Tuesday, 26 April 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —My attention has been drawn to remarks by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) which appeared in today's Sydney Morning Herald expressing dissatisfaction with my performance in the chair. I have also received a letter from the honourable member in connection with the matter in which he states that he had a private conversation with a member of the Press and his confidence was breached. I reject the criticism made by the honourable member, and wish to stress that comments of this nature do harm to the institution of parliament. Members are reminded that all of them have a role to play in the orderly conduct of proceedings in this House and in the defence of the institution. I do not intend to take the matter any further. Mr WHITE —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Why did he mislead the Parliament in his answer to the honourable member for Hughes on 12 February 1986? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I say by way of preface on this issue, because there has been a great deal of discussion in the media about the safety of defence procedures that have been in place for a very long time, having regard to the whole debate on the Auditor-General's report and, in this specific instance, the answer to this question raised by the honourable member for Hughes some two years ago, that we have been discussing moving from a safe standard to a very safe standard and that all answers and discussion on this ought to be taken from that perspective. I made inquiries of my Department when those Press stories appeared over the weekend, seeking a full report on the circumstances and advice surrounding the answer to the question that was subsequently submitted to me. I have received that report from the Secretary to my Department and I accept its conclusions. The first is that the answer to the question was not inaccurate. The question related in the first instance specifically to Army storage requirements and that qualified the remainder of the questions. The answer to those questions was accurate. Evidence of that fact is that it is always open to members on both sides of the House, once a question has been answered, if they feel it ought to be broadened out or more things answered, to ask further questions. No further questions were asked in this instance, as might be expected. The honourable member for Hughes has a very specific concern with the question of Army storage dumps as they exist within his electorate. Where the problem arose evidently was that in devising that advice there was a discussion among officers of the Department on whether they ought to broaden out the answer to the question. In the course of that discussion by minute to each other they expressed themselves in a manner which I consider totally inappropriate. But that does not alter the nature of the answer to the question that ultimately emerged which I am satisfied was an accurate answer to what was asked. Of course, that is the obligation that is on me in answering questions in this House. Apropos the honourable gentleman's question on this matter, the problem with which the Department has been wrestling since 1981-he allegedly wants to tarnish me with taking no notice of things that are happening in my Department-arose from a decision to proceed to these standards in 1981 which was not advised to Ministers. Honourable members interjecting- Mr Tuckey —I do not tell lies in this place. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. I warn him. Mr Sinclair —What about them over there? Madam SPEAKER —I have already asked those on my right to cease interjecting. I ask them again to cease interjecting. Mr BEAZLEY —This issue arose from a decision by the Department in 1981. The Auditor-General found-and I agree with him-that this decision was not based on any realistic consideration of the time constraints, the costs and a variety of other matters involved in taking that decision. For two years that decision sat in the Department under the administration of the previous Government and Ministers were not informed and we have been wrestling with the consequences of that ever since. The Auditor-General also pointed out that, in the almost 2 1/2 years since the question of the honourable member for Hughes was answered, progress has been made towards implementing those requirements. In my view that progress has not been fast enough and there is action afoot to ensure that it is completed as quickly as possible. The area from which this question and in which this debate arose-neither of the public servants who were concerned with the debate are now in this section; one of them is no longer in the Public Service-is an area of the Department which we have selected specifically for efficiencies. Indeed, nine months ago I asked the Secretary to the Department to prepare a charter for changes in the defence logistics area. It has been targeted for something like $100m worth of savings and also improved efficiencies. I do not anticipate that in the future the type of totally inappropriate debate which took place between two departmental officials in this particular instance will occur again. Mr LEE —Can the Treasurer inform the House of the effects of reregulation of the Australian economy on our potential for growth of long term economic security? Mr KEATING —In the five years that this Government has been in office we have increasingly opened Australia up to the winds of international competition. Back in 1983 we as a government consciously decided that having tried the closed way for 40 years and watched Australia's standard of living decline there was no other recourse but for Australia to go the open way of launching itself with the rest of the world. That started principally by opening Australia up by the removal of exchange controls and then floating the exchange rate, having our exchange rate set in the market. We have fashioned since a dynamic financial sector by removing exchange controls; we have restored primacy of the banking system by abolishing deposit maturity controls; and we have increased competition in that sector by the entry of foreign banks. Beyond that sector we have sensibly addressed the issue of protection and the problem of key industries, particularly in steel and in motor vehicles, and we have steadily commercialised government business enterprises by winding back needless regulations. We are in the course of ending the two-airline policy. In the wages area we have fostered the right climate for industry, at the enterprise level, bargaining for efficiency gains. In virtually every nook and cranny of the economy we have faced up to and dealt with impediments to economic growth caused by needless and burdensome overregulation. These are all achievements which this Government alone has had the courage and the capacity to deliver. They are the things which were ignored on the other side of the House in the Fraser-Howard years. There is an issue outstanding where success has been only partly achieved and that is in respect to media law. In media law, as in other areas of the economy that I have just mentioned, the Government sought to open up the media of this country. That was occasioned by the Australian satellite, which has meant that the technology shift has been the factor which has determined the Government's policy on media law. That is, the satellite gave the capacity to television proprietors to deliver to rural and provincial Australia all of the services that were available in the capital cities. To do that the Liberal and National parties' two-station rule, which was imposed by Prime Minister Menzies to advantage particular proprietors in the past, had to go because in the aggregated zones the people in rural and provincial Australia who were to benefit from the satellite technology could not so benefit while ever the two-station rule applied. To take advantage of the satellite and to take advantage of the capacity to aggregate these zones so that we could give people in rural Australia better television, give them the right to watch everything that is watched in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and elsewhere, we as a government decided to remove the two-station rule and to put in its place an extended capacity of television ownership, but with one great distinction from anything the Liberals might have done. We have said that if people are in television they cannot be in print in the same places, under the cross-media rule. This decisive cross-media rule puts us in a position to allow sensible networking in television whereby a television proprietor, having been frozen out of the print media, could develop a national television network. That was to be accomplished by allowing an audience reach of enough capacity to network all of the capital cities plus a regional zone. That was encompassed within the Government's 75 per cent legislation-that is, 75 per cent of the audience reach of one network-bearing in mind that with three television networks, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, there is a 500 per cent audience reach. Because of the crazy behaviour of the Opposition in the Senate last week it is now not possible to network the capital cities. This is an issue of debate and it has come back to the Parliament for discussion. In a deliberative discussion among the Opposition front bench last week to consider what principle they should apply to this one area of commerce in Australia, when the Government has made clear what principle it applies to the rest of commerce in Australia, they said, `We are in the box seat here. We will get the Democrats to support us in the Senate. What will we do?'. They decided that they would go back to a bit more regulation, as they have always done. It is a trip back down the time tunnel to 1949 and 1951-the halcyon days of Menzies and McEwen and father knows best. The Opposition front bench is saying, `We know what is best for you because we are the Party of business and we have our stoolies on the company boards. We know and we will tell you what you will have. You will not be able to run a market forces philosophy. You will not be able to deliver television to country people because we will tell you that you cannot operate a television network'. When asked what the basis of this decision is they say, `We are not going to be told by the Government to accept some number it picks'. They are saying that 75 per cent is as good as 60 per cent. The fact is that there is a world of difference, otherwise there would not be an issue, because at 75 per cent we can network the whole country and run a sensible television group and we can allow major proprietors to deliver television to country people. I know that the Opposition does not want country people to get television from the capital cities. That is what it is about. Basically, the Opposition has it in for the country people and it has damned them to one television station. It does not want to give rural Australia three television networks. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I know the Treasurer wants to look after his cronies with regard to television networking-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Tim Fischer —Under standing order 145, his answer must be relevant to the question. The question asked by the honourable member for Dobell related to the economy. It did not drift into communication policy in detail and the Treasurer should be asked to come back to the question. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer has related his answer to the question. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, regulation under the coalition strangled this country before 1983, throttled it into the first negative growth-- Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr KEATING —Opposition members may laugh but they know it is dead right and all the people out there in Australian business know it is dead right. They must regard it as a very menacing and ominious development that the Opposition can sit down in 1988 in its executive and in its party room and say, `No, we will not have a sensible, logical network in television. We will not have a sensible, logical basis driving our industry policy. We will not let market forces determine anything; we will decide it'. As the Opposition always decided the exchange rate, interest rates, protection and everything else, so it would decide policy in this area because basically Opposition members are a bunch of regulators who think they know best. They have no respect for the market or market forces. But worse than that, they have no respect for a rational policy structure. They have no respect for country people who will be the beneficiaries of the change. So on whatever score one looks at it, Opposition members are back to the old caper they have always been at: when they get the cudgels or the levers they are basically into a bit of regulation. On the radio today, the Victorian Opposition Leader, Mr Kennett, said-- Mr Cadman —Madam Speaker, how much longer are you going to let him go on? Mr KEATING —The honourable member does not like it because it has shown Opposition members for what they are: a bunch of backwoods regulators. Mr Kennett said today: . . . we discussed it at our Federal Council some weeks ago with our Federal leader. And we assumed that this matter would be decided in a different way by the parliamentary party. In other words, the Leader was not able to deliver. That was a polite way of saying it. Mr Kennett went on to say: Well I'm sorry that the position, I know John supported, was not accepted by the Shadow Cabinet. But I have great confidence that the party will today reconsider its view. I hope John gets up because, as I have said here often, I am always calling him Mr Nearly. He nearly floated the exchange rate. He nearly deregulated the financial market. He nearly got control of the Budget. He nearly cracked down on bottom of the harbour schemes. He nearly reformed the tax system. He nearly taxed fringe benefits in the Bowen Basin and he nearly got a decent television policy through. So in these deliberations today I wish him well. I hope he does succeed and that Mr Kennett is right and he can deliver on what he said. What we have seen is the high farce of a party with a leader who cannot cut the mustard and a party which has no philosophical basis for its existence. That is the problem with the Australian television debate and that is the problem with the coalition: it does not know why it is there or what it is going to do with Australia. It has no phi-losophical basis for operating its policy and everyone in Australian business knows it. People there must be wincing in horror to see the kind of-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. This has got beyond a joke and if he keeps it up I will deal with him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has been warned. I suggest he take his seat. The Chair will deal with the House. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Just wait till I am finished. Do not thump the desk while I am speaking. The Chair does not accept the intervention of the honourable member for O'Connor in matters of this kind. Does the honourable member for Moreton have a point of order? Mr Donald Cameron —Yes. You did not name him, did you, Madam Speaker? Madam SPEAKER —No. Mr Donald Cameron —No, because the Prime Minister was saying, `Bring him to order'. You were taking instructions. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will sit down. I think the honourable member for Moreton had best be quiet from now on. The Treasurer should draw his answer to a close. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The Treasurer has been speaking for 15 minutes on a matter that is only tangentially related either to his responsibilities or to the question addressed to him. By any normal reading of standing order 145, the question, I would suggest to you, is entirely out of order. Immediately before the commencement of Question Time today you had reason to question some remarks made by the honourable member for Mayo. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the purpose and reason behind those remarks might well lie in the fact that you have not been prepared as yet to call the Treasurer to complete his answer. I suggest that you now do so. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the Leader of the National Party that the purpose of those remarks lay in the fact that there are members of this House who consistently refuse to accept the Chair's rulings. When the Chair draws attention to disorderly conduct-and continued interjections in which you take part yourself are disorderly conduct-the Chair expects those who are being disorderly to heed the Chair. You asked me earlier whether I was going to warn the honourable members on my right. I was not because I think they will have the courtesy to observe the Standing Orders and cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, there is another standing order that requires that in this place one shall not anticipate debate. As I understand the subject of the Treasurer's remarks, legislation is about to come before this Parliament. I suggest to you that on that ground, if on no other, his remarks should be ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will conclude his remarks. I remind him that answers are becoming far too long. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, I can understand the Leader of the National Party feeling sensitive about the fact that he is cutting down the right of country people to get television from the capital cities. Let me conclude on this point: the whole change in this economy-the rebuilding of our service and manufacturing sectors, the revitalisation of the economy, including the import competing and exporting industries, the turnaround in the current account, our increased competitiveness-has come from a rational, logical policy structure. Everyone out there in Australian commerce and business understands why that is so. They must look at this ham-fisted attempt to impose a parliamentary style `we know best' regulatory mode on any sector of the economy with horror. What they are seeing now in relation to television must frighten them. They would know that if the Opposition were to win an election it would be back to regulation, back to the bad old days of a regulated economy which destroyed them in the past. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Mr WHITE —Madam Speaker, I point out that this is the third question in 22 minutes. Madam SPEAKER —Ask your question. Mr WHITE —Does the Minister for Defence consider that the Royal Australian Air Force is currently a viable operational arm of the Australian Defence Force, given that the loss of pilots in the last six months has been 117 compared to the 20-year, six monthly average loss of 23 pilots, that the Chief of the Defence Force has made statements to the effect that 130 pilots are expected to leave the RAAF this financial year, while the RAAF has a capacity to train only 70 pilots per year and that Australia's only so-called operational fighter squadron, 75 Squadron, Darwin, three weeks ago, had only seven pilots to man 20 aircraft? Mr BEAZLEY —The answer to the honourable gentleman's question is yes. We, like all other air forces, in this period in which there is substantial recruitment by the civilian airlines sector, are suffering greater than average losses in pilots. If the honourable member thinks we have a problem, he ought to have a look at the United States Air Force and see the problems it is wrestling with. When he makes his overseas trip, during which, he has said, after all the nonsense he has been going on with in Press releases here, his top priority will be examining nuclear powered warships, perhaps he will deviate slightly from that priority and rock on over to the office of the United States air force and see what it has to say about the difficulties it has in maintaining pilots beyond their immediate return of service obligation. We have introduced an array of new defence forces remuneration policies. An increase in flying allowances has been approved by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. There is also an increase in training activity associated with these loss rates. As the Chief of the Defence Force has advised, whilst the Air Force does not necessarily have the manning levels we would want, nevertheless it is manned to a reasonable operational level. As to the question of Darwin, which the honourable member has raised and which I answered in the House some time ago, the point is that when we are in a period of transition, moving from one type of aircraft to another, there is a requirement in the end to withdraw all our fighter squadron members to be trained on the new aircraft. I would have thought that that stood to reason. The processes by which this withdrawal is taking place were not determined in the last few months, they were determined some years ago-indeed, probably when those opposite were in office. That is when-and it is perfectly acceptable-the pace at which people would be retrained on the FA18 aircraft was determined. Obviously if war breaks out in the next few weeks we will transfer back to Mirage squadrons some of the pilots who are currently at the operational conversion unit being trained to fly FA18s. But in the absence of war in the next three weeks, we will persist in our efforts to ensure that when the FA18s are fully in service they are fully and properly manned. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question, directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations, arises from the number of options being considered in the community in connection with the development of wages policy. Will the Minister bring us up to date, clarify the position and explain the progress being made in discussions between the Government, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and employer organisations in the development of wages policy? Mr WILLIS —There have been discussions between the Government, the ACTU and employer organisations in recent days on wages policy, and also there will be discussions in the next week or two. I am not able to disclose the full details of those meetings but I can say that there is agreement between the parties that the wages system should continue to provide a positive impetus for a more productive economy. That is a very welcome level of agreement. Of course, with the second tier system, we have for the first time a wages system which is providing positive inducement to increased productivity. It is also agreed that although the second tier has had that effect the parties generally agree that it needs to be changed. The unions are concerned about the lack of access, with only 50 per cent of wage and salary earners under awards having received a second tier increase at this stage, and employers generally wanting to have a wider menu of options under that second tier principle. There is also recognition that award restructuring can provide substantial productivity gains in the future. Unions have also flagged their concern that the process of real wage decline should come to an end. This is clearly more possible in the context of falling inflation, which, as honourable members would be aware, is anticipated to be around 6 per cent by the end of this financial year and, as the Treasurer has recently indicated, should be around 5 per cent by mid-1989-perhaps less. The Government has indicated also in these discussions that a relevant factor in wages outcome is the rate of increase in wages in our competitor countries. For this reason the rate of increase in wages in Australia must be constrained to present levels or less. As a result of these and further discussions we will be having, we are confident that this country will continue to have a wages policy which will be conducive to economic recovery and to restructuring and that as we go into the May review we will have a lot of agreement towards that end. The past performance of the Government would give confidence that that would be the case because, as everyone in this House is aware, the reality is that wages policy has been one of the more spectacular areas of success for this Government. We have been able to achieve, by agreement, a remarkable change in the wages system in this country, with a reduction in the rate of increase in nominal wages to almost half the rate of increase which applied under the previous Fraser Government. We have also achieved a reduction in the real level of wages of 7 per cent and in real unit labour costs of 10 per cent. Those, of course, were difficult reductions to achieve in the sense that they were difficult for the parties involved, but they were not difficult for the economy as a whole because they were achieved by agreement. They were achieved by the Government and the unions agreeing to the basis of our wages policy and convincing the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that the policy should be implemented. Had there been no such agreement, clearly such necessary wages policy changes could have been achieved only by a massive depression of the economy to bring about the much lower level of wage increases. That would have been extremely difficult to achieve. I am very interested to note that in today's Melbourne Herald the honourable member for Goldstein has acknowledged that on wages the Opposition could not have done as well as the Government has done. He said: I frankly am in no doubt that the wages outcome which has been delivered so far by the Government could not have been achieved by a coalition Government, even- he added- if I had been Industrial Relations Minister. That statement by the honourable member for Goldstein is absolutely correct. There is no way that the Opposition could have achieved the wages outcome which this Government has achieved, because it could never have achieved it by agreement. The only alternative was to attack the economy in a way which would have required large increases in unemployment, and had the Opposition achieved the wages outcome, it would have been at great economic and social cost, as all members of the Opposition know. We are confident that wages policy will continue on the path which this Government has set it on; that is, that it will be conducive to economic recovery, to the restructuring of this country, and that it will continue to be a major success for this Government. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. The Minister would have been advised that yesterday, Anzac Day, there was a dedication at Mareeba in north Queensland of a memorial to the airmen of the 19th and 43rd bomber groups of the United States Air Force and to the Australian and Allied airmen who flew out of there during World War II. He would be aware also that a fly-past of two B52 aircraft of the United States Air Force was arranged to coincide with the dedication, to commemorate the Australian-United States liaison in the Pacific campaign during World War II. I ask the Minister: Was diplomatic approval for this flight withdrawn late on Saturday and was the local community informed of this only yesterday at 10.10 on Anzac Day morning? Was the Government influenced in this decision by anti-nuclear demonstrators? Was the decision to withdraw approval left so late that the aircraft were actually over New Guinea en route from Guam when they were recalled? Mr BEAZLEY —I am not aware of the circumstances to which the right honourable member refers in his question, except to say in a general way that I will check it out and send him an answer on the subject. I will check it out against the background that we have on approvals of flights for B52 aircraft into Australia, which are related to the numbers that were agreed by honourable members opposite, when they were in office, with the United States for low-level training flights and the like back in 1981. We have maintained those rates of flight over Australia and requests for appearances of B52s at air shows and the like-and there are many of them, and many accepted-as contained within the agreement that honourable members opposite arrived at with the United States. I think the agreement as we are implementing it is a reasonable one. I do not know whether the circumstances that occurred in this instance, if they are as was outlined by the right honourable gentleman, were a product of those agreed limits being exceeded or whatever. That has occasionally been the reason in the past why there has been a refusal for a B52 overflight-those agreed limits have been reached. It is conceivable that that was the case in these circumstances, but I am not sure. I will have a look at the right honourable gentleman's question and give him an answer as soon as I can. Mr DUBOIS —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and Territories. Following questions in this House last week, has the Minister instituted any further inquiries about the recommendation that Dr Geoff Caldwell lead the social impact study team for the Australian Capital Territory casino? Mr PUNCH —Dr Caldwell was appointed to head the social impact study following a recommendation from my Department and the National Capital Development Commission. The Department based the recommendation on an evaluation of his career and his achievements and on the high regard in which he is held in the Australian Capital Territory community. Dr Caldwell, for the information of the House, is the head of the Australian National University (ANU) Centre for Continuing Education. He has held various posts at the ANU over the past 20 years and has acted as a consultant to a variety of Australian and international institutions. I am informed that he is an acknowledged independent expert on gambling studies. Following an inquiry by the Opposition last week about `Dr Caldwell's past and present associations with the gambling industry', I directed the Department to re-examine its earlier advice to me. The Secretary to the Department, Mr Tony Blunn, and other senior officials met with Dr Caldwell late last week. I am advised that Dr Caldwell referred to his involvement over the last decade in a range of debates in various States on gambling issues. In particular, I am advised that he described the nature of his participation in the campaign by the Licensed Clubs Association of Victoria in relation to poker machines in that State from about 1979 to 1982. These events have been canvassed in the report of the Inquiry into Poker Machines in Victoria, known as the Wilcox report, which was published in 1983. Dr Caldwell indicated that he had had discussions with and had appeared at seminars during that campaign with a Mr Vibert. I am advised that Mr Vibert was actively involved in the campaign for poker machines by the Licensed Clubs Association of Victoria and that Dr Caldwell participated in that campaign. I am also now aware that Mr Vibert was later charged with criminal offences, I think in New South Wales, but I am advised that on appeal the prosecution case was not successful. I understand that Dr Caldwell has informed my Department that his association with Mr Vibert and his role in this campaign and before the inquiry were those of an independent academic expert on these issues. I am advised further that he has stressed that, apart from payment for expenses and what he described as the going rate for speaking fees, he received no other remuneration for this activity. I am advised further that he has apparently appeared from time to time in a number of forums in most States. Mr Blunn has advised me that he believes that, on the information available, there is no evidence to call into question Dr Caldwell's appointment to the inquiry or to question the original advice given by the Department and the National Capital Development Commission. Dr Caldwell was chosen to lead the casino social impact study because of his acknowledged expertise in gambling studies and his professional reputation. I conclude by saying that, if any honourable member has any more to say or any specific thing to say on this matter, I suggest that he say it. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to his Press statement yesterday when he said: . . . the Government is in complete accord with the Reserve Bank's recent smoothing actions in the foreign exchange market. Can the Treasurer explain how the substantial purchase of foreign exchange throughout the months of March and April will impact on the domestic money supply and on the outlook for inflation? Mr KEATING —There is not much to be gained by me, the Government or anybody else commenting on the exchange rate. I just say that whenever the Reserve Bank of Australia makes judgments about smoothing the market to avoid shifts in buying and spending patterns which disrupt the rate, it does so professionally and well. I do not think the shadow Treasurer should worry too much about the effect upon the money base. We had much greater purchases of assets in the last 12 months than in recent times, yet the monetary aggregates have shown that they are not too accommodating of inflationary tendencies. Mr KERR —My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. Will the Government receive the full price for the Australian Embassy sale in Tokyo? Mr WEST —Recently I announced the details of the proposed embassy redevelopment package in Tokyo. I said that there would be a bottom line receipt by the Australian Government of 57.573 billion yen and that this would translate, at a rate of 90 yen to the Australian dollar, to $640m. Components of that project were, of course, the sale of some surplus land, the sale of some apartments on Mita Avenue and the construction of the embassy project, which was to, and still will, include the construction of a new chancery, 43 new staff apartments, an ambassador's residence and some recreation facilities. Since that announcement the office of the Tokyo Metropolitan Governor has objected that the land price component was rather high. Since then we have been conducting a series of negotiations with the Mita consortium and the office of the Tokyo Metropolitan Governor. We have renegotiated a land price component which represents a moderate reduction and is in line with the guidelines that they have imposed on us. Opposition members interjecting- Mr WEST —Hang on; wait for it. However, I am happy to announce-honourable members opposite should have waited to hear the rest of my reply-that the negotiations have also produced variations to several other components of the package, which also includes the price of the construction contract. The end result is that the Australian Government will receive 57.673 billion yen as a bottom line figure, which is slightly more than the figure that I announced to the House several weeks ago, which would translate to about $641m at the rate of 90 yen to the dollar. I am also happy to announce to the House, in conclusion, that we now have the approval of the Tokyo Metropolitan Governor, that we signed the contract with the Mita consortium last Friday and have received 10 per cent of the bottom line finance. We will get the balance of the money on 20 May next. I expect the embassy project to be completed within budget, on time, by June 1990. Mr SHACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Education Services. I preface my question by referring him to his address at the Young Labor Conference at the weekend in his capacity as Minister for Employment and Education Services, when he said: I believe we must face up to the hard issue of increasing tax revenue, particularly by further reducing avoidance through loopholes in business tax collection. Will the Minister identify these loopholes in business taxation and how much they are costing taxation revenue? Has the Minister discussed the closing of such loopholes with his colleague the Treasurer? Mr DUNCAN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I would have thought that he would have known that it has been this Government's policy since the time that we were elected to spend a great deal of the resources available in closing such loopholes and we are continuing to do so. I think it is well known that it is one of the great achievements of the Treasurer of this Government that he has done that and will continue to do so. The details of the loopholes that have been closed to date are well known to the House. As a Government, we have a review of business taxation under way at the moment. That review is being undertaken within the Treasurer's portfolio. It is clearly more appropriate for him to comment on the details of that than me. Mr BALDWIN —Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade noted criticisms over the weekend by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the amount of attention he has given to the South Pacific region? What is the nature of the Government's involvement in this region? Mr HAYDEN —I did notice a rather fascinating interview which the Leader of the Opposition gave on the subject of foreign affairs to the Australian newspaper. It seemed to plumb the depths of his knowledge on the subject; it did not require a very deep plumb line, as I read the article. The statistics do not bear out this repeated claim that he makes. For instance, I have visited 12 countries in the South Pacific since I have been Foreign Minister, with another five to six to come in a few weeks time. I have been to Papua New Guinea on five occasions and there will be more visits this year. I find it necessary to put that down first because if we are to engage in this interesting little exercise of `show me your statistics and I will show you mine', I will show the Leader of the Opposition that I have bigger statistics than he has. The Leader of the Opposition has yet to discover the South West Pacific. He has not been there yet. His Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for North Sydney, has been there. He was there last November, but only after I goaded him in the Parliament, by pointing out that, although he was moralising about the need for more attention on the South West Pacific, he had not been there himself. The honourable member for North Sydney has yet to discover Papua New Guinea and he is keeping clear of it like the plague. The Leader of the Opposition has been to Papua New Guinea. He was once there overnight. The Prime Minister scourged him there to attend the tenth anniversary celebrations of Papua New Guinea. I have quite a number of statistics that show that every year there have been visits to the South West Pacific and Papua New Guinea by Ministers of the Government but, as far as the front bench of the Opposition is concerned, no-one went to Papua New Guinea in 1983, 1986 or 1987 or to the South West Pacific in 1983, 1984 or 1985. Where are the high-powered direction, the intellectual depth and the physical endeavour behind what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about when he gives it such primacy? After all, he must have some grand designs or some broad plan. When asked what sort of initiative he would take to improve relations with the island countries he responded in a very moving fashion by saying: I think I'd have a more high-powered diplomatic and intelligence involvement. I'm not quite sure I've thought through the formula. That does not say much for the intelligence that he would apply to the particular task. If one cares to look at this interview which appears on page 27 of the Weekend Australian, we gather some of these fine grains of wisdom from the great storehouse of intellectual resources that are available to the Opposition. When asked about his views on foreign policy he said: Don't press me on the detail. I just don't want to get into it. That is redolent of Bjelke-Petersen when he was Premier of Queensland and trying to knock off the right honourable member for New England as Leader of the National Party in this House. A journalist asked him, `What about foreign policy, Mr Premier?'. He said, `Ah, you won't catch me with any of those trick questions'. The Leader of the Opposition was then asked about Japan's role in a military sense. After all, he did let this hare run a few weeks ago when he was away from Australia. He said: Oh, I haven't given any thought to the form . . . . . . . They shouldn't demand of those who say things that, well, you tell me exactly what is going to occur. Well, I'm not going to. I haven't worked it out in my own mind. He has certainly got plenty of room to move these things around, backwards and forwards and sideways and up and down, without having any sort of collision. When asked whether he would see greater Japanese spending in a military sense concentrated in the north Pacific or down here, he said: I don't have a developed view on that . . . Talking about the detail is something that more properly belongs to John (Spender) and Peter (White). These are the two resources of greatest wisdom on these matters in the Opposition. The honourable member for McPherson has as much authority on defence as a half-pay admiral from the Swiss Navy. Of course, we all have a dear affection for the honourable member for North Sydney. His doleful visage reminds us all of a basset hound on holiday from a Pal pet food advertisement on television. It does not help much with understanding foreign policy. To wind it up: the Leader of the Opposition had this to say when he was pressed about a Japanese military role in the region: Oh yes, well, I mean there's a certain amount of that now. I mean, aren't there some sort of naval exercises? The interviewer had to remind him that his own Government supported the introduction of the Rimpac naval exercises which involved Japan. I think if we are going to have this silly sort of comparison-`I have been there more times than you have been there'-the Opposition comes off second best because my record throughout the Asian-Pacific area shows up better than that of my predecessors. But it is scarcely a real challenge. For instance, the honourable member for Kooyong, whom I have referred to before in this House as having been a distinguished Foreign Minister of this country, and I refer to him as such again, would not have been to, for instance, Thailand or Indonesia as frequently as I have, but he would have met those people frequently at multilateral forums, as I have met the Foreign Ministers for Japan, Korea or China in those countries, but more frequently at multilateral forums. I really think that we need to get foreign policy down on to a substantial basis for discussion and not some sort of flimsy response from the Leader of the Opposition when he says: Don't press me on the detail. I just don't want to get into it . . . That really is redolent of Bjelke-Petersen at his worst. Mr Spender-Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order in relation to the answer given by the Treasurer to the question put to him today. I think the Treasurer's answer took up about 15 minutes of Question Time and the question itself was a very lengthy one. Madam Speaker, if Question Time is to have any meaning, then I hope that you will express the view that not only should questions be short, but that answers should be at least one-third the length at the outside of the answer given by the Treasurer, which was no more than an opportunity of using Question Time for a political attack. I should be glad if you would, for the purposes of the conduct of the business of this House, express a view on the use of Question Time-- Madam SPEAKER —The Chair has asked for both questions and answers to be shorter. I can only hope that members will take heed of what I have said. Questions are coming in five and six parts, which then makes the answer very much longer. If we could have them more concise and the answers more concise, it would assist the House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add to a debate that concluded on 21 April when the House was last in session. Madam SPEAKER —The Attorney-General has the Chair's indulgence. