has been, I believe, circulated in my name. That amendment reads: ``whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Hawke Labor Government's autocratic approach to aged care is jeopardising the successful implementation of its policy in Australia, and has seriously threatened stability and future improvements in this most important area, especially- (a) its refusal to consult on this legislation with voluntary and private sector providers of aged care; (b) the removal of ministerial discretion in reviewing fees determinations decisions; (c) the unnecessary, costly and excessive reporting requirements imposed by the Bill; (d) the duplication of State Government regulations relating to standards; and (e) the exclusion of private investment from the provision of hostel accommodation''. As I said in my opening remarks, this is a very important area of policy for any government. It is a very expensive area of policy. It is an area in which all Australians have either a direct or indirect interest, because we will all at one time, hopefully, in our lives contemplate our aged years and how we will provide the sort of security that we all need. The Government has a fine policy direction. There is a need for more diversity in care; there is a need for a more efficient approach to the provision of that care. But, in the implementation of that policy, it is falling down. That is of genuine concern to me. I note that the Minister is busy reading his notes and that he has a number of advisers in the House at present. Dr Blewett —I am trying to understand your amendments; you might explain them to me. Mr BLUNT —I hope that they have been listening carefully to my remarks because I have not made them up and I have not sought these remarks from the industry. They have been proffered to us as a result of genuine concern. If it were just one industry sector-for example, the private sector-I would be inclined to say, perhaps, that what it is saying is not entirely balanced. But the remarks have come from both the voluntary sector and the private sector of the industry and from all sections of both sectors of the industry. The comments reinforce each other-that is, that the Department is autocratic, that there has been no consultation and that the legislation has been drafted without a significant practical understanding of its impact. We should consider the empirical evidence that we have regarding the state of nursing homes in Victoria. We have correspondence from nursing home operators that draws to our attention the inadequate financial support that has been given and the failure of the Government to follow through some of the proposals that it has indicated to the industry it will be following through. The consultations with the people with expertise are not seen as being reflected in the legislation. Having regard to these matters, the community at large has a reason for justified concern. It is for those reasons that we have proposed a number of amendments. At a later stage I will explain those amendments in some detail but, having regard to the Minister's comments, let me explain briefly what they are. We are concerned that the Bill prohibits the involvement of private capital in the provision of hostel accommodation. That is of some considerable relevance to the Government, which I believe is particularly concerned about its ability to finance future public sector investments. The high profile issues, of course, are airlines and the Commonwealth Bank. Closer to home, and to the average Australian, are issues such as child care and aged care. In terms of child care, the public sector is up for an immense bill if it is to provide child care on a public sector basis for all Australian children. That, patently, cannot be done. In terms of aged care facilities, a Government that talks about selling Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines surely should welcome capital contributions from the private sector for the provision of aged care. I would be the first to admit that there is a need to provide adequate regulations to ensure that the involvement of the private sector does not end up being an open-ended commitment to continued funding for ongoing recurrent costs for those particular facilities. That, of course, is another question. It is a question of determining effectively on what basis one will allow private capital investment in this area. We would have more and, perhaps, more diverse hostel accommodation if private capital were allowed to be invested in this area. We are also proposing a series of amendments which will limit the information and the way in which that information is to be maintained by nursing home proprietors. We accept the arguments of the industry that there are existing requirements for the provision of information. We acknowledge that the Commonwealth has a right to obtain information from nursing home proprietors, be they private or voluntary, on the way they operate their homes, to the extent that either capital or recurrent Commonwealth Government funding is involved. But we do not accept that the Department should go on an information gathering exercise that is not necessary to administer the Federal Government's involvement, and we do not accept a duplication of reporting requirements currently imposed on nursing home operations by State government regulations. It is also important to recognise that the standards for nursing homes are regulated by State governments. In this debate we must not neglect the involvement of State governments. In debates in this House there is a tendency to ignore the other levels of government, but in regard to nursing homes and aged care provision generally, State governments have a major role in setting standards and monitoring the operations of those facilities. It is a matter that we should keep foremost in mind when considering legislation because the last thing we should be doing is duplicating standards and regulations. Albeit attractive to some bureaucrats to engage in a little bit of empire building by requiring the same information that is provided to State officers, neither the industry nor Australia at large should be required to bear the cost. We should be examining the most effective implementation of an aged care policy which, as I said, will provide effective, compassionate care-and a diversity of care-to meet the needs of the aged. We need to have both nursing home and hostel care and to provide facilities for care in homes. We need to maximise the involvement of the community, both voluntary organisations and private investors. Only through both mechanisms will we have the capacity-and our capacity, no matter how we go about it, will be strained-to provide the necessary facilities for a rapidly aging population. There has been considerable debate about income security for the aged and the problems that we will face in the coming years as our population grows older and more and more people approach retirement age, but regrettably there has not been the same high public profile for the debate on the provision of aged care. It is a complex area which contains a number of fundamental threshold issues which must be considered. This Bill does not address those issues and I do not propose to canvass them tonight. But it concerns me that the Government up until now, having spent five years in office, does not seem to be effectively addressing the welfare policy issues associated with the provision of aged care. The implementation of its policy, which as I have said again and again is moving in the right direction, is falling down for want of a genuine commitment to consultation with those who are dealing on a day to day basis with people at this time in their lives. The Government seems more concerned, as the Chairman of the Australian Affiliation of Voluntary Care Associations-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Chair interrupts the honourable member for Richmond because, although he has referred to an imminent amendment, it is not clear whether he has formally moved it. He might take that step before his time elapses. Mr BLUNT —I heed the Chair's warning and formally move: 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 is of the opinion that the Hawke Labor Government's autocratic approach to aged care is jeopardising the successful implementation of its policy in Australia, and has seriously threatened stability and future improvements in this most important area, especially: (a) its refusal to consult on this legislation with voluntary and private sector providers of aged care; (b) the removal of ministerial discretion in reviewing fees determinations decisions; (c) the unnecessary, costly and excessive reporting requirements imposed by the Bill; (d) the duplication of State Government regulations relating to Standards; and (e) the exclusion of private investment from the provision of hostel accommodation'. The Department seems more concerned with trendy issues of life-style rather than with practical day to day issues of providing secure care and accommodation for that section of the community that is not capable of providing it for themselves. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Moore —I second the amendment. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(6.06) —I am pleased to note that the Opposition supports the general thrust of the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, but the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) spoke of an alleged lack of consultation with the industry. I do not know where he got that information, because consultation appears to me to have been very good. Perhaps he did not take the trouble to find out. The Government's approach to this legislation has been one of consultation-with the private sector, the voluntary sector, consumers and the unions. Before this amending legislation was considered in full, the Department of Community Services and Health spent about 240 hours in consultation. The Government's representatives spent at least 10 full days each with the private sector and with the voluntary sector. They also spent time with consumers and with unions. The public and the community organisations were able to make their representations in every State and Territory. In April there were consultations on the details of the legislation, and again in October. Even now the Government is meeting organisations to discuss the effects and implications of this legislation. I would ask the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) to think very carefully before he accepts the Opposition's amendment. The proposals come to us within the framework of the need for government to make its pay-outs tighter and better targeted. One needs to balance the higher costs-if there are any in implementation-through savings, which are even higher. The Government is facing the fact, as has been raised by the honourable member for Richmond-and here we are in agreement-that there has been a rapid escalation in the cost of aged care and in the provision of benefits to the aging. For those reasons the Government has had to change its approach. Not so many decades ago old people either had to be in their own homes or in hospitals, or in nursing homes or hospices. Once in a nursing home they received intensive care and were less likely to come out of such care, and naturally many of them deteriorated. An aged person had no chance to fight his or her way out of the bind of heavy care and into more self-sufficiency. There was then the provision of clustered units, which brought people together and gave a focus to both the community and sponsors to provide, for example, handyman services and donations of food. Then came hostels-a great move forward because they gave accommodation to the frail who were not ill. They gave those people a nursing presence and some meals, but they also encouraged those people's self-sufficiency and independence so that they could perhaps move into a nursing home, back into units or even into their homes. In this region in 1975, 1976 and 1977 as Secretary of the South Eastern Regional Council for Social Development-and in that region I include Canberra and the south-east region of New South Wales-I saw hostels set up in Yass, Queanbeyan and Bombala. They have proved to be a great asset to local communities, to those who live in them and to the relatives of those who are living in hostels. There is now a higher need, particularly in Cooma where there is only nursing home provision. I welcome the fact that the Minister has allocated extra hostel places, which will include another 25 places in Eden-Monaro and another 30 places in the Shoalhaven area. Initially, the hostels were set up under a funding arrangement which started in the late 1960s, and by the mid-1970s beds had to be fought for. Bed entitlements were transferred by one organisation to another and this happened with organisations all over Australia. If an organisation had no bed entitlement and wanted such a facility, it would telephone other organisations or write to them, even interstate, and ask for a transfer of entitlement. The problem was that there was no needs basis. It depended a good deal on hard work, finding out who had beds available and then getting those beds. The needs basis means that people with limited means are able to gain access to hostels. Through its varying levels of capital subsidies, this legislation means that more poorer people will have access to accommodation. The guidelines will take into consideration the contribution to capital costs which could be made by the residents and the organisations; the borrowings by that organisation; and the classes of the proposed residents. The amendments in the legislation will also consider the moneys to be taken into account, which have been broadened to include borrowings which can be repaid by resident contributors and State and Commonwealth grants. This brings in organisations, including the Government, which conduct hospitals as eligible for joint hostel ventures. The Bill allows for the transfer of nursing home beds to another location by the same organisation. In conclusion, I point out that the remainder of this legislation transfers nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education (CAEs). This will mean expenditure of about $14m in 1988, $21m in 1989 and $28m between 1990 and 1993. This, too, is a demonstration of the Commonwealth's commitment to nurse education and its response to the nursing organisations which requested the transfer to CAEs. The Commonwealth has come up with funds so that this can occur. I am pleased to support the legislation. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(6.13) —It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the amendments to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, contained in the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill. I had a long involvement with disabled persons prior to my entry into political life and since then I have been involved with the Queensland Disability Housing Coalition. Many of those people involved in housing the disabled have some very high expectations of this Bill, particularly in relation to the amended definition of `eligible organisations'. This will allow the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) to declare certain State-controlled organisations as eligible which, in turn, will allow joint ventures to proceed. Many disabled people have expectations that they may be able to remove themselves from some of the nursing homes in which they are currently looked after, along with very many elderly people. Many of the disabled within our community are young and they seek to have the full quality of life which we, as more able members of the community, take for granted. They seek mobility of access and the freedom to come and go as they like and to pursue a kind of lifestyle which gives them total dignity. Within this amending Bill they see the ability to do that. In fact, this amendment provides greater flexibility. The Minister, through these guidelines, is providing flexibility for those sorts of people. It is important to note that the kind of funding guidelines which are available to the Minister are provided under a series of guidelines which include the class or classes of persons to be accommodated and the geographic location of a hostel. Of course there will be specific limits. We are not suggesting that grand accommodation will be provided, but simply the kind of accommodation which meets these people's needs and in locations which will make it available to all sorts of people who are currently not covered. Hence the guidelines are very definite and specific. They are also important in terms of the nature of the organisation which is seeking capital funding. These amendments will apply only to those homes and hostels which are approved, pursuant to the relevant sections within the Bill. These arrangements apply only to hostel care, personal care and, of course, respite care. For those people who are involved in the care of the elderly, the aged and the disabled within our community, we acknowledge that there is a very real need for respite care for families and others. Certainly, within my own electorate respite care has been one of the very real concerns. Many people who enter hostels and who are initially placed in respite care have a desire to remain there permanently. I am not suggesting that that should be so, but merely that this amending Bill will offer hostels greater flexibility on respite care and will acknowledge and provide the sort of care that the community has demanded for so long. The amendments also look definitely and specifically at the links between capital and recurrent funding and, of course, at residents' rights and obligations. Powers to deal with cases of non-compliance will be through suspension and cancellation of the recurrent subsidies as these are introduced. Honourable members may well say `Why is this so?'. It is particularly important that within homes for the disabled and the aged, a person's own rights and obligations are fully met. Within my own electorate questions have been raised by residents of one particular nursing home as to their rights and obligations. As a government, we must fight hard and long for the rights of all those people who are in homes which we are funding and which we have funded not only in the capital sense but also under the recurrent grants program. I am delighted to see that within this amending Bill there are provisions for the Minister to look at this funding very carefully. Of course, there are also provisions under the recurrent grant to look at the way in which we assess people who require hostel care and personal care services. This has raised very high expectations within the disabled community. Many of those younger people have been assessed as being able to seek hostel and/or personal care. They hope to move out into the community-from the very much larger institutions into smaller institutions which they hope will be part of this joint venture project. Because they have been assessed by people who understand their needs, they feel that they will be best served through this amendment. A wide range of people and needs are covered by this amending Bill, but at the very heart of it comes the recognition by our Government that we have an aging population whose needs differ within the community. There are people who are seeking to remain within their own home but there are also those who are outside the nursing care area but whose assessments are such that they will need hostel care and special sorts of training and care. The amendments to this Bill address that. The Bill also ensures that the proprietor, having received the kind of money and grant available under this legislation, will keep proper records and allow the Minister to have access to them. I feel this is particularly important in the area of accountability. If we, as a government, are to make certain grants to nursing homes, hostel care and so on, we must ensure that this money is spent in the way in which it was set out to be spent and that the kind of facilities the authorities said would be provided through these grants are, in fact, provided. It is important that the Minister has access to these records and will be able to pursue any discrepancies within them. It is important that the fees charged are also covered. The Bill covers this very carefully. It provides the Minister with the ability to review a Secretary's decision where the scale of fees has been changed without acknowledgment. Given the great demand for hostel-type care, many hostel proprietors have taken it upon themselves to charge whatever fees they like. Before the introduction of this Bill people have not had access to the Minister reviewing such decisions. It is important that the Minister is able to look at the scale of fees and at the ways in which the recurrent grants and the fees people are paying are being spent. It all comes within the area of accountability. We cannot continue to fund nursing homes and hostels and not make them accountable to us. We must guarantee that people's dignity is protected and that obligations are met on both sides. It is an important aspect of this Bill that the Minister is accepting responsibility and demanding accountability by the people to whom he is providing funding. Another important aspect of the Bill is nurse training. I come from a State which, unfortunately, has failed to acknowledge the upgrading of nursing training. My State Government has rejected in the region of $1.5m that would have accrued to it simply by transferring nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education. The States that are participating in upgrading their nurses' qualifications are acknowledging that nursing education is a very important aspect of community health. In acknowledgment of that we are giving to nurses the ability to pursue their studies in a very real and important way. I hope that my State will eventually move in the same direction. The Bill addresses some of the real concerns which disabled members of the community, particularly of my community, have felt for a long time. They are particularly interested in the joint venture exercise. The ability to transfer hostel beds is important, as is the location of the services provided. The community must continue to look after its aged and disabled members. Hence, in this Bill, the Minister has moved to give greater flexibility to our Government to pursue this end. This means that nursing homes and hostels must become more accountable for the money which we as a government continue to contribute to them, ensuring that they are able to offer excellent care, with dignity, for the aged and disabled persons within our community. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(6.24) —One would hope that we can extricate politics from the care of the elderly. We try desperately to do so but some people are empire builders. Some people seek their own promotion up the ladder, et cetera. It is sad but true. Whilst the Opposition supports the direction of the Government in this area, my shadow Minister has expressed concern that there has not been enough consultation with the voluntary and private groups. In my own community there is concern. I hope that the Minister has taken note of what has occurred in Victoria and will try to overcome the problem. Regrettably, politicians deal only on the surface. We do not know what occurs within nursing homes. We read about it and we are told about it. We hope only that every patient is treated with compassion and care. I went to the opening of a nursing home on Sunday. Today I asked why the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) was not there. I understand that he cannot be everywhere. He sent an apology. There was a bit of a muddle about his not being there. He sent a representative of the Department of Community Services, a man who has not been in the job very long. Apparently he had requested to speak. He did not do a bad job. He did not say anything to which one could take exception. I sat in the second back row and listened to him. Having been a politician for 12 years, certain things run through one's mind. I thought to myself, `Here is a public servant talking about the Government allocating money for things. But really it is the taxpayers' money'. My friend the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), understands that taxpayers pay for nursing homes. We all jump on the roundabout and accept credit for what governments do but it is the taxpayers of Australia who support the nursing homes. We can only hope that the homes do the right thing. We have an aging population. We have problems we have never had before. I have said in this House on many occasions that some problems are well hidden. The female population, in particular, is aging. Many men are dying a lot earlier than women. Women are left by themselves. Some of them have been supported all their lives and do not know what to do when their husbands pass away. Many times I have been approached by elderly women-and not so elderly women; some of them are a lot younger than one would anticipate-who have been left to fend for themselves. We read a lot of theory about this subject but perhaps the problems of women in the 55-, 56-, 57- and 58-year-old age group and up who are left by themselves could be the subject of an inquiry. They need care and attention. Many men suffering from senile dementia are left by themselves at very young ages and also need care and attention. This is a problem we have not addressed as carefully as we should have. I hope that the Minister will take note. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Forde (Ms Crawford), is a genuine person. She has compassion. Sometimes she praises the Government of which she is a member a little too much. She forgets that there are people on my side of the chamber who also have care and compassion. Some of us may care about supporting fathers. Some of us have tried to introduce measures to help the poor and needy. The honourable member is new to the House. I wish her well. But she should not keep saying that the Government has done this and that and that Government members are the ones with feeling. Plenty of honourable members on this side of the chamber feel very compassionately about care for the needy and, in particular, care of the elderly. I am giving her a nice little backhander. I am better at giving them when I am really in form. We care. It is not always the Government which dishes out the goodies. It is the taxpayers of Australia. We support this legislation. However, I draw the attention of the Minister to a few facts, which I am sure he is aware of. In his second reading speech he said: . . . the proposed amendments under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 will enable the Commonwealth to target its capital funding for hostels to achieve equitable access to hostels of people with limited means and all other people requiring and choosing hostel accommodation and care. This will be achieved by variation in the level of Commonwealth capital subsidy based, among other things, on the proportion of financially disadvantaged residents to be accommodated and the capacity of future residents to contribute towards the construction of the hostel. It is difficult to get people on low incomes into hostels and nursing homes. It is always a problem. Sometimes I think that people on higher salaries have better access to them. I am glad we are moving in a new direction. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr GOODLUCK —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was talking about the aged and their problems. I said that the strategy of the Government appears to be spot on. All honourable members should forget about politics and support the aged in their problems. I think there is a realisation that the problems will get worse before they get better. We have an aging population and because of the strain and stress that I mentioned earlier, many men are dying a lot earlier than women. Consequently, many women are left alone and, as I said earlier, I hope there will be an inquiry into the problems of ladies who have been left by themselves to cope with the problems associated with staying in and maintaining their own homes. There are problems along the line and I hope that we, as a parliament, can address those problems and overcome them. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), who is in the chamber, is a very genuine person. We forgot about our different political ideologies when we started working towards solving the one common problem of looking after the problems of the aged. There was no talk about what party-- Mr Nehl —We are concerned about the elderly Australians. Mr GOODLUCK —That is exactly right. That is what we should be doing and that is the reason why I gave the honourable member for Forde a little serve. I got the impression that she was continually saying that members of the Government were the only people who were concerned about the aged, that they were doing this and that, but that is not true. Dr Charlesworth —We have done so much. Mr GOODLUCK —As I have said, the honourable member for Perth is looking older every day. We have to forget about those sorts of things if we are to address genuinely the problems of the elderly. We are not going to use the elderly for political cannon fodder; we are not going to use them at elections, which, incidentally, a lot do. Mr Cadman —You wouldn't. Mr GOODLUCK —No, I would not but a lot do, and that is very regrettable. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) said that he bet a dollar that I would bring petrol pricing into the debate. I have said before that the cost of petrol is making it very difficult for a person on a fixed income-and that is the important point-who is finding it hard to survive. Governments can afford only X amount of dollars for pensions and that is the reason why the Government gets so upset when we talk about parliamentary salaries. I hope to God a senator does not talk again about parliamentary salaries because senators do not know what it is like to get involved day after day with the problems of the elderly. I wish they would leave that subject to honourable members. It is very important that we, as a parliament, direct our attention towards the problems of the aged. I will give just a few statistics and then leave it to the next Australian Labor Party member. I hope that he takes up the point that I mentioned and that is that we discuss this matter in an apolitical way. I have said that the Opposition supports the Government's strategy, but there is a problem and I have mentioned it to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Voluntary and private nursing homes have a few problems, and they need ironing out. The Government needs the co-operation of the nursing homes and we need to make certain that the Government, and particularly its officials, have an intimate knowledge of the workings of nursing homes. Unfortunately, we do not have such knowledge because we do not have the time to look into all of the little side issues that are involved with running a nursing home. But the Government does and it is trying to run them as efficiently as it can and to provide a service which sometimes comes under a lot of criticism. The Government has to be absolutely certain that the nursing homes are on side because their ultimate aim is to care for people. We do not want to hear of bad nursing homes. We can make certain that bad nursing homes are taken away but the ones that are doing a good and respectable job and looking after people who all have different problems are the ones we should support. At the moment Australia has an aging population. Many people are unaware of some of the stark facts: although they are not stark in the real sense of the word. People are aging. At 30 June last year 1,611,365 people, or approximately 10.23 per cent of Australia's population, was over the age of 65. Over the next 15 years that figure is expected to increase to approximately 31 per cent of the population compared with a total population increase of 19 per cent. So we have an aging population that will have many problems in the future. I hope that the Minister can iron out the problems in the nursing homes. If he does, he will have the support of the Opposition and, hopefully, we can make the lot of the elderly of Australia better. I mentioned earlier that there are a lot of hidden problems. Many poor, elderly people find it very difficult to get assistance. The regrettable fact is that they die sometimes lonely, sometimes miserable, because they do not have somebody up front to support them, too often I have seen people of affluent means getting into nursing homes very easily but many poorer people are finding it very difficult. That is a problem we need to address and make certain that we overcome it. It is easy to die and people are easily forgotten. Regrettably, that is one of the problems associated with getting old today. Many lonely people need our help and attention and, superficially, we might say that we are overcoming the problem but behind the scenes we are not. I hope that the Minister takes note of my words. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(8.07) —I listened with great interest to the words of wisdom from the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). Having listened to his contribution, I think he makes a better speech on petrol prices than he does on the care of the aged. I certainly accept his concern about the problem but as intently as I listened to him I did not hear any specific comments as to how the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill could be improved or what were the specific problems of which he said the Government should be aware. He identified the overall problem and that, obviously, is that Australia's population is aging. By the year 2040 Australia's population's characteristics will be significantly different from what they are today, in 1987. Australia, like the rest of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development nations, is growing older through a combination of lower birth rates and longer life spans. This change will inevitably lead to a reduction in the size of the work force and an increased financial challenge to society to maintain and to improve pensions, health care and welfare services to the aged. Currently, about 10 per cent of our population is aged 65 and over. By the year 2040 this figure will have at least doubled. The policy decisions to handle this transition have to be put into place now and the amendments to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and the associated legislation which we are debating tonight are part of that transition. The past few years have seen a deliberate shift in emphasis from institutionalised care provided by nursing homes to the home and community care (HACC) schemes. The shift is based on a number of considerations, two of the most important being that the vast majority of aged persons do not wish, or need, to move into institutional care. Secondly, the quality of care and life provided within the `own home' environment is generally of a higher standard. This Bill has the principal aim of introducing revised capital funding arrangements for hostels and better management of recurrent funding for new nursing homes. These measures will enhance targeting of funding on a needs basis. Hostel care provides a reasonable medium between the intensive care offered by nursing homes and the often unsuitability of family homes to meet the requirements of old age. In my electorate hostel care, built by capital grants from this Government, is offering an excellent service to many aged people. There have been problems associated with the move towards greater use of hostel-type accommodation. For instance, the allocation of capital funds has not been directly linked to the capacity of the prospective residents. This has sometimes meant that Commonwealth capital funds went to hostels catering for those not in the greatest need and which have the ability to fund their own care without government recurrent funding. As with all scarce resources, funding for these projects must be targeted to those in need. This amending legislation will aid this in two ways. Firstly, entry contributions paid by residents will be able to be taken into account when determining matching funds for Commonwealth capital grants. This will mean the removal of a burden which now exists on many organisations. Secondly, the Minister will be given power to impose conditions on the capital grant. These conditions will be aimed at ensuring that the disadvantaged do benefit from the grant and the building of more hostel places. Hence, the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act will be amended by the addition of a new division 3 which allows for conditions, such as the class or classes of persons to be accommodated at the hostel, to be placed on capital grant. A similar power is allowed on allocations of recurrent funding. This power is important so that nursing home and hostel care does not become a second rate or cheap option for our nation's aged. Residential care must be accompanied by a well co-ordinated system of medical support and home services, such as maintenance and cleaning. These services are being provided, but in my opinion more must be done if hostels and home care are to remain a real and viable alternative to nursing homes. I will refer to the situation in my own electorate to illustrate how the system of capital and recurrent funding operates and how it will be improved by the amendments proposed. In Queensland, the allocation of resources is based on a regional system. By this, the State is divided into some 13 regions, each having a community of interest in a wide sense. Much of the electorate of Fisher is contained within the Moreton North region. This region covers the local authority areas of part of Brisbane, Redcliffe, Pine Rivers, Caboolture, Landsborough and Maroochydore. The allocation of resources between regions is decided on the proportion of aged person aged 70-plus within each region. Generally, the ratio used is 100 places for every 1,000 in the target age group. This is divided on the basis of 60 per cent hostel places and 40 per cent nursing home beds. The numbers within the target group are reviewed periodically. Within a region, local authority areas are used as a model for the likely distances it can reasonably be expected that a person should travel to take a nursing home or hostel place. When an assessment has been made and a need determined within a region, applications are invited by the Department for the offered places. Generally many applications will be received for each offer. At this stage, the new guidelines proposed under the Bill will come into place. In the past, organisations within high need but low socio-economic status areas could be disadvantaged by the factors I have just outlined-that is, first, there being no direct link between capital and recurrent funding; and, secondly, the non-eligibility of resident contributions to determine matching funding. As a result, some areas have become, in relative terms, over-serviced. The new scheme, with appropriate conditions will ensure that this does not happen in the future. Applications for some 20 nursing home beds and 34 hostel places have recently been sought for the North Moreton region. The areas identified as high need include the Pine Rivers Shire and the Landsborough Shire. There is, however, another area of high need which may not be highly rated due to the overall provision of facilities within the local authority area. This area is Bribie Island within the Caboolture Shire. Bribie Island has traditionally been a retirement area for working class couples. As a result, over 1,000 people fall within the 70-plus age group, yet only 30 nursing home beds are provided as are inadequate numbers of hostel places. Although it is not strictly within the scope of this Bill, I hope there is within the determination process, sufficient flexibility to recognise the special needs of traditional retirement areas so that facilities are provided within the community of greatest need and not discounted due to facilities in other districts, but within the same local authority area. When guidelines are considered for hostel capital grants, I hope that the relationship between nursing homes, or other support facilities, are taken into account. It is essential that, at the end of the day, a community has available a range of care options to suit the entire aged community needs. One amendment which is most welcome is the changes to the collection of financial data from nursing home proprietors. The changes require a standardised accounting procedure which enables comparison of costs between homes as well as ensuring that recurrent grants are actually expended on the care of the aged residents. Although I do not believe that fraud is a major problem in the nursing home sector, there have been some unfortunate examples of both government funding and resident contributions being lost. If I may, I will conclude by placing this Bill in some sort of overall perspective. The cost of caring for an aged population is increasing, while the size of the work force will not increase at the same rate. The cost of demographic changes must be shared by the entire community. The aim of any government must be to keep the living standards of the elderly in line with those of the community as a whole. Pensions are being increased over time, both in real and relative terms. The provision of care facilities must also increase to take account of the greying of Australia. The emphasis on home style hostel care as well as family home support agencies is both economically compelling as well as socially required. The system must be needs-based, with those able to provide financially for their old age required to do so. This Bill will help the system become more needs-based as well as more financially responsible. I commend the Bill and it has my support. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(8.16) —I rise with a great deal of interest to speak on the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 because I am particularly concerned about the future of elderly Australians. As the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) said when he was speaking in this debate earlier-- Mr Sciacca —You are only a young man, though. Mr NEHL —It is all right for the honourable member to say that I am only a young man, and I appreciate that vote of confidence, but he and I will end up being elderly Australians if we are lucky. Dr Charlesworth —In a long time. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member for Perth says, it will be in a long time, but the honourable member for Bowman and I and even the honourable member for Perth will all end up being elderly Australians if we are lucky. What we have to be concerned about is the situation affecting elderly Australians. It is not a simple matter that we rise to speak about. I believe a fundamental mistake has been made by the Government in its approach to the whole system of care of the aged. We have this change in nursing homes whereby all patients will basically be NH10 patients. I applaud the move to keep people in their own homes as long as is possible for them, because obviously it is the right thing to do. But we have to look at the cost to the community, and I think in many cases there has been a blurring of and a rushing over of what the real cost of the changes is likely to be. I am particularly concerned with the two main areas being embraced in this legislation. Of course, there are the changes to the system for approvals of nursing homes. The second change, of course, is that the legislation increases the power of the Department of Community Services and Health to investigate nursing homes. The Bill certainly appears to facilitate mergers of nursing homes and the transfer of beds and nursing homes to new premises. Any such change will entitle the Minister for Community Services and Health, in his absolute discretion, to direct that disabled people be accepted in those nursing homes. Whereas before once a nursing home had a registered number of beds and that was that, under the proposed arrangements the Minister will, when requested to approve transfers of beds, be able to direct not only the number of beds but also the type of patient to be taken by a nursing home. I would like to assure the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), who is at the table-and he will, of course, be aware of this-that there are a great many nursing homes which have been funded privately, which have not been funded by any capital from the Commonwealth at all. Here we come up against a fundamental difference in philosophy on this matter. I happen to support the view of some of those people who have privately funded nursing homes, that they should be able to decide for themselves who should occupy those nursing home beds. An additional power is given to the Department so that it may be provided with all employment details about staff-not only salary and attendance records but every conceivable record. I believe that, even though the Secretary must give prior written notice of his requirement, there is no limit on what he can demand, including perhaps private personal health records of staff and former staff, which would undoubtedly represent an intrusion on the privacy of those employed. I would like to come back briefly to the point about our ending up with nursing homes with a total complement of NH10 patients, because I do believe that that is the thrust of the direction the Minister is following. So nursing homes will have only extensive care patients. I believe it will become incredibly difficult to get appropriate nursing staff to staff those homes. The reality is that even in an ordinary district hospital the work load is spread over totally bedridden patients, ambulatory patients, convalescing patients and patients receiving a variety of procedures which do not require extensive or even intensive nursing care. So we will end up with nursing homes in which everybody is perhaps not bedridden but certainly in need of a great deal of care. For a couple of reasons I do not think it will be in the interests of those patients to be in that situation. Firstly, the impact on the staff is likely to be very negative and, secondly, nursing homes will find it very difficult to attract the staff that they need. Having been a visitor to many nursing homes around Australia I think that the impact of this legislation on the people who are bed ridden or who are NH10 patients, without the leavening of other patients, without the stimulation, will not be in the best interests of those patients. It will have a very negative influence. Dr Charlesworth —You are drawing a long bow now. Mr NEHL —The honourable member says that I am drawing a long bow but he has to realise-I am sure he does as he is a medico; he must realise better than I do-that if every patient in a hospital, be it a nursing home or a district hospital, is bedridden the work load on the nursing staff is extraordinarily high. I have been in nursing homes in the last few days and I have seen the impact of NH5 patients on bedridden patients. The NH5 patients are able to talk to, visit and stimulate bedridden patients. I have no hesitation in saying that I firmly believe that it will be in the best interests of nursing home patients, of elderly Australians, if they can be in a situation which is close to normal. I notice that in some of the material I have reference to this matter is made in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. It is signed by the Minister for Community Services and Health who is at the table. On 10 November 1987 the Gazette states: The nursing home will provide accommodation in which the design, furnishings and practices are as homelike as possible- and who can argue with that- and in which residents follow a routine similar to that of the general community. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to consider for one moment the statement that `the residents follow a routine similar to that of the general community'. The general community is not bedridden. The general community is not composed 100 per cent of NH10 patients. The general community is composed of a broad spectrum of people. I again submit that the welfare of the NH10 patients is going to be better served where there is that evening of people. Clause 27 of the Bill appears to be helpful to proprietors where the Secretary has imposed conditions on a nursing home which is the subject of review and where the proprietor opposes those changes; having made applications is opposed to the Department's decision; or has his application refused. In passing I say that clause 28 is a very sensible clause in that it gives time to proprietors to adapt before the establishment of the Standard Review Panel in each State. Clauses 29 and 30 cause considerable concern because they are particularly wide in their application and, in effect, give what some people have referred to as police state powers to departmental officers. Whilst the requirement to keep all relevant records at the nursing home or at some other agreed location is not unreasonable, the extent of documentation to be kept is not made clear and this at least should be clarified. Powers to visit a nursing home at any time, question any person under threat of six months in gaol, a fine of $1,000 or both, are very intimidating particularly as the person may not have been an employee of the nursing home at any time. It is that broad. Further, the rejection of the notion that a person should not be expected to incriminate himself is also very disturbing. Mr Peter Fisher —It is as bad as the ID card. Mr NEHL —It is certainly as bad as the ID card. Naturally, it would be preferred if the Bill provided an intermediate step of directing the Department to send to the proprietor a list of questions for answer, supported by appropriate documentation. And only if those answers were incomprehensible, inappropriate or incomplete should the Department then have power to seek a court order enabling it to make use of the powers sought in this proposed legislation. I sug- gest that the powers in this legislation are un-Australian and certainly contrary to the spirit of fairness that we as Australians believe should prevail. In speaking about the question of records to be kept, inspections and the questioning of proprietors and their staff, currently section 60b and 61 of the principal Act, empower an authorised officer of the Department to demand that, first, proprietors furnish certain records and books; second, that proprietors keep records and books in a certain manner; third, that additional records and books be maintained; and fourth, that records be available for inspection at any reasonable time. Those powers are there already. I believe that the Department has already successfully prosecuted some nursing home proprietors who deserve prosecution. Therefore, I believe that the present Act is successful in that area and that there is no need to amend it, to introduce these incredibly draconian requirements. The rights of a proprietor as a normal person do not appear to have been considered. Certainly, this would appear to be a prime example of the denial of natural justice. It is appropriate to refer to proposed new section 61d because it empowers an authorised officer to enter premises with the consent of the occupier, to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant authorising entry to premises, to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant authorising entry to premises with such assistance and force as is necessary, to search the premises, and to inspect and make copies of documents and records that are on the premises. I return to the possibility of applying to a justice of the peace for a warrant authorising entry to premises with such assistance and force as are necessary. This is Australia. We are talking about nursing homes in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, and mine. In what conceivable circumstances can you imagine any nursing in your electorate, or mine, being in a situation where force had to be used to gain entry to look at documents? The whole thing is absolutely crazy. I return to the changes introduced under the home and community care (HACC) scheme and what is popularly known in the industry as the red book. In many instances the whole principle of the red book has been resisted by people within the industry-not by all, but certainly by some. What can be said quite clearly is that the problems of the aged care system which have arisen since the present Government came to power have been blowing up and will continue to blow up. In terms of the red book, the proprietors of private nursing homes, particularly those who have provided all of the funding without 1c of Commonwealth capital funding, object to the assessment teams deciding who will occupy beds. In some of the establishments in my electorate there is not only a nursing home but also a hostel and self-care unit. The people who go into these self-care units have provided the money for them. The people who built the whole establishment have provided the capital funding on the basis that they can have the use of one of those beds when required. I think it is fair and reasonable that they should be able to object to assessment teams deciding who will occupy those beds. They are also concerned that assessment teams will regularly reassess patients and attempt to discharge them from homes. We in this place all know that that is one of the possibilities. We all know that the assessment teams are going in with the belief that people will be getting better in health and in their situations and they should be discharged from the nursing home. But to where? In so many cases the people in nursing homes have sold their homes; they have nowhere to go. In many cases their families are not close by. They are alone and their home is the nursing home. No matter whether they go from being NH10 patients to NH5 patients, there is no justice in saying to elderly Australian men or women in their eighties or nineties, `Get out of this nursing home. You are a bit better. Go and find somewhere else to live'. Mr Tim Fischer —Very debilitating. Mr NEHL —Indeed, and this is the reality. The assessment teams are working on the premises put forward in the red book. Again, the assessment teams will decide the quality of the bed to be occupied, whether it is to be a one-bedroom, two- or four-bed multiple ward. This is irrespective of whether the patients are able and willing to pay a greater fee for better care. Why, if Australian citizens have the financial resources to pay for a better standard of care, should they not be allowed to pay for it? After all, what sort of society are we? I know that those on the Government benches are determined to bring everybody down to the same level. We can see this by what the Government is saying about its wealth inquiry. I would rather have an inquiry about poverty. I am concerned about poverty; I am not concerned about wealth. The more wealth there is, the more wealthy Australians there are, the better, as far as I am concerned. It is just not possible to run a quality nursing home by charging all patients a standard fee of 87.5 per cent of the pension. I am talking about nursing homes where the capital funding has been provided by private people, and the capital funding has provided superior, first rate accommodation. I am not suggesting that the majority of nursing homes do not provide good accommodation. I am talking about the possibility-I have seen accommodation which is far superior-of people who have the funds being allowed to create and live in the environment which they are used to. Quite apart from the point I made about people being thrown out by assessment teams, with nowhere to go, if people have been used to a certain standard of living all their lives, if they have the resources to continue to live like that, why should they be forbidden to do it? I would like to come back to the point that it is not possible to have nursing homes only for NH10 or bed-ridden patients. I know that this is what the Minister proposes, but I say to him and to the people of Australia that I believe this is totally wrong. It will not work at all. The thought of NH5 or walking patients being put into hostels at a lower fee also will not work, because the proprietors could not care for such patients at a lower hostel fee. The instruction that proprietors must accept 20 per cent of ethnic, Aboriginal or retarded patients straight out of Gladesville, Rozelle or Morisett is one which concerns me greatly. I think this needs to be looked at again. The basic principle enunciated since the Minister has had control of this, that no more nursing home beds will be provided, is very wrong indeed. Such is the demand for nursing home care in Australia that every bed we have now is occupied, but strangely enough, this Labor Government has the idea that a proportion will be available as respite beds. What we need is not fewer nursing home beds, but more. This is the reality. And we certainly need respite beds, which are not available. As we all know, all of those beds are occupied right now. I repeat that I believe it is an excellent idea that elderly Australians should be encouraged to live in their own home environment for as long as possible. But they have to have the infrastructure support to enable them to do so, and that just does not exist-it is not there. We hear, not daily but frequently, about Meals on Wheels having to be reduced. This is symptomatic of the whole situation. What we need in this country is a continuation of the dual system of care. We need the opportunity for free enterprise nursing homes to carry on providing the care that they are providing so well already. We do not need a system that brings everybody down to the same level. What we need is a system of care for elderly Australians, where everybody gets the care that they can afford, but certainly a base minimum, which is that provided under the system. I do not think that those Australians who have the opportunity of doing something better should be knocked and treated as tall poppies, no matters what their ages. I think this is the basic difference in philosophy. We need to give everyone in Australia a fair go. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(8.36) —The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who unfortunately arrived late for the debate-I do not think that is a reflection of his concern for the aged in our community-entreated that we take an apolitical stance in this debate. Considering the contributions of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), I would say that unfortunately his colleagues do not endorse that view. The honourable member for Cowper expressed the view that we should provide for our old people a situation which is as close to normal as possible, and surely that is an endorsement of the trust of the policy of this Government. We are trying, wherever possible, to encourage aged people to remain at home and to have assistance at home. Alternatively, we have a hostel and nursing home system which we believe provides for the very special circumstances of those who are unable to stay at home. The honourable member expressed the concern that the wealthy aged should be provided with special facilities in nursing homes so that they can have a higher standard of care than others. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of old people in my electorate that is not the issue at all. If they had the means, as he suggests, to be able to be provided with a special kind of care, perhaps they would stay at home and employ a nursing sister or some sort of assistant to help look after them. But for the vast majority of the older people in my electorate the problem is finding a nursing home or hostel bed. They are quite happy with the standards that the Government believes are appropriate. The honourable member for Richmond agreed with the direction that this Government has taken. He believed that there needs to be a diversity, a mix between institutional care in nursing homes and hostels and our home and community care program, which increasingly is providing assistance for people at home. He believed that there needs to be more efficiency and accountability in the provision of residential care for aged people. Whilst I understand the resistance to change by members of the Opposition, I believe it is necessary for us to get the facts right when we talk about providing for aged people and the record of this Government. If we look at the two issues which are perhaps of most concern to aged people, health and financial support, in both of those areas, I think it is clear to the aged in our community that this Government has provided very substantial assistance. It has provided in Medicare and in its health scheme a very reliable and constant form of health cover. Old people know, as all of the community knows, that it is there and that it will provide for them if they need it. It is in contradistinction to the recent plan announced on 5 November by the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The headline in the Australian of that day said: `Elderly would pay higher premiums in Tuckey health plan'. Indeed, great consternation was caused by that announcement. Soon after, having been dressed down by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Tuckey health plan was shelved and has not been seen since. If we look at the Government's record on pensions we find that since 1983 the amount of the pension has increased to just on 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, as the Government said it would. Indeed, since 1983 there has been an increase in the pension in real terms of 8.3 per cent. Clearly, in its provision of assistance in the areas of health and financial support for the aged, this Government has met its commitments. But what are the objections of the Opposition to this issue? Mr Tuckey —Come on, speak up a bit more about me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! Mr Tuckey —I have been sitting in my seat, sir. Dr CHARLESWORTH —The first thing, of course, that was said by the Opposition was that this issue should not be political. Mr Tuckey —You tell lies, mate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call upon the honourable member for O'Connor to withdraw that comment. Just because he is sitting as far away as he is from the Chair-- Mr Tuckey —I withdraw the comment that he is telling lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a proper form of withdrawal for this House, and the honourable member knows it. Mr Tuckey —I am sorry; I said I withdraw the comment that he was telling lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You will withdraw the comment unequivocally. Mr Tuckey —I can do no more than withdraw it, sir. I withdraw the comment that he was telling lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a withdrawal. Mr Tuckey —All right, I withdraw, if that is the word that you want, sir. It does not make any difference, does it? Smart alec. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I say to the honourable member for O'Connor that the comments he made as he sat down, which were a very clear reflection upon the Chair, are not required and are quite unhelpful. Mr Tuckey —Sir, they were certainly not a reflection upon the Chair. I was talking about the honourable member for Perth, who is a smart alec, and that is not an insult. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I had called the honourable member to order. I had asked the honourable member to withdraw, and the honourable member should have withdrawn unequivocally, which he did not. To seek to offer further comment in a position where only the honourable member could hear it, was, I think, a reflection upon the Chair. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say that I am not at all concerned about the interjections of the honourable member opposite. It has been said in this debate by our opponents that we should not make a political issue of the aged debate. I say to you that if the Government wished to make it a political issue, I am sure that our stance on the assets test would not have been the one that we took, which, at the time, was economically rational and sensible for long term planning, when one thinks about the funding of aged care in this country. It was suggested, of course, by members of the Opposition that private investment in the area of hostels, as it relates to the provisions of this Bill, should be allowed. Of course, the Government's review into nursing homes believed that this may not be the most acceptable way of going about things. Certainly, there was consultation with voluntary and religious groups. It was their view that they would like to be able to provide assistance in this area. Indeed, one opens a can of worms when one talks about all of the boarding houses which presently exist throughout our community and the likelihood of having to decide, within the guidelines of hosteliers, whether they were appropriate sources to provide hostel care. Of course, there has been extensive consultation, but eventually governments have to make decisions. They make decisions which they believe are balanced; they balance the compassion that is necessary when caring for old people with that of the economic rationale which is most important in this area. It is also important that those public funds which are spent in this area be accountable. Of course, it is most important that any money which is spent, which the Government allocates for providing aged care, be spent correctly. During the weekend I had the opportunity to read a report which arrived on my desk on Friday, entitled Australia's population trends and prospects 1987. It was produced by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. It makes very sobering reading for those of us who are looking at the issue of providing assistance for aged care. The report states, in effect, that undoubtedly one of the most important demographic issues to face the world is the rapid growth in the number of elderly. Whereas in 1985 only 5.9 per cent of the world's population was aged 65 years and over, by 2025 nearly 10 per cent of the population will be aged over 65. Of course, in Australia the figures are much greater. Those figures have been accelerating for most of the twentieth century. In Australia the level is now 10.5 per cent, and if we look 40 years hence to the year 2025, 17.6 per cent of Australia's population will be aged over 65. What is perhaps more significant than the number of people over 65 is the number over 75. Indeed, over the next 40 years that number will more than triple. It is salutary to look at the figures, which suggest that 40 years hence nearly two million Australians will be over 75 years of age. Clearly, it is important for us to understand from this report that the per capita cost to the public of funding the elderly is three times the cost of funding young dependent people. It is important for us to understand that as our population grows older, there will be more and more old people who are dependent on fewer and fewer wage and salary earners. While there will be fewer taxpayers, more old people will be receiving pensions and benefits and will be in need of care in their final years. In those circumstances, the Government needs a long term plan, a long term strategy. It needs to streamline its assistance and the sort of programs that it develops. It needs to be accountable to the public for the money that it allocates in that way. This Bill is part of a staged program of reform of residential care services for aged people. It was commenced in the 1986-87 Budget and followed a review of nursing homes and hostels which was brought down by the Government in April 1986. The first two stages of the program were outlined by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) in his second reading speech. They concerned the establishment of new needs based planning arrangements, the development of co-ordinated assessment services for the elderly, the expansion of hostel and home and community care services, the development of a special services program, the phasing in of new recurrent funding arrangements for non-government nursing homes from 1 July 1987, and the introduction of quality of care standards for nursing homes. This legislation represents the third stage of that program. It introduces new variable funding arrangements for hostels. It will improve the provision for the disadvantaged to gain access to hostel accommodation. Within the arrangements special consideration is given to the number of disadvantaged people who will have access to and be resident of a particular hostel. It also provides encouragement for eligible groups who are involved in the provision of hostels to use their own funds and to use the entry contributions of residents for the provision of hostel care. Indeed, it will ensure that appropriate links are made between the capital and recurrent funding that the Government provides for hostels. Although many members of the Opposition dwelt on nursing home care in their contributions tonight, the Bill provides for accountability. Standardised accounting procedures, as the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) said in his very thoughtful contribution, are important. It is necessary and perfectly reasonable that in providing for nursing home administration, there should be a standardised accounting system that appropriately provides for government to review the expenditure in nursing homes. Finally, this omnibus legislation gives effect to our commitment to transfer, by 1993, nursing education out of hostels and into the tertiary sector. Since the report of the Sax Committee there has been a great deal of talk about this move. When we came to government I, and many other members of the Government, received a great deal of lobbying from members of the nursing sectors because of their belief that it was necessary for us to make this move. Indeed, the Government has given effect to it and this legislation provides the wherewithal to continue that move into 1993. It is important for the Opposition to learn, as we have, that the public purse is not endless. The honourable member for Cowper hopes that we will provide more and more nursing home beds. We need to provide more nursing home beds in total terms, but in real terms, as a percentage of our population, it is necessary for us to allocate resources more efficiently. This Government knows that it has to plan for the long term and it has moved in this legislation and in other legislation to put in place a long term plan for residential care for aged people. The direction of the Government is endorsed by me and, while members of the Opposition may snipe at the details, it provides for efficient use of resources, allows for hostel quotas to be met and opens up new avenues for eligible organisations. It tightens up the accountability for nursing homes and it gives effect to our commitment to transfer nursing education to the tertiary sector. It has my wholehearted support. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —In his opening remarks the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) referred to the Tuckey plan for the elderly, and inferred that there was some proposal in remarks I have made, as published in the newspapers, that would make it more difficult and more expensive for elderly people to have private health insurance. I have never said that. I have already corrected the inference contained in a newspaper article which, if read to its conclusion, did not infer what its headlines said. The House should know again that under no circumstances will any policy that Wilson Tuckey brings to this place in any way disadvantage the elderly or other disadvantaged people. I have put that on the record once, and I wish to do so again. It is a disgrace that the member chose to do that. It was just smart alec stuff. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member has completed his explanation. I call the honourable member for Wide Bay. Dr Charlesworth —You are very sensitive. Mr Tuckey —I am not sensitive, but I will not tolerate remarks like that. Go back to your hockey. You are not much help in this place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I regard the comments of the honourable member for O'Connor as quite disorderly and regard it as unhelpful that they were in any way provoked. I ask that the clock be restored so that I can call the honourable member for Wide Bay again. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(8.53) —Order having been restored, I shall address briefly the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill, in view of the fast eroding time available to me. Honourable members may recall that earlier in the day I had the opportunity in a different context to express some philosophical views as to what we should do about the state of our nation and, by extension, the health and welfare facilities that are available to our citizens, on the premise that they may need them in the circumstances I described. Those circumstances may be regarded as paradise desired, in the full knowledge that should we stumble upon paradise it would probably take us no more than 24 hours to ruin the place. However, that is an aside. Notwithstanding my earlier remarks, the essential consideration is that I wish this evening briefly to address this Bill in terms of the world in which we live rather than that which we might desire. There are two particular matters that I wish to address. The first is the broadly accepted and thoroughly defensible proposition that nursing homes should be precisely that-for persons who require nursing. That is not to be confused with the accommodation which is necessary for aging people but which falls short of nursing care. Nursing homes are synonymous with nursing care-not care by those with lesser qualifications who may well attend to the requirements of people, say, in hostels, but not to be confused with nursing care appropriate to nursing home accommodation as at presently contemplated. It stands to reason by that very measure that if nursing homes are to be reserved for those in need of nursing care, there must be an additional cost to the nursing home management to provide that extra care and attention. It takes little imagination to realise that the difference between ordinary care as we presently understand it and extra care for exclusively nursing home patients must be significant. It is important that in addressing this matter the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) should ensure that the purpose of the project is not defeated as a consequence of nursing homes lacking the financial ability to achieve the objective. The other aspect which interests me greatly is respite care. Reference to respite care has been made during a rather broad canvassing of this Bill this evening. I put the additional point that, although we all recognise the advantages of respite care, at present we seem to be locked into a situation that this provision must be ancillary to already existing establishments or those proposed within the conventional nursing home environment. There are people in the community who would be of a mind on a non-profit basis to provide exclusive independent, free-standing respite care facilities. It is most important that any community should have adequate recourse to such facilities. It must be recognised that the Government, in its wisdom, has brought out a policy which has laid considerable emphasis on retaining aged people within their own homes in their own domestic environment for as long as possible. I believe that there is a great deal to commend that. The corollary of that laudable policy is that those who are required to oversee, supervise and attend such people in their own homes fall victim to an increasingly demanding human situation, to the extent that they themselves in turn could suffer a setback because of their enslavement-and I use the word with proper connotations-to the needs of the people whom we now seek to keep in their homes. The value of having respite centres where those people may be relieved for a week, two weeks, a month or whatever it may be would prove to be invaluable and would support rather than undermine the Government's policy of keeping people in their homes. I have not been able to satisfy myself thus far that there is an immediate sensitivity by the Government to that requirement. I doubt whether the Government has thoroughly identified it. In a nebulous way the Government appreciates the value of respite care, but at present it is locked into a more conventional mode as distinct from a proposition for independent, self-contained respite centres to give full care to people we seek to keep in their homes for a period that would depend on the demand and the number of units available for respite care. I see no discord emanating from that proposal. It seems eminently logical and totally consistent with what the Government appears to be doing. Thus far those who have had an ambition to establish such facilities have found themselves in the invidious position of not being accommodated by any Government legislative program. I am sure that the Minister, in addressing that need more assiduously than has been done thus far, will recognise that there is advantage not only in terms of the community but also of properly putting into place and maintaining the policy of retaining people in their own homes. It is a corollary of the policy to maintain aged citizens in their own homes. I prefaced my remarks with the observation that I was mindful of the fact that time is fast eroding and that other legislation is still to come before the House. I would only recapitulate, if I went further on matters which have been adequately advanced this evening by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and other members on both sides of the House. On those two points I seek assurance from the Government that if it is not in a position of being able immediately to accommodate those matters, they are very much in the Government's thoughts. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(8.58) —I thank honourable members for participating in the debate on the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill. In response to the novel proposal by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) as to respite care, which he had the courtesy to mention to me earlier, I make the point that the Government is addressing such proposals. The Government has had discussions with the communities involved and will be looking at the matter, along with a range of options for the further development of respite care. The Opposition has moved an amendment, which is the best way of structuring my reply to the comments which have been made in this debate. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) devoted much of his time to talking about a lack of consultation and quoting from various epistles and letters, some of which I have seen and some which I have not seen. The ones I have examined touch on marginal and peripheral areas in this Bill, and indeed many of the comments do not relate to this Bill at all. I do not believe that those organisations are doing themselves much credit by commenting on the Bill in this way. The important thing for those organisations, and indeed the Opposition, to recognise is that the central part of this Bill is the proposal for variable funding for hostel provision. This legislation enables government to provide that variable funding. The actual substance of that variable funding would depend on later Acts which are open to disallowance by both this and the other House. I think it is important to realise that the central thrust of this Bill is to enable governments to develop a policy of variable funding for hostels, the substantive details of which will be open to debate and disallowance in both Houses. The very thrust of this Bill has been widely discussed by the industry. In fact, we sent the report on variable funding to the industry and it has been widely circulated. The principles of variable funding have been widely discussed and accepted. There still remain some issues about the exact nature and amount of that variable funding but those will come forward in later proposals which, as I said, will be subject to disallowance in either House. It seems to me that much of the criticism, which was the essence-as usual, I suppose-of the speech of the honourable member for Richmond, was really rather peripheral and marginal and, on the while, it did not do those organisations very much credit. The second point, which I find most extraordinary coming from the honourable member for Richmond, is that he is worried about the removal of some of my ministerial discretion. I think it is the first time that the Opposition has told me, as a Minister, that I should have more ministerial discretion. The reason why this ministerial discretion is being removed is that we want to ensure, under the new nursing home proposals, that effectively there is one law for everybody. We want to make it quite clear that individuals will not be able to approach Ministers in the hope that by threat, coercion or special pleading they will be able to get around those basic nursing home principles. It is also designed to ensure that Ministers will not be able to pork barrel in these matters because the principles will bind Ministers as much as they will bind all other members of the community. It will also prevent an unscrupulous Minister-certainly not a Labor Minister-in the future from scapegoating a particular individual or organisation by getting around the principles. In relation to the one specific issue that the honourable member for Richmond raised-that is, the computational mistake-the principles will ensure that that error be corrected as the Minister is bound by those principles. We then find that the Opposition is somewhat unhappy about the so-called `unnecessary, costly and excessive reporting requirements' imposed by the Bill. One of the problems I have constantly with this Opposition is that while no other Opposition has endeavoured to make more political capital of the way taxpayers' money is being spent, at the same time it attacks every specific measure taken by this Government to ensure those moneys are properly spent and properly accountable, as in this Bill. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) made the very good point-I agree with him entirely-that the money spent by government, $1.15 billion a year on nursing home benefits, is not government money; it is taxpayers' money. As a government, we have to ensure that that $1.15 billion on those benefits is properly paid. That is not an unreasonable requirement. Most of the reports that have come to government-many of the parliamentary reports, often produced by bipartisan committees-have stressed the need for more effective accountability and reporting requirements. One of the specific issues addressed here is something of which I am sure the honourable member for Richmond is aware-that is, that amongst a few of the nursing home proprietors there are efforts to keep records off premises so it makes it more difficult for government to access those records which is necessary if the right and proper amount of money is to be spent. We believe that the specific actions taken in this Bill are necessary in light of our experience to ensure that we, as a government, are properly accountable to the Australian taxpayers for the $1.15 billion of their money spent in the provision of nursing home benefits. I am surprised that the Opposition should attack the quality of care arrangements on the grounds that they somehow duplicate the work done by the States. Again, most of the various reports that governments have received on nursing home matters in recent years have stressed the need for the Commonwealth, as the chief source of recurrent funding for nursing homes, to have a task of ensuring that that money is spent to produce quality outcomes for old people. Indeed, the report Private Nursing Homes in Australia from the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes made this recommendation: . . . the Commonwealth fund pilot studies to examine quality indicators with a view to introducing these indicators in the assessment of quality of patient care and to provide a basis for thorough nursing home inspections. That recommendation, which came not just from the Labor Party members of the Committee, but from all members of the Committee, was that we should go ahead to develop outcome quality standards that could be the basis of effective inspection. Again, rather than duplicating the efforts of the States, these proposals have been brought about in co-operation with the States, with which we have worked in drawing up the standards, as well as with the industry itself. I am glad to say that most of the State Ministers have formally endorsed the outcome standards. They do not see them as duplicating their tasks. They see this as a co-operative relationship, particularly with the Commonwealth having this major financial involvement, and they are willing to co-operate to endorse the outcome standards. Perhaps the most inappropriate of all the statements by the honourable member for Richmond was that the standards were dropped on the unsuspecting industry. There has been an extraordinary process of consultation with industry in developing the standards. The first draft of these standards was circulated in late 1985. I think the industry would, or should, agree that they were largely drafted by the industry in partnership with professionals and consumers. In relation to the standard review panels, the honourable member for Richmond said-either himself or perhaps in this case he was quoting somebody else-that we had an inadequate government commitment. If he reads the Bill he will see that clause 28 makes it perfectly clear that the section 45 sanctions will not apply in any State until a standard review panel is established in that State. The Bill makes clear the Government's commitment that the sanctions attached to these standards will not apply until there is a standard review panel established in that State. Of course, the Government is moving as quickly as possible in co-operation with the industry to establish such standard review panels. The other issue raised by the Opposition is in relation to private profit investment in the provision of hostel accommodation. It has been the long-standing policy of all governments in this country-the Whitlam Government, the Fraser Government and now the Hawke Government-that private investment has been excluded from hostel accommodation. We intend to continue that long-standing policy which, as I say, has been supported by governments of all political complexions. We are committed to and have announced a substantial expansion in the hostel area. Under this Government's program over 10,000 hostel places will be provided in the next three years, so that with this program and the way in which it is funded, there is a very significant contribution to the expansion of the hostel sector. For those reasons I ask the House to reject the amendment moved by the Opposition. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(9.11) —by leave-I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Richmond from moving- That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs, for inquiry and report as soon as possible, with particular reference to: (1) consideration of the Government's exclusion of private sector investment from the provision of hostel accommodation; (2) examination of the effect of the Government's refusal to consult with the aged care industry over the Bill; (3) consideration of the removal of ministerial discretion in the area of aged care; (4) examination of the proposed duplication of State Government regulations controlling the standard of care by the Federal Government; and (5) consideration of the impact of unnecessary, costly and excessive reporting requirements for nursing home proprietors. I thank the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) for his co-operation in this matter. As I discussed with him previously, we will not delay the business of the House unduly. With the Chair's indulgence, I will make a couple of remarks which are relevant both to this motion and to some claims made by the Minister in his summing up. I assure the House that I have not suggested that this legislation has been dropped on an unspecting industry. The industry itself has said it, on behalf both of the private nursing home proprietors and the voluntary providers of aged care. That is one of the reasons why it is important that there be an opportunity for both sections of the industry and the public to review this legislation. The legislation was introduced during the last week of sitting, on Wednesday. The day before it was introduced there was a major meeting with the Department's officers and representatives of the nursing home and aged care provision industry in Canberra, I am told. I see advice being given to the Minister that that is not true. It was the advice given to me by the New South Wales division of the aged care sector. I quoted from its correspondence in the second reading debate. According to my informants, the Department made no reference to the intention to introduce legislation to the House the following day. Irrespective of the accuracy of that claim, and perhaps of the understanding of ministerial advisers of that claim, it is my sincere belief that the industry is genuinely concerned about the lack of consultation and that that concern arises from the ramifications of previous legislation introduced by this Government which is now having its impact on the industry. While it is true that much of the representations I have received, the Minister has received and, undoubtedly, the Department has received do not directly relate to this Bill, perhaps there are two reasons for that. Firstly, the industry has not had a chance to consider the Bill in some detail. Secondly, the industry is still trying to digest, cope with and survive, in a financial sense, the earlier legislation. Perhaps there is some reticence on the part of the industry to accept assurances given by the Department in respect of the current Bill, having had some experience of the way the previous legislation in this area was treated, the industry's views considered and finally implemented. As I have said, the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. We are, however, concerned about the implementation of policy. We believe that the Minister has not justified his dismissal of our claims and the industry's claims. He has not in any way, in his concluding remarks, given us chapter and verse the degree of consultation that has been undertaken by his Department with representatives of the industry. It is for that reason that we are seeking to refer this Bill in its entirety to a committee established by this Parliament at the behest of the Government to review matters relating to community affairs, the Standing Committee on Community Affairs. This Bill, concerning the provision of aged care, is very much a matter which is within the ambit of that Committee's responsibilities. If the Government were genuine in its desire to use that Standing Committee of this chamber for its advertised purpose, if it were genuine in its desire to work co-operatively with the industry, it would agree to this motion. Only by working co-operatively with the industry, which has been stressed very strongly by many sectors of the voluntary care providers, will it be able to deliver the quality, range and quantity of aged care our country will need this year, next year and into the future and achieve its objectives. For that reason we have sought, as I have said, to refer this Bill to the Committee. We are not unduly concerned about the delay. We believe that, if the Government were to accept this proposal, the Committee could undertake its work very quickly, the industry would not be disadvantaged and, perhaps more importantly, the aged and their families, and the people concerned about ensuring that they have a standard and security of care and a confidence in the ongoing nature of that care, would not be unduly disadvantaged. The Minister, in his remarks, referred to our concerns about the removal of ministerial discretion. That is another reason why we believe that this matter should be reviewed by the Committee. Our concern is that, although we understand completely why the Minister is removing his discretion, and his arguments seem quite logical, there is no decent appeal procedure. There is the opportunity for administrative mistakes to be made. The industry-again I stress that it is the industry expressing this concern-is quite worried. Its concern is based upon its experience in dealing with the Department. It is not based on anything else. If the Department accepts some advice, it should do something about its communications with the industry and its public relations with its industry constituency because at present they are appalling. We also believe that some of the reporting requirements are unnecessary. The Minister's argument about responsibility for the expenditure of taxpayers' funds is quite valid. We have no argument with it at all. The nature of our amendments is such that we will leave in place the reporting requirements as they relate to funds from the Commonwealth Government. We will be proposing amendments to the Bill which would remove the reporting requirement for funds which are not sourced or related to Commonwealth Government funding. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Opposition, that is an entirely reasonable position and is not inconsistent with the argument advanced by the Minister. The nub of the whole argument is that this Bill has been public now for some 14 days. It is significant legislation. It follows through a previous Bill which is now law and which is having a dramatic impact on the nursing home and aged care industry, an impact which is causing some concern in Victoria because of the unique nature of the Victorian industry and its previous structure. The concern of the industry is that this Bill has been drafted without having due regard to the practical implications of the possibility of some of its provisions. We believe that it would be in the best interests of all concerned to have a public inquiry and to facilitate public comment and discussion about this very important area of Government policy which, as the Minister is wont to say, is running at in excess of $1 billion per annum. It is important that we not only get value for money but also provide the quality of care for those aged Australians who are so in need and so dependent upon government policy in this area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Connolly —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(9.21) —I do not wish to take too much of the time of the House. I think honourable members recognise the tactic for what it is. The wording of the motion is simply a rephrasing of the amendment to the second reading motion. It does not say anything new or anything different. It simply rearranges the words in a slightly different order. I recognise the need for the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) to make his case twice. It is not a particularly strong case. The Government recognises his need to do that and therefore we gave him the opportunity to present his case again. I do not think he raised any new issue or any new argument-certainly nothing that was particularly effective. I just wish to point out, in relation to his allegations of dissatisfaction within the industry springing from previous consultations with the Government, that following the passage through the Parliament of the last nursing home Bill, one representative organisation in its own publication listed at least 23 aspects of that Bill which had been influenced by the industry and proudly claimed that the changes had been brought about as a result of its consultations. The Opposition has endeavoured to beat up the issue of industry consultation. (Quorum formed) I must say that the Government has been particularly generous in the way that it has handled this Bill. It is a fairly disappointing and rather poor response from the Opposition for it to have called a quorum in that way. But it does give me the opportunity to speak for a little longer and not to feel in any sense handicapped in doing so. I was pointing out that there has been considerable exaggeration of the lack of consultation between my Department and the industry. I pointed out the example of the last major legislative measure in this area and the response that had been made by one of the representative organisations, pointing out the extent to which its consultations with Government had influenced the legislation. I want to take up two other allegations made by the honourable member for Richmond that have no basis in fact. He argued that there was no decent fee appeals system. I point out that there are fee committees of review in each State. There is an appeal right to the Federal Court of Australia under the fee system. He also alleged that there was a need to amend the Bill to limit record keeping requirements to those related to Commonwealth funding. If he reads the principal Act, he will find that we are also required under statute, under existing legislation, to regulate fees. It is not just a question of protecting Commonwealth funding; it is also a question of protecting the frail aged in those homes. This is why we will reject the honourable gentleman's proposal. I have nothing further to add. Question resolved in the negative. In Committee Clauses 1 to 28-by leave-taken together. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(9.27) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 14, page 7, after proposed paragraph 9b (2) (f) insert the following paragraph: ``(fa) the potential for private sector investment;''. (2) Clause 19, page 9, lines 35-38, omit proposed subsection 10c (3). (3) Clause 19, page 10, after proposed paragraph 10f (2) (d) insert the following paragraph: ``(da) the potential for private sector investment;''. (4) Clause 25, page 19, line 2, omit ``such information'', substitute ``with respect to grants made by the Commonwealth, such information''. In an earlier part of this debate, the Opposition expressed concern that the Government is effectively prohibiting the involvement of private sector investment in the provision of hostel care for the aged in Australia. Whilst I do not wish to rerun the debate of early this evening, it is important to stress the importance of providing adequate numbers of places for care of the aged in Australia in the future. We all understand the nature of the Australian population, and the rapidly aging character of that population. We all understand the pressure that will be applied on the number of care places available in the future. We all understand the Government's concern to provide adequate capital funding for all its many and various undertakings. It is ironic that this Government, whilst expressing concern about its ability to provide the capital funding requirements for Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines and perhaps even the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and other public institutions, is in this instance limiting the ability of the private sector to provide capital for the provision of hostel care while it is quite happy to allow private sector capital to be involved in the provision of transport facilities through Qantas, Australian Airlines and in other areas. I heard an interjection from an honourable member that the Government is not happy. I will lay the honourable member London to a brick on that the Government will finally decide to privatise Qantas, Australian Airlines, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and everything else that it can get its cotton-picking hands on because it needs the money. That is basically what it comes down to. Even if it decides to go halfway, it will eventually find that it has to privatise the lot because, when the next share issue comes up, it will not have the capital to subscribe to take up its shares anyway. That is the argument in a nutshell. I do not know why the Government is busy wandering around trying to find some way out of it. This country is broke. This Government has run it into the ground. It does not have the capital requirements to do anything about that. This is just an inconsistency. I am sure that in due course the Government, if it does not accept our amendment here tonight, will accept a similar amendment in the future. There is no way that the Government can continue to provide the capital funding needed to provide hostel care for the aged in Australia ad infinitum into the future. Perhaps for the Government's own motives this is the appropriate course that it is choosing right now. It would be far more sensible to recognise the need to involve both private and public capital in this area right from the outset. The Government should make sure that its policy is capable of handling that private capital investment from day one. It should not mess up aged care policy as it has messed up communications policy and so many other policies. Nor should it have piecemeal, ad hoc amendments over a period of years. The logic of that argument is quite compelling. I am quite sure the Minister recognises it but I do not believe, for a number of reasons best known to himself, that he will accept this amendment. Notwithstanding that, the Opposition feels very strongly about it. We feel that there should be rationality in this whole area. Just because the Government is inadequate in terms of its policy response at present is no reason to have an inconsistent piece of legislation. It is a wonder that it is not embarrassing for the Government for an argument to be running in one sector of the economy about the provision of private and public capital yet in another sector there is an exclusion of private capital. It is interesting that it is the same department that has these inconsistent approaches. The inconsistency applies in the provision of not only aged care but also capital funding requirements for child care. As I have said at another time, this Government seems to be locked into some gold plated model of child care which is beyond the funding capacity of government in the foreseeable future. Yet, it is arguing very strongly for the involvement of private capital in other areas. It is inconsistent; it is illogical and it would be appropriate for the Government, for the sake of its credibility, to have a consistent policy in this area. That is the basis of the Opposition's amendments to those clauses, and I commend them to the logical and analytical members of the Government. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(9.32) —We are discussing amendments (1) to (4) even though it could be argued that the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) did not discuss all of them. However, I presume this is my opportunity to try to deal with them. The amendments he discussed related to private sector investment in the hostel area. Whatever might be the Government's views on privatisation or otherwise of Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines, this Government does not believe that we can treat issues such as aged care and child care in the same way as we treat commercial organisations. Simply to say on analogy that privatisation might be applicable in some commercial areas and then to say it is equally applicable to social areas, such as aged care or child care, seems to be a very odd way of approaching some of the major social issues this country faces. Of course, it is not just this Government that is saying that; this policy has been the policy in relation to hostels of all governments of all political parties over the last 10 or 15 years. They have believed that the most appropriate way is to provide hostel care through government co-operation with the charitable sector. This method has ensured the most effective provision of hostel accommodation. As I have said, the program now laid down by the Government enables a very substantial expansion in co-operation with the religious and charitable sector. We believe, as the Fraser Government and the previous governments believed, that that is the best way to proceed in this area. Amendment (4) has been discussed in the general debate. I understand that amendment (2) proposes that the same kind of variable funding that applies to nursing homes apply to hostels. I think there would be real difficulties with that. It has certainly never been suggested by anyone in government before; nor, I understand, has it been suggested by the industry. One of the reasons for that is that a servicing of capital provision is already built into the fees so it would require the whole re-organisation of that nursing home provision and the whole re-organisation of the policies which I understood both parties were relatively committed to. It seems a very odd proposal. In this developing period there will be fewer nursing homes compared with hostels. As most of those new nursing homes will be specifically designed for disadvantaged groups, where they are eligible for capital funding they will recover a very substantial portion of it from the Commonwealth. A substantial proportion of people go to nursing homes for short periods as a result of problems derived from acute illness. It would be quite unfair for them to be making the kinds of contributions that we are looking to people making in relation to hostels, where there is a planned form of accommodation for a considerable period. Although the honourable member for Richmond did not argue for that amendment, when considered in the rational light of day it is not a very useful contribution to the development of nursing home policy. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 29 and 30-by leave-taken together. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(9.36) —The Opposition opposes these clauses. The Opposition believes, as it has said on a number of occasions, that the reporting requirements contained in the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill are unnecessary and excessive. Flowing from that belief is our opposition to clauses 29 and 30 which relate to the penalty provisions. They seem harsh and unnecessary but, having regard to the Minister's previous comments about reporting requirements, I will not delay the Committee in arguing strongly for our case. I simply say that there is a tendency on the part of this Government-we have seen it in both tax legislation and the Minister's much beloved ID card legislation-to use a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. Some of the penalties that this Government has almost routinely incorporated in legislation could be described fairly as excessive and unnecessary. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(9.37) —First of all I should clarify a point regarding clause 29. In the past, the Government has required much more data from nursing homes, but in a total way. Because a lot of that data will not be necessary, clause 29 simply provides a mechanism for specifying the records required, because they certainly will not need to be as extensive as they have been in the past, and in the form in which they should be required. This has been the result of discussions with the industry. Once we moved to the new nursing home payments system all we needed to do was specify certain records and the form in which they would be required. The Opposition may be a little unduly concerned by that amendment in the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill. In relation to the penalty provisions in clause 30, it is important to point out-I pointed this out earlier-that this Government takes seriously its responsibility to the taxpayer in relation to the $1.15 billion to be spent in this area. We believe that we need appropriate weapons to prevent those few unscrupulous operators from developing strategems to get around governmental requirements. I must point out that the provisions used in this Bill are similar to those used in a number of other Bills for which the Government has similar responsibility for protecting taxpayers' money. We believe that the legislation has been appropriately phrased to meet those requirements though we accept that they will apply to only a few operators in the industry. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Third Reading Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 October, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(9.42) —The Fisheries Amendment Bill 1987 states that it: . . . amends the Fisheries Act 1952, principally to enable effect to be given to Australia's rights and obligations under the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America. The Treaty was signed by Australia on 2 April 1987 and will enter into force when the United States and at least 10 Pacific Island States (which must include Papua New Guinea, Kiribati and Federated States of Micronesia) have ratified it. All members- there are 16 of them- of the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (which include Australia) are entitled to be parties. 2. The Treaty will authorize US tuna purse-seine fishing vessels to fish in a licensing area which includes a part of the Australian fishing zone around the Coral Sea Islands Territory . . . The US Government is required under the Treaty to enforce the requirements of the Treaty including by preventing unlicensed fishing and by ensuring Treaty licence conditions are complied with. This does not diminish the right of each Pacific Island party to enforce the Treaty requirements in its own fishing zone. 3. The amendments have the effect of making it an offence against Australian law to breach the conditions of a Treaty licence, and disapply the licensing and other relevant provisions of the Act from vessels fishing under the Treaty. That description actually comes from the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. I do not apologise for that, because I think it is a very good description of the purpose of the Bill. This Bill, in my view, is the recognition in legal form of a very significant achievement by the countries of the South Pacific Forum Fishing Agency and the United States, because the Treaty should overcome the foreign relations and fisheries problems caused by the intrusion of United States fishing vessels in the South Pacific. I refer to tuna vessels in this regard. The United States Government had previously rejected any tuna control applied by any of these nation states, including those related to their economic or fishing zones, and threatened to apply countervailing action against any country which attempted to enforce such control under the Magnusson Act. As a result of this Treaty, the United States will provide $60m over five years to the 16 countries, divided on the basis of 15 per cent for access rights and 85 per cent for actual fish caught. Australia will receive approximately $150,000 per annum for access and if, for example, 5 per cent of the fish were caught in the Australian zone the total payable to Australia would rise to something like $700,000 per annum. I am advised that any money received from the United States will be paid into Consolidated Revenue. It is also estimated that the additional surveillance costs because of this new responsibility will amount to about the same figure, $150,000. I would like to have more information as to whether that is just a neat matching of two figures or whether it is actually a considered cost. The United States will be restricted to a maximum of 35 vessels, and any country has the right to require a smaller number. The catch can be subject to annual limits and the whole Treaty will be renegotiated after five years. I am also advised that Congressional hearings have been completed in the United States and no problems are anticipated as the Treaty is being `sold' as a regional licence, thereby circumventing this problem of the Magnusson Act. So far six countries have ratified the Treaty, and therefore there are four still to go for it to come into force. I believe that this Treaty provides worthwhile benefits for Australia. First of all, and most importantly, it overcomes a potentially very serious foreign policy confrontation between the United States on the one hand and the South Pacific nations on the other, and that is a very important achievement for the stability of the region. Mr Tim Fischer —It keeps Russia at bay. Mr LLOYD —The point is well made by my colleague. From an Australian point of view, access is given to a relatively small part of our fishing zone. It is an area the fishing potential of which we have little or no knowledge. Hopefully, our knowledge will be improved by allowing these United States vessels to have access. I am told that the access will be mainly for transit, because the tuna that these boats will be catching are not known to be so much in that area. But this area is more or less the link between the two areas where the tuna are considered more to be. One of the annexes to the legislation refers to the details of the Treaty. I think log books have to be provided by the United States vessels. I am curious to know how those log books will be checked and how the surveillance will be maintained so that we can get this information on the potential for fishing-which would be of value to us-from the US ships, and also on how the provisions will be effectively policed so that we know what the ships are really up to. This brings me back to the only real question I have about this legislation, and it concerns this $150,000 of additional cost for surveillance. Will it be aerial surveillance? Will there be some sort of ability to have an actual presence on these US boats from time to time and to check what they are really up to? Also, in respect of the logs or the records of what fish have actually been caught or of what is otherwise known as a result of this United States presence-to-be in this Coral Sea zone, do we have to rely on the skippers of those vessels actually reporting? I think that is an important point for Australia for the future if we are first of all to have the ability to control that particular area, as the Treaty wants us to control it and as we ourselves would want to control it. Also, how do we get this information as to the potential of the area? I want to compliment the South Pacific countries for achieving this result. It has taken five years. There have been 11 rounds of negotiations. I believe that the Treaty adds considerably to the stability of the area and to the overall knowledge. It also adds to sensible conservation fishing arrangements for this whole South Pacific area, certainly in relation to tuna. Obviously, I hope that the Treaty will be important for further developments for fishing for these countries and for Australia. Therefore, the Opposition supports the legislation. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(9.50) —I thank the Opposition for supporting the Fisheries Amendment Bill. I support the legislation. It is not widely realised that Australian waters, from the low water mark to the 200 nautical mile limit, cover an area larger than the entire Australian continent. As part of that area is the coast of the Northern Territory, the coast of my electorate, I have a strong interest in the fishing industry. Fishing is a $30m a year industry in the Northern Territory and nationally it is worth more than $592m annually. It ranks as Australia's sixth largest rural industry. It is a vital industry and is, I believe, an industry of the future that will enable us to continue to feed the world's ever-increasing population. The Pacific region is one of the fastest growing in the world. It is a fact that this Government recognises. Indeed, it is the first Australian Government to look towards positive policies in the Pacific region, an area badly neglected by previous conservative governments. Our position in the Pacific region is a dominant one. As such, we have enormous responsibility to be actively involved in being part of the process that helps independent nations in the Pacific achieve adequate and meaningful compensation in return for allowing the exploitation of their resources. As part of this policy, the Australian Government has entered into a Treaty on Fisheries between certain Pacific island states and the United States of America. Thus far, the following nations have both signed and ratified that agreement: Australia, the Cook Islands, Fiji, the Marshall Islands, Nauru and Papua New Guinea. The following nations have signed but are yet to ratify the agreement: The Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Western Samoa. The Treaty has been unanimously passed by the United States Senate and is expected to pass through the Congress which, I am given to understand, should happen before Christmas. The finalisation of the Treaty is significant in terms of the international law of the sea. The Treaty provides strong evidence that the hitherto inflexible United States position, that coastal states have no right to exercise sovereign rights over highly migratory species such as tuna, is changing. The United States view supported by United States domestic legislation has been a major irritant in United States relationships with Mexico, South America and South Pacific countries that extends well beyond a fisheries dispute to become a significant foreign policy issue. From an Australian perspective, the entirety of the Australian fishing zone, except that around Heard Island and Macdonald Island, has been included in the Treaty area. It has been noted that these islands, although not included in this Treaty, come within the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources to which both Australia and the United States of America are parties. It is the Government's belief that it is unlikely that United States vessels would attempt to fish in this area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —I notice that the honourable member for Indi is standing. Does he wish to address the Chair? Mr Ewen Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker I draw your attention to the state of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —For the benefit of the honourable member, I point out that when he requires a quorum to be called he should simply rise and, without being acknowledged by the Chair, say, `Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House'. Otherwise the Chair is not aware of what he proposes and the honourable member cannot be called whilst another honourable member has the call. The point is taken. A quorum is required; ring the bells. (Quorum formed) Mr SNOWDON —As a member of the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency our signing and ratification of the agreement reflects our support for the South Pacific region. It demonstrates Australia's commitment to the development of our strategic, political, economic and social objectives as well as the independence and stability of the region. As I have said previously, the Treaty is consistent with the principles enunciated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Australia has long been a major contributor of funds to the South Pacific fisheries program. Historically, Australia contributes 30 per cent of the budget of the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency, which was the co-ordinator of the negotiations and which administers the Treaty. Traditionally, Australia makes a significant contribution through the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau for regional fisheries projects. Australia has financed and sent delegations to every round of negotiations held over the Treaty. The Treaty was signed by Australia on 2 April this year and was ratified in Port Moresby on 18 May. The amendment to the principal Act, the Fisheries Act 1952, will provide the means by which we can implement the Treaty arrangements. The Treaty will authorise United States tuna purse seine fishing vessels to fish in the licensing area which includes part of the Australian fishing zone around the Coral Sea islands territory. The United States Government is required under the Treaty to enforce the requirements of the Treaty, including preventing unlicensed fishing and by ensuring Treaty licence conditions are complied with. This does not diminish the right of each Pacific island party to enforce the Treaty requirements in its own zone. The Treaty also provides for broader co-operation between the United States and other parties to the Treaty through the United States providing technical and economic support to assist the parties to the Treaty to maximise benefits from their fish resources, including provison of facilities, services and employment opportunities. This is the first multilateral fisheries access treaty with which Australia has been involved. This Treaty will bring more than $60m to the Pacific nations involved over the next five years. As the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) pointed out, Australia's share of that is expected to be about $150,000 per annum. Under this Treaty the United States is being allowed access to a very small area of the Australian fishing zone in the north-eastern Coral Sea which is currently not being exploited by the Australian fishing industry. One of the major benefits of the Treaty will be access to an assessment of the tuna stocks in the area which will allow Australian operators to assess the commercial viability of the resource. The impact on the area will be only minimal as it is expected that there will be only four to five boats in the zone and that they will not be there are the same time. The Treaty provides for Australia to have observers when they come into the Australian fishing zone. This is particularly relevant in regard to monitoring the dolphins that may unfortunately from time to time be casualties in this operation. Australia has made it quite clear to the United States that the dolphin population in the area will be the subject of stringent monitoring. While talking of environmental considerations, I am informed that purse seining, the method of fishing to be used by the Americans, is effective on surface schooling fish, or pelagics as they are known, whilst not damaging the deeper swimming varieties. Australia has a great commitment to the work in a number of international fishing organisations that monitor environmental as well as economic aspects of fisheries. The context that this amendment occurs in is a significant one considering the dispute that the Government of the Solomon Islands has had with United States tuna fishermen over previous years. A treaty such as this rationalises the relationship between countries such as the Solomon Islands and Australia and the United States because it protects the host country and enables it to enter into fair and equitable arrangements with those who seek to exploit its resources. While article 3 of the Treaty permits United States vessels to have access to the licensing area, it requires operators to comply with the relevant national laws. I conclude by outlining some of the other major features of this Treaty. Article 4 provides: . . . US Government to take the necessary steps to ensure: (i) its nationals comply with the Treaty (ii) all required assistance is given to SP states in the investigation of a breach of the Treaty by a US vessel, (iii) US vessels licensed pursuant to the Treaty are insured against all risks and liabilities, (iv) any claim against a US vessel is promptly settled, (v) service of legal process by or on behalf of an SP State is duly effected, (vi) any judgment against a US vessel is duly satisfied, (vii) US vessel leaves the Treaty Area if there was reasonable cause to believe the vessel had been fishing in contravention of the Treaty, except to submit to the jurisdiction of the SP state; Article 4 of the Treaty continues: US Government is required to penalise its nationals at such a level as provided for like violations by US law relating to contraventions of the Treaty where the US vessel has not submitted to SP state jurisdiction; It is my view that these amendments and this Treaty will do a great deal to placate the nation states in the South Pacific against the intrusion in their sovereign waters by the United States tuna fishing fleet, and I believe the Bill is a very positive step and should be supported by the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.01) —I listened with great interest to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon). I was rather surprised when he started by saying what a positive policy this present Government has towards the Pacific islands. I think one of the great concerns of many people in Australia is the complacency with which this Government has sat back and watched the Soviet Union moving into the Pacific area, moving into what we should have seen as a strategic zone for our own future security. The Government has appeared virtually to condone what has been going on and to ignore the long term effects that this will have on our security. I notice that the honourable member for the Northern Territory, in his concluding remarks, went to great pains to point out the fact that the United States of America should play the game, and I support him on that. But he very neatly ignored the fact that the Soviet Union has been moving in and quietly, or not so quietly, trying to take over some of these fishing areas in the South Pacific. This should be of great concern to all members of this chamber, because the long term effects on our future security could indeed be serious if we do not take this matter a little bit more seriously than the present Government appears to be. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), the Fisheries Amendment Bill amends the Fisheries Act 1952. It satisfies the Treaty, which was brought into place by certain Pacific island states and the Government of the United States of America and which was signed by Australia on 2 April of this year. It will come into force when at least 10 eligible Pacific island states, which, it has been pointed out, must include Papua New Guinea, Kirabiti and the Federated States of Micronesia, have ratified it. As has also been pointed out, Australia stands to gain revenue of $150,000 up front. If, say, 5 per cent of the fish caught by boats of the United States is caught in Australian waters we would probably end up with a total of about $700,000. This is ongoing, and the United States has agreed to pay all up about $US60m over the next five years. The Treaty will be up for renegotiation after that time. Obviously all honourable members would welcome this move by the United States Government. It is certainly not before time, and it will do much to help some of these Pacific island states which have had to sit by and watch, without any compensation, United States fishermen taking the fish from their waters. As has also been pointed out, in Australia's case, all the money that is received from the United States, through this Treaty, will be paid into Consolidated Revenue, and part of that will go towards paying for the additional surveillance of that area. It was also pointed out by the honourable member for the Northern Territory that the area covered is only a small part of our extended fishing zone, and it can be seen from page 11 of the explanatory memorandum that it is a section of the north-eastern side of Australia. The point that really concerns me about this legislation and the time that it has taken is the effect this has had on some of our near neighbours in the Pacific zone and the way they have chosen, or perhaps felt it necessary, to begin to look at the Soviet Union for ways and means of bolstering their income and, of course, in return giving the Soviet Union the chance to get a foothold in the South Pacific, which of course is very much of concern to all Australians and to our future security. Back in July 1985 the Government of Kiribati was saying that it would press ahead with a proposed Soviet tuna fisheries deal, in defiance of mounting opposition from home and other Pacific countries. Neighbouring Tuvalu was also studying a Soviet offer and, according to an article in the Age of July 1985, it was `likely to go ahead'. A little later, on 27 August 1986, the Soviet Union actually signed a $US1.7m agreement. The Canberra Times reported that the Government of Kiribati had signed an agreement: . . . a year ago to allow Soviet tuna boats to fish within Kiribati's 320 km economic zone, and similar negotiations are under way now with Vanuatu. It is understood that in August 1986 the Soviet Union also made overtures to Western Samoa and Fiji. It is of great concern when we see the complacency of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) about the intrusion of the Soviets into this area, particularly with the developments in Fiji, because it is quite clear that the Soviets are keen to get a greater foothold in this area and would use it very much as a means of bringing in further strategic defence capabilities in the long run, which no doubt would threaten Australia's security. More recently, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 February 1987, we find-this is even closer to home-the following: Papua New Guinea's Cabinet agreed on Wednesday that it would consider a fishing deal with Moscow . . . The warnings are there. They have been there for some time, and the Government appears to be totally complacent about it all. At the end of January this year an article in the Sydney Morning Herald stated: Vanuatu and the Soviet Union yesterday signed their long-awaited tuna fishing agreement, which is expected to earn the Vanuatu Government US$1.5m in annual royalties. We then contrast that with the attitude of the present Government. An article on the front page of the Australian of 5 March 1987 reads: The Australian Government has reversed a 1983 decision and agreed to allow the Soviet Union to conduct a scientific survey of fisheries resources in Australian waters. The article states that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade made this extraordinary statement that the meeting: . . . with the Soviet Foreign Minister Mr . . . Shevardnadze, that despite assurances from the Soviet official, he- that is, Mr Hayden- remained concerned about Soviet intentions in the South Pacific. The article went on: The new agreement also follows closely on Australia's criticism of South Pacific nations for negotiating fishery agreements with the Soviet Union. Mr Hayden has said in the past, however, it was the inability of those small nations to monitor adequately Soviet activities that concerned him. What utter humbug. Here he is quite happily saying, `We are going to do a deal'. He has virtually ignored the fact that several of the South Pacific countries have been negotiating agreements, and yet he is apparently prepared to sign a deal for Australia. I think the overall attitude of this Government, over this whole fishing matter, is and should be of great concern to all Australians. On the one hand, we are quite rightly signing a treaty with the United States, but, on the other hand, we seem to be quite complacent about the fact that the Soviet Union is moving in to begin a fishing operation. Mr Kent —Did you know that the Soviets are already in Fiji? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Hotham believes he is speaking in the adjournment debate, I must remind him that we have not got that far yet. Mr HAWKER —As I said, the whole attitude of this Government seems to be a load of humbug. I think, as all honourable members would know, the tactics of the Soviet Union are quite simple in these things. It gains fishing access, then, of course, it needs a base for those fishing boats in case they break down, or for other reasons, whatever they may be. Once it has that base, it needs an airstrip. What does it have then? It has the makings of a military installation that can be set up in a very short time to become a means for offensive as well as defensive measures. It is very interesting to note that the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) signed a letter dated 1986 to the USSR Registrar of Shipping. In part, the Minister said: I would also draw your attention to the Government's recent decision, subject to certain conditions being met by the USSR, to approve a joint Australia-USSR fisheries research project in the waters adjacent to Heard and Macdonald Islands. The project will involve a Soviet vessel and crew and two Australian scientists and will be the first time that Australia and the USSR have co-operated in the fisheries area. It is very significant, and even more so when one notes that it was not until March 1987 that what the Government had agreed to some considerable time prior to that date actually became public knowledge. We have a government which almost appears to want to play off both sides at once, which is quite happy to do deals with the Russians on this matter and, equally, is quite complacent when it sees the Russians moving into the South Pacific areas for reasons which are highly questionable and which could in the long term threaten the security of this nation. I think that the complacency of this Government is of great concern, certainly to all members on this side of the House. I hope that the Government, now that the Treaty has been signed, will take a slightly stronger stand in making sure that the security and future of this country are maintained. As we all know, we still have the semblance of an ANZUS Treaty. That Treaty shows very clearly that our defence is intermingled with that of the United States. We ignore that at our own peril. The Fisheries Amendment Bill has the support of the Opposition, but it does raise some wider issues. I have canvassed those issues because I think they are very important, not only for fishing areas in north-eastern Australia, but also for our whole defence strategy. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.13) —I placed my name on the speakers list days ago simply because I was so pleased to see that the legislation would be debated by the House this week. For years now there has been a very great need for arrangements to be made with the United States, and certainly involving Australia, so far as the Pacific Islands are concerned. It was my pleasure to be part of a delegation of the Parliament about three or four years ago that went over to the Pacific Islands and Papua New Guinea to confer with them and to look at the foreign aid projects that we had assisted in funding in the areas concerned. We also had the opportunity of being able to travel on a patrol boat that was a gift from Australia to the Solomon Islands. It was principally used for the purpose of patrolling the waters to keep overseas fishing boats out of the territorial regions. At the time, it was noted that the main concern of Vanuatu, the Solomons and different islands that we had the pleasure of visiting was the fishing rights of their areas and the transgressing generally of United States ships, including mother ships. At the time, I think it was said that there could be up to 30 ships within that region of the Pacific. Of course, they were disturbed because they were not getting any income from those boats. Quite a few boats were able to leave the west coast of America and spend some months in the region. It is nice to see that some agreement has been reached. It is very important indeed. It has taken the Government a while to do this. The fact that the Russians moved into the area of Kiribati and made their own arrangements so far as ports were concerned awakened Australia to the fact that the foreign-- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Peter Morris-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris). The fact remains that it was necessary to come to some arrangements between the countries concerned, and this has been done. I appreciate that there will be some restrictions so far as catch is concerned, but the legislation does not state what the size and number of vessels will be. But over a five-year period it is certain that these problems will solve themselves if their is sufficient supervision. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has questioned the Minister to try to get some answers with respect to supervision and the way that this will be carried out. Australia is only in its infancy so far as our fishing and processing are concerned. We have to realise that fishing in waters around the continent and beyond it is very closely associated with foreign policy matters. We can never forget that point. It would be a very grave mistake for us to think that we are isolated and have nothing to worry about. Fishing is a very important industry to Australia. We must preserve the resource that we have. We have the assurance of the Minister and, I understand, the Department that the fishing that will be done in the vicinity of the Coral Sea will not be detrimental to tuna supplies. I think the Minister would agree that it must affect us a little, but the fact is that we are still trying to ascertain and define, to a great degree, where our resource actually comes from and where it is likely to go after it leaves the shores of Australia. Other countries, which know much more about the Pacific and areas around Australia's shores than we know, have a greater knowledge of the fishing resource, the currents, the winds and other factors affecting numbers of fish. These are matters that we must keep in mind. I am pleased to see the legislation that is before the House. We on this side of the House are certainly pleased to give it our support. We hope that it brings relationships between the Pacific Islands, Australia and the United States closer than they have been over recent years. We have seen some drift, from a diplomatic point of view, between the Pacific Islands and the United States, which I believe is solely attributable to the fishing rights problem. It is in the interest of Australia, from a foreign policy point of view, that close relationships be maintained between the United States, Australia and the islands concerned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) — I call the honourable member for Hotham. Mr Braithwaite —You have already spoken. You have been speaking for the last quarter of an hour. Mr McGauran —What do you know about fishing? Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.19) —Of course I know something about fishing. I quite regularly fished in the bay, and caught quite sizable snapper, I can assure honourable members. However, I have not done so since I have been in Parliament. Talking of fishing, I very much enjoyed the talk tonight by the Opposition about the Soviet intrusion into the Pacific, using Soviet bait, Soviet tackles, and so on, to catch fish. However, the problem really is American intrusion and the United States tuna fishing laws, which state that wherever the United States fishing boats go it is United States territory. They can do anything they like. But that is just not on with the newly emerging nations in the Pacific, and they will not cop it. Occasionally they use patrol boats. I have been on a patrol boat in the Pacific which put a shot over an American fishing vessel that was poaching tuna in the Pacific. Such vessels should stick to their own waters or pay for the fishing rights, which they do not like to do. The problem in the Pacific is not Soviet intrusion, but the fact that the Americans feel they have a God given right to do anything to the Pacific nations they like. That is not on any more. The South Pacific nations are asserting their independence, and I think that is important, and that is so irrespective of the position of those members in the National Party corner. Mr Peter Fisher —We are the only ones who are listening to you. We are here; none of your colleagues are. Mr KENT —You are here because I know something about fishing and about the emerging nations of the Pacific. They are not going to cop the stories from those members opposite about Soviet invasion. Those opposite are trying to frighten those nations with stories such as, `The Russians are coming'. In the elections back in 1966 during the Menzies era, when he wanted to frighten every Australian, I saw leaflets saying, `Here are the red arrows coming down from the north'. His was a policy of compliance, so that Australia would go `All the way with LBJ'. I think that members opposite should grow out of those attitudes, advance a decade or two and come to reality. We live in a world where even the smaller nations are asserting themselves. They have a right to regulate their own fishing and their own territories. The ally of a small nation will always look after its own interests rather than those of the smaller nation. What happens when it comes to agricultural exports and the United States? Opposition members fall silent when I talk about agricultural exports. Why do those members not talk to their United States allies and tell them not to subsidise their wheat exports. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to address himself to the terms of the Bill. Mr KENT —We are dealing with the subject of fisheries, and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources)(10.28) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) for his vigorous contribution to the debate on the Fisheries Amendment Bill. Mr Braithwaite —Is that the Government's official position? Mr PETER MORRIS —Can the honourable member not behave himself for once and just sit there and listen. Along with the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) on the Government side, the Deputy Leader of the National Party-the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd)-the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) and the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), the Government welcomes the Opposition's support for the legislation. I wish to deal with a few matters that were raised in debate. The honourable member for Murray raised the subject of log books. I advise him that these will be provided to the manager-co-ordinator of the Forum Fisheries Agency in Honiara. This will be provided to member countries and the South Pacific Commission in Noumea, which is the centre of the tuna assessment research program for the South Pacific. Similarly, in respect of the question about surveillance, observers will be provided for boats entering the Australian zone and there will also be air surveillance. One of the factors that helped to induce the Russian movement into the area-- Mr McGauran —Did Amann get the contract? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member should behave himself-I have warned him earlier. If the honourable member for Gippsland had made a contribution to the debate similar to that made by the honourable member for Lyne he could have felt well satisfied with himself. When the member for Lyne has something to say, it is usually well worth listening to. It is presented in a manner that befits the conduct of this chamber. Referring to the question raised by the honourable member for Wannon about development of Russian fishing activities in the Pacific, there is no doubt that this was contributed to by the American tuna boat owners, and both sides of the House have seen their activities over the years. We have noted the buccaneer manner in which they have carried out their activities in the South Pacific. Now through this legislation we are remedying that problem. It is a welcome development, as mentioned by the honourable member for the Northern Territory, that the United States Senate has unanimously endorsed the Treaty on Fisheries. It now remains for it to go to the Congress. The honourable member for Lyne asked about the impact on Australia's tuna resources in the far north-eastern section of our fishery zone-a relatively small section which will be available under the terms of this treaty. Our assessment is that any impact there would be relatively minor, and I think that resolves the honourable member's point. While the honourable member for Wannon worries about the Russian fishing boats out in the Pacific, my colleague the honourable member for Hotham told me privately that he had a much deeper concern. It related to the Russian tractors that were wandering all over the Australian countryside. I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on the motion of Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.28) —Since I took the opportunity in the grievance debate of 29 October to deal with the fate of the bowls program Jack High, I have been delighted at the number of honourable members who have spoken to me on that matter. They have expressed their concern and outlined the approaches they were making to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to have the program restored. Mr Lloyd —That is the biggest complaint against the ABC in my electorate at the moment. Mr RUDDOCK —I am gratified to hear that from the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Since I raised the matter I have not heard from the Chairman of the ABC. I do not suppose I should be surprised; I do not expect always to hear from people associated with matters I raise in this House. However, before I spoke in that debate I raised this matter with Mr Jackson, a man responsible for the ABC's corporate image. I let him know that I would be pressing this matter in the Parliament on every available opportunity, unless the ABC saw fit to give some reasonable explanation about its conduct in this matter. The decision to suspend the program Jack High was justified on the basis of budgetary restraint. When I spoke on the matter on 29 October I went through its history. I drew attention to the circumstances in which the ABC had led a number of people to the view that this program would be continued, and to announcements made in South Australia about plans to present Jack High during the bicentennial year. On that occasion I also spoke of a meeting held on 8 May at West Epping Bowling Club when a number of people involved in the production of the program Jack High were present. It was therefore with some regret that I had the opportunity of reading this week a statement by Mr David Hill dated 13 November. That statement said: The managing director of the ABC, Mr David Hill, said today the corporation would continue to televise lawn bowls in 1988. However, it is unlikely to be associated with the Mazda company, which has been the sponsor of the series Jack High. The statement went on: Given budget problems it was decided recently that the ABC would not cover the next Jack High tournament, to be played in Sydney. Mr Hill said this decision had caused misunderstanding, with many lawn bowlers believing that the ABC had withdrawn completely from the coverage of the game. He said another problem with Jack High had been the excessive advertising displayed by Mazda around the venue. In the statement Mr Hill then spoke of new guidelines on sponsorship and advertising which would preclude the Australian Broadcasting Corporation from covering the Jack High tournament, which he said predominantly advertised Mazda. I must say that I was somewhat surprised by that statement, coming so late in the day as it did. One would have thought that the way in which the Mazda company was associated with this production would have been raised as a question at the meeting at West Epping on 8 May. One would have thought that if it were a real problem, which should have been addressed before any suspension of the program was undertaken, some discussions would have been elicited with Mazda and the bowls fraternity about the future of the game. I am assured that Mazda was quite prepared to review the way in which it undertook its corporate sponsorship of this competition if that was likely to be a problem. But the company was never approached about that matter. I have also been assured that Mazda has already indicated to the ABC-now that it has learned that the ABC is offering this excuse, which is what it is doing-that it was prepared to reduce advertising that might be televised during the production of this important bowls game. I implore the ABC, as I have before, to review the decision that it has taken in this matter, to ensure that Jack High is broadcast during the bicentennial year and that the program promised and the commitments given be honoured. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(10.33) —Before joining the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) in some criticism of certain members of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)-although on a different topic-I make a point about one of the issues that were raised earlier, and that is the question of associations with the Soviet Union. To my mind, one of the most disturbing events in recent political history was the election of John Elliott to the presidency of the Liberal Party of Australia. He is also the President of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society which, as most of us know, is purely a propaganda organisation for the Soviet Union. If, as is usually the case, the person who accepts the presidency of such an organisation is a supporter of the Soviet system on ideological grounds, perhaps that could be justified by Mr Elliott. But few of us would doubt that the only reason for John Elliott's acceptance of the presidence of the Australian-Soviet Friendship Society was the fact that his commercial organisation is the largest commercial dealer with the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union had put pressure on him to accept that position. Those honourable members who followed the royal commission which was set up after the David Combe affair would be aware of the sort of pressure which is exerted by the Soviet Union on those who wish to trade with it. Those honourable members who are interested in the general problem of the association of Soviet commercial interests and its interference in other countries' politics should look at the official list of donations to Japanese political parties, which is published each year. Political parties there have to report donations in the same way as we now do here. The party which gets the largest donation from Japanese business in Japan is the Japanese Communist Party. Large sums of money-millions of dollars-are given to a party which is not terribly important, if one looks at the Japanese political system-- Mr McGauran —What about Lange? Lange got money from the Society. Do you deny that? Dr KLUGMAN —All right, the National Party of Australia may well be in favour of the Soviet Union insisting that those Japanese who want to have commercial deals with the Soviet Union have to make donations to the Japanese Communist Party. That is the honourable member's attitude and I am quite happy about it, if that is what he wants. I will now deal with a rather unpleasant subject-- Mr McGauran —Let us deal with the New Zealand Labour Party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Dr KLUGMAN —Let me change to a topic on which the honourable member may agree with me. During the week before last a prisoner was bashed in a New South Wales gaol. James Partlic was in prison because he had not paid some fines. There was much uproar in the Press and on the radio. I would like to condemn the utter hypocrisy on the part of the Sydney Morning Herald journalist associated with those stories and some of the people from the ABC, such as Andrew Olle and the PM program. About one year ago Frank Hardy, the communist author, decided to go to gaol rather than pay an amount of $6,000 in parking fines. He was treated as a hero for doing that. I think it is a ridiculous system when thousands of dollars of fines can be cut out on the basis of going to gaol for a couple of days, as happened in the Hardy case. The media made a hero of Frank Hardy for doing that with the utmost publicity in order to sell his latest novel, short stories or whatever he was trying to flog at the time. After having made a hero of Hardy they all now complain about a young bloke such as Partlic being persuaded to cut out $600 or $800 worth of fines by going to gaol for five days. Some of the responsibility for that sort of attitude must rest on the sorts of journalists and commentators in the ABC and the Sydney Morning Herald specifically. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.38) —In the adjournment debate tonight, I have been furnished with the opportunity to present to the House an area of widespread concern and frustration, highlighted by a constituent of mine, Mr Victor de Verteuil from Toowoomba. Mr de Verteuil has articulated the feelings shared by many people who live outside the metropolitan area, thereby being forced to rely for their television viewing upon regional country networks which provide a very good service, yet which are obviously not in a financial position to purchase televising rights, and therefore rely on arrangements from relevant networks. According to a McNair-Anderson survey, in 1986 this group of regional television viewers totalled a massive 4.76 million. These people represent almost one-third of the total Australian television viewers, including, of course, those residing in the metropolitan areas. Mr de Verteuil's concern, quite justifiably, focuses primarily on the situation whereby television networks seek to buy the sole rights to televise particular international sporting events, yet choose merely to show edited highlights of these events, if indeed anything at all. In section 83, sub-section (5) of the Broadcasting Act of 1942, it is stipulated that an application for the grant of a licence shall, before the licence is granted, give an undertaking in writing to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, that the network will, if the licence is granted to it, comply with the conditions of the licence. Mr de Verteuil believes, as do I, that if a network seeks to purchase the sole rights to a sporting event, it should be obliged to cover the entire event. Its current tactic of withholding coverage of certain events, means that it is effectively holding the viewing public to ransom. Let me cite but two examples of this. First of all, I wish to refer to the exciting final of the Davis Cup played on 4 October. Tennis fans had been afforded the opportunity to follow the progress of the tournament through preliminary matches. However, they were denied the opportunity to watch the most important match of the tournament when it was dropped in favour of televising the James Hardie 1000 motor race from Bathurst. A more recent example is the case of Channel 9 buying the exclusive rights to televise the World Cup cricket, yet merely choosing to show a live telecast of the first half of the final, thus depriving no fewer than 1.5 million cricket followers the opportunity of being witness to their long-awaited win. So Australia makes cricketing history, unwitnessed by Australian fans, yet televised in countries neither as affluent as Australia nor even participating in the event. This is strange for a country such as Australia which is so demonstrably proud of the achievements of its sports men and women. In view of the fact that in Australia there are currently three major commercial television networks, as well as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, such clashes should be unheard and are clearly unacceptable. The public good is not only served but also seen to be served when people are given access by right, and not by the whim of a monopoly, to witness sporting events in which their country is a participant. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(10.42) —During a previous adjournment debate I spoke about the proposed changes that are being flagged with respect to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. I was talking about the Workcare system in Victoria. Claims that Workcare would be an incentive for injured workers to return to the work force and that that would abolish the rorts flowing from awards of lump sum compensation have been proved to be no more than flash hopes based on an ideology which has no foundation. Partially incapacitated workers in Victoria are now spending an average of 26 weeks on compensation. Under the old common law scheme the average was 17 days. Injured workers are not returning to the work force. They are becoming long term dependants on the scheme instead. Today the advisory body to the Commonwealth Government is putting forward those very same arguments to justify its proposal to amend the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. These arguments, like those used by the Victorian Government in 1985, have no basis in fact. Mr McGauran —Hear, hear! Mr SCIACCA —I do not need the help of the honourable member for Gippsland. Let us look at the claim that the common law is the reason why injured workers are not returning to the work force. This argument is ridiculous in light of statistics published in the annual report of the Commission for Employees Compensation 1984-85. During that 12-month period, there were 39,420 injuries in respect of which determinations under the Act were made, and 19,804 injuries in respect of which determinations under the Act were made before 1 July 1984 and for which payments were made during 1984-85. During that year, 196 employees were interviewed by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service for rehabilitation assistance. Out of these new referrals and a carry-over from the previous year, only 150 were accepted, 34 were rejected, four were deferred and eight cases remained undetermined at the close of the financial year. During 1984-85 only 90 employees completed rehabilitation programs. Following rehabilitation, 26 employees returned to employment during the year. In the annual report of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation 1985-86, statistics show that during this period there were 29,211 injuries in respect of which determinations under the Act were made. There were also 28,337 injuries in respect of which determinations under the Act were made before 1 July 1985 for which payments were made during 1985-86. During that year, 347 employees were interviewed by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service for rehabilitation assistance. Out of these new referrals and a carry-over from the previous year, 310 were accepted, 33 were rejected and four were deferred. During 1985-86, 299 employees completed rehabilitation programs following rehabilitation and 74 employees returned to work during the year. Let me now turn to the claim that the present system costs too much to run and that the abolition of common law rights will substantially reduce those costs. Despite extravagant claims in the Press that the proposed new scheme will, by abolishing common law rights, effect a cost saving of $1 billion, I understand that the amount paid by the Commonwealth Government to employees as a result of successful common law actions is extremely small compared with the overall cost of the workers compensation scheme. There is no specific information relating to the amounts paid and, more importantly, to the components of such payments. While there is no evidence available to support the argument that the abolition of common law rights will effect any cost reductions, there are clear indications that it will produce significant cost increases. The current proposal aims to abolish common law actions for economic loss and non-economic loss. I do not believe any case has been made out for the need to abolish the hard won common law rights in the course of a review of Commonwealth government workers compensation legislation. I hope and expect that those who speak for the workers whose rights will be lost by these proposals will make their voices heard in this place. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(10.45) —It is to be hoped that the people of Latvia, in the course of their current struggle to throw off the yoke of their Soviet rulers, are aware that news of their continuing struggle has reached Australia. It is also to be hoped that they are aware that many parts of the Western Press have reported most recently the demonstrations that took place in Riga, the capital of Latvia. On that date a number of Latvians on their national day decided to embark upon what the Soviet authorities obviously regarded as a heinous crime. The crime that they proposed to commit-for crime undoubtedly the Soviet authorities would regard it as-was to lay flowers at the freedom monument in Riga. The response of the Soviet authorities to this activity, despite Mr Gorbachev's protestations of glasnost-a new openness and a new freedom, as they call it-was to prevent those Latvians from expressing in their own way the significance to them of their national day on 18 November. The Soviet police, numbering some 700 to 1,000, and a civilian vigilante force of 3,000 prevented those citizens of Latvia from expressing their sentiments on their national day and tried to prevent them in this most outrageous way from expressing their feeling that they still, as they undoubtedly are, are citizens of an entirely independent country. We saw on this occasion one more piece of evidence of the continuing attempt by the Soviet Union to enforce its shackles on some of the millions of people who live under that oppressive regime. The Soviet authorities, driven to defend themselves, wheeled out what they no doubt regarded as an articulate and persuasive advocate to speak for their cause. Whom did they wheel out to present their case but Mr Kim Philby. The people of Latvia should be told, as I hope they will be, if news of what I am saying ever reaches them-and I hope it does-that Kim Philby was a traitor. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the matter, he was a traitor, a person who sold out his own country to an alien ideology for money and for the rewards that the Soviet Union offered him and has continued to offer him since he defected. He was the scurrilous individual on whom the Soviet Union had to rely to present its case and to argue in public in Latvia to try to dissuade Latvians from demonstrating and expressing their desire that they might one day again be free. Here we have in a nutshell a very good example of exactly the way in which the Soviet Union in reality rules what is undoubtedly its own empire. This is the way it rules: by Soviet policemen preventing people from demonstrating peacefully. It uses the Soviet army and the Soviet police to do so and people who get in their way are simply trampled upon and pushed out of the way to prevent them from expressing their hopes of freedom. Then, with the most insulting argument of all, the Soviets bring out someone like Kim Philby to advance their case. I hope that the people of Latvia will know that there are people in the West who are still advocating their cause; that there are people in the West who hope that the Latvians will one day be free; that there are people such as those on this side of the House, if not those on the other side of the House, who remember that the Latvians are now under the yoke of the Soviet Union and who would encourage them to continue their fight to regain the independence of their country and their freedoms and liberties which the Soviet Union presently denies them. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.50) —The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Costa Rica's President Oscar Arias Sanchez was not only a great personal triumph but also an appropriate recognition of a plan which could mean `the possible return of peace and stability to a region long torn by strife and civil war'. That quotation is from the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. It is now over two months since the peace plan was signed by the Presidents of the Central American countries of Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua. But, despite strong support for the plan by the Nicaraguan Government and the El Salvador guerrillas, the United States Government has refused to welcome and support the plan, even though a number of members of Congress support it. On the contrary, President Reagan, against the wishes of many members of the United States Congress, is continuing to seek funding in support of the murderous attacks on civilians by the Contra forces in the country areas of Nicaragua. Mr Hollis —It is outrageous. Mr MILTON —It is outrageous, as the honourable member for Throsby comments. To continue with my speech, noting that the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) is in the chamber, I want to make some comments about an adjournment speech by the honourable member on Wednesday, 4 November, and indeed about interjections made by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) during my speech on Tuesday, 3 November, on the abuse of human rights in Chile. I agree with the honourable member for Menzies that there are abuses of human rights in countries with left wing governments. Regrettably, abuses of human rights occur in counties of all political persuasions. There are also abuses of human rights in the United States of America, in Northern Ireland-- Mr Courtice —And in Queensland. Mr MILTON —Yes, there are abuses of human rights in Queensland, in Australia, and, of course, in Tibet and Afghanistan. The problem with members of the Opposition is that they fail to realise that the abuses of human rights which I speak about in this House are so widespread and so brutal that reports of those abuses are appearing in the media virtually every day. Finally, let me point out to the honourable member for Menzies that in my speech I did not support the breaking of diplomatic relations with Chile but was in fact quoting the terms of the petition to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which had been presented by the Chilean protest group. In fact, I am pleased to report to the House that the group has ceased its protest hunger strike because of the sympathetic response it received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) and from members on this side of the House. I want just to return to the main topic of my speech, which is President Arias's central American peace plan and the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. The peace plan had already achieved results in El Salvador and Nicaragua, with President Duarte of El Salvador calling on the Reagan Administration to give the peace process a fair chance by withholding military aid to the Nicaraguan Contras until at least January. Both in El Salvador and Nicaragua efforts are being made to meet the terms of the peace plan. In El Salvador talks were to be held between the Government and the Farabundo Marti de Liberacion Nacional and Frente Democratico Revolucionario left wing guerrillas. In Nicaragua the Government had declared a ceasefire in the four war zones where its military forces had been fighting the right wing counter-revolutionaries. The Government had also lifted censorship on the Opposition's newspaper La Prensa and the radio station of the Catholic Church. Since the commencement of the implementation of the peace plan, however, right wing groups in El Salvador and Nicaragua have set about sabotaging the plan. In El Salvador, Mr Herbert Ernesto Anaya, President of the non-governmental Human Rights Commission of El Salvador, was murdered by a right wing death squad. In our Parliament, 12 members of the Federal parliamentary group Parliamentarians for Democracy in Latin America were so outraged by the death of the highly respected human rights campaigner that we sent a telegram to President Duarte in which we asked what was being doing to apprehend the criminals responsible, to protect activists in other human rights organisations from a similar fate, and to eliminate the death squads. In Nicaragua, the Contra rebels have shunned the offers of an amnesty by the Nicaraguan Government, which was the condition for peace talks with that Government. Peace commissions were set up in all war zones but the Contra military leaders have warned their men that they will be killed if they leave the rebel forces and take amnesty. The guerrilla wars in both Nicaragua and El Salvador have resulted in extreme economic and social hardships for the people, and yet the right wing forces in both countries are determined to sabotage the peace plan with their murderous activities. President Arias of Costa Rica is to be congratulated on his peace plan and the winning of the Nobel Peace Prize and I will make no excuse for bringing such an important initiative to the attention of this House. My only hope is that the Nicaraguan and El Salvador governments will continue to work for the peace plan and that the United States Congress will urge President Reagan to cease his support and encouragement of the Contra counter revolutionaries. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.55) —On the night of 21 June 1966, during the Federal election campaign of that year, the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Arthur Calwell, addressed a lively gathering at the Mosman Town Hall. While he spoke a 19-year-old male stood listening in the lobby of the hall, but left before the meeting finished to go to the gardens of the nearby Methodist church to recover an object he had planted there. At the end of the meeting Arthur Calwell emerged from the hall and proceeded to his Commonwealth car, which he entered and sat in the front seat on the passenger side. The door was closed for him. Calwell had a habit of always travelling with his car window open. But having just entered the car, fortunately the window was still closed. I say fortunately because less than six feet away from Mr Calwell was this 19-year-old with a sawn-off .22 rifle. He fired a shot at Mr Calwell but the window took the brunt of the shot which some said would otherwise almost certainly have killed him. Calwell felt a stinging sensation in the front of his face and chin, and had a blood-splattered lower face. However, he was relatively unharmed and, typical of the man, was only concerned with ringing his wife, Elizabeth, in Melbourne to tell her he was okay. He was discharged from hospital the following evening. The would-be assassin was born on 4 May 1947 in Newcastle, and christened Peter Raymond Douglas. However his father, an engineer, was killed in a car accident before his son was born. Five years later Peter Douglas's mother remarried Ludovit Kocan and the family lived in Melbourne. The marriage later broke up but the son assumed and retained the name Peter Kocan. After working in the country as a labourer and station hand he eventually moved to Sydney. He once wrote to the Sydney Headquarters of the Nazi Party that he admired Hitler because he had killed himself at the right time. He wanted notoriety of the kind received by Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of John F. Kennedy. He was quoted as saying: I had to do something to set me aside from all the other nobodies. The defence psychiatrist who examined Peter Kocan described him as `a borderline schizophrenic'. Because Kocan disagreed with Calwell's political views he was sufficiently unbalanced to want to assassinate him. Kocan pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for his murder attempt, and on 30 December 1966 transferred from Long Bay Gaol to the Morisset asylum for the criminally insane. There he remained until his release 10 years later on a five-year licence. While at the Morisset mental asylum he became interested in writing poetry and novels. One of his composite books The Treatment and the Cure was recommended reading in New South Wales for Higher School Certificate students in 1986. I was disappointed to see a number of schools take up the recommendation because I believe the author's past history of attempted assassination alone should have automatically precluded him from having his book considered for school children. There were those who argued that the book had literary merit. This claim, of course, is nonsense. The book is riddled with some the most pornographic, vile and sick language I have ever seen. There are pages laced with vivid descriptions of deranged people, of masturbation, of homosexual behaviour, of deviants ejaculating into the cups of women's bras for their thrills, and so on. The language used throughout the book could hardly be cruder and goes well beyond the bounds of decency. If people want to write this sort of stuff, so be it. However, by no stretch of the imagination should this be forced on school children. I had some parents complain to me it was unduly distressing for their children. I am also enraged to discover that this ex-would-be assassin has also been singled out for extravagant favouritism by the Australia Council. In the five grants he has received he has been lavished with taxpayers' money. In 1977, 1980 and 1982 he received grants for $10,000, $15,000 and $9,375 respectively. But only recently the amounts of money have markedly increased. In 1984 Kocan was given $25,000 for yet another senior fellowship. Now, only 3 weeks ago, another $29,000 of taxpayers' money was given to Kocan so that he can write poetry for a year. That is a total of $88,375. I do not begrudge this man any success he may have had at rehabilitating himself. However, I resent the influence he is having on our children, and the way he is draining our taxpayers' funds. When delightful books like Enid Blyton's Noddy books are banned from school libraries and weirdo rubbish like Kocan's is replacing them, and at taxpayers' expense, I sometimes wonder at the direction in which this country is headed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 November 1987: Defence Act-Determinations-1987- No. 77-Temporary Rental Allowance and other allowances. No. 78-Settling In and Settling Out Allowance and other allowances. No. 79-District Allowance and other allowances. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Order-1987-No. 7-Export Meat as amended (Amendment).