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —On 21 April when members were debating the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 in the committee stage, at the conclusion of the debate the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), by way of interjection to me, said, `Does this information follow the issue of a warrant for telephone tapping?'. I said, `Yes'. I want to make the explanation that the information sought did not follow the issue of a warrant for telephone tapping; it related to call charge records. For call charge records the Australian Federal Police do not have to issue a warrant. Following this amendment the National Crime Authority does not have to issue a warrant but at all times telephone tapping does require the issue of a warrant. It could be read then in this case, if I did not correct it, that this information was available only after the issue of a warrant for telephone tapping. I emphasise that warrants always have to be required for telephone tapping. This is call charge information and a warrant is not required because it is not required by the Federal Police. To that extent I want to correct that answer. I did indicate to the honourable gentleman that I would make that explanation. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to add to an answer that I gave at Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —Leave is granted. Mr BEAZLEY —I have just received a piece of advice from my office saying, in answer to the question by the right honourable member for New England, that Australia approved the B52 flights; the United States then cancelled the flights for operational reasons. That is the latest piece of advice on it. If there is anything in addition that I need to say on the matter, I will send a note. Mr SPENDER (North Sydney) Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —Yes, I do and, once again, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden). The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, in answer to a question put to him, spoke about his record on travel and contrasted unfavourably the record of travel on this side of the House. The implication was that we were not trying. He said that he had travelled a great deal, as indeed he has. For example, he has had 39 overseas trips-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must show the House where he has been misrepresented. Mr SPENDER —I am getting to that, Madam Speaker. Honourable members will be aware that the Minister has had 39 overseas trips, most recently with his own personal doctor. I am not sure whether that is for his mental or physical disability-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member get on to the part where he was personally misrepresented. Mr SPENDER —The implication was that we were not travelling and that we had the right to do so. I point out to the House that that is wrong, that we get no special travelling allowances, and that the only travel which is given by the Government, a trip to the United Nations, was, in fact, cancelled by him. The trip that I made to the South Pacific region was paid substantially out of my own pocket and all other trips will be paid out of my own pocket. In relation to the particular matter of Papua New Guinea, he said that we were keeping clear of it like the plague. I repeat what I said and add that when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea were here recently I had the opportunity to meet them and I am glad to have had that opportunity. I look forward to going to New Guinea. If the Minister wants to provide a special travelling allowance, I would be glad to have it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has finished his personal explanation. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented by omission in the article to which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) referred in Question Time. I did have an interview with the foreign affairs correspondent of the Australian newspaper and the interview lasted for about an hour and a half. I was a little taken aback at the highly selective character of what was reproduced in the article. Government members-Ah! Mr HOWARD —Those opposite can make as much noise as they like; I am patient. I do share the view of the Foreign Minister that there ought to be sensible exchanges on foreign policy. For the sake of the record, because the relationship between this country and Japan and the role of Japan in our region are of supreme importance to our future and because what I said on the subject was trivialised and misrepresented by the Australian newspaper and also by the spokesman, let me read from the transcript of the interview that I had with the journalist one of a number of answers that I gave: . . . I haven't given any thought to the form . . . The concept is fairly embryonic. I am not thinking about particular levels of spending, or particular levels of military . . . I am just making the obvious point that a country that has the economic influence of Japan, her economic power, inevitably her strategic and politic role grows. I think that ought to be said, that ought to be recognised. People should start thinking about it and talking about it and debating it. They shouldn't demand of those who say things that, well, you tell me exactly what is going to occur. That was the quote that was lifted from a larger answer by the journalist and not surprisingly seized upon by the point-scoring Minister for Foreign Affairs. The article continues: Well, I'm not going to. I haven't worked it out in my own mind. But I am signalling the reality, as Brzezinski- referring then to the former American national security adviser who addressed a conference in Melbourne only a couple of months ago- and others have said-and there's nothing terribly revolutionary about it- I remind the Foreign Minister that his own Prime Minister only seven months ago advocated a greater military role for Japan in our region. So he should not come into this House and start trying to score points on that particular issue. The document continues. . . . and there's nothing terribly revolutionary about it-that Japan politically and strategically is going to be an increasing power in the area. Now obviously her increased influence should occur in a manner that respects the sensitivities of countries in the region. The point of misrepresentation is very plain: the writer lifted the least flattering of the remarks that I made. These remarks were taken totally and completely out of context. Of course the eager beaver, the Foreign Minister, like a little lap-dog on this subject-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is giving the honourable member a certain latitude because of the misrepresentation. Mr HOWARD —It is nothing more than I am entitled to receive, Madam Speaker, from the Chair. It has long been the practice in this House to accord indulgence and latitude to leaders of major parties and in that respect I do not regard that as a great favour; it is something to which I am entitled in this Parliament. A further point of misrepresentation is borne out by the remarks of the Foreign Minister. The misrepresentation relates to the fact that the article made no reference to the criticism I offered of this Government having abandoned the Commonwealth regional meetings. It made no reference to the failure of the early warning system of this Government in relation to Fiji, and it also made no reference to the criticism I offered and my predecessor, the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), offered to the Government's inability in the early stages of the collapse of the ANZUS Treaty to remonstrate with sufficient strength about the wrecking exercise of the Lange Government. I conclude by saying that I welcome a completely non-trivial, intelligent debate on foreign affairs. I do not regard the rather trivial and juvenile contributions however entertaining they may be at the time, of the present Foreign Minister as aiding that particular process. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Industry Research and Development Board-Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 46 (3) of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986. Advance to the Minister for Finance-statement of expenditure-February 1988. Advance to the Minister For Finance-statement of expenditure-March 1988. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The incompetence displayed by the Minister for Defence in the administration of his department. 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 WHITE(McPherson)(3.03) —This matter of public importance relates to the administration of the Department of Defence by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I want to start on the handling and storage of defence ammunition and on the fact that the Minister, despite what he said today and the fact that he tried to blame his Department, has misled this Parliament. Whether he had been misled by someone else is irrelevant. He is the Minister and he has misled the Parliament. He admits that the answer to the question from the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) in 1986 was not complete. It was not complete; it was a deliberate falsehood because the departmental officers who handled that question set out deliberately to give a misleading answer to the Minister. As one departmental source is reported to have said, `It was a slimy attempt to avoid telling the truth'. That is the sort of department he runs. So there is no question that the Minister misled the Parliament. The question by the honourable member for Hughes on 23 April 1985 asks: . . . Are there schools and other public institutions within these NATO zones; if so, where and how many. . . Is there public or private housing within these zones; if so, where and what amount. Ten months later-the question having gone round and round the Department no doubt while officers worked out how they were going to give the answer-the answer was tabled by the Minister. It states: No public institutions or private housing are affected on account of their location within zones established by the NATO principles in proximity to Army ammunition dumps. The Department deliberately-and these comments are on paper-said, `We will only talk about Army, that way we will keep it clean. We certainly will not talk about the Navy or the Air Force because we will be in trouble'. Does the Minister accept responsibility for that or does he not? If he does not, how can he say that he is running a department? How to frame this reply was openly discussed in the Department. The Department said, `Will we feed the Minister this line or will we feed him that line?'. The matter of giving the Minister the truth to the question was not considered at all. Obviously, the Minister is being treated as a child or as a fool by this Department. He is certainly being insulted because his Department is regarding him as irrelevant. The attitude by the Department of Defence raises some very interesting questions. Why is the Department giving the Yes Minister treatment to this Minister for Defence? Why is it not telling him the truth? How is it that departmental officials are openly discussing what line of misinformation they will feed their Minister? How can they commit such comments to paper? The reason is that the Department is simply not taken seriously by the Minister for Defence. It regards him as a man with an obsessional interest in equipment and in nothing else-not in his Department, not in the 70,000 men and women whom he nominally commands-except big equipment items. So it treats him accordingly. What is the use of giving him any information if he is not interested in running the Department? It is common knowledge in the Department that this is the Minister's approach, so his officers naturally please themselves about what they will do, how they will treat matters and what they will serve up to him. Part of this is caused by the fact that over the years he has completely rejected their advice. The paper by the chiefs of the Services on wastage in early 1987 was given to the Minister. It said that the Services had a problem. Until the middle of 1987 the Minister said in this House time and time again that there was no problem in the Services. He ignores his chiefs of the Services. The report by the Hamilton Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses is supposed to fix up all the problems of service families. It was 18 months before one recommendation was implemented. The PC9 trainer is now coming into service against the advice of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The Minister knows best. He will have the PC9 trainer and now the RAAF has to reorganise the whole of its training cycle to accommodate his new trainer. On 21 April there was another equivocal answer given in this House. The Minister said about ammunition storage: . . . now no permanently inhabited area on Sydney Harbour remains within the prescribed safety distances. What does the Minister mean by that? Does that mean that there are areas where people go that are not permanently inhabited but the people are in danger? I ask the Minister to clarify that. I also ask the Minister: Has the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) been in touch with the former Premier of New South Wales about this matter? Did he know that there were areas of Sydney that did not conform to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) standards? Has he, the Prime Minister, tried to circumvent the very guidelines that he, the Minister, is trying to implement within his Department? Again the Minister said in here that the situation is obviously undesirable but it is not unsafe. What does that mean? Is it possible to be undesirable but not unsafe? Is it safe or is it not? Is he implementing the guidelines? The Minister is also on record as saying that it is impossible to completely comply with the guidelines. The whole situation is a mess and we hope, for the safety of people who live around these ammunition depots, that this afternoon the Minister will clarify the situation. How can it be safe when it does not comply with the NATO guidelines? When will all the depots be brought up to scratch? What will be the cost to implement these standards? On how many other occasions has information been withheld from the Minister? How many public risk waivers has the Minister now signed and when did he sign them? Why should we ever trust anything the Minister says in this place again? I turn briefly to another major area of maladministration: namely, the enormous wastage rates occurring in the Services because 70,000 men and women, who look to the Minister, as their nominal commander, for leadership and guidance, are flocking out of the Services in record numbers month after month. The Minister has failed to take any responsibility for their welfare. He concentrates on his equipment projects, three of which are now in disarray. That is the irony of the situation: even the things he concentrates on he cannot do properly. The treatment of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel is a disgrace-it is not only incompetence; it is neglect, ignorance and arrogance. The Minister is presiding over the dismemberment of the Australian Defence Force. The security shield that we rely on around this country is gravely weakened. Our capacity to influence events in our region of interest is almost non-existent. The Minister has displayed no interest in or knowledge or understanding of the people he commands. He comes forward with academic views on defence and ignores the most important resource of all, the people who are supposed to make it work. In the last three years he has lost over one-third of the people he commands-27,000 people have left the Services. I did not spend 21 years in the Army to come into this Parliament and see the Minister dismember the Australian Defence Force. We intend to keep pressure on the Minister and his Government until they take some action to do the right thing by the people who serve the Minister and this country. The Minister said today that we should look at America; it has a problem. We are not interested in the American problem; we are interested in what the Minister intends to do for the service men and women of Australia. Let us look quickly at some of the wastage figures. Between 1984 and 1987, through the Minister's own direct efforts, he reduced the Services by 2,000. In 1983 we lost 6,500 people from the Australian Defence Force; in 1987 we lost 9,113. In three years we have lost 27,000, which is 42 per cent-that is in three years-of the trained force of 63,000 in the Australian Services. In January this year a record 1,200 people left the Australian Defence Force and in February another 800 left. In two months of this year, 2,000 people left. If that rate is projected over one year it comes to 12,000, which would mean that 17 per cent would leave in one year. By comparison, the United Kingdom wastage rate is less than 5 per cent. The Army, for example, has lost 11,200 men in the two years to July and was 421 officers short at the last count. A system which cannot meet the replacements means that the shortage will increase by 60 a year. One hundred and seventy-seven lieutenant-colonels have resigned in the last 15 months; 62 of them have held unit command. How does one replace that sort of experience? Ninety-eight of them have been to a staff college. Only 9 per cent of the Australian Army now has been in active service. One simply cannot replace that experience that is daily leaving the Army in particular. The debilitating effect on the Army is destroying the force as we have known it. The saddest story of the lot is the RAAF. I simply do not have time to go into that. These are not just my views. Let me quote briefly a submission from General O'Donnell, the Chief of the General Staff, to the parliamentary committee on wastage which is now sitting and which we set up through the Senate because the Government would not act. He said. High wastage in the Army is of major concern and has the potential to pose significant long term consequences for national Defence. He went on to refer to `the deleterious effect on Army capability', and said: Current wastage levels cannot be tolerated without detriment to capability . . . Operational Deployment Force is under strength . . . skeletal levels of manning in lower priority units with resultant loss of capability . . . infantry battalions (not in ADF) required to operate at 71 per cent of their complement . . . reduction in the number of quality officers not available for promotion . . . adverse effect on management and leadership. General Jeffries, the commander of the 1st Division, has repeatedly asked for more men-up to 4,000 men. He said that we cannot sustain the Division in the field for any length of time. I very much doubt that we can sustain even one battalion in the field for a matter of weeks. So the story goes on-through the Navy, the Air Force and the whole of the Defence Force. Wherever we turn the glorious empire the Minister sees himself heading, with the great academic views on what we should be doing about defence, is falling apart. His departmental administration is a shambles, with officers busy asking themselves whether they will tell the Minister something or give him certain information or misinformation day by day. The neglect of personnel has resulted in a record exodus from the Defence Force. Shipbuilding projects are in trouble throughout the country. He has now been caught misleading the Parliament, for which he accepts no responsibility whatsoever. There is a witch-hunt in his Department to find out who is shafting him. When a Minister gets into trouble in this House it is always someone else's fault and we will hear the same thing today. He has been given false information. He is failing to administer his Department and the best thing that can happen is for him to resign so that we can get on with the job. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(3.18) —The calls of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) for my resignation would have been more sensibly received by the general public if they did not come at the rate of about three or four a week, which is the current performance of the confetti of ill-expressed, ignorant Press releases he dumps on the Press Gallery, about one in four of which get something of a minor run. Those Press releases repeat most of the nonsense he has dumped on us here today. In the time available to me only some of that nonsense will be capable of being dealt with. By way of background I start as I did in answer to the question he raised with me in Question Time. After all this nonsense about the impact of wastage rates, the developments in defence industry and equipment programs is dumped on us, all this crisis that he presents, he said, `I am going overseas where my top priority for study will be nuclear-powered warships'. God help us! So that is his view of the seriousness of his role as the shadow Minister for defence. He has put up a totally pathetic performance. I shall cover one or two things that display the genuine ignorance of the Press releases he puts out-for example, on the completion of the frigate project and the signing of tenders at this stage. He put out a Press release today which repeated what he had to say here today along the lines that the project was now out of schedule, that we had not managed to sign up the companies. That was the implication of the question he put down. This totally ignored the fact that last week we put out several Press releases, which got coverage, saying that we had signed the tenders with Australian Warship Systems and Australian Marine Engineering Corporation Consolidated. They have been signed, they are operating and everything is proceeding to schedule. That demonstrates that the shadow Minister simply does not comprehend the changes that are going on in the shipbuilding industry as a result of our defence policy initiatives. That there should be teething problems and difficulties, to anyone who was not a complete ignoramus, would be obvious. We have never done things like this before. We have always operated, as the previous Government operated when contractual obligations were entered into for ship construction here, on cost plus bases. Companies are now obliged to take an element of risk. Obviously, companies entering into this sort of situation, a project potentially worth $5 billion, want to give it a bit of thought. That they might wander around the place every now and then working out whether they want to stay in the project in these sorts of circumstances is entirely understandable. The only thing that is not understandable is why the shadow Minister does not understand it. The second element of the proposition goes to my alleged obsession with equipment. Right at the heart of the issues of the efficiencies of the Office of Defence Production and the Defence Logistics Organisation have been the policies of this Government, picking up on years of neglect by honourable members opposite when in office. The reason for the $200m savings we are now getting in the factories and the reason we can now reorganise the Defence Logistics Organisation, which, incidentally, is the outfit around which this debate originated, is that since I have been Defence Minister I have been struggling, for about the first time any Defence Minister has done so, with the real industrial issues that our Department raises and the real inefficiencies in the Department. The report to me by the Secretary to the Department on the matter which generated this debate, which I will table when I have finished speaking, states: This matter and the manner of its handling by officials raises the question of competence of administration with the Defence Logistics Organisation. I remind you of our discussion about 9 months ago when you expressed dissatisfaction with the performance of that Organisation. He then goes on to tell us how it has been changed. It is because, as Defence Minister, I have been struggling to get to grips with these situations that we are able to contemplate the possibility of savings. The shadow Minister neglects entirely the fact that this situation grew like Topsy under his Government and was never addressed. He asks me why in three years as Defence Minister I have not achieved absolutely everything. I am sorry about that. It takes a bit of time to get $200m worth of savings out of the factories. It takes a bit of time to get the Defence Logistics Organisation of the Department right. We have had about three years to confront it, and it is not right yet. It will not be right for some considerable time because, when practices have been built up over the years under honourable members opposite, there is obviously a requirement systematically to review things from the bottom up. That has been going on. The Opposition simply does not comprehend how to make defence policy. One does not start with the bits and pieces at the sides of defence policy and mount criticisms from there; one goes to strategy. One relates force strategy to force structure and relates force structure to the funds that are available. Nowhere has there been an Opposition policy developed on this. I saw the honourable member answering questions on television when the Auditor-General's report came down dealing with the problems we have in implementing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) standards, of which those opposite were ignorant as Ministers, although when they were in government those standards were adopted around the country. The honourable member was obviously coached by the interviewer, Peter Young, on Channel 10. He said, `When you lose manpower you diminish safety'. I can just see him up there being coached by Peter because Peter likes his answers short-Peter's parrot Peter. The Auditor-General's report is not about manpower; it is about facilities and the location of facilities. If the honourable member reads through it he will see that. But that was the honourable member's view. The report came down and he thought, `Oh, it must be related to manpower'. But it is related to facilities. What does he have to say about facilities? We had something to say about facilities in the last election. In the last election campaign he looked at our proposition to shift the Navy to Jervis Bay, which, incidentally, is intimately bound up with one of the most substantial problems that we confront in the area we are discussing, and at our proposition to shift it across to Western Australia and get it out of Sydney. The Navy should not be in Sydney. It should be in either Jervis Bay or Western Australia. We are not going to be able to change that in the next few years, but we are working at it. The honourable member took a look at these propositions and said, `Perhaps we can slow down in these facilities areas so we can spend a bit more in one or two other areas'. That is fine, but he should not come into this place when we have, front and centre, a facilities problem here that will require additional expenditure on facilities and tell us that he knows something about it and that his comments have been relevant to the situation we confront. He is totally irrelevant to this defence debate. He has proved it again in the remarks he has made here today. The honourable member asked me a series of questions about specific details-what standards have been achieved, what waivers should be offered and the like. We have made some changes in standards of operation in Sydney Harbour. He asked whether these related to permanent or impermanent activities. I have been under pressure in regard to one of those impermanent activities, specifically the Sea Cadets associated with one of the islands in Sydney Harbour, that can materially be affected by this-- Dr Woods —Snapper Island. Mr BEAZLEY —Snapper Island. As I have said, I have been under pressure to ignore the standards that ought to be applied in relation to it because there is no substantial danger to the personnel involved and therefore the standards ought not to be implemented. I accept that point of argument. We can look at the activities associated with our defence establishments and find that in many areas it will be a perfectly safe operation with a waiver of the NATO standards. This is a very complex area, a very complex issue. When under the previous Government-its Ministers were ignorant of them-the Department decided that the NATO standards should be implemented, there was no clear cut understanding of what costs would be involved, of what would be required in terms of waivers or what would be a realistic timetable. The honourable member does not have to take my word for that, he can read the Auditor-General's report. That is what he said. We have been struggling with the consequences of that ever since. As the Auditor-General said, albeit under pressure from his own investigation, it is since 1986, the last two years, that the Department seems to have been making some sort of systematic attempt to get to grips with it. The answer that was given to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) was not misleading. It came from a constituency with an Army base in it. Every part to the question was qualified by the first, which related to the Army bases. The answers quite clearly stated that they were related to Army bases. There was a debate inside the Department which, in my view, was totally inappropriate and unnecessary, given the nature of the question that was asked. The way in which it was suggested that approaches should be made to me was totally inappropriate. All of that said, it has to be qualified by the statement that the answer to the question was sufficient. It is not an obligation, when a Minister answers a question in this place, to provide an answer to questions that are not asked; it is not an obligation to be expansive, it is an obligation to provide accurate information. If honourable members want that expanded, it is up to them to ask further questions of the Minister. The answer has been on the record for well over two years and nothing further has come forward on it-- Dr Woods —I have had questions on notice for six months. Mr BEAZLEY —Nothing has come forward apart from those questions asked by the honourable gentleman who has just interjected, which he will eventually get an answer to. But I think he would probably have found that the answer I gave to the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) the other day covered most of the points he made. The honourable member got on to the PC9 trainer program. He suggested that I was misled by my Department and then criticised me for allegedly overruling a part of it on the PC9 training. He wants it both ways. The PC9 trainer program is on cost and on schedule. The Air Force is very happy with it. It has open to it, and it realises it has open to it, the opportunity to make substantial savings by using it in its training program. But let me tell honourable members that we had to make that decision largely because the trainer aircraft replacement program considered by our predecessors when they were in office was considered on the basis of faulty information about when the CT4 was going to go out of service. It was faulty information because the amount of life left in the CT4 was underestimated by a massive order of magnitude. Consequently the Department and everyone else was set running on what turned out to be almost $70m worth of waste. Again, it takes time to fix the problems presented to us as a result of the sort of management that the previous Government had over the Department and over defence affairs over the years. The fact of the matter is that there can be no question that we are coming to grips with that. We are coming to grips with that in the factories and in the defence logistics area. The defence policies we have been pursuing are not just about equipment; they are about strategy, about industry-- Mr White —What about people? Mr BEAZLEY —They are about people. The honourable member for McPherson and others may find it unsatisfactory, but we have systematically gone across all the defence conditions issues that have concerned service personnel, and the remuneration increases they have been getting are substantially better than the rest of the community has been enjoying over the last couple of years. The previous Government never addressed those sorts of issues. It left them hanging out to dry. Defence personnel were totally dependent upon ministerial approval for anything they got. They now have a remuneration tribunal in which they can have their conditions arbitrated like any other members of the Australian work force. The fact of the matter is that in Australia over the last few years people have had to take cuts in living standards. That has affected the community; it has affected the defence forces less. The final point I make is that the honourable member for McPherson always has a wish list of expenditures which are not attached to any budgetary requirement. On the one hand he argues for massive increases in equipment-nuclear ships, or whatever-and on the other hand we have the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), saying that we have to get some $11 billion or $13 billion out of the system. There is no coherence in Opposition policy here. The Opposition cannot do what the shadow Minister for Defence suggests and what the shadow Treasurer suggests. Who would win, if ever those opposite won office? I would lay a reasonable shade of odds that the shadow Treasurer would win, and that the honourable member for McPherson would not get any of what he has been asking for. So basically he has the full advantage of irresponsibility in this debate, and he has exercised that advantage to the fullest possible extend. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(3.33) —We have just witnessed a very shallow defence by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who although he intended to table a document he referred to has forgotten to do so. No doubt he will do that at the end of this matter of public importance, the subject matter of which is: The incompetence displayed by the Minister for Defence in the administration of his department. I must agree with one of his comments, when he said, `I am struggling to get to grips with this situation'. He is still struggling to get to grips with it. He refers to cuts in the standard of living which this nation has had to accept in recent years. I remind the House and the nation of the 2 per cent cutback the Government imposed on Defence Force retirement benefit (DFRB) recipients which it has never got round to rectifying, even though it rectified it for other categories of pensioners. What a shabby priority it has given to DFRB recipients. The Minister dwelt particularly on this whole business of what happened before 1983, under the coalition Federal Government and previous Ministers for Defence. This is 1988. We must govern for today; we must act for today. It is totally inadequate for the Minister to keep on harking back to what happened under the previous Government. The Minister is answerable to this Parliament for his actions since December 1984 when he became Minister for Defence. Yesterday thousands of Australians, right across Australia, participated in Anzac Day commemorations and many more witnessed ceremonies in our small towns and our cities. That underlines the responsibility of this Parliament to maintain our defence system, and it underlines our responsibility to maintain the supremacy of the Australian Parliament in our parliamentary democracy and to honour our obligations to those who served their country as well as those who made the supreme sacrifice for their country in time of war. We must therefore address the question of the absolute supremacy of the Parliament over the bureaucracy and the absolute supremacy of this Minister over his Department. This is where he has failed. He has failed to maintain control of his Department; he has failed to ensure he has not been snowed by his Department. So let us address the fundamental issue, properly raised, by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White)-the famous question upon notice from the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). Has the Minister forgotten that the reply to that question was almost nine months in gestation? The Minister for Defence regards himself as being a reasonably efficient Minister of some intellectual capability. Yet, we have a situation where even that time span was not enough to ring alarm bells in the office of the Minister or in the controlling section of the Department of Defence, or even in his own mind, that perhaps he was being snowed by this answer to the famous question lodged by the honourable member for Hughes. The Minister was snowed. He has admitted in effect that he was snowed, and he has argued that the very narrow interpretation of the original part of that question is enough to get him off the hook. We in Opposition do not believe that it is enough to get the Minister off the hook. It is a very legalistic interpretation of a fundamental question. The fact of the matter is that under these guidelines public lives are at risk. The fact of the matter is that officers in the Department of Defence have been caught red-handed in giving this answer to the Minister, to the Parliament and to the nation. It is as well that one officer has left the Public Service; one wonders what is going to happen to the other officers who may have been involved in this particular matter. But above all we have the word of the independent Auditor-General, saying very clearly that the answers and actions have been `unnecessarily and unreasonably slow'. The honourable member for McPherson has been very responsible in raising these matters and in further highlighting them here today. His actions have been vindicated by those words of the Auditor. The Minister has failed to ensure proper procedures in the giving of a reply to a question on notice. He has failed in administering his Department and in administering the new system which the former Minister for Defence, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), brought into being and which I am sure the Minister was briefed about when he became Minister for Defence in December 1984. No action concerning public risk waivers was taken until July 1987. In fact, the Minister would have been briefed that eight locations plus another five locations were going to require public risk waivers under these safety guidelines for ammunition dumps around Australia. It is a chilling situation that in fact the Minister was misled on this matter and that by his own resources he was not able to detect that misleading. It is a chilling situation that the Parliament and the nation as a whole have been misled on this fundamental issue. The wastage of experienced personnel in our defence forces adds further to this chilling situation. It is legitimate for us to consider that in this debate and when we look at the statistics involved. I would like to quote from a document that has not fallen off the back of a truck; it is a legitimate submission of the Royal Australian Navy to a Senate committee investigating wastage. It says: There is clear evidence that within the Department of Defence the existing departmental machinery is inadequate to cope with the need to view these items within reasonable timescales. . . . Some conditions of service matters have been held up in the system for long periods, . . . It goes on to analyse the Hamilton report on the effect of service life on spouses, produced in 1986. There was no action on that in any way, shape or form until January 1988 when the first financial action was taken. I think a statement by the Minister on this has now been put back until tomorrow. The submission states that the overall wastage rate in the Navy is running at 12.6 per cent. The committee report stated in relation to that that of greater consequence than the average wastage rate are the wastage rates of middle ranking officers and technical sailors which are of major concern to Navy and bear directly on the successful attainment of Navy's medium term aims. We have a Navy that is bleeding slowly to death in terms of its experienced personnel; likewise the Army and the Royal Australian Air Force. The naval establishment shortfall in seamen lieutenants is 23 per cent, in engineer lieutenant commanders it is 45 per cent, and in communications radio operators-a fairly necessary manning requirement, as I am sure the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor) and other honourable members would point out-it is 41 per cent. This horrible situation goes directly to the responsibilities of the Minister for Defence as the overall senior Minister who is in charge of coming up with the right mix of government policies and priorities to ensure we retain an adequate, competent, experienced and capable defence force. The Minister has failed in that he has presided over the worst period of wastage in the Navy, Army and Air Force in years. He has failed in areas that are directly available to the Government to rectify. Let me refer briefly to one of those areas, coming under one of the Minister's two junior Ministers in cohesion, Ministers in some form or arrangement under his portfolio jurisdiction. I refer, of course, to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys). I refer to the chopping and changing of the defence service home loan scheme. They have had about four goes at arriving at the right defence service home loan scheme. As far back as May 1985 Treasurer Keating announced a transfer of the Defence Service Homes Corporation to the private sector. Three years later nothing has been achieved. All the Government has done is chop back the maximum period of loan from 32 years to 25 years. Have not our soldiers, sailors and airmen the right to expect a defence service home loan? Have they not the right, after all their transfer postings in their careers, to take out a loan and build a house with some commitment? The maximum term has been reduced from 32 years to 25 years. I will concede that the Government has introduced portability, but at the same time it has abolished the $10,000 grant alternative. There are four key charges against this Minister at this time. Why did he or his ministerial office fail to double-check the reply to the question with notice from the honourable member for Hughes? Why was there nine months delay? Why did the Minister not get on top of proceedings for that very key question with notice? And why did he accept the snowing by his Department, by those two departmental officers, of the provision of the proper information to him, to the Parliament and to the nation? That is the first charge. The second charge is: why did the Minister or his ministerial office fail to follow up the whole issue of public risk waivers, which was originally notified-in effect signed-in late 1984, which saw no action until the first public risk waiver came forward in July 1987? The Minister should have heard warning bells ringing loud and clear with regard to the massive delays. He is taking actions now-too little, too late, and only as a consequence of what the Opposition has put up. The other areas are: why is the Minister dealing with the Government policies and priorities which are leading to the massive wastage and allowing the unions to run riot in terms of delaying some of the submarine contracts? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms FATIN(Brand)(3.43) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), said that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has failed. We are talking here about the greatest Minister for Defence since World War II. There is no question about that. People all round this country recognise that the present Minister for Defence is the greatest Minister for Defence that this country has seen since World War II. Mr Hollis —Mr Curtin may be in there, too. Ms FATIN —It was suggested that Mr Curtin might have been equally good. I join this debate today with a great deal of pleasure. I want to refute a number of the claims that have been made and also to make my own comments. Firstly I want to say that this Minister for Defence is the first Minister to actually set the parameters of a defence debate in the way in which we are seeing it today. He set the directions of the defence debate. When the House had before it the White Paper entitled The Defence of Australia we did not just find ourselves with a white paper that people read with a great deal of interest; we found ourselves with a white paper that had begun to be implemented. We find that the Government's policy has begun to be implemented. We are one year down the track into implementation of the White Paper. This makes this Minister different from other Ministers for Defence. So often in the past we have had white papers and Ministers of government who have talked about policy directions and things that they wished to do for Australia in relation to defence, but they have not been able to carry them out for one reason or another. I totally reject the suggestion in this matter of public importance of incompetence displayed by this Minister. It is utter nonsense. As I said, we are now one year down the track in implementing the White Paper. We are in the process of moving the Army into the north of Australia. We have already fully developed the Tindal Royal Australian Air Force base and we have started to build up the Stirling naval base in Western Australia. I want to talk more about that shortly, because Stirling is in my electorate and I am very familiar with a number of the changes that have already taken place there. I remind the House of the way in which the Minister and his Department relate to the people in the town of Rockingham, where Stirling is based, and also to the naval personnel who are being moved into that region. Before I say more about that, I would like to quote briefly from a news release entitled `Achieving Self Reliance-The First Year', that was released by the Minister on 22 March this year. The Minister said: With careful management we have maintained the vital programs outlined in the White Paper despite the unprecedented discipline on public spending by the Hawke Government. And we have laid foundations for even more important additions to the ADF in the years to come. In the past year we have signed contracts for six new submarines, and work has begun. Within a few weeks we will call tenders for eight new frigates, to be built in partnership with New Zealand. We have also allocated significant money and effort to improving conditions for Defence people. Pay and allowances, housing, family support and education are all being improved. So much for the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who said that this Minister had an obsessional interest in equipment only, not in his Department and not in personnel. That is nonsense, as has certainly been demonstrated in many of his actions in the past three years. The release continues: Our achievements since the White Paper was released a year ago confirm that with disciplined Defence planning and careful management Australia can build a Defence Force that fulfils our responsibilities to ourselves, to our allies and to our neighbours. I would suggest that that is exactly what the people of Australia have been demanding of government for a number of years and we find that this Minister is in fact implementing just that. It has been suggested that he has this obsession with equipment only, and not personnel. Let me briefly refer to some of the equipment that the Minister is concerned about. Undoubtedly we have to talk about submarines. Certainly we need new submarines. Our Defence Force is in need of these and we are in the process of building them. If we are going to build new submarines and have a submarine force, it is necessary to be concerned about the safety of the submariners, the persons who sail in those submarines. I was with the Minister last Friday in my electorate when he opened the new submarine escape facility at HMAS Stirling. It happens to be one of six in the world. It is the most modern, the most efficient and the best in the world. If we are going to rely heavily on our submarine fleet, what better can we do than establish a facility such as this? It was the Minister himself who gave the okay to spending the $17m plus that went into putting that facility together. That I suggest is a Minister who is concerned about equipment and concerned about personnel. Mrs Kelly —And their safety. Ms FATIN —Exactly-and their safety, as the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel just said. When we are talking about personnel, I remind the House that it was this Minister for Defence who determined that he wanted a junior Minister, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, to give particular attention to defence forces and their families. These people have been neglected in previous years. It was this Minister for Defence who, because of his concern, asked for and was given a junior Minister, and also commissioned the Hamilton report. A lot of people might dismiss the Hamilton report as an interesting document and not think too much about it, but I assure the House that many people in this country believe that it is a most significant report, because this is the first time attention and recognition has been given to defence families. Mrs Hamilton travelled around Australia and spoke to the wives and husbands of personnel of the defence forces about their difficulties and problems. She returned to Canberra, compiled a report and in due course the Minister tabled that report. It has been claimed that that procedure took a long time. I suppose that it did, in a sense, but Mrs Hamilton talked to a lot of people and there were many things to write about. The report was tabled and, I might add, many of the recommendations have been implemented. I will refer to some of them briefly, because it is relevant to do so. Mrs Hamilton recommended that we set up an Australian Defence Force Information Service-that has been done. She recommended that social workers be appointed at a number of bases to assist with families-that has been done, and I met the two social workers who were appointed to HMAS Stirling only three weeks ago. Mrs Hamilton advised that housing was a major problem. The Government already knew that. The previous Government's record in this area was absolutely shameful. However, something is being done and at bases such as HMAS Stirling some of the best defence housing in Australia is provided. We are building good housing and facilities not only at that base; also we are repairing and constructing similar houses throughout Australia. If I recall, about $70m was spent on that alone this financial year. Mrs Kelly —It was $119m. Ms FATIN —Thank you. Mrs Hamilton recommended that the Government review posting policies to reduce short term postings to bring about stability for family life and schooling. This is already in train. She also recommended that a range of allowances, for example for tuition, removals, single personnel and childcare, be made available-and they are available. It is absolute nonsense for an honourable member to come into this House today and complain about this Minister in the terms we have heard or, I might add, in any terms. This Minister must be praised, as must the Government, for the policies on defence. The Opposition can show only inconsistency in its policies. Honourable members opposite say spend, spend, spend, yet we hear the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), agreeing with the Business Council of Australia, saying that defence expenditure must be cut. That is totally inconsistent. How can we spend money on new nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, increasing defence expenditure by three per cent, yet cut funds? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I understand the Minister wishes to table a document. Mr Beazley —I table the document that was passed to me by the Secretary to my Department. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate is concluded. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the fourth and the fifth reports for 1988 relating to the following proposed work: Construction of new Commonwealth offices, Melbourne; and construction of new Commonwealth offices, Haymarket, New South Wales. Ordered that the reports be printed. Mr HOLLIS —by leave-In accordance with the Government's policy of increasing its ownership of office accommodation and thereby reducing rental outlays from high priced central city locations, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has recommended the construction and fitout of two new Commonwealth office buildings, one in Melbourne on the corner of Spring and Lonsdale Streets at an estimated cost of $118m for construction and $18m for fitout and the other in Sydney at the Haymarket on the corner of Pitt and Hay streets at an estimated cost of $143m for construction and $20m for fitout, all at April 1987 prices. The new Commonwealth offices in Melbourne will be a 42-storey building consisting of a nine-storey podium and a 33-storey tower. The building will provide 60,000 square metres net of office space to accommodate some 4,000 staff and include shopfront accommodation for departments with a high level of public contact. The site for the building is portion of a larger Commonwealth owned block bounded by Spring, La Trobe, Exhibition and Lonsdale Streets. Other developments proposed for this block are stage two of the Commonwealth offices building and new offices for Telecom. The block is being developed as an integrated whole even though development is planned in stages. As the block has not been redeveloped since it was acquired by the Commonwealth in 1948, an archaeological investigation was undertaken on the block. The Department of Administrative Services and Telecom each provided $50,000 for the archaeological salvage project on the block. A number of heritage buildings located on the perimeter of the new Commonwealth offices site will be retained and preserved by the Commonwealth. However, none of the heritage buildings form part of the development proposal. The Committee has recommended further consultation between the Department of Administrative Services and the Victorian Ministry for Planning and Environment concerning the future of the heritage buildings. The design solution for the new Commonwealth offices at the Haymarket, Sydney, has evolved from complex site conditions and planning criteria. The design solution incorporates a 31-storey office tower to the south of the site, a nine-storey wing to the west of the site with a two-storey podium to the north-east. The building will provide 50,000 square metres net of office space to accommodate some 3,000 staff and approximately 1,600 square metres net of retail-commercial space including shopfront space for the Commonwealth. Three historic buildings and an underground gas holder base will be restored and have been integrated into the development. The building has been designed specifically in harmony with the heritage character of the Haymarket area and the scale of the surrounding streetscape particularly along Hay and Pitt Streets. The Department of Administrative Services has consulted with the Australian Heritage Commission on heritage issues and will continue to do so as conservation work is documented in detail. The National Trust of Australia and the Heritage Council of New South Wales will also be involved in those consultations to take advantage of their particular expertise. During the Committee's investigation of the proposal, planning and heritage groups expressed concern about the overshadowing of Belmore Park and Eddy Avenue to the east of the site by the tower development. After examining all of the issues, the Committee concluded that the Department of Administrative Services had examined a range of design options and that almost any viable building on the Haymarket site would produce some overshadowing of Belmore Park and Eddy Avenue irrespective of the design solution. The Public Works Committee is satisfied that the Department of Administrative Services has developed a design that keeps overshadowing to a minimum while providing an economically viable building for the Commonwealth. The proposed office buildings will generate savings on Commonwealth office accommodation rental and lead to an improved overall standard of Commonwealth office accommodation with consequent improvements in operational efficiency and a reduction in operating costs. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-The proposals that have been presented to the House by the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relate to the construction of two new Commonwealth offices, one in Melbourne and one in the Haymarket area of Sydney. I want to raise two or three points in relation to these buildings which have been given the okay by the Public Works Committee. First, the Chairman of the Committee, in his statement to the House today, reiterated the statement that was made by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) when these references were made to the Committee; that is, that the proposals are consistent with the Government's policy of increasing its ownership of office accommodation. I see that the Chairman of the Committee is nodding his head. I accept that the construction of these two buildings will mean that the Commonwealth will own some office accommodation. Whether there is actually a net increase of Commonwealth owned office accommodation as a result of proposals for these new buildings, taken together with sales of existing office accommodation, is certainly open to question. The House would be well aware that the Government has undertaken a program of selling off public assets. The existing Commonwealth Centre in Sydney has been sold, and I understand that the Commonwealth Centre in Melbourne has also been sold. The net effect of those sales is to raise revenue this year by the sale of capital assets and to delay expenditure over the next couple of years by saying, in effect, `We will build replacements, but we will not build them this year; we will build them over the next couple of years'. That practice makes the Budget look better temporarily because there is a capital inflow into the Budget this year and expenditure is delayed over a couple of future years. How on earth that process is actually consistent with the Government's policy to increase the ownership of Commonwealth offices, I just do not know. There is a direct conflict between the Government's actions on the one hand in selling off its Commonwealth offices and, on the other hand, in building new Commonwealth offices. In addition, the Government has said to us on a number of occasions that its policy is, where possible, to move personnel out of the high cost central business district into the suburbs. Again, that policy seems to be inconsistent with the undertaking with which the House is now dealing, approved by the Public Works Committee, to build new central business district accommodation in Sydney and Melbourne. We thus have a conflict of policy in relation to ownership of offices with, on the one hand, the Government selling off offices while, on the other hand, it continues to say in the House, `We believe in increased Commonwealth ownership of offices'. The latter policy is clearly not being implemented, although the Government pretends that it is. Moreover, the Government says, `Our policy is to move people out of the city, where we can do that, and place them in the suburbs, where cheaper accommodation is available'. Again, the proposal before the House is in direct conflict with that policy. What I have said highlights the concern of the Opposition about proposals such as that before us. There seems to be absolutely no plan of development for providing office accommodation for the Commonwealth Public Service. On the one hand, buildings are being sold off. Presumably the occupants have to be moved into temporary accommodation at great expense to the taxpayer. Then another building must be built to replace the one that has just been sold off. There is no logic in that practice, which is conducted at great expense to the taxpayer. There might be some short term financial gain, in that the capital comes in during the current year and the money to replace the actual buildings does not have to be forked out until next year and the following year, but that, in my book, is bad economics. If, for example, the Government wishes to replace an old building with a new one, let it build the new building and then sell off the old building, moving the occupants of the old building into the new building. Such a move would not incur additional lease costs. That procedure has not been followed in the cases before us and, as I say, it is yet another example of the chaotic management under this Government. The Government does not seem to have any strategic plan for the development of office accommodation for the Commonwealth Public Service. Such a plan is urgently required. I believe that an enormous sum has been wasted by this Government for short term political gain in trying to rig its Budget figures. Although the Opposition agrees with the need for the two new buildings about which we are talking, the way in which this matter has been handled, with the premature sale of the existing Commonwealth buildings, is to be condemned. The taxpayer is having to foot the bill for this Government's incompetence in administering its own office accommodation. It is high time that the Minister explained to the House where on earth the Government thinks it is heading in providing office accommodation for the Public Service, because right now there are conflicting messages going out to the public about the Government's policy. Mr BURR(Lyons) —by leave-As a member of the Parliamentary Public Works Committee, I have grave reservations about the project being planned for the construction of a new office building at Haymarket in Sydney. Although I have not exercised my right to submit a dissenting report on this occasion, I still want to record my reservations about the project. We have just heard the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) say that, in his view, not enough homework has been done to assess the accommodation needs of Public Service departments in major capital cities. From the investigations in which I took part into the Haymarket project, I certainly agree with that statement as it applies to accommodation requirements in the Sydney area. I point out that the Haymarket project is to construct a building of 50,000 square metres of which it is presumed 30,000 square metres will be occupied by the Australian Taxation Office. In other words, 60 per cent of that building space will be occupied by the Australian Taxation Office. In evidence, officers of the Department of Administrative Services said: The Australian Taxation Office has indicated that the proposed building is suitable for its purposes. During the taking of evidence by the Committee, I very purposely questioned the representatives of the Australian Taxation Office, who indicated that right now the office is undertaking a review of its office accommodation requirements in the Sydney area. In evidence, the representatives of the Taxation Office said that the review would not be completed for another four to five months. They are considering locating the Taxation Office operations in various suburban locations rather than having them all located in one central area. Mr Porter —Consistent with the Government's policy-- Mr BURR —I am sorry, but it is not consistent. Mr Porter —Of shifting them out of the CBD. Mr BURR —I am simply telling the House about the evidence given to the Committee by the Australian Taxation Office. As I have said, its review will not be completed for another four to five months. I therefore believe that this project before us should not be approved and should not proceed until that review has been completed, if it is the presumption that 60 per cent of the building will be occupied by the Australian Taxation Office. In subsequent evidence, I quizzed the Department of Administrative Services about, if the Australian Taxation Office would not be the major occupier or tenant of the building, who would occupy it. The departmental officers replied that plenty of other departments could move into the building at Haymarket. I asked them what negotiations had taken place between the Department of Administrative Services and other departments to establish the accommodation requirements of the other departments, and I could not establish that any such discussions had taken place. It was very clear to me that not enough homework had been done to determine office accommodation needs for the departments in the Sydney area. I have been told that it is government policy to provide this building at Haymarket. I first assumed that I should hold the Department of Administrative Services responsible for not doing sufficient homework. However, if in fact it is government policy to construct the building at Haymarket, I can only conclude that the Government has not done enough homework to establish the office accommodation requirements in the Sydney area. I also point out that evidence from the Department of Administrative Services stated in relation to the Haymarket proposal: This proposal satisfies a number of objectives: (a) a significant reduction in the annual rental bill-approximately $13m at current prices. I presume that it would cost $13m to lease 50,000 square metres of office space; but the capital cost of the proposed building at Haymarket, plus fitout costs, totals $136m. If one compares that with the current bond rate one finds that about $15m is required just to service the capital on the borrowing of $136m, whereas it is costing $13m to lease the equivalent amount of office space. I suggest that either the Government or the Department of Administrative Services has not done enough work to establish the office accommodation requirements in Sydney. I certainly hope that before another proposal for office accommodation in Sydney comes before the Public Works Committee there will be a much more thorough analysis of the future requirements of all departments. Debate resumed from 21 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(4.11) —This afternoon we resume debate on the Admiralty Bill 1988. Debate on the Bill commenced last week and, due to time constraints, was adjourned. At that stage I had already indicated the Opposition's view on this Bill, which is to support it, and I am very pleased to reiterate that support for this measure. I will very briefly put the matter into context. The Bill arises out of a very good report from the Australian Law Reform Commission which included a draft Bill. That draft Bill has been virtually totally adopted by the Government in introducing the Bill which we have before us today. In my opening remarks I canvassed the need for reform and gave a general outline of the Bill. I commenced to make some comments on some of the details of the Bill, initially with remarks concerning surrogate ships. I want to pick up my remarks in regard to jurisdictional issues. The Bill proposes that admiralty jurisdiction in rem be conferred concurrently on the Federal Court of Australia and State and Territory supreme courts. Inferior or intermediate courts may be proclaimed as courts having in rem jurisdiction where it is appropriate to do so. Although no estimate has been made of the extent of business which will be initiated after this Bill has become law, we do know that between 1974 and 1983 the courts have handled an average of 140 cases per annum in this jurisdiction. The options were to give all of the jurisdiction to the State and Territory supreme courts, leave the jurisdiction to the High Court of Australia and the supreme courts of the States and Territories, give all of the jurisdiction to the Federal Court or, as apparently was suggested by Mr Justice Zelling in the 1960s, establish a separate Federal Court devoted to admiralty and maritime matters. The Liberal Party's policy for the last election, which I expect will remain as coalition policy, is to recognise that the High Court is the pinnacle of our legal system. As such I accept the proposition that it is more appropriate for the Federal Court to have the original jurisdiction than to have the High Court hearing matters at first instance. Appeals to the High Court should be by special leave. As was noted, the volume of admiralty business has not been large. I would not expect it to grow considerably, even given the reforms contained in this legislation. The Law Reform Commission's report canvasses some of the wider issues in regard to jurisdiction. Those arguments are not new. One can go back as far as the 1920s when the late Sir Owen Dixon, arguably Australia's most eminent jurist, recommended that we should have an integrated court system. That system would be neither State nor Federal but would encompass the whole body of law, regardless of its source. The debate on that proposal has gone back and forward over the years. We have had numerous discussions at various Constitutional Conventions. Certainly the recent cross-vesting legislation has been one of the consequences of those discussions. I say as an aside that people in the Government are very fond of saying that there has been very little constitutional development over the years when they look at the number of referendums. But if one knows anything about constitutional reform one will understand that issues such as cross-vesting, which have arisen out of those debates and have found their way onto the statute books, are in themselves part and parcel of the process of constitutional reform. There is obviously much merit in the concept of integration, but I think the political reality in Australia is that integration will not be achieved with the stroke of a pen. Although there are contrary arguments, in my view it would require a constitutional amendment. I do not think that one could be confident about the success of such a referendum. In recent years the Federal Court has built a very sound reputation. I pay tribute to the leadership given to the Court by Sir Nigel Bowen and members of his Court. There would probably not be one judge of the Federal Court who could not earn twice his current salary if he were back at the Bar. I think we should all recognise what a tremendous contribution they make to our democracy. The same can be said about our supreme courts in the States. Again, perhaps we do not often enough put on public record our appreciation of the work which our judges do for our community. te The Law Reform Commission properly states that one of the arguments against depriving State and Territory courts of admiralty jurisdiction is that removing jurisdiction from those courts could be seen as a downgrading of them. That is a point of view which I share. State supreme courts are obviously an integral part of the judicial system in Australia. They are held in very high regard by the people and are the courts with which most people would associate their thoughts about our judicial system and how it works. I was surprised when the State governments so readily gave up the tax jurisdiction, because that is an important area of work that had been done by the State supreme courts for over a decade. It is important that the State courts retain as wide a spectrum of work as possible and practicable so that they can maintain their expertise and the high respect in which they are held by the community at large. I therefore strongly support the measures in this Bill to confer jurisdiction concurrently. The Commission has also concerned itself with the actual conduct of trials. In an interesting divergence from standard procedure it has recommended that, through what is now clause 38 in the Bill before us, admiralty actions in rem will be heard by a judge alone without a jury. The coalition is committed to the concept of jury trials and we would normally have some reservations about supporting such a clause. We do, however, appreciate that this is the present de facto situation-that is, there are no jury trials in admiralty jurisdiction in Australia. Given both the complexities of trials and the paucity of actions there is justification for this clause, which abandons trial by jury in admiralty jurisdiction. However, when and if we get around to the constitutional debate and referendums about trial by jury I hope that the Government will refrain from simplistic statements about trial by jury and its significance, bearing in mind that it has presented a Bill to this Parliament which does away with trial by jury in this jurisdiction. To ensure that no jurisdictional problems arise, the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, parts of the Merchant Shipping Act and imperial Acts dating back to the Middle Ages will be repealed by the Bill. There will also be the simultaneous validation of and amendments to the Navigation Act and the Shipping Registration Act. This action, hand in hand with effective rule-making provisions, should clear the fog that encompassed much of this area of law in the past. All in all the Opposition supports the Law Reform Commission's proposals. We believe that they have received wide support from those who are well-acquainted with the situation of admiralty law in Australia. We commend the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for picking up the initiative which was commenced by Senator Durack when he was Attorney-General. We commend the Bill to the House. Mr KERR(Denison)(4.20) —It is indeed a delight to be able to speak on the Admiralty Bill for two reasons: firstly, because the legislation deals with an enormously complex and sometimes previously archaic area of the law and almost makes it intelligible to the layreader and does make it intelligible to a schooled reader in a way that perhaps was not thought possible in this area of the law a mere few years ago. Secondly, it is a delight to respond to this debate following the remarks of the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) who has been generous in his warmth towards the measures that have been put before the House. He has given full credit to those who have been responsible for bringing the legislation forward. He has mentioned two names with particular commendation, and I also commend them; firstly, Mr Justice Zelling of South Australia whose initial report in 1982 broke ground in terms of setting up a momentum for the reform of this area of the law and, secondly, the Australian Law Reform Commission's report which was subsequently issued, I think in 1986, and which has formed the basis of the present legislation coming before the House. The legislation before the House has considerable virtues: it is expressed briefly and cogently and the language of the enactment, in so far as is possible to deal with these difficult measures, is written in plain and simple English. As well as the commendations that have already been made, I would like to commend the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), those responsible for the drafting of the legislation, the parliamentary draftsmen and the Law Reform Commission for the clarity of their English and the convenience of expression in the legislation. This is a technical area of the law and one which has not really excited a great deal of lay interest in the past. Nonetheless, it is of considerable importance to those involved in the maritime industry. Australia is, of course, a maritime nation. It places in one Australian Act under the Federal Court system jurisdiction to deal with the disputes that inevitably arise in the course of shipping and associated activities. In the past this area has not been one free from complexity. Indeed, one might think that it was a minefield of constitutional and civil difficulties. I well recall when I first began practice as a young lawyer and Crown counsel with the Tasmanian Government having to look at a case that was then before the South Australian courts, the China Ocean Shipping case, which involved a collision with a South Australian wharf, I think by a Japanese vessel. The question arose whether the Merchant Shipping Act of 1896 applied in which case the damages that might be awarded in the case were limited to the sum of #14 a ton. The matter was then in issue because that particular provision of the Merchant Shipping Act remained in force. The imperial legislation was still in force in Australia and is only now being effectively removed from the statute books. Similarly the provisions of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, other imperial Acts, and the various State rules that are in the State Supreme Court Acts and rules made under them have all led to a more complicated, vexed and overlapping jurisdictional area. It is to be welcomed not merely by this Parliament, but also by all those who have commercial interests which affect maritime property, that we now have such a well expressed and clear Act which governs the merchant shipping area. As well as the provisions which simply express existing law, but which do so in an elegant and clear way, there are also new innovations; for example, the section 19 procedure whereby the Act includes provision for the arrest of surrogate vessels. This enables somebody who has been aggrieved-let us take the example of a supplier of goods to a vessel which has sailed from port-to enforce his claims against another vessel of the same line when it arrives in port. It simply makes it a more efficient operation of the system. It indicates that those who have been responsible for the drafting of these provisions have not only looked backwards and tidied up the legislation, but also have looked forward to instances where the legislation can be reformed and made more efficient for those who rely on an efficient system of laws governing the shipping trade. It is a sadness for some of us who grew up trying to fathom the meaning of expressions such as `royal fish', `bottomry' the `sale of ships and shares' and the like that we will no longer have to deal with quite some of the archaic rhetoric of the law. A lot of that will pass with the adoption of this Act, but that is all for the good. It is one area of the law which had fallen well behind the demands of the twentieth century and which is now being brought squarely back into the forefront of our commercial life. I certainly do not wish to proceed clause by clause through this Bill. That has been done by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech. I do not think the substance of those remarks has been brought in issue at all by the Opposition and I understand it is not to be. Both sides of this House are united in welcoming this legislation. I think the correct English word is that it is `autochthonous' legislation; that is, it springs from indigenous responses to our commercial needs and not reflexively copying something that has happened overseas. In that regard, I welcome it. I also welcome the very generous comments that were made by the honourable member for Flinders about the role and standing of the Federal Court of Australia. When the court was first proposed and brought forward I think there were many who thought that the judges of that division would be thought of as second rate. That is certainly not the case. Those judges have brought with them a stamp of judicial authority and have made their mark so that the Federal Court is now seen as a court which has made a significant contribution to the development of Australia's own indigenous legal system. With that has come the grudging acceptance right across the political spectrum that our High Court of Australia must be the ultimate court of appeal within the Australian legal system and again that is recognised by the present legislation. With those remarks, I welcome this legislation and commend the Bill to the House. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(4.28) —The purpose of the Admiralty Bill is to provide for the admiralty jurisdiction of Australian courts in a form which is comprehensive, accessible and consistent with Australian needs and with international standards concerning civil jurisdiction over ships. This Bill clarifies which claims can be brought in admiralty jurisdiction and which courts can exercise admiralty jurisdiction. As has been said earlier in this debate, the Bill is almost a direct reproduction of the draft Bill recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its report on civil admiralty jurisdiction; that is, report No. 33 of 1986. At present, admiralty jurisdiction in Australia is governed by an imperial Act, the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890. That Act incorporates the then existing admiralty jurisdiction of the English High Court into Australian law; that is, the extent of admiralty jurisdiction applied to Australia by this imperial Act is fixed at the admiralty jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court in England in 1890. This is an archaic arrangement by today's standards. Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia is virtually static but does not include extensions to it that have been incorporated since 1890 in the United Kingdom. Although later legislation, both Australian and imperial, has affected this area of law, Australia's admiralty jurisdiction remains substantially the same as it was at Federation. The Australian Constitution gives the Federal Parliament power to make laws with respect to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Other provisions of the Constitution also cover aspects of admiralty jurisdiction, for example, the trade and commerce power and the external affairs power. The Federal Government's power to enact the Bill comes principally from section 76 (iii) of the Constitution which allows the Parliament to confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Australia in all matters `of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction', and from section 51 (xxxix) which empowers it to regulate incidental and ancillary matters. Some provisions also rely on section 76 (ii) which deals with jurisdiction arising under other laws made by the Parliament. Of particular relevance for the Bill are the Navigation Act 1912, a Commonwealth Act, and the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981, another Commonwealth Act. Section 77 of the Constitution authorises the conferral on State courts of jurisdiction in relation to matters that can be conferred on the High Court. Section 76 which relates to additional original jurisdiction reads: The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter- (i.) Arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation: (ii.) Arising under any laws made by the Parliament: (iii.) Of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction: (iv.) Relating to the same subject matter claimed under the laws of different States. Section 77 which relates to the power to define jurisdiction reads: With respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last two sections the Parliament may make laws- (i.) Defining the jurisdiction of any federal court other than the High Court: (ii.) Defining the extent to which the jurisdiction of any federal court shall be exclusive of that which belongs to or is invested in the courts of the States: (iii.) Investing any court of a State with federal jurisidction. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said in his second reading speech: Admiralty has long been a distinct jurisdiction in the court system. Business expectations rely on the fact that jurisdiction over ships and ship owners will be assured in special ways. Indeed, Australia is a country of shippers rather than ship owners and accordingly Australia should have a broad admiralty jurisdiction dependent upon the presence in the jurisdiction of the ship, or a sister ship, in relation to which a maritime claim arises. As the explanatory memorandum to the Bill observes, the Bill regulates admiralty jurisdiction of Australian courts both in actions in rem and in personam. The important distinguishing feature of admiralty jurisdiction is the ability to bring an action in rem. This means that a ship that is in the jurisdiction may be arrested and used as security for a maritime claim. In an action in rem, proceedings are actually instituted against the ship, rather than against its owner or charterer. The Attorney-General stated in his second reading speech: Actions in rem arise from the existence of a maritime lien or a statutory right of action based on a proprietary or general maritime claim arising under the general law and involving the ownership or operation of ships. Claims that can be brought in rem include proceedings involving maritime liens which are dealt with in clause 15 of the Bill, and proprietary maritime claims as defined in clause 4 (2) of the Bill. General maritime claims are defined in clause 4 (3) of the Bill which outlines an extensive list covering claims arising out of an operation of a ship. It is necessary, however, in relation to general maritime claims brought in rem that there be a relevant connection between the ship or property and a relevant person-being the person who would be liable in proceedings brought in personam-and in this regard I refer to clauses 17, 18 and 19 of the Bill. Claims in personam are, as the Attorney-General has stated, directed against a specific person in relation to maritime claims for damage to a ship. Claims that can be brought in personam are maritime claims, both proprietary and general maritime claims; and claims for damage done to a ship as provided in clause 9 (1) of the Bill. As I have said, the Bill preserves the ability to institute an action in rem. It does not purport to embody a total overhaul of the law; it simply aims to clarify the claims that are subject to admiralty jurisdiction, and the rights and liabilities of the parties. However, the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission raised some problem areas of the jurisdiction in relation to which the Commission declined to provide answers and which are, therefore, not solved in the Bill. For example, where an act or event occurs outside Australian waters and would give rise to a maritime lien under the law of the relevant foreign country but would not under Australian law, should Australia acquire jurisdiction over the matter? The Privy Council answered the question in the negative in relation to Singapore-I refer to the Halcyon Isle case in 1981 Appeal Cases at page 221-but other countries such as Canada have taken the opposite view. The report of the Australian Law Reform Commission observed that this matter was best left to attempts at international unification through the conventions affecting admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Law Reform Commission decided generally not to recommend the extension of the accepted scope of the right of action in rem. It is often difficult to establish the ownership of a foreign vessel. The person dealing with the ship in Australia is likely to be the agent, or a charterer or subcharterer for an associated company or the like. There is an overlap between the remedy of arrest in admiralty jurisdiction and the common law remedy of the Mareva injunction which is an order of a court to a party or other persons over whom the court has jurisdiction, directing the way in which property is to be retained or dealt with so as to ensure that the property will be available to satisfy any judgment in the action. A Mareva injunction was first granted in 1975 by the Court of Appeal in England in the case of Mareva Compania Narierva SA v. International Bulkcarriers SA, reported in 1975, Volume 2 Lloyd's report at page 509. The report of the Australian Law Reform Commission also said that Mareva injunctions are increasingly being used in relation to ships and cargo both overseas and to a more limited extent in Australia. The report concluded that because the remedy is an evolving one, yet to be fully developed by law, no specific legislative provision should be made about the overlap between the availability of such injunctions and the ability to arrest in rem. The Australian Law Reform Commission considered the establishment of a separate admiralty court but decided against recommending this course of action principally because the volume of work in Australia is too small. Instead, it recommended the granting of in personam jurisdiction to all courts in Australia within the ordinary limits of their civil jurisdiction, such as size of claim, but that in personam jurisdiction should not be given to special purpose courts-for example, the New South Wales Land and Environment Court. The report further recommended that jurisdiction over actions in rem should be allocated only to superior courts because of the severity of the consequences of arresting a ship, but superior courts should be given the power to remit in rem actions to inferior courts in appropriate cases, for example, because of the small size of the claim. A court will have jurisdiction in accordance with the limits of that court as to amount claimed and remedies but not otherwise. Hence, claims for smaller amounts will be able to be brought in lower courts such as district or county courts. Clause 9 (2) of the Bill provides that the only exception is limitation proceedings which can be brought only in supreme courts or the Federal Court. Clause 10 of the Bill confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court and supreme courts of Territories and States in respect of proceedings commenced as actions in rem under this Act. There is provision in clause 11 for other courts to have in rem jurisdiction conferred on them. It should be noted that no original jurisdiction in admiralty matters will be conferred on the High Court of Australia. To sum up, the important provisions of the Bill are that it is to apply to all ships and all claims wherever arising. Clause 4 of the Bill defines maritime claims. `Proprietary maritime claims' are defined to include, for example, claims relating to possession, ownership or mortgage of a ship. `General maritime claims' are defined to include, for example, claims for damage done by a ship, claims for loss of life or personal injury as a result of a defect in a ship or in the apparel or equipment and claims arising out of an act or omission of a ship's owner or the person in possession of the ship. As I have mentioned, jurisdiction is conferred on the various courts by part II of the Bill. Above all, provision is made for transferring matters begun in one court to another court with the appropriate jurisdiction. This is a special innovation contained in this Bill. The imperial legislation that has governed admiralty jurisdiction in Australia is to be repealed, as I have already said, by part IV of the Bill. The Governor-General is empowered to make rules, under clause 41, for governing the practice and procedure of the courts exercising admiralty jurisdiction and regulations generally. The Bill has received bipartisan support in this chamber. It is an historic piece of legislation and I am sure it will be adopted by the Senate as soon as it is debated in that House. It will enable practitioners of admiralty law and the courts which will now be empowered to deal with admiralty actions in this country a vehicle with which to bring sense and certainty to admiralty law. Above all, the clients who have to deal with admiralty law will have an established set of practices and procedures upon which they can go to the courts for quick and sure guidance. That has been lacking for nearly 90 years. I commend the Bill to the House. I join with other members in congratulating the Australian Law Reform Commission and those who participated in the preparation and drafting of the report which was considered by the Attorney-General prior to his preparation of this Bill now under consideration by the House. They deserve the congratulations of all the legal fraternity in this country on the excellent work they have done. Their work will stand as a milestone of competence by the Australian Law Reform Commission and will bring to the legal profession, including judges, who will be involved in administering Australia's admiralty law, a piece of legislation which is easily understandable and able to be easily adjudicated. This legislation will enhance maritime trade for those who have to abide by the law and regulations under this Bill. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.44) —On behalf of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the Admiralty Bill 1988. It is pleasing to see that the Opposition is supporting the legislation. I was very interested to listen to the contributions by both the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). I am sure that the Attorney-General also will be very interested in reading their speeches. I foreshadow that I will move some minor amendments on behalf of the Attorney-General when we are in committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.45) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 1, line 12, and page 2, lines 1 to 7, omit the definition of ``Civil Liability Convention'', substitute the following definition: `` `Civil Liability Convention' means the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage done at Brussels on 29 November 1969 (a copy of the English text of which is set out in Schedule 1 to the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981), as amended by: (a) until the commencement of Part IV of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Act 1986-the Protocol to that Convention done at London on 19 November 1976 (a copy of the English text of which is set out in Schedule 2 of the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981); or (b) on and after the commencement of that Part-the Protocol to that Convention done at London on 25 May 1984 (a copy of the English text of which is set out in Schedule 2 of the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 as amended by that Part);''. (2) Clause 42, page 18, line 38, omit ``may'', substitute ``shall''. (3) Clause 42, page 18, line 40, omit ``may'', substitute ``shall''. The amendment to the definition of `Civil Liability Convention' in clause 3 is necessary to take account of provisions in the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Act 1986 which will give effect to the 1984 protocol to the Civil Liability Convention. The definition will define the Convention as including the amendments made by the 1984 protocol when the amendments made by the 1986 Acts enter into force. Australia is in the process of accepting the 1984 protocol, which has not yet entered into force internationally. The amendment to clause 42, by substituting `shall' for `may', will make it clear that the rules committee is to be established to advise on the admiralty rules and that the establishment of the committee is not a matter of discretion. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(4.47) —The Opposition believes these amendments are perfectly sensible and gives them its full support. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Humphreys)-by leave-read a third time. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support)(4.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The amendments proposed in the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1988 will enable the Federal Government to implement its part of a second package of reforms for the Australian road transport industry. This Government is the only government in Australia's history to have attended to the problems of our national road freight industry. Since it initiated the National Road Freight Inquiry in 1983, chaired by Mr Tom May, the Labor Government has worked closely with State and Territory governments and the road transport industry to provide sensible and productive reforms. We have introduced significant efficiencies to the industry, improved its safety and recognised the difficulties faced by many truckies. We will continue to develop these reforms which will have major flow-on to the needs of Australian industry as a whole, to our economy, and our international trade. Transport is a major sector in the Australian economy. It accounts for about 17 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product, with the road transport sector contributing about $16 billion per year to value-added output or 7.5 per cent of gross domestic product. Transport costs make up over 40 per cent of the final product price for the mining industry; between 6 and 12 per cent for primary products; and 13 per cent for manufacturing. Road transport costs typically account for around 5 per cent of product costs in the more trade-exposed parts of the manufacturing sector. Road transport will continue to play a predominant role in the Australian economy. By the year 2000 total road use is expected to be about 60 per cent above the 1985 level. People often forget the geographic size of our country. They forget the distances over which our raw materials have to be carried, and too often make specious comparisons attempting to focus on transport costs as a scapegoat for their competitive position. We know that there are efficiencies to be gained and over the last five years we have achieved much with shipping costs, with our railways-particularly Australian National-and with road freight. Our road freight industry is, in fact, one of our most competitive industries and internationally we are renowned for our trucking expertise. The May report has provided a blueprint for the development of the industry. The first set of reforms based on the report was the fast-track package of reforms, which commenced on 1 January 1987. Central to the fast-track package was the Federal interstate registration scheme, which was established under the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985. This scheme provides for the registration of vehicles engaged solely in interstate trade and commerce and the payment of reasonable registration charges which recover the cost of road wear. On the initiative of this Government, State and Territory Ministers endorsed the second stage package at the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) ministerial meeting last December. I commend the former Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support for his contribution. The reforms are being introduced cooperatively by Federal, State and Territory governments and have the strong support of industry. The package comprises: increasing the national speed limit for heavy vehicles in non-urban areas to 100 kilometres per hour; revising driving hours in the eastern mainland States to reflect more realistically modern Australian conditions; and introducing revised registration charges and new registration categories providing for higher and nationally uniform load limits under the Federal interstate registration scheme. The increase in the heavy vehicle speed limit to 100 kilometres per hour outside built up areas will improve safety by removing the disparity between truck and car speeds. This will reduce the need for overtaking, which has been identified as a major road safety problem. The move to this limit follows an interim increase to 90 kilometres per hour, which was evaluated over 12 months. The results of this evaluation showed that there had been no adverse road safety implications from the increase to 90 kilometres per hour. The introduction of uniform revised driving hours arrangements along the eastern mainland seaboard acknowledges the realities of modern vehicle design, today's road conditions and existing practices. Overall weekly driving hours will increase only slightly, but more flexibility is provided to meet the varying needs of different operators. Driving hours will be enforced by an enhanced log book system, with the alternative option of approved tachographs. The impact of the new speed limit and revised driving hours will be closely monitored and enforced. ATAC Ministers called on the road transport industry to demonstrate a responsible attitude to the introduction of the new package. Industry associations support the concept of realistic enforcement. The industry supports the reform package. The changes to the Federal legislation will provide for new vehicle categories to be introduced under the Federal registration scheme to allow federally registered vehicles to operate at higher mass limits. This arrangement will obviate the need for the existing vehicle mass permit schemes in New South Wales and Victoria for federally registered vehicles. For the first time federally registered vehicles will be able to operate at a uniform limit across Australia. This morning I announced the registration charges to apply from 1 July 1988 for vehicles registered under the Federal interstate registration scheme. The revised charges are a further step in pursuing our commitment to allowing truck owners to make a fair contribution to maintaining our road infrastructure. They include the new classes of vehicles operating at higher mass limits. In determining the charges, consideration has been given to the Inter-State Commission's 1987 review of Federal registration charges for interstate vehicles. Money collected from registration charges will continue to be returned to State and Territory governments for the maintenance and upkeep of roads used by federally registered vehicles. Let me now turn to the individual amendments. The principal amendment in the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill provides for new registration categories to be established to enable vehicles to operate at mass limits up to 42.5 tonnes under the Federal interstate registration scheme. To implement the higher mass limits a specific regulatory power has been used. In addition, a general regulatory power for vehicle operating standards has also been inserted into the Act allowing us to implement a smoking ban on Federal interstate buses and coaches. This will also enable us to act quickly to achieve further reforms for the industry in the future. The smoking ban was agreed to by Federal and State Ministers and will complement similar State legislation to be introduced during 1988. Clause 12 provides the general regulation-making power covering vehicle operating standards which will be used to implement this ban. These provisions are in line with the ban on smoking on commercial passenger aircraft which commenced on 1 December 1987. Let me emphasise that at this stage the regulation-making powers will apply only to new regulations for the control of mass limits and to implement the ban on smoking in interstate buses and coaches. The continued willingness of States to implement jointly agreed reforms will mean that the general use of these regulatory powers should be minimal. Clause 6 clears the way to introduce increased mass limits for federally registered vehicles and clause 5 expressly exempts Federal vehicles from the need to obtain a State permit for operating at the higher mass limits. Consequential amendments are required to the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act. They will enable the Government to set registration charges to offset the extra costs of road wear for 42.5 tonne vehicles. The charge for vehicles over 38 tonnes is $3,135. The legislation will set a charge limit of $5,000 for these vehicles. Any increase above this limit would require an amendment to the legislation. The $1,000 limit for other classes of vehicles will be retained. The remaining minor amendments are of an administrative nature and are required to streamline operations for the benefit of both the State authorities which administer the registration scheme and the users-the road transport industry. The Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill provides for the amendments to come into force on 1 July 1988. State Ministers of the Australian Transport Advisory Council have accepted this introduction date. I must say that Tasmania will require some further time. A number of factors are to be considered. The net budgetary impact of these amendments will be nil. All registration charges will be paid into the Interstate Road Transport Trust Fund and will continue to be fully distributed to the States and Territories. All administrative costs incurred by State and Territory authorities administering the scheme are met through the levying of fees. No additional staffing requirements or administration will arise for the Federal Department of Transport and Communications. The charges for vehicles in the new categories will be offset by increased efficiency and productivity for the road transport industry. Bus and coach industry organisations claim that the ban on smoking will reduce maintenance costs. The reforms being realised in the interstate road transport amendment Bills reflect the importance of road transport for the Australian economy. They are another constructive step towards achieving the Government's goal of restructuring the economy; part of the Government's micro-economic reform package for achieving an efficient transport industry. I commend the Bill and present the explanatory memoranda for this Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1988 to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support)(5.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985. The Act provides for the level of charges to be paid by owners of vehicles registered under the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985. The charges recover road wear costs of vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce. The Bill enables registration charges in excess of $1,000 to be set for vehicles operating with a gross combination mass exceeding 38 tonnes. This is required to offset the extra costs of road wear caused by the operation of these vehicles. The $1,000 limit for other classes of vehicles remains. The Bill should be read in conjunction with the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988 and is to come into effect on the same day as that Bill, 1 July 1988. I commend the Bill, and honourable members will note that I presented the explanatory memorandum for this Bill with the explanatory memorandum for the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Mrs Kelly: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.05) —The Social Security Amendment Bill covers a wide range of areas in the Social Security Act and makes a number of amendments which the Opposition is prepared to support, although some will require further explanation in due course. In the second reading speech the point is made that the objective of the Government is to improve the quality of administration and decision making in the social security portfolio. Furthermore it is suggested that the Government intends first to ensure that every Australian resident obtains adequate income support as and when it is needed and secondly to protect the revenue by ensuring that the payments are not directed to those who do not require them. The Bill makes the very significant and important change of requiring that in future, where compensation settlements are made, those people who have up to the date of settlement been claiming either unemployment or sickness benefits, for example, will be required to pay back the sum total of those benefits, and for the purposes of the Act 50 per cent of lump sum settlements will be taken as being the result of economic loss. Experts in this area may have some concern about the impact of that in the event that it could, for example, discriminate against people who receive personal compensation settlements which, in fact, required that more than 50 per cent be the result of economic loss. Nevertheless, we will be watching the situation to make sure that it does not develop in a way that allows people to be unfairly treated as a result of that particular amendment. The legislation also covers the loss of income component of West German restitution payments when assessing the rate of pension or benefit. This has been a particular matter of concern to the Opposition and, I might add, to the Jewish community of Australia, particularly in relation to those who were victims of the Holocaust. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), in a Press release of 30 November 1987 entitled `Restitution payments for Nazi victims', emphasised the fact that the Act `would be amended to clarify the way social security income tests are applied to restitution paid by the German Government to people who were persecuted by the Hitler regime'. This was a decision taken by the Government, flowing from discussions with the Australian Jewish Welfare Societies and the Minister. Regrettably, however, in our discussions with the Jewish community and the Welfare Societies it has become quite clear that they are not satisfied with the interpretation of `income' in the proposed legislative changes. It is worth noting that West German restitution payments are provided by the West German Government for approximately 1,000 people living in Australia who suffered under the Nazi regime. These people were either in concentration camps or elsewhere, but one way or the other they certainly suffered as a result of the depradations of that monstrous administration of Germany. Following the war they migrated to Australia. The size of the restitution payments depends on the individual's war history and suffering and the general range is between $100 and $300 a month. While the proposed amendment seeks to make a clear distinction as to what is defined as loss of income and what is not for the purposes of the pension income test, we believe, as do the Jewish welfare organisations, that it has failed to solve the problem effectively. This is for two reasons. First, those who are in receipt of compensation payments are assessed on a percentage basis for loss of health. A component of this may be described nominally as a loss of earning capacity. The Government's proposed amendment could be interpreted in such a way as to have the entire restitution payment described as income. In the event that it is described as income or considered as such by the Department, of course that would become subject to the income test under the Act. Secondly, there is a group of people who come under the Reichversicherung rules in that they would have been working in Germany between 1933 and 1939. In that capacity, as with all Germans at that stage and ever contemporaneously, they automatically paid superannuation from their salaries. Effectively, it was a compulsory superannuation payment. As a result of the nazi restitution laws of 1949, some of these people are eligible for entitlements because of the income losses they clearly suffered. Despite the Government's proposed amendment these payments could still be interpreted as income and, as I said, therefore become subject to the provisions of the Act which would effectively limit the pensions that these people may receive. So, while referring to loss of income-and rightly so-the Bill fails to define what is income. In consequence of this, at the committee stage of the Bill I shall be moving an amendment to clause 3 to overcome this outstanding difficulty in the Act at present. The Act also covers a range of other matters, such as minor changes to the family allowance supplement (FAS). It allows, for example, the apportionment of advance leave payments as income over the period of leave. It treats lump sum payments for termination of employment as having been received on the last day of employment. It apportions arrears of education allowance over the period covered by the payment and it backdates payments of FAS to the date that education payment started to accrue, provided the FAS is claimed or received within six weeks of the date of first receipt of education allowance payment. It also makes some changes in relation to the job search allowance. This is of particular relevance to the children of pensioners, because it excludes them from the operation of parental income test, which applies to persons who are in receipt of an income. In addition to that, it bases the parental income test on income during the last completed financial year, not part of a financial year. We believe that is a worthwhile and sensible change. In relation to the payment of supporting parents' benefits and widows pensions, it is also a very important but easily missed administrative problem with the earlier Act of last year that under the new arrangements parents whose dependent children are between the ages of 16 and 24 attract child disability allowance and who, because they are either physically or mentally handicapped, will in fact be protected. The House will recall that the Government did change this arrangement after the last election, to the extent that the supporting parents' benefits would only be payable to children under the age of 16 and in that case on the basis of an income test on their parents. Children over that age would not receive the benefit, the alleged reason being that in most cases they would qualify for the Austudy arrangements. The Government has tended to ignore the problem of horizontal equity in a situation like this which does not, to all intents and purposes, take account of the difficulties of people who may notionally be in what we could describe as middle income brackets but at the same time have a large number of children. I have previously made the point in the House that by no stretch of the imagination can we compare the financial position of people on an income basis, irrespective of the levels of income being compared. A single man on $50,000 or even a married couple on $50,000 with no children cannot be compared with parents with five children in a similar income situation. Regrettably, this Act, as with other changes to the tax arrangements over recent years made by this Government, has effectively ignored that very important factor. The same principle applies to some degree in relation to the application of the Austudy arrangements. The essential ingredient of the Minister's second reading speech in the House was his allegation-if I may use that term-that the Government is in the business of embarking on a major program to improve the actual distribution of social security benefits and so forth to those who are in need and, above all, to create a more equitable society. On this side of the House I would support the objective of creating a more equitable society, which I hasten to add does not mean a more egalitarian society. Just as we were not born equal, none of us are going to die equal. We have different skills and abilities. The question that a government has to address is how our policies can be best determined to ensure that those skills and abilities and the opportunities which individual citizens have available to them are as fair and equitable as possible. What individuals make of those opportunities, regrettably, is not an element on which government policy by itself is able to make much direct impact. In consequence of this, however, and because of the major concern the Opposition has at the fact that the Australian people have demonstrated in elections across this land over the last six months a growing perception that the Government is out of touch with the real problems facing the average Australian-whether he be a family man or not, but I emphasise that family people are the ones with the biggest problems-we will be moving an amendment to the second reading motion of this Bill, which I quote for the benefit of the House: 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 deplores the facts that (a) the Hawke Government's economic and social polices continue to cause a fall in living standards for Australian families, and (b) the Prime Minister has refused to meet his 1987 election pledge that by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty''. The average Australian family today needs a further $42 a week to restore its disposable income to the point where it was in March 1983. Over five years of Government policy, with all the alleged changes which it has introduced, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Ministers have continually said, `There is nothing wrong with our policies. The only thing wrong with them is that they have not been sold properly'. That is an extraordinary statement coming from the person who, we have been told for the last five years at least, is Australia's greatest communicator. I think it demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that there are a number of fundamental problems to which the Government has not been prepared to direct its efforts. While on the one hand, for example, it talks about reducing the incidence of tax on Australians, and particularly on Australian families, the simple fact of the matter is that through inflation, through the bracket creep, despite the reductions in tax which have taken place, the impact of those changes has been of much more benefit to those on higher incomes than it has been to those on lower incomes. Is it any wonder, therefore, that in the New South Wales State elections in electorates such as the electorate of Minchinbury, with Green Valley and Mount Druitt in the western suburbs of Sydney-which most people would say have more than their fair share of social and economic problems-people voted predominantly Liberal, because they simply have lost confidence in the capacity and the willingness of this Labor Government, a so-called government of compassion and concern, to take any real notice of their problems. A few months ago, in one of my visits to that part of Sydney I was taken to see a caravan park. I must have seen at least 50 to 60 caravans. The occupants were not people who were just coming to the western suburbs of Sydney for a holiday. One does not generally go to places like Mount Druitt and Green Valley for a holiday. If one does, one does not stay in a caravan. These were Australian families, for the most part. The children were not getting a decent education. There was not a tree to be seen. At the back of the caravans they were building the next generation of accommodation. It reminded me of what I saw in Soweto rather than what I should see in Sydney-little square blocks. They were not giving people caravans any more; they were going to give them square block sheds. All the washing and laundry facilities were common. There were common ablution blocks the like of which I had to suffer when I was in the army cadets many years ago. In the winter time those families freeze. In the summer time they bake in an open area which, as I said, is covered by dirt and dust-treeless. The horrifying part is that those families were paying $125 a week. Mr Goodluck —How much? Mr CONNOLLY —$125 a week, to live in a two-wheeled caravan-the sort of thing you would bundle your kids in for 36 hours, and after that your wife complains and wants to go home. But those families were living there, and I regret to say that what I saw is being mirrored probably right across Australia today. It is demonstrated by the fact that we now have a waiting list of some 160,000 units for public housing in this country. Yet we are told that this Government has faced up to and understands the problems. `We are listening', says the Prime Minister when he makes those rare visits to the real world. He says, `We are listening', but I wonder what he has to say to those people out there in Minchinbury. What does he have to say to the people living in those conditions across the nation? I remember in the late 1960s I was in the United States where I was brought face to face, for the first time in my life I might add, with what is called temporary accommodation or mobile homes. I was shocked and I said to one of the Americans with me, `We would never let that happen in Australia. We would never allow our housing situation to reach the stage where people have to live in homes on wheels because we cannot give them even the vestige of a basic house with two or three bedrooms'. What I saw there brought home to me, as I hope it would bring home to all members of the Government, that when we talk about poverty in Australia today we must recognise that poverty is real, it is grinding and cutting at the vitals of our nation. Mr Gear —What are you going to do about it? Mr CONNOLLY —What are we going to do about it? The truth of the matter is that after five years it is time to ask the Government, `What are you going to do about it? Why has it taken you the best part of five years even to acknowledge that there is a problem?'. The problem has a number of elements. The Government has deliberately presided over a lowering of the standard of living for the vast majority of Australians, and it takes some pride in saying that. The trouble is that the lowering of standards has affected those at the bottom much more than those at the top. The sad fact is that any analysis that one cares to read on wealth distribution in society leads one to suggest that those at the top have done extremely well over the past five years. Clearly, those towards the bottom know that they have not done well and that they cannot make ends meet. The Government's only answer to all that has been the family assistance supplement, which we support. It is a logical extension of the old family income supplement arrangement, and it is desperately needed. But again the evidence is quite clear: by 1990, to use the chosen date of the Prime Minister, the Government will be nowhere near removing poverty from Australia. That was a stupid comment, one which the Opposition will not allow the Prime Minister to forget and one which those who are living in and experience poverty will also not forget. The Melbourne Herald in its editorial of Monday, 11 April this year, put it aptly when it stated: When a politician makes a statement that so stretches credulity, as the Prime Minister did last year, it can and often is dismissed as mere political rhetoric. In this case, despite big headlines at the time, that is exactly what happened. And on the way the poor children, who do not have a powerful voice in the political jungle, stay poor. Money is not enough, and in many respects that is where the Prime Minister made his fundamental error; he presumed that we would be credulous enough to believe that, provided absolute incomes for poor families increased marginally-and we are talking about money only at the margin, regrettably-somehow or other everything else would fall into place. The fact is that, while poverty is closely related to the lack of money, which is essential just to stay alive and clothe oneself, it is much wider than that. Essentially, poverty involves the inability of a person to utilise the normal range of opportunities that most of us take for granted in our society. Persons are in poverty when they cannot obtain an adequate education; persons are in poverty when they cannot find employment; persons are in poverty if they are a member of a single parent family that has been ignored and denied the normal elements of family support by the non-custodial parent for so long. Again, the Opposition is delighted that at long last, after five years of shillyshallying, the Government has its act together and is moving in the area of maintenance support, despite the fact that it called the legislation by another name. It is not a family support package; it is no more nor less than a maintenance package. If the legislation was a support package, most people would presume that that would mean that all children in need would be supported. Even presuming that we could get 70 per cent of those involved to pay some maintenance, at least 30 per cent would continue to pay no maintenance for one reason or another. There has been no suggestion by the Government that families under those circumstances will be better off than they are today. I make that point because we in this Parliament and elsewhere have a tendency to throw around numbers and try to obfuscate the issues by saying things like, `We are helping 30 per cent' and then calling it quits. The fact is that we must ensure that the 30 per cent to whom we give maximum assistance as far as we are financially able are those who need assistance the most-those at the bottom. The point I am making, therefore, is that to many people a few dollars is not enough to prevent them from being in poverty. As the Prime Minister learnt to his cost when he made those statements, merely giving money to the parents of children, regrettably, is no guarantee that those children will be any better off at all. If the answer is that we should take the children from their parents, I am certain that no one in this House would support that approach but, as I said previously, it demonstrates the point that any respectable definition of poverty includes much more than simply the provision of greater sums of money. The problem involves encouraging and helping those families to do better by their children while at the same time ensuring that our educational and housing systems, and so on, are adequate and give as much support as this nation can provide, given the very large range of alternatives that the taxation dollar is expected to provide according to the other responsibilities of government. As I have said, we have conceded that the child support package has gone some way towards alleviating these difficulties. The President of the Australian Council of Social Service, Mr Julian Disney, said that, even after the full impact of the Government's new family allowance supplement, about 400,000 children would still remain impoverished. Academics Brownlee and King in their paper `The Working Poor' claim that the main group of families has been lifted above the poverty line but that much more needs to be done for families on pensions and benefits. As I said previously, housing is a fundamental problem. Housing costs should be placed high on the policy agenda in continuing the fight against poverty. An analysis of the poor demonstrates one interesting fact: those in greatest poverty are those who are paying private rent. In places like Sydney in particular, people are facing extremely difficult situations and the poor have effectively been driven out of the inner suburbs towards the fringe of the city. That creates another set of problems involving communications, transport and so on, making it even more difficult for many of those people to find employment. Examinations have also been made on the impact of the Government's family package in reducing both the number of children living in poverty and the size of the gap between family incomes and the poverty line. After considering the costs of providing housing, Brownlee and King found that 148,000 children in working families and 260,800 children in pensioner beneficiary families would still be living below the poverty line. In their study they stressed the need not just for money incomes but that the Government must consider `other forms of material well-being' such as assets or fringe benefits. They also noted that consideration of income transfers alone did not attack the root causes of poverty and stated that parallel policies are required in areas such as employment, education and housing. In other words, it will take much more than increased income to eliminate child poverty. I would like to make a few observations about the impact of the taxation system in this whole area. While people tend to say that the very poor do not pay any taxes because they are below the threshold and that therefore the taxation system cannot affect them, the difficulty contemporary Australian society faces is that the threshold of poverty is in fact going up-in other words, more people are finding themselves on the margin or below that line. That increase in poverty automatically suggests that the current tax thresholds are not adequate to keep up with the problem. One of the major related problems-and this matter is not unique to the present Government-is that when reference is made to cash transfer payments from the Budget, such payments are very obvious. Everyone knows about them, they are clearly seen and people get upset about the fact that 28 per cent of the Budget goes in social security payments, et cetera. People are not aware of the fact that support can also be made available through the taxation system. Then, the figures are effectively hidden. The time has come when a very thorough analysis needs to be done about what sections of the community do best out of the tax transfer arrangements on the one hand, and out of direct support through the taxation system on the other. I believe such an analysis will reveal some glaring inconsistencies. As I have said, the Opposition parties support the essential ingredients of this legislation. From time to time the need arises to introduce into the House arrangements that will improve social security legislation and overcome anomalies when they appear. Regrettably, changes such as those contained in the legislation demonstrate that quite a few problems have arisen. However, essentially the objective of social security policy must be to create a more equitable distribution of wealth in our society. Different mechanisms can be used to achieve that goal. As the Institute of Family Studies has pointed out, not enough consideration has been given over the last few years-certainly not over the last five years-to the fundamental problem that, under the existing taxation system, the people who decide to bring up children in our society and who thus play a vital role in assuring the continuity of our population have not been given a fair go. The only support they have effectively received from this Government-and, as I have said, it has been very belated-has been through the family allowance supplement in the fifth and sixth years of the Government's administration. To that point, nothing was done. On the contrary, the Government changed the taxation system in such a way that it gave up any pretence of support through horizontal equity. That is the point with which I started my speech and it is one of the points with which I want to finish it. The taxation system needs to be reviewed to give special emphasis to the problems facing Australian families who are bringing up children, often in very real distress. There is not the slightest doubt that people who have children in their family suffer a fall in real income, but that obvious fact has so far been completely ignored by the Government, and a change of policy in this direction must be made as soon as possible, hopefully by May. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Goodluck —Yes. Mr GEAR(Canning)(5.35) —It will not have escaped the notice of the House that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) did not respond to my invitation to tell us what in this case the Opposition would do. We should consider the way in which the Opposition conducts itself these days, whether in relation to policies on taxation, television ownership rules, social security, health or anything else. The Opposition is long on rhetoric but short on detail. The honourable member for Bradfield said that $43 was necessary to maintain the standard of living as at March 1983. The question one ponders is that, if everything was so rosy in March 1983, why were the Liberals thrown out of office? Mr Connolly —And why will you be thrown out next time? Mr GEAR —That is what the Opposition said last time and the time before, and it will be saying it next time. The fact is that it was thrown out of office in 1983 and it was kept out of office twice subsequently because it just does not have the answers to the important questions facing us. The longer we go, the more we see how incompetent the Opposition is. In Melbourne a couple of weeks ago there was the talk about the consumption tax-what a fiasco that was. The great debate in the Liberal Party about the consumption tax amounted to putting a muzzle on-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Canning will recall that in the House last week we got into a certain amount of trouble on the question of relevance. I would ask, to avoid that same problem arising in relation to this Bill, that the honourable member keep his remarks relevant. Mr Blanchard —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just listened to the honourable member for Bradfield and, with respect to your ruling, his remarks were wide ranging. I think that some discretion should be given to members on this side, as well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for Moore for his help. I heard the honourable member for Bradfield refer to horizontal equity. I do not recall his remarks embracing the consumption tax. I do not think the debate has gone as wide as that, and I do not intend to allow it to get any more wide ranging. I ask the honourable member for Canning to make his remarks relevant. Mr GEAR —I appreciate the sentiment in your ruling, sir. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is more than sentiment, I remind the honourable member. Mr GEAR —I acknowledge your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, I agree with my colleague the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) that it has been a wide ranging debate, and taxes were mentioned. As to the formulation of policies, I asked the honourable member for Bradfield to tell us what he would do, and he did not do that. He spoke about people living in caravans in Sydney, saying how distressed he felt in seeing them in that state. All members of the House would agree with him. However, we must look at why people are living in those conditions in 1988 and also consider the state of the economy in 1988. The present Government has been in office now for five years. If honourable members look back to the state of the economy in 1983 they will realise that at that stage it had collapsed because, over a number of years, governments had sat on their hands and done nothing. We are now paying the penalty for that. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that in the five years since the Government has been in power we have attempted in all areas to ensure that the Australian economy in 1988, and as we move into the 1990s, will be such that people do have jobs. Our record shows that the Government has created over one million new jobs, compared to a loss of jobs in the last year of the Fraser Government of 200,000. That fact directly affects the number of beneficiaries under this legislation. As the honourable member for Bradfield said, the Government introduced the family package of tax free cash assistance, which provides $22 per week per child and more for teenagers aged 13 to 15 years. That package affects more than 600,000 working families with 1.2 million children, at a cost of $500m a year. (Quorum formed) There is no doubt that the Opposition wastes the time of this place. The Liberal Party should think of taxpayers when it calls for quorums. It is just not good enough to stop the workings of parliament to cater to the whim of a member of the Opposition. Everybody listening to the broadcast of this debate should know that the Liberal Party is wasting taxpayer's money. Before I was interrupted I was pointing out that the Government has introduced the family assistance package, which deals directly with many of the points raised by the honourable member for Bradfield. There is no doubt about it: when it comes to giving out advice honourable members opposite are always gunnas. When they are in opposition they say they are gunna do it; they never did it when they were in government. I remind the honourable member for Bradfield that when he talks about taxation he should remember that during the whole period of the Fraser Government the top tax rate stood at 60c. We brought that down to 49c. What is more important to this debate is that the bottom tax rate during the Liberal years was 30c. As we are talking about people on low incomes, I remind the House that the bottom tax rate is now 24c. It is all right for the honourable member for Bradfield to lecture this Government about how we should go about eradicating poverty. This Government has done more than the previous Government ever did in all areas of social security, as well as in industrial policy and taxation reform, to bring about improvements. Indeed, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in his second reading speech stated: We have substantially increased the real level of pensions, benefit and allowances while reducing the level of social security expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product. What we are doing is targeting that money to those people who need it and making sure that the wastefulness that was there previously is eradicated. Nothing exemplifies that more than the assets test. When this Government moved to make sure that people with millions of dollars did not receive the pension, the Opposition opposed that measure. Nothing has been said since to indicate to this Government that it would repeal that provision if it became the Government. I listened to the honourable member for Bradfield talk about the higher taxes that this Government collects. It is true that we collect more tax now in 1988 than we did in 1983, and there are a number of reasons for that. We have an expanded economy. We have a million people now paying taxes who never used to pay taxes. We have an economy that is producing more. The gross domestic product has gone up. So one would anticipate that the taxation take would be very much higher. Also, many people in those days were not paying taxes. The fringe benefits tax, in particular, we are told will raise about $2 billion this year. So honourable members can see that the tax take is higher. Mr Connolly —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the extreme lack of relevance of the honourable member's remarks. This is supposed to be a debate on a social security Bill, not a tax Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Canning has been asked to remain relevant. I will allow him a couple of sentences to get back to the Bill. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was going on to point out how it is apparent from the Minister's second reading speech that we are targeting that money at people who do need it. I was picking up the point made by the honourable member for Bradfield, who raised the point of order. I noted when he was speaking that he referred to higher taxes. I am responding to him, yet now he takes a point of order. I am telling him why there are higher taxes and why we are getting more taxes now. I have listened to members of the Opposition on a number of occasions. They talk about Australia as a high taxing country. In actual fact, it is not true. The honourable member for Bradfield wants Turkish tax rates with Swedish social security provisions. He is not honest enough, when talking to pensioners in the community about social security, to mention raising taxes. He talks about high taxes to one audience, but I can imagine what he says about social security provisions to a pensioners' meeting. Will he ever tell them why he is going to slash taxes and who is going to pay for it? Mr Connolly —The pensioners were better off than they are now and they know it. You saw them at the public rally out there a few months ago. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Connolly —They booed your Prime Minister. They booed him back into the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will stop interjecting, particularly after the Chair has asked him to come to order. Mr GEAR —I am responding to the honourable member for Bradfield because he made a number of relevant points in his contribution. When he speaks about pensions, social security provisions and a rally of pensioners outside this place, he is speaking from the Opposition benches. The question he has to ask himself is: If he is so good, why is he sitting on the Opposition side? Why are we sitting over here? At the next election it will be the same story because, when one looks at our social security record dealing with pensioners, one finds that we have raised the age pension by 8.4 per cent in real terms. We have taken it from 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings, where the Opposition left it, to over 25 per cent. Does the honourable member really think that pensioners will applaud him for keeping down the pension and give him a second chance? Mr Connolly —Look at what you have done to the cost of living. Mr GEAR —The honourable member talks about the cost of living. He should look at his record. When Mr Fraser came to government he was going to tackle inflation. That was it: tackle inflation and everything will fall into place. When the previous Government was kicked out of office inflation was running at 11.7 per cent. That is how good he was and he talks about the cost of living! Mr Courtice —And whom does that hurt? Mr GEAR —My colleague asks whom that hurts. High inflation hurts people on low incomes. So for the whole seven years of the previous Government it set itself the task of combating inflation. It flunked. When it was kicked out inflation was higher than it was when it came to government. Mr Snowdon —What about employment? Mr GEAR —As I have already mentioned, we have created a million new jobs. I will go back to the cost of living because it does impinge on the very people we are talking about in this Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Canning wants to make this a debate on the economy it will be possible for others to do the same. He knows that. I asked him earlier to be relevant. I ask him to do so. It is not a debate on the economy. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I point out that I am still responding to the honourable member for Bradfield, who was allowed to make wide ranging remarks in the debate, even though he was relevant. I am trying to be relevant in responding. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Canning will not reflect on the Chair. The honourable member for Bradfield remained in order. He spoke to the Bill before the House and to his amendment. I caution the honourable member to do the same. Mr GEAR —In his contribution the honourable member for Bradfield spoke about public housing and the long waiting lists. I agree with him that it is just not good enough that we cannot provide housing for as many people as we would like. Certainly, they are the people who are affected by the provisions in this Bill. My response is that we have doubled funding for public housing so that people who are receiving the family assistance supplement-many of them are living in public housing or are renting privately-will be assisted by the passage of this Bill. I return to the point I was making before. In the provision of social security we are making sure that we target our social security dollars to those people who need them. I remind the House again that the percentage of gross domestic product spent on social security now is lower than when we came to government. The Opposition cannot say that we are raising too many taxes and spending money in an undisciplined way and then talk about cutting taxes because we are spending it in that undisciplined way. Members of the Opposition talk about cutting taxes which will impinge directly on the Social Security Amendment Bill. When we hear Opposition spokesmen talk about a $11 billion to $13 billion cut, we have to ask: How will the Social Security Amendment Bill be affected by that? The truth is that it will be affected substantially because 28 to 29 per cent of all our spending is on social security. If those opposite are going to make cuts of $11,000m to $13,000m, it is up to them to tell us where the money will come from. Are they going to cut age pensions? Will the family assistance supplement be discontinued? These are the sorts of things that they have to tell the people. We were reminded by the Business Council of Australia just recently in its submission-- Mr Snowdon —Supported by this mob. Mr GEAR —The honourable member is trying to drag me away, but I will come back to the Bill. We were reminded by the Business Council of Australia that $2.5 billion could be cut from the Federal Budget. Indeed, it went into some detail on the social security provisions, including tightening the assets test, which I know the Opposition opposed. When those opposite talk about those sorts of things to come up with cuts of $2.5 billion, and then the shadow Treasurer says that it is not going far enough, I think this Parliament and the people of Australia have a right to know where they are going to make the cuts. It is just not good enough to say that they are going to slash taxes, as was indicated by the honourable member for Bradfield in his speech. They just cannot go on saying that they are going to cut taxes but not telling us where they are going to come from. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get back to the Bill. Mr GEAR —I was going to speak for only 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the calling of the quorum spurred me on. In conclusion, this Government's record on social security stands in stark contrast to the record of the Government that preceded it. In all the years that we have been in government we have targeted social security dollars to those in need. We have never given them to those who were greedy enough to take them before we became the Government, including the 12 millionaires at least who got the pension. As far as I am concerned, this Government does care about people. It cares about the sorts of people that the honourable member for Bradfield spoke of. If members of the Opposition are going to be taken seriously in this country, it is about time that they started talking about specifics and started telling us in dollar terms where they would make the cuts, because only then can they be taken seriously in a debate on social security and other matters. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(5.53) —The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) came to Hobart and opened a social security office. He did not make very many friends down there. He came into the heart of my electorate, a lower income section, and had a shot at what the Fraser Government had done for the poor and needy during its time in office. I walked out of the room because I got a little sick of some of his inferences, which I found a bit distasteful. Many other people were disgusted that day because they knew that the Australian Labor Party thought that it had the divine right to say that it was the only party that cared for the poor and the needy and that anybody involved with the Liberal Party of Australia did not have any idea. But members of the Australian Labor Party fall flat on their face. The Minister fell flat on his face that day because he did not earn very many friends in Hobart. He went to another part of my electorate called Bridgewater, a housing department area, where there is high unemployment, as there are many single and separated mothers and many people whom we would term poor and needy there. He made a few remarks out there that got back to me. They did not go over at all well either. Every time I hear the Minister for Social Security I listen to him very carefully. I have nothing against him personally-his heart is probably in the right place- but I always get the feeling that he is having a shot. He seems to say that everybody but the Opposition cares for the poor and the needy and that we do not understand. He is very wrong. Many on my side of the House care and fight for the poor and needy just as hard as some members of the Labor Party. Mr Connolly —That is how you made your reputation. Mr GOODLUCK —I thank the shadow Minister at the table. I would not agree with that. He has made me lose my track of thought now. The Minister for Social Security always seems to say those sorts of things and it always gets my Irish up a bit, because we do care and we are interested. I think that is where the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made his fatal mistake. Incidentally, I believe that he did it with good intentions. He said that he would remove poverty among young people by the year 1990, but he did not study it very closely. Poverty is related to money, but that is only where it starts. A friend of mine raised six children, five boys and one girl. They attended a Catholic college. He rode a pushbike to work, did not drink or smoke and never went anywhere. All he did was look after his family. Somebody else down the road from him also had six children, but he had his hand out all the time. The point I make is that we cannot remove poverty by adding a little extra money. A lot of other considerations determine whether or not a person will live in poverty or will succeed on a very low income. We need to come back to the fundamentals. We need to start realising that the solution is a little more complicated than shovelling in a little more money to help a family. We need to start with the fundamentals. One of my colleagues the other night-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member for Franklin might come back to the Bill and relate his comments to the legislation. Mr GOODLUCK —Certainly, sir. The Government has said that it will terminate eligibility for sole parent pensions when the youngest child turns 10. I support this legislation because I think what the Government is trying to do and say is very important. It is solving the social security problems that we had when we were in government. Many on my side of the House have very strong feelings against a lot of things. We feel very bitter that we were unable to untangle some of the problems associated with social security payments. Many of us entered parliament with shining eyes and thought that we could change the world all of a sudden, but it does not work that way. All of a sudden there were many single mothers and unemployed people and all the complications of the family started to come to the fore. Many of us were involved in that problem for years. The Labor Party is trying to do the right thing, but it should make absolutely certain when it makes accusations that we do not care and that we have no idea of what it is like to be poor and needy. The Minister for Social Security should make very certain that when he says that it is said in a constructive way because many on my side of the House, including me, are getting very bitter when he continually throws the barb and says that we do not care and have no idea. We do. Many of us are involved with this problem in our electorates. Unemployment is all around us. It has not got any better since this Government came into power. For the 11 years when I was in government I was taunted continually by people who opposed me about the average weekly wage and people living below the poverty line. They asked, `What are you going to do about it?'. The problem is just as bad now and there are reasons for it that one could debate, but I will not go into that now. We have problems. If we are constructively to overcome them we will have to do a little more than talk about the economics of it and putting in a little more money. We need to start talking about the $1.9 billion it costs each year for divorces in this country. It most probably costs each householder $500 to support those divorces. In fact, we allot only $1 per person per year to overcome some of the problems involved with divorce. I am not throwing stones; I am saying that we have massive problems and that we are not going to solve them by continually taunting each other as the Minister for Social Security sometimes does. The Bill makes improvements also to the parental income test on the job search allowance. The year of parental income that is tested will be moved forward to the year ending in the month of June in the previous financial year rather than the month of June in the previous calendar year. This will assist in ensuring that the level of payment is more closely aligned to real need. Where a parent is a social security recipient, the parental income test will not apply. These are sensible moves in the right direction that will overcome some of the complications we now have. Some social security recipients are very hesitant to ask politicians what they should do. For example, many people in my electorate have not come forward to ask questions about the Government's new allowance. Anything we can do to simplify the system, to help people in their pursuit of a better standard of living is to be supported. I applaud the Minister for getting involved, trying to simplify the system and making it far better. That is what it is all about. But for goodness sake he should not taunt people every time he does something. One day he will taunt the wrong person and it might be me. Last year the Labor Government introduced a family allowance supplement as part of its attack on child poverty. Honourable members who have their hearts in the right place would support that legislation, as I did. It assisted people who really needed that money. If we are going to argue the toss we could say that during the last five years many things the Government has done have made it difficult for people on single or fixed incomes to survive. For example, petrol has gone up 13c a litre. That has not assisted low income people. If we are going to help on the one hand we have to help on the other to ensure that people have a decent and respectable life. I support the legislation and the proposed amendment. I urge the Prime Minister not to open his mouth and make promises he cannot keep. There are many things that contribute to poverty and it cannot be solved by giving a person X amount of dollars. There are many reasons for poverty and I suggest that the Prime Minister says openly, `I cannot do it. It is impossible to do it, but I am trying to do it'. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(6.03) —There are many issues in the Social Security Amendment Bill on which we could spend a few hours. Obviously, any one member can cover only a few of these issues. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has moved a two-part amendment. The major part indicates that the Opposition is prepared to give the Bill a second reading. However, the amendment goes on to try to score debating points. To a certain extent I agree with the honourable member for Bradfield that poverty, obviously, is not only about money. I think honourable members on both sides of the House would realise that. We do not need the honourable member for Bradfield to tell us. We realise that poverty does mean the lack of educational opportunities and the lack of other opportunities to persons in the poverty cycle. The important point is that this Bill is an attempt to deal with the Social Security Act, which, in some ways has, developed over the years into a bit of a hotchpotch. Over time we begin to realise that there are issues which do need to be attended to and which do have a priority which they did not have before and that as a result of those priorities we have to change the Act. This Bill does precisely that. In supporting the Bill I remind honourable members on both sides of the House of the tremendous advances in social welfare legislation which have been the result of initiatives of this Government. This Bill is in line with those advances. Certainly, we cannot be complacent about a situation in which there are still too many children living in poverty, half of whom are in sole parent families, yet the Government is attempting to tackle that problem. Our child support legislation, for example, was the first step taken by any government in Australia to tackle the problem of poverty caused by one partner of a marriage leaving the matrimonial home and evading his or her responsibilities by not paying maintenance to help support the children. The failure of many non-custodial parents to live up to their responsibilities means that most sole parents have had to rely heavily on social security support. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) stated in the second reading speech when she presented the Bill on behalf of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe): . . . this Labor Government has embarked on a program of major improvements in the quality of administration and decision making in the social security portfolio. (Quorum formed) Once again the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) has abused the privileges of the House in calling a quorum. Members of the Government have been in committees, working hard and putting all their efforts into trying to run this country. Apart from the honourable members on this side of the House we have just three members of the Opposition in the chamber to listen to this very important debate. So much for their interest in the Bill that is before the House. Before I was interrupted I was talking about the second reading speech in which the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel was placing emphasis on the fact that this program has dual objectives: Firstly, to ensure that every Australian resident obtains adequate income support as and when it is needed; and, secondly, to protect the revenue by ensuring that payments are not directed to those who do not require them. Both these objectives emphasise aspects of equity and social justice which are the very roots of the Labor Party's reason for existence. Over the past five years this Government has commenced the job of rebuilding industry, reviving employment, expanding the social wage and restoring welfare provisions to improve the lives of the ordinary people of Australia. Yet those of us on this side of the House are conscious of the fact that there is still much more that can and should be done in all these areas. The Opposition, for its part, seems to take the view that all it needs to do is to reduce the expenditure on social security. It would do this by cutting programs-but it does not say what programs it would like to cut-and by denying help to those who most need it. That is its way; it is not our way to achieve equity and social justice. This Government has made it clear that we will continue to improve the standard of living of all those resident in Australia who cannot adequately support themselves. At the same time we will ensure that there is a close scrutiny of social security programs and administration in order to protect the taxpayers of this country from excessive taxation. I will now attempt to examine the Bill in some detail. On 8 February 1988 the Minister for Social Security announced that as from that day all workers compensation and common law consent awards and settlements would be subject to a new rule to cut out double dipping in the social security system. Measures to stop double dipping in compensation awards for people on sickness benefits were extended on 1 May 1987 to cover people receiving unemployment and special benefits, invalid pension and sheltered employment and rehabilitation allowances. Unfortunately, it has been found that some people have tried to disguise payments to avoid repayments to social security or to avoid being precluded from social security payments for a certain time. The Department of Social Security takes into account only compensation made for economic loss; payments for specific injuries are normally exempted. Unfortunately, many compensation awards and settlements have not accurately described the true nature of payments and have misled the Department. It was as a result of this abuse that the Minister indicated that, as from 9 May 1988, 50 per cent of any lump sum payment will be deemed to be for economic loss. Social Security payments will be recovered on that basis. This Bill in part formalises the new arrangements and will help to improve the administration and integrity of compensation recovery provisions. It should be noted, however, that where a court has made an order after a contested hearing specifying the economic loss component, the Secretary to the Department will be obliged to continue to have regard to the characterisation given to the award by the court. The point must be made that the Department has reviewed compensation cases which have come within its purview and has found that most people will be better off under the 50 per cent rule because most people receive more than 50 per cent of their award for economic loss in lump sums. It should also be made clear that the Department is not seeking to recover 50 per cent of the lump sum. In cases where Social Security payments have been made in the past and the lump sum payments are not large, the Department may in fact recover less than the amount of pensions actually paid. Certain costs associated with compensation claims are automatically exempted. These costs include legal and medical costs. In the time remaining I will turn to some other aspects of this Bill. I am very pleased-and I am sure all disabled persons and their organisations will be pleased-that a sole parent with a child who attracts the child disability allowance will not lose his or her entitlement to sole-parent's pension when that child turns 16 years of age. This is in recognition of the fact that there is a great deal of care required for a disabled child. It is a measure of compensation for the direct and indirect costs associated with providing care and attention for a disabled child. This Bill has the merit of enhancing the access of social security claimants to the social security system in a number of ways. One of these relates to the family allowance supplement (FAS). Honourable members have spoken at some length on this in this debate; in particular, the treatment of lump sums under the income test. At the moment persons who take leave from their employment and who are paid in a lump sum may forfeit their FAS if the lump sum is treated as income within the period of receipt. Of course, this disadvantages those who receive leave payments in a lump sum compared with those whose leave payments are staggered by their employers. Under this Bill people who take leave from employment and who are paid in a lump sum will have their payment spread over the period of leave. Lump sum education payments will also be spread over the period to which they relate. Student parents who in 1988 were not aware of their family allowance supplement entitlements until they received education payments are now protected under this Bill. As the education payments may be made in respect of an earlier period, FAS will be payable to cover this earlier period of entitlement. I am very pleased to see that improvements will also be made to the parental income test of the job search allowance. The year of parental income that is tested will be moved forward to the year ending in the month of June of the previous financial year rather than the month of June in the previous calendar year. This will assist in ensuring that the level of payment is more closely aligned to real need. There are a number of other important changes to the Social Security Act contained in this Bill but time prevents me from expanding on them. In conclusion, this is an excellent Bill which deserves the support of this House. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(6.19) —I want to take part in this debate on a piece of legislation which is making a series of minor amendments to express disappointment that the range of those minor amendments is not extensive enough and, furthermore, that in the making of the minor amendments we have an identification of the fact that the Government is failing to face up to the real problems that confront Australia and those who are dependent upon our social security system. I am and have been for many years a supporter of a universal approach to social security and family support arrangements. In so far as the Social Security Amendment Bill makes some minor adjustments to the family allowance supplement I think those adjustments are just tinkering at the edges. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) said that his Government wanted to focus on families and individuals in need. To achieve a fair and equitable tax and social security system we need both vertical equity and horizontal equity. We need to make sure that the total household income of families is sufficient to support and educate their children. At the same time we need to recognise that high income families that are supporting dependent spouses and dependent children are recognised, either through the tax system or through the family allowance system. The present Government has said that a high income family that is supporting a dependent spouse and dependent children is not in need, even in comparison with a single taxpayer on the same income. So a family with a combined income of $50,000 a year, or just over, under the Hawke Labor Government gets no family allowance. If a family gets no family allowance because its income is too high as a result of the combined efforts of husband and wife, mother and father, both with a job, and one of them loses his job, unless the income that is lost through, say, the secondary earner losing or giving up her job reduces the total family income by 25 per cent, the family does not regain its entitlement to family allowances, even if the household income is substantially below the threshold at which the family allowance in those circumstances cuts out. That is totally unfair. It is unfair not because of the way a stupid means test operates but because of the stupidity of a system that denies to all families supporting dependent children an equality of tax relief or, alternatively, cash allowance payments. We are about to see this Labor Government create further anomalies. There is a family allowance supplement and some minor amendments to the means test being legislated for in this legislation, but it looks as though the present Government is about to introduce an arrangement whereby non-custodial parents will be required to make a more substantial contribution towards the support of their children than they have made in the past. In doing so we will find that the non-custodial parent will not be supporting his children fully to the same extent as the custodial parent unless his income is in excess of $34,000 to $36,000 a year. In other words, we will have a system that provides child support only to families that are intact and whose income is about $20,000 a year. But, for separated families, that support will continue, even when the family income is at least 50 per cent higher and possibly, on a combined basis, double the level of the intact family's income. That is a crazy system to be implementing. Yet this Government says that it is concerned about families. What this country lacks, and what the present Government has failed to implement, is a sensible family policy that acknowledges the need, throughout the family life cycle, for tax relief for those families who support their dependent children and those children's dependent mothers. It is sad that when we make these minor amendments there is no acknowledgment of the important need to develop a family policy that treats children not as consumption goods but as the future of the nation. We need a family policy that sets taxation and social security in the context of life cycle accounting. Too often governments just look at annual Budgets, taxing individuals and their families on an annual basis, without regard to the life cycle commitments of those individuals and their families. In the few minutes at my disposal I draw the attention of the House to another area. Although minor amendments are made in the Bill I am disappointed that it fails again to look at this problem. Many age pensioners today are subject to income tax. The only thing that prevents some of them being liable to income tax is the age tax allowance or rebate. The gap between pension income and the point at which their tax liability accrues is narrow indeed. Many pensioners, as a consequence, have to meet what to them are substantial tax liabilities once a year. I fail to understand why the Director of Social Security is deemed for taxation purposes to be an employer of the pensioners to whom he is paying a pension. He knows their income or should, and should withdraw the relatively small amounts each week of the tax that those pensioners would otherwise have to pay to relieve them of the heavy burden at the end of the financial year of making a substantial tax payment. Furthermore, the Director of Social Security not only should be required to look at income in retrospect in assessing a person's entitlement to a pension but also he should be required to ask all pensioners to reconcile their income receipts on an annual basis so that the unders and overs can be adjusted by looking back over the experience of the year and adjustments then made, rather than imposing upon pensioners a requirement to notify over a very short period any adjustment of their income that occurs during the year. We need a far more efficient and effective administrative arrangement to determine both the pension entitlement of aged pensioners and others and the tax liability of those pensioners. I am disappointed that that is not contained in this legislation. Debate (on motion by Mr Wright) adjourned. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 28 April 1988. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. I ask for leave of the House to move that the report be adopted. Leave granted. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I move: That the report be adopted in lieu of the report presented on 21 April 1988. Question resolved in the affirmative. The report read as follows- Amended report relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 28 April 1988 The Selection Committee has amended the list of items of private Members' business which it has approved to be accorded priority on Thursday, 28 April 1988. The amended order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in the list. The Committee recommends that the amended report be adopted. Committee report Statements upon presentation Joint Select Committee on Video Material Report. [The Selection Committee has determined that the following time limits apply to statements made in connection with the report- Members presenting report-15 minutes Other Members-10 minutes each Total time for statements-until 11 am] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted 1 MR PROSSER: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935. (Notice given 21 April 1988). 5 mins (pursuant to sessional order 104a *2 MR COURTICE: To move-That this House- (1) recognises the important role that the Government must play in natural disaster relief arrangements; and (2) calls on all States to participate actively in the arrangements (Notice given 21 April 1988). 45 mins *3 MR I. M. D. CAMERON: To move-That this House condemns the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs for the lack of funding and the new arrangements for the distribution of funds for the 800 local government councils in Australia. (Notice given 15 September 1987). 45 mins *4 MR WRIGHT: To move-That this House condemns the decision by the ANZ Bank to introduce a fee for withdrawals from savings accounts, believing that- (1) such a fee is unwarranted, unjust and unfair, particularly to pensioners, low income families and others who depend on savings accounts for the protection and management of their finances; and (2) it is commercially immoral for a bank to charge a depositor for the right to withdraw his or her own money. (Notice given 15 September 1987). any remaining private members business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed. (Quorum formed) Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(8.02) —I think the Opposition should apologise for interrupting such an important dinner with our visitors from Europe. I want to refer to the comments made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) in this debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill. I need some clarification, because I am sure I heard him just before the dinner break advocating that pensioners should be taxed automatically by the Department of Social Security. We heard him say that the Department of Social Security ought to project additional income and pre-tax pensioners. We ought to place that on the record and let the people hear what the Liberal Party is saying. No wonder it is saying that. It is the same Party that in government reduced pensions by 2.4 per cent. It is the same Liberal Party that, in coalition government with the National Party, sought to destroy all the medical benefits and health systems in this country. These are the same parties that have again threatened to impose all sorts of penalties on the people of this country. It is no wonder that honourable members opposite stand up and argue against the amendments in this legislation: the amendments are brought forward by a government that is determined to ensure that every Australian resident obtains adequate income support when it is needed. It is also a government that is determined to protect its revenue base by ensuring that the payments made are directed to those who need them, not to those who do not. This is a government that has a commitment to the needy, not the greedy. It is no wonder that the honourable member for Sturt and other members of the Liberal Party want to criticise this Government. We know their record and we know of the impositions they threaten to place upon the people of Australia. Thank goodness they will never get into government again. I turn to the second reading speech prepared by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and delivered on his behalf when these amendments were introduced a few weeks ago. He pointed out that we have to ensure that we proceed with this Government's commitment to ensuring that there is efficiency in the welfare system, to removing the gaps and removing the anomalies. That is what this amending legislation we are dealing with tonight does. I also acknowledge that this is the Government that has accepted its responsibility to improve the quality of life for the aged, the disadvantaged and the poverty-stricken. This is the Government that has seen an ongoing increase in pensions in real terms. This is the Government that has taken the initiative of introducing a family allowance supplement. These changes are welcomed by the whole community, especially by the tens of thousands of families who are benefiting. I raise one aspect of these amendments that is being prostituted, misconstrued and distorted by the National Party in particular. I refer to a letter circulating throughout my own region written by the National Party State member for Broadsound, Denis Hinton. He refers to the 50 per cent rule, as it has become known, whereby the Government, following its changes in May last year, has sought to ensure that it recover moneys paid to people by way of lump sum compensation. This measure has been brought about, as the Minister for Social Security said, to try to stop double dipping, to try to ensure that those people who receive sickness benefits do not get paid again when they receive lump sum compensation, to make sure that those people who receive an economic loss component in their lump sum do not race immediately to the social security office and list themselves for the unemployment benefit. The member for Broadsound wrote to the unions in my area and sought their support in opposing the Federal Government's compensation recovery provisions, recently announced by the Federal Minister for Social Security. Mr Hinton says: On 8 February 1988 Mr Howe announced a new rule, that 50 per cent of any lump sum workers compensation payment will be deemed to be for economic loss. Whereas previously 100 per cent was considered for economic loss now 50 per cent is utilised for income replacement. Those statements are untrue. Mr Hinton is purposely distorting and misrepresenting the 50 per cent recovery policy. Not only is Mr Hinton, as a State member, doing that but so is the National Party throughout the nation. I imagine Liberal Party people are not missing the opportunity, either. The new rule is applied where lump sum compensation has been received since 9 February this year. The general principle is that 50 per cent of any lump sum compensation payment will be deemed to be for economic loss and therefore liable for compensatory recovery purposes unless otherwise specified in the lump sum determination. That might sound like double-dutch to a lot of people, but it means that when a person gets a lump sum compensation payment, if the determination or award does not specify the actual component for economic loss, the Social Security Department shall deem 50 per cent of that amount of money to be for economic loss. The consequences are that a person who receives that lump sum compensation will then not be eligible for unemployment benefit or any other government benefit during the period that that economic loss payment covered. Mr Hinton does not say it that way. He says that 50 per cent of any lump sum workers compensation payment will be deemed to be for economic loss. That is totally untrue. The 50 per cent rule applies only to voluntary settlements and consent orders. It does not apply to lump sum payments where the economic loss component is identified. There is very good reason for the 50 per cent rule. The previous legislation required that the economic loss component of the lump sum compensation awards be identified. Honourable members will recall that in May last year we endeavoured to ensure that this amount of money could be recovered. This applies to workers compensation, motor vehicle accidents and the common law damages area. But this economic loss component is rarely identified. It was rarely identified before because clients, the insurers and their legal advisers were not willing to divulge the precise details of a settlement. In fact, often settlements have been couched in such vague and general terms so that no apportionment is evident and often the terms of settlement are written with the objective of escaping the recovery provisions of the legislation. The Government's hands and the hands of the Department of Social Security have been tied when trying to recover money because the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has decided in some cases that it is not open to the Department to go behind the terms of settlement to determine how much was for economic loss in the past and in the future. It is for this reason that the Government has had to act. In a situation where a person has been on sickness benefits for, say, two years and has then received a $50,000 settlement, part of that is compensation for the two years. Surely any thinking person will agree that, if a person receives sickness benefits or some other government compensation or benefit during that two years, then that benefit ought to be repaid. I do not hear argument against that very often. The problem lies where a person receives, say, a lump sum settlement of $100,000 which includes payment for economic loss in the future. The Government is saying that, unless that settlement specifies or sets down particularly the component which is for economic loss, 50 per cent of that $100,000 is going to be deemed to be compensation for economic loss. I cannot see that there is much difference in the types of cases that one could present here. If a person receives the government benefit on the one hand, he ought not then on the other hand to be compensated for that period during which he received the government benefit. If he receives a compensatory component for future economic loss, he ought not then be able to rush immediately into the unemployment office and get unemployment benefit for that loss period. Yet we have members of the National Party in particular running round and saying that we are taking the people's compensation. Everyone realises that, if workers go on long service leave for X number of weeks, those workers do not have the right to go into the social security office or the Commonwealth Employment Service and go on the unemployment benefit. The reason is that they are receiving payment for that period. So, if a person has been injured and has been compensated for future economic loss-in other words, for inability to work during, say, the next couple of years-should that person be able get on unemployment benefit for that period? In principle, I say no. The Government has been quite generous about this because instead of dividing by, say, the unemployment benefit that one would receive over that period, it is dividing by the average weekly earnings, which are $459.90. One works out a period when a person is ineligible by taking half the lump sum compensation payment and dividing it by $450.90, which results in a number of weeks of ineligibility. To put it in simple terms, if half the lump sum were $4,500 the recipient would not be able to receive unemployment benefit for approximately 10 weeks. I believe that is fair. Mr Hinton says that every lump sum payment will be caught up in the system. That is simply not true. It is nonsense. This measure will apply only to unspecified settlements, only to those where the parties have come to agreement but have not set down the part, component or piece of that compensation that is for economic loss. It is worth noting also that a residual discretionary power resides with the Department under which in special circumstances the Department can disregard the whole or part of a lump sum for the purpose of the recovery provisions. In other words, if there are such circumstances, despite the fact that the settlement did not specify the economic loss, it is still possible to disregard totally the complete lump sum. Mr Hinton, either in his typical ignorance or because he wants to be mischievous, is trying to attack the Federal Government and distort this proposal. I put it to him and to those opposite that if they are concerned about this proposal, if they are concerned particularly about workers' compensation, they should go back to the States. No-one in Queensland who receives a lump sum payment from the Workers Compensation Board will get caught up in this if the Workers Compensation Board is prepared to specify what the award is all about. If the Board is prepared to say that the payment of $25,000 has a medical cost component of so much, a compensation component for permanent injury or physical impairment of so much, a component for pain and suffering of so much and a component of so much for economic loss, only that small portion of economic loss is affected by this rule. We need the facts and the truth to be made known. Right across this country people are crying out and saying, `The Government is taking away half of my compensation'. I know that in Queensland it has always been the rule that, if one received workers compensation followed by a lump sum benefit, those regular weekly or fortnightly benefits were subtracted from the lump sum. One was not allowed to have the benefits twice. What is the difference when the sickness or other Commonwealth benefit that one has received is subtracted from one's lump sum benefit or payment? The difference here is that in the past those who have been party to settlements have not been willing-for whatever reason-to specify the economic loss component. It is a problem that has faced the Government. It is a problem that has been facing many governments. But studies have shown very clearly that even under the 50 per cent rule most recipients will be better off. In fact, of 1,700 cases studied, 77 per cent showed workers compensation lump sums that had an economic component in excess of 50 per cent. The rule that we are applying here is a fair one. It needs to be understood. It is not a simple concept, but it is fair and it is right in principle. If the taxpayers of this country pay people sickness benefits until they receive their lump sum payment, and if there is a component in that lump sum payment that compensates for past economic loss, surely the sickness benefits ought to be refunded or there ought to be some recovery of the moneys paid by the taxpayer. If the lump sum payment includes a component for future economic loss, surely if that is in lieu of wages or income lost, that person should not be able to get on the invalid pension or receive unemployment benefits during that set period. Mr Goodluck —That is right. Mr WRIGHT —I am pleased to see that the honourable member for Franklin agrees with me. That is the principle. We are trying to reduce the heavy welfare burden on this nation while at the same time ensuring that the principles I enunciated earlier-that the policies are based on the needy, not the greedy-are implemented. We are trying to ensure that every Australian resident obtains adequate income support when and as he needs it. To achieve that we must be vigilant in ensuring that there is not a rip-off of the system. I could give the House case after case in which people have received massive lump sum compensation payouts of $100,000 or $200,000 and virtually the next day have been able to go on an invalid pension, resulting in the taxpayer having to pay again. Case after case has been brought to my attention in which people have received government benefits up to the time when the compensation payment has been made. If that is the situation, surely those benefits ought to be repaid. The Government is endeavouring to close loopholes by the amendments that are before the Parliament tonight. The Government has proved over and over again that it is a government of the people, a government prepared to overcome the problems of the disadvantaged. After all, we are the Government that introduced the first home owners scheme, which has helped something like 270,000 households. We are the Government that brought about the new child-care programs. This year alone there will be something like 110,000 child-care places. We have more than doubled, if not trebled, the numbers of places available under the Fraser Government. This is a government that has a special commitment, but the measures we bring in are not always explained clearly enough. I hope that honourable members will be able to go back to their electorates and explain exactly how this 50 per cent rule will work. When one first hears about it one thinks that something is wrong, that the people who have been suffering because of some injury or physical impairment are going to suffer again as the Government takes back all this money. But in principle the rule is correct: the taxpayers should not have to pay twice and there should not be double dipping. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(8.19) —I rise as an Opposition speaker on the Social Security Amendment Bill. The Government's stated purpose is to amend the Social Security Act to correct anomalies and drafting errors that have come to light since the Act was introduced and to regularise the treatment of lump sum compensation payments under existing compensation recovery procedures. I am pleased to tell the House that I support the amendment to the motion for the second reading moved by my colleague the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). That amendment reads: . . . `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House deplores the facts that (a) the Hawke Government's economic and social policies continue to cause a fall in living standards for Australian families, and (b) the Prime Minister has refused to meet his 1987 election pledge that by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty. I speak in the context of Australia today where the Government is out of touch with the community. We heard the previous speaker, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), say that the Government often had trouble communicating what it was doing. The problem is deeper, because the Government is out of touch. Not only is it not communicating but it is introducing policies that are irrelevant. The standard of living of Australians is falling. Traditional Labor voters in Labor constituencies are deserting the Government in droves, voting against it and exercising through the ballot box their view regarding what the Government is doing for them, yet the Government has not received and understood the message. The standard of living for Australian families continues to fall, and Australian families continue to be squeezed. It is quite outrageous. As standards of living are falling, Australian families are finding it harder every week, as the pay packet of those in jobs is reduced, to make ends meet. More and more people are hitting the poverty line week by week. In fact, in Australia today we have a divided society. I believe that the rich are getting richer under this Government and the poor are getting poorer. That is evidenced by the by-election results around the country in recent weeks: we have a two-tier society. The rich are benefiting greatly and getting richer and the real standard of living for average Australians-for working Australians-is falling. A new class is being created-the new poor, middle Australia. The so-called middle class, in may respects the backbone of the nation over many years, was called by Menzies, I think, the forgotten people. They are really forgotten under this Government and are becoming the new poor. Wives are being forced to work to support families, not because they particularly want to-- Mr Gayler —Terrible! Shocking! Mr SHIPTON —The honourable member for Leichhardt says that that is shocking. It is shocking. If a woman, a wife and mother, exercises her freedom of choice as to whether she wants to work, and decides to stay at home to support the children in the formative years when they are growing up, that wife and mother is discriminated against by the whole social security system, the taxation system and the policies of this Government. That is happening in Australia today. It is happening in the Australian services. I have just come from a parliamentary committee meeting that has been taking public evidence. I do not want to get into the area of privilege, but public evidence supports the view that the wives of many Australian service personnel are forced to work when they do not want to to keep their family afloat. Service families are living in poverty in this country today, and that is totally outrageous. The honourable member should know that, because it occurs in his electorate, and he should watch out. My friend from the north of Australia will be tipped out at the next election, because the standard of living in his and other Labor electorates is falling. Regrettably, people are living in poverty. They are struggling day by day, week by week to make ends meet. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated before the last election that by 1990 no Australian child would be living in poverty. On 1 July 1987 the then Special Minister of State, Mr Mick Young, said: If you are going to go around and take a census on whether every single child is going to be out of poverty-of course you are talking about an impossibility. There was a back-off immediately from that promise. The Prime Minister said on the same day: There will be no watering down of the pledge that was made. And the pledge was that no Australian child will be living in poverty. But on 2 July the Prime Minister said: . . . and what my Government will do will be to create the situation in which every parent in a low income situation with children will have the financial capacity. So then it came down to financial capacity. When asked about whether they would be lifted above the poverty line, he said that he adhered precisely to what he said and that it was `one of the most important commitments any Australian Prime Minister has ever made'. By Friday 8 April he was saying that his Government had taken measures `to wipe out the need for Australian children to live in poverty'. On 12 April this year the Prime Minister further said: This Government will have provided sufficient finance- so then he was talking about sufficient finance- to the parents of children living in low income situations that they will be able to provide for their children . . . that by 1990 that will have been delivered in such a way that there will be no need, no financial need, for any child to live in poverty. So the Prime Minister's emphasis changed from his original promise that no child will be living in poverty by 1990 to the promise that there will be no need for any child to live in poverty. If we examine that promise that no Australian child will be living in poverty by 1990, we see that the Prime Minister is in fact saying that if some Australian children are living in poverty by 1990 it will not be his fault or the Government's fault but the fault of those families who are living in poverty. Thus the Prime Minister is shifting the blame, because he knows that his promise cannot be fulfilled. He is already giving notice and warning that the blame for people living in poverty will be placed on the families themselves. That is very insulting, and I believe that Australian families would find it so, because the blame and the emphasis has changed. As it is becoming realised that by 1990 children will still be living in poverty and that the Government's promise cannot be fulfilled, the Government and the Prime Minister are trying to shift the blame. They are giving notice that it is the fault of those Australians who are struggling day by day to survive and to keep their families going, those who are having a rough time. It is the fault of the new poor, not of the Government. I believe it is absolutely outrageous of the Prime Minister and the Government to do that. Mr Gayler —Scandalous! Mr SHIPTON —It is scandalous! I acknowledge that interjection; it will be recorded and reported in the Cairns newspapers. Mr Gayler —Tell us about the families in Higgins. Mr SHIPTON —I will pick up that interjection, because a myth is being perpetrated and the honourable member is a victim. The myth revolves around the fact that my electorate includes the suburb of Toorak and other suburbs where people live in very comfortable circumstances, and I am sure that the honourable member would agree that that is a very good thing. But by the same token in that very suburb of Toorak and in other suburbs in my electorate there are people who are battling. There are widows who are trying to survive. They might have a valuable asset in terms of the house in which they live, but their income is falling day by day. Some people are out of work in my electorate, which is a microcosm of Australia. These are people who are being hurt who live not only in Labor electorates but also in electorates such as my electorate of Higgins. Because of Labor Party policies my majority increases at each election. I point that out to the honourable member. Mr Duncan —No doubt a reaction against John Elliott. Mr SHIPTON —It is nice to hear the Minister for Employment and Education Services interjecting. He wants to increase taxation for all Australian families-in fact, make them even worse off than at present. One of the greatest problems that Australian families face and the reason why standards of living are falling is what is called the tax creep: as wages rise, the amount taken by the Government in taxation increases. That is one of the reasons why the Government will have a surplus as it comes to the 19 May statement. Families are worse off as the proportion of taxation taken from their pay increases. The Minister at the table who was kind enough to interject advocated at the weekend taxation increases for Australian families. When he was asked a question on it during Question Time today, he ducked for cover. However, I acknowledge his interjection and his statement that he wants to increase taxation for Australian families. That shows me that the Government is all over the place; it is split. When the Minister answered questions today, the Prime Minister was cringing, because he never knows what the Minister will say next. He is one of the unguided missiles on the front bench. There is a significant split in the Government and the Ministry. As I understand the factions, the Minister at the table is one of the Socialist Left in this faction-ridden Government. A number of members of the Socialist Left who went into the Ministry thinking that it was nice and comfortable to have a government car and they would not really have to worry about the poor and people in Labor held electorates because they would be able to cope somehow, are now starting to realise, having accepted the comforts of office, that things are bad and this has created tension. I do not know to which sub-faction of the Socialist Left the Minister belongs, but he advocates that the Government increase taxation. It will be interesting to know whether he meets with success around the Cabinet table. I would like to hear from his socialist colleagues and, indeed, all his other colleagues in the Ministry whether they agree that taxation ought to be increased. I think that the Minister probably has in mind increasing taxation on small business men and women and all those people who have had some success in life, in the mistaken belief that this will improve things for those who have less. I believe that my speech this evening has proved the fallacy of that thinking. What we must do in this country is encourage enterprise and initiative and, in so doing, give families a fair go, and that includes families in the small business arena who are struggling. Most small businesses are family businesses, and this Government is squeezing not only families but family businesses-and we have a clear indication of that from the Minister at the table who wants to increase taxation. Mr Gayler —Stop sending cheerio messages to Toorak. Mr SHIPTON —I am talking about the Bill, which deals with social security. I have proved beyond any doubt that the standard of living of Australians is falling. I have warned the honourable member for Leichhardt that his seat will be lost and he should start planning his own retirement. I want to quote from a letter to the editor of the Age on 13 January under the heading `Young unemployed now get less training and less income'. It is written by Mr K. O'Neill, the policy officer of the Victorian Council of Social Service, so it is from the social welfare community that is concerned about the problems and works on a daily basis with the Australian poor and is concerned about the policies of this Government. The letter is relevant and reasonable and states: In the past four years the Federal Government has cut expenditure on employment and training programs by 40 per cent. In 1987, there were 42,200 young people 15-19 unemployed, an unemployment rate of 16.8 per cent. The average duration of unemployment for these young people is now 28 weeks. The next part is important and I hope the honourable member for Leichhardt notes it: Disadvantaged young people have been left with a lack of employment, education and training options. The job search allowance leaves them with the worst option: no job and virtually no income. I do not want to deal now with the job search allowance, although there are great defects and deficiencies with that. Looking across the spectrum of social security, social welfare and poverty in Australia today, I point out that the problem referred to is just another indication of how difficult the situation is. Young people ought to be trained and have the option to have more training, yet in fact they are worse off since there are fewer opportunities for them. It is regrettable that the Government's policies are creating greater poverty in Australia. They are causing a fall in the standard of living for Australian families, who are being squeezed. On many occasions, the Government's policies are forcing women, who wish to stay at home and bring up families, to work. The average Australian family now needs an additional $42 a week to restore its disposable income level to what it was in March 1983. Earlier, I referred to the increased taxation take over the last five years-tax creep. Inflation has increased incomes; the tax man-the Government-has taken more and more from Australian families and given them less in their pockets on which to survive. Family allowances, including dependent spouse rebates, have fallen about 30 per cent in real terms. Honourable members opposite are silent now because they know that I am speaking the truth. This is what is happening to Australian families, and it is outrageous; it is atrocious. Interest rates, home loan repayments and housing waiting lists have increased dramatically. Earlier today, the shadow spokesman on social security, the honourable member for Bradfield, said that currently about 160,000 people are awaiting housing. What is the situation of people awaiting housing in the major capital cities? I live in Melbourne, and in Melbourne and Sydney in the inner suburbs the price of houses is escalating enormously. It is harder and harder for people to obtain rental accommodation at a reasonable rate. Are there any Government policies on this matter? Is the Government thinking about the effects of this situation? Australia is in a most unfortunate situation under this Government. Middle Australia has in fact been the victim. The new poor have been the victims since the Government came to power. As I have said, the rich are earning a greater share of income and middle income earners are earning less, if we consider comparisons of household disposable incomes from 1981-82 to 1985-86. I could go on, but time is running out. I conclude by saying that I am pleased to support the Opposition's amendment, because we have proved in this House that the Hawke Government's economic and social policies continue to fail and, in so doing, they are causing a fall in living standards of Australian families. I note that the Prime Minister has refused to honour his 1987 election pledge that by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(8.37) —I support the Social Security Amendment Bill 1988, an omnibus Bill which rectifies a number of omissions or anomalies currently prevailing in the Act. Some of these anomalies, such as that dealing with the arrears of family allowance supplement and the continuity of the pension to the sole parent of a disabled child, are anomalies that I have personally encountered in dealing with my constituents. I congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on his prompt addressing of these matters. As I said, they are minor amendments in terms of the entire Bill but are of immense importance to the individual Australian to whom they apply. While I support in principle the discontinuance of the supporting parent's benefit for parents whose youngest child has turned 16, in cases where the child is intellectually and/or physically disabled and cannot study or work full time it is only reasonable that the parent continue receiving this benefit with its fringe benefits. It is a very small change to the Act but a crucial one for the single parent of a disabled child. The entire Bill is illustrative of the sensitivity and responsiveness of this Government to the welfare and income needs of the aged, unemployed and supporting parents. Honourable members will be aware that in the last four years or so about 200 significant social security policy changes have been put into effect. Many of these anomalies existed during the term of the previous Government, but nothing was done about them. The outstanding feature of the social security area in the last few years of the coalition Government was a huge blow-out in social security expenditure, not because of any improvement in the level of pensions- on the contrary, the real level of the age pension, for example, fell by 2 1/2 per cent in the seven years of conservative government. Nor was the blow-out due to any program or policy initiatives. As the Minister pointed out in the House last week, the social security blow-out under the previous Government was due to gross mismanagement of the social security system and of the economy as a whole. By contrast, this Government has succeeded in reining in social security expenditure, and has done so partly by more effectively targeting groups and individuals who genuinely need assistance. The introduction of the assets test on age pensions means that wealthy people who had the means previously to convert income into assets can no longer claim the pension. We have introduced a work test for the unemployed so that only those who are genuinely in search of work are entitled to the benefit. We have tightened eligibility for supporting parents' and other benefits and tightened the checking of conditions for their receipt. As a consequence, many recipients of those benefits-people who are receiving them under false pretences or dishonestly-have had those benefits taken away. At the same time as reining in social security expenditure as a whole, this Government has also introduced probably the most extensive and effective means ever in relieving poverty-that is, the family assistance package. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) said that the Opposition supports the family assistance package. It supports it, but it did not introduce it when it was in power. I venture to say that it could not introduce it under its present economic policy, such as it is, because the family assistance package on the scale that we are applying it is hardly consistent with $11 billion to $13 billion in spending cuts, which is what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has advocated at various times. The Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill refers to a fall in living standards. It refers to this Government's policies causing a fall in living standards. No-one on this side of the House denies that there has been a fall in living standards. It has been a consequence of deliberate policies of wage restraint and reining in of government expenditure. Those measures were necessary in order to rectify some of the huge economic problems which this Government had to face, in large part as a result of the economic mismanagement of the previous Government. These measures of restraint which have hit the Australian population in such a difficult way are working. The economy is turning around so that from now on we can look at freeing up wages and at an improvement in living standards. The eternal question, of course, is: what would the Opposition do? When the honourable member for Bradfield spoke in this debate earlier, my colleague the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) asked him what he or his Party would do about falling living standards. Did he tell us what he would do? Of course he did not, because he does not have a clue what he would do. He used that hoary old debating ploy which is normally used when someone does not know the answer to a question of turning the question around and asking what we are doing. He knows what we are doing. Among other things, we have introduced, as I have said, the family assistance package, which is the greatest single measure taken by any Australian government to assist low income families. The difference between the Australian Labor Party and the Opposition parties-and it needs to be pointed out sometimes to the Opposition-is that we are in government and they are in opposition. We do not have their luxury of talking about what should or should not happen. We cannot, as did the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Bradfield, recount those touching little vignettes about poor families that they have known and how terrible it is for them. We are expected to put our money where our mouth is and we do. We are introducing measures which go a long way towards alleviating poverty in this country. Until the Opposition can come up with some concrete policies and programs to address the problems that it chooses to identify, it certainly cannot be taken seriously. The honourable member for Franklin gave what I thought was probably the most honest contribution to this debate from the other side of the House. He said that the Liberal and National parties in their time in government had big problems in the social security area. He said that the previous Government had had to untangle problems during its time in government. He did not actually say that any of the problems were caused by the policies or actions of that Government. His words were that all of a sudden there were single mothers and all of a sudden there was unemployment, as though these things just dropped down from heaven, and the previous Government's actions or policies had nothing to do, for example, with creating unemployment. He said that unemployment had not improved since Labor came to power. It has been said a million times, but I will say it gain: over one million jobs have been created since this Government came to power. That figure should be contrasted with the 186,900 jobs lost during the years of the Fraser-Howard Government. In September 1983 the unemployment rate in this country was 10.3 per cent. It is now 7.4 per cent. At that same time, in mid-1983, youth unemployment was 28 per cent. It is now 19.3 per cent-still too high, but certainly lower than it was. Certainly, this does not bear out the accusations of the honourable member for Franklin that this Government has done nothing about unemployment. My colleague the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), who is at the table at the moment, has pointed out in his speeches that if the participation rate in the employment market were the same now as it was in 1983, unemployment would be 4.5 per cent. It would be down from 10.3 per cent to 4.5 per cent if the participation rate were the same. The participation rate is higher now because more people are in the job market, more people are looking for jobs, and particularly because women in this country are now joining the labour force. They now have the opportunity to find jobs and to choose what they will do-much more so than they did before. That brings me to the comments made by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), who bemoaned the fact that these days, apparently, some wives and mothers find themselves in a position where they have to work. They do not really want to work, but because of economic circumstances they have to work. I have heard this argument many times. I will not even bother to try to go through the argument that some men actually work for money, too. Let us not always assume that the husband has to be the main income earner, the breadwinner, and the wife's salary is always a kind of supplementary thing that she earns for pin money to send the kids to private schools. Let us talk about one income families, two income families or families with one and a half incomes. Let us not always assume that the husbands and fathers will be the main income earner and that wives generally only work because the husband is not bringing in enough money. One point which the Opposition has raised recently is that Social Security offices in most States are now closing for half a day a week. I think it was the Liberal Senator Amanda Vanstone who put out a Press release asking the Minister to explain why this was happening. I think she implied that this was some sort of dereliction of duty and that the public was not being adequately served. I said earlier that in the last few years 200 significant policy changes have been put into effect in the social security area. That obviously means that staff have been under great pressure to come to grips with those changes and to apply those changes. Because of applications for new programs and new moneys, such as the family assistance package, there has been a tremendous backlog in paperwork and processing. The staff of the Social Security offices, the unions involved, the Department and the Minister have got together and very sensibly decided that the best way to serve the interests of the public is to close the office to the walk-in public for one afternoon a week. Mr Porter —What is wrong with rostering? Mrs HARVEY —I do not see what rostering has to do with it. That will not reduce the total amount of work. Rostering will not cut down the backlog. Perhaps the honourable member thinks that more staff should be engaged; that that may be the way to get around it. They are closing the office for half a day a week to the walk-in public in order that they can undertake training and acquaint themselves with the 200 changes that have taken place in the Social Security Act in the last few years. Emergency arrangements are still maintained. Closures have come into force only after considerable consultation, as I said, with the unions involved, with the staff and with welfare agencies in the local areas of each Social Security office. The switchboard in those offices will still operate on those afternoons so that anyone who rings in can still get some sort of service. For the Opposition to imply that there is some sort of inefficiency or even some sort of dereliction of duty on the part of social security staff is a slight on the dedication, hard work and commitment that, in my experience, the vast majority of social security staff in Social Security offices, and particularly at the coal face at the counters, display. I reject the Opposition's amendment and urge the House to support the Bill. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(8.50) —I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill. Mr Lavarch —Call a quorum. Mr ANDREW —Mr Deputy Speaker, at the invitation of the honourable member for Fisher, I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) I point out to the House that, far from the calling of a quorum being an irresponsible or a time-wasting action, at least it ensures that I have an audience in the House to hear what I have to say. I thought the best illustration of what this debate is about was given by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt), who came into this chamber and listened to what the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) had to say. As honourable members opposite would have noticed, he then came over to me and said, `Neil, I thought we were in favour of this legislation. What is she on about?' I had to assure him that indeed we are in favour of it, that in fact the Opposition is not opposing the legislation before the House. If members of the community listened to Government speakers such as the honourable member for Hawker, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and, to a lesser degree, to be fair, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), they could have been forgiven for thinking that the Opposition was opposed to the legislation and that the whole question of social security amendments was a matter where all compassion had been vested in the Government benches and that there was a desert on this side of the House in terms of any sense at all of compassionate feeling. As a matter of fact, the honourable member for Hawker said that she thought it was a favourite ploy of the Opposition when challenged to ask something to avoid the question by turning it back on the Government. I wonder whether I have ever heard a better illustration of just what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is about day in and day out in this House. The honourable member for Hawker said that one great luxury the Opposition enjoys is that because it is in Opposition it can just talk; it never has to deliver the goods. Let me remind the honourable member for Hawker that no-one sits on this side of the House without intending to occupy the government benches and then be immediately accountable. If that is not illustration enough, let me remind the honourable member for Hawker of just what the Prime Minister was about when in the July 1986 election he had the sheer barefaced audacity to be so cruel, knowing that he could not deliver, as to say that by 1990 no Australian child would be living in poverty. He knew, we knew and Australia knew that that could be nothing but empty words, that the promise could never be delivered. The accusation made by the honourable member for Hawker and levelled at the Opposition is groundless because it is precisely the tactic used by her own Prime Minister as an election ploy. He was prepared, frankly, to offer up as a sacrifice to the people of Australia the children living in poverty. It has been almost indecent to sit and listen to the debate that has raged tonight on the social security amendments. One could be forgiven for presuming that all compassion had been vested in the Government benches and was solely on the other side of the House. This has been a debate where the image projected into the gallery and to any of the community listening has been that this is a them and us debate and that the measure of compassion in Australian society is the measure of what we, the people of the Parliament, do with the taxpayers' money. Once again I remind the people of this Parliament and of the nation that what we do with the taxpayers' money has little, if anything, to do with compassion. Real compassion is not measured by what we do with taxpayers' money; that is never actually ours to spend. We acquire it; they do not give it to us. We demand it; they do not volunteer it. Real compassion is measured by what we do with our own resources. That is the real measure of compassion. We are here as nothing more than the stewards of the resources that the taxpayers of Australia have unwillingly made available to us. The difference across this Parliament on this debate tonight is not a difference in degree of care but a difference in degree of responsibility. In 1988 the truth, relative to the social security debate, is that if a person fathers or mothers a child he or she must assume responsibility for that child. No responsibility will be endowed upon him or her as acute as that responsibility for his or her own flesh and blood. Parenting is not a role that can be duplicated by the Government. With the best will in the world the Government cannot provide some sort of substitute parenting role. To take up the points made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) earlier in this debate, we have the quandary where a single parent earning the same income as a two-parent family will find himself or herself entitled to more in the way of benefits. We find that a less than ideal situation. His plea, my plea and the plea of all members on this side of the House is not for less compassion, less care, but for a comprehensive family policy that does not disadvantage those who grow up in what we would loosely call normal families. What has been behind the Opposition's debate is that we do not in any sense want to be less compassionate or to deny resources to people in real need, but we do want to resist the emergence of a nanny state. I use that term because, if ever a nanny state applied, it applies to this debate in that a nanny effectively is a substitute parent. If I am to deal tonight with the question of poverty and poverty as it affects Australian families, I cannot resist the temptation to bring to the Government's attention the real focus of poverty in our nation. The truth is that, whilst most people merely presume that poverty-and poverty as addressed by the legislation currently before the House-exists in urban Australia, in fact real poverty exists in rural Australia. Mr Robert Brown —Rubbish! Mr ANDREW —An honourable member says that that is rubbish. Let me refer him to a recent study by Mr Bruce Mackenzie, a senior lecturer at the Warrnambool Institute of Technology, and Dr Jim Lees, Director of the Rural Development Centre at the University of New England. It is not a Liberal Party document; it is not a National Party document. Mr Mackenzie and Dr Lees discovered that, of the 37 poorest electorates in Australia, 33 are in rural areas and only four are in the cities. Furthermore, they found that 76 per cent of Australian families who are earning less than $12,000 a year are rural dwellers. I can understand why the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) is listening attentively to my statistics. His electorate and mine are directly affected by these statistics. We have the classic case of poverty being vested in rural Australia and the legislation before the House is currently targeted towards urban Australia. Before he in any sense disagrees with that statement, let me ask him-and it is pertinent to ask the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), who is at the table, as well-in regard to the existence of poverty in rural Australia, in areas of South Australia represented by the honourable member for Grey and me, why Dr Cornwall, the State Minister for Health, intends to deny people in the towns of Laura and Blyth, the home town of the honourable member for Adelaide, might I digress to add-- Mr Porter —And Tailem Bend. Mr ANDREW —And Tailem Bend in the electorate of the honourable member for Barker. Why does the State Minister intend to deny people in the poorest electorates that fundamental right to some sort of adequate health care? Mr Porter —Tailem Bend is a railway town. Mr ANDREW —Exactly. We heard the honourable member for Capricornia in his own particularly evangelical way talk about the special consideration this Government has for poor people. In the face of my statistics I ask him to substantiate that sort of claim. The truth is that while the Government claims to have a particular concern for poverty in this nation, no-one can escape-not even by the convenient statistics used by the honourable member for Hawker-the truth that the rise in government expenditure under this Government has been $30 billion. Thirty billion dollars has been taken away from the taxpayers of Australia and vested in the Parliament. The only defence we heard from the honourable member for Canning was that, in the process, the Government managed to locate 12 millionaires who happened to be on the pension. Is that the real measure of what this Government is about? In the half decade since 1983 we have faced-and the Government acknowledges this fact; let us be fair-declining living standards, increasing queues for houses, as the shadow minister for housing and public administration, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), could well and truly substantiate, and a real tax burden such as we have not seen before on middle Australia. The Opposition has indicated that it is prepared to support the Government's initiatives but we have moved an amendment to make the debate that much more honest by focusing on the Government's shortfalls. I regret that in this debate, in which we have indicated support for the Government's initiatives, Government speakers have chosen to divide the House down the middle and create a `them and us' mentality. It is little wonder that the electorate is so cynical about the exercises we go on with in this place. When we consider both the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield and the statement made by the Prime Minister in the 1986 election campaign, when he frankly promised-- Mr Free —We did not have an election in 1986. Mr ANDREW —In 1987, I beg your pardon. The Prime Minister had the audacity to promise what he knew he could not deliver in terms of ridding children in Australia of poverty. It is little wonder that the electorate is as cynical as it is. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(9.06) —I was somewhat amused by the contribution from the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), as I am sure were all those who were listening. I do not know what books he has been reading. I do not know whether he has been reading Phantom comics or Donald Duck. I am not certain what his source has been for the information which he has given to the House, but he certainly has not been looking at the facts. He certainly has not been examining the record of this Government. He certainly does not understand the commitment this Government has to social justice. I will come to that point later. I want to expose the Opposition members for what they are. They are an empty-headed lot who will sink to the lowest levels to try to deny those people most in need their rightful place in our community. It does the Opposition no credit at all to move amendments such as the fatuous amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I will return to this matter during my address. The Social Security Amendment Bill, as previous speakers have suggested, plays a major part in this Government's strategy on social justice. The most significant aspects of this Bill will amend the Act as outlined in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill. It states: The Bill would amend the Act- . . . . to make minor changes to Family Allowance Supplement (FAS) in the following manner: -Apportion advance lump sum leave payments as income over the period of leave; -treat lump sum payments for termination of employment as having been received on the last day of employment; -apportion arrears of educational allowances over the period covered by the payment; Amongst other things, it makes minor changes to the job search allowance by excluding children of pensioners and beneficiaries from the operation of the parental income test. I am sure that the Opposition supports the guts of these proposals. The debating points that have been raised by the honourable member for Bradfield ought to be treated with the irreverence they deserve. This Government has been attempting to rationalise its expenditure on social security and it has done that in a number of ways. One of the most important ways in which this has been done is by addressing the needs of people in remote Australia. I notice that the honourable member for Wakefield has left the House. That is unfortunate because I am now in a position to address a couple of matters he raised. One matter is the approach the Department of Social Security has developed, after long consultation and discussion within the Department, as a result of input from outside sources, to a North Australian Development Unit (NADU). This is a very important development in terms of the administration of social security in northern Australia. The remote northern parts of Australia are so different from the rest of the country that to meet the Department's charter an enterprising approach to both the development of policies and the delivery of services is warranted. This reflects the need for real world input to help the Department to design policy practices and systems which will efficiently deliver social security programs to people living in outback Australia. The North Australian Development Unit is a proposal which bases a policy making unit in Darwin. Its purpose is to concentrate on the development of policies and strategies to improve the applicability and delivery of departmental programs and services to people living in northern Australia. The Unit's activities are not limited to the Northern Territory; they also span the Pilbara and the Kimberleys in Western Australia and north-western and northern Queensland. The Unit has three main areas of responsibility. They are: the development of ideas relating to the provision and improvement of departmental services in remote areas; the development of policy on matters specifically related to Aboriginal clients; and the development of policy on matters related to other groups of clients more commonly found in remote Australia, isolated outback communities and itinerant people. It provides one focal point for relevant divisions in the central office of the Department of Social Security to obtain comment and input into legislative and policy change and into system change proposals for remote area payment delivery. It will also be in a position to assist in the evaluation of new technology and to improve service delivery to remote area clients. The North Australian Development Unit relates closely to three area offices in two State administrations. NADU not only fills the void which exists with the advent of area administration in the Northern Territory but also adds substantially to the effectiveness of current activities by providing a north Australian perspective and by bringing consistency into service delivery across Western Australia's north-west, the Northern Territory and northern Queensland. The staffing of NADU has been established as a central office outpost with responsibility for the Unit ultimately resting with the national manager of field services within the Department. The director of the Unit has supervisory responsibilities for the Unit's staff and program, with the Northern Territory office providing necessary services. The key staff of the Unit at present in Darwin are Mr Joe Flick, an Aboriginal man from New South Wales, and Mr Ian Shortell, and the person with whom they are working in Canberra is Mr Gwyn Hurry. Their work is very important and I was pleased to announce the development of this Unit at the opening of the new Department of Social Security office at Casuarina in Darwin some time ago. The following projects are an indication of the types of issues that the Unit will deal with. They relate primarily to the delivery of services in remote areas, as I suggested earlier. I refer first to the payment system of the Department. Historically, the standard payment systems have not provided reliable or effective means of supplying income maintenance to remote clients. The relationship between standard systems, including direct credits and cheque payments and specialist payment systems such as out of area unemployment benefit, and community payment systems should be reviewed and rationalised. Outstations proliferate throughout the Northern Territory and northern Australia, as the honourable member for Bradfield would know, and a service strategy needs to be developed to cater for the servicing of Aboriginal outstations, many of which are becoming more isolated as tribal groups move to remote localities. Most outstations are difficult to reach and seldom have any telecommunications infrastructure that would assist in the timely assessment and delivery of social security payments. In terms of information dissemination, the challenge of providing timely and accurate information in a form that can be readily understood by clients living in remote areas has in the past been accepted by the Northern Territory Administration. However, although a number of initiatives have been attempted, most have fallen by the wayside because of the lack of support and expertise that was available to the Administration. The accepted modus operandi of intensive review teams evolved and developed in an environment substantially different from that existing in northern Australia. Practices will need to be revised to take account of the remoteness, low population density and the different employment infrastructure of northern Australia. This will ensure that resources dedicated to this function are deployed effectively. Forms design is a very basic requirement. I am sure the honourable member for Bradfield and some of the honourable members opposite will understand this, although I doubt the capacity of others. There is a need for input into the design of departmental forms from personnel who have a sound appreciation of the working arrangements in remote northern Australia. Some forms will need to be adapted to allow for the special conditions that apply to the servicing of remote localities. Forms need to be designed both to facilitate operational arrangements and to be understood by clients. Forms must also facilitate the sensitive delivery of services to remote area clients, the majority of whom are Aboriginal people. I cannot overemphasise the importance of those developments. My experience in the area was that in 1978 I worked with Dr H. C. `Nugget' Coombs and Dr Maria Brandl on a project which was sponsored by the Department of Social Security through the then Minister, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. The purpose of this project was to examine the impact of government programs on traditional Aboriginal communities, specifically in the area of socialisation of their children. It was a broad-ranging research project which culminated in the production of a book called A Certain Heritage, which I suggest the honourable member for Bradfield and the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and other Opposition members should read because they may learn a lot about people who live in remote communities and the need for the sorts of developments that this Government is now addressing. It was a far-reaching research document. My particular area of interest, apart from looking at education services in remote communities, was the community development employment project, which was a product of the Fraser Government. I am glad to say that the project is now proliferating throughout northern Australia and there is a great deal of demand from Aboriginal communities to come within the scheme. I point out to honourable members opposite and others who might be listening that the community development employment project scheme is the only one of its type in Australia. Effectively, it means that Aboriginal people forgo unemployment benefits for the sake of accepting a similar amount of money with an add-on administrative component of some 40 per cent to work for money which they would otherwise be entitled to as unemployment benefit recipients. The policy issues relating to servicing remote areas include, among other things, Australian Law Reform Commission reports. Appropriate policies relating to the findings of the Australian Law Reform Commission in the area of Aboriginal traditional law and culture need to be developed. Specific issues include polygamous marriages, changes in child custody, under-age marriage and others. Also, there needs to be an examination of the definition of unemployment. There is a need to clarify the application of section 116 of the Social Security Act, which refers to the work test, to client groups within the northern area. The advantages of the North Australian Development Unit should be obvious to all but some of the advantages, for those who might have some sort of myopic vision, are that it will achieve one consolidated and consistent approach to remote areas issues, thus overcoming approaches across the three administrations that have often been at variance with each other; provide greater opportunities to assemble departmental experts in a concentrated way to achieve solutions to remote area problems quickly; provide better targeting or prioritising of departmental service delivery activities in remote areas; provide better long term planning to achieve solutions to current problems facing the Department in the delivery of services to remote areas; and provide development opportunities for staff to work in remote localities and later to apply this knowledge to other operations within the Department. Again, I cannot overemphasise how important these developments are in rationalising and improving the efficiency of the delivery of social security services in northern Australia. They will, in the fullness of time, lead to the more efficient delivery of service and the addressing of some of the more fundamental problems that occur in northern Australia, particularly in relation to poverty, to which the amendment from the honourable member for Bradfield refers. The honourable member for Bradfield would be very cognisant of the high level of poverty that exists within northern Australia, particularly among Aboriginal constituents, and the need for special methods of delivery of service to those clients which are cognisant of the cultural needs and aspirations of Aboriginal Australians as well as taking into account the administrative efficacy of Department of Social Security procedures and the need for financial accountability. I turn to the erroneous amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Bradfield. He states that he deplores the Hawke Government's performance in the area of poverty and in economic and social policies, in terms of social justice. I refer shortly to the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) which was delivered by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly). She said: There is no area which more fundamentally shows the difference in approach between this Labor Government and the conservative opposition . . . When in government the conservatives proved themselves incapable of this form of development. The Minister referred to some of the policy initiatives that the Opposition is well known for, and said: they would terminate eligibility for sole parent pensions when the youngest child turns 10; they would make people who resign a job wait for six months before paying any benefit; they would not pay benefit to people who are sacked for lengthy periods, not until their redundancy payments are exhausted. Last year this Labor Government introduced a family allowance supplement as part of our attack on child poverty. I would like now to address the question of families. Under the previous Government, the real disposable incomes of low income families declined by 5.5 per cent for a beneficiary couple with four children and 4.2 per cent for a sole parent pensioner with children. As a result, the number of children in poverty more than doubled under the previous Government, while at the same time additional pension or benefits for children fell by about 32 per cent in real terms between 1975 and 1976, and 1982 and 1983. The value of this payment has been increased by about 59 per cent in real terms since this Government came to power, or by 102 per cent for children aged 13, 14 or 15. While the Government has concentrated on improving assistance for low income families, other families have benefited from three rounds of income tax cuts made since March 1983. For example, for the benefit of those opposite, a single taxpayer with no dependants, earning $200 a week, will have gone from paying $34 tax a week in March 1983 to $25 a week in July 1987. A taxpayer earning $400 a week will have gone from paying $98 a week to $83 a week. That illustrates well the performance of this Government in the area of social justice in addressing the areas of poverty and need in this community. I would like to mention a couple of other areas, one of which is the area of child care. I heard the honourable member for Wakefield wax lyrical about matters related to a nanny state. Let us talk about a nanny state and the abysmal child care record of the Opposition when it was in government. At the end of the current strategy to create 20,000 new child care places this Labor Government will have increased the number of child care places by some 150 per cent since taking office. Since 1983 the number of places has increased from 46,000-for the benefit of the honourable member for Bradfield-to 110,000 places, which will be operational by December 1988. Let me remind the honourable member for Wakefield of the pitiful amount of money the Opposition spent on child care during 1982 and 1983 when it was in government-only $62m. In 1987-88 this Government will expend some $229m on child care. So much for the claims of the Opposition, and the honourable member for Bradfield in particular. But I will not finish there. Let us talk about the veterans community. Let us give further lie to the fatuous claims being made by the Opposition. Since 1983 allocations to the Veterans' Affairs portfolio have increased from $2.5 billion to $4.3 billion. The rate of service pensions paid to single pensioners has risen from 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings in 1983 to the current level of 24.6 per cent. In 1987-88 expenditure on compensation and income support and the administration of those services increased by 13.6 per cent over that in the previous year. Pension rates are indexed twice-yearly. In addition, in the area of veterans affairs, a major program of public works totalling $92m over the past five years has continued the expansion, modernisation and improvement of the repatriation hospital system and ensures the delivery of quality health care to the veteran community. Amongst other things, highlights of that program include the replacement of operating theatres at the Concord Repatriation Hospital, costing $18.4m. The care of aged and infirm beneficiaries has been enhanced by the establishment of age and extended care units in all States to assess patients and refer them to the most appropriate form of treatment or care. The list goes on. Before I conclude I would like to address some of the measures we could expect from the Opposition if it were in government. I would like to refer to the document released by the Business Council of Australia on 17 April which has been so warmly applauded by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), in respect of which he said that the $3.5 billion cuts which had been advanced through the Business Council of Australia did not go deep enough. What we are seeing is a repeat by the Opposition of the Thatcherite approach, which has left millions in poverty in the United Kingdom. The conservative parties in the United Kingdom have recognised that the poor will suffer and will continue to suffer under their monetarist policies. Let me quote from the Business Council of Australia document. It says: Spending cuts must affect some people adversely. If one looks at this heinous document one finds out who those spending cuts will most affect. Let us turn to the part of the document which addresses the question of social security. I repeat that the shadow Treasurer warmly endorsed this document. I wonder whether the honourable member for Bradfield also endorses it. Let us see whether he will debate with the Business Council of Australia what the Opposition would do to the poor of this country. Amongst other things, it says that it will abolish the family allowance and increase the income tested family allowance supplement to $32 a week, which will save $100m. Where will that come from? It will come from the mouths of the most poverty stricken people in this nation. Alternatively, it will lower the income test for family allowance which it reckons will save $100m. Then it will have a go at children's services programs. Let the honourable member for Wakefield address the questions which are raised in this document. The document states: Children's services programs have grown very rapidly. The Opposition intends to save $10m by privatising them. The Opposition does not care about those people in the community who cannot afford privatised child care. The Opposition has demonstrated once again, as it continues to do, that it does not care. It is to its eternal shame that it moves these empty-headed, fatuous amendments to positive Government programs. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(9.28) —In supporting the Social Security Amendment Bill 1988 I want to make a couple of comments on the contributions of Opposition members tonight. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), in discussing social security recipients, talked about his visit to Mount Druitt and Green Valley. I want to talk about the Opposition's lack of understanding of poverty. It thinks that Mount Druitt and Green Valley are where all recipients of social security benefits live and that everyone in Mount Druitt and Green Valley is a social security recipient. That view not only is superficial but also is offensive both to social security recipients and to the residents of Mount Druitt and Green Valley. In any event, the honourable member for Bradfield went out there and discovered the great need for public housing. The Liberals had so little understanding of public housing that before the New South Wales election they promised that they would sell off public housing at discount prices. As we told them before the election, that was in contravention of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Now that they have been elected they have backed off that outrageous policy. They have quickly realised that they have to act more responsibly and not make statements that do not stand up. What have we done in government? We try to get some understanding of what needs to be done. For a start I will mention a couple of things in relation to this Bill. Firstly, there is the family allowance supplement. The honourable member for Bradfield said that all we have done has been to come up with the family allowance supplement. As many of my colleagues have said, the family allowance supplement is one of the greatest breakthroughs for working families that any government has come up with. Already more than 200,000 children in families are on the family allowance supplement. The average payments are in the range of $40 to $60 a week, that is, extra tax-free payments-and the honourable member for Bradfield says that all we have done has been to come up with the family allowance supplement! But the Opposition has to support it because it is so good. Another area is child support, child maintenance, which the Opposition also has to support, even though it has tried to minimise the enormous breakthrough that has been for families and for children in Australia. The other area that has to be mentioned is the social justice strategy of this Government. I ask Opposition members whether they support it. What we are trying to do in government is to understand the causes of poverty, the reasons for poverty and the means to alleviate and get rid of it. That is why we set up the social security review, the first review of the social security system for 40 years-to get rid of the myths, to analyse the problems and to propose new directions. As a result we set goals. We set ourselves goals such as getting all Australian children out of poverty-and what does the Opposition do? The Opposition ridicules our goals. It has no goals of its own. It just makes sorties to the west and weeps. We in government have goals, and we will not renege on them. We constantly come up with measures-very thoughtful, thought through measures such as the family allowance supplement and the child support proposals. The Opposition has to support every one of these proposals, these measures, because they are so good, while it ridicules our goals. The honourable member for Bradfield talked about tax. He said that poverty should be addressed through the taxation system. So it should, and so should excess wealth be addressed through the taxation system. We believe that the two should go hand in hand. Of course we must have reforms to the taxation system, but cash assistance is the best way of ensuring that families get that assistance now. Finally, the honourable member for Bradfield talked about money not being enough to alleviate poverty, to get rid of poverty. He said that poverty is about the inability of families to organise around the range of opportunities available to them. He said it is about getting a decent job, about getting a decent education and about getting decent housing. I agree with him 100 per cent, and that is why we in government have already formulated ways to achieve those objectives. That is why we have a social justice strategy. I conclude my comments by explaining very quickly what the social justice strategy means. Essentially it means fairness in the distribution of social power and resources; equity-fairness in the distribution of economic resources and political power; equality-the notion of equal, effective and comprehensive rights for all people, including civil, legal and industrial rights; access-which means fair and equal access to essential services such as health, education and housing; and participation-which means the opportunity to participate fully in personal development, social and community life and decision making. That is the social justice strategy which this Government has and which this Government is about to implement. It is a strategy the Opposition will never understand. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(9.31) —I respond first to the two points the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) made which are relevant to the Social Security Amendment Bill. The honourable member indicated that the Opposition will closely monitor the operation of the changes we are making to compensation recovery provisions. Of course I welcome that. This is a complex area in which there has been widespread collusion to avoid the operation of the provisions of the Social Security Act. The honourable member for Bradfield also referred to the treatment of German restitution payments for pension income test purposes. He asserted that the Government's amendment is defective because it could be interpreted as continuing to subject to income test the restitution payments for loss of earning capacity, and will not exempt those parts of German pension received by reason of deemed contributions under the restitution laws. On the first point, the Opposition's first amendment, to clause 3 (a), would provide that only German restitution payments expressed to be for loss of wages and salaries would be included as income for the purposes of the Social Security Act. The Opposition's concern about the existing words `expressed to be paid for lost income' is apparently that they could encompass payments which are variously described as `loss of professional advancement', `loss of career' and `loss of earning capacity'. This concern is misplaced. As a matter of legal interpretation, those payments represent capital losses and are not within the description `lost income'. The essential point about the Bill is that it relates to payments expressed to be for loss of income. Payments which are not identified in the German documents expressly as being for loss of income will not be subject to the income test. The Opposition has legal advice from my office on this point. It also has the draft guidelines for the operation of this clause. I make it clear that payments not expressly identified as being for loss of income will not be regarded as income. The proposed Opposition amendment is indeed unduly restrictive. It excludes payments covering lost business or investment or superannuation income, and these are no different in character from payments for lost wages or salaries. Two points need to be made concerning the second objection of the Opposition. Firstly, for those pensions which would be affected by the Bill as it is drafted the Opposition amendment would make no difference. Secondly, what is the Opposition's rationale for arguing that a proportion of a pension not paid as restitution but paid as a pension should be excluded from income tests? I go on to the honourable member for Bradfield's dissertation on the nature of poverty. He asserted, correctly, that the level of money received by a family unit is not an accurate measure of poverty. He told the House that poverty is the inability to utilise services such as education, an inability to get employment, or an inability to obtain maintenance. He asserted that not understanding this had caused the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to make a fundamental error. Let me assure the House that the Prime Minister made no such error. He and this Government understand precisely the nature of poverty, and it is precisely as the honourable member for Bradfield described it. Let us look at the record of this Government in ensuring that Australian families get access to the quality services they need-for example, Medicare. There is no more terrible poverty than the inability to obtain necessary quality health care, the inability to take a sick child to the doctor one trusts and to be sure that the child will be examined and treated in a professional and a quality way. Medicare guarantees this to every Australian family. Compare the policy of the Opposition, which would abolish community rating, require people to insure privately and fine those who fail to do so. Its policy would deny to all those low wage families that it is concerned about access to decent quality medical care. One of the great differences between poverty as it exists within this country and, for example, poverty in the United States is that in the United States the absence of anything equivalent to Medicare means that low income people are trapped in poverty in a way that certainly is not the case in Australia. In the United States once someone moves off what they describe as the welfare system or welfare benefits into the work force then they are immediately vulnerable to health costs in a way that low income people in Australia are not. It is not simply that Medicare provides a safety net; it also assists people to make with some security the transition from dependence on social security payments to the work force without the fear that they will be exposed to significant health costs or alternatively have to run the risk of injury or illness resulting in their being driven very quickly back into poverty. Another example of the Government's commitment to achieve higher levels of real income for people on low incomes in Australia, people living within ordinary Australian working families, is the child care program, which I think has been one of the outstanding features of this Government's commitment to social welfare. The honourable member for Bradfield would know the difficulties faced by sole parent families and other low income families trying to get access to employment when child care is not available. Again the Opposition's policy is clear; that is, it would abolish funding for child care. Mr Connolly —Rubbish! Mr HOWE —Our policy is clear and consistent. We will continue to expand the availability of quality child care places for all Australian families. The honourable member for Bradfield made the intelligent interjection, `Rubbish!'. Perhaps the honourable member is ignorant of the coalition's policies in this area and if that is the case perhaps he should see what has been said on this matter. Alternatively, in this as in so many other areas the Opposition could make its policies clear because it requires, if I might say so, considerable research capacities at the present time to discern where there are Opposition policies on any of the major social questions of our time. Indeed, on the whole issue of poverty it suits the Opposition to rubbish an historic commitment made by this Government not only to eliminate child poverty but also to ensure that we do not have a repetition of the ravages caused by the Fraser years in terms of low income families and particularly the growth of child poverty. I do not think I need to repeat to the House what the statistics are. Mr Carlton —You do not. Mr HOWE —The honourable member for Mackellar interjects. Let me quote just a couple of figures, because it is in the interests of the Opposition to suggest, as it does from time to time, that somehow child poverty is the creation of the present Government, rather than the issue that we have sought to address. Mr Sharp —Hear, hear! Mr HOWE —The honourable member for Gilmore says, `Hear, hear!'. He was undoubtedly not in this House when we went through a period in which the numbers of children of pensioner and beneficiary families grew from a little over 300,000 to more than 800,000 in seven years of disastrous economic policy. It is not simply that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) when Treasurer was unable to cope with macro-economic policy. It was not only that as Treasurer he was unable to force whatever policy ideas he may have been able to think of through the Fraser Cabinet. Mr Goodluck —You are a socialist. You had better stop because I will have a go at you in a moment. Mr HOWE —He presided over the growth of mass unemployment in this country in an unprecedented way. He presided over a massive blow-out in the number of sole parent families and the number of sole parent families in poverty. He presided over a situation in which-- Mr Goodluck —You are a socialist. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Franklin -- Mr Goodluck —I warned him before to stop. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin is talking about warning; I warn him that he had better not argue with the Chair. Mr HOWE —The honourable member for Franklin, I might say, interjects because he represents one of the electorates in this country which suffered most from the conservative period of the Fraser-Howard Government. I remember the honourable member for Franklin -- Mr Goodluck —You are a socialist. You drive the best car, your wife works, and you come to my electorate telling me about my electorate. You want to shut up. Mr HOWE —I recall the honourable member for Franklin bleating in this House when indexation of the pension was abolished, but that was because the honourable member for Franklin had about as much clout in government as he has in opposition. The electorate of Franklin is ill served. It is hard to think of an electorate that is more poorly served than that represented by the honourable member for Franklin, because that low income population-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister not to provoke the honourable member for Franklin. Mr HOWE —There are some people in this House who I think one could say sensibly and rationally and coolly are frauds, and the honourable member for Franklin is such a case. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw that comment. Mr HOWE —I withdraw; but of course, the honourable member for Franklin is someone who when he is in his electorate pretends some concern and some compassion-- Mr Goodluck —You are the one that pretends, not me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have warned the honourable member for Franklin. Mr HOWE —The honourable member for Franklin was part of a party and part of a government which produced 800,000 unemployed and a similar number of children in pensioner and beneficiary families. If the people of Franklin think that they are being represented by someone who has been responsible for that kind of treatment in terms of low income people in Australia, then frankly I fail to understand. I was suggesting that when one is talking about the distribution of real income it is not simply a question of what might be delivered in terms of improved income security programs; it is not simply a matter of what might be delivered in terms of the wage packet. It is also a matter of access to certain critical services. I mentioned health services. Undoubtedly the Opposition would destroy the Medicare program. I mentioned, secondly, the area of child care. I am yet to hear from the Opposition any suggestion other than that the child care program, which is one of the strengths and one of the great achievements of this Government, would be anything but destroyed in a similar way to Medicare . I go on to refer to another key area in terms of government policy affecting people's real incomes; that is, the area of housing assistance. Our first home owner's scheme and our record levels of public housing funding have delivered adequate housing with secure tenure to the ordinary Australian families about whom the honourable member for Bradfield pretends some concern. One ought not to be fooled by the honourable member for Bradfield, who represents I think probably the first or second safest seat on the Liberal side of the House. He is someone who represents, if I might say so, people from the wealthiest sector in the Australian community. He is currently moving around suggesting that, notwithstanding that constituency and that base from which he operates, he possesses some concern and some compassion. Mr Connolly —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: coming from a man who represents a double income family, one of the wealthiest men in this Parliament-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will resume his seat. Mr Connolly —For him to attack my electorate is outrageous. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will not defy the Chair. Mr Connolly —You should be protecting me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the 65,000 people who voted for me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr HOWE —I was just going on to make a rather more substantive point which flows from the point I have already made. What we have in this intellectually bankrupt and irresponsible Opposition is probably the greatest example of dualspeak we have had from an Opposition in the Federal Parliament at any time in its history. On the one hand we have the honourable member for Bradfield, who crawls around the social welfare sector pretending some compassion and some concern; on the other hand, we have the failed shadow Treasurer opposite, the poor honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who had to be dumped because he could not count, because he could not add up, because he could not develop credible economic policy. We have people like him on the other side of the House who move around the Australian community suggesting to the business community, to the top end of town, that they can achieve savings-was it $6 billion or $8 billion or $10 billion; savings of that order-knowing that perhaps $1 billion or $1.5 billion of those savings would have to come out of social security, from low income families. So on the one hand they say that and on the other hand the honourable member for Bradfield creeps around suggesting that somehow there would be some benefit to low income families, some benefit to social security beneficiaries, some benefit to the unemployed from the policies of a coalition government. I ask members of this Parliament to ask themselves the question: how credible is that kind of dualspeak? How credible is it for the honourable member for Franklin in his low income electorate to suggest that somehow that electorate would benefit from a coalition government, while the Leader of the Opposition tells us that what we would have to take from a coalition government is either a consumption tax, with all its regressive effects on low income families, or alternatively, and perhaps as well, cuts of $6 billion or $8 billion-or would it be $10 billion?-over two or three years. That is the kind of alternative, that is the sort of intellectual bankruptcy, we have from the Opposition. Mr Peter Fisher —I represent the poorest electorate in Victoria. Mr HOWE —The honourable member for Mallee represents the National Party of Australia in this Parliament. We know what the attitude of the National Party is on the dilemma that this rabble over here fail to face up to. The National Party, unlike Mr Elliott, the President of the Liberal Party, is opposed to a consumption tax; that is, it fears the electoral consequences of a consumption tax. But honourable members on the Liberal side, with the exception of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), support a consumption tax. Again we hear about those interests that are represented by members of the National Party who are noted for, more than anything else in the history of this Parliament, promoting economic irrationality. We have not heard a sensible economic thought from them in opposition. They have expressed opposition to many things but, if we ask them to produce one element in terms of constructive and rational economic policy, we have another think coming. In terms of this Government's approach to poverty, I think we have made very significant reforms in the area of income security. I referred to our record on housing. The extremely successful first home buyers scheme has helped tens of thousands of low income Australian families. It is a targeted scheme. In addition, we have dramatically increased and improved public housing. I do not know that there is a great deal of public housing in the electorate of Bradfield. No doubt the honourable member for Bradfield has to travel to see public housing. Let me say that in my electorate there is a great deal of public housing. It is not simply that the quantum has improved over the period of our Government in contrast to-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Snowdon) put: That the Minister be granted an extension of time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. West S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. F.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. McLeay, Leo Ruddock, P. M.Grace, E. L. Cowan, D. B.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(9.58) —I was observing that the Government, in terms of its housing record and the real incomes of low income earners, has made an extremely important contribution. It is suggested from time to time that somehow the fact that waiting lists have grown reflects on the Government's record, but, of course, that has a lot more to do with the quality of public housing as it has been developed under this Government. I was reflecting on the fact that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), in his isolation from public housing, probably does not recognise what members representing Labor electorates understand-the very significant improvement in terms of the quality of public housing during our period of government. As the honourable member for Bradfield said, poverty is not merely about money: it is about access to essential services and access to jobs. Our employment creation record, of over one million jobs created since we came to government, and our social wage measures are a proud record, a record that would be reversed by the Opposition. It is not widely understood just how significant the record of job creation has been under the present Government. In fact, we have achieved a level job creation twice the level of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a level that is the envy of most other countries, certainly within western Europe. We have achieved that at a time in which the economy had to suffer all of the external restraints associated with our balance of payments difficulties. The House should note the commitment of the honourable member for Bradfield-that the primary objective of the social security system should be to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth. It should note his reference to Helen Brownlee, where she stated that any measure of poverty should account for assets and fringe benefits. The House should demand of the honourable member for Bradfield an explanation why his Party supports the abolition of the assets test; a clearly equitable measure that takes account of exactly what he has told the House tonight should be taken into account. The credibility of the Opposition in this Parliament is riddled with the contradictions that flow from the various interests that its members represent. National Party members bitterly oppose assets testing. The Liberal Party has rigorously and continuously opposed all measures that reflect at all on business interests. Whenever a tax measure affected corporate capital, business interests or people on higher incomes, the Opposition strongly opposed it. It is really extraordinary that the honourable member for Bradfield should include-I must say on this very rare occasion-the notion of equity into the lexicon of Liberal Party rhetoric, because historically equity has had no part in the modern history of the Liberal Party; it has simply not been part of its lexicon. The Opposition is prepared to talk about libertarian values but, when it comes to some more equal share of the distribution of income and wealth, the Opposition goes missing. That is why we cannot believe the honourable member for Bradfield when he suggests that somehow there might be some sharing of care and compassion by this Opposition, because that is a fundamental contradiction of the interests it represents. That comes from a coalition which, when it was in government, produced unemployment of 800,000, and which produced the massive spectre of child poverty-- Mr Donald Cameron —You are telling lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will withdraw that accusation. Mr Donald Cameron —What, that he is lying? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw the accusation. Mr Donald Cameron —It was not 800,000. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw the accusation. Mr Donald Cameron —Well, if I am not allowed to call it a lie, I will withdraw it. Mr HOWE —That was the coalition that produced child poverty in this nation on a scale totally unknown. Therefore, who will believe the member for Bradfield when he suggests that the Opposition represents any kind of care and compassion. I see the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) is in the House. When I appeared with him on an election platform sponsored by the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, rather than suggesting care and compassion for people who were unemployed he proceeded to launch a vindictive attack not only on the audience, which included unemployed people, but also on representatives of the welfare sector. In that case he was reflecting the true face of the coalition parties. To summarise, the Government rejects the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion. However, we welcome its new found understanding of poverty. We point proudly to our social wage measures in response to all those, such as Opposition members, who blindly argue poverty line measures that do not take account of the social wage affects. We will reject the Opposition's committee amendment as being at the very best meaningless. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) again referred to his view on the need for a universal welfare system for support of families with children, and his concern about the relative levels of public support for sole parent families and married families. Of course, the hard realities we face at the moment are that there are major fiscal restrictions on the capacity of government to deliver income security whether through the taxation or social security systems. Given the budgetary restraints on us, this Government has made the clear decisions to ensure that there is effective targeting of income support to protect the least well off in the community from the pain of economic adjustment. One of the results of targeting income support is the acknowledgment that two households cost more to support than one. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), in a most thoughtful and valuable contribution, referred to the inadequate state of the Social Security Act, calling it a hotchpotch. I am pleased to inform the House that we are undertaking a comprehensive rewriting of that Act to solve the problems referred to by the honourable member for Moore. Particularly in the area of social security, this Government's record is one of a commitment to social reform notwithstanding the very serious difficulties which the economy has faced while we have been in office. We have been able partly to achieve that reform because of the underlying effective economic management produced by this Government. The massive growth in the number of jobs has enabled us to wind back unemployment so that this year, for the first time since 1970-71, we will see a reduction in expenditure on unemployment benefits in normal terms. The Government has sought to ensure that it improves the income security system and equity in terms of the tax transfer system. In terms of our social wage programs we have not only helped people out of poverty but helped to ensure that they remain out of poverty and in the work force so that they can climb up the escalator to higher living standards. In the circumstances, that is a significant achievement. I reject the thrust of the Opposition's criticism of the Government-to blame the Government for the failings of the Opposition when it had control of the treasury bench. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Connolly's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Bilney, G. N. Johns, G. T.Blanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S. C. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Griffiths, A. G. Scott, J. L.Hand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Hayden, W. G. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. McLeay, Leo Ruddock, P. M.Grace, E. L. Cowan, D. B.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.17) —I move: Clause 3, page 2, lines 21 and 22, omit ``(other than an amount expressed to be paid for lost income)'', substitute ``(other than an amount expressly to be paid for lost wages or salary)''. The effect of the amendment is to clarify beyond any reasonable doubt the impact on those who receive restitution payments from the German Government for war crimes committed against them during the nazi era and the capacity of those people to be protected from the loss of income due to the application of the income test which currently falls on retirement incomes. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) made it perfectly clear in his remarks at the end of the second reading debate that the Government does not wish to accept our amendment. I will put to the chamber the simple facts. The Minister issued a Press statement on 30 November 1987, following discussions which he had had with the Federation of Australian Jewish Welfare Societies and the Executive Vice-President of the Federation, Mr Walter Lippmann, which read: In 1985 Mr Howe announced that German restitution payments for loss of income are taken into account under pension income tests, and that all other restitution payments would be disregarded. `I have asked the Department today to make sure that this policy is applied in all cases . . . Administration of these provisions has clearly been confused over the past year. `This confusion causes unnecessary concern to pensioners getting restitution payments, and difficulties for the Department in administering the income tests. He finalised the Press statement by saying: `The Social Security Act will be amended to make clear that the policy I announced in 1985 should apply in all cases . . . The simple facts are that the legal advisers to the relevant Australian Jewish welfare societies are not satisfied that the proposed amendment will, as he said, apply in all cases. It is precisely because of that that I have moved: Clause 3, page 2, lines 21 and 22, omit ``(other than an amount expressed to be paid for lost income)', substitute `(other than an amount expressly to be paid for lost wages or salary)'. In my contribution to the second reading debate I emphasised the fact that the history of the effect on income-whether it be wages or salaries-of numerous, principally Jewish, persons who suffered grievously as a result of the Holocaust, whether they were actually incarcerated in concentration camps or elsewhere, is well documented. The fact of the matter is that some thousands of people in Australia live in fear that unless the Act is adequately amended they will constantly face the difficulties of bureaucratic decisions in the future being made on the basis of the Government's proposed amendment which they believe is not explicit enough specifically in relation to those payments for lost wages or salaries. The Minister happens to be basically correct in his interpretation of the impact of the German restitution arrangements, but that is really not the issue. The issue is the interface between the basis of those payments and how they are taken into account in relation to Australian social security regulations. There are a group of people who came under the Reichversicherung rules. They would have been working in Germany between 1933 and 1939. During that period in which they were in the German work force they automatically had sums deducted from their salaries by the German Government on the basis of essentially compulsory superannuation levies. As a result of the nazi restitution legislation of 1949, some of these people are eligible for entitlements, but the Government's proposed amendment will still be interpreted as loss of income in those cases. All we are trying to suggest in this amendment in all good faith is to put in those additional words which emphasise that we are talking about loss of wages or salaries. It does not take account of the other payments which may be made as part of the total restitution package, but there is confusion over those two issues. I simply say to the Minister, `Why leave the matter in doubt when it can be quite satisfactorily solved?'. I am confident that if it is not going to be passed in this chamber that when it gets to the Senate the Australian Democrats will support this proposal and ultimately the objective of the Opposition therefore will be achieved. I simply put to the Minister as a final effort, and despite his rather extraordinary performance and his outburst tonight, that if he is really genuine in his desire to help all those who will now be very old people who have suffered some of the most incredible and despicable crimes committed against any human being by this or past generations, that I do not believe that it is unreasonable that he should accede to the requests of the Opposition and support our amendment on this occasion. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.23) —I support the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), on this particular issue because I think it is one where the Government appears to be quite blind to what is a very sensible arrangement. There is no point in being pig headed because we are not suggesting a negative change or anything which other than makes the point that the situation should be very clear and not just partially clear. The honourable member for Bradfield has made that case very well, but I think the point has got to be understood that there is concern by certain people who will be affected by this arrangement. Honourable members can see the difference. `Expressed to be paid for lost income' is substantially different from `expressly to be paid for lost wages or salary'. The Government should take this opportunity because the Opposition is trying to assist it to be fair to the electorate. The Government would probably win a few votes by being sensible. It seems silly to me to hear the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) raving on as he did for the last 10 or 15 minutes giving us the statistics-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! Mr TUCKEY —I am just making the point regarding this amendment that the Minister has given us the statistics and the arguments why it is so good when its own blue collar work force is ignoring those arguments and voting against it. That is the situation. The Minister can give us the statistics in this place till he is blue in the face, but the people out in the electorate are taking the wallets out of their pockets, finding there is no money in them and voting against the Government. I am putting it to the Minister that we are giving the Government the opportunity to improve its image by cleaning up its legislation. It is no good being silly or interjecting when we are giving the Government good advice. If the Government wants to reject it, it must face the electorate again, but it will throw away a few more votes from the people who suffered badly in Europe during the war and who want to see this legislation put beyond doubt. The honourable member for Bradfield is trying to represent the electorate, not the bureaucracy. I remind the Minister that many of the people of New South Wales-they would be labelled generally as the Government's hard core supporters-have never voted other than Labor in their lives before and the reason they are turning against the Government is that they do not believe the rhetoric that we had screamed out at us for 10 or 15 minutes. They do not believe the rhetoric that the Minister brings up at Question Time, telling the people that they have never had it so good. The Government has got clear evidence of that-they voted against the Government out of office in New South Wales. But the Government will not take our advice and get its legislation right. It is going to act in its usual arrogant way by rejecting a very sensible amendment because it is the boss. If Mick Young were here tonight he would say, `If you have got the numbers, you had better use them'. The Government is so paranoid about using the numbers that it ignores a sensible amendment that will help people a little further and which will have no serious effect on the Budget or any other matter that I can see. All the Government needs to do is go along with the Opposition because it is trying to help. Admittedly we want to help the people, but we are quite prepared to help the Government in the process. The Government needs to wake up to that. The Minister should spend a little bit more time considering this proposition instead of putting together a speech which was basically about playing the man and doing very little for the people concerned in our community. The Government can tell members of the community in this place as often as it likes that it has done wonders for them and it can tell them that it has improved the pension by about 8 per cent. The Government says time and time again that it is paying pensions of 24 per cent of average weekly earnings, but average weekly earnings have fallen and the real amount of money that the pensioner has now is even less than he had before. The pensioners know that. They stand up and boo the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the front of Parliament House. They vote against the Government because they do not believe its rhetoric any more. They are not interested in the Government's statistics. They have two simple statistical indicators: one is their wallet and the other is their savings book and they are both empty since this Government has been in office. That is the problem. When the Opposition moves a sensible amendment, as it has tonight, and tries to help the Government to help the people, it arrogantly dismisses it and uses its numbers to prove the point again. The Government is so busy trying to win in so many areas that it is forgetting about the people. It wants to defend the institution of Medicare. It is falling apart but the Government will defend it to the last drop of pensioners' blood. The Government will defend patients and others on the waiting lists-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will return to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I will, Mr Deputy Chairman. As honourable members can see when we bring forward a sensible amendment of this type it is my responsibility to try to convince the Minister. I am putting it to the Minister that he should take note of the very excellent amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield. In this way the Government might get a few of its voters back. I am giving the Government a little bit of advice in the time that is available to me and pointing out some of the areas where it is failing if it wants to get back into office. I do not think the Government is going to do anything. I do not think I should waste much more of the Parliament's time or of my time in trying to help the Government out because the Government does not listen. It just throws the votes away. It keeps Ministers in government when they breach confidence. It does all things because it is a bit frightened to lose any more votes. It does not take the good advice of the honourable member for Bradfield who is a very compassionate man and who wants to help these people. He has a great commitment to all the people in financial difficulty in this area. If the Minister has got any sense he will clearly reconsider the position he has indicated already and support this amendment. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(10.29) —I do not need to delay the Committee for very long on this issue. I say to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) that I certainly have the interests of the people who were the victims of the Holocaust in mind. They are aged people and no doubt the lack of certainty has been a matter of considerable concern. I gave Mr Lippmann of the Australian Federation of Jewish Welfare Societies an assurance and in turn I issued a statement. Consideration interrupted. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I shall report progress. The Chairman having reported accordingly- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Beazley-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr HOWE —In terms of trying to assist those people for whom Mr Lippmann has made representations, I issued a statement to the effect that we would amend the legislation to make it clear that the Social Security Act would expressly exclude all those payments which were by nature compensation payments, with the exception of amounts expressed to be paid for lost income. Those are very much the words I used in the Press statement. I have received advice and that advice has been made available, I think, to the honourable member for Bradfield. I think we have also provided to the honourable member for Bradfield a copy of the administrative guidelines which would apply. According to the advice that is open to me, we have, I believe, achieved an approach which is strictly in accord with the wishes of Mr Lippmann and I think it will achieve what he is concerned to see achieved. That advice makes it clear that the West German Government in these cases does specify in writing under which heads of damage the person is being compensated. As confirmed with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, and I quote from Mr Douglas's advice, `It is then a question of fact as to whether an amount is expressed to be paid for lost income or for some other reason'. If we are going to talk about income we ought not to make what I think would be artificial distinctions. The distinction effectively is in the Opposition's amendment. To talk about wages and salaries is in my view a somewhat restrictive view of income. Mr Connolly-Not for the case in point. There is a specific problem for those people who have paid superannuation. Mr HOWE —If they have paid superannuation and they are deriving some benefit from that, it is clearly income. The question here is whether we are going to be consistent and rational in the way in which we deal with this situation. I think Mr Lippmann's point is surely that moneys paid by way of compensation ought not to be taken into account in the terms social security means tests. That is essentially what we have sought to do. I think we have done it well and in terms of the draft, that is certainly my advice. If the honourable member for Bradfield has available to him some further legal opinions I am more than willing to look at them, but from the advice that is open to me at present, I remain with the original clause and oppose the amendment. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Howe)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.36) —I have heard many summing up speeches in this chamber over the years and I have to say that I have not heard one which has been so filled with anger, animosity and downright extraordinary choice of language as the speech made tonight by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I do not care whether he is an academic socialist or what he is; what I care about is that he is a man of some integrity. I am not going to stand here as his shadow Minister and be attacked in the way he attacked me and other members of this House tonight. He worked his way across the front bench and across the back bench and he did not have one kind word to say about any honourable member on the Opposite side. Whatever the errors of the past may have been, he totally ignored the economic and social realities that faced this country at the time when the Whitlam Government was a disaster and we inherited its crisis situation, and when this country faced problems in 1982 and 1983. He can accuse us of the increasing numbers of single parent beneficiaries but he ignores the fact that we changed the regulations to try to help those people. He also ignores the fact that it was his Government and its man, Mr Murphy, and his changes to the Family Law Act which had the effect of bringing hundreds of thousands more parents and children into a situation where families in this society broke down. That is a situation which is the inheritance of this Parliament. It was supported by both sides of this Parliament, and the Minister ought not to forget that fact. It is ridiculous for the Minister to cry crocodile tears years later about a set of circumstances which his Government's policy supported and which the Minister personally supported. I have heard it said of the Minister that he is lower than a snake's duodenum. All I can say in reply to the remarks he has thrown around tonight suggesting that his shadow Minister, for example, crawls around the welfare lobby is that if I were not there he would be complaining. If it means that I have to go to the welfare lobby and show some interest in their problems and demonstrate that I am determined that the Opposition will have a viable social welfare policy of which we can be proud, so be it. But the Minister should not attack my colleagues, call us hypocrites, and worse, say that we are trying to attack the poor, claim that we are trying to defend only the rich, when the basis of his socialist policies seems to be that he thinks the best way he can help the weak is to weaken the strong. One of the reasons that this country is economically weak today is that for far too long we had men on his side of the Parliament who when in government set out to put in place policies which supported those in our community who believe that their objective in life is constantly to cut back the capacity to increase production. I ask those who do not want to believe me to go to the Parliamentary Library and ask the research section for the statistics of industrial relations difficulties during the period when the Government's glorious Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was head of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; they should compare those statistics with the figures for the previous period when Mr Monk was head of the ACTU. One thing comes out absolutely clearly: one of the reasons why the economy of Australia collapsed, out of which we now have these massive social problems today, including poverty to an extent which we have probably not seen since the days of the Great Depression, is that the Minister and his Party and the trade union movement, which some Government members support and the rest do not even represent, went out of their way to take jobs from people. The very people that Government members come into the chamber today crying about being in distress are in distress principally because they do not have employment. And why do they not have employment? Because honourable members opposite priced them out of work. Time after time in this Parliament and elsewhere they came forward to support the most outrageous demands for terms and conditions of employment which today have meant a reaping of the most inevitable result of all; that is, that employers have replaced labour with capital. Because of that, jobs have been lost. Sadly, the major area of job loss has been where people need the maximum support. That is the sad but inevitable result of not just five years of Labor under the Minister's administration, the seeds of this disasters where sown back in the 1960s and 1970s when the industrial relations situation was out of control. The Whitlam Government brought in policies which overnight, with 25 per cent tariff reductions, cut out hundreds of thousands of jobs. Labor parties here have tried to run this country on the whim of an idea without ever bothering to see what effect it has on ordinary men and women, those same people who were stupid enough for so long to believe that as a Labor party honourable members stood for compassion and concern. They are facing their Armageddon and the sooner it comes the better. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.43) —Mr Deputy Speaker, somebody from Hobart rang me and asked, `Bruce, are you going to cop what that Minister said?' and I said, `No'. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) called me a fraud. He said that I parade in my electorate-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! Mr GOODLUCK —He called me a fraud and said that I paraded-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member-- Mr GOODLUCK —I call him a mendacious hypocrite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will withdraw-- Mr GOODLUCK —No, I am not withdrawing. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr GOODLUCK —He has dished it up to a lot of my people-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will withdraw. Mr GOODLUCK —and we have never come back at him. He is not going to say that about me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Franklin-- Mr GOODLUCK —He comes from a family-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr GOODLUCK —an affluent family. His wife works. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Franklin. Mr GOODLUCK —My wife does not work. He has the audacity to say in my electorate-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Franklin. Mr GOODLUCK —I am not going to take it from him. It is about time we stood up to this bloke-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Franklin. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the honourable member for Franklin be suspended from the service of the House. Mr Peacock —Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will hear me on this matter. As I understand it, a great deal was heaped on the honourable member such as has provoked him in a very strong manner, and understandably so, and I am wondering whether you might give him the opportunity to-- Mr Goodluck —No. He said it. I know that you are a good fellow; but the people in Hobart heard it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin-- Mr Peacock —It would appear that the matter has been decided by the honourable member already, Mr Deputy Speaker. Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard C.A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I, McC.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. McLeay, Leo Ruddock, P.M.Grace, E. L. Cowan, D. B.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Franklin thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The question is that the Bill be now read a third time. Mr O'Keefe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. In the exchange that took place just prior to the suspension of the honourable member for Franklin, the honourable member described the Minister as a mendacious hypocrite. I suggest that if you research the meaning of the word `mendacious' you will find that it is unparliamentary. In those circumstances I request that when the honourable member resumes service in the Parliament he be required to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! For the information of the honourable member for Burke, I understand what `mendacious' means. I rose to my feet at about that time and asked the honourable member to withdraw that comment. He refused to do so, and continued to speak while I was on my feet. For those two reasons, and I suggest for a couple more, under Standing Orders he was suspended. There is no point of order. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(10.53) —in reply-Prior to the distraction, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) was making a very emotional statement. Let me say to the honourable member for Bradfield that if he does not want to receive a towelling he ought not to propose stupid second reading amendments. The problem with the Opposition is that with it social policy is the partner of economic policy. The reason the Fraser-Howard Government failed effectively to manage the economy was partly related to its macro-economic policy which caused a massive blow-out in social expenditure which, in turn, meant that, in seeking to restrain that expenditure, the Government had to become mean. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to resume his seat. The honourable member for Bradfield, at the end of his remarks, went beyond Standing Orders as they refer to a third reading debate. It will be recalled that he sat down just as I was about to ask him to do so. The Minister is outside the scope of Standing Orders and the good book. He is not in order in speaking in these terms in which he is speaking at the third reading stage. Mr HOWE —I will conclude my remarks. In terms of the debate on this Bill, in response to the honourable member for Bradfield, I was seeking to show that the Government's record indicates that there is a symmetry between our economic and social policies. The same would not be true of the Fraser-Howard Government nor could it be said of what is projected by the Opposition. What is projected, rather than being symmetry, are fundamental contradictions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate amendment- Page 6, clause 7, proposed subsection 32 (2), lines 10 and 11, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: `(2) A person shall not be appointed under paragraph (1) (b) unless the relevant authority and the relevant staff organisation have first agreed that the person is suitable for appointment.'. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(10.57) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. This is a very simple amendment. The Bill has passed the Senate with this one amendment, an amendment that the Government supported in the Senate at the behest of the Australian Democrats. Instead of requiring union consent to the appointment of a person other than the chairperson to a joint selection committee which considers promotions the Bill has been amended by the Senate so that a person shall not be promoted to a joint selection committee unless management and the union first agree that the person is suitable for appointment. It is not the original position of the Government. It is not the original position of the Opposition. It is a half-way house. I hope that it is something on which we can all find agreement. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.58) —It is interesting to go back to the debate on this Bill on 22 February. At that time the Opposition said that it was not happy with clause 7, which we thought would leave applicants open to discrimination and which we then proposed to amend. In the committee stage we emphasised that the clause that offended us was proposed new section 32, which stated: A person shall not be appointed under paragraph (1) (b) unless the relevant staff organisation consents to the appointment of that person. In every respect the motion we were then moving sought to amend that. Our present motion-one would need a lawyer to find the difference-states that a person shall not be appointed under paragraph (1) (b) unless the relevant authority and the relevant staff organisation have first agreed that the person is suitable for appointment. It extends the agreement required to the relevant staff organisation. We would have liked the government to take notice at the time. I remember that the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) was a new Minister at that stage and he was determined not to let anybody get under his guard. It just goes to show that at times if the Government listened to the wisdom and the amendments of the Opposition it would not find itself in this situation. We do not really believe the legislation goes as far as we would want it to and, as I have just said, I suggest that the Government at times should wait a while and look at the amendments we propose. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. House adjourned at 11.02 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act relating to the prevention and settlement of certain industrial disputes, and for other purposes. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to enact certain transitional provisions, and to amend certain Acts, in consequence of the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, and for other purposes. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act relating to the rehabilitation of certain civilian employees employed in connection with the United States Naval Communication Station in Australia and to workers' compensation for those employees, and for related purposes. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act relating to the rehabilitation of Commonwealth employees and to workers compensation for those employees and certain other persons, and for related purposes. Mrs Kelly to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts relating to Defence. Mr Peter Fisher to move- That this House- (1) recognises the impact of the EEC and the US farm subsidies upon the viability of the efficient Australian wheat industry; (2) acknowledges the contribution made to Australia's export earnings by primary industry; and (3) accepts an urgency to address the alarming increase in rural poverty. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Audit Act 1901, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1987 and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act relating to employment, education and training, and for other purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 April 1988. Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing 15 April 1988 as the date on which the Fishing Industry Research and Development Act 1987, other than parts I, III, and IV and section 64, shall come into operation. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determination listing fees and/or charges for purposes of ACT Ordinances-1988-No. 7-Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board, dated 7 April 1988.