Thursday, 28 April 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Federal Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients, and call upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron (from 20 citizens), Dr Harry Edwards (from 15 citizens) and Mr Shipton (from 116 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned electors of the Division of Corangamite, respectively showeth: That we are gravely concerned about the public release of confidential medical information, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients, and call upon the House to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. Your petitioners, therefore, pray that the House ensures that there will be no further public release of such private confidential medical information. by Mr McArthur (from six citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectively showeth: That there is a general dissatisfaction in the community at the levels of road funding made available by the Federal Government. While noting the commitment of the Government to maintain a high standard of roads in Australia, we are specifically concerned at the real cutbacks for road fund- ing in the Local Government area. We especially note that roadworks are a labour intensive industry and cutbacks will create unemployment and hardship in rural areas. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, give due consideration to increasing the amount of funds available to Local Government authorities for roadworks. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Brumby (from 77 citizens) and Mr Mildren (from 519 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Murray respectfully showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely to a great degree on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infrastructure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources to local road funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd (from 240 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will Refer the above mentioned Bill to an appropriate Parliamentary committee and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards (from 11 citizens) and Mr Johns (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the urgent need, in this Bicentennial year, to acknowledge that Australia was occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for thousands of years before British Settlement in 1788, and to acknowledge the importance of their culture and heritage. Your petitioners therefore request that our federal parliamentarians pass unanimously a resolution in the presence of the Queen on May 9, at the opening of the new Parliament House stating: The Queen, and the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia acknowledge that: Australia was occupied by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders who had settled for thousands of years before British settlement at Sydney Cove on January 26, 1788. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were denied legal recognition of their land rights upon acquisition of their traditional lands by the British Crown. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were denied full citizenship rights of the Commonwealth of Australia prior to May 27, 1967. And affirm: The importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage. The entitlement of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. And consider it desirable that the Commonwealth negotiate the terms of a compact with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens providing recognition of their special place in the Commonwealth of Australia. by Mr Hand (from seven citizens) and Mr Katter (from 154 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petition of certain electors of the Division of Kennedy draws to the attention of the House the urgent need, in this Bicentennial year, to acknowledge that Australia was occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for thousands of years before British Settlement in 1788, and to acknowledge the importance of their culture and heritage. Your petitioners therefore request that the House pass unanimously a resolution in the presence of the Queen on May 9, at the opening of the new Parliament House stating: The Queen, and the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia acknowledge that: Australia was occupied by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders who had settled for thousands of years before British settlement at Sydney Cove on January 26, 1788. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were denied legal recognition of their land rights upon acquisition of their traditional lands by the British Crown. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were denied full citizenship rights of the Commonwealth of Australia prior to May 27, 1967. And affirm: The importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage. The entitlement of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. And consider it desirable that the Commonwealth negotiate the terms of a compact with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens providing recognition of their special place in the Commonwealth of Australia. by Mr Katter (from 68 citizens). To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Hawker (from 238 citizens) and Mr Shipton (from 249 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Government. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the House to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Milton (from 100 citizens) and Mr Scott (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern about the proposal to Irradiate Food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should: Block the introduction of Food Irradiation into Australia Bans the import of Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137 and Cesium-134 to be used to Irradiate Food products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned residents of South Australia are concerned that patient care for nursing home residents will be adversely affected when staffing hours are reduced as from 1st July 1988. We humbly pray that the decision be urgently reconsidered and withdrawn so that our senior citizens can have adequate care and observation on their failing years. by Mr Andrew (from 112 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned Electors showeth: That any proposed redistribution of funds for Nursing and Personal Care staff costs in Nursing Homes will detrimentally affect the quality of care given in Nursing Homes in South Australia and the quality of life of the residents in those Nursing Homes, so recently established, will not be achieved and elderly people will not receive the standard of care or quality of life that they need. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will raise the funding level for Nursing and Personal Care staff hours for all States to enable at least the number of hours of care for Nursing Home residents in South Australia. To be achieved by all States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Blewett (from 80 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cleeland (from 64 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australian families are highly dependent upon telephone communications. 2. The Australian community needs an extensive and reasonably priced telephone system. 3. For many Australians, especially the aged and infirm, the telephone provides a ready means of communication especially at times of illness. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House of Representatives will take measures to ensure that the aged, infirm, and other fixed-income groups that are dependent on telephone communication are in no way disadvantaged by any changes to the system of charging for local telephone calls. by Mr Cleeland (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Gymea Bay be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels, cash Pension cheques and transact banking. Many of us are Pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Office is 2.3 kms away with no convenient transport. We maintain that the purpose of the Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Gymea Bay Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will revoke the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983, will also revoke the new section 4a of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, and bring back the former section 4a which banned the importation of blasphemous, indecent, or obscene matter or goods into Australia, because sex shops are being set up in every suburb and town and we are powerless while obscene books are legally available; because there is a flood of obscene publications into the country because such publications depict the abnormal as normal because such publications degrade men and women because such publications create new, offensive demands on women, with which they do not willingly comply (Eysenck and Nias) because this causes marriage breakdown because children easily obtain such publications because children copy what they see because the child found in possession of such publications is at risk, facing rejection, and carrying the burden of having altered the relationships in his home for the worse, between parents, and between parent and child because such a child faces, alone, the loss of trust because I am a reasonable adult person and I am offended by the obscene books which you have legislated into this community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest attention, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Fatin (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will follow the example of our Western Australian Government and legislate to make the possession of child pornography a criminal offence, with strong deterrent penalties, likewise the sale and hire of such obscene publication or video, or other goods; also that the Customs barriers be closed to pornography, and all such crime stimuli, because there are escalating crime statistics, and innocent victims, and the community is outraged by them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray. by Ms Fatin (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Wannon electorate respectfully showeth that: There is too much crime and violence on TV and depicted in videos and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. Urge TV stations to reduce the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. 2. Introduce tighter controls on the sale and classification of videos so as to limit the access of children to inappropriate material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker (from 153 citizens). To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia who are concerned residents, visitors and holiday-makers, draws to the attention of the House the importance of preserving the natural beauty and environment of Jervis Bay and their support for the proposal of the National Trust of Australia for the permanent protection of natural areas in the vicinity of that bay as the minimum NSW land needed for Jervis Bay National Park. Your petitioners therefore request the House to preserve an important part of our national heritage by: (1) Taking all steps necessary towards the formation of a Jervis Bay National Park that would include: all Commonwealth controlled land on Bherwerre Peninsula, Beecroft Peninsula and Bowen Island, in combination with suitable land around the perimeter of the Bay, thus forming a continuous National Park completely ringing Jervis Bay; all Jervis Bay waters, plus waters surrounding Bhewerre and Beecroft Peninsulas. (2) Establishing a Park management system based on the Uluru Model and by establishing a complementary regional management plan for the Jervis Bay region. by Mr Hollis (from four citizens). To the Speaker the Honourable Joan Child and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia, in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens in the State of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Australian Government initiated that the 3 per cent Productivity payment be paid into Superannuation Schemes as basis for each worker ultimately providing their own Retirement benefits and that this system was to be adopted by all workers in Australia and thus reduce the drain on Social Service payments. The Australian Government has now indicated it's intention to tax the profits of Superannuation Schemes which quite clearly will defeat the original purpose of Superannuation payments to all workers, by the erosion of final benefits able to be paid and thus reduce the standard of living of Superannuants. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: 1. Desist from it's intention to further tax Superannuation Funds. 2. Encourage all workers to provide for their retirement years by contributing to Superannuation Schemes. 3. Maintain unaltered it's initial Superannuation Planning and Support for the benefit of all Australian workers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Howard (from 402 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to the callous treatment of the survivors, widows and next of kin of HMAS Voyager and all other service personnel injured in peacetime. Your Petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take action to rectify the matter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerin (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: We are opposed to the proposed restructuring of the A.B.C. We believe that the A.B.C. is one of the most important public services in Australia and a mainstay of democracy. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House of Representatives will take measures to ensure that the A.B.C. is permitted to continue to offer `comprehensive' broadcasting services under its present charter. by Mr Kerr (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Fairlight Post Office agency is to be closed. It serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels, and would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that The House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of this post office agency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar (from 602 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Parliament assembled. `Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.' Proverbs 14:34 Considering: 1. the loss of hope among the youth of the nation. 2. the breakdown of the family unit. 3. the increase of corruption in our society. 4. the increasing weight of our national debt. 5. the emerging divisions in our community. We petition you to: 1. encourage every Australia to see his/her responsibility to live uprightly before God and others; 2. encourage commitment in marriage and encourage fathers and mothers to love and cherish their children; 3. encourage the Members of Parliament to live and legislate according to Biblical principles; 4. encourage business in Australia to pursue their transactions in generosity-without greed; 5. support the Christian Church in expressing the friendship of God, and in carrying out its practical responsibilities to the poor, needy and dispossessed. by calling a National Day of Prayer for Australia, to seek God's help to heal our land. We as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar (from 47 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament The Petition of the undersigned shows: Our deepest concern at the plight of Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed details of the nuclear weapons arsenal of Israel; Our belief that Vanunu's actions were a service to humanity-including to the people of Israel-and were in fulfilment of his duty under international law; Our belief that the unlawful abduction of Vanunu from Rome, his imprisonment since then, his prison conditions, and his conviction on charges of espionage and treason are denials of his fundamental human rights. Your petitioners ask that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled should: Resolve to ask the Australian Government to appeal to the Government of Israel to release Mordechai Vanunu immediately and without conditions. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton (from 195 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Allan Morris (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens in Australia, draws to the attention of the House that the irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutrional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your petitioners therefore request that your honourable House: 1. Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. 2. Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. 3. Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. 4. Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. by Mr Scott (from 432 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: (1) That we oppose timed local calls by Telecom (2) Timed calls should not be introduced in the absence of widespread community support (3) Timed calls will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject plans by Telecom to time charge local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton (from 36 citizens). Petitions received. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(10.08) —On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material I present the report of the Committee, incorporating a number of dissenting reports, together with the transcript of evidence. The report consists of two volumes, volume 1 being the report proper and volume 2 being dissents, comment, dissenting reports and appendices. Ordered that the report be printed. Dr KLUGMAN —The report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material is the product of a Committee which was set up in mid-1985 to inquire into the operation of current legislation for the control of video material. The Committee's terms of reference focused on the adequacy and effectiveness of current Commonwealth law in the face of a rapidly developing market for video material and an industry that has grown to cater for it. The terms of reference were identical to those of the Senate select committee which was set up in October 1984. The report covers a large amount of ground and may be difficult for honourable members to follow without some explanation as to its nature. It consists of 829 pages of text in two volumes and I am given only 15 minutes to present it. The first volume contains what was finally adopted as the `majority' report, together with conclusions and recommendations. The second contains four dissents from sections of the majority report, a qualifying comment on the majority report, a complete dissenting minority report, with recommendations, signed by five people, including myself-the Committee consisted of 11 people, by the way-and 12 appendices. The report has ended up in this unwieldy form because of basic philosophical disagreements among Committee members which in the end proved irreconcilable. The disagreements were not on political party lines, as the House will find as the debate progresses. The majority report in the first volume is the result of close voting on most chapters, with the composition of the majority often varying. The meanings given by the Committee to the words `violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene' used in the terms of reference was one of the issues of contention within the Committee, and this is reflected in the substantial difference between chapter 3 of the original Chairman's draft-now the minority report in volume 2-and that adopted by the majority in volume 1. Chapter 3 of the majority report defines `pornography' as material which is predominantly sexually explicit in theme and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal. The definition adopted makes no distinction between `hard core' and `soft core' pornography, the majority of the Committee considering that it is `the theme, the message, the intent' that is crucial. The minority, on the other hand-of which I am a member-did not find it possible to propose a definition of `pornography' which would receive general acceptance. In the course of receiving submissions and taking evidence, it became clear to us that the term `pornography' meant different things to different people; that what is pornographic to one person may be merely erotic, humorous or boring to others. As an aside, I state that I found all the X-rated videos terribly corny and boring. We-that is, the minority group-felt, however, that the use of the label `pornography' implied merely that the material in question was to be condemned, and referred to the subjective reactions of individuals to particular representations of sex. The Committee was in more agreement in its understanding of violence, believing that the term is not subject to widespread differences of meaning. Section II outlines the current law and the administrative arrangements associated with it. This discussion goes into considerable detail and is longer than is the case regarding most committee reports. It is a reflection of the Committee's experience that a widespread misunderstanding or ignorance of what is contained in the laws which govern the control of video material exists in the Australian community, and even amongst parliamentarians, at the present time. For instance, many of the submissions the Committee received referred to child pornography, snuff movies and beastiality as examples of the kind of material that needed to be banned in Australia. However, these have been and are currently banned for import and distribution. Moreover, changes in both the legislation and the administrative guidelines in the course of 1984 under the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, tightened the prohibitions on violence of any kind to include `detailed and gratuitous depictions of acts of considerable violence or cruelty'. The majority report takes the view that almost all sexually explicit video material is pornography-and I emphasise `almost'-that pornography is harmful and that sexually explicit videos should therefore be banned. The minority report takes the view that democratic government should intervene in the private behaviour of citizens only when there is clear evidence of harm resulting from their behaviour. The minority saw no evidence of a causal connection between viewing of sexually explicit videos of a non-violent kind and harm or harmful behaviour resulting from such viewing. On the basis of the research studies by social and behavioural scientists available to us, we found that these studies do not support the proposition that they cause harm. There are great problems with the methodology of most of the experimental studies and the results of every study seem to be disputed by other workers in the field. Both reports indicate a fair degree of satisfaction with the present legislation dealing with video materials. Both, however, see a need to afford greater protection to those likely to be affronted by certain kinds of material. Both also suggest that further offences be created by legislation, to deal with the viewing of video by minors whilst outside the direct control of parents or guardians. We recommend that there should be a new category NVE, non-violent erotica, and that the new NVE category contain that material defined in the current classification of X, that is, material `which includes explicit depictions of sexual acts involving adults, but does not include any depictions suggesting coercion, or non-consent of any kind'. Viewing of videos rated NVE should be restricted to adults. Major recommendations in relation to minors are as follows and I believe that the recommendations are contained in both the minority and the majority reports: That it be an offence to show a minor an R-rated or NVE-rated film without the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor. That all R-rated material along with NVE-rated material be displayed in a restricted room or if not displayed in such a way be made available to those over 18 by catalogue at the counter. That all promotional material related to R-and NVE-rated videos or films, for that matter, be similarly restricted. Other recommendations refer to labelling for improved consumer information and to the structure and function of the Film Censorship Board. The Committee recommends that: The specific reasons, that is, whether due to language, violence, or sexual or other content and its frequency, intensity or purpose for classifying a Film non-G be displayed on the front cover of video slicks. It seems quite ridiculous to me that there is a classification PG, that is parental guidance. How can the parent guide when he does not know the content of the video film? The Committee sees the advantages of a single central classification system; however, it respects the rights of the States to review the classification in the light of their own view of their community standards. It strongly recommends that a widespread education campaign with input from the Film Censorship Board, relevant Federal and State authorities and the film and video marketing and distribution industry be mounted to combat a lack of community awareness about the meaning of classification categories and their contents. My last act as Chairman must be to thank the large number of people-individual citizens, representatives of organisations, academics and social scientists-who contributed to the inquiry by written submissions, personal appearance or the provision of documentary material. I must say, however, that, while they were helpful in crystallising our view, I would be surprised if any member of the Committee could honestly say that his or her views on the major issues were significantly changed by any of the submissions or evidence. The report, lengthy and somewhat confused though it may seem, clearly reflects the plurality of views that exist in the wide community on this issue. I wish to acknowledge the very valuable assistance the Committee has received from the Secretary, Jane Vincent; the research officer, Rosemary Brissenden; Sarah Drysdale, the steno-secretary; and her predecessor, Janice Paull. In regard to acknowledgments on page xvii, the work of the Committee staff was made much more difficult by changes in the Committee membership following the Federal election in 1987. This resulted in the Chairman's draft becoming a minority report. The majority of the Committee asked me to change those two sentences and the Committee agreed to this change: `The work of the Committee staff, especially the Secretary, was made much more difficult by the Chairman's draft becoming a minority report.'The reference to the 1987 election is ignored. This entailed a great amount of extra work in helping prepare a new majority report. I would also like to thank the other officers of the Senate Committee Office who assisted the Committee during the period of its inquiry: Mr Ron Wiber, who was Secretary of the Senate Select Committee and then at the beginning of our Committee, for providing continuity at the beginning of this Committee's inquiry; Mr Terry Brooks, Director, Censorship Section, Attorney-General's Department; the Film Censorship Board for its ready assistance at the various stages of inquiry; and finally the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for providing transcripts of evidence. As I have only a few minutes left, I want to give some of my own views. However, I hope that this report will help in the discussion of this important issue, which should not be dealt with simplistically. People who know me know my favourite quotation from H. L. Mencken: To every complex problem there is a simple solution and it is always wrong. I believe that this is a very complex problem. In this case the simple solution would be to ban things: if we do not like them, ban them. My own view on what is happening with videos is that to a large extent people are scared of new technology. If we look at history, from the arrival of black and white films, through the silent movies era, sound movies, technicolour movies, black and white and then colour television, and finally videos-and I am sure it will go further than that-we can see that people are always scared that somehow these innovations will change society. This tendency goes back much further, to the time when printing became relatively popular and cheap. People are always scared that such innovations will destroy society and its values. They do not seem to have any great confidence that society can continue to exist without the benefits of censorship. I wish to put to the House the propositions I put to the Joint Select Committee on Video Material on 22 October 1987-a long time ago now. Obviously the report was not completely drafted then, but I believed in these propositions then and I still believe in them. I think governments should agree with them. They are as follows: We believe that censorship for adults in a democratic society can only be justified if physical or at least significant psychological `harm' is caused to a significant proportion of the population; that the material is likely to cause serious anti-social behaviour in a reasonable adult person. We cannot adopt general standards which are based on the reaction of children or adults with strong psychotic tendencies. The so-called scientific evidence from the social scientists as to the harmful effects, if any, of various types of films (and videos) was not convincing. We conclude that the available research is of very limited use. The Committee is not prepared to state solely on the basis of the evidence and research it has seen that exposure to a variety of films and videos currently classifiable in Australia cause significant harm. We believe that harm sufficient to justify censorship must be of an identifiable kind. Films which may lead to a change of community standards do not constitute the type of harm necessary to justify censorship. The defence of so-called `community standards' is a matter for rational debate and education and not for protection by censorship. The current X classification, although some minor alterations might be warranted, does not cause the type of harm necessary to justify censorship. We feel that the main aim of the classification system should be consumer guidance. There should be sufficient information to identify potentially offensive material, and this requirement can probably be met by the Film Censorship Board's explanatory key to reasons for classification-`sex', `violence', `language', and `other' on the scale of frequency, explicitness/intensity and purpose-being available to the consumer at the point of sale/hire. Whilst the Committee members share an abhorrence of violence, we feel that the difficulties in identifying suitable guideline terminology to delete excessively violent films may in fact result in the unintended deletion of films of merit. The current guideline terminology used by the FCB to determine the definition of different degrees of violence-gratuitous, discreet and exploitative-is not without interpretative difficulty, but any recommendation to alter the terminology may prove not to be more effective in practice. But we do support a stricter interpretation of the current guidelines. The use of such terms as `violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material' even in our Terms of Reference make it difficult to reply intelligently as the meaning is not clearly definable. Other terms such as `blasphemous' and `dehumanising' are also extremely difficult to define. The Committee found from the evidence and submissions that such terms mean different things to different people. I conclude by drawing the attention of the House to the response to term of reference (1), because I think it is extremely relevant. I would like to thank members of the Committee. We had lots of brawls. I enjoyed them. I see that Senator Walters is in the gallery. She may not have enjoyed them, but she certainly participated. Again, I thank members of the Committee for their contributions and participation during the long existence of the Committee. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(10.22) —It can be seen from the voluminous nature of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material and the long list of witnesses and hearings that the Committee faced an enormous task. My dissent to major recommendations has been recorded and I propose to comment on some of the submissions to the Committee opposite to both that dissent and other findings of the Committee. I am far from happy with the implication that there was no hard evidence that pornographic videos cause harm. The report tends to suggest that on some occasions submissions indicating such harm comprised opinion but not hard evidence. I entirely disagree with that view. I listened very carefully to social workers, priests-a young priest in Melbourne in particular-and concerned people. To disregard their documented evidence is to turn a blind eye. We were confronted with suggestions of prostitution, exploitation and degradation of boys and girls. We were told the manipulators-the exploiters-made use of pornographic films, videos and publications in coaxing young people into this life. Not infrequently, associated with this, drugs and pornography were interlinked. The assertions that criminal elements were actively associated with the production of pornographic videos and material could not be lightly dismissed. Whether this is evidence of the type weighed by a court of law is, to me, splitting hairs. It was the sober, serious observation of those who knew best-those who work among the broken, exploited people and try to salvage them from the degradation into which they have been plunged. I pronounce, without any reservation, that pornographic videos are a major and guilty factor. I believe that all present X-rated and R-rated video material should be refused classification. Of course, purveyors of this material will protest. It is a highly lucrative business. There is evidence everywhere of the harm it produces. There is not one shred of evidence anywhere of any virtue. It is not produced to bring any benefit to the community; it is produced to make money. It is produced without any consideration of lives that might be destroyed and the harvest it might produce. This material is available to minors in the Australian Capital Territory. We had hard evidence of that. The explanation that it is difficult for video proprietors to know how old a person is will not suffice. Indeed, we were given evidence that a child of 12 or 13, very obviously well below the age of 18, had no difficulty in hiring X-rated and R-rated videos in Canberra. I believe that there are plenty of proofs of age which could have been required, and I do not believe that there has been a real endeavour in many cases to inquire adequately into or enforce the requirement that such material should not be hired to minors. The Committee did not agree with my endeavour to control another stream of this pernicious material. I believe that it should be made an offence to send this material through the mail or by other means. It is a farce when States legislate against such material, when distributors in Canberra can and do legally through the mail send to those States catalogues and videos refused classification in those States. Canberra is the pornography capital and efforts in the States to control such video material are completely nullified by the flood of mail orders out of Canberra. I repeat that it should be made an offence to use the mail for such a purpose. Because I believe that such material should be refused classification, I also naturally dissented from the recommendation that registered hard top cinemas be allowed to screen such films. That would provide a bonanza for the raincoat brigade, a possible source of perversion, a possible place of conscription of young people into vice and prostitution. Again, if not legally provable, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence associating the appetite for pornography with crimes of rape, molestation and worse. We have heard pronouncements of judges on that matter. Its very purpose is to excite and arouse and without a doubt that can be a powerful catalyst to unstable and perverted people with criminal tendencies. It would harm not a single person if this material was taken away, but it would remove much of the crime, misery and human degradation which every one of us deplores. Who could reasonably complain when the purpose of its production is to make profits by exciting and arousing? The only reason to view it is to be aroused because there is no story, no beauty and no other attraction in any of it. To claim that we care for society and for our young people and to allow this trade to flourish I believe is arrant hypocrisy. I have absolutely no sympathy for the proposition that if we ban it we merely send it underground. That point of view is unsustainable. If that were credible we would not act against drugs or any other crime. We have no compunction about legislating against cigarette smoking in public transport and other places, yet we allow video pornography to flourish on the pretext that we do not want to drive it underground. If we are serious about it, if we police it and if penalties are severe enough, we certainly can effectively take action against it. We should be serious about it because the sufferers are the innocent, the impressionable and the young. Surely it is our responsibility to afford them some protection. The least impressive witnesses in my view were those from the video promotion industry. I was aghast at the amount of money turned over by this industry. To hear the witnesses maintaining that they are providing a service to society and have them attempt to suggest that it is a commendable and desirable service was the most tongue in cheek submission that I have ever heard. I cannot accept their protestations that they are concerned about our minors, our boys and girls, and that they would not want to see any harm visited on them. Their total aim, of course, is profit. To make another category-non-violent erotica-and to place information about the video on the cassette and container would achieve nothing; it would merely reinforce and condone what I believe is a trade as pernicious in many ways as the drug trade. It perpetuates and promotes the degrading and dehumanising of mankind and, in particular, women, and it should be given no reinforcement or mark of approval. As a member of the Committee I received hundreds of letters from all over Australia. I received many phone calls and many people came to my office. I do not recall any of those submissions, save one from the adult video industry, which did not express concern about video pornography and seek positive action against it. It is quite clear what the vast majority of Australians feel about these videos. They were so concerned that I was besieged by protests and I sent many of them on to the Chairman of the Committee. I believe that people will be disappointed and somewhat disenchanted with this report and that they will expect this Parliament to act more positively in the matter. It is all very well to say that adults should be allowed to see and view whatever takes their fancy. In other matters where it is evident that harm and suffering are caused to other people, we are prepared to act. In this instance to do otherwise is a weak unacceptable alibi. To those who say that it is the responsibility of parents I reply that they are not living in the real world. While there is a place where children-perhaps children visiting mates-can see the material and while there is a profit to be made by peddling the material to young people, and no matter what parents do to ensure that their children are not exposed to it in their own home, children will see it. This industry, because of its pervasiveness, will do as much to undermine parental guidance, control and training as any industry I know. The evidence of teachers who tell of the effect, the impact and often the trauma they see in children who have been exposed to X- and R-rated videos was quite unequivocal and virtually unanimously condemnatory. The evidence of psychiatrists, police, and students of criminology to a greater or lesser degree, was a saga of concern if not, in some cases, outright condemnation. The evidence of Mafia involvement in the United States of America in the video pornography industry was conclusive. If it was not proven in the Australian scene it was very much indicated or suggested. To refuse to face up to the serious reality and to cavalierly pontificate that it is a parental responsibility is reprehensible. Certainly the Government must face up to the fact that Canberra and the Northern Territory, areas under its jurisdiction, are the distribution centres. It must acknowledge that States which legislate against its distribution are powerless because it is distributed from our Commonwealth Territories. Thus the responsibility rests with this Parliament. I speak not to impose my view of morality on others; I speak because I am concerned about the evidence of harm reaching out to our community and especially to our young people. For that reason I believe that X-rated and R-rated videos should be refused classification. I wish the report had more positively recommended that. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.33) —I am pleased to be able to comment on the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material which has just been tabled by the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). The report addresses many complex issues and questions. They are issues on which honourable members of this House and members of the general community hold strong and often divergent views. To gain a true appreciation of this report honourable members must go beyond the summary and the recommendations. Chapters dealing with terminology, values and perspectives, the likely effects of video material and the issue of access of minors, are essential reading for those interested in this important subject. Along with the majority of the Committee I support the arguments in these chapters, and throughout the report, as contained in volume 1. However, I have dissented from recommendations 1 and 2. Recommendations 1 and 2 propose a new category of video material referred as non-violent erotica (NVE), or to describe it more accurately, hard core pornography. This proposal obtained majority support only through a strange convergence of diverse views. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) voted with the proponents of such a category. However, he holds a uniquely narrow view about what should be included in this proposed classification and thus has joined other members of the committee, me included, in forming a majority dissent to the content provisions set out in recommendation 2. I dissented from the recommendations supporting the introduction of this new category as it would entrench pornographic video material in the community under the misleading title of NVE. The proposal runs counter to the evidence submitted to the Committee concerning the harmful effects of this material and is inconsistent with the findings of the Committee. A keystone of the Committee's findings is expressed in the summary of chapter 13 which states: Theories of behavioural science, laboratory experiments and anecdotal evidence point strongly to the fact that the effects of pornography are not aberrations. Responses to pornographic stimuli fall within the range of human behaviour. It cannot logically be argued that the effects of pornography can safely be ignored because, supposedly, only deviants would respond to pornographic influences. While behavioural science studies in this area do not provide certainty they do establish theories which make reliable predictions about human behaviour. It would therefore be unenlightened for Parliament to ignore them. We have therefore recommended that the Commonwealth Government introduce substantive legislation to ensure that this material is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. I refer honourable members to the majority response to recommendation 2 which is placed at the end of chapter 17, `Conclusions and Recommendations' in volume 1. A great deal of the Committee's work and of the report of the Committee is devoted to the question of the potential harm to children and adults caused by explicit violent and pornographic material. Such complex questions of human psychology and behaviour cannot be answered conclusively. However, the qualitative evidence given to the Committee from a wide variety of sources points strongly to the dangers posed by explicit sexual and violent material. Where the theories of behavioural science, laboratory experiments and anecdotal evidence all establish serious concerns about the potential harm posed by this material, the benefit of any doubt or concern must be given in favour of the wider community. It must be remembered that Australia's enlightened and liberal censorship laws were largely framed before the advent of home video machines, corner store video libraries and mail order video outlets. Explicit sexual or violent material was therefore confined to the printed format or through the relatively control mediums of television or cinema. We must accept that despite the recommendations of this Committee, action by this Parliament or the earnest endeavours of responsible parents, there is no satisfactory solution to the problem of children gaining access to video material. Because of the dangers pointed to by the evidence, the access to such material by young people and the degrading way in which pornography depicts women, I strongly believe that the onus of proof regarding any new category of classification rests with those who propose it. The proponents of NVE have failed to discharge that onus of proof, particularly in light of the evidence as presented to the Committee. I would like to comment briefly on some of the other recommendations contained in the report. There are a number of recommendations regarding the display and advertising of video cassettes. Recommendation 5 will significantly toughen the requirements to label video cassettes, cassette boxes and advertising material with the appropriate censorship classification symbol, including the age description. Recommendation 8 will clarify the position regarding advertising trailers and previews to ensure that any video cassette can include previews or trailers of films only of a censorship classification equal to or lower than that of the title feature. In recommendations 9 and 10 the Committee has taken strong steps to combat the problem of young people gaining access to violent or pornographic video material. The Committee has recommended that it be an offence to show a minor an R-rated or NVE film without the consent of a parent or guardian. Further, the Committee has recommended that all R-rated and NVE-rated material be displayed in a separate room and, where that type of display is not possible, it be made available to those over 18 by catalogues at the counter. Also of concern to me was the volume of anecdotal evidence put to the Committee recounting instances of young people having seen an R-rated video whilst visiting a friend's place. The best efforts of Federal and State governments are no substitute for responsible parental control. The Government, schools and parent groups all have a role to play in emphasising to parents the need to scrutinise the material their children watch. Recommendations 24 and 25 relate to changes to the classification guidelines. I moved recommendation 24 in the Committee to change the language criteria for the PG category so that it will have exactly the same language criteria as the G category. After watching a good deal of PG material, it became clear that some of the language allowed in this junior category was not acceptable. I was informed during discussions with the Film Censorship Board that it classified a film M because of excessive use of what is usually referred to as the `magic word'. On appeal by the producers to the Films Board of Review the film rating was dropped to PG in a near unanimous vote of that body. I am pleased that the majority of the Committee agreed with my proposal and I trust that this recommendation will be adopted promptly. The parental guidance classification needs to be set at a level which parents would consider appropriate for younger children. Expressions similar to the one I have alluded to are clearly inappropriate to the age range the classification is intended for. The recommendation also does not give the Film Censorship Board or the Films Board of Review any leeway or flexibility in relation to the language guidelines for the G and PG classifications. Recommendation 25 changes the classification guidelines for violence in the R category. It is a small but important change in emphasis which the Committee hopes will exclude a small amount of material which might be described as `slasher' films, where there is a large amount of violence and some degree of enjoyment expressed by the characters portrayed inflicting such violence. I have great faith in the integrity of the Film Censorship Board under the stewardship of the relatively new Chief Censor, Mr John Dickie. I am sure that the concerns of the wider community regarding violence will be taken into account. Together with a tighter interpretation of the guidelines as recommended by the Committee, not only in the R classification but also in the PG and M classifications, we will see films and videos being classified more in tune with those community concerns and standards. Recommendation 28 strongly supports a wide-spread education campaign. I understand that the Film Censorship Board is already looking at this matter and I can only give it my full support and hope that it is successful in increasing community awareness of the meaning of classification categories and their content. This is an important report, and I trust that the Commonwealth and State governments are able to agree on uniform legislative action and regulation, where appropriate, on the Committee's recommendations. This report is comprehensive in its approach to this complex subject and should be read thoroughly to obtain a greater understanding of the industry, its place in our society and the substantive questions with which the Committee has dealt. Every member of the Committee has strong views on this subject. At some stages during the more heated Committee discussions I felt that if a video had been made of the proceedings it would have been banned on the grounds of excessive violence. However, the divergence of views within the Committee is only a reflection of the wide array of views held on these controversial subjects by members of the Parliament and the community. I trust that the House and Government will recognise that the Committee has agreed on major and important recommendations which reflect the standards and values of Australian society. These recommendations reflect and uphold those standards, while urging sensible and appropriate measures to protect young people from the very real dangers posed by explicit, violent or pornographic material. This debate is not about censorship. It is about where we draw the censorship line. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.42) —May I prefix my remarks today on the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by saying that since my entry into this Parliament in 1975 I have served on a number of committees. By virtue of my membership of this Committee I have never had a more difficult job than trying to come to some conclusion on what attitude we should take to the censorship of video material. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) was quite right in his statements. It has been difficult. Those of us who signed the majority report have tried to provide a true reflection of the real feeling about what is happening in Australian society today. In that context I hope that the Government takes some notice of the majority report. Probably the real difficulty for the Government will be the fact that we are so divided. We should point out to the community that on most of the votes in this Committee there was a 6/5 split. It was as close as that. That will cause some difficulties when the Government finally comes down with its decision about what it is going to do regarding video censorship. The report will not be a panacea, by any means. One of the things that concerned me from the start was that our terms of reference were confined primarily to video material. If people think the Government is going to act on our report and ban X-rated films, let them be under no misapprehension that plenty of pornographic material will still be available in our community because the report did not cover the print media. Many of the things people believed were concerned with the video inquiry and were contained in video tapes were not because they had already been banned, but they were freely available around Australia in the print media. I was also sorry that the terms of reference of our Committee did not extend to television, especially television violence. There is a very real concern in the community about violence in some television programs and about how the violence depicted in news services these days may affect our young folk. As I have said, it has been a most difficult report. Before I go any further I would like to express my very sincere thanks to Jane Vincent, the Secretary of the Committee, and the members of her team for the help they gave to us under most difficult circumstances. Hers has been a most courageous effort. She deserves every congratulation for finally getting this very difficult report together. When we talk about the censorship issue we tend to concentrate principally on X-rated material. The perception in the community was that X-rated material was what we were all about. In fact, our terms of reference were much broader. There is no doubt that there is massive concern in the community about the circulation of X-rated tapes. It is difficult to estimate how many pornographic video tapes might be in circulation in Australia. I point to the evidence that the X-rated pornographic video industry in Australia is worth between $20m and $25m per year. The Australian Capital Territory is a major employer. There are 200 to 300 people employed in the Australian Capital Territory in the manufacture and distribution of X-rated videos. So we are not talking about a small, underground operation. We are talking about a large industry with a number of players in it. Estimates vary from 17 to 24 companies in the Australian Capital Territory distributing this material. In excess of 3,000 video tape titles carry illegal, X-rated classifications in Australia now and, if we can believe the evidence that came before our Committee, the number of these tapes sold ranges between 1,200 and 30,000. This gives us some idea of how much X-rated video material is available in Australia. Unlike my colleague the member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann), I express some concern that with the banning of the material we could well see a major underground operation. We have to be prepared for that, for the reasons the honourable member for Fairfax has given us today. If we think it is impossible to control, that is no reason for legalising it. We should put ourselves on notice, however, that should X-rated material be banned there will be great difficulties. One of the things that surprised me about the evidence given to the Committee was that there was a preponderance of submissions concerning X-rated material only and that to a great extent the R-rated violent video material did not receive as much attention in the community as I, personally, thought it should. In many respects the dangers that are involved in some of the highly violent material could well outweigh the dangers of some X-rated material. I have expressed my concern within the Committee about some of the decisions that have been made in the past by previous members of the Film Censorship Board concerning some titles. I am not sure whether honourable members are fully aware of just what is available in the so-called `slasher' films. I could cite some classic titles, such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Blood Sucking Freaks, which to my mind do nothing but promote the concept of cannibalism. This sort of stuff has been floating around the community quite often, as in the case of Blood Sucking Freaks with an M-rating-until it was upgraded to an R classification-and the stuff is sick. Although originally I took the classic libertarian line that people should be able to see and read whatever they like in the privacy of their homes, only a small exposure to this material brought home to me the very real danger that is involved in the circulation of this kind of material for our young, impressionable people. It would seem from my personal investigations that the biggest consumers of violent R-rated material are aged between 15 and 24. In the report and the evidence we have been given it has been proven that this sort of violent material has a very real effect on young people. This has been found not only in Australia but in studies in the United States and elsewhere. I hope that there will be swift action from the Government to put limits on the R-rated material we have defined in the report. The honourable member for Isaacs also mentioned our concern about the PG and M classifications. As a parent myself I am quite aware of the attraction of young people to this sort of material. I would think that until I become really deeply involved in this Committee I would go into a video shop and think nothing of a 10- or an 11-year-old taking out a PG film and in some circumstances even an M film. The fact that we have asked for the tightening up of those classifications I think is also significant. There is no doubt that the film distributors are pitching for a higher classification by use of language, or indeed violence, be it discreet violence or whatever, to try to get that higher classification, because there is a very real appeal to young people of that higher classified material. I think we should make sure that we are perfectly clear within the Film Censorship Board that we have an obligation to ensure that the guidelines that are given are strictly adhered to so that young people are not exposed to some of that material. As I said at the beginning of my comments today, this has been a very long and a very difficult job. Although there have been some tremendous rows within the Committee and some tremendous discussions, I think that probably one good thing that came out was a deal of respect for the views of the forces on opposite sides and a realisation that we are very much a pluralist society in Australia, with a great diversity of views. This report certainly reflects that diversity. I just hope that when we do give this very considered thought and when the Government finally does come in, there will be a full realisation within this House that we have a very real responsibility, especially to the young people of Australia. I look forward to the day when the Government will make that decision to ban the classification of X-rated material and does go on to tighten up very severely the limits on the available violence in video material in Australia today. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(10.52) —In the time that is available to me I also would like to comment on this Joint Select Committee on Video Material report and to endorse the remarks made earlier in this debate by the Chairman, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), while regretting that I cannot agree with most of the remarks made by the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) and some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles). Also, I am sorry that I cannot always agree with the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), with whom I have a lot in common. We have had a very long debate in the Committee. The saga of the report is very involved. The concepts which had to be grasped were complex and the readings voluminous. By far the most difficult aspect of the Committee's work, however, was attempting to assess objectively the relative merit, expertise and authenticity of the evidence presented against a backdrop of genuine community concern, various campaigns of misinformation, misunderstanding, moral indignation, commercial interest and occasional instances of blind prejudice. Indeed, this chamber is not without its own examples of misunderstanding, misinformation and prejudice on this particular issue. Some honourable members will recall the private members' debate on this subject a few weeks ago in which a number of members referred to material which is unclassifiable as if it were freely available or unavailable under the X category. Those members simply illustrate the difficulty of dealing with a subject upon which everyone wishes to express an opinion without the proper information base. There is quite a lot of hypocrisy around on this question also. As with many other discussions of morality, double standards are rife. But to acknowledge that is not to deny the genuine concern of many witnesses and members of the community and their belief that such material has contributed in some way to the moral decline of our society. Neither is it to diminish in any way the contribution of other Committee members to the report and to the deliberations of the Committee. The Committee's task would have been easier had the terminology of the debate not been so loaded and subjective. Particularly on this subject, different words mean different things to different people. As a consequence, much of our time was spent endeavouring to get witnesses to explain what they meant by the terms they were using. For instance, some witnesses used the word `pornography' in the context of bestiality and sado-masochistic material which is not classifiable under Australian law anyway and is already illegal. Others used the same word to describe material which might be better understood as `erotica' in the general community-that which does not contain violent or enforced sexual acts, but which is fairly explicit in its depiction. Because the Committee itself is made up of people from a broad spectrum of our society, we had some of the same problems of definition, understanding and interpretation within our own ranks, and that is obvious from the debate today. This goes some way to explaining the variety of views on the Committee on the merit of certain evidence as well as on more basic philosophical questions, such as the need for censorship versus the rights of people to view material of their choice, and by `people' I mean adults. The difficulty of interpretation in this area has been raised by other similar committees in other countries as a substantive problem in their deliberations. For instance, the United States Commission on Obscenity and Pornography refused to use the word `pornography' because of the interpretive problem it posed. In July 1986 the United States Meese Commission, which was commissioned by the Attorney-General, also indicated that the questions of terminology and definition were recurring problems in its hearings and deliberations. The definition of the word `pornography' warranted a special mention in the Commission's report: The range of materials to which people are likely to affix the designation `pornographic' is so broad that it is tempting to note that `pornography' seems to mean in practice any discussion or depiction of sex to which the person using the word objects. In 1985 the Canadian Fraser Committee, the special committee on pornography and prostitution, found it necessary to ask the question: `What is pornography?'. It said in its report: Although the term (pornography) is widely used in popular and academic literature, it does not appear in Canadian criminal law, nor is this term used in other Federal legislation dealing with the control of offensive material. The same is true of Australia. The terms `pornography' and `pornographic' do not appear in the legislation which was under review by our Joint Select Committee. Furthermore the Committee's terms of reference refer to `violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material' as if the three terms were interchangeable. In reality, all are extremely subjective, descriptive terms which are not interchangeable and which require personal interpretation. Cross-party alliances were formed on the Committee on various recommendations contained in the report, and despite holding strong, disparate and contrary opinions, the members of the Committee have almost invariably, except for latter days, conducted their deliberations in a friendly and cooperative manner. I reject the claim of the honourable member for Isaacs that violence was almost perpetrated on the Committee. I do not think it got that far. Claims were made that a causal effect had been established between violent material and the incidence of crime in our society. However, such claims totally ignore social pressures such as poverty and oppression, which are arguably much more powerful influences than visual depictions on film. Nevertheless, the Committee was unanimous in its view that violence on video, television and cinema should be reduced, and recommended that the Film Censorship Board and the Films Board of Review should adopt a tighter interpretation of the guidelines in order to achieve a reduction in the level of violence in all relevant categories. I would particularly like to mention, as did other members of the Committee, the contribution of the Secretary, Jane Vincent, and her staff, who worked extremely hard under difficult conditions to help the Committee produce this report. Her competence and calm in the face of adversity were commendable. Mr Jull —Order of Australia! Ms JAKOBSEN —What a great idea. Fluctuations in majority opinion on the Committee made Jane's job even harder, and I think the comments of the honourable member for Fadden and the Chairman on the closeness of the vote on many of the recommendations actually underline that point. Also, Jane's job was made harder by the change in the composition of the Committee after the last election, at a time when the first draft of the Chairman's report was almost complete. I am proud to have been a member of this Committee. It was the first Committee that I went on when I became a member of parliament. It was rather a shock to the system. I congratulate all members of the Committee for the way they conducted themselves during our deliberations, and hope that the community understands the difficulties which we had in discussing this whole issue and trying to come to conclusions that would at least assist the Government in terms of its actions on this very important social issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Motion (by Dr Klugman) proposed: That the House take note of the report. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with sessional order 102b, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Bill presented by Mr Prosser. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(11.01) —On behalf of the quiet achievers of Australian primary industry, I am pleased to present this Bill to amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act of 1935 to exempt professional fishermen from sales tax on four-wheel drive vehicles and some motorcycles used in their industry. I would describe it as a commonsense Bill, designed to remove an anomaly from the legislation as it now stands. This amendment will take away a financial impediment on the industry, providing incentive for fishermen to continue to pursue the task of reducing Australia's reliance on imported fish and the development of export markets. Over recent years, major changes have evolved in the method of harvesting Australia's valuable fish resource. Like other primary producers, fishermen have striven to do the job better and more efficiently in response to market needs and a growing consumer demand for fresh fish. These new fishing techniques have also forced fishermen to update equipment. Four-wheel-drive vehicles and some motorcyles are now an important part of the fishermen's stock in trade, significantly reducing the time in getting the catch from boat to market. But it seems change has overtaken the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act because, unlike other primary producers, professional fishermen do not receive tax relief for this expensive equipment. Basically, licensed professional fishermen are excluded from the benefits of sales tax exemption by the wording of the legislation, which allows exemptions to people engaged in the agricultural industry rather than to primary producers. It is interesting to note that, for the purposes of income tax, fishermen are classified as primary producers. This Bill would have an insignificant effect on Government revenue, estimates ranging from just over $1m to less than $3m a year. Yet, the benefits for the fishing industry would be great. Salt corrosion significantly reduces the life of four-wheel-drive vehicles in the industry. The changeover on average is between four and six years, and the value of the vehicles is obviously greatly reduced. Clearly, this anomaly should not remain in the legislation. The need to amend the Act was acknowledged in the Parliament as far back as 1982. In its final report, the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce recommended: Where a commercial fisherman can demonstrate that the use of a vehicle is essential to his fishing operations, he be entitled to exemption from sales tax on a vehicle to be used in earning income, and the relevant sales tax legislation be amended to provide for such exemption. Part time fishermen would be excluded from exemptions under division 4 of the Sales Tax Act, which requires that each vehicle must be used primarily or principally for work purposes. As Australia's fifth largest primary industry exporter, fishing has a major role in helping reduce our current account deficit. In 1986-87 the value of fish exports was some $621m, mainly to Japan and the United States. However, in the current economic climate the industry recognises it must become more competitive to maintain existing markets and to expand into other areas. It is now 10 years since the Australian fisheries jurisdiction was extended to the 200-mile limit. The industry must be encouraged to utilise this valuable resource for the benefit of Australia and with regard to proper management of the resource. Investment in equipment is vital if the industry is to meet these challenges. I urge honourable members on both sides of the House to assist the industry by supporting this Bill. Bill read a first time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —In accordance with sessional order 104a, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(11.06) —I 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. Various States in Australia are suffering the effects of natural disaster at present. Life for men and women on the land is difficult at times. A crop can be planted, carefully cultivated and then nature provides insufficient rain or rain comes at the wrong time leaving a crop to rot in the ground or be totally washed away. The vagaries of our climate mean that the lifestyle of many farmers is seldom predictable. Drought, flood, bushfire or cyclone may ruin the lifestyle of primary producers in any year. That is undeniable. Relief measures are required and it is the role of all governments, Federal and State, to care for the welfare of people in times of personal, emotional and financial crisis. I do not believe that we can ever overestimate the contributions that men and women on the land make to this nation and, indeed, to the pioneering of our great nation and the lifestyle we enjoy today. The Federal Government recognises its responsibilities to these people who are in difficulty, and I believe that the natural disaster relief arrangements provide a safety net for families in rural areas when they are experiencing difficulty. This year central Queensland suffered Cyclone Charlie. There were floods in the south-eastern corner of the State, particularly in the Lockyer Valley, and in my electorate there has been drought for the past five years. It is ironical that we are suffering both flood and drought at the same time in central Queensland. That is one of the ironies of our climate. In other States there are droughts in the Wimmera district of Victoria, Eyre Peninsula in South Australia, northern Tasmania, south-western Western Australia and, for the past eight years, the Cooma area in south-eastern New South Wales. Indeed, this is a very harsh land. A Natural Disaster Relief Consultative Committee was established to deal with the problems of primary producers who are suffering the ill-effects of a natural disaster. As I have said, my own electorate has been the victim of drought, which has affected some areas of the Burnett and Isis districts for about five years. The agreed measures in place were developed by the National Drought Consultative Committee, on which the States and farmer organisations are represented. Assistance is provided by way of subsidised loans for such purposes as stock, water and fodder, transport and the purchase of agistment, feed and water. The Federal Government funds the bulk of expenditure in the years of heavy demand under the natural disaster relief arrangements whether for drought, flood, fire or cyclone. Again, I would like to emphasise the unpredictability and the cyclonic influences that particularly affect north Queensland. In Queensland the Federal Government pays $3 for every $1 of the State beyond the trigger point of $24.5m. This point has already passed, given the number of disasters in Queensland this financial year. The scheme is administered at the State level by the various State bodies. The Queensland Industry Development Department currently provides 4 per cent loans for both drought and flood damage and three-quarters of the extra money comes from the Federal Government. The 4 per cent that is paid by the farmers goes to the Queensland Government to cover its administrative costs. However, the Federal Government makes the money available to Queensland at no extra cost. Given this Federal involvement, I was disappointed to read about a meeting at Eidsvold called by the National Party of Australia where the speakers alleged that the Federal Government was doing nothing to assist farmers who are hurt by the drought. The meeting was addressed by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) who criticised the natural disaster relief arrangements. Nowhere was it reported, however, that the Leader of the National Party outlined his alternatives to the current arrangements that he has found so inadequate. He told the farmers what they wanted to hear and went away and did nothing about it. The meeting at Eidsvold was also addressed by the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Harper). Mr Harper helped make the issue political and, in doing so, overlooked the fact that the area that has suffered drought for the past five years was in his own State electorate. The State Government has deemed the drought to be so serious that it declared the area drought affected only in March of this year. The National Party had left the farmers without any aid for five years, while it called a political meeting to take the heat off itself. We are seeing a similar story with the farmers in the Lockyer Valley who are experiencing the trauma which comes with flood. The natural disaster relief arrangements are administered by the State Government. There is mounting evidence that the Federal Government money used in the natural disaster relief arrangements is being misspent by the Queensland Government. The issue became public in Queensland in what became known as the `lousy loans affair'. The then State Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Turner, admitted he had directed a $145,000 loan be granted to a National Party officer against expert financial advice. The Agricultural Bank and the Rural Reconstruction Board had decided that the National Party northern director and former Senate candidate, Mr Behan, should not receive the loan because he faced debts of $700,000 and $100,000 a year in repayments. After Mr Turner intervened, apparently with the approval of the then Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Mr Behan received a loan, including $85,000 from disaster relief funds at 4 per cent. Honourable members may be aware that the original decision of the Bank was vindicated and Mr Behan was forced to sell his family property. The significant fact for present day natural disaster victims is that this was not the first time Mr Turner had intervened and overturned recommendations to the responsible administrative bodies. He was quoted in the Townsville Daily Bulletin of 17 September 1986 as saying that he overturned them `whenever I thought it was necessary'. The number of times decisions were overturned by Turner is revealed in a radio transcript of an interview between the National Party member for Mulgrave, Mr Menzel, and the journalist Greg Turnbull on AM on 18 September 1986. Mr Menzel said he had approached Mr Turner hundreds of times on behalf of farmers whose applications had been rejected. After Cyclone Winifred officials from the Department of Finance were asked to investigate claims of irregularities in national disaster relief arrangement approvals. A report in the Sunday Mail of 21 September 1986 said that there would be an investigation into allegations that one family was reported to have bought five new cars and another family took an overseas holiday after receiving disaster relief loans. Another case was of a farmer whose wife had real estate assets and who bought a business, putting his bank account into the red so he could get drought relief. A further case was of a farmer who used his loan funds to buy a second farm to expand his existing small holding, where he was struggling to make a living. Because the State Government administers the scheme, the cooperation of the State Government was needed before the Federal authorities could investigate. In the Telegraph of 24 September 1986, the former Premier of Queensland was quoted as saying that Senator Walsh had no justification for shoving his nose into Queensland affairs. `Why should we cooperate?', he said. `I know what he's after. There is nothing to cooperate on.' The unwillingness of the Bjelke-Petersen Government to cooperate has cost the taxpayers of this nation dearly. The State Primary Industries Minister, Mr Harper, last week in the Bundaberg News Mail announced that Queensland had up to $25m in bad debts and therefore could not afford to lower the interest rates for producers in his and my electorates to further assist farmers with drought relief measures-farmers that need help right now. The Queensland Auditor-General should launch an immediate investigation into the natural disaster relief debts in Queensland. The Premier, Mr Ahern, owes a duty to the farmers in Queensland to ensure that a full investigation is carried out so that there is full confidence in the administration of the scheme. A public accounts committee promised by the Ahern Government should be set up so that the Parliament can judge whether the Queensland government has exercised due care and attention with taxpayers' money. The committee needs to examine the circumstances in which the National Party member for Mulgrave had hundreds of decisions overturned. Let us look at the provisions within the natural disaster relief arrangements. They state that assistance is available by `a concessional interest loan by a State to a farmer . . . whose assets have been significantly damaged by an eligible disaster and who has no reasonable access to commercial finance but who has a reasonable prospect of long-term viability'. The case of Mr Behan shows that this important clause was ignored by the State Government. It appears that the Behan case and others like it have allowed a $25m debt situation to be accrued by the State Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have deliberately focused my remarks on Queensland because the overwhelming majority of the natural disaster relief money is spent in that State. In 1983-84, $80.6m out of a total of $138.799m was spent in Queensland; in 1984-85, $11.116m out of $11.281m went to Queensland; in 1985-86, $24.937m out of $26.197m went to Queensland; and in 1986-87, $33.422m out of $36.331m went to Queensland. From financial year 1983-84 to financial year 1986-87, over $150m has been allocated to Queensland from natural disaster funds. Slightly over half the money has been allocated for droughts and the rest has been allocated for floods, storms and cyclones. Some 70.59 per cent of all Federal outlays on natural disaster relief have gone to my home State of Queensland. It is vital that these funds be appropriated and spent in an effective way. Those farmers currently applying for assistance should apply in the knowledge that they are all on an equal footing when seeking a loan. It should not be a mad scramble to ring the local National Party member whenever there is a knockback in the knowledge that the Minister will overturn it. Farmers must feel crestfallen when they hear from Mr Harper that the Queensland Government has run up a $25m debt in administering the scheme. Mr Ian Cameron —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask the honourable member for Hinkler to withdraw his reference to local National Party members and the inference he made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The honourable member for Hinkler has not mentioned any members of this House by name. There is no point of order. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member continues to mention persons by name, people who have personal loans. I ask you to listen carefully to what he is saying and to the argument he is putting forward. I believe that what he is saying is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have been listening to what the honourable member for Hinkler has been saying. I ask him, in the spirit of Thursday morning private members' debates, to try to stick more to the motion he has moved, rather than bringing up personal matters. Mr COURTICE —I was certainly not making any inference in relation to the honourable member for Maranoa. I am sure he has never tried and never would try to overturn any natural disaster arrangements. It is just sad that it is on record that the members I have mentioned did publicly say that they got involved and did what I have said. The Federal assistance aims to help the States meet the unexpected costs of assisting. The arrangements recognise the States' primary responsibility under the Constitution for the administration, provision and financing of relief schemes. An amount of $25m has been provided for Federal assistance towards disaster relief in 1987-88. However, actual assistance will depend on the level of ongoing State expenditure in respect of past disasters and on the incidence and severity of any disasters. The Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has played an important role in developing a national drought policy. He sought the formation of an expert group of State and Federal officers and rural producer organisations. With the agreement of the Australian Agricultural Council, the National Drought Consultative Committee was formed in 1984. The Committee expressed agreement on the desirability for greater uniformity between the States in the administration of drought loans, including coverage, eligibility, purpose and terms and conditions. The general view expressed by the Committee was that individual loan levels should not be limited except to the extent of having a State average limit. New South Wales and Queensland considered a maximum limit should be established. In addition, the Committee decided that a reference should be made to the Industries Assistance Commission on crop and rainfall insurance, and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has initiated this. The procedures to assist drought stricken primary producers throughout Australia are in place and are working to assist farmers in difficult circumstances. The track record of the Queensland Government in administering natural disaster relief arrangements does not give farmers any great hope that they will all start equal when applying for disaster relief. The lousy loans affair involving $145,000 appears from Mr Harper's own admission to have ballooned into $25m worth of lousy loans. Mr Ian Cameron —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I would call your attention to the continued reference to a private loan given to a private individual in Queensland. His name is continually being referred to. The loan has been referred to again as a lousy plan. It so happens that it was a private loan; it was a private undertaking. This gentleman is paying back the loan in the same way as any other Queenslander. I would like you to call the honourable member for Hinkler to order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member again to adhere to the request from the Chair and try to avoid personalities in this debate. Mr COURTICE —I do not think that any amount of money represents a lousy loan to farmers in need. The words I referred to are not mine; they are those of the Queensland National Party that were reported in the paper. Those moneys allocated by the Federal and State governments should be directed to those farmers who are most in need. We need better accounting procedures. The State Minister for Primary Industries in Queensland has admitted that $25m has been lost. There should be more accountability. Contrary to statements made in Queensland recently, the natural disaster policy is in place. I cannot overemphasise, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the important contribution that farmers have made to this nation. It is important to make sure that those genuine farmers who are most in need have a safety net. There is a difference between that and unaccountability. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Lavarch —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.21) —I want to respond to several of the remarks made by the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) before I proceed to develop a case for what I believe is absolutely necessary in this country-that is, a major strategy to cope with bushfires, droughts and floods. The honourable member for Hinkler made a political response to the serious problems confronting those in the flood and drought areas in Queensland. It is unfortunate that he did so; but, he having done so, I now want to put the record straight. In 1982, at the time of the Fraser Government, disaster relief was paid by the Federal Government at the rate of $3 for every $1 provided by the State above a threshold set at a fixed percentage of the annual State Budget sector revenue. Now the Commonwealth will pay only $1 for every $1 provided by the State above the threshold, up to a figure of 75 per cent above that threshold. Only after that higher level is reached does the Commonwealth return to its $3 for $1 commitment. In 1982 the threshold in Queensland was $3m; today it is $14m. That means that the State Government now has to expend $14m before the trigger mechanism commences to work. This is making it almost impossible for the States, which are bearing the brunt of the Commonwealth Budget difficulties, to provide that sort of cash at a time of crisis within their own State boundaries. I am very concerned that in the forthcoming May mini-Budget-we are told that the States will once again take an enormous slash in resources available through loan programs and States grants-the States will be put in an even worse situation to meet the crises of drought, flood or fire within their State boundaries. That being so, I believe that the Commonwealth Government will have a very serious responsibility to review the formula that is presently being used. If the States are denied their share of income tax revenue collected, undoubtedly, in times of cyclonic difficulties and floods, such as we have had in the Lockyer Valley and elsewhere, they will be virtually unable to meet the expenditure levels to which they are committed before the Commonwealth comes in to assist in rehabilitating people who have been hurt as a result of floods, cyclones or droughts. When the Fraser Government was in office the Queensland Government was probably more generous and forthcoming during the 1981-82 droughts than any other State government. It was far more flexible with the arrangements that it put in place, with the approval of the Commonwealth, concerning drought assistance and so on. I believe that the Queensland Government generally has been very mindful of the fact that that State is subjected to cyclonic disturbance and all sorts of seasonal problems and has endeavoured to meet the need from resources. It could meet it when the threshold was at $3m. Now that it is at $14m, it is very difficult for that State to make the sort of contribution that one would expect to be made in accordance with past practice. There is no doubt that recent sudden changes to weather patterns right across the continent have added a sense of urgency to the motion moved by the honourable member for Hinkler. In my electorate of Gwydir near drought conditions before Easter gave way to rainfall which in some cases exceeded 250 millimetres, or 10 inches, in a matter of a few days. The townships of Mungindi, Collarenebri and, more recently, Walgett are facing total isolation. The river is 14 miles wide. This has caused enormous problems not only for livestock-many of which have drowned, others have been taken to high knobs of ground-but also for people including pregnant women and sick people, who have had to be evacuated. I want to compliment the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who responded to a request that I made when it was understood that Royal Australian Air Force aircraft and other facilities were to be moved from Goondiwindi when the water had passed its peak there. I contacted his office and his Senior Private Secretary was very cooperative. The Minister was at Butterworth at the time; so he checked with the Civil Defence Organisation in Canberra and put pressure on it. It was decided to leave the aircraft and facilities there until the emergency had been overcome. On behalf of the people of Mungindi, Collarenebri and elsewhere, I thank the Minister, his Department and his office for the way in which he responded to their problem. Australia is undoubtedly one of the most difficult countries in which to live. We have such extraordinary extremes. We have drought conditions which are part of the scene in this arid land. This is the most arid continent in the world. At times we are beset with enormous cyclonic disturbances, heavy rain-which is certainly not the norm-and the consequences that flow from it. This means that the Government needs to develop a strategy which is far more comprehensive than the one that is presently in existence. I mentioned the 1982-83 drought a moment ago. Memories of that drought are still fresh enough to be a warning that natural disasters can severely harm the economy and eat into living standards. Unlike fire, flood or cyclone, drought is more persistent and can extend for several years. Even though the 1978-1983 drought did not produce trade deficits within cooee of the $12 billion to $15 billion deficits of the last three years, it was still savage enough to drive home the point that we must have comprehensive drought relief programs ready at all times. Today we have no such program in place. Only the widespread heavy Easter rainfalls have saved a significant portion of this continent from plunging into a 1982-83-type drought. Had those falls of rain not come, we need to ask, what would this Government have done to help establish a floor to the rural economy, save breeding stock or assist viable but debt-ridden farmers to stay in business and keep the farm economy ticking over? We would have been lectured about Budget restraints and about the States doing more. The comprehensive drought relief package of 1982-83, introduced by the Fraser Government, was designed to save essential breeding stock and to rebuild herds once the drought had broken. The Fraser Government can take great credit, as can the Prime Minister of the day, for the action that was taken and that he supervised, which was a wise public investment. When the drought broke in 1983 our breeding herds and flocks were virtually intact. It was the first time in the history of droughts in this country that that was the case. At that time drought relief was paid by the Federal Government at a rate of $3 for every $1 spent by the State beyond a threshold fixed at a reasonable percentage of the annual State Budget revenue. Since the Hawke Government came into power total drought outlays have been scaled down as a result of the new formula. For instance, the total relief outlays in 1980-81 came to $80m; in 1983-84, $138m; in 1985-86, $26m; and in 1986-87, $36m. This year $25m has been set aside. Even so, this year the repayments from earlier loans will exceed the budgeted figure of $25m, if that is reached. Net relief outlays are likely to be nil. I call upon the Government to take a very good look at where policy should be directed to meet the contingencies of drought which are a feature of this country. There remains a need for a thorough overhaul of Federal-State financial arrangements, particularly in view of the fact that the States are likely to have enormous grants cuts in the forthcoming May Budget. There need to be new Federal-State financial arrangements for natural disaster relief and the development of a long term drought management strategy. I do not think that enough thought has been give to the sorts of incentives that need to be applied through the tax system to encourage stock owners and others to make provision for drought on the farm in the form of fodder and water. A lot of these drought assistance measures in times of emergency would not be needed if proper incentives were given to farmers to look after themselves. If proper measures are in place, the farmers and graziers ought to be told, `we have given you an incentive. If you don't take advantage of that incentive I am afraid we will not come to your aid in time of drought'. In my view that is the way the policy should be directed, but whilever we do not have that sort of system there is a need for a Federal government initiated program. I prefer the former. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(11.32) —In the early hours of the morning of Friday, 12 February 1988, flooding occurred in the small Darling Downs township of Cooyar, which is in the south-western corner of my electorate. The flood lasted for approximately 10 minutes, yet the force of the water which flowed through the town in those 10 minutes was so powerful that three houses were destroyed; a further three houses and a general store were either moved off their foundations or severely damaged; a local hotel and a further seven houses suffered damage through water penetration and the impact of flood debris; the very large community hall of the town, the focal point of the whole district, was completely destroyed, the only remains being the stumps in the ground; and there was extensive damage to surrounding farm land-the loss of fences and, probably even more tragically in the long term, a great loss of topsoil, which cannot be replaced as easily as fences can. Several months earlier I had been to the township to attend a function. I was newly elected last July. I would be less than honest to say that the people in Cooyar and in the surrounding areas are great supporters of the Australian Labor Party; they are certainly not. The people however were polite and greeted me warmly as their new member. I went back there a few months later, the day after the flood went through. I saw the damage that had occurred, but I also noticed the determination of the people. The stories of the townsfolk of how they survived that disaster made me proud that those people were in my electorate and I had the honour of representing them. The Premier of Queensland also attended the scene. He was also obviously touched by the disaster. Both he and I made commitments for our respective governments that any action that the governments could take to help rebuild the town would be taken. From that point I began taking a very active interest in the disaster arrangements which operate between this Parliament and the various State governments. As the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) quite correctly pointed out, Australia is a country of great extremes. It is prone to drought and to flood. It is absolutely essential that we have in place the sorts of arrangements which recognise those factors so that when natural disasters do occur a mechanism will very quickly come into place to provide immediate relief by way of emergency assistance and longer term relief in terms of rebuilding farms, homes and businesses. Several weeks after the disaster I went back to the town to speak to the local people to see how things were going and how the disaster relief arrangements were actually working. It was a very interesting exercise. My impression from that meeting with the people was that the initial arrangements in providing cash for such things as food and clothing-people lost everything; their entire personal effects-worked quite well. After that difficulties began to arise in the assessment of the damage and how the assistance would be provided. As honourable members will be aware, the arrangements are jointly funded by the State and Federal governments over a threshold where the States have the initial constitutional responsibility for natural disasters. In the State of Queensland there is a threshold of some $14m for which the State Government is responsible over a financial year. From that point up to $24m it is a dollar for dollar arrangement between the Federal Government and the State Government. After $24m it is a three to one arrangement whereby every dollar expended by the State in relief measures is matched by $3 from this Government. By the time the Cooyar flood occurred, dollar for dollar arrangements were in place. Despite the fact that two governments are involved, it makes obvious sense that the arrangements should be administered by only one set of public servants, if you like. The agreement is that the State governments will administer the funds and make the decision as to which residences and businesses are entitled to loans. A report is made twice yearly to the Federal Government as to what money has been expended. In theory I think the idea is fine and that there should be only one set of public servants assessing these sorts of things. It is ludicrous for people to be looking over each other's shoulders and getting bound up in red tape. But unfortunately there does seem to be some problem with the accounting principles. After a couple of weeks, when I went back to see how things were going, I was struck by the fact that people were worried that some of the money would go into repairing roads that were not damaged in this disaster; that the local council, rather enterprisingly in some sense, considered it to be a bonanza and was going to use it to start fixing up the roads. I will not get into a great debate about road funding, but the point is that the money has to go to the people who are in need and who were affected by the disaster. When people in the local area start to talk about concerns like that it rings alarm bells for me. I will not repeat what the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) said, but in Queensland there has been an unfortunate history of money paid under these arrangements not necessarily going where it should. That is a terrible situation. We are talking about people's lives. Two people were killed in Cooyar. Families have lost their loved ones and their homes. It is just not acceptable for any government, regardless of its politics, not to direct this money to the people in need. There needs to be a straightening out of the accounting procedures to ensure that the money we provide goes to people in genuine need and is not syphoned off into other areas, which would be a real travesty of justice. Another point that the local townsfolk of Cooyar raised with me related to how it was decided which residents and, in particular, which businesses were to be provided with the funds. For example, the State Government, somewhat unfortunately, viewed the local post office agency, which is run by a husband and wife-and this in common in small country towns-as purely a business and not a home, yet the home was attached to the business. It was one and the same unit. These sorts of circumstances need to be looked at so that technical interpretations are not applied. I was delighted to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Gwydir about developing a long term strategy to overcome these problems. That is the way we have to go. Obviously, the natural disaster relief schemes are not designed to be an alternative to insurance. People still have to take responsibility of themselves. One could ask oneself: What is the difference between someone losing his home, say, in a flood and someone who lives by a major road losing his home because a lorry runs off the road and crashes into the house? Both persons have lost their home but only one is entitled to assistance under the scheme. We have to ensure that we do not set up a system which takes away the responsibility of people to take out reasonable insurance. In some cases people cannot foresee what will happen. That happened to the people of Cooyar. Cooyar is a small town built between two creeks. There had been no evidence of flooding of that magnitude in the area in living memory. Obviously from time to time the town experienced flooding but nothing like the magnitude of that flood which went through and, in 10 minutes, wiped out the town. The people there were insured under normal household insurance to cover fire and storm damage but they did not have insurance to cover flood damage. The families and their forebears had never experienced such a flood. It is not unreasonable in those circumstances to think that they would not have insurance. When the scheme is administered the State officials should keep that situation in mind and should not make arbitrary decisions saying, `You should have had flood insurance. Too bad, you are not entitled to anything'. That is a very poor situation. On the whole the disaster relief arrangements that are in place are basically correct. They are being reviewed at the moment and letters have gone out to various States. I hope that is a helpful review. I support the thrust of the motion moved by the honourable member for Hinkler. It is very helpful that the House is now discussing these matters. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(11.43) —In supporting this motion I remind the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) that while we believe there is an important role for government-both at State and Federal level-in natural disaster assistance we should not overlook the enormous contribution that is made by voluntary help. In so many cases it is unsung. It is not given much public recognition but, nonetheless, in many cases it is far more important than the assistance given by government. As the honourable member for Fisher alluded to in his remarks, there also should be some special recognition of the importance of and the need for self-help. As the honourable member noted it is a fairly complex area. I suggest that when he begins to look at this issue he will find all sorts of anomalies which make it very difficult in administering government assistance to distinguish between those people who have done something to help themselves and those who have not and to maintain some sort of fairness. In the brief time available to me I suggest to the honourable member for Hinkler that his suggestions as to how the so-called $25m of indebtedness of the Queensland Government occurred sound to me to be extraordinarily far-fetched. Maybe that discussion is for another time. As would be expected, there is broad bipartisan support for the thrust of this motion. It is a very complex area. There will continue to be a role for the Federal and State governments to play. It is mainly the States which administer the assistance; the Federal Government merely supplies funds. When the natural disaster reaches such proportions that the State feels it can no longer fund the support, the Federal Government becomes involved. We should not overlook the fact, when we talk about natural disasters, that it is individuals who get hurt. In many cases it is devastating, whether it be from a flood, fire, a cyclone, or even from a drought as the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) touched on at some length. There is an interesting statistic in the case of fires-it probably applies in similar proportions to other natural disasters-and that is that one in three of those who have been burnt out, or devastated in other ways, never recover financially. It is a devastating statistic. It is one that is often not quoted because it does not normally occur until long after the disaster has been and gone and people have forgotten about it and something else has come along. Nonetheless, it is a figure that should be highlighted more often and it should be the one that is put in front of people when the question of insurance is mentioned. Despite the assistance of the Government, despite the assistance of voluntary helpers, it is still a fact that those who cannot make proper provision for such disasters are likely to find it extremely hard to survive financially. There is another problem-this has already been alluded to-and that is: how do we give out government assistance in a fair manner? How do we say to the person who has made reasonable provision, who has put something aside every year-whether it be fodder for a drought, whether it be insurance or whether it be other forms of financial reserves, `You have gone without for all those years and we have only a limited amount of money for assistance so you will miss out'? It is a complex area and it has to be looked at. The other point I would like to talk about very briefly is that we see much television coverage of natural disasters such as a major bush fire, a major flood, or major cyclone damage and if a drought runs for long enough we see the devastation that that causes. But often individuals may have their whole property burnt out or they may, in one small concentrated area, be hit by a flash flood and in many cases they are completely overlooked because it has not attracted the media attention and therefore the support from the community that would be forthcoming to those who are affected by major catastrophes. The Industries Assistance Commission in its 1986 report titled Crop and Rainfall Insurance alluded to some of the deficiencies of the present disaster relief arrangements. As my time is limited I will not go into the details of it now, but it is a complex area and I urge all members of this chamber to take a little more time to study it because Australia will continue to be faced with natural disasters. They will continue to be unpredictable and often they will be totally devastating for those affected. Whether it be a flood, a bushfire, a cyclone or a drought, the effect on individuals can, in many cases, be equally devastating. While the support of voluntary help is always of great assistance, the role of government will continue to be very important. As the honourable member for Gwydir mentioned, we should also be looking at other forms of allowing people to help themselves. The income equalisation deposit scheme is one example of where the Government ought to have another look at the whole issue. While the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) may talk about tax averaging being more important than income equalisation deposits, he completely overlooks the role that putting savings aside through this method can have in alleviating the devastation of a natural disaster. This is such an important and complex issue when we look at the role of governments, both State and Federal, when we look at the role of voluntary help and at the role of self-help, those who prepare themselves so that they are better protected, that we find that it is very difficult to administer assistance, and not just for the reasons mentioned by the honourable member for Fisher. I think it is of such national importance that the Government ought to have a major inquiry to see how proper government assistance can be fairly administered. When I talk about government assistance, I include things such as allowing people to prepare for a situation by instituting self-help measures and-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.51) —I 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. I believe it is very important today to bring this subject to the notice of the House. Local authorities throughout Australia have been very active of late in telling the Government just how badly they have done in the funding arrangements in the last two or three years. There has been a total rearrangement of the general purpose grants and a considerable reduction in road funding. Many Australian motorists are very irate that under this Australian Labor Party Government every six months taxes go up because of the indexation of fuel excise. They are continuing to pay more and more taxes not only through road taxes but through all sorts of taxes. The total tax take by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) continues to increase rapidly, yet as motorists drive around this great nation the roads are crumbling underneath them. When the Opposition is elected to government at the next election councils will get more funding for the road system. There is no point in our screaming about our balance of payments and the economy being in a mess if we are not prepared to maintain the routes that have to service the great industries of this country such as wool, wheat and beef which are helping to get this country out of the desperate state into which it has plunged since Labor came to office. The Federal Government has become more and more important in local government funding, providing practically 20 per cent of overall collections. Local government collects 70 to 74 per cent through rates and other charges-it varies in each State-and the States contribute about 6 per cent of local government funding. So the Commonwealth has become quite important to councils and that is why this matter has been raised today. Under general purpose assistance, many councils have been disadvantaged in real terms by inflation because of the new arrangements which each State had to agree to with the Labor Minister. Some councils have been disadvantaged in dollar terms: the amounts are actually below the previous year's level. Hundreds and hundreds of councils have been disadvantaged in real terms because the Government has not kept funding up to keep pace with inflation. It is no wonder that some States are in desperate straits trying to keep their councils operating. Unfortunately, the new funding principles seem to have disregarded isolation and based the criteria more and more on population. Remote shires have disadvantages in trying to raise more taxes through rates on rural properties because of the capital value of the land in the last few years falling due to drought and poor international commodity prices. Land sales have been down and these factors have reduced the rating base for councils. Councils have had to reduce rates because ratepayers have not been able to meet the cost. Mr Andrew —It is a capital tax, too. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes. A number of councils have been disadvantaged across Australia. In Victoria, funding for the Kowree Shire Council is down 11.6 per cent. In New South Wales, the Burwood City Council is down 4.3 per cent. In Queensland, the Wambo Shire Council-where my electorate office is situated in Dalby-is down 1.4 per cent. In Tasmania, Hobart City Council is down 6.9 per cent. In South Australia, the Georgetown Council is down 6.5 per cent. In Western Australia, the Kent Council is down 4.6 per cent and, in the Northern Territory, Jabiru Council is down 29.5 per cent. I do not know why its funding has fallen so disastrously. There must be some reason for the almost 30 per cent drop. Councils are also disadvantaged because this Labor Government has introduced quarterly grants payments to councils whereas previously they were paid annually and were able to invest the money and use it as they wished through the 12 months so that they earnt a little extra. Mr Hunt —It is a thimble and pea trick. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes. Now the scrooge Treasurer is keeping the funds wrapped up in Treasury here and only dribbling them to local authorities every quarter. We think that is a disgrace and we will abolish that when we come to government at the next election. Surely the councils in this nation ought to know what grant they are going to get and we ought to be able to give them their full grant when it is due without dribbling it out like some measly shopkeeper as the Treasurer is. We believe in helping shire councils; the Labor Government believes in disadvantaging shire councils. Throughout Australia 98 councils have lost funding in dollar terms over the previous year's funding allocations and 430 councils have received a funding increase in dollar terms which was a loss in real terms. In other words, the payments have not kept up with inflation. Of the almost 900 councils, 369 received a funding increase in real terms. Therefore, 60 per cent of the 897 councils have lost funding in real terms. I will be very interested to hear an argument from the Government side in this debate as to how that is helping shire councils throughout Australia. Tasmania has suffered the worst, as usual. Poor Tasmania really gets a clouting from this Government: if it is not knocking off its parks, interfering and flying low level bombing raids across the island it is reducing funding. Ninety-three per cent of Tasmania's councils have suffered cuts in funding in real terms. That is a disgrace. Twenty-nine per cent of Northern Territory councils suffered real cuts. Other States have also suffered, as I have pointed out. While local government has suffered under the general purpose grants arrangements, the Government's road funding program is a disgrace. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who is at the table, has had to offer extra money to keep her pilots in the air and I can assure the Government that it will have to offer bonuses to keep councils throughout this country operating because under the Government's funding arrangements half of the councils are going bankrupt. They are not getting enough money from the Federal Government to maintain the road system let alone consider building new roads. Road funding has dropped to 1982-83 levels. It is a disgrace that after the five years this Government has been in office it has reduced funding for roads to the 1982 level. Yet the Treasurer will get up in this House every day and scream his head off. Every three months the balance of payments figures come out showing our disastrous trade figures. All the time our roads are falling to bits and we are unable to get our produce to markets as efficiently as we ought. That is not the only concern we have. Not only has funding for roads been reduced but also there has been a horrific increase in taxation through fuel taxes. I have always been very concerned about the way we supertax fuel. It is a disgrace that it is the third largest source of revenue in this nation. The total funding from oil is nearly $8 billion-$2 billion from straight crude at wellhead and nearly $5 billion from fuel excise. It is going up daily because it is indexed to inflation. This Government is not bringing inflation under control. The official figure is between 8 and 9 per cent, and that is city inflation. The Government always uses the city figure; it never uses the figure for inflation that we have to suffer out in the bush where the further out one gets the dearer goods become. It is very expensive to construct a road. The more isolated the area, the more important the road and the more expensive it is to build. There is never any consideration given to that. The Government now charges councils the excise on diesel, which is a disgrace-one government taxing the other. Yet the Commonwealth still does not pay any rates on the buildings and facilities it has in shires. Local authorities ought to be able to get funding in this area. But the Government forces them under the laws of this land to pay excise on diesel fuel . The local authorities throughout this country are very heavy users of diesel. These iniquitous fuel taxes were transferred from the wellhead when the price of oil dropped. I warned both the previous Government and this Government that import parity pricing was a crazy way to impose a tax on people and that eventually the price of crude would drop. We based our pricing arrangements on light Arabian crude. When this Government came to office the price of crude dropped by more than 100 per cent so it transferred the so-called supertax it was collecting from the wellhead to excise at the pump. The Treasurer taxes every fuel pump in this country. He had the idea some years ago when he was not even in government. He has now certainly brought it to fruition. Every bowser in this country is now a taxing mechanism. More than 50 per cent of the amount people pay for fuel goes in tax to the Commonwealth. Every time one fills one's car more than 50 per cent of the $10, $20 or $30 one pays for that tank of fuel goes directly to Consolidated Revenue. I have always argued that the overtaxing of this resource distorts our economy. We would not mind so much if a bigger percentage of the money collected was given back to the road authorities. But that is not the case. It pours into the Treasury coffers, into Consolidated Revenue, and who knows where it is spent and wasted. It is mainly spent on welfare. The figures show that there has been a rapid increase in the amount spent on welfare. This is driving us bankrupt. We have the absurd situation of a free phone call operating for practically every hand-out one can think of. One can ring, for nothing, the various departments and get more of the money that is being offered. Fuel tax is where it is coming from. It is indexed and increases every six months, going into Consolidated Revenue. By mid-1990 the roll forward figure on the indexation of fuel taxes will be 6.475c per litre, an increase of $688m. Only $220m of that will be transferred to roads. In approximate figures, $468m will go into Consolidated Revenue. The ratio is roughly 3 : 1. Of the money collected from the motorist, $1 is spent on roads and $3 goes to Consolidated Revenue. That is the absurd situation created by the taxing arrangements. I strongly support the endeavour of local government to get more of the excise tax the Government is collecting put back into the road area. As I have said, the motorists of this nation have paid $20 billion over the past three years in petrol tax. We hear a lot about the cross-subsidisation of Telecom. We have a bus fleet running around Canberra which costs this nation $20m a year. Yet motorists cannot get out of this Government more funding for the crumbling road system. Each year the Government is going further backwards. As I said, motorists have paid $20 billion over the past three years in petrol taxes and have received only $3.5 billion in road funds. Those figures alone highlight the great problem this nation faces as far as road funding is concerned. Road funding has fallen by 25 per cent, or $300m, since 1984. Fuel attracts a 150 per cent tax at the wholesale level. That is a disgrace. State road authorities presently spend 60 per cent of works expenditure on maintenance. This will increase to 80 per cent by the year 2000. We are not putting enough money into roads. If one continues to maintain a road and it falls to pieces obviously the money spent on that maintenance is being wasted. Half of our major roads have pavements that are at least 20 years old. This is another very pertinent figure that has come forward in the research being done, particularly by the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland. Motorists' associations throughout Australia are doing a lot of research of late and coming up with the figures that highlight the problem we are facing. Better roads have a number of benefits. They save lives and reduce injuries. Since 1980, 24,700 people have been killed on roads. That is a disgrace. A further 248,000 have been injured on our roads. Better roads will reduce labour and fuel costs for businesses and individuals, create jobs, ease demand on the social security system, and stimulate tourism. Community employment program grants to the States and to local authorities have been cut. We have seen a 53 per cent drop in funding. Last year the Commonwealth gave $181m to States and local authorities. This year grants of only $95m have been allocated. Some councils have suffered savage cuts in general purpose grants. Road funding is back to 1982 levels. Unemployment grants to shires have been cut. Many shires are suffering severe financial constraints. Our side of the House wishes to correct that situation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Andrew —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(12.07) —I found it very interesting that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), in framing the motion, directed it to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding). It was rather Freudian of him not to direct it to the actual Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds). I am certain that one of the first things that will happen if the Liberal-National Party ever achieves government will be that the separate ministry set up by this Government to recognise the important role played by local government will be scrapped. Mr Courtice —They would drop it. Mr LAVARCH —I agree. With members like Senator John Stone playing a prominent part in a future conservative government, I am certain that one of the first things to go would be the separate local government ministry. This Government's appointment of a separate Minister for Local Government coincides with the Government's view of local government. This Government sees local councils as a full partner in the governmental processes. We do not see them as the poor cousin down the road. As I said, we see them as a full partner. As a result, many of the schemes and policies which have been developed by this Government bring to fruition that approach. The honourable member for Maranoa decried the fact that there have been some cutbacks in funding to local government. This is the same member who sits in the party room with one Senator John Stone. What did Senator Stone have to say about local government funding? In an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 August 1986, our friend Senator Stone said: The Commonwealth Government has no good reason to be involved in local government finances. I imagine that the debates in the party room between the honourable member for Maranoa, who comes in here and says, `If we get into government we will increase funding for local government' and Senator Stone, the shadow finance spokesman, who says, `The Commonwealth Government has no good reason to be involved in local government finances and should get out of them' are heated indeed. He went on to say that there should be great cutbacks in funding for local government. This is one of the areas which would be cut back under the famous 25 per cent flat tax rate. That is the sort of policy on which the National Party went to the last Federal election. `We will give you a 25 per cent flat tax, but we will have to cut government spending to do it'. One of the prime targets identified by its own finance spokesman, Senator Stone, is local government. Yet the honourable member for Maranoa has the audacity to come in here and speak on behalf of the National Party and say, `We are concerned about local government funding'. Obviously they speak to different constituencies. The honourable member for Maranoa goes to his local council and cries poor there and says, `We will see you right, fellows', while Senator Stone goes to another constituency and says, `We will get rid of all this unnecessary funding and spending and wasteful government. We will get rid of these local governments. We will get rid of their separate Ministry. We will hive that off and we will cut their funding'. Let us look at exactly what the Government has done in relation to local government. First of all, we instituted a proper and full inquiry, the Self Inquiry into Local Government Finance. That involved extensive consultations with all the local government authorities-the Australian Local Government Association and the associations in each of the States, as well as individual councils. Following that full inquiry the Government enacted the Local Government Financial Assistance Act, with the result that guarantees have been provided to local government. At least for the initial period of operation of the Act they were given guaranteed real increases in their funding. Also under the terms of that Act, local government is now tied in with the States. So we have a situation where the Commonwealth recognises local government as a partner in the governmental processes of this nation. We have a grants commission and we have the Premiers meeting to decide the grants to the States. We have the same sort of processes set up in terms of local government as with the States because local government is recognised as a full partner in the governmental processes. Certainly local government, as a recipient of Federal Government funding, has been subject to the same sort of scrutiny as have all other areas of government, but its share of revenue has been recognised and protected as much as any area of government finance. It is simply not good enough for the honourable member for Maranoa to come in here and say, `We are concerned about poor councils being cut back' and at the same time say, `Look at the wasteful spending of this Government. It has to cut back the deficit and let us get in to surplus'. We had that at the last election. Is that still the policy of the conservative parties? Maybe they have had a change of heart. Perhaps they now say, `We are genuinely concerned about local government'. Last week we had the Business Council of Australia saying, `There needs to be something like $2.5 billion worth of cuts to Federal Government spending to get the economy going'. Then we had the shadow Treasurer saying, `They are wimps. That is not hard enough. We need to cut it even more'. Their election policy would have resulted in massive cutbacks to local government, as recognised by their own shadow finance spokesman, and the shadow Treasurer made similar statements last week about the need to cut government spending. Against that sort of scenario we have the honourable member for Maranoa crying poor on behalf of local government. Let us not look at the theory of the conservative parties when they come to local government. Let us look at a government in operation and see how they actually work in practice. The only State that has a National Party government is Queensland. Let us see what its record is in terms of funding local government. The first point to remember is that when the Whitlam Government first started leading into expansion of the relationship between the Federal Government and local government-which I concede, and applaud, was carried on by the Fraser Government-the Queensland Government did not say to local government, `Good on you, you are getting some extra money. You go out and expand your programs and get on with your capital works program'. The Queensland Government cut back the subsidy on capital works. Its argument was, `Your are getting this extra money from the Federal Government. You do not need to get 40 per cent subsidy from the State Government any more. We will cut that back'. So that was cut back in the 1970s. Now we have the situation that the Queensland Government has cut back the subsidy on capital works even further. Commencing in the new financial year, the capital works subsidies for Queensland local authorities are down from 30 per cent to 20 per cent and they were only in that 30 per cent category as a result of a special program put forward by the Queensland Government. That is one example of how the conservatives in action have treated local government. The motion talks about arrangements between councils, and certainly new arrangements have been put in place. Those arrangements recognise that money should be going to the councils in most need. It has been a hallmark of this Government, in terms of its spending, that money has gone to councils in need. That has meant that some councils obviously have lost and others have gained. The honourable member for Maranoa was very slick. He produced some figures and said, `This council has been cut back by this percentage'. Maybe I should do the same and get some figures to show how others have been increased. The honourable member for Maranoa might be familiar with the Roma Council; it might even be within his own electorate. The funding for that council, which is a council in need, has increased this financial year by 13.8 per cent. What about the Mount Morgan Council, up by 17.5 per cent, or Nebo Council, up by 15.9 per cent? Funding for Toowoomba Council, which borders on my electorate, is up 17 per cent. Crows Nest Shire in my electorate has increased funding, as have the populous shires around Pine Rivers and Caboolture. That is an example of how the new funding arrangements have helped these councils. How did the Queensland conservative National Party Government react to this? First, it did not respond to the request to get these principles in place as to the funding arrangements. It said, `No, we are not going to participate in this'. So the Federal Government was forced to put in its own principles. How did the then Queensland Premier respond to that? Did he say, `We had better get together with the Federal Government and work out arrangements so that our local Grants Commission can appropriate the money properly.'? No, he did not do that. He went to the Queensland local government conference held at Jupiter's Casino down on the Gold Coast and he said, `I do not think there is going to be a role any more for the Queensland Grants Commission in terms of local government funding'. What that means in terms of the legislation and the way that money has to be channelled through from the Federal Government to local councils, given that there is no direct recognition of local councils in the Constitution and given the difficulties that were identified in the financial assistance cases in the 1970s, is that if there is no local government grants commission operating in any State, constitutionally and legally there are difficulties about whether the Federal Government can even make grants to local councils. So we have a situation where the former Queensland Premier was quite happy to throw away the interests of his local councils and say, `I will not even enact a Queensland grants commission. We will not even have it'. That meant, in effect, that no money could flow through to Queensland councils. Of course, there was uproar at the local government conference and he was shouted down. The chairman, Sir Albie Abbott, made the point that the Grants Commission played a very worthwhile role, and it does. Unfortunately, that has not actually happened in Queensland, but it just shows the House the contempt that the Queensland Government-the National Party in operation-has for local government. That is obviously going to be reflected in its Federal policy, because that great friend of local government, the farmers' friend, Senator John Stone, has said publicly that the Federal Government should not be involved in local government finance. Mr Ian Cameron —When did he say that? Mr LAVARCH —That was on 19 August 1986. Mr Ian Cameron —He was not even a member of our Party then. Mr LAVARCH —I genuinely hope the honourable member for Maranoa has some success in changing Senator Stone's ideas on that. Mr Ian Cameron —What about Senator Walsh? Mr LAVARCH —Senator Walsh is a strong supporter of local government, I remind the honourable member. He certainly does not make bland statements suggesting that the Commonwealth should not be involved in local government funding at all. I hope the honourable member for Maranoa has some success in convincing Senator Stone that local government has a full role in the governmental process. I hope he has success when we discuss these referendums, probably later in the year. If constitutional recognition for local government gets up, it will be interesting to see what the National Party does. I think there will be a great temptation for half the members of the National Party to take the easy path and say, `No, we will oppose all this. We will not be interested in supporting any referendum'. I shall be interested to see what the honourable member for Maranoa does when he has all the councils in his electorate screaming for support for constitutional recognition of local government. That is a basic tenet of this Government's policies. That proposal will be put and I hope it is supported by the Australian people. I will be watching with interest the actions of honourable members opposite to see what they do in regard to that proposal, because it is universally supported by local councils throughout Queensland and the other Australian States, and certainly by the Australian Local Government Association. They believe that councils require constitutional recognition as a first step in their ongoing development. To sum up the situation, I point out that it is the height of hypocrisy for the conservative parties, which are calling for large cutbacks in government spending, which as late as last week were saying that $2.5 billion was not enough and which in the last election-- Mr Ian Cameron —Welfare. Mr LAVARCH —Welfare would be the honourable member's answer. At the last election even further cutbacks were proposed. The National Party of Australia with its flat tax policy wants further cutbacks. When the Government has cut back across a range of programs and has had to do that regardless of its economic policy, it is the height of hypocrisy for honourable member opposite to come in here and say, `Look, the poor councils are missing out on funds'. It is the height of hypocrisy when conservatives in government are cutting back subsidies for capital works programs, as is occurring in Queensland. They push their politics so far that they say, `We will not even allow the mechanism whereby money is directed to local government in Queensland to apply'. That is the reality of the situation. If the honourable member for Maranoa is genuinely concerned about local government, he will stay in his own home base, in his own backyard, and sort out his own policies and his own Party's problems before trying to heap ridicule on the Government. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.22) —I welcome the opportunity to rise in this debate to support the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) in regard to the motion he has brought before the House in defence of local government. I also support his call for greater recognition of local government as the most accountable form of government administration. I welcome the opportunity to follow in this debate the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) who has, I freely acknowledge, in his own articulate way, had a great deal to say about his perspective on local government funding. However, he has very conveniently avoided what the resolution is about and what the Liberal and National parties have been about. The honourable member for Fisher said that under this Labor Administration local government is treated as a full partner. A great marriage that has proved to be for local government! If this is the way in which the Government treats a full partner, I would hate to be a partial partner of this Government. The honourable member for Fisher very conveniently chose to reflect, he thought successfully, on remarks made by Senator Stone as late as 19 August 1986, when Senator Stone called frankly for a general cutback in expenditure. From my point of view, that is not an inconsistency; it is not inconsistent with the argument floated by the honourable member for Maranoa. What we on this side of the House plead for this afternoon is simply that local government be treated proportionately, in a manner that is equitable with the treatment of the other tiers of government. Of course, there have been calls for cutbacks across the board. Under this Administration we can no longer afford to spend the money that we have been spending. We can no longer afford to impose additional burdens on ratepayers in the case of local government and on taxpayers in the case of State and Federal governments. Our plea is that any cutbacks to any tiers of government be treated equitably. As the statistics I will put before the House in a few moments indicate, there has not been equity in the way in which local government has been treated relative to the other tiers of government in Australia. It seems to me entirely appropriate and timely-and I am reminded by a remark made by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) yesterday that there are only eight sitting days remaining in which we can occupy this chamber-that the honourable member for Maranoa should move a motion that focuses on local government before we move from this place to a place that will have a great deal more physical prominence and dominance in the political system in Australia. Mr Hunt —But without the character of this place. Mr ANDREW —That is true; there will not be the same measure of character. I do not rise today to criticise the move to the new Parliament House; I make the point that when we move there we will have moved into a building of enormous proportions, of dominance in the Canberra and Australian landscapes. It will be easy to forget the essential role of the other two tiers of government and to pretend that some sort of automatic wisdom is conferred on us in that new location. It has been too easy to criticise local government because local government administrations have from time to time failed to meet the demands of their ratepayers. Of course, when they fail to meet those demands there is a great hue and cry, as the failure is so public. When State and Federal administrations disappoint their taxpayers, that disappointment is not quite so public. When administrators are appointed to replace local government administrative bodies, suddenly the issue dominates the Press and everyone becomes aware of it, but when we fail through an individual department to meet the requirements of the people, that is all too easily glossed over. The appointment of public administrators in local government is a reflection not on the failure of local government but on its accountability and the way in which people easily identify local government and its vulnerability, in a healthy sense, to public opinion. Those of the 37 or 40 of us who have served both in local government and in this chamber know that when we were in local government we were more accessible to the electors than is the case now: whether in a silo queue, the front bar of the pub, or a public meeting, one could not escape the constituency. But when we are sitting here in Canberra and things are hot in the electorate, we can temporarily avoid the heat. I acknowledge that there have been two decades of dramatic change in local government. Whereas at one time the three Rs of local government were, as we all know, roads, rates and rubbish, I concede that under the Whitlam Administration greater responsibility was given to local government and, as a result, the three Rs of local government have become roads, recognition and rationalisation. However, I must say that, while I have freely acknowledged what was done by the Whitlam Administration, funding has not kept track with the measure of responsibility that should have gone with the rationalisation of local government. I refer to a table showing the proportion off total tax revenue spent in each of the levels of government from 1961-62 to 1986-87. In the Commonwealth area the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) that went in tax revenue in 1961-62 was 18.4 per cent, and that figure has increased to 24.7 per cent. In the States and Territories, the proportion of gross domestic product going in total tax revenue was 2.6 per cent in 1961-62, and that has increased to 4.8 per cent in 1986-87. However, in local government-and this is the nub of what the honourable member for Maranoa has been proposing and precisely the point that should be recognised by the honourable member for Fisher-the proportion of total tax revenue that went to local government as a percentage of GDP was 1.3 per cent in 1961-62 and by 1986-87 it has fallen to 1.2 per cent. I know that that fall is relatively incidental, but, compared with the increases in Commonwealth and State taxation revenue as a proportion of GDP, that fall is quite significant. It is precisely that fall that the honourable member for Maranoa is bringing to the attention of the House through this motion; it is precisely that fall that the honourable member for Fisher failed to recognise when he tried to deflect the blame into other areas by saying that we stand for a cut in total Commonwealth expenditure. Honourable members on this side of the House do stand for a cut in total Commonwealth Government expenditure, but it must be proportionate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! It being 12.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. In accordance with sessional order 104a, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member for Wakefield will have leave to resume his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr JULL(Fadden)(12.30) —Her Majesty the Queen opens Australia's World Expo 88 this coming Saturday morning in Brisbane. I am sure that all Australia is very proud of the efforts that have been made to ensure that World Expo 88 will be one of the finest-if not the finest-world exposition ever. During the next six months, Brisbane, Queensland and indeed all Australia will be under world focus. We will never receive as much publicity as we will receive during this period of Expo, and congratulations are in order in a number of cases. I would like to congratulate the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, and members of his then Government for deciding that a World Expo should be the focal point of Australia's bicentennial celebrations. I also congratulate the Queensland Government for taking on the responsibility of staging the World Expo in Brisbane. Further, I extend my congratulations to the present Government for being very diligent in providing the necessary funds to ensure that Expo could get off the ground, because it is an exposition and a great event which really covers the whole political spectrum and for which all Australia should be coming together to ensure its success. I am convinced that it will be a success because preliminary studies show that apparently more than 800,000 international visitors will attend Expo during the next six months. I understand that those figures are on the trend upwards, so more than one million people could attend from overseas, and more than seven million Australians could visit the World Exposition during the time it will run. That is a wonderful prospect. Undoubtedly, there is a tremendous sense of excitement in Brisbane; there is a carnival atmosphere in the city. People from all walks of life have come together to ensure the success of Expo. We should also be paying tribute to the literally thousands of people who are giving their time as volunteers to ensure that Expo is a success. I believe that we will all be very proud of what happens in Brisbane during the next six months, as we show the world what Australia is really all about. The interest generated in the event overseas is incredible. The other day I learnt that a special competition was held in this connection by the Japanese post office. I understand that the competition related to an efficiency campaign, with the first prize being a trip to Expo. I do not suppose that many people know that, apparently, 1,500 Japanese postmen will be coming to Australia. In the United States, there have also been a number of incentive programs with prizes of a trip to the World Expo in Brisbane. During the Expo period, few nations in the world will not get a real taste and flavour of what Australia is all about. I hope that we make the most of all the opportunities that will present themselves during the next six months. There will be a great opportunity to promote trade and tourism in Australia. If successful overseas Expos overseas are any indication, we should get flow-on benefits from Expo for 20 to 30 years to come. I cite as an example the city of Seattle where a World Exposition was held in 1962. Seattle, a great city on the American west coast, still benefits from that Expo. The Expo site is still a major attraction, bringing people into Seattle to see just what it was all about. There is no doubt that the complex on the south bank of the river in Brisbane is a magnificent example of what can be achieved when Australians come together with one common purpose-to show the world what we are all about and hopefully to ensure that full advantage will be taken of opportunities to promote trade and tourism. I do not want to be negative, but I want to draw attention during this grievance debate to a couple of aspects concerned with Expo. I have spoken before about the decision of the Federal Government not to proceed with a new international air terminal in Brisbane. Already we have seen the disastrous results of that decision, with overcrowding and delays of aircraft. We are stuck with that situation now and just have to make the best of it. I was absolutely horrified to learn that the Federal Government has decided to impose a duty free levy on visitors to Expo. Yesterday, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) asked a question about a contract being awarded in Brisbane to one company to handle duty free purchases at Expo and to process those purchases at Brisbane Airport as people left. It would seem that an Expo tax of 1 3/4 per cent has been imposed on these purchases as a handling charge. I would have thought that would be one of the last things we would want to do, as it will give people a bit of a bad taste in their mouth after they leave Australia, following all the excitement and goodwill that Expo will provide. Another matter has come to our attention. A moment ago, I referred to the visit of the Japanese postmen. It is estimated that more than 200,000 Japanese visitors will come to Brisbane to make their way through Expo. People who have travelled out of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport would obviously be impressed with the sale of duty free goods and especially primary products, such as fish, beef and some fruit, available there. Brisbane is fast developing as Australia's second airport, and one thing proposed by a certain Brisbane company was to ensure that such facilities were available out of Brisbane international airport. In all fairness, I should not mention the name of the company except to say that it is reputable and is deeply involved in the beef export industry and in trade with Japan. It is certainly no fly-by-night organisation. Last November this company approached the then Commercial Manager of Brisbane Airport to ask whether or not the Government would be prepared to call tenders for a concession to supply frozen beef to visitors travelling out of Brisbane international airport back to Japan and other centres at the conclusion of Expo. As we know, the Federal Airports Corporation took control on 1 January, and the company representative heard absolutely nothing. He saw me some months ago about the matter, and I made personal representations to the Minister. I received the usual two-paragraph ministerial reply from the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) advising me that my representations had been handed over to the Federal Airports Corporation, as it assumed responsibility for Australia's major airports on 1 January. Surprisingly enough, I suppose, not a word has been heard from the Federal Airports Corporation since that day, not even a word of acknowledgment of my representations or the representations of the company involved. To my knowledge, no reply has been given even though the Minister was good enough to hand over the representations to see whether something could be done. I really wonder what we are getting ourselves into in establishing some of these quangos. Although we are told that they will be more commercially responsible, really what is happening? I decided a few days ago to raise this matter in the grievance debate, and I was amazed to read on page 3 of this morning's Australian a headline `PM's plea to Japan over beef'. The accompanying article states that the Prime Minister had written to the Japanese Prime Minister with a personal request for Japan to stand by its commitment not to discriminate against Australian beef exports. I would have thought that some of the greatest promoters of Australian beef exports would be Japanese tourists returning from Australia to their homeland. The amount of primary products loaded on to aircraft leaving Sydney is quite staggering. It is estimated that the average Japanese tourist leaving Australia spends no less than $100 on frozen beef to take home. This tremendous appeal is being made to places such as Japan and Korea: `Please open your markets to Australian beef'. That is all very well, but a multi-million dollar business is there for the taking in supplying these beef packs to returning Japanese visitors. Yet we do not have the wit, the will, the knowledge or the inclination to take up this business. My grievance today is that absolutely no action on the request has been taken by the Federal Airports Corporation. While it may not be the direct responsibility of the Minister any more, I hope that he will kick some heads. It is crazy that up to 800,000 international visitors will travel through Brisbane without there being the facility for them at least to try some of Australia's primary products and take them home. The overall effort should be to promote the sale of more Australian primary products overseas. What does one have to do to get the bureaucracy moving? Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(12.41) —When I reflect on the history of road funding in this country I sometimes wonder what seems to cause a resistance in Australian governments to providing adequate funding for the road system of Australia. A cursory examination of the history of funding by the Federal Government for road construction in this nation shows a grudging acceptance of responsibility to provide funds for road construction. In the early 1920s the Hughes Government provided financial assistance to the States for road construction; but this was primarily as a means of alleviating unemployment, especially among ex-servicemen. The Main Roads Development Act 1923 was historic in that it was the first time that the Federal Government used its powers under section 96 of the Constitution to: Grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit. The Act provided for the grant of $1m to the States in 1923-24 for the construction of main roads between important towns where railways did not exist and for arterial roads in country areas where local authorities were unable to finance the heavy cost of road construction and maintenance. The basic argument used on that occasion to speed up the construction of main roads is still used today in support of the case for increased Federal Government road funding. In reviewing the activities of both Federal and State governments in this country it is hard to locate one area of greater government neglect than the road building program. I do not know what the explanation is. Why is it that, in a continent of nearly three million square miles, where the people have been tormented by the tyranny of distance and where the very survival of commerce and industry and the general standard of living have depended on safe and secure ground communications, the campaign for adequate road funding seems to be neverending? How could north Queenslanders ever forget that it was not until 1962-13 years after the Menzies Government seized power-that the Bruce Highway from Brisbane to Cairns was bitumen sealed? It was a narrow and dangerous bitumen road, where intrepid motorists were confronted with single lane bridges, flood prone causeways and a bitumen seal that would crack up after a few showers of rain. Nevertheless, it was better than it had ever been and north Queenslanders were grateful for it. In 1974 the Whitlam Government introduced the National Roads Act and the Roads Grants Act and thereby assumed full funding responsibility for roads that had been identified as being of special national significance, such as the national highways. This ambitious program to rebuild the road system in Australia was dealt a severe blow by the Fraser Government. For example, during the seven years of the Fraser Government road grants to the States were slashed by 29.5 per cent in real terms. Queensland suffered a major cut in Fraser Government funding for roads and, in a sickening display of political cowardice, the Queensland National-Liberal Party Government did nothing about it. Motorists, local governments and State governments were provoked to fury with the Fraser Government which had, in effect, made every petrol bowser in this country an office of the Australian Taxation Office. This occurred at a time when Australia's roads were cracking and crumbling under the strain of the cutback by the Fraser Government in funding for roads. Unquestionably, the Fraser Government's callous failure to allocate a fair share of road users' taxation to the upgrading of Australia's road system was a direct cause of the increased number of deaths and injuries on Australia's roads. The slashing of road funds by the Fraser Government was an act of brutal cynicism and displayed a callous disregard for human life. Put simply, the national highway was falling apart and more and more motorists were being killed and maimed on Australia's roads. The then Chief Executive of the National Roads and Motorists Association, Mr George James, was reported in the Australian of 19 March 1982 as saying that the Fraser Government bore `a great responsibility for the failure to reduce the road toll'. He continued: `If New South Wales wants to achieve a major reduction in the road toll, it will have to receive much better treatment from the Federal Government. In New South Wales we have now reached a crisis point. We are now seeing the wastage of our research which will take generations to repair'. But what a damning indictment of the Fraser Government. People in North Queensland will never forget that it was the Fraser Government that trebled the price of petrol, quadrupled the fuel related tax take and slashed more than half a billion dollars from road expenditure. On 13 November 1984 the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Hawke) pledged to the Australian people that his Government would undertake the greatest road building and maintenance program in Australia's history. In 1985 the Hawke Government passed legislation establishing the Australian land transport program. This program was designed to ensure that there was adequate funding to meet the urgent need for good roads. The program recognised that it was essential that road funding be put on a predictable and assured basis to meet the ever-increasing pressure on Australia's road system. The program was also designed to give encouragement to State and local road authorities, the construction industry and equipment suppliers, so that they could plan for the longer term and get on with the great national task of accomplishing what has always been, and will always continue to be, a good road transport system in this country. One often hears during debates in this House that Australia's economic future depends on the Government's ability to assist in restructuring industry, encouraging economic efficiency, promoting exports and substituting local manufacture for imports. Do honourable members share my view that a well-developed road infrastructure is vital to the success of these objectives? Will members of this House demand that road funding must be at an appropriate level to support efforts being made in the manufacturing and trade sectors? This view is supported by the transport industry which is on record as congratulating the Hawke Government for investing wisely in road projects to mark the bicentenary of Australia, but which also enjoined the Hawke Government to maintain road funding in real terms and thus maximise the social and financial benefits of good roads for every Australian. The economic returns from road investment are substantial. The average benefit-cost ratio is of the order of 3:1; urban arterial roads as high as 12:1; and rural arterial roads 5:1. Good roads provide dramatic savings in vehicle operating costs, wage costs, accident costs and road maintenance. Savings in operating costs from using good surfaced and well maintained roads, rather than poorly surfaced and badly maintained roads, can be as much as $35,000 a year for a typical interstate freight vehicle. The economic benefits of good roads to trade and commerce are real, but if road funding is reduced, new efficient road works will not be commenced and the effects on our trade and manufacturing objectives will be reduced when the road system cannot meet demand. Road transport related activities in Australia employ about 500,000 people, or about 1 in 13 of the Australian work force. Some 83,000 Australians are employed in design, construction and maintenance of Australia's road network, with approximately 55,000 Australians employed in rural Australia. Governments should be reminded again and again that the road sector has the highest employment generating capacity of all sectors which produce a physical product of economic value. A reduction of $1m in roads expenditure can be shown to lead to a loss of some 55 jobs, and a reduction of $1m in road expenditure will produce, Mr Deputy Speaker, only a net budget saving of some $380,000, due to income tax forgone and additional unemployment benefits payable. Around 75 per cent of Federal road funding is spent in rural Australia, providing a significant boost to local and regional economies. If road funding is cut by $100m, up to 2,400 road jobs will be forgone in the rural sector, with another 2,000 jobs likely to be eliminated in the longer term as the decrease in consumption spending works its way through the local economies. So let there be a commitment on this Parliament to increase road funding in this country. Let the Australian people have an all-weather, dust-free and flood-free standard of highways in this country and let the growing cities and towns of north Queensland have a genuine highway standard length they need and deserve. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BURR(Lyons)(12.51) —I want to spend some time giving consideration to the values and the ambitions of the Australian people and trying to compare those ambitions with our performance here in this Parliament and the political system generally, to see whether our performance marries up with the ambitions that the Australian people hold for this country and for their governments. I think it is not unkind to say that at present there is widespread disillusionment with governments and parliaments throughout this country. This is not restricted to any particular political party, but one only has to talk in the community to get the feeling of widespread disillusionment that there is with the political system in Australia and the fact that it is not delivering the ambitions and the vision that the Australian people want to be delivered by the political system. I think that the mistake has been made by the political parties and by politicians throughout this country and over many years that we are able to provide satisfaction and stimulate the values of the Australian people by providing them with material benefits. All the political programs that have been offered over many years in this country, at least over the last 25 years have been dedicated towards providing material values for the Australian people. Those programs of the political parties have been backed up by the trade union movement, by the advertising industry and, of course, by the finance industry. The public has been bombarded over a long period by people in positions of responsibility trying to convince the Australian people that by pursuing material values they will obtain greater satisfaction in life. The Australian people have now reached a stage of disillusionment because clearly those material values are not able to give them greater satisfaction in life. It is interesting that we are now seeing a trend of people moving back to spiritual values and greater numbers of people attending church services each Sunday and participating in their local spiritual activities. I think that that is a good trend for Australia. Unfortunately, at this stage, the political system has not adequately picked up this trend that is already occurring in the community. It should be noted by the leaders of all political parties, at both the Federal and the State levels, that the ambitions, the visions, of the Australian people are changing rapidly and that it is incumbent upon us to change the programs that we put forward so that they marry more adequately with the ambitions of the Australian people. I was reading just recently a book published in 1934 by a former President of the United States, the late Mr Herbert Hoover. I thought that some of the things that he outlined in that book entitled the Challenge to Liberty were worthwhile quoting to remind the House, to remind Australia, to remind all our political participants because he does remind us that there are intrinsic human values that should be the very basis of all the programs that we bring forward through the political system. Hoover says of liberty: Who may define liberty? It is far more than independence of a nation. It is not a catalogue of political rights. Liberty is a thing of the spirit to be free to worship, to think, to hold opinions and to speak without fear, free to challenge wrong and oppression with surety of justice. Liberty conceives that the mind and the spirit of men can be free only if the individual is free to choose his own calling, to develop his talents, to win and to keep a home sacred from intrusion, to rear children in ordered security. It holds he must be free to earn, to spend, to save, to accumulate property that may give protection in old age and to loved ones. It holds both in principle and in world experience that these intellectual and spiritual freedoms cannot thrive except where there are also economic freedoms. It insists equally upon protections to all these freedoms or there is no liberty. It therefore holds that no man, no group, may infringe upon the liberties of others. It demands freedom from frozen barriers of class and equal opportunity for every boy and girl to win that place in the community to which their abilities and character entitled them. It holds that these liberties and securities to constructive initiative and enterprise alone assure the immense need of material, moral and spiritual achievements of men. There are stern obligations upon those who would hold these liberties, self-restraint and insistence upon truth, order and justice, vigilance of opinion and cooperation in the common welfare. These are words, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we should well take to heart because of the vision that Hoover was able to exercise in the composition of this book. I remind my friends on the other side of this chamber that we should all take heed of what this great man had to say in 1934. After talking about some of the sacrifices that the American people had to endure in the course of the Wars of Independence in that country, he says: From these sacrifices and in the consummation of these liberties there grew a great philosophy of society-Liberalism. The high tenet of this philosophy is that Liberty is an endowment from the creator of every individual man and woman upon which no power, whether economic or political, can encroach and that not even the government may deny. And herein it challenges all other philosophies of society and government; for all others, both before and since, insist the individual has no such inalienable rights that he is but the servant of the state. Liberalism holds that man is master of the state, not the servant; that the sole purpose of government is to nurture and assure these liberties. All others insist that liberty is not a God-given right; that the state is the master of the man. Herein, is the widest divergence of social and governmental concepts known to mankind. I suggest that it is wise of all of us to think very carefully about these words of Hoover because those same encroachments upon our liberties and upon the liberties of the Australian people are very much in the minds of the Australian people at this time when we see programs being brought forward by this Government and by other governments at State level, when the liberties, the freedoms of the Australian people are being impinged upon and there is a genuine fear amongst Australian people that governments are encroaching on their rights and freedoms. But Hoover was also very conscious that governments would get out of hand in this way and that danger was ever present. He goes on: Our system has at all times had to contend with internal encroachments upon Liberty. Greed in economic agencies invades it from the Right, and greed for power in bureaucracy in government infringes it from the Left. Its battles against betrayal of trust, business exploitations and all forms of economic tyranny have long demonstrated that it was no system of laissez faire. Its battles against the spoils system or the expansion of bureaucracy have long demonstrated its live sense of opposition to the subtle approaches of political tyranny. If we think only at the moment of some of the programs that governments have, I am sure with the best of intentions, they may be for the betterment of the Australian people. But some of the programs that are being brought forward include one for an identification card, with the justification that people should not be allowed to evade tax. I do not think any of us could deny the fact that tax evasion is a very bad thing for society generally. But the more important thing, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that governments and political parties of all persuasions must guarantee ultimately the great freedoms of liberty, of mind and spirit for the Australian people. I suggest that all parties in preparing their programs for the next election campaign should concentrate heavily on how they can put forward programs of spiritual freedoms and guarantee those freedoms, rather than to be pursuing programs of economic and materialistic values. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(1.01) —I wish to state that I am aggrieved and have been aggrieved by the actions of the Logan City Council in rejecting an ITEC-an information technology education centre-in the electorate, which was to have been funded by our Federal Government to the tune of $300,000. I can only say that I simply do not know for whom the Logan City Council now operates, if in fact it does not operate for the unemployed in our area or for small business. Logan City, unfortunately, has over 9,500 unemployed people on its books that would reach the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) and this ITEC is part of a strategy of attempting to get not only people retrained but also to provide a sound industrial base on which to build a number of industries in the area and so provide realistic and long term job opportunities for its residents. Quite some time back the last Logan City Council, prior to the 19 March election, decided to look at ways and strategies in which unemployment and business could be stimulated in the area. It came upon a Commonwealth-funded project, which is part of both an initiative by big business and by government to attempt to redress the problems of industry in the training area and also, to provide small businesses with a basis on which to expand into the new technology of the twentieth century. The Council hit upon the idea of a program of the information technology centres and decided that such a centre would be beneficial to that area. Hence it involved one of its own project officers to study the viability of such a program and also then to apply to the Federal Government for it. It took on the role of being the sponsoring organisation and, in fact, lobbied me as the new Federal member for that area. Indeed, the original commitment by the Federal Government was to have been $250,000. The Logan City Council felt that this was not enough and asked me if I would make representation on its behalf to the Federal Government. This I did and was successful and so had the Federal Government's portion of the payment raised to $300,000. It then also developed that the major corporate sponsors of the ITEC-and remember that these are national and multinational companies-wished, in fact, to have their corporate image best displayed in the central business district of State capitals because they have found that the pilot programs for ITECs work best when they are within the central business district, as in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. However, the Logan City Council again lobbied me, suggesting that it had a special case, given a huge unemployment problem and also the fact that the small businesses in their area were subject to the vagaries of the economy and had been targeted by the Small Business Development Corporation of the Queensland Government itself, in an attempt to redress some of the problems which they seem to be experiencing. So it was that I lobbied again and the Federal Government and the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) lobbied the large corporate sponsors, suggesting that Logan City had a special case and that the move from the central business district to Logan City-which is on the outskirts of Brisbane, halfway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast-would, in fact, be serviced by an ITEC. The Corporate sponsors agreed and so it seemed simply a matter of form that such a development would come to Logan City Council and to Logan City itself. What in fact does the Council intend to do? What does such an ITEC propose to do? What it does is provide a series of training programs for unemployed in that area in relation to the technology. It provides very basic sorts of courses in welding and circuit making. It also provides more highly skilled courses in the word processing area, in the development of programs and systems in a wide range of courses. On the other side, on the business side, an ITEC provides space, facilities, resources and expertise for small business people to develop programs, particularly in relation to the new information technology which is relevant. All these things were seen by the previous Logan City Council and the project officer as being worthwhile and as providing a basis for development in the area. On 19 March the new election came and the very first act of this new Logan City Council-I might add without its mayor, who is sick and unable to attend many of their meetings-was to find that it was unwilling and unable to vote for such a project. This seems extraordinary because we have had a massive number of representations by the Logan City Chamber of Commerce itself, which found the actions of the Council extraordinary in the extreme. It cannot believe that a group which initially was the sponsor organisation, which had spent $40,000 to $50,000 on a project officer to get the submission which had lobbied the Government arguing special consideration, and which had got the Government to give a further $50,000 as part of its donation, would then turn around and reject it. However, what we might say is that the Logan City Council and the councillors will, we hope, be vilified because there is no question that the citizens of Logan City are requesting that we find a way to go about getting such a centre. The reality is that if Logan City does not pick up this centre it will never have the chance again. What I have been trying to do and what the Minister for Employment and Education Services has suggested is that we look for alternative sponsors. We are in the process of looking for people. The Logan Chamber of Commerce, the Trades and Labour Council, church groups and others in the area are all seeking ways in which they can develop a united program and hence sponsor what is obviously a very worthwhile project. Let me say that the pilot projects and other projects which are running in Australia have a 90 per cent placement rate for their trainees. This is simply because big business is involved and the businesses which are involved provide jobs and the kinds of training and skills basis which are essential for people to work and operate in the area. The second function, of course, is that of small business. In fact, a number of small businesses operating out of the Sydney office have gone on to become national companies. One is in the international market. What I find extraordinary as well is that I pioneered a work force strategy committee in the area with the Logan City Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the CES and others. They suggested that we bring the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) to the area. This we did and in discussions with that Minister it was decided that the kind of industry which would absorb most people and which would be most viable in that area was in the technological field. Logan City is very well placed because it is midway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and it is also near to the University of Queensland which has its own technological development centre. It is also not far from what is going to be the Bond University and, of course, it is also on the road to the Darling Downs Institute. So all these areas would have been serviced by such a centre. Indeed, this was where it was agreed. One can only ask what the new councillors see their role as. What is it that they want for the good citizens of Logan City? They obviously are not interested in training programs. They are obviously not interested in the unemployment in the area. They are obviously not interested in the development of small business for the area. Anybody can see that a $600,000 project, which is what the project would have been in terms of government sponsorship, corporate sponsorship and the sponsorship from the Council itself, would have meant that kind of facility in the area which currently is not provided. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me just say that I am aggrieved not for myself but for the citizens; that I will certainly be doing everything in my power to ensure that those citizens are better served by me and the Federal Government than would seem apparent from the actions of the current Logan City Council. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(1.11) —On this eighth last day of sitting ever in this chamber on the current schedule of sittings, I would like to grieve and lodge my entry into this grievance debate on behalf of veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel and serving personnel in relation to a number of repatriation matters which were crystallised by an excellent letter from Mr Gordon Reeds of the central coast of New South Wales. Mr Reeds is the president of the Central Coast and Hunter Valley Sub-Branch of the Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia. In so doing I am particularly delighted that you, sir, are in the chair today because you and I and just a handful of other members are the remaining returned serving personnel in the House of Representatives and the Senate, reflecting changing times; there are now fewer than 10 members of Parliament who have served overseas for their country in times of conflict and war. I guess our responsibilities are even greater to heighten pressure on the government of the day in the interests of those veterans, war widows and others who have suffered. I am pleased that the honourable member to follow me has also at least served as a member of the Veterans Review Board in Queensland. I will therefore be interested in his contribution. In raising these matters, it was a delight to see last Anzac Day record crowds in many places turn out to watch record numbers of service personnel march in country towns, cities, capital cities and beyond. That Anzac Day commemoration is a sharp reminder to the Parliament and to the Government of our responsibilities with regard to the defence of this nation and to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to get on top of his portfolio and stop the haemorrhaging of the Navy, Army and Air Force. It is also a sharp reminder to the Parliament with regard to the commitment to look after those who served their country in time of war. So it is that I present to the House a grievance lodged by Mr Gordon Reeds and quote from his letter of 29 October 1987, which is just as relevant today as then: When looking through the English dictionary I could not find adequate words that would convey to you my members' total disgust at the way the Government has treated the veteran community of Australia. I would like to show you in point form just a few of the hard won rights, privileges, entitlements and benefits the Labor Government has either taken from the veteran, their wives and dependants or have condoned by not restoring them when it was elected to power: (1) The introduction of the assets test; (2) Changes to the onus of proof when claiming for war caused disabilities; (3) Increased difficulties in being made a TPI pensioner; (4) Interference with war widows' pensions and medical benefits. So he goes on to list a number of other areas, including certain closures at the specialty wards at Repatriation General Hospital, Concord. Mr Reeds adds: They gave you all but their life in defence of this Country. Well, we, the Veterans, wonder if it was worthwhile. Could a dictatorship or military regime be worse than the Hawke-Keating show that is running this country now? Would they treat their veterans with the contempt that Messrs Hawke and Keating do so? He goes on: Regarding the erosion of entitlements the point raised about the Defence Service Home Loan is a straw that broke this Sub-Branch's back. Of course, he is referring to the massive chopping and changing of the defence service home loan scheme in the May mini-Budget, when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that the Government was going to privatise the Defence Service Homes Corporation. Here we are, nigh on three years later, and nothing has happened with regard to that. There is talk about signing heads of agreement next month. Let us wait and see the detail of that particular announcement. In the Budget of September last year the $25,000 loan was eliminated for a period and replaced by a $10,000 grant. A week later the loan was brought back. Then in December the $10,000 grant alternative was eliminated and the maximum term reduced from 32 to 25 years. So veterans have had to put up with, and indeed serving personnel have had to put up with, massive chopping and changing of the defence service home loan scheme and that, in turn, Mr Deputy Speaker, has exacerbated the resignation rates of our senior command personnel of all ranks in the Navy, Army and Air Force. Mr Gordon Reeds goes on in his letter to say: There is a debt owed by this country and the population of Australia. This debt was incurred in good faith by the numerous governments of this country when they committed Australians to war. He adds: Disability pensions, medical treatments, pharmaceutical supplies and all levels of hospital treatments. These are not welfare cases or payouts, as your Government Colleagues like to suggest . . . They are compensation payments, paltry compensation at that, owed by Australia to servicemen and women who have suffered an illness, injury or disease due to his or her service in a theatre of war on behalf of this country. I realise that there are difficult economic times faced by this Government, in many ways created by this Government, and that it has to be responsible in its approach to the administration of veterans' affairs and other jurisdictions. But I want to emphasise to the House that expenditure on veterans' affairs falls in a totally different category from expenditure in the social welfare area through the Department of Social Security where billions of dollars are currently being expended under our Budget; in fact an amount five times that which is being expended in veterans' affairs. Veterans affairs expenditure is an obligation owed by this Parliament, by the Federal Government of the day to those who have served their country in time of war. It should be properly honoured, rather than tracking down the range of cutbacks and changes, and very complex and disconcerting changes, which the Federal Government has brought in ever since May 1985. The current Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) is a man of great dedication to his Party and to his portfolio, but he has to run with Government policy on these matters. We face another mini-Budget at the end of next month and that is a matter of great concern to the veterans' constituency as to whether they are going to be treated in that in the same way as they have been in previous Budgets; for example, the Budget of 1986 which cut out war widows from the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme, or the mini-Budget of 1985 which halved travel allowance for veterans to get to and from specialist treatment, especially from country areas; in my electorate of Farrer, from Albury or Deniliquin on referral to Melbourne or to specialists at Heidelberg Repatriation General Hospital and the like. That allowance was halved and there has been very little increase since that time. I believe that we must provide, and indeed the commitment of the coalition is to provide, the greatest understanding, recognition and support to our veterans and war widows and other categories that responsible government can afford, administered through a separate modern department of veterans affairs. Let me just emphasise that that commitment to retain a separate department of veterans affairs is one freely acknowledged and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), is one that was very much part of Liberal-National Party policy at the last elections and is a continuing commitment. Those who would spread rumours to the contrary, particularly in the light of the recent Business Council of Australia document, are merely creating mischief. That is why I take this occasion to make very clear in Hansard in this grievance debate today our commitment to retain a separate modern department of veterans' affairs and to look after those who served their country in time of war. What we say is that the nature of the cutbacks imposed by the Government on veterans affairs have all been out at the sharp end, at the coalface, at the operational level, with regard to the veterans system. I do not see too many cutbacks in administrative areas of the Department's budget, which is around $89m each year, although it has had to tighten up in some areas, and that is as it should be. I believe the nature of these cutbacks since the mini-Budget of May 1985 when this round of cutbacks started under Budgets, mini-Budgets and aspects of the Veterans' Entitlements Act has been excessive and has created very real concern and very real hardship for our veterans. At the same time, whilst there have been some improvements granted by this Government, particularly for example, to HMAS Sydney and logistical support ship personnel, one must look at the total picture. The total picture is one of anger in the veterans constituency, as reflected by this excellent letter from Mr Gordon Reeds, and I have much pleasure in bringing that communication to the House in this grievance debate today and reiterating the commitment of the coalition to provide the greatest understanding, recognition and support for those who have served their country in time of war. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(1.21) —As part of my grievance, without entering into debate, I will make some response on the points raised by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). As I understand it, since 1983 this Government has raised expenditure on the veteran community from around $2.5 billion to around $4.5 billion. It is a pretty good effort. A great deal of our money has gone into improvement of the veterans' hospital system, because understandably the veteran community is now at an age where much money has to be spent on its health. I think we have done a marvellous job on that and without debating it now, I would like to raise it perhaps as a matter of general business at a later stage. Turning to my particular grievance, I want today to raise questions about the Endeavour Foundation, which is a charity organisation and indeed a company in Queensland, not with a view at all to tarnish its reputation, a hard-won reputation in the field of servicing disabled people, but to clarify the basis of a real conflict between the Endeavour Foundation and the Government. The Foundation was set up in 1951 but now serves some 3,000 clients in Queensland and is by far the largest such organisation in Queensland and probably, I suggest, the largest charity organisation working for the intellectually disabled in Australia. To give some idea of the magnitude of the operation of the Endeavour Foundation, its operating costs in 1987 were some $23m. Its capital expenditure was $3.5m. It employed 623 full-time staff and 292 part-time staff. I have to ask, however: Is the Endeavour Foundation doing the right thing by its clients? Is it running an efficient organisation? I ask these questions in the specific context of the introduction in 1986 into this House of the Disability Service Bill, which became an Act. The basis for that Act was to deinstitutionalise, if you like, to return as much as possible the disabled people to the community, to normalise their lives as much as is possible. But in the broader context, of course, there are very few charities in this country today that are pure models. Most charities exist with government assistance. Where the taxpayer pays, I believe the taxpayer has to have some say in the disbursement of moneys and the quality of services and in the outcomes for clients. So that is the basis for our conflict. The Endeavour Foundation in its $26m or $27m annual turnover receives $7.5m in operational subsidies from the Government. In the past it has received fairly substantial amounts of capital, and of course we must remember that its clients are all recipients of some form of income from the Commonwealth itself. Endeavour has been vehement in its opposition to the Disability Services Act and I suspect that it perceives the Act as a threat to its ability to control its own destiny. But while Endeavour seeks to consolidate its own edifice and its own existence, it does run the very real risk of ignoring the needs of its clients and the demands of the taxpayer for a reasonable outcome for moneys spent. The Government wants, as far as possible, disabled people to come out into the light of day, to return to the community. I will quote very briefly from the objects of the Disability Services Act: To ensure that services provided to persons with disabilities: (i) Further the integration of persons with disabilities in the community and complement services available generally to person in the community. (ii) Enable persons with disabilities to achieve positive outcomes such as increased independence, employment opportunities and integration in the community. Those are laudable objectives. Honourable members should understand that the whole concept of deinstitutionalisation has some difficulties and not all people agree with it. I will take a further quote from a worker in the field, a Mr Roger Barson, who, writing in the Australian Capital Territory's Council Social Service newsletter of February 1988, summed up the debate rather well: Those of us who know institutions systems well face a moral dilemma. We have no confidence in these systems and are vividly aware of what it will mean for people inside if they do not get out. At the same time we know that getting out is not the simple answer some evangelists would have us believe. We are conscious that for some people who have intellectual disabilities deinstitutionalisation can mean little more than the replacement of a large institution with a small one. He goes on to say: However, despite the difficulties there is no doubt that the possible limitations of community living are still far preferable to the known horrors of institution life. The question is not whether to take this leap into the community but rather how to do this in a safeguarded, defensible manner. That is a laudable thing. Now in the context of that debate and the resistance by the Endeavour Foundation, the Endeavour Foundation has to be very careful that of course with a new Act comes a new financing principle and in a finance paper released by the Minister, the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), it has been made clear that there will be a new deal, especially in Queensland, for disabled people. I quote from that paper: One possible approach to achieving a redistribution of Commonwealth assistance is suggested which involves allocating 75 per cent of new services money to States on a per capita basis and targeting the remaining 25 per cent to Victoria and Queensland, the two relatively under-resourced States. So Queensland will certainly benefit mightily from the new Disability Services Act and for a more equitable disbursement of moneys among the States. To that, though not directly, there is the response from Mr Woolcock, Chairman of the Endeavour Foundation. He is really attempting to bury his head and return to the 1960s, I suspect, when he says in the annual report: We are threatened by a dramatic change in the relationship between the organisation and the Commonwealth Government is relation to subsidies and services. Not so long ago there was no Commonwealth Government involvement in our services at all. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, organisations such as Endeavour Foundation sought Commonwealth Government assistance. Therein lies the problem for Endeavour and all such charitable organisations that they are now substantially funded by the taxpayer and the taxpayer has to have some say in it. But I in turn have to ask Mr Woolcock some questions and I take all of the evidence from Endeavour's annual report of 1987. I ask him, and to these questions the taxpayer requires answers: Is Endeavour Foundation justified in spending over $4m on administrative costs a year, which is over 15 per cent of the total cost? Is the Endeavour Foundation justified in declaring a surplus for the year 1987 of over $2m? Is Endeavour justified in having a total staff of over 915 to service fewer than 3,000 clients? Is it justified in spending over $1.2m on motor vehicles in 1987? And it is justified in spending huge sums on an incredible edifice to the administration of the institution which has recently been completed at Bowen Hills? Is it justified in declaring, as it does, `The vague, broad and unrealistic notion of substantial numbers of people with handicaps being prepared for open employment is difficult to accept.'? I have here an entire list of acceptable services around the country that are able to return disabled people to community or open employment. It seems that it is possible and I want Endeavour to listen to this word, to listen to those service providers around the country who can do it. I have to quote from a person I will call Miss K, who was a client of Endeavour at one stage: I have worked at the Endeavour Foundation, Bowen Hills, for eight years. I was only about 18 years old, and I am now 26 years old. I felt over the years just by going there there was a whole waste of effort. I started to realise over the years that I had more capability in the tasks that were set out before me and many of the clients, and that I should be in open employment. I think that the Endeavour Foundation were very amiss by not having a training program for people like myself to train for the open market. I blame the Endeavour Foundation for those wasted years of my life, and also a waste of other people like myself with a mild disability when they are still normal people. I feel I have been institutionalised for the last eight years, robbing me of the chance of outside employment, marriage, a home and a family. To me, it was like living in a gaol. They were ruining people's lives, and do not even realise. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(1.31) —During the recent months we have had introduced into this Parliament legislation under the title of the War Crimes Amendment Bill and the Crimes Torture Bill, but we have not had legislation introduced into this House to deal with the implementation of international conventions dealing with humanitarian law. It is this that I want to talk about today. It is a great disappointment to me that in spite of many promises made by the Government, not only to members of this Parliament, but also to Australian Red Cross, the Government has seen fit to delay yet again the introduction of legislation to ratify protocols dealing with international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law, as the House would know, seeks to preserve the principles of humanity in the midst of war, where peacemakers have failed to avert an armed conflict. International humanitarian law seeks to minimise the disturbance of the peace suffered by the civilian population and to promote adherence to basic principles of humane treatment of those who have withdrawn from the conflict. International humanitarian law seeks to preserve the principles of humanity in the midst of war; where peacemakers have failed, international humanitarian law seeks to minimise hardship and inhumanity. There is an urgent need for Australia to affirm its commitment to international humanitarian law. We should do this, not only by signing, which we have already done, but by ratifying the convention and more particularly, ratifying the protocols to the Geneva Convention. We should do it by the education of our civilian population about the principles of humanitarian law. We should do it by educating our military forces concerning military law, and by taking action which ensures that these forces are prepared, ready and able to implement humanitarian law. The four Geneva conventions of 1949, together with the protocols, constitute the body of international humanitarian law. The protocols were drawn up by the diplomatic conference which met in Geneva in 1947 and 1977. The work of the conference received the strong support of the United Nations General Assembly, with resolutions supporting the protocols being passed in 1977, 1979, 1982, and 1984. Mr Deputy Speaker, in 1986 at a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union which was attended by representatives of this Parliament, that body also urged the parliaments represented at the Inter-Parliamentary Union to take action to ensure that their governments legislated to ratify these protocols. The basic aim of the Geneva Convention is to guarantee respect for human dignity of every person, taking no active part in hostilities, including members of armed forces who are sick or wounded, prisoners of war or who have laid down their arms. The Convention prohibits violence to life or person, murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, torture and the taking of hostages and outrages upon personal dignity. The conventions and protocols are aimed at the protection of the victims of international armed conflict. Protocol 2 is concerned with the protection of victims of internal disturbances which have assumed the proportions of genuine armed conflict, which is however not international in character. Protocol 2 aims to protect civilians and citizen populations from being displaced or terrorised, from being starved or killed, from being injured through attack on installations which contain dangerous forces such as dams and nuclear power plants, as well as to give them the protections afforded to victims of international armed conflicts. Extensive though they are in their coverage the conventions and protocols fall short of what is ideal. They represent what is reasonable, feasible and achievable in the international community up to this time. Some would argue that the conventions and protocol mean nothing because they have not always been observed. That argument is akin to saying that the law against murderers means nothing because murders are committed. The important thing is not that the law is broken, but that all nations should agree that there is a law that is common and binding upon them. Although 145 nations have ratified the Geneva conventions, only about half and in the case of one of the protocols less than half, have taken the necessary steps to ratify protocol 1 and protocol 2. Though, as I have said, we have signed these protocols I am ashamed that Australia has not formally ratified them. We should demonstrate our concern; we should demonstrate our commitment to international humanitarian law by example. An example will in this instance be manifest only when we take the legislative action to ratify the protocols. Last year Australian Red Cross was told that the legislation would be introduced in the autumn session of Parliament. That did not happen in 1987. Australian Red Cross was told, or certainly it was implied to it, that the legislation would be introduced in the autumn session of 1988. We have not as yet seen that legislation. Action is urgently needed and I call upon the Government to give instructions to its drafting officers and to the relevant departments to ensure that the legislation is brought before this Parliament for its urgent consideration. It is true that having signed the protocols we have undertaken that we will not do anything contrary to their contents. But it is necessary for us to give the example. Secondly, I think we should give an example by making sure that we have programs of public education into the principles of international humanitarian law. Many governments encourage and support their national Red Cross societies as we do in this country in the education of the civilian population. The efforts of the Red Cross need active support, not only by this Parliament as an institution, but also of members of parliament as community leaders. We, as members of this House, and members of the Senate, can influence the ideas and ideals of those whom we represent. We can effect the development of a public conscience. In doing so we have a responsibility to promote the understanding of international humanitarian law and what it is designed to achieve. When the hearts of our people are motivated by humanity and compassion, adherence to these conventions and their protocols will result as a natural response to a normal human instinct and sense of decency. But if the education programs are to be effective at the community level, our military personnel will have a basic commitment to the principles of humanitarian law. It is, however, important that the armed forces personnel be particularly well-informed as to the content of the law. On most occasions when issues of international humanitarian law arise, they will be the ones who will be called upon to uphold the law and make judgments as to its application. In the heat of battle, fuelled by fear and panic, it is not uncommon for the voice of private or public conscience to be overwhelmed. In the tumult of war perfect discipline and clear thinking are not always achieved. Aware of the problems facing military personnel, we need to construct mechanisms which help our armed forces to translate legal theory to realistic responses in actual situations which they are likely to face. We need to ensure that our armed forces do not adopt the two-book mentality, but that the implementation of international humanitarian law and orders and instructions with regard to humanitarian law are part and parcel of the totality of the whole command system. I do not believe that enough is being done within our military forces to ensure that at every level of command, every order that is given in matters related to armed conflict contains divisions dealing with international humanitarian law. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(1.41) —At a time when it is becoming the norm to have smoking banned in work places, public transport, including aeroplanes, and eating houses, hospitals and so on, it concerns me very much that there are some people out in the community who are really not giving due regard to the very debilitating effects of smoking. I make reference today to something which I have brought along and will have to describe to people. I have a package which is a cigarette package shape in a soft pack and it looks like one of those American brands. It was brought to my attention by a Mrs Judy Metcalfe of 21 Maroina Drive, Delacombe, a suburb of Ballarat. Mrs Metcalfe was appalled to learn that an attack upon the sensibilities of young children should be so readily available for people to purchase in shops. It is actually a packet of chocolate sticks, labelled `Golden Gate, Bob's Milk Chocolate Sticks'. The manufacturer obviously aims to exploit the tendency of young children to imitate adult behaviour. In this instance it is certainly not a very laudable example of adult behaviour which is being imitated. The sweets are manufactured in France for a firm called Sweet Ring Imports Pty Ltd of 23 Underwood Avenue, Botany, New South Wales, 2019. That is not an advertisement for the firm and I hope it gets some very angry letters. Quite frankly, these people should be totally ashamed of their cynical exploitation of children. Children are particularly receptive to suggestions and the object of the manufacturers of these lollies is to sell not just the lollies but an idea. It is an idea that by buying this simulated cigarette packet the children will be gaining, in a vicarious way, an adult's experience. And what an adult experience it is! Those who sell these objects cannot rationalise away their responsibilities. The packaging of these sweets in this way is quite deliberate. What they ought to recognise is that children have enough difficulty in resisting peer group pressures to try drugs without either insensitive or unscrupulous adults making their task that much more difficult. There is evidence to suggest that young people smoke tobacco products more than people in older groups. Tobacco companies know full well that by portraying smokers as being part of the `with it' brigade they will make it easier to sell some of these products to impressionable young people. At a time when we know that more people die of smoking tobacco than any other-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I move a personal motion by myself, by Bruce John Goodluck, the member for Franklin. I move a vote of no confidence in the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I have read the details of his speech the other night where he viciously attacked me. He attacked me in such a way that it hurt my feelings and I now say that he should resign. He has failed in his portfolio. Unemployment problems have increased since he came into power. The poverty levels have increased-they are not my words-and today, young girls 15 to 19 have been reported by the Human Rights Commission as having no place to live and are being forced on to the streets. I say to the Minister that if he would say the things that he said about me the other night in my electorate, that I have no care and no compassion for the people I represent, he would deserve my condemnation. I ask him to resign because he has failed. He said certain things about me-no care, and no compassion. He even indicated something about half-yearly indexation. He knows that I fought genuinely for that retention of half-yearly indexation. He knows that I handle 55 per cent of all the housing problems in Tasmania. That includes all the famous Labor politicians who seem to think that they have the divine right to care for the poor and the needy. He knows that, but he started something the other night that I will continue to follow. At every opportunity I will haunt him, I will taunt him and I will give him everything I can. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen) —On the 25th of this month in France the French recognised the death of 47,000 young Australians on the Western Front in the 1914-18 war. They did not recognise, at the same time, the death of other young Australians in the 1939-45 war and they did not mention Vietnam, another area where the European powers, including the French, caused the death of so many young Australians who fought battles, not of their choosing or of their concern or their fault, for an empire and for nations which, today, tell us that we do not count. I want to say to the House that when European parliamentarians come to this country and say that we, a nation of 16.5 million people, do not count as far as they are concerned in trade matters, it makes me very angry because 47,000 young Australian lie in the mud of Flanders and the Western Front and they died for France. They died for the European nations in a war which they knew nothing about, the historical background of which they were not part. So I just want to say in this House to all of those European parliamentarians that I as an Australian am proud of my background as an Australian. I am proud of the battles our soldiers have fought on their behalf and I do not like European parliamentarians telling me as an Australian, or a representative of the Australian people, that we do not count, because I believe firmly that we do count and we have paid our dues to the world. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling) —Madam Speaker, two weeks ago I visited the township of Tottenham in mid-New South Wales to speak with a Mr Don Smith. Don Smith is running between Tottenham and Cairns to raise money for the mentally handicapped. His aim is to start a campaign to raise $3m. As honourable members would know, the brain is a very important part of the human anatomy and it is one of the least researched of any of the parts. I would just like to say to Don, all the very best in his trip. As I said, he set out two weeks ago. The people of Tottenham, including the children, gave him a very good send-off. I would like to congratulate the Returned Service's League sub-branch on its support of Don and I would ask those people along the route that he chooses to take-he is running to Cairns-to look out for Don Smith along his trip. I know that, as most Australians would, they will look after him and afford him the hospitality that we would expect they would give him. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker) —Honourable members will, no doubt, have noticed the banner which has been hanging in King's Hall for the last few weeks. It was painted by an Australian woman, Dora Meeson, and was carried by herself and other Australian women in the suffragette march in London in 1911. Australian women had been granted the vote, federally, in 1901 and in all States by 1908 but their British sisters were still denied their basic right to have a say in who would government them. The banner depicts Britannia being advised by her daughter, Australia, to `Trust the women, mother, as I have done', because, of course, Madam Speaker, trust was the key word. Women had been denied the vote in Britain and other countries because they were considered to be fickle and flighty creatures who could not be trusted with the grave responsibility of electing governments. However, modern research is showing that the reverse is true. Recent studies by the Australian Labor Party and other groups have shown that women in fact are more stable in their voting patterns than men; that they think more seriously about how they vote. They take into consideration more than men do long term implications for their families and they are less susceptible to stimulation of the hip-pocket nerve. Only in the last few weeks polls have shown that in the Adelaide and Port Adelaide by-elections, where the Labor vote suffered due to a superficial and cynical campaign waged by the Liberal Party, fewer women than men swung away from the Labor Party. What better proof could we have of the essential good sense of women voters. The suffragette banner has been resurrected, restored and handed to the National Women's Consultative Council on behalf of all Australian women by the Bicentennial Authority. I commend the Authority for its generosity and its appreciation that much of history is, in fact, `her story'. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —I want to talk of a struggle of a different kind for equality and that is between men and women of black colour and men and women of white colour. On 18 July Nelson Mandela has his seventieth birthday, but he will not be celebrating it. He has been in gaol for a quarter of a century and he is the greatest symbol of the cause of equality between human beings in South Africa. In Sydney on 6 April the Mandela Foundation was launched with the following aims: to provide financial help to political prisoners and their dependants, and humanitarian assistance to other victims of apartheid, in and outside South Africa. As the toll of political persecution in South Africa rises, detainees and their families need practical help in paying legal fees and in keeping body and soul together when the breadwinner is arrested, imprisoned, executed or murdered by the regime. In many cases dependants are left destitute when anti-apartheid activists fall into the hands of the police, the military or freelance death squads. The Mandela Foundation of Australia seeks to alleviate the suffering of those facing persecution by providing them with food, clothing and other necessities of life. It was a stunning success at the launch. There were several hundred Australians there, representing a cross-section and I hope that Australians will support the Foundation generously and that the Government will make such donations tax deductible. I hope that the 40,000 South African migrants now living in Australia will also contribute to it. Box 336, Haymarket, 2000, is the address. Let us remember the children who are imprisoned. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —There is currently much debate about the profitability of the Australian steel industry and its major producer, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP), yet even as I speak, a Japanese registered ship, the Polar Spa, is about to berth at Port Kembla to unload 20,000 tonnes of imported Japanese steel. A month ago it was 30,000 tonnes of slab steel from Romania and over the last 12 months about 200,000 tonnes of Japanese steel core have been unloaded at the same port. BHP at Westernport has also been importing slab steel from its BHP Utah plant in Brazil and from a steel mill in South Korea, in which it has a 50 per cent share. Yet on 7 May 1986 Mr Peter Laver, then general manager of BHP International, the steel group, said, `BHP's steel international group is one of the most profitable integrated steel companies in the world but these longer term profits in growth prospects will not be realised by the steel group if part of the cash it earns which is required for reinvestment is siphoned off for other business or should short term expediency replace a sound long term vision'. Apparently this has now happened. The past profits made by BHP at Port Kembla have been made only with the help of the people of the Illawarra, many of whom made their homes there in the expectation of stable employment for themselves and their children. The taxpayers of Australia have also made their contribution through various government programs. It is time that companies such as BHP realised that they have a responsibility not only to their shareholders but a social responsibility as well. More especially, BHP would not be what it is today if it were not for the people of the Illawarra. BHP has a social responsibility to these people. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I wish to put on notice in the House today the fact that the Queen at 2 o'clock tomorrow will be opening the Stockman's Hall of Fame in Longreach. This hall of fame has been five to six years in the making and many personalities, including the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) have been involved, as have Hugh Sorey, the famous bush artist, R. M. Williams, the stockmen's friend who has outfitted the stockmen of this nation for the last 20 years, and Sir James Walker, the chairman of the local shire council. These are people who have been involved in getting this project together, and I would just like to say here today that I recommend to any members of the House or the public listening, that if possible they make the endeavour to go to Longreach and have a look at this famous building. Now it ranks with the Sydney Opera House; it is probably better than the Sydney Opera House. It is certainly cheaper to look at and it is going to be full of all the pioneers of the south-west, the great electorate of Maranoa and the channel country. The drovers, the explorers Burke and Wills, Leichhardt and all the early explorers and pioneers of Queensland will be recorded in this building. I believe that it is a fantastic project that these people have been responsible for and I recommend to all members of the House that when they get time they travel to Longreach to see it. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On 1 February 1987, a number of Acts of parliament were proclaimed which had a substantial impact on matters relating to the functions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and its responsibilities and accountability to the Government and the Australian people. One important aspect of the legislation was to strengthen ministerial control of ASIO and to ensure that there were means of review of certain aspects of the activities of ASIO. Two means of review were created, one being the appointment of an Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the other the creation of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO. In my view the Joint Parliamentary Committee's main task would be to ensure that any surveillance or investigation of the activities of Australian citizens by ASIO was carried out properly and with the consideration of the civil rights of such citizens. The 1986-87 ASIO report to the Parliament has included in its comments on its activities during the year: `Around 50 foreign officials in Australia have an undeclared intelligence role or are otherwise engaged in acts of foreign interference'. Clearly, such officials must in the course of their activities, be contacting Australian citizens and then possibly subjecting those citizens to the attention of ASIO. It is therefore quite irresponsible in my view that 15 months after the legislation came into force the joint parliamentary committee has not yet been appointed as a result of the failure of the Opposition to nominate its representatives to serve on the committee. Mr Scott —It is a disgrace. Mr MILTON —It is a disgrace, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh has said. Mr ROCHER(Curtin) —I want to express concern that the Mayor of the town of Claremont in Perth, Western Australia, is suffering from a type of persecution which is both avoidable and contrary to the spirit of democracy in Australia. The Mayor, Mr Peter Wegers, is an officer of the Western Australian Education Department and a Grade 1 guidance officer. Some years ago, following advice that he was to be posted to the Yilgara region in Western Australia, which is some hundreds of kilometres from both Perth and the town of Claremont, he disputed the posting with the Teachers Arbitration Tribunal. As long ago as 1981 that Tribunal decided, and proposed, that he be appointed as a guidance officer to the metropolitan Perth region and his election as mayor was taken into account. Since then he has been repeatedly pursued and this persistence, if successful, will have the effect of preventing a democratically elected local government officer from carrying out his mayoral duties. I might add that there is no lack of adequate and well-qualified volunteers for the posting in the Yilgara. The decision, Madam Speaker, and the persecution are both anti-democratic and contrary to the findings of the Tribunal. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham) —When I walked in today during this debate I saw my good friend, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) standing up and bleating how girls of 15 and 16 are forced into prostitution because of poverty. What he forgot to tell the people out there is that out of the last 30 or 40 years, for all but three years it was his Government and he is directly responsible for the poverty that is created. He expects us now to rectify everything in two or three years. We are doing it and we will do it, but the people of Australia know very well that it was the policy of his Government, the neglect of conservative governments, which caused the poverty and is causing it today. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a, the time for members' statements has concluded. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, left today for New Zealand on government business. He will return on 7 May. In his absence the portfolio Minister, Mr Dawkins, will assume Mr Hand's portfolio duties. As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, is representing the Government in part of the Queen's program in Melbourne today and is absent from Question Time. Questions normally directed to Mr Punch should be addressed to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Mrs Kelly. Mrs SULLIVAN —My question which is addressed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs relates to newspaper reports today that Australia's immigration policy contains in it the potential for one million Asian immigrants on a family reunion basis. Could the Minister comment on this claim? Mr HOLDING —It depends what formula one wants to use. There are many people around who, on the basis of putting forward statistics and allowing that system to remain, can reach all sorts of figures which are interesting in a hypothetical context but do not bear any relationship to reality. At present we are awaiting the report of the FitzGerald Commission of Inquiry to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. It will be examining all aspects of the immigration system. At this stage I do not think there is any point in my answering a question which is really based upon a hypothetical assessment. Mr CHARLES —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I refer him to recent events in New Caledonia. I ask: What is the Government's attitude towards recent events in New Caledonia? Mr HAWKE —I say to the honourable member for Isaacs and to the House that as a country with a deep and abiding interest in stability in the region we, like other countries in the South Pacific, are deeply concerned about current developments in New Caledonia. The developments there are nothing short of tragic. It is certainly not the time now, and I do not seek at this time to indulge in any recriminations at all, nor is it opportune to rehearse at any length the warnings which Australia and other countries have given previously of the possibility of the emergence of violence of the kind we are seeing. I simply want to say unequivocally that we condemn the violence. We deeply regret the deaths, both French and Melanesian, which have occurred. We call on the FLNKS leadership to persuade its supporters to cease their attacks, to release their hostages unharmed and to refrain from taking further hostages. Certainly, we appeal to the French authorities to respond to what has happened with comprehension and with compassion and to take a measured response with a view to the long term future of New Caledonia. As we have consistently done, we call on all sides to sit down and seek a political and constitutional arrangement acceptable to all parties through dialogue. It is clear that a confrontationist approach will provide no answers and that any lasting solution must take into account the legitimate rights of the Kanak people. Dr HEWSON —I refer the Minister for Administrative Services to page 2 of his answer in this House on 26 April 1988 in relation to the sale of the Australian Embassy in Tokyo. In that answer he stated: . . . the Australian Government will receive 57.673 billion yen as a bottom line figure . . . which would translate to about $641m at the rate of 90 yen to the dollar. I also remind the Minister of an answer he gave in this House on 16 March 1988 on the same subject when he also used an exchange rate of 90 yen to the Australian dollar. He stated: The final amount that Australia will receive will depend upon the exchange rate at the time the contracts are finalised in a few weeks time. Why did the Minister still use the exchange rate of 90 yen to the Australian dollar in his answer earlier this week when on the day of the sale, last Friday, 22 April, and the day when the 10 per cent deposit was paid, the spot exchange rate was roughly 94 yen to the Australian dollar? This would have implied that the bottom line figure on the whole sale would have been closer to $614m or $27m less than his answer implied. Had the Government contracted to convert the 10 per cent at 90 yen to the Australian dollar? Has the Government also contracted to convert the remaining proceeds of the sale due on 20 May at 90 yen to the Australian dollar? If so, with whom was the contract written? Specifically, has the Reserve Bank of Australia carried any exchange loss to date? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I cannot hear the honourable member. I suggest that his question is very long. He should now finish it. Dr HEWSON —If the contract was not written at 90 yen to the Australian dollar, at what rate was it written and with whom? Given that our currency now seems to be appreciating-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should now bring his question to a close. This is quite ridiculous. Dr HEWSON —I will. Does the Government or the Reserve Bank of Australia still carry any residual exchange rate risk on the transaction? Mr WEST —I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr Hawke —For his six-page question. Mr WEST —Yes, for his six-page question. The reason why we have used the figure of 90 yen to the dollar is basically for comparative purposes because the negotiations have been continuing over a protracted period since the tenders closed, I think, late last January. Mr Tuckey —Well, what is the bottom line? Mr WEST —The bottom line is, as I said yesterday, 57.7 billion yen, which is an extremely good result seeing that we are getting that as a bottom line figure and into the bargain we are getting the new chancery, the head of mission residence, the 43 apartments and the recreation facilities and so on. I believe that the real estate world in Asia and particularly in Tokyo believes that the Australian Government has done extremely well. I believe the Department of Administrative Services officials and the Department of Finance officials who have conducted the negotiations deserve a great deal of credit for the result. The short answer is that 90 yen to the dollar has been used for comparative purposes so that we could get a total overall across the board comparison on the bottom line figure as the negotiations proceeded. I repeat: we signed the contract last Friday. We have received 10 per cent of the money at the rate prevailing last Friday. The rest of the money will be paid on 20 May at the rate prevailing at that time. Mr SAUNDERSON —I ask the Treasurer: Can he inform the House of the steps undertaken by the Government to achieve structural reform in the economy over the past five years? Mr KEATING —On other occasions I have expatiated on this topic in the House, but given another opportunity I will just put a few other changes in the context and simply say that when the Government came to office in 1983 it realised that in dealing with the problems of the Australian economy it fundamentally had to restructure the economy to make it a more market driven economy. It had to open Australia up to outside forces and to international competition to make it a more free, competitive and effervescent economy. To do all of that the Government systematically set about a number of structural changes. The first and foremost was the removal of exchange controls and the floating of the Australian dollar which let the market set the exchange rate and let there be a free flow of funds in and out of Australia so that a market could operate. It then restored the banks back to their central position of primacy in the financial structure to give Australia a proper, mature financial structure. It then set about reining in our public sector deficit to free up those savings so that we could have high levels of investment where we needed it in the traded goods or merchandise sector of the economy so that we could restore our current account imbalance. Back in 1985, at the same time as we undertook those macro-economic changes on the micro-economic side, apart from the financial changes I mentioned, we had a major reform of the income tax system to reduce marginal rates of tax, to make the tax system broader and fairer by the introduction of new bases such as fringe benefits tax, substantiation and capital gains tax, and the abolition of many other deductions and concessions which had been exploited for tax minimisation purposes. All of this has produced a better and more robust economy. On the industry side, we have moved strongly and rapidly on steel, passenger motor vehicles and other major sections of manufacturing industry, not the least being broadcasting and television. The Government moved decisively to remove the out of date regulation imposed by the former coalition Government, particularly in television, of a two-station rule on the basis that any two stations in Australia had equal audience reach and were of equal value. The Government sought to give people in rural Australia the right to watch capital city television by putting the satellite in the sky in the name of Aussat and, through aggregation, allowing country people to watch capital city television and to have the same choice in television as people in the capital cities. That policy has now been frustrated by the Liberal and National parties. The National Party, seeking to maintain rural monopolies in television, is not supporting the Government's media legislation. Mr Ian Cameron —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like the Treasurer to get his facts right. The facts are-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. Mr KEATING —The fact of the matter is that the National Party fiefdoms in television, that lobby of private television interests, has tried through the National Party to exercise its influence against the Leader of the Opposition in supporting the Government's television legislation. It is that National Party lobby, those private television companies-- Mr Spender —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is well known that the legislation to which the Treasurer refers is coming back to this House. Indeed, that is the whole point of what he is saying, in which event he is anticipating debate and should not be allowed to use Question Time for that purpose. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The legislation is not on the Notice Paper. Mr KEATING —This morning, the Leader of the National Party said in a very telling quote-- Motion (by Mr Howard) agreed to: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith: That this House condemns the Government for failing to accept the Opposition's initiatives to produce a more competitive and deregulatory television environment by: (1) removing the present moratorium on the introduction of pay and cable television; (2) streamlining television licensing procedures; (3) providing an undertaking that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will conduct an inquiry into issuing new television licences once aggregation has been completed; and (4) agreeing to remove all restrictions to allow a potential 100% audience reach for all competitors once those changes have been implemented. Motion of Condemnation Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.13) —Madam Speaker-- Dr Klugman —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is obviously just an attempt to deflect publicity from the video report. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. Mr HOWARD —I move: That this House condemns the Government for failing to accept the Opposition's initiatives to produce a more competitive and deregulatory television environment by: (1) removing the present moratorium on the introduction of pay and cable television; (2) streamlining television licensing procedures; (3) providing an undertaking that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will conduct an inquiry into issuing new television licences once aggregation has been completed; and (4) agreeing to remove all restrictions to allow a potential 100% audience reach for all competitors once those changes have been implemented. One would not have to be a walking encyclopaedia on political science in Australia to know that the most topical issue of political debate in Australia at present surrounds differences of opinion between the Government and the Opposition on the question of broadcasting and, in particular, television policy. Over the past few days we have been treated in this House to the spectacle of the Government using Question Time not for its designed purpose, and that is to provide legitimate responses to legitimate questions from honourable members, but rather for the purpose of conducting a one-sided political debate on the question of broadcasting and, in particular, television policy. The Opposition has moved this motion today because we want to provide this House right now, particularly in view of the ruling on the point of order raised by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), with an opportunity to debate the differences between the Government and the Opposition on television policy. In particular we want to expose the falsehood that has been peddled most particularly by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that the television policy of the Government is some starry-eyed exercise in industry deregulation. He has been running around the country saying that it belongs to that long lineage of great Keating deregulatory initiatives. That view, of course, is far from the truth. If Government members want to talk about motives in television policy, if they want to talk about what people make changes in this policy for, why do they not cast their minds back to December 1985, not quite three years ago, when the Cabinet was locked in debate between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the then Minister for Communications over the direction of media policy? There was no great principle of industry deregulation at stake then. They were not arguing about whether to have a free competitive television environment. Let me remind the House of what Mr Gregory Hywood, the then political correspondent of the Australian Financial Review-hardly, I might say to anybody in this House, the president of the John Howard Fan Club in the Press Gallery-had to say on the ideological purity of the Government and the deregulatory zeal of the Government and of the Labor Party of Australia on the question of television ownership. Greg Hywood said: It also suggests that while the Government's deliberations on television ownership may involve enormously complex regulatory and social issues, the decision is being considered very much in terms of political advantage. Those debates were conducted within the context of a Prime Minister who was determined to do the bidding of two media proprietors at that particular time. This television debate now very much concerns whether this Parliament is to make television policy and to pass television legislation based on the interests of Australian television consumers or whether we will pass it based on the interests of individual media proprietors. I have no argument with any capitalist in this country providing he obeys the law. I have no brief for those who would stir populist resentment against people of wealth in this country. I respect people who have the capacity to accumulate wealth. I believe, as a capitalist, that wealth accumulation is an indispensable part of the Australian community. The argument is not about that; the argument is whether we make policy for the benefit of the Australian people as a whole or to suit short term, ad hoc, political expediency. In this debate the difference between the Government and the Opposition is not that the Government favours competition and we do not; it is that the Government favours adhockery and we oppose adhockery. The difference is that we stand for competition, deregulation and an environment where the ultimate ideal of greater freedom of entry and 100 per cent audience reach is achieved. I turn to the reason why the Liberal and National parties oppose the lift from 60 to 75 per cent. I pause almost in parenthesis to say what an insult to the intelligence of this Parliament it is for the Treasurer or anybody in the Government seriously to invite us to accept that the litmus test of whether one is a deregulator is whether one favours an audience reach lift from 60 to 75 per cent. In other words, if one favours 75 per cent one is a Friedmanite deregulator; if one favours 60 per cent one is a restrictive troglodyte regulator. What an insult to the intelligence of the Australian people. The reason that we oppose the lift to 75 per cent has everything to do with one very simple fact: under the Government's proposals there is to be no increase in competition, no promise-- Mr Beale —A decrease. Mr HOWARD —As the honourable member for Deakin reminds me by interjection, there is potential for a decrease in competition. Is there any hope in the Government's proposals that we will have more players, more competitors, more entrants? Of course there is not. We have to look not to the policies of the Prime Minister that were conceived in adhockery and have been executed out of prejudice and not out of any long term perspective for the rightful media policy of our country, not out of concern to protect the interest of television viewers and not out of a concern to provide greater choice. No, we have to look to the terms of the policies of the Liberal and National parties to find a concern and a respect for the public interest. We stand for the ultimate goal of 100 per cent audience reach. The only reason to have an audience reach limit in the first place is that we are not dealing with a genuinely free market. The former Minister for Communications knows that only too well. When I hear some of the media proprietors and commentators talk about commitments to a free market I think of the logical question: If they really believe in a free market why are they opposed to opening up opportunities for further participants? I say to the Government that if it really believes in a free market, if it really believes the Government is going to benefit from lifting the audience reach to 75 per cent, why is it not, in concert with that proposal, providing opportunities for further participants? The reality is that the Government's proposal has nothing to do with the long range media interests of this country; it has everything to do with accommodating a short term difficulty and a short term situation. I want to take the opportunity of saying one other thing on this subject: it will be a very sorry day indeed when this Parliament feels under duress to pass legislation to accommodate the particular commercial interests of any particular operator in any particular field anywhere in this country. That brings me to the terms of the policy that was enunciated yesterday. We are asking for the immediate removal of the moratorium on the introduction of pay and cable television. Pay and cable television is not some kind of novel concept that people have been talking about in some futuristic sense; it is a concept and a proven technology that has been around for a very long period. Who is in favour of that? The Liberal and National parties are in favour of that. We are also in favour of a streamlining of the absurdly lengthy licensing procedures. The present situation, for which the Government over the last five years has to be held accountable, is an absolute farce. It will take at least, as I understand it, unless there is some special expedition involved, 15 months for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) to conduct a hearing into the Channel 7 acquisition of the Adelaide and Perth television stations. If that is the situation, as far as I am concerned the proprietor of those stations is as entitled as anybody else to have the benefit of that delay. But I put it to the House that that situation makes a laughing stock of the legislation. It makes a mockery of the Government's administration of the legislation. The Government and the relevant Minister owe this Parliament an explanation why that absurd situation should exist. Our proposal is not as Senator Evans has alleged and not as the Prime Minister has alleged, and not as I think some people in the media have mistakenly believed. We are not demanding or suggesting the immediate granting of a fourth television licence in the metropolitan areas. We are saying that when the processes of aggregation have been completed-we understand that will be in about two years time-there should be an Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiry into the granting of fresh television licences in the metropolitan area. I heard Senator Evans sounding forth in his normal pompous fashion yesterday when he said that the economics of that are absolute nonsense. If he really believes that, he has the right, as anybody else has the right, to put that proposition before the ABT hearing in two years time. Or has he such a craven fear of more competition, has he such craven concern to preserve the status quo, that he is not even willing to have an ABT inquiry in two years time on the possibility of introducing further television licences? Yet he belongs to a Government whose Prime Minister and Treasurer have the gall to run around the country saying that members of the Australian Labor Party are the great deregulators of the broadcasting and television industry. They are the great protectors of the status quo in the industry. They are the great protectors of a situation that will deny entry to additional players. They know as well as we do that the real opportunities in the next five or 10 years for more competitors and players in the television area will be in the arena of pay and cable television. We are the only parties which have a definite commitment to the introduction of pay and cable television. We are the only side of politics that has a policy in favour of greater competition. In our policy we have provided for cross-media rules between ordinary television and pay and cable television. In that way we can guarantee that the new participants in pay and cable television will be of different identity from the people who are already in network television. In that way we can be guaranteed of having more competitors in the area. So on every count the policy that has been enunciated by the Liberal and National parties is a policy for the entire Australian community. It is a policy that has one central objective; that is, to provide more competition, to provide more opportunities, to provide more freedom of entry and to say to the entire Australian community, `If you really want to have more choice and competition in this very sensitive area, the only way to have them is to open up opportunities for more entrants'. The policy that the Government is defending is a policy that says, `Yes, we will be increasing the audience reach limits. Yes, we will be increasing the power of existing participants. But we will do absolutely nothing to open up the market to new players and new competitors'. It is an insult to an elementary understanding of economics for anybody, let alone the Treasurer of this country, to argue that one is dealing in this industry with a free market. One is not dealing with a situation where anybody can establish a television station. One is dealing with a tightly held licensing system where there is a limited number of highly privileged players. As a whole, the participants in the television industry in Australia have done a good service to this country. The quality of Australian television is of a very high order. I do not share the arrogant view of the Treasurer that existing television stations deliver what he calls `slop' to the community. He was quoted at a Caucus meeting the other day as saying, `Our policy is to give you three lots of slop instead of one lot of slop'. What an incredibly arrogant view. That is the measure of the intellectual depth and commitment to a visionary media policy for the Australian people that emanates from the Treasurer. In other words, the Treasurer says, `They have one lot of slop at the moment. We want to give them three lots of slop. I will let the peasants watch the slop while I luxuriate my mind with higher and more important pursuits'. The reality is that at every stage the development of media policy by this Government has had absolutely nothing at all to do with the long range interests of the Australian community. It has had everything to do with considerations of short term political advantage. Everyone knows that this legislation has not been designed by the Government as part of some comprehensive media package. When it decided last October to go ahead with aggregation that decision was made on the basis of an audience reach of 60 per cent, not 75 per cent. The legislation which is now before the Senate and which will soon be before this chamber has everything to do with providing a short term solution to a short term problem. It has absolutely nothing to do, and it never has had anything to do, with providing an intelligent solution to this country's media needs. The only way that we can really have a deregulated media policy in this country, the only way we can open up the market to more competition, the only way we can provide more players in the field, is to go down the path that has been spelt out by the Liberal and National parties over the past couple of days. That has as its basis a 100 per cent audience reach and, to provide hand in hand with the 100 per cent audience reach, opportunities for more competitors and more players to enter the field. I say again to this House, and through it to the Australian public, that right now the only two parties that are in favour of more competition are the Liberal and National parties. The only two parties that are prepared to legislate on media policy for the total community interest and not for sectional interests are the Liberal and National parties. The only two parties that are committed to the immediate introduction of pay and cable television are the Liberal and National parties. The only two parties that are prepared to have an open mind on the granting of new television licences are the Liberal and National parties. On every count, when one compares the approach of the Government to the approach of the Opposition, when one remembers that the Government's media policy was conceived in political expediency, after a protracted brawl between the Prime Minister and the then Minister for Communications, the Government fails the test of public interest. Our policy passes the test of public interest with flying colours on every count. Madam SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(2.35) —What we have heard today has been an apologia by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for the failure and weakness of his leadership within the coalition parties; an apologia for the fact that he was not able to pilot through his parties, both the Liberal and National parties, a sensible policy on television; an apologia for the fact that he is about to repeat, on a second occasion, the obstruction of decent television laws in this country that will enable country people to see capital city television, and provide a decent networking structure in television within the context of a decent media policy. The genesis of this discussion is the headlines in today's newspapers about the leadership weakness of the Leader of the Opposition and his incapacity to get his way inside the coalition parties. A headline in the Melbourne Age is `TV farce shows leadership failure'. An article by Mr Steketee in the Sydney Morning Herald, headed `Howard rolled again on TV limit', states: The federal Opposition ended five days of division and confusion by reaffirming it would vote against legislation to expand television ownership limits. The decision means a second defeat for the position supported by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Mr Ramsey states: John Howard is fooling nobody. All he has done with the Coalition's television policy is take two tortured days to arrive back where his colleagues left him six days earlier . . . have now dressed up a policy that disguises 60 per cent to look like 100 per cent. The article is headed `Formula is nothing but a pretence'. The Leader of the Opposition thinks he can cuddle up to granny with all of his sympathetic body language but she has seen right through him and put it right on the line-the failure of his leadership, `rolled again on TV limit', and `formula is nothing but a pretence'. The same thing is said by Michelle Grattan in the Melbourne Age-`TV farce shows leadership failure'. And that is what it is. That is the view of the Australian media about the Leader of the Opposition and his change yesterday. The most disingenuous thing he said in his contribution to the debate a few moments ago was, `The ALP is the protector of the status quo in this industry'. This is from a man who was Treasurer for five years and Minister for seven years in a government that left the two-station rule-talk about the status quo-the most regulatory, iniquitous structure ever in any industry from 1956 to 1983. From 1956 to 1983, bar three years, the coalition governed this country and left the Menzies deal, the two-station rule, put on for Packer and the Herald and Weekly Times, and John Fairfax and Sons sitting on the statute books. The country stations, run by the Country Party members and proprietors, with their stranglehold and their regional monopolies, were left untouched because the National Party, through Sir John McEwen, Mr Anthony and now Mr Sinclair have said, `You won't touch our monopoly in the bush'. That is the shocking tyranny of coalition television policy. The previous Government said to country people, `You can watch one channel and, not only that, in some places you can actually watch the channel owned by our person, read the newspaper owned by our person, and listen to the radio owned by the same person'. That was what the previous Government believed in. It presided over the worst kind of concentration in media in any country in the world. That is the vicious status quo the previous Government left in television. It supported the satellite. We put it up and changed the ownership structure so that rural people have the right to watch the same variety of programs as city people and the Opposition says, `No.'. What did Mr Sinclair say today on the front steps of Parliament House? He said, `I am quite concerned that the product of the Government's aggregation is not going to improve viewer choice in the country'. In other words, `I know better. The country viewers can stay watching their one private channel, because I do not think that the choice will be any good'. As usual, `We know best. We will stop country people getting capital city television'. That has been the basis of everything members opposite have ever done. But even worse in television, the Opposition had the status quo in the media generally, and particularly with print, radio and television it has these enormous empires, such as the Herald and Weekly Times and John Fairfax and Sons, with a television network, a radio network, and massive broadsheet print power, and it was happy to leave it that way forever. It was the same with Consolidated Press with its massive magazine publications and its major television organisation as well. That is the shocking status quo the Opposition left behind. The Government has come along and introduced a cross-media rule, a milestone piece of social legislation which breaks print ownership from television and radio, and radio from print and television. The Government said, `If you want to be in radio, you cannot be in print in the same place. If you want to be in television you cannot be in print in the same place', and that is there, broken. The Government did not need the Opposition to bring down its deregulatory policy of open competition last night. We have done it. The cross-media rule is on the statute books. It is law. And it has stopped this shocking tyranny. The fact is that the Herald and Weekly Times, Packer, Fairfax and News Ltd would have owned all television, radio and print between them, because they had enough financial power to buy the lot. Members opposite were quite happy for them to own everything. Now there are new owners in television, new owners in radio and a separated print. We have heard from Opposition members about how Murdoch is sitting on 60 per cent of Australia's print, but we did not hear anything about the Herald and Weekly Times sitting on 50 per cent, did we? We did not hear about the Herald and Weekly Times owning massive television and radio holdings, did we? No, because Opposition members thought those newspapers were barracking for the Opposition. That is why we did not hear about it. The Opposition sat down with the Adelaide Advertiser and the West Australian-this is the dishonesty of the Opposition-it never complained about that. But now that Murdoch has 60 per cent print, but no television, because the Government said no-oh, this is a shocking crime against free speech. Mr Macphee —That is not true. Mr KEATING —It is true and the honourable member knows it is true. The Opposition's paltry argument about a 15 per cent cross-holding, suggesting that, for instance, Murdoch is operating Lowy's network, is wrong, and the honourable member knows it. Mr Macphee —It is not. Mr KEATING —It is wrong. As if anyone would suggest that a 15 per cent holding by News Ltd in the Channel 10s would stop Westfield from operating a station; that is rubbish. The honourable member knows; he has sat happy with the status quo all these years, like the rest of the Opposition. It is no good their coming out now, 30 years later, and saying, `We do not like what the Government has done'. The Government has put up a sensible Bill to allow networking of the capital cities to get at least a critical mass in terms of scale, to have decent production levels, local production, local programming and decent television. Australian television is, I think, the best in the world. But the Opposition says, `No, we will not pass the Bill because we will not let people network the capital cities. We will make them network everything bar Perth, or bar Adelaide'. That is where members of the Opposition are. The Leader of the Opposition came out last night with this pathetic document saying, `We will go to 100 per cent, but we will have more players'. Paraphrasing that, it means this: `We will say to a television owner, ``We, the coalition, will make big people of ourselves. We will let you own Broken Hill and Mount Isa, Griffith, Mildura and Port Pirie, because we know you cannot survive without those. We will let you own those to get to 100 per cent, but then we will stick in one or two major operators against you in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane'' '; in other words, `We will let you go and operate some minor television stations in rural Australia to get to 100 per cent. Then we will smash the economics of Australian television by having more major capital city television players. We are not opposed to competition; we are opposed to an orderly structure in television-with five networks for a population of 16 million, when Britain has four networks for 60 million'. The Opposition is saying it wants six, seven or eight for 16 million because it has no idea of the structure of the industry and in its haste to come to a policy to save the face of the Leader of the Opposition it has decided to ditch the viability of Australian television holdings, trying to ditch the viability of running a sensible television network. That is where Opposition members stand. The question is: Will they vote for the Bill? The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) said yesterday he would vote for 75 per cent. If he is prepared to go to 100 per cent, why not go to 75 per cent? Where is the logic in that? If members opposite are prepared to say 100, why not 75? We will see whether they vote for the 75 per cent proposition, which allows sensible networking in television. That having passed, we will have sensible capital city networks which can employ local programming, have decent critical mass in terms of their audience to be able to do so, and can be operated viably as a network. We will have 25 per cent for other minor players to pick up audience reach. We have cross-media rules in radio to separate radio companies which are specialising in radio out of the other mediums and we have now the cross rule with the separation of print. It is a first class media policy-a first class piece of social reform in terms of media diversification, free speech, and all that goes with it. The Government owes the Opposition nothing for it. Members opposite opposed everything-always they have opposed everything to keep their vicious grip on it all, so they could leave the Herald and Weekly Times listless as it was for years with its abundant power; listless, lying there with these massive broadsheet holdings and massive television and radio holdings. Members opposite have the hide to talk about the status quo! We know what has gone on with regional television. Proprietors have been running to the National Party for years saying, `Protect our monopoly. Do not let anyone else offer services'. In some of the provincial cities they own the television station, the radio station and the newspaper. That is what members opposite call democracy. They always wanted the system loaded in their favour. The Australian Labor Party has come along and said, `Let us have some decent diversification of ownership'. This goes for journalists as well, because if a journalist burnt his or her bridge with Murdoch or Packer he or she had nowhere else to go. Now they can go to three television networks the ABC, SBS-- Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr KEATING —Opposition members may laugh, but they are going there. They can go to Murdoch. They can go to Fairfax. They can go to the other independent print proprietors, such as the West Australian with Holmes a Court in Perth. That is the result. But members opposite hate that because they know media diversity works against them and for the Labor Party. They think media diversity will propagate sensible views and they do not want that. They have always wanted the loaded gun. They have always wanted the system loaded in their favour. What changed all of this was the satellite. When the satellite went up the technical capacity was there to deliver three television signals right throughout this country. No matter where one was, one could pick up capital city television, and public policy had to adapt to facilitate that technological change, and it has, but it has been against the wishes of the Opposition. Now members opposite are in here talking about new entrants and cable television. As if we would be so stupid and so negligent as to say overnight -- Mr Sinclair —That would introduce competition. That would be terrible! Mr KEATING —As if we would be so negligent to say overnight, `Yes, we will go into cable television'-to make a national resource decision to go into cable television overnight. As if we would say, `Oh yes, Mr Howard has put a statement out; yes, we will have cable television, otherwise the Opposition will vote against our Bill'. Members opposite have got to be joking to suggest that we would just walk into a major resource decision. I heard the interjection from the Leader of the National Party of Australia. Look, McEwen, Anthony, Sinclair-they have all been in the rotten borough of monopoly regional television, and radio, and print-for years. They say they represent country people, but they would deny them three television stations in the country, the same as the city. We reject absolutely the motion by the Leader of the Opposition as an apologia for his failure in his leadership to be able to deliver a decent policy. We reject, as we always have, the central precept of coalition media policy, which is concentration of ownership for the people who supported them and their mates in the country and country stations. We reject it and support a decent media policy of diversification for Australia in and for the public interest. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.50) —If anyone thought that the Australian Labor Party was the party of deregulation, that belief has been totally destroyed by the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). He is pursuing a course that is designed to concentrate power more and more in the hands of a few wealthy Australians. It is not a process designed to provide diversity of choice to the consumer or to help give greater viewer choice; it is designed entirely to meet the expedient demands of a few who seek to break the present law. If any honourable member on this side of the House thought there was any question about our policy in the past, that doubt has been satisfied. We heard it from the mouth of the Treasurer a moment ago. Let me quote what he said: Australian television is the best in the world. Why, I ask, is Australian television the best in the world? It is the best in the world because the coalition set in place the rules and regulations under the Broadcasting and Television Act, which generated the introduction and pursuit of television ownership, diversity and viewer choice until this Government changed the law last year. Let no-one believe that the amendments of last year have as yet come into effect. The product of Australian television, which even the Treasurer acknowledges is the best in the world, is simply the product of the laws that we introduced. We heard from the Treasurer his great claims about how last year his policy in some way provided greater choice, that all these changes in ownership have in some way provided more competition and more diversity. Let us consider that. This is not an argument about networking-let us start with that. The Treasurer pretended that in some way networking began only when the Government's policy was introduced. What arrant rubbish. Networking has existed not only through ownership but also through specific arrangements with regional and other capital city television interests right around Australia for years. It existed because those regional arrangements and arrangements with stations in other capital cities-that is, capital cities other than Sydney and Melbourne-were designed specifically to ensure that the same access to major programs was attainable through the major networks as would occur if those networks were all owned by the same station. This is not an argument about networking. It is an argument about ownership. Let us consider the product of the occurrences. We have heard from the Treasurer in this place on a number of occasions that he has been able to diversify regional and general national media ownership. We must understand first that there has been a greater concentration of ownership within each of the specific media areas-within television, within broadcasting and within print. Secondly, let us consider television, because this argument centres principally around television. What we on this side of the House are pursuing is viewer choice and competition. What does the Government pursue? The Treasurer claims that in some way his policy has led to the breaking up of what he calls the great media empires. We have seen his prejudice and bigotry in relation to John Fairfax and Sons Ltd. We heard it in the House today. We all know that honourable members opposite have absolute prejudice against the media around Australia. We know that not one of them can stand any heat from the media kitchens. All we hear about is how many writs the Prime Minister has issued. When someone says something nasty about the man who is leaving the chamber, that is, the Treasurer, or the Prime Minister, do they stand up and take it? No, they do not. They run off and ring the editor and say, `That was a terrible thing you said about me. You really need to put in a retraction and, mind you, if you don't we will do something about it'. If honourable members think that there is not a little bit of the old brother network in this, all they have to do is recall the remarks of the Prime Minister in Caucus when these laws were presented: he said, `We will win the next election if we pass this'. That is what this media overtone is all about. Let me return to diversification. John Fairfax and Sons Ltd was not dispersed because of the laws promulgated by the Government; that company was dispersed, as we all know, because one member of the Fairfax family decided that he wanted to take over the family interest. The result has been the splitting up of what was one of the great media empires in Australia. We should not pretend that Kerry Packer, the second of the major media operators, got rid of his television interest because of anything to do with Labor's legislation. He got rid of it because he was offered the money. He took it and ran, and we cannot blame him. He was offered a tremendous price, an inflated price, and that has in no way added to the value of television and in no way contributed to viewer choice. But what Kerry Packer did and must be able to do in our capitalist system was to take the money and run. That had nothing to do with the Government's media laws. The third proprietor, and the one I find even more interesting in light of the Treasurer's remarks, is Mr Murdoch. Let us face it, the reason he divested himself of his television interests was purely the result of the provisions under the coalition's Broadcasting and Television Act which excluded overseas ownership. It had nothing to do with the Treasurer's legislation. All this talk about greater diversity and all this talk about result comes back to the fact that because of our legislation Australian television is the best in the world. It provided opportunity for choice and it provided a capacity for the growth of the system whereby there was an opportunity for independent production, whereby regional stations and those in smaller capital cities were able to produce and display programs and had the productive capacity to do so. Under the Government's policy every time there is another takeover local cameramen, local producers and others involved in producing programs go. Most of them have been sacked. We know what is happening. The Treasurer's program is designed to concentrate power to a few. Any concentration of power in this country must be rejected as not being in the best interests of competition. What we on this side of the House have done is to provide an alternative program that is designed to enhance viewer choice, to ensure genuine competition and, above all, to guarantee that ownership of the media does not fall in to the hands of just a few wealthy Australians. The basis of the argument is that the Treasurer has absolute prejudice against a system that has worked very satisfactorily in a country that has tremendous population spread and has exhibited tremendous diversity in trying to provide alternatives on the media front. What the Government is seeking to do is concentrate those powers and remove much of the competition. Let us face it. As a result of the changed policy there has already been a reduction to about 22 players in the general television game. The result of the shift that the Government seeks to introduce whereby there is a change from 60 per cent to 75 per cent, unless one pursues the alternative course as we suggest, will lead to a further reduction of players in the field. There is no suggestion from our side of politics that we will stop aggregation; there is no suggestion from our side of politics that we will do anything except enhance viewer choice; but there is a suggestion from our side of politics that we should ensure that even with greater choice we retain the quality that our past broadcasting and television policy has facilitated. We do not want to see standards reduced; we do not want to take every B grade movie from the United States or elsewhere. But that is what the Government wants to do. It wants to concentrate power so that a few wealthy individuals will be able to determine what is seen anywhere around Australia. This argument is not about diversity and it is not about competition: this argument is about Labor's traditional prejudice against the media and Labor's desire to ensure the concentration of power in a way that we regard as total anathema to the interests of the ordinary viewing public. It is true that the Labor Party for a long while pretended that in some way the whole field of policy was under review, but we must remember in regard to the question of aggregation that, prior to the coalition Government's going out of office, when my colleague the honourable member for Menzies was, I think, Minister for Communications, all the laws with respect to supplementary licensing were proceeded with. As the Minister about 10 years ago I started a program to provide diversity of choice in regional areas. The reason why aggregation has suddenly been forced on people is that for four years the Labor Party did that and for four years regional viewers were denied the prospect of choice. We also know that the satellite, another one of the great achievements that we hear the Labor Party has attained, was a product of a coalition Government. The arrangements were negotiated to ensure that there would be a facility to bring television signals right around Australia, including the remote outback areas that previously had no opportunity of seeing commercial television. The reality is that Labor's policy is based on adhockery and prejudice. It lacks consistency, it denies competition, and it will not facilitate viewer choice. On the other hand, what we have done is to look genuinely and in depth at an alternative to ensure that there is a way by which the Australian viewing public can have a choice other than through a video system. There will be no restraint in that latter respect, but that relates to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material that is now being considered by the House. Through the application of our changes to the broadcasting and television law we seek to provide not only an extension of reach but an extension of viewing choice. In the House the other day the Treasurer (Mr Keating) spoke about how sad it would be if we rejected the 75 per cent reach rule, which, of course, is based on the principle of adhockery-and no other-that the Labor Party is now pursuing. We should remember that the other day the Treasurer said in the House that he regarded the retention of the 60 per cent limit as a menacing and ominous development. If honourable members have ever heard an overstatement that is one. What the Treasurer should have done today was to come into the House and say, `I welcome the fact that the coalition parties have presented constructive alternatives. I welcome the fact that there is to be viewer choice. We are prepared to accept that pay and cable television are good developments'. These developments are not new; they were first facilitated in reports undertaken when Tony Staley was Minister for Communications, and he has been out of the House for nearly 10 years. The reality is that pay and cable television represent a very easy and simple way, particularly with the development of fibre optics, by which there can be diversity of choice for the Australian public. Pay and cable television need to be facilitated. They need to have put in place the programs and laws by which they can operate. It is true that in that respect we would look to `grandfather' the existing Sky networks that are already in place. We would also look at cross-media restraints to ensure that pay and cable television provide both additional competition amongst presenters and additional viewing choice for the Australian public. Secondly, we want to streamline television licensing procedures. I heard the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Evans) say, `We are looking at this matter. We have a committee and at some time we will do something about it'. If the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy)-who I think will follow me in this debate-had still been Minister, perhaps the procedures might have been changed. What we need to remember is that his policy was a 43 per cent limit, and he has been removed from that portfolio. If the Minister is honest in what he says today he will say that Australia should proceed according to the very views and attitudes held on this side of the House. However, the Minister for Trade Negotiations was apparently wrong. The Treasurer and his powerful friends said, `You will not be able to take control of the Australian viewing public if you have diversity of choice'. We all know how in 1985 the Prime Minister set up a special little committee of his kitchen mates just so he might be able to get the Minister rolled. The product is that that Minister is now no longer the Minister responsible for the area the subject of this debate. Let me go back to what I was saying about streamlining television licensing procedures. The Minister at the table might have facilitated that, but Senator Evans says, `We are looking into it'. At some time in the future that mirror reaction might come good. Thirdly, we want to facilitate a system whereby new television licences can be implemented. We have a proviso. Aggregation is costing the industry a great deal. There is a shortage of software. We want to ensure that at an appropriate time the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal can be charged with investigating the issue of new licences, some perhaps in VHF and some in UHF. There can be some special licences and some designed to cover local communities. This procedure would be similar to the way in which FM radio, introduced not by the Labor Party but by the coalition Government, has provided greater diversity in broadcasting. The facility of providing for the issuing of new licences ensures new entrants in a restricted spectrum. Television is different from the print media. We cannot just allow in any new entrants who want to get into it. There is a restricted environment. What we propose would allow new entrants. However, the Government does not want new entrants. It is trying to provide a monopolistic situation for a few, and that is total anathema to our side of politics. Fourthly, we would agree to remove all restrictions and to allow what in fact is a potential 500 per cent audience reach, competed for amongst those who are players in the game. This motion has been brought forward of necessity. The Government persists in using question Time to try to present a one-sided case. In this instance, in the development of communications policy, Labor has failed. It is not improving competition or providing choice for viewers. In fact, exactly the reverse is happening. We believe that the only way in which there can be a reasonable development of good television and competitive media in Australia is by implementing the policy that this motion presents. I commend it not only to members of the House but also to the listening public of Australia wherever they may be. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations)(3.06) —When the Hawke Labor Government came to office in March 1983 we could not have been presented with a greater shambles in any area than I faced as Minister for Communications in looking at broadcasting policies. The former Minister in the Fraser Government, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), has just spoken in this debate, and I will deal with what he said in a moment. The fact is that the previous Government was not prepared to take action, and I will pick up now the point made today by the right honourable member for New England. He said that regional viewers are denied a choice in television. Who was responsible for that for 30 years? Who is responsible for it today? It is the result of the failure of the previous Government in that period, and even in its period in Opposition it has not been able to get together a policy on this matter. This morning, in a door-stop interview, the right honourable member for New England said: I am quite concerned that the product of the Government's aggregation is not going to improve viewer choice. All you are going to do is get a bit of the repeats of whatever happened about 10 years ago in the United States. Today, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) commended the standard of television in this country-and quite correctly. We have nothing to apologise for in this country in relation to the standard of television. Mr Ian Cameron —Not all. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member for Maranoa says, `Not all'. No, not all, particularly in country areas. Why? The reason is that honourable members opposite for years and years protected the most desperate monopolies in this country-regional television stations. They had a total monopoly in their areas. They could pour out what they liked. People had no choice whatever; they could not turn to another station since no other commercial station was available. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation service was available in those areas and one commercial station. That is what was wrong with the system. What did we do? We decided that at long last that would come to an end. It is about time that the Opposition started to understand what this Government did. One of the most important legislative changes that has taken place in this country in the post-war period was in the legislation to which we are referring today. We said that we were not prepared to tolerate any longer an absurd situation for country people. The Opposition parties had presided over a two-station rule for 30 years. I will tell honourable members opposite what they did, so that people, particularly country people, completely understand. The Opposition parties equated the ownership of television stations in Melbourne and Sydney with ownership of television stations in Broken Hill and Mount Isa. Mr Keating —What a joke! Mr DUFFY —As the Treasurer says correctly, what a joke! For 30 years that was the broadcasting policy of honourable members opposite, yet they have the gall to come here today criticising the Government and saying that we have refused to accept their initiatives to produce a more competitive and deregulatory television environment. That was the regime presided over by them. There were incredible monopolies which provided no choice in commercial television for people around Australia. They were deprived of that choice because of the stupid policies of honourable members opposite. Let us look at what honourable members opposite did when we came into government. The first shadow Minister was the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). The next one was the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). We then had the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee). We then had the really sensational performance by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). He was the man who decided that the solution was to auction the licences. Do honourable members remember that little performance? He did not know where he was going. I waited eagerly for five years to see a policy from the Opposition in this area. Mr Saunderson —They never had one. Mr DUFFY —As the honourable member for Aston interjects, the Opposition did not come up with a policy in five years and it still has not come up with a policy. The right honourable member for New England said today, as I said earlier, that he is concerned that aggregation will not improve viewer choice. At the same time the Leader of the Opposition correctly commended-this is one thing he said with which I am not going to quibble-the very high standard of Australian television. Let us look at aggregation and see what it is all about. For the first time in the history of broadcasting in this country the regional television stations are going to feel the cold wind of change through competition. No longer will they be able to sit on their little patches and pour out whatever they like to those five million people in the country who are not entitled to hear and see what we are able to hear and see in the cities. Why not? Because it was denied to them for 30 years by the extraordinary group of people opposite who purport-this is one of the things that really gets to me-to represent rural Australia. I refer to members of the National Party of Australia. They know nothing about it. It took a Labor government to say, `Enough is enough. We're sorry, Mr Nixon; we're sorry about Southern Cross. You just can't go on any longer down there in Traralgon and Bendigo with your monopoly markets'. We then saw the publicity whipped up against the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) in those areas. It was pathetic stuff. It was said that there would be loss of jobs and programming would deteriorate. What was that all about? It was about one simple thing: they did not want any competition. It was about self-interest. We were not prepared to cop that. I will run through a little of what we decided to do, because the Opposition seems to have forgotten. We said that for too long the viewing public of Australia, and in particular-I keep coming back to these long suffering people-the viewing public in regional areas, suffered from the effects of legislation which allowed the perpetuation of small monopolistic markets which could pour out whatever muck they wanted. People had to cop it. Honourable members opposite should talk to people in rural areas about what they thought about that system. I do not know whether they talk to their constituents. They have complained about it for years and years. Another integral part of the media goal that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) kicked on this issue was the question of cross-media ownership. That was something that never crossed the minds of Opposition members. At no stage in 30 years did this happen. If it ever did, somebody would have said, `No'. So the vested interests, not only in regional television but across the whole area of the media in Australia, prevailed. We would not cop that, either. The legislation limited cross-ownership between television and newspapers and television and monopoly radio. We picked up the lot in relation to the cross-media rule. That could not operate within the service area of the related commercial television station. What has the Opposition done at this stage? I will tell it what it has done as a result of its performance in failing to pass legislation. I will never forget as long as I live the shambles that occurred in June 1987. It was unbelievable. Opposition members would walk in and out of their offices. At first they agreed to an audience reach of 43 per cent, then 52 per cent, then 60 per cent and then it would be 70 per cent. It was like an auction. It was the most incredible performance that I have ever seen in my life. Ultimately they settled on 60 per cent, which at that stage made no sense whatsoever. If they had wanted to argue for a 43 per cent reach, there would have been some logic in that, although it proved to be wrong. But what logic is there, for heaven's sake, in a 60 per cent reach? The capital city markets, plus the regional television markets, amount on an aggregated basis to a 75 per cent reach. That is a sensible market. It brings about economies of scale, it brings about proper production of television and it allows the industry to maintain the enormously high standards that it has maintained in this country since 1956. But the difference is that it gives a choice to the people in rural Australia who have been ignored by the Opposition for 30 years. It could not care less about them. It is weeping crocodile tears about the problems of country people, but it did absolutely nothing to help those five million Australians in rural and regional areas who were totally deprived of what they were entitled to-the right to receive the same sort of television coverage that people in city areas had received since 1956 or since three stations were established. Let us look at what the Opposition has done. On the economies of scale, the 75 per cent figure-as the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Evans, said in his statement of 22 April-allows strong local content in the smaller capitals, and more and better quality Australian production generally will be the first victims if this rule does not change and this legislation is not passed. The Opposition's decision quite clearly, as the Minister has stated, means that there is no chance of accelerating the aggregation process at this stage. There is not much incentive for Northern Star's Channel 10 and the Bond Corporation's Channel 9 to fast track their commitment-which they will carry out, given the chance-when the result of carrying out that commitment will force them immediately to divest themselves of a significant proportion of their holdings. I will turn away from regional and rural Australia for the moment and look at Canberra. The people of Canberra will know, because we are going to tell them, that if this legislation is not passed, next year they will be deprived of being able to watch the same programs and have the same diversity of choice as people in Melbourne and Sydney, because of this idiotic decision that the Opposition has come up with. When those markets are aggregated some of these owners' holdings-I do not know whether this has ever entered any of the Opposition members' thick heads-will be triggered to over 60 per cent, maybe by only a few percentage points. What does the Opposition want them to do? Does it want them to sell and then start again? That is not what it was about. Seventy-five per cent was the rule. That was what was contained in this Government's legislation. The Opposition has put forward no good reason either inside or outside this House why it reverted to the 60 per cent figure. When one reads the transcripts of the interviews given by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) when he was shadow spokesman for the National Party, one sees that they were classics. They were riddled with contradiction day after day and Opposition members are still in the same position. Let us look at the great rush towards pay television. What did the right honourable member for New England say today? He said that there is a shortage of software. Of course there is a shortage of software. That is why we are talking about economies of scale in production, allowing networking into the regional areas. No matter what the right honourable member for New England says, aggregation will bring about programming in rural Australia which virtually gives the same diversity of choice as the capital cities have enjoyed for years. Let us just pick up the point made by the right honourable member for New England about the shortage of software. What does he think will go on pay television? Mr Sinclair —Aggregation is the problem; you know that. Mr DUFFY —It is a pity that as a former Minister for Communications-failed though he was-he will not listen now. Where does he think the software is going to come from for pay television? It is true that it is difficult to keep the quality of television up. What the Opposition is proposing is the dumping of overseas rubbish, both on free to air television and pay television. It is also advocating that one day the people of Australia will be paying to watch the Victorian Football League (VFL) grand final. The VFL grand final will become pay per view. That is what will happen. That can be sheeted straight home to the Opposition. This is a contemptible motion that has been put forward. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Duffy) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John 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.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Sciacca, C.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewan Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Taylor, W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Howard, J. W. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewan Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Taylor, W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Howard, J. W. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John 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.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Sciacca, C.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Question so resolved in the negative. 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- Australian Environment Council-Summary Record of Proceedings-Nineteenth Meeting-Perth-11 November 1987. Council of Nature Conservation Ministers-Summary Record of Proceedings-Sixteenth Meeting-Perth-12 November 1987. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GOODLUCK —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr GOODLUCK —On 26 April 1988 in the Social Security Amendment Bill debate on page 2102 of Hansard, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said: . . . the honourable member for Franklin is someone who when he is in his electorate pretends some concern and some compassion. This is a totally untruthful statement and all the people of Franklin, and I am sure all honourable members on my side of the House, also know that it is untruthful. Any person who says that about me is a mendacious hypocrite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement. Mr GOODLUCK —I have the greatest respect for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I would not want to cause you any complications, but I am not directing the remark at any one person; I am saying that anybody who calls me that is a mendacious hypocrite. I do not care who it is. If a person says that about me it is untruthful and I repeat: that person is a mendacious hypocrite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member has not referred to anybody in this House. Mr Beazley —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Franklin undoubtedly has referred to an individual. He connected those words to a statement made in the House by a specific individual. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I agree that the honourable member for Franklin has sailed pretty close to the wind, but I do not consider that he has breached the Standing Orders. My ruling stands. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —Yes, by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) in the other place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The right honourable member may proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —Firstly, the Minister said, amongst other things, that I have been representing the interests of certain operators in the views expressed in this place with respect to broadcasting and television laws. I strongly deny that remark. Not only have I no interest personally in any television or broadcasting station, but also I have tried to speak to all those from all sectors of the broadcasting and television industry with respect to each of the proposed changes in broadcasting and television. I certainly am not doing other than representing the interests of viewers, particularly in regional and rural areas around Australia. Secondly, I have been misrepresented in that he has suggested that I am saying that regional people would prefer only one channel. I have said that if the Labor Government had implemented its supplementary licence program there would be another-- Mr Beazley —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the right honourable member is now debating the point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the right honourable member please get to the point where he has been personally misrepresented. Mr SINCLAIR —I would think that if I am being accused of having a financial interest in a way which affects my vote in this place it very critically affects my credibility and I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is therefore something on which I have been misrepresented. The Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) is-as is his wont of late-totally out of line and out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The right honourable member has made his point. Mr SINCLAIR —I have also been misrepresented as the Minister is suggesting that I am responsible in some way for the delays in aggregation. That is patently false. I and honourable members on this side of the House support the extension of viewing opportunities through aggregation. The applications for the supplementary licences would have been available in Canberra if the Government had not deliberately delayed it. Mr Beazley —I raise another point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The right honourable member is manifestly debating the issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The right honourable member has now completed his personal explanation. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DAWKINS —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr DAWKINS —In today's Sydney Morning Herald the New South Wales Minister for Education, in relation to the appointment of Dr Gregor Ramsey as Director-General of the New South Wales Department of Education, is reported as claiming: He- that is, Dr Ramsey- was sent here as a result of a deal between the Commonwealth Minister [for Education], Mr Dawkins, and the then Minister of Education here in NSW'. This claim is without foundation. Together with Dr Metherell's outrageous attack on Dr Ramsey's competence, it is designed to direct attention from the widespread reaction to Dr Metherell's capricious sacking of Dr Ramsey. Mr Carlton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister has gone beyond personal explanation and is entering into debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have been listening carefully. I ask the Minister to wind up his personal explanation. Mr DAWKINS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to explain the circumstances under which Dr Ramsey moved. The fact is that Dr Ramsey was appointed to the position of Director-General in New South Wales through a proper selection process. I was most reluctant to see him go, having, in common with Dr Ramsey's colleagues, nothing but the highest regard for his competence, integrity and impartiality. The only arrangement made with the previous New South Wales Education Minister was that Dr Ramsey would continue to act as interim Chairman of the Higher Education Council of the National Board of Education, Employment and Training, a position he was appointed to in December 1987 before he was offered the New South Wales position, which position he continues to occupy. Dr Metherell, in misrepresenting me, has used Parliament to defame Dr Ramsey, whose competence has already been attested to today by Dr Brian Smith, Director of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. This attack on me is a disreputable disguise for Dr Metherell's disgraceful conduct in first misleading Dr Ramsey and then improperly and arrogantly tearing up his contract. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is very clear that the Minister is deliberately abusing the right to make a personal explanation and you should have ruled him out of order when he started to get onto another personal attack against Dr Metherell. He should be sat down at this stage if he is not saying anything further. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have been listening very carefully to the Minister's personal explanation. He is explaining to the House where he has been misrepresented. I ask him to continue. Mr DAWKINS —I conclude by saying that any suggestion-that is what has been made-of political bias in Dr Ramsey's Commonwealth appointments is utterly without foundation. He is a very creditable appointment to any senior education post in Australia. In order to confirm that, I table his curriculum vitae. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1988 Admiralty Bill 1988 Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1988 Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill 1988 Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1988 Assent to the following Bills reported: Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1988 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1987 Income Tax (Offshore Banking Units) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1988 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's utter failure to deal with the scandalous situation in the Australian shipping industry. 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 BEALE(Deakin)(3.44) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the rorts, rip offs, rapaciousness, rackets, restrictive work practices and mismanagement in the Australian shipping industry are a national scandal. Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O' Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Duncan, P. Scholes, G. G. D.Edwards, Ronald Sciacca, C.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K.Carlton, J. J. Rocher, A. C.Cobb, M. R. Shack, P. D.Connolly, D. M. Sharp, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Smith, W. L.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fisher, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Fisher, Peter Taylor, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Woods, R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. McLeay, Leo Ruddock, P. M.Grace, E. L. Moore, J. C.Hand, G. L. Cowan, D. B.Kerin, G. C. Lloyd, B.Morris, Peter Andrew, J. N.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 10 May 1988, at 2 p.m., unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May 1988. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for Tuesday, 10 May 1988. The report read as follows- Report relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May 1988 Pursuant to sessional order 28d, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 19 May 1988. The order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in the list. COMMITTEE REPORTS Statements upon presentation Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration-Report on 6 efficiency audits of the Australian Taxation Office. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.] Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training-Report on efficiency and effectiveness of institutional practices in the higher education sector. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.] Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters-Report on the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.] PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Order of precedence Item Time allotted *1 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- 20 mins (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.) *2 MRS SULLIVAN: To move-That this House- 35 mins (1) deplores the delays in the processing of applications for immigration and change of status; (2) criticises the uncertainty of business, independent and refugee immigration programs; and (3) calls on the Government to upgrade and streamline the administration of immigration policy. (Notice given 21 April 1988). *3 DR CHARLESWORTH: To move-That this House- 35 mins (1) congratulates the Government on its commitment to a health insurance system based on the principles of fairness, simplicity and efficiency; (2) calls upon the Government to maintain a universal system of health insurance funded by a fairly applied levy arrangement; and (3) condemns attacks on the universal health insurance system. (Notice given 15 September 1987; amended 27 April 1988). *4 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. (Notice given 26 April 1988. any remaining private members' business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day Mr JENKINS(Scullin) —I present the sixth report by the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(3.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill amends the Audit Act 1901. The principal amendments are intended to enhance the Commonwealth's financial reporting, administration and audit and to bring certain penalty provisions into line with present day criminal law policy. Financial reporting will be facilitated through an amendment to section 49 which will enable the form of the monthly statement of the Minister for Finance to be changed by regulation. This amendment accords with suggestions made during the debates on the Statute Law Bill in October 1987 that parliamentary control over the form should be retained. Amendments are proposed in relation to the preparation of annual financial statements and fall into two categories. The first concerns the financial statements for the financial year ending 30 June 1988. The proposed amendment will provide for departmental transactions on functions lost to another department through the Administrative Arrangements Order of 24 July 1987 to be shown in the financial statements of the department gaining the functions. In this way, the 1987-88 statements will be made more meaningful by removing the requirement that would otherwise exist for separate statements covering the period from 1 July to 23 July. The second category involves amendments which will enhance the accountability of departments. They will establish the responsibility of departmental secretaries to prepare annual financial statements of their departments and for those statements to be audited. The statements will be prepared in accordance with guidelines given by the Minister for Finance as to their form and content and will be included in departments' annual reports. Also, since a detailed level of information will be given in these departmental reports, the need for the present detailed reports by the Minister for Finance will disappear. The amendment provides instead that the Minister for Finance shall prepare a report showing aggregate totals only. These amendments were foreshadowed in the guidelines for the preparation of departmental annual reports tabled in Parliament in November 1987. Currently, the Auditor-General has a discretion not to report on immaterial breaches of establishing legislation by certain statutory bodies. One amendment, requested by the Auditor-General, will permit that discretion to apply to all statutory bodies. I mention here that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts has indicated that it does not support this amendment. However, I should point out that there is already a great degree of trust involved in relying upon the competence and integrity of the Auditor-General in the performance of the audit task. This extension is entirely consistent with that trust. Moreover, the amendment is in step with the statutory discretion which the Auditor-General already has not to report breaches which he considers too minor to mention. Such a discretion exists for audits of departments and a wide range of statutory bodies. Another amendment will repeal the general `catch-all' penalty provision currently contained in section 69 of the Audit Act and substitute specific penalties in the relevant sections of the Act. The amendment stems from advice from the Attorney-General's Department on the desirability for Audit Act penalties to be consistent with the Commonwealth's policy on criminal law generally. Other amendments concern the creation of a specific offence for the misuse of credit cards issued to the Commonwealth, clarifying the powers of the Minister for Finance to write off irrecoverable revenue and debts that are uneconomic to pursue, and minor legislative tidying up. All proposed amendments have already been considered by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and, apart from the proposal concerning rounding off the Auditor-General's discretion not to have to report immaterial matters, the Committee has raised no objection to them. The proposed change to the future reporting requirements aimed at enhancing departmental accountability is likely to give rise to some additional resource costs, including to the Australian Audit Office. However, it is expected that the improved accountability will lead to greater efficiencies in departmental management. It is not possible, at this stage, to quantify in financial terms the costs or the benefits. The amendment concerning the preparation of annual statements for the 1987-88 financial year's report should reduce administrative effort and costs from the levels that would otherwise have been required, by permitting rationalisation of reports to reflect changed administrative arrangements effective from 24 July 1987. The other changes, including those effecting the penalty provisions, the duties of the Auditor-General and the write-off powers of the Minister for Finance, are not expected to have any significant financial impact on Commonwealth revenue or expenditure. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(3.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is an important component of the Government's program of reform in employment, education and training. The Bill establishes the National Board of Employment, Education and Training; four councils to deal with specialist advising related to schools, higher education, employment and skills formation, and research; and a Commonwealth-State consultative committee. The Bill also maintains the Government's commitment to a Commonwealth Employment Service within the Department of Employment, Education and Training consistent with Australia's obligations under International Labour Organisation Convention 88; provides for grants for innovative projects and for curriculum projects as well as for administrative support for the National Board and its councils. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977, the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973 and the Commonwealth Employment Service Act 1978 have until now provided for the statutory advisory structures in employment, education and training. These Acts are now to be repealed in this Bill. The central purpose of the Bill is to enhance and streamline advisory structures in employment, education and training in a manner consistent with the high economic and social priority placed on these activities by the Government. The provisions of the Bill enable the Government to obtain independent advice on employment, education, training and research policies and programs within a single, coordinated framework. The functions of the following non-statutory bodies: the Australian Council for Employment and Training, the Marine Research Allocations Advisory Committee, the National Research Fellowships Advisory Committee and the Australian Research Grants Committee will also be subsumed under the new arrangements. Background Following the significant reorganisation of the Australian Government's administration in 1987 I established a task force, under the chairmanship of Mr Charles Halton, to report on advisory arrangements for employment, education, training and research matters. The outcome of this review and the subsequent intensive consultations is the formation of a National Board of Employment, Eduction and Training supported by four councils. The key features of this arrangement are that it provides for independent advice to Government, provides for specialist advice in four vital areas-schools, higher education, employment and skills formation and research-ensures that advice forthcoming will be coordinated and provides a mechanism through which Board and council members can bring the benefit of their expertise to assist my Department to administer its policies and programs. The new arrangements reflect the Government's determination to complement its commitment to restructure the Australian economy by revitalising education and training policies and programs to develop a highly adaptable and skilled work force. Equality of opportunity and the fulfilment of broad social goals are integral to this strategy. Effective and timely advice to government are essential ingredients to ensure that these objectives are realised in the most effective way available. The work program for the Board will be a mix of formal references from the Minister and matters initiated by the Board itself within its area of responsibilities. The councils will advise the Board on matters in their respective specialist fields. The work programs for the councils will be based on formal references from the Minister and the Board. Councils may also initiate activities through the Board and through the Minister. The Government's intention is to make the reports of the Board and its councils generally available for public scrutiny. Reports requested by the Minister, together with the annual report, must be tabled before Parliament. In addition councils can invite public comment or submissions on matters referred to them by the Board or Minister. The councils may also consult with persons or authorities as considered necessary and prepare draft papers and reports for external comment. There has been extensive consultation with a wide variety of interest groups about possible nominees to serve on the Board and its councils when established. Many groups consider they should be individually represented. Apart from the practical impossibility of accommodating all such requests, the Government's objective is to draw membership of the Board and its councils from high calibre individuals who can bring extensive experience and expertise to the work of the Board and the councils. As well, other mechanisms have been provided to permit all interest groups ready access to the Board and the councils. An important aspect of the new arrangements is the establishment of a Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee. The functions of this Committee are to inform and advise the Board or its councils on matters relating to Commonwealth, State and Territory policies and priorities in the fields of employment, education and training and research. I turn now to the major features of the Bill. The Functions of the Advisory Structures The Bill establishes a National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) whose functions encompass advice on all matters currently within the Employment, Education and Training ministry. It will inquire into and provide information and advice on matters relating to: education-other than migrant adult education-youth affairs, employment and training and national research priorities and the coordination of research policy, as well as matters arising under the legislation within the Employment, Education and Training ministry. The scope of the Board's responsibilities in these areas is defined in broad terms. The primary function of the Board is to provide advice and report on matters referred to it by the Minister. The Board may also initiate inquiries into other matters within its responsibilities and report its findings to the Minister. Its recommendations will take account of any directions or guidelines from the Minister on the Government's broad social, economic and budgetary priorities. The Minister is required to table in both Houses of Parliament a copy of such directions or guidelines provided to the Board as soon as practicable. The Board also is given power to do all things necessary for the performance of its functions. Councils There will be four councils reporting to the National Board: the Schools Council, the Higher Education Council, the Employment and Skills Formation Council and the Australian Research Council. The Schools Council will provide advice and information on any matter relating to schools, and primary and secondary education. The Council will frame its deliberations against such relevant matters as the need for improving primary and secondary educational facilities in Australia and of providing increased equality of opportunity in both government and non-government schools. The Higher Education Council will advise on such matters as the general development of higher education in Australia, priorities and arrangements for the funding of higher education institutions and the overseas marketing of Australian higher education services. The Employment and Skills Formation Council will cover matters such as technical and further education, employment and skills formation policies, programs and services and the promotion of effective training throughout business and industry. Provision is made in the Bill for the Minister to establish national, regional and local committees to advise on the operations of the Commonwealth Employment Service, under the aegis of this Council. These will be in place of the National Advisory Committee on the Commonwealth Employment Service, which is being abolished. The functions of the Australian Research Council fall into two categories. The Council will provide information and advice to the Board on matters relating to national research priorities or the coordination of research policy. However, in respect of the distribution of resources allocated to research schemes referred to the Council by the Minister and the administrative and other costs of these schemes, the Council will make recommendations direct to the Minister. The Bill specifically provides that the Board may not direct or furnish guidelines to the Australian Research Council in respect of recommendations for particular grants of assistance. Membership of the Board, the Councils and the Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee Board members are to be appointed by virtue of their individual skills, expertise and relevant experience rather than as representatives of associations, States or Territories or other bodies which have particular interests. The Board will have up to five full time members and a total membership of no more than 13. The chairperson will be appointed either on a full time or part time basis. All members of the Board will be appointed by the Governor-General. Close cooperation between the Board and its councils will be facilitated by interlocking membership between the Board and the councils with two of the members of each council being Board members. One of these will be the council chairperson. The composition of the Board provides for a broad spectrum of interests to be represented. The Bill provides that at least seven members of the Board have expertise in matters relating to education or training, two members have expertise relating to trade unions and two members have expertise relating to business or industry. Appointments to the remaining positions will provide for balanced advice from across interested sectors, including additional members from nominated areas of expertise. Gender and geographical balance will be further considerations. Membership of councils will also be determined on the basis of expertise first and sectoral representation second. There have been suggestions that the consumers and providers of education and training will not be adequately represented on the Board. This will not be so. The chairpersons of the Schools and the Higher Education Councils and the Australian Research Council are most likely to be drawn from among the Board members possessing specific expertise in education and training. Similarly, the membership of the relevant councils will largely be drawn from the sectors the councils represent. Added scope in this regard is also provided for by allowing council membership to vary in size to a maximum of between nine and 11 members. Counsellors In addition, provision has been made for the appointment of up to four counsellors whose skills will augment the experience and expertise of the Board and its councils, giving them additional capacity to interact with client organisations in areas of focused interest. Examples of this might be the negotiation of educational profiles with higher education institutions and negotiations with unions and employers in industrial restructuring. These counsellors may be part-time members of the Board or of a council. The Bill specifically requires consultation between the Minister and the Chairperson of the Board on appointments of counsellors, their tasks and the reporting arrangements for each counsellor. Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee This Committee will comprise nine members: the Secretary to the Department of Employment, Education and Training, who will chair the Committee, and eight State and Territory ministerial nominees. The Committee will provide an important means of identifying broad State and Territory Government priorities in the field of employment, education, training and research and reflecting those priorities in the Board's deliberations. It will also provide the forum for early resolution of significant Commonwealth-State issues in relevant areas. It is anticipated that there will be a high degree of commonality in the agenda for the Committee and the Board. Board members will not be members of the Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure representation of the widest practicable spectrum of views. Reporting Responsibilities The Board will be required to provide an annual report to Parliament through the Minister. The report will include information on references from the Minister to the Board and reports prepared by the Board for the Minister during the previous 12 months. It will also include information about advice from the Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee and each of the four councils, and details of the consultative processes used by the Board and councils in the formation of their advice. The Board will also provide periodic reports as required on references from the Minister. These reports will also be tabled in Parliament. The Bill contains provisions allowing the Board to decide that some or all of a particular report should remain confidential. I expect that this provision will be used only sparingly, for example, in cases where material would not have been provided to the Board had confidentiality not been guaranteed or where a reference relates to budgetary formulation. Committees The Bill enables the Minister to establish, where requested to do so by the Board, various committees to assist the Board and councils in their work. Based on the interim structures, I expect that the Australian Research Council, through the Board, will request to be assisted by four advisory committees in the following areas: the engineering, earth and applied sciences; the mathematical, physical and chemical sciences; the biomedical, biological and veterinary sciences; and the humanities and social sciences. The composition of these committees may be established by the Minister on the recommendation of the Australian Research Council to the Board and in consultation with the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I have already referred to the provision for the establishment of advisory committees on the operations of the Commonwealth Employment Service. Arrangements outside of the NBEET structure will be made to assist in the development of specialist advice on topics such as women's issues and Aboriginal employment, education and training matters. Given the relevance of curriculum development to three of the four councils and the program nature of the work, curriculum development functions-which were formerly with the Curriculum Development Council operating under the auspices of the Commonwealth Schools Commission-have been transferred to the Department of Employment, Education and Training. A Curriculum Development Centre has been established within the Department to carry out these functions and to provide support to the Board. The scope of activities undertaken by the Curriculum Development Centre will be enlarged to include developing curricula for use in higher and further education as well as in schools. I anticipate that the Board will in due course recommend to me that I establish a Curriculum Development Advisory Committee. Commonwealth Employment Service The Bill maintains the Government's commitment to a public employment agency by including provisions dealing with the Commonwealth Employment Service. The Bill provides mechanisms whereby advice to the Minister on the functioning of the Commonwealth Employment Service can be given within the broader framework of employment, education and training established by this Government. Grants for Innovative and Curriculum Projects The Bill makes provision for the Minister to approve grants for innovative and curriculum projects. An innovative project is one aimed at encouraging diversity or innovation or designed to test new approaches and techniques. A curriculum project could involve research in the development of curricula and educational materials and the publication of those educational materials. The Minister can delegate to the Board Chairperson powers to make these grants. Secretariat Provision has been made for a small administrative support group to be provided within the Department to service the Board, councils and committees. The Bill provides for the Director of the Secretariat to be appointed by the Secretary to the Department after consultation with the Chairperson of the Board. It is intended that the responsibility to make appointments to the Secretariat below the level of Director will be delegated to the Director, subject to normal departmental procedures and subject to the Director being required to consult with the Chairperson of the Board as appropriate. The Director and his staff will function as a link between the Board and the Department, to enable the Department's resources to be marshalled and sources of expertise to be utilised to assist the Board and its councils in the most constructive way possible. Program Delivery All program delivery, some of which was undertaken by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Commonwealth Schools Commission, has now been transferred to the Department. As an integral part of the advisory role, the full time Board members and counsellors will be involved with the Department in the ongoing process of assisting with program implementation through consultation and liaison with individual sectors, organisations and institutions on which programs impact. Working Relationships between the Board, its Councils, the Secretariat and the Department An integral part of the proposed new arrangements for the portfolio is the maintenance of a clear distinction between responsibility for program delivery and management on the one hand and, on the other, formal advice on policy and resource allocation issues; and accordingly between the relevant lines of authority. This will provide a strong basis for teamwork and mutual trust within the portfolio. Under these arrangements the Department will serve as a resource to the Board and Councils, just as to the Minister. The Department will play a major role in ensuring that the Board and councils have the best possible basis for their advice and in assisting them to make the maximum contribution to the activities of the portfolio generally, including in the delivery of its programs. Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the document Working Relationships between the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, its Councils and Secretariat, and the Department. Financial impact There will be resource savings over time resulting from rationalisation of the advisory arrangements. On the basis of the new statutory arrangements coming into operation on 1 July 1988, the net savings to the Commonwealth are estimated to be in the order of $500,000 in 1988-89. Funding in respect of curriculum and innovative projects will be decided in the Budget context. They are not expected to lead to any additional demands for resources, with the funds becoming available from the relocation of funding for existing programs such as curriculum development. The amount of $2,345,600 was appropriated in 1987-88 for curriculum development by the Commonwealth Schools Commission and will be available for these purposes. Consequential Changes As the Bill incorporates provision for a Commonwealth Employment Service within the Department, it therefore repeals the separate Commonwealth Employment Service Act 1978. The Bill repeals the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973 and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977. Consequential amendments as a result of those repeals are included in the Bill. Conclusion It would be remiss of me to allow this opportunity to pass without thanking the former chairmen and members of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Australian Council for Employment and Training. These people along with the many who served on the various committees have over the years been responsible for many innovations within the training, employment and education fields in dedicated pursuit of the goals reflected in the legislation under which they worked. While I know that the passing of these institutions is a matter of regret to some, I am confident that the new arrangements proposed in this Bill will provide a sure foundation for carrying on their work in the changed circumstances of the 1980s. The Government is determined that the education and training systems will play an active role in responding to the major economic challenges facing Australia. These challenges will make heavy demands on our human intellectual resources and labour force skills. This Bill, by rationalising the advisory structures for employment, education, training and research, will make a substantial contribution to that end. Like other successful economies in the world, Australia must give a high priority to education and skills formation and to improving the quality and flexibility of our education and training, employment and research systems. The Government has already signalled its strong commitment to the objectives of reform in the range of activities of my ministry. These improved advisory structures will ensure that the advice received by the Government will be timely and relevant and will assist Australia in increasing its productivity, in these years of challenging economic and social change. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(4.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide national legislation for the clearance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. This is an area of regulation of critical importance to Australia's primary industry, to our international trade in primary products, to the protection of Australia's unique environment and to the safeguarding of the health of all Australians. The availability of a wide range of agricultural and veterinary chemicals has been one of the more important factors in farm development throughout the world over the past 40 years. They rank with mechanisation of farms, the development of new varieties of plants and breeds of livestock and the improved storage of products as the more significant developments facilitating the bountiful supply of food and fibre we enjoy. The benefits have not been confined to farm production and their use for control of insect vectors of major diseases, such as malaria, or for control of domestic pests are well known. These chemicals are however, by their very nature and purpose, biologically active. Misuse can result in unintended effects on plants, animals, non-target species, the users of chemicals, the consumers of plant or animal products or workers involved in their handling, transport or storage. Contaminants of formulated chemical products are cause for concern as is misrepresentation of the potential benefits or impact of chemical use. Consumers of food products are justifiably sensitive to residues of chemicals in food. There are some groups in our community who question the use of artificially formulated chemicals in food production at all. However, as with the motor car and the television set, the benefits of controlled use have more than justified their use. Honourable members may be aware that since 1967 the Australian Government and the Governments of the States and more recently of the Northern Territory have cooperated voluntarily in an administratively based system for the assessment and clearance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals prior to their registration for use in the individual States and Territories under separate State and Territory legislation. The increasing complexity of chemical products and the realities of international trade require that improvements be effected in the regulatory framework governing the clearance and registration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. To bring about this improvement the Government believes that the most appropriate step is to provide a legislative foundation for national assessment and clearance of these chemicals. The cooperation of State and Territory Governments has enabled this approach to be adopted. A legislative approach has been recommended by the Australian Agricultural Council. The legislation I have introduced is based on the detailed considerations of a working party of that Council and on earlier recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission. It was announced in October 1986 that legislation dealing with these chemical products would be developed and since that announcement the States, Territories, industry and consumer groups have been consulted on its development. The Government has four basic objectives in developing this legislation: (i) to ensure that agricultural and veterinary chemical products perform as intended; (ii) to minimise any possible hazard to the public, the environment, users or to agricultural produce and livestock from the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals; (iii) to enhance the export market potential of our agricultural products; and (iv) to enhance the uniformity of assessment and registration of these products within Australia. The legislation will provide the basis of the clearance process which ensures that efficacy, toxicity and environmental impact are fully evaluated, to ensure that claims made by manufacturers can be substantiated and that there are no unintended side effects from the use of agricultural and veterinary chemical products. Some newly developed chemicals are quite complex and designed to be specific in their action while others may have a broad spectrum of use. Assessment of chemicals already in use is ongoing and it is appropriate that the clearance authority have access to the results of such assessments. The Government has a clear role through the clearance system to ensure that chemical products perform as claimed, and do not jeopardise the quality, or indeed the very production of crops and livestock. The clearance process ensures that agricultural and veterinary chemicals approved for use within Australia perform in the manner intended, producing the expected performance when used according to recommendations. Of equal importance is the assessment of the potentially damaging effects of misuse of chemical products. A product which is perfectly safe at the correct dosage may be dangerous to the user or to plants or animals at a higher dosage. A product which works well on one crop may, if used on another crop, reduce the crop value to zero. The chemical user must be provided with practical information on the potential problems associated with use of these products outside the recommended parameters. Honourable members will be well aware of the importance our major primary produce export markets place on purchase of high quality products. It is increasingly important to be able to demonstrate to foreign governments and their marketing agencies and to international corporations that Australia has coherent national standards for clearance of chemicals and control of undesirable residues. The Government believes that this legislation will further strengthen the international standing of Australia's clearance and registration processes, thereby enhancing the export market potential of our agricultural products. Corresponding benefits can also be expected in the domestic market, where the Commonwealth has a strong interest but for which the States have prime responsibility. Australia has taken a lead role in the development of international standards for the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals through the Codex Alimentaris Commission, sponsored by the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Whilst international harmonisation will take many years to achieve, Australia will be in a better position with appropriate national legislation and a national clearance system. While there has been a high degree of cooperation between State and Commonwealth agencies in the clearance of new chemicals, for a small country such as Australia, the only cost effective way to assess these products is on a nationwide basis. This legislation will clarify the obligations and responsibilities of both individual proponents of new chemicals requiring clearance of their products and public officers evaluating applications for grants of clearance. Present processes for clearance and registration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals have evolved over many years. They now need to be clearly defined in Federal legislation for the benefit of manufacturers, users, our overseas trading partners, domestic consumers and specific interest groups. It is important to note that the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals described in the Bill is similar to that in other countries comparable to Australia, including those who share a federal system of government such as Canada and the United States of America. The legislation and supporting agreements with the States and Territories will enhance the uniformity of agricultural and veterinary chemical assessment within Australia. As might be expected, the present system, with seven separate State and Territory registration authorities, has been required to cope with sometimes marked divergence in State requirements. Honourable members may care to reflect on the difficulties of negotiating a path through the some 120 separate pieces of State and Territory legislation controlling the registration, sale and use of agricultural and veterinary chemical products in Australia. The inevitable result has been a lengthy and costly assessment process. In particular, chemical product manufacturers have been required to make separate applications to both the appropriate national coordinating secretariat and to State and Territory agencies to acquire all necessary approvals prior to marketing a product. The Government believes that a significantly more efficient system will result from a cooperative `one stop shop' for clearance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Enhanced uniformity, in tandem with the streamlined processing system minimising the instances of multiple submissions for approval, will reduce both the cost in, and elapsed time of, the assessment and clearance process. To achieve these objectives the Bill provides for the establishment of an Australian Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council. The Council will be responsible for coordinating the evaluation of chemicals proposed for registration in Australia, involving assessments of toxicology, human safety, environmental hazard and efficacy of manufacturers claims, and will grant certificates of clearance for those chemicals, the safety and effectiveness of which it is satisfied. To support the legislation, the Commonwealth proposes to enter into agreements with individual State and Territory governments along the lines of the draft agreement attached as a schedule to the Bill. For the Commonwealth's part, the essence of these agreements will be satisfied by the passage of this legislation and the implementation of an effective and efficient clearance system. Governments of the States and the Northern Territory are being asked to amend their laws to allow the automatic registration of cleared chemicals in participating States or Territories in all but exceptional circumstances. States and Territories represented at the Australian Agricultural Council have agreed in principle with this approach. They will also continue to exercise control over the final registration process and maintain the responsibility for control and monitoring of the sale and actual use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals within their jurisdiction. I re-emphasise the cooperative nature of this venture between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. The functions of the Council are detailed in part II of the Bill. These functions include the issuance, variation or withdrawal of clearances for the registration of agricultural and veterinary chemical products in Australia, the evaluation of the effects of the use of these products and the development of codes of practice, standards and guidelines for their use. Council is empowered to collect, interpret, disseminate and publish information relating to agricultural and veterinary chemicals and their use and may advise the Minister on any matter relating to them. All common agricultural and veterinary chemicals will fall within the scope of the Act, including products for the control of insects, fungi, weeds, algae, bacteria, rodents, animal parasites and a wide variety of other agricultural pests. Also covered will be products promoting growth or affecting the reproductive cycle of animals. The legislation does not, however, aim to cover such products as fertilisers, non-medicated animal feeds or individual preparations prepared by veterinary surgeons. Aside from particular circumstances, to be defined in detail in the agreement with States and Territories, all new agricultural and veterinary chemicals must be cleared by the Council before they will be registered by State authorities. The same process will be required for variations in the use of already cleared and registered products, although this requirement, which is now undertaken fully in each State and Territory, may require phased introduction. Council will be empowered to develop a `fast track' system for minor changes. Council will issue certificates of clearance only when it is satisfied that all necessary information has been placed before it, that the product is effective for its stated uses, poses no threat to persons using it or products containing its residues, and that the product will have no unintended effects on animals, plants or any other objects. Chemicals presently in the marketplace will be treated as if cleared by the new system under conditions applying to their present State or Territory registration. Any requirement for change in their use or new information concerning their impact or efficacy will trigger Council consideration of such chemicals. Applicants for certificates of clearance will be required to provide full and factual information to Council for the purposes of its assessments and to inform Council of any change to information supplied subsequent to clearance of a product being granted. Failure to comply will result in the possible application of penalties. The Council is to comprise up to 12 part time members appointed by the Minister. The chairperson, to be nominated by the Minister, is expected to be a senior officer of the Minister's Department. Each participating State or Territory, that is, each State or Territory entering into an agreement with the Commonwealth, shall have the right to nominate a Council member. One member will represent both the Australian Environment Council and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. The remaining two members will represent the National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. All organisations represented in Council are participating parties in the clearance process. Appointments made by the Minister will be for periods up to three years, but members will be eligible for reappointment on the expiration of their appointments. The Minister will be writing to the appropriate Ministers as soon as possible to finalise the composition of the first Council. In undertaking its functions the Council will be administratively supported by the Department and the Bill makes specific provision for an officer within the Department, to be known as the Chemicals Co-ordinator, to undertake the duties of executive officer to the Council. The present critical roles played by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in the evaluation and assessment of chemicals will continue undiminished, these bodies working closely and cooperatively with the new Council. The Council will delegate powers to the Chemicals Co-ordinator or to expert committees to facilitate expeditious clearance of products, especially where minor changes to chemicals clearance or to labels on chemical products are required. The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council also will have the power to establish one expert committee, or a number, of expert committees to assist and facilitate its operations. The Minister would expect consultative committees with industry, consumer and environmental groups now operating under the Australian Agricultural Council sub-committee system to be re-established under the new Council. The legislation provides for fees to be levied in respect of the effort necessary to process applications. It is the Government's intention that Council operate at a cost recovery level of 50 per cent. As a corollary to the charging of fees, the Government recognises that every effort must be made to reduce the elapsed time taken to process applications. The cost of additional administrative support necessary to meet Council requirements is estimated at $600,000 over the first three years of operation. This figure includes additional staff, together with the costs of fares and travel allowances for members of the Council. These additional resource requirements are presently being progressed through the normal budget processes. Consistent with the cooperative nature of this scheme, the Department will be discussing with State and Territory departments the secondment of State and Territory officers on a rotational basis to the central secretariat. Some other administrative aspects of the Bill are also worthy of specific mention. First, applicants for, or holders of, clearance certificates will have the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against decisions of the Council to reject applications for clearance, to impose conditions on clearance or to withdraw clearance for a chemical product. Users of agricultural and veterinary chemicals, and other persons with a direct interest in their use and safety, will also be able to raise technical evidence which disputes the manufacturers' or distributors' recommendations or claims direct with the Council under the legislation. Secondly, the Council is accountable to Parliament through the requirement to report on an annual basis to the Minister and for the Minister to table such reports. These reports will also be made available to State and Territory Ministers for the purpose of tabling in the State legislatures. Confidentiality of information will be enforced sensibly to protect sensitive commercial data. The definition of information deemed to be confidential is based on relevant provisions in the Freedom of Information Act. Finally, the Government expects further rationalisation in the regulation of primary and supporting industries during the next three to five years. The Senate has recently moved to establish a Select Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in Australia, the terms of reference of which include review of the adequacy of this legislation which I have now brought forward. The Minister will be writing to the incoming chairperson of the Senate Select Committee when it is established, asking that attention be given in particular to industry concerns about proprietary rights to the data packages prepared and submitted with applications for clearance, confidentiality of data and the time taken to assess applications and also community concerns on right of access to data and adequate right of appeal on decisions under the legislation. A five-year sunset clause has also been included within this legislation, thereby ensuring a comprehensive reconsideration of the processes of clearance and registration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals by 1992-93. This Bill also provides another strong plank in the Government's platform to ensure that a significant environmental issue confronting society is managed effectively and safely. Chemicals in the environment do not generate the hype of some other environmental issues but the efficiency and accountability of the provisions contained in this Bill show that the Government is not ignoring this important issue. I believe that this Bill represents a highly appropriate step in the rationalisation of an extremely complex regulatory area. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will give effect to a number of the amendments to the 150 per cent tax concession for research and development foreshadowed in the joint news release issued on 20 November 1987 by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). The decisions announced then followed a technical review of the concession, which the Government promised when introducing the Income Tax Assessment (Research and Development) Bill 1986. The review was undertaken with the assistance of external consultants and sought to identify ways in which the concession might be exploited other than as intended; and how it might be made more effective in achieving its objectives of encouraging greater investment in research and development by industry in Australia. In the context of that review, decisions were taken to curtail eligibility to the 150 per cent research and development tax concession for expenditures incurred on buildings and to clarify the law in respect of claims to costs of developing computer software. These were introduced in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1987. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to all those decisions which will directly involve the Industry Research and Development Board. The remaining decisions arising from the technical review affect only the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and will be introduced during the Budget sittings. The powers of the Industry Research and Development Board are to be extended and legislation relating to the powers and functions of that Board are, by this Bill, to be included in the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 under which the Board is constituted. More important, the amendments will give additional discretionary powers to the Board. The more significant of these are as follows: To reduce the incidence of companies being required to reimburse tax benefits, the Board will be empowered to refuse to register a company which, on the basis of information provided for registration purposes, is found to be ineligible for the concession. To increase access by smaller firms to expert research and development assistance, the benefits of exemption from the threshold of annual research and development expenditure and an opportunity to claim for advance payments for contracted research will be extended to Registered Research Agencies (RRAs). Registration will be provided by the Industry Research and Development Board in the field of competence of the applicant RRA. Unlike Approved Research Institutes, RRAs may be privately owned and profit-making entities. To assist the financing of research and development ventures which are too costly or too risky to be advanced by those with the means to use the results themselves, the amendments provide that the Board may, if satisfied as to the bona fides of the venture, jointly register the participants. This is designed to give some surety of tax benefits to the participants. Joint registration will also enable them to claim in advance costs incurred in funding the venture. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the details of this dispensation, which were announced on 17 April 1988. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator John Button, today gave further details of amendments to the 150% tax concession scheme for R&D where it related to claiming for expenditure incurred for R&D performed under contract including that involving syndicated R&D. This follows the joint statement Senator Button and the Treasurer, Mr Paul Keating, made on 20 November 1987 covering amendments to the 150% tax concession provisions. ``It is taking longer to bring a Bill before the Parliament than had been expected, and it is necessary for industry to know the rules that are to apply to claims when companies incur expenditures for R&D that has not yet been performed,'' the Minister said. As the 20 November statement indicated, companies will no longer be able to claim expenditures on R&D until the R&D had been carried out. But where R&D is performed under contract, there may be legal and practical difficulties in the claimant ascertaining what expenditures have been incurred by the contractor. It is proposed, therefore, that claims for advance payments will be apportioned over the specified term of the R&D contract. Companies, other than those to which a ``dispensation'' is allowed, will be able to claim in each income year only the proportion of any advance payment that relates to the claim period. For example, a company for which the income year ends on 30 June that pays another company in April to undertake a three-year program of R&D on its behalf, will be able to claim only one twelfth (3/36) of the pre-payment in the first year (i.e. the pro-rated amount for the three months April to June), one third (12/36) in each of the second and third years and a quarter (9/36) in the final year. However, in line with the earlier announcement, a ``dispensation'' will apply to eligible companies that: contract R&D to a Registered Research Agency (until the enactment of amending legislation, an Approved Research Institute); or invest in projects of R&D that have been given ``in principle'' approval by the Industry Research and Development Board to ``syndicate'' arrangements. Companies entitled to dispensations may, in the first year only for which a claim is made in respect of the project, claim in advance for the following 12 months. If the company given as an example above incurs expenditures under either of the circumstances in which a dispensation is allowed, it may claim 15/36 of the pre-payment in the first year, 12/36 in the second and the balance (9/36) in the third year. Senator Button said that it was important to prevent companies engaging in artificial arrangements for tax planning purposes. The apportionment requirement, coupled with provisions to prevent mis-stating the term of a project, would achieve that end. The dispensation to companies incurring ``contracted expenditure'' and to companies investing in approved syndicated arrangements was also important. Those performing the R&D would not normally be able to work without advance payments. The Minister said that he looked to the dispensation to encourage closer collaboration in R&D and to assist those companies seeking funds for major projects the size and risk of which were too large for any one organisation to fund alone. ``It is intended that amendments to give effect to the changes announced in November 1987, including the provisions covering the matters announced today, will be introduced to the Parliament as soon as practicable,'' Senator Button said. In that context, he noted that some legislation had already been introduced. Further legislation relating to the powers of the IR&D Board would be introduced shortly. The remainder of the legislation will be introduced in the Budget sittings. The Minister said he hoped companies would invest in research and development that promised to increase their future international competitiveness. Mr BARRY JONES —The amendments are also designed to better equip the Industry Research and Development Board to act against those exploiting the concessions in a manner contrary to the intent of the tax concession. The Board will be able to move against companies which claim for a project which has an insufficient Australian content; and fail, in any significant way, to exploit the results of revenue subsidised Research and Development in the required manner. The Government believes that, by virtue of its collective experience and the individual competence and integrity of its members, the Board is uniquely placed to reach decisions on the technical and commercial issues which it must decide. However, it also recognises that opinions are necessarily reached on the basis of evidence provided by companies and that this may sometimes be ill-expressed or incomplete. Accordingly, this Bill provides that the Board will not be able to move against a company until it has given that company an opportunity to make a submission in response to the stated reasons for the Board's opinion. It is also important that companies not be able to frustrate the Board in the exercise of its functions in respect of the 150 per cent tax concession. Where a company fails within a reasonable period to give the Board such information relating to its activities as the Board reasonably requires, the Board may, by notice in writing, require that information to be provided within 30 days. The Bill provides that, if the company fails to comply with the notice, the Board may issue a certificate to the Commissioner of Taxation with the effect that expenditure of the company in respect of the activities which are the subject of the notice is disallowed. The Board's responsibilities have increased significantly since it was established and it now has six committees advising it. These cover the taxation concession, discretionary grants, national procurement development grants and each of the four declared generic technology fields for which grants are available. In these circumstances, it is considered appropriate to extend the maximum size of the Board by three members, and, further, not only should the Board be able to delegate some of its functions to its committees, but that the committees should be able to delegate functions to individual members and support staff. Amendments introduced today will permit this. The Bill will also make certain consequential and complementary amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act. The principal effect of those amendments will be to recognise the creation under the Industry Research and Development Act of registered research agencies which are to replace approved research institutes for the purposes of the tax concession. The Government intends to prevent exploitation of the benefits of incurring contracted expenditure for tax minimisation purposes or as a substitute to obtaining joint registration for certain collaborative ventures. Companies will be unable to incur contracted expenditure to a registered research agency to whom they are related. In addition claimants will be required to have a plan to use the results in connection with an existing or proposed business. There is to be some modification by the Bill of the provisions which disallow deductions for expenditure claimed under the tax concession on receipt by the Commissioner of Taxation of various certificates by the Board. These amendments will take into account the additional powers which the Bill will confer on the Board to issue certificates. These have been outlined above. A decision of the Board, expressed in a certificate stipulating whether particular activities are research and development activities, is binding on the Commissioner of Taxation. However, if a certificate is subsequently revoked, the deduction is revived. The 150 per cent tax concession has been available to companies for expenditures incurred since 1 July 1985. The Government has made it clear that the concession will remain in place until 30 June 1991. Companies have had the benefit of the concession for three years. They will have that benefit for a further three years. It is too soon to assess the effectiveness of the tax concession as an incentive in encouraging performance of research and development which would not otherwise have been undertaken. However, there is evidence, including that provided by the Australian Statistician's recent catalogue Research and Development, Business Enterprises, Australia, 1986-87, Preliminary, that since 1985 there has been a long welcome and overdue increase in real expenditure on research and development by private business enterprises in Australia. Anecdotal evidence indicates that much of the additional reported research and development would not have been undertaken but for the tax concession. This appears particularly true for smaller companies. The Bureau of Industry Economics has started to collect data against which to assess the effectiveness of the tax concession. This matter is to be considered by the Government in 1990. In particular, the Government will be looking closely at the return the Australian community stands to gain from the generous subsidy currently available to companies claiming the research and development tax concession. Ministers in this Government have repeatedly spoken of the need for growth in high technology-based industries and the revitalisation of traditional Australian industries through innovation, training and application of new industrial management techniques. The world is less dependent on Australian commodities now than at any time this century. International trade is also becoming increasingly competitive. If Australian companies are to survive to the year 2000, they need to invest as much or more in researching, developing, targeting and marketing products as their overseas competitors. At present most are not. The latest statistics suggest that, typically, Australian companies invest in research and development only half that of world competitive companies. Before the introduction of the tax concession it was a third. The progress of the last three years is encouraging but not sufficient. It is important to recognise that potential competitors are also increasing their innovation and marketing efforts. Unless industry management recognises research and development as a necessary investment for corporate survival and that investment in new technology must at least increase with the pace of technological change, Australia's relative performance may well worsen despite any absolute growth in research and development performance. The Government's commitment to maintain the present tax concession arrangements until the end of June 1991 provides sufficient opportunity for industry to establish the technology base for new businesses in Australia. There is a goldmine of commercially exploitable research in government funded research organisations and academic institutions. There is no shortage of innovative ideas and enthusiasms in some of our smaller companies. Yet these companies often lack the funds, the development facilities, the production means and the marketing infrastructure to realise the potential of their ideas. The provisions of this Bill establish the means for garnering funds which would not otherwise be available for research and development. It is for this reason that the Government is seeking early passage of this Bill. Financial Impact Statement To the extent that the amendments are successful in stimulating research and development which would not otherwise have been undertaken during the deduction period-that is, up to 30 June 1991-there will be some additional tax revenue costs in the fiscal year 1988-89 and the three following years. Offsetting this, there will be savings due to the tightening up of provisions to limit avenues by which the 150 per cent tax concession may be exploited other than as intended. It is estimated that the net funding impact of all the changes proposed as a result of the technical review will be broadly neutral. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(4.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make one second reading speech covering this Bill and the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988, because it is intended that the three Bills be read together as part of a package. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Indulgence is granted. Mr BARRY JONES —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. These three Bills form a legislative package, amending Australia's anti-dumping legislation, by: Establishing an anti-dumping authority, to advise the Minister as to whether dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed on specified products exported from overseas and to review and make reports to the Government on anti-dumping matters; amending the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975, so as to restrict the life of dumping notices and undertakings made under the Act to a maximum of three years, and to clarify various technical provisions of the Act; amending the Customs Act 1901 by prescribing the manner in which the Australian Customs Service (ACS) is to conduct the preliminary investigation of dumping complaints; and amending the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 to remove that body as a body of review of dumping matters. That function will now be performed by the Anti-Dumping Authority. The Bill implements the Government's response to the 1986 Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975-the Gruen Report, prepared by Professor F. H. Gruen. Dumping occurs when the products of one country are exported to another country at less than their normal value in the country of export. Normal value is usually the price of like goods sold in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the country of export. Dumping is condemned internationally as unfair trading if it causes, or threatens, material injury to the industry producing like goods in the importing country. The remedy against dumping is the imposition of dumping duties which can be up to the difference between the export price and the normal value. Australia's anti-dumping system also deals with subsidisation. Where any subsidy, bounty, reduction or remission of freight or other financial assistance applies to the production, export or carriage of goods exported to Australia and those goods cause or threaten material injury to an Australian industry, and in that case countervailing duties, up to the amount of subsidy or other assistance received, may be levied. Effective anti-dumping and countervailing arrangements are necessary to protect Australian industry from clearly unfair trading practices. This is in accordance with Australia's rights and obligations as a signatory to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) anti-dumping code and the code on subsidies and countervailing duties. Other signatories to the codes such as Canada, the European Economic Community (EEC) and the United States of America employ similar practices. Consistent with the GATT codes, however, anti-dumping actions need to be balanced between providing a means for effective relief from the disruptive effects that dumped or subsidised goods may have on domestic producers and ensuring that the measures do not constitute an unjustifiable impediment to international trade. Upon this Government coming to office in 1983, a wide-ranging review was conducted, culminating early in 1984 in a number of significant legislative and administrative changes to the anti-dumping regime. Then in February 1986 the Government commissioned Professor F. H. Gruen of the Australian National University to conduct another review of the anti-dumping system to determine whether further improvements could be made and in particular to consider the inclusion of a national interest provision. After considering Professor Gruen's report, the Government has decided to: Establish an Anti-Dumping Authority to make recommendations to the Minister on anti-dumping or countervailing action; endorse Professor Gruen's view that there should be no `national interest' provision written into the legislation; retain section 5 (9) of the Anti-Dumping Act dealing with certain criteria for the determination of normal values; and introduce a mechanism under which anti-dumping and countervailing measures will cease after three years continuous application. The Australian Customs Service still has an important role to play in the determination of dumping and subsidisation complaints. The Australian Customs Service will examine each complaint made, and conduct preliminary investigations, the results of which will form the basis of information from which the Anti-Dumping Authority commences its own inquiry. I turn now to each Bill individually. Anti-Dumping Authority Bill This Bill establishes an independent authority, which will recommend to the Minister whether grounds exist as to whether dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed, and to provide the Minister with advice on anti-dumping issues in general. Anti-dumping decisions require judgments to be made involving a mix of economic and commercial considerations. The Government considers that these judgments can best be made by a small independent statutory authority whose staff will include commercial and economic specialists. The Government believes that the Authority will bring a broader perspective to the determination of such issues as material injury and casual link. The sensitivity of dumping complaints also requires a body operating at arm's length from the day to day administration of industry assistance by the Department of industry, technology and commerce and the Australian Customs Service. Accordingly, an Anti-Dumping Authority is established. The Authority is to: Advise the Minister as to whether or not dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed on goods-clause 7; recommend whether the Minister should revoke a notice issued under the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975, or release exporters from undertakings made pursuant to the Act-clause 7; review preliminary anti-dumping decisions of the Comptroller-clause 8; and prepare and give reports to the Minister on anti-dumping matters-clause 9. In exercising these responsibilities, clause 10 requires the Authority to have regard to the Government's intention that anti-dumping duties are not used as a substitute means of providing assistance to import competing industry in Australia, nor to shield industry from the need to adjust to changing economic conditions. The Authority is also to have regard to Australia's obligations under the GATT codes. The Bill also provides for the responsible Minister to issue further directions to the Authority to assist it in its interpretation of the legislation where considered necessary. The aim is to ensure that the Authority is guided by the current industry policy objectives of the Government in its assessment of such issues. Any supplementary guidance will be developed by the responsible Minister in consultation with interested ministerial colleagues. Clause 12 provides that ministerial directions are to be gazetted and tabled in Parliament, and that such directions are to deal with general principles, and not with particular consignments of goods. Assessments of material injury and the casual link must be rigorous and anti-dumping measures should not be used as a de facto form of protection: they have to be seen as a set of measures to discourage unacceptable short-term threats to knock out an industry in the importing country in order to increase longer-term market share. The Authority will take into account the influence of factors other than dumping in causing injury, such as general economic conditions, production difficulties, domestic competition or undumped import competition when assessing whether a direct linkage exists between dumping and injury to an Australian industry. In this task, the Authority will have the benefit of additional comprehensive data since the preliminary finding stage, as well as the independent examination of all the evidence by its own staff which will have specialist qualifications, particularly in the economic field. The Government did not accept Professor Gruen's recommendation that section 5 (9) of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act be repealed. Section 5 (9) of the Act precludes normal values being based on domestic sales which have been, for an extended period, at prices which do not permit recovery of costs incurred in the production and sale of the goods; in other words, where domestic sales in the exporting country are being consistently made at a loss. The Government considers that the repeal of this section would put Australia out of step with other countries that use GATT anti-dumping mechanisms to counter unfair trading practices. Canada, the EEC and the United States all have and use sections equivalent to section 5 (9) in their legislation. The Government proposes, however, that aspects of the use of section 5 (9) will be tightened to ensure that wherever possible market based prices are used in normal value determinations and that the application of section 5 (9) is consistent with the rationale behind the new anti-dumping provisions. The Government expects that the Authority, when using section 5 (9), will use an appropriately wide time frame over which to weigh the prices and costs which are to be taken into account. In addition, when using section 5 (9), unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, a zero profit is to be assumed by the Authority. Consistent with its intention that anti-dumping and countervailing measures do not become a substitute form of ongoing assistance, the Government has also decided that anti-dumping and countervailing measures will lapse after three years. This means that all measures in respect of a particular commodity will expire at the same three-year time limit, irrespective of the duration of measures relating to individual countries of export. The sunset provision will also apply to voluntary undertakings which have been given by exporters or governments of the exporting countries so as to resolve satisfactorily dumping or countervailing complaints. Such undertakings are normally price related and are offered so as to remove the material injury caused without the imposition of a duty. This will maintain consistency within the system. The sunset clause will not prevent industry from seeking to renew anti-dumping or countervailing action. It will mean, however, that injury and other aspects required to justify such action will be fully retested after three years of continuous application before anti-dumping or countervailing measures can be reimposed. The Bill provides for the Anti-Dumping Authority to commence operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. For preliminary findings made subsequent to the proclamation date, the Authority will finalise the inquiry and recommend appropriate action to the Minister. For inquiries in progress beyond the preliminary finding stage at the date of proclamation, the Authority will, if practicable, advise the Minister on all matters where the ACS recommends the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing measures. Part III of the Bill provides for the establishment and staffing of the Authority. The person who is to be appointed as the member of the Authority under clause 13 will be a person with economic and commercial skills and a knowledge of Australian industry. Clause 15 permits associate members to assist the member with specific inquiries, or for a specific period of time. There is also provision for the engagement of consultants with particular expertise. The Government concurs with Professor Gruen that the anti-dumping legislation should not contain a national interest provision. The Government considers that such a provision would add to the uncertainty of the proceedings, would lead to administrative complexity and would increase the costs to participants. The range of issues which could be regarded as relevant in each case could no doubt be broadened and the way would be open for parties with indirect interests to claim a right to present views to the Authority and have them taken into account by the Minister in making his decision. Proceedings could thus become unnecessarily complex and protracted. While it is not defined in the Bill, the Minister will take national interest criteria into account in exercising his discretion in considering the reports of the Anti-Dumping Authority. One problem which adds complexity to considering dumping in a context of national interest is that many of the imports complained of come from countries where Australia already has a large trade surplus. The issues of dumping have both economic and political significance and circumstances can change with disconcerting speed; hence the need to maintain or even enhance ministerial discretion. However, clause 23 of the Bill requires the Authority to advertise widely the fact that it is holding an inquiry into whether injurious dumping or subsidisation is occurring in a particular industry and invite submissions from the public. Subclause 7 (6) obliges the Authority to consider such submissions made in response to the invitation. The effect of these measures is to formalise for the first time the consideration of contributions from persons other than those directly interested in the dumping action, thus adding to the integrity and openness of the review process. I might also mention that clause 9 of the Bill will permit the Government or the Authority to initiate anti-dumping inquiries where facts produced by interests indirectly concerned with a dumping issue can justify such action. Clause 29 of the Bill requires an annual report of the Authority to be tabled in the Parliament. The report will include coverage of the Authority's operations during the year, the operation and development of guidelines, the Authority's approach to its assessments and important issues that have arisen in relation to anti-dumping action generally. This will introduce more openness to the consideration of anti-dumping issues. The Authority is being established for five years. However, a review of the effectiveness of the performance of the revised anti-dumping system will be undertaken after three years. I believe that the gathering together of specialists, under a person possessing particular expertise to give advice to the Government in an economically sensitive area like the imposition of dumping duties on exports from Australia's overseas trading partners, is an efficient use of scarce government resources, as well as being an effective means of ensuring the Government receives quality advice in the anti-dumping field. This approach to the administration of anti-dumping legislation is similar to the procedures used by other signatories to the GATT anti-dumping codes such as Canada and the United States. Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill The Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill establishes the role in the dumping mechanism to be played by the Australian Customs Service, which, as I mentioned earlier, will be to examine each dumping complaint and conduct preliminary investigations, including overseas inquiries. The results of these investigations will then form the basis of information upon which the Anti-Dumping Authority may commence its inquiry. The Bill contains specific provisions-in new section 269tb in particular-to make it clear that an application for imposition of dumping or countervailing duties; that is, a complaint, may be made by any person on behalf of the relevant Australian industry affected or likely to be affected by the dumping or subsidisation. For example, primary producers may lodge complaints in respect of injury being caused to processors, and employees or their representatives might initiate action when the industry is inhibited from doing so. It will also be possible for complaints to be made before allegedly dumped or subsidised goods have arrived in Australia where there is adequate knowledge that imports of dumped or subsidised goods are to arrive in volumes which will cause injury to an Australian industry. The Bill also imposes, for the first time, statutory time limits within which the Customs Service must determine its investigations. Where a person complains that an act of injurious dumping or subsidisation has occurred or is likely to occur, the Bill provides in new section 269tc that the Customs Service will have a maximum of 70 days to determine whether the facts alleged in the application constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant commencement of an investigation. If a prima facie case is established, the Customs Service then has a maximum of 180 days to make a preliminary finding as to whether dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed. It should be added that, in an attempt to be fair, and where there is urgency involved it is hoped that the maximum period will not be taken. It will be done in a much shorter period. But one has to be fair to everyone, particularly as people who feel that they have been disadvantaged by a decision have the right to apply to the Federal Court of Australia. We have to get it absolutely right. Where such preliminary findings are positive, the Comptroller-General of Customs may decide to impose securities as provisional measures in respect of any dumping or countervailing duty that may become payable, and he then must refer the matter to the Anti-Dumping Authority within seven days for its independent examination and report to the Minister. It should also be noted that decisions by the Comptroller- General of Customs that no prima facie case has been established, or a preliminary finding that duties should not be imposed, are subject to merit review by the independent Anti-Dumping Authority. Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill Finally, the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill amends the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 by inserting a statutory definition of `like goods'-a Gruen recommendation which adopts the definition of the term as applied in GATT-allowing for the publication of the normal value of goods in clauses 9 to 12. Further, clause 13 provides that duties and undertakings will be current only for a period of three years, adopting the Gruen recommendation that dumping measures and the like should remain current only for a limited period. An industry which has benefited from short term relief under this legislation must in future rejustify the necessity for continued relief. The Bill finally makes various amendments to existing provisions to ensure that the relief under the Act is available only if dumping or subsidisation damages an Australian industry producing like goods to the goods that have been dumped; not Australian industry generally. It should be noted, however, that there has been no change to section 13 of the Act, relating to the retrospective application of dumping duty on imported goods following the publication of a dumping notice. The Government is prepared, consistent with its international obligations, to make full use of that section to impose retrospective duties in critical circumstances to ensure that Australian industries are adequately protected against importers who knowingly cause material damage to an Australian industry through large scale imports of a product over a short period. In conclusion, the Government believes that the new arrangements embodied in these three Bills will improve significantly Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing system and are consistent with Australia's rights and obligations under GATT and with the Government's industry policy. The system will provide a balanced approach to protecting Australian industry from clearly unfair trading practices, while at the same time ensuring that the measures do not constitute an unjustifiable impediment to international trade. Financial Impact Statement The Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill have no direct financial implications. It is estimated that the establishment of the Anti-Dumping Authority will involve expenditure of $1.12m in the first year of operation and $0.92m in subsequent years. These figures include the salary costs of the statutory appointee and for a secretariat of up to 16 persons. These resources are to come from appropriations made to elements of the portfolio of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I commend the Bills to the House and table each Bill's explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(5.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, with the indulgence of your predecessor in the chair I was allowed to present the substance of the second reading speech for all three Bills in globo, as Ted Innes used to say. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the Bill be now read a second time. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Peacock had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) Australia's $86.77 billion net foreign debt at the end of December 1987 and its continuing balance of payments deficit on the current account which increased by $1185 million during March 1988; (2) the Government's inappropriate response, which has been to increase taxation revenue collections to the highest levels in post-war Australia; and (3) the urgent need to reduce public sector outlays as the major element of a Government policy response to Australia's current economic difficulties'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Before the debate is resumed on Supply Bill (No. 1) 1988-89, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89. Before I call the honourable member for Adelaide, I remind the House that it is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr PRATT(Adelaide)(5.18) —It is with genuine pleasure and a distinct honour that I have the opportunity to present this, my first speech, to the Parliament of Australia. There is a good mood for change away from Labor. The electorate of Adelaide showed through the ballot box and the maturity of its vote that it was disenchanted with the Hawke Labor Government and voted on issues, not with cynicism, as the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) said in this House today. The result meant that the Adelaide electorate gave a stinging rebuff to the Hawke Government on timed telephone charging-yet another stupid, insensitive tax the Government would have inflicted upon a population already reeling and suffering under a tax burden that is strangling this country. The electorate demonstrated with its vote that it has had enough of Labor's policies, whether they be on gun lobbies, conservation, law and order or aged care. It was particularly upset by Labor's tax policies. The honourable member for Makin, the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), has publicly called this week for higher taxes, showing that Labor still has not heard the message from Adelaide and, indeed, Australia. I am committed to reducing the levels of taxation. My opposition in the debate on the consumption tax is well documented. The pay as you earn taxpayer has been carrying the tax burden for too long. Under this Government some of our taxes, for example, on beer, petrol and commodity items, go up every six months. Yet the honourable member for Makin says, `We are not an overtaxed country'. Who is he kidding? So the historic 6 February 1988 victory was not the aberration that the Hawke Government hoped it would be. That result was manifested and repeated in New South Wales, Brisbane, Victoria, Port Adelaide and Groom. I remember entering this chamber for my induction, with my maiden question still unasked, heralded by good natured derisive cheers and abuse regarding my tenure of the seat of Adelaide. It was with a bipartisan attitude that I remarked to my newer colleague the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Sawford) that, as we took him to preferences in his electorate, his seat-the twelfth safest Labor seat in Australia-is now a marginal one. It is one of the great facets of political life in Australia that on both sides of this House, if the electoral mood is right, there is an opportunity for men and women of Australia to enter politics; but they can just as easily be forced to leave if the electoral mood changes. It is the electorate and my hard-working supporters whom I now applaud-the hundreds of people from Walkerville to Windsor Gardens, from Broadview to Blair Athol, who combined with my family and personal friends to form the `Pratt for Adelaide' team. That blueprint of success has now been etched in the formula for future Liberal success. I stand by that recipe, which was personal hard work, grassroots campaigning-that sounds a familiar phrase-honesty and credibility. Twenty-four hours after winning Adelaide, on the Sunday, and without any media attention, I started to honour my commitment to the electorate. I went back to what was once the Labor heartland to fulfil a promise that I would personally thank people for their support. I went to Kilburn, Valley View and Ingle Farm, to try to erase some of that `them and us' mentality, the political mentality that breeds hatred and dislike amongst Australians. My charter is to help all my constituents and I have begun this already with the support of my excellent staff, all from the inherited base of a burnt out office shredder, one biro and no constituent records. I do not have political hatred coursing through my veins, but I share and endorse the view that I gleaned from the thousands of people I canvassed and who expressed their concerns. They could not really believe that in 1988 this lucky country, with a population the size of New York, could seemingly be in so much trouble financially, spiritually and politically. During my campaign and in this House I believe I have cut through a lot of the old conventions. I applaud some of the programs and reforms that the Hawke Government has implemented, such as the family assistance program for struggling families and the recent child support program to establish a national collection agency for child maintenance claims, and a lot of other legislation before the House. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) attacks us as wimps and delivers some vitriol to my Leader because we as a coalition have not seen fit to support his loaded media ownership laws. This man who lauds and magnifies himself as the champion of the working class, ponces around looking like a partner for a Barbie doll. Even though his former Communications Minister wanted 43 per cent media reach, the Democrats 43 per cent, and some of the coalition 30 per cent, the denominator was 60 per cent, by the Government's own law. I admire Christopher Skase for his initiative and networking foresight, but he knew he would be over the 60 per cent audience reach. Of course, we all know about Bob and his millionaire mates and how he has a vested interest in this issue. By raising the media reach limit and not allowing more competition, his millionaire mate Alan Bond could then set about purchasing Adelaide's only independent television station, NWS9. Subsequently, the play would be on to admit Packer back in, perhaps along the eastern and southern seaboards or perhaps to link up the footprint from Darwin to Adelaide. I wonder what the Prime Minister's reaction to media ownership would be if John Elliott were the player. Bob Hawke, the same man, launched his family allowance supplement in the western suburbs of Sydney, then hopped in a Bond helicopter to have a rich mates' luncheon at the Opera House. This same man was booed from the stage at the Gepps Cross abattoirs last month, and then, when a slaughterman tried to ask a question, he did not even have the common courtesy to answer the man. In touch with Australia? The only thing this man is in touch with is himself. This Government, and the Opposition, must heed the wishes of the people. The people of Australia live in an overgoverned, overregulated environment. The people of Australia want jobs. They want to take home a decent net wage to a family in a house they can afford. They want a health system that works; an education program that prepares their children for the future; and they want a law and order system that works when their hard-earned material possessions or family are violated. Australians want two things for their future: those who are encouraged to be thrifty and save want to know that their savings will be there, safe, upon retirement, and they want an aged care program that is maintained with dignity for their parents and relatives, and also in the future for them. Australians do offer the compassion that allows the poor, the impoverished, the socially disadvantaged to be cared for. That must be an objective for us all-compassion and care not for those who bludge on the system but for those in genuine need. As further testimony to my commitment to the electorate, I am leaving the pristine and austere offices located on the thirteenth floor of a city building and going back to the heartland of my people-ground floor, grassroots level-where I will be working with the people of Adelaide. My new address is No. 78 Main North Road, Prospect, bus stop 10. I share, not only on the opposite side of the road but on the opposite side politically, a location with Senator Chris Schacht. I am pleased to inform my constituents that I am signing a contract to buy a residential property in the electorate, which I hope further demonstrates my allegiance, commitment and long term plans. It will be interesting to see how Phil and Bruce, the writers of South Australia's Labor toe rag paper the Herald, choose to attack that personal commitment. I come to this chamber in awe of what Canberra means and has meant to Australia. I come into this House of Representatives this afternoon, 28 April 1988, the year of our Bicentennial, as the first member to make his maiden speech in this 200th year of celebration. Since 1927, when this building was opened, 564 men and women in this House of Representatives have gone before me, delivering their maiden statements and policies to Australia. My maiden speech has added significance because it will probably be the last such speech in 61 years of tradition in this hallowed chamber. We are about to ring down the curtain on this Parliament House. Next week, in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen and with the eyes of Australia upon us, we will usher in a new era, new traditions, a new Australia, a new Parliament House. I think it is pertinent to reiterate the words of Prime Minister Bruce at the opening of this Parliament House on 9 May 1927: May those who enter this open door govern with justice, reason, and equal favour to all. May they do so in humility and without self-interest. May they think and act nationally. That is a profound statement we should all take heed of. Availing myself of the marvellous resources of the Parliamentary Library, I called up many maiden speeches, including that of Mr R. A. Parkill, the member for Warringah, New South Wales, in 1927. It is with particular interest that I reflect on the maiden speech of the former member for Port Adelaide and his most recent book I Want to Work. Like Mick Young, I left school at the age of 15 and joined the shearing sheds of the mid-north as a farmhand and wool presser, working from Bowillia to Bungaree. We fought the fires of Clare and battled the floods as they swept across our property. My wife and I punched holes through the limestone sheetrock to fence off the eucalypts, the hakeas and the melaleucas we had planted. We preserved the heritage that my parents had built. When the bank threatened to sell off some of my farm, I engineered and built a piggery to generate some extra cash flow-something that had been eroded through poor seasons and high interest rates. A love of the theatre and the chance to create and produce one of South Australia's major Jubilee 150 events, On the Sheep's Back-a Jubilant Revue, initiated my moving to Adelaide. Subsequently, the Australia-Japan Foundation working out of NHK Tokyo made a television documentary called Under the Shade of a Coolibah Tree. I am disappointed that the Australia-Japan Foundation has been forced to scale down, when one considers the important trade links between our two countries. However, I learned on speaking to the eminent Tokyo producer, Shoicira Sasaki, that he will be in Australia in October making a sequel to that documentary. I am sure that is good news for the Australia-Japan Foundation as well as Actors Equity of Australia. I am sure I am one of the rare coalition members who go to Labor headquarters in Adelaide to renew their trade union membership. And to help further the Herald kitty-litter writers in Adelaide, my number is 66667. My four years domicile in Adelaide saw me employed as the sporting and marketing manager of the Norwood Football Club-arguably one of the greats of Australian rules football. Mr Bilney —Hear, hear! Mr PRATT —I thank the honourable member for Kingston. So, like Mick Young, I am fiercely proud of my working-class background. Along with my staff, I have transferred that dedication and experience into the electorate. So I come to my predecessor, Chris Hurford, now the member for New York, who for so long was ensconced in his cement bunker on the thirteenth floor in the building he personally commissioned. It was his maiden speech which particularly intrigued me. His final remarks in 1970 referred to a medical system that was inadequate. He said: I look forward to comparing my party's equitable health policy with the hotchpotch being served up by the present Government in its attempt to patch its existing inequitable health scheme. I am sure that in 1988 that statement must come back to haunt him. I have a great concern, which is reflected in my electorate, that this Government has more interest in defending the failing institution that is Medicare than protecting the people it is designed to serve. Such claims that infer that this Government inherited two million people who were too poor to be insured are unsubstantiated and ignore the fact that many of these people simply decided that they were too healthy or wealthy to insure themselves. Medicare in Australia is in a complete and utter shambles, the waiting list keeps growing and there is a personal cost to many Australians who trusted this Government's promises and are now having to borrow money to pay for operations to relieve them from pain and suffering. Yet the Government and the Minister are too proud, too conceited, to give ground and concede that the system is not working. Medicare, the master, has outgrown the purpose it was designed to serve. The working class, the poor and the disadvantaged are not getting the health care to which they are entitled. There should be tax incentives for middle class and professional wage earners to insure their health and, by that action, more public hospital places for the needy should be created. The private and public hospitals in my electorate, including the Royal Adelaide Hospital, the Memorial Hospital, the Adelaide Children's Hospital, Calvary Hospital and the North-Eastern Community Hospital, to name several, amplify the concern that is repeated around Australia: our health system is not working. The Government asks us to believe that Medicare is simple, equitable and beneficial. Medicare, this complex $5.2 billion monster, is not achieving its stated objective, which is to provide affordable and quality health care. This high taxing Government at first taxed us at one per cent of our gross income, then at 1.25 per cent, to earn a revenue of about $2.1 billion a year-less than half of the $5.2 billion that Medicare costs-and the balance must be collected from the well exploited Hawke sales tax that all Australians must pay. Our costs are escalating and our health benefits are reducing. It does not stop there. If we are lucky enough to get a hospital bed, and have any money left from Australia's monstrous institution, Medicare, this Government wants to inflict on Australia's frail aged population a loss of dignity, a fear, and uncertainty and insecurity amongst 70,000 residents of its nursing homes. There used to be extensive care; now there is classification by category. There used to be rehabilitation; now there are outcome standards. During the by-election campaign I visited several of the excellent aged care facilities in my electorate, including the Helping Hand Centre, Bartonvale Village, the Walkerville Nursing Home, Elderly Citizens Homes of South Australia and Southern Cross Homes. I have since been back to those facilities and had contact with their administrators, including those at the Voluntary Care Association of South Australia, and was the only Federal member of Parliament representing the Liberal Party of Australia who took the time to attend the aged care rally in Victoria Square on 8 April. I had the opportunity to sit through a debate last week, on 13 April, and later read Hansard at page 461, which recorded the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) replying to a question put to him by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). He spent time talking about unscrupulous operators and what the Opposition did eight years ago. There was some amazing rhetoric; in fact, seven times he repeated the words `striking fear and terror amongst the aged and their relatives'-words usually reserved for a hijack. And that is what it is: this Government is attempting to hijack the nursing home hours in Australia. It affects the residents and their relatives, as well as the dedicated nursing staff and administrators, and that includes the 20,000 people over the age of 60 in the electorate of Adelaide. The fact that our ageing population was dovetailed with the war veterans, war widows and Vietnam veterans as I stood at the dawn ceremony at the Prospect Returned Services League on Monday is further evidence that the dignity of Australia's ageing population must be preserved. One of my priorities is to join with all concerned on both sides of this House to fight the Government which is trying to strip the quality and standard of care from the nursing homes. The nursing home industry says 27 hours per week, the Government says 17 hours, which it has since amended to 18 hours. The South Australian average is now 21 hours, and category 5 is rated at 10 hours. We now rate our compassion. Is it not ironic that the Minister for Housing and Aged Care represents the seat of Jagajaga? It reminds me of the maximum security prison, Jika Jika, and includes Yatala Labour Prison. Let us compare the care and services of our aged as opposed to those in the prison system. The Department of Correctional Services indicates that it costs taxpayers $48,000 a year to maintain and keep a female prisoner. Yet, on average, government funding of nursing homes contributes only $20,000 a year per female patient. This is topped up with the patient's own hard earned pension contributions and the magnificent volunteer and family donations. I say to the Minister: Is he putting criminals' benefits above the welfare and care of Australia's aged population? Their honest and hard-working contribution to this country should be recognised with dignity and compassion, not reduced. I support the Correctional Services Department in Adelaide: it should be given tougher and stronger control. How about taking away some of the cushy prisoner benefits? What a joke-prisoners strike and riot for better conditions. It is Mother's Day this weekend. Where is the Minister's compassion? Is it with the criminals of society or with his mother, or my mother, or a million other Australian mothers? I referred to Australia's population of 16 million. Those in our young emerging work force want a job without a greedy union boss getting in their way. They want to take home a decent wage in a car they can afford, to a family in a house that they can afford to pay off. Should they require medical help, they want the security that the Adelaide Children's Hospital or the Royal Adelaide Hospital can provide. After working hard for 30 years and being encouraged to save for their future, they do not need a greedy government to tax their superannuation. Both the Government and the Opposition-Federal and State politicians-must be aware that this is a requirement of us all, now, and not just before an election. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have trodden the boards on a few stages in my life and, as I referred to Prime Minister Bruce in May 1927 and 61 years later, may I leave this House with a reflection on its past, its people, and its future: So just a word in closing And forgive this clumsy rhyme For an old and noble structure That has bravely served its time. It has echoed the exchanges When the members interject By the Brindabella Ranges Let us treat it with respect. Though we are going from its portals To some luxury and space We'll remember its immortals As we reach that other place. So let us toast Australia's future With our bicentennial cup, For here the curtain's coming down And there it's going up. And though the years will be challenging We'll try to keep our nerve For Australia that we honour, And the people that we serve. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(5.37) —I wish to congratulate the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt), who has just completed his maiden speech. My advice to him is that he should keep in touch, otherwise he will find that after the next election he will not be a member of parliament. If that were the case, the people might say of him that he was mostly in touch with himself. I support Supply Bill (No. 1), 1988-89, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89. In particular I will address a couple of issues of real concern to me. In this Parliament I have already called for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to sack his shadow spokesman on social security, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I repeat that appeal, because the honourable member for Bradfield has a fixation about the western suburbs in general and Mount Druitt in particular. I repeat an offer that was made in the newspapers today: I am quite happy to buy the honourable member for Bradfield a Gregory's directory so that he can see where Mount Druitt is and recognise that it is not in Campbelltown, some 40 kilometres away. I recall that the honourable member for Adelaide fleetingly referred to the launching of a most important package-that is, cash for working parents-in my electorate. The honourable member for Bradfield, the silvertail from the North Shore, the shadow Minister for social security, said in this House that that scheme was launched at Campbelltown. That is like saying that the honourable member for Bradfield lives not at Pymble but at Palm Beach. I am sure that the people who live at Palm Beach would be offended to hear the honourable member for Bradfield claiming to reside there. Not content with that faux pas, which, I must say, went largely unnoticed, the honourable member for Bradfield on 26 April, in speaking on the Social Security Amendment Bill, referred to the western suburbs of Sydney as follows: 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. That is very deprecating. He further said: If one does, one does not stay in a caravan. He went on to say that the caravan park was in Mount Druitt. However, in a personal explanation in this House the following day the honourable member for Bradfield, in reference to the Daily Telegraph article said: That is a total travesty of what in fact was said. The details are in Hansard. I was referring specifically to one caravan park in the Mount Druitt area. Of course, Opposition members like to bag the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), but he is frequently in my electorate. Even he knows that there is no caravan park in Mount Druitt; we do not have a caravan park. The caravan park to which the honourable member for Bradfield is referring is some 11 kilometres away. Perhaps the honourable member is improving. In one case, he made a mistake of 40 kilometres, and now he is down to 11 kilometres. Mr Lee —Have you given him a street directory yet? Mr PRICE —As the interjection of the honourable member for Dobell reminds me, I have offered to give him a street directory. The caravan park in question is located at Prospect; it is a locality in its own right. The national headquarters for Sharp are very close to the caravan park. There are Housing Commission homes at Prospect and there is private development in that area. The people at Prospect are proud to identify themselves as living there in the Blacktown City Council area. Why does the honourable member for Bradfield have this fixation on the western suburbs and on Mount Druitt? The shadow spokesman is supposed to be an enlightened Liberal telling the people of the western suburbs what a Federal Liberal government would do for them. In reality, all he is is the dead hand of liberalism, a typical silvertail from the North Shore who cannot even get his localities right. I object to his comparing the situation of people living in the western suburbs, Mount Druitt or Prospect to that of people in Soweto. For the record, I do not think that anyone who has watched television pictures coming out of South Africa that show Soweto-and there are precious few of them-can have anything but sympathy for them. Why does the honourable member introduce this racist argument and suggest that people in the western suburbs live like blacks in the slums of Soweto? That is what he is suggesting. He is demeaning every person who lives in the western suburbs. I object to that on my own behalf, because I am proud to live in Mount Druitt, where I was brought up. I also object on behalf of my constituents, who are heartily sick and tired of this constant barrage from the Liberal Party of Australia about the western suburbs and, in particular, the constant barrage from the front bench shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield, who lives on the North Shore. In fact, he will not even put his address on the North Shore in any currently available document. His address in Who's Who is listed as `Parliament House, Canberra'. I also want to dwell on some of the changes that the New South Wales Government is implementing in the western suburbs of Sydney. As I have said before, my colleague the honourable member for Riverstone in the State Parliament deserves great kudos for leading the campaign for a senior high school in the western suburbs. It is to the eternal credit of the Liberal Party that it was prepared, while in opposition, to accept the principle of a senior high school. What we were fighting for then-and still are-are some pilot senior high schools in the western suburbs and perhaps in other areas such as the Illawarra and Newcastle. We want feeder schools going to year 10 and a senior high school taking years 11 and 12. What has the Minister for Education in New South Wales, Dr Metherell, done? He told the people of New South Wales, particularly those in the western suburbs, that the Liberal Party supported the idea of a senior high school. What he did not tell them was that he was not intending to change any of the comprehensive high schools. He did not intend to make them feeder high schools but was going to allow them to continue. Therefore, in the midst of six high schools all going to years 11 and 12, a senior high school that deals only with years 11 and 12 will be set up. Of course, there will then have to be some selection criteria. So the best students will then go on to the senior high school and the not so bright students will stay on at the comprehensive high schools, and the morale of those high schools will be absolutely destroyed. Worse still, instead of trying to change the culture in the western suburbs, the Illawarra and Newcastle, these elite institutions will be created. This proposal will not encourage extra participation or children to reach their full potential. I notice the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) in the chamber. Rural Australia suffers as much as some of the regional areas. What has he done about that? Does he propose a cluster system, as the Australian Labor Party always intended, to try to address some of the problems that exist in years 11 and 12 in the towns and cities in rural New South Wales? I do not know; he has not mentioned it. I gave Dr Metherell credit-and I stand by it-that before the campaign the Liberal Party adopted the principle of senior high schools. It is to the shame of the Labor Party that it never did anything about it as a government, although I have already acknowledged the role of my colleague the State member for Riverstone. However, the State Minister for Education has now given us the worst of all possible worlds, and I appeal to him to reconsider what he has done. I also appeal to him to reconsider the proposed locations of schools. The idea of a senior high school was to have it act as a magnet and attraction, to change peer pressure and parental attitudes and to encourage students to stay on to years 11 and 12. Thus, the senior high schools need to be established in areas that will benefit most. Like any other region, the western region of Sydney has variations. Therefore, the senior high schools should not be placed, as the New South Wales Government is considering placing them, in areas where the rate of participation in years 11 and 12 is good. I also want to refer briefly to the decision of the State Minister for Education in relation to the Higher School Certificate. Nothing has saddened me more than to see some of my high school students featured on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. They are absolutely distraught that, in the middle of their last year of study at a high school-year 12-the Minister has changed the rules. It would be different if he had said they would be changed next year, but he said that they had been changed for students studying in 1988. He has said to the students, `You will not be getting your aggregate marks; what you have done will be a folly'. I think that is an absolute tragedy. As I have said in this House, the same sort of thing could not be done to business; people in business must be given plenty of warning. Students in my electorate have gone to year 12 under the existing rule, selected courses, and yet a change is being made in the middle of their courses. It affects not only my electorate but every Federal electorate in New South Wales. Dr Metherell ought to be absolutely ashamed of himself. Finally, I want to refer to the Chifley University College. When a new government is elected we must respect the fact that the people have voted it in, and I certainly respect that. Often changes are introduced with which one has sympathy or which one welcomes. A new government is entitled to make changes. However, two aspects of Dr Metherell's handling of the issue of the western suburbs university cause me great concern. First, there is the pettifogging changing of the name. Nothing could have distinguished the new Minister for Education as being small-minded more than his decision to change the name of Chifley University College. Mr Kerr —Hear, hear! Mr PRICE —Absolutely. As the member for Chifley I share with the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), a special responsibility in relation to the outstanding contribution that was made to this nation by former Prime Minister Chifley. I happily acknowledge that. I do not think it would make any difference if the university had been named after, say, Curtin or Scullin. If the Liberals named a university the Menzies University College, I believe we would be honour bound to accept that. To suggest that the only thing Chifley ever did was ride through on a steam train actually displays Dr Metherell's total lack of understanding of history and of the original boundaries of the Macquarie electorate that Chifley was so proud to represent. So in this case Dr Metherell is being very petty. However, the State Government has publicly stated that the matter of the Chifley University College is being deferred until the production of a White Paper on higher education. While that may be disappointing for me, I think he is entitled to examine his options. But what are his options? What are the options of the Liberal Party in New South Wales? I note that we do not have one Federal Liberal Party member from New South Wales in the House at the moment. Dr Hewson —Hey? Mr PRICE —I beg your pardon; the honourable member is very interested in tertiary education. I conclude by making the point that Dr Metherell must come clean. He has obviously deferred it because he has something in mind. What are his plans? I ask him to put them on the table so that we can examine them. Let us be constructive; let us see whether we agree with them and whether they are in the best interests of students in the western suburbs of Sydney. He should come clean and tell us his plans and not try to hoodwink the people of the western suburbs of Sydney in general and the people in my electorate of Chifley in particular who are passionately committed to this college. Mr COBB(Parkes)(5.51) —I wish to raise a very serious issue of what appears to be a breach of the law in this country regarding the illegal taping of conversations by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). However, before going into that it is worth recalling what occurred with the recent Mike Willesee case that also dealt with a similar matter. On 15 January 1986, a researcher on the Mike Willesee Channel 9 program, Jacqui Donaldson, went along with a freelance sound recordist, Mr Terry Kelly, to talent scouts offices in York Street, Sydney. There they set up an expose-type interview with the proprietor of Talent Scouts Acting and Model Agency, Mr David Miller. An interview was recorded with Mr Miller without either his knowledge or permission. A story on the agency was shown on Channel 9 during the Willesee program on 4 February 1986 which used part of this secretly recorded interview. Following this, Mr Miller launched prosecutions under the New South Wales Listening Devices Act. The matter came before Justice Findlay of the Supreme Court who handed down his decisions earlier this month. Miss Jacqui Donaldson was convicted under the Listening Devices Act for secretly taping a private conversation and fined $500. The Trans Media Production Co., of which Mike Willesee is a director, was found guilty of causing the illegal tape to be made, of possessing and broadcasting it and was fined $25,000. In his judgment, Justice Findlay said: If the means are illegal then they are not justifiable by the ends . . . The invasion of privacy . . . is not excused because it was done in the cause of investigative journalism. It is against the background of that case that I wish to draw the attention of the House to the following matter. I recently received a letter from Mr Ian Cole, the Station Manager at 2WEB, the radio station in Bourke, which is a town in my electorate. The letter stated: Dear Michael, I am writing to follow up the ABC's illegal taping of conversations for broadcast; a matter I discussed with you earlier this year. At approximately 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 3rd December last, Jason Smith, a reporter from the ABC's studio rang me to comment on a matter which at that time was causing serious racial tension in Bourke. I declined, saying that I was not qualified to comment and referred him to someone who was. I politely told him as much as I knew of the matter, but said I did not want to officially comment. The receptionist at the Orana Community College also received a call and gave a similar reply. During both conversations Jason Smith did not identify himself as an ABC reporter, he did not say which programme he represented; he did not say he was taping the conversation, and there was no warning signal to indicate the conservation was being taped. Both conversations were taped and went to air on national radio on the ``Australia today'' (?) programme after 11.30 a.m. on the same today. I am not embarrassed about any of my comments-but this approach is highly illegal, dishonest and rude!! I have since contacted the ABC, including the Executive Producer of ``Australia today'' Ian McNamara, to complain about the incident and to ask for an apology. However the ABC's response has been very sarcastic and cynical. Mr McNamara says I should always expect to be taped whenever talking to anyone from the ABC. He has refused to apologise and has added insult to injury by saying the public is stupid to expect to be treated any other way. As you know, I work for radio station 2WEB. Like all other community and commercial radio stations in Australia, we are bound by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunals ``Radio Program Standards'' and to Federal Laws and Telecom requirements which forbid illegal taping and broadcasting of telephone conversations. Section 7 of the Tribunals Radio Standards say: ``A licensee must not transmit the words of an identifiable person unless: (a) That person has been informed in advance that the words may be transmitted; or (b) in the case of words which have been recorded without the knowledge of the person, that person has subsequently, but prior to the transmission, indicated consent to the transmission of the words. (Note: Licensees are referred to the requirements of Telecom Australia, in particular the requirements that when a telephone conversation is recorded both parties must know that the conversation without the use of a recorder-connector which provides a suitable warning signal to both parties is illegal).'' I realise that the ABC is not regulated by the A.B.T. but should have some sort of code of behaviour pertaining to taped telephone conversations. As my local Federal Member I would appreciate you following up this complaint and specifically, getting the ABC to answer the following questions: 1. Is the ABC free to operate outside the laws relating to the recording of telephone conversations? 2. Should Australian citizens expect to be recorded without warning when speaking to the ABC? 3. Will the ABC continue to get away with this sort of behaviour? 4. Can I withdraw my 8 cents per day? Please let me know if you can get any answers-as I only came up with rude replies to my questions. Yours sincerely, Ian Cole Station Manager I believe that that is a very serious letter. I take what he says in the letter very seriously as he has a reputation as a decent and honest person who is highly regarded as one of the leading citizens in the Bourke community. Since receiving this correspondence, I have spoken to Ian Cole, who is considerably upset about the whole incident and in particular the manner in which the ABC has behaved. He reiterated the story as told in the letter and filled me in on some other detail. Apparently after the ABC reporter spoke to Ian Cole he rang the receptionist at the Orana Community College in an attempt to speak to the principal there about this matter. At the time of the call the principal was out so the receptionist, Nerida Stevens, informed the ABC person of that. She did not realise she was being taped. Ian Cole told me that a sergeant at the Bourke police station, Allen Bassett, was also rung by this ABC reporter and did not realise he was being taped until half-way through the interview. When Ian Cole was by chance listening to the ABC radio later in the morning he was amazed to hear his voice coming over the airwaves. He says that they also played the interview with the Orana Community College receptionist, including her hanging-up the phone, and did it in such a way as to make it appear that there was a cover-up and that the principle was avoiding speaking to the ABC. Mr Tim Fischer —Illegally. Mr COBB —Yes. The whole story was a beat-up trying to make Bourke look like a racist town. When Ian Cole rang the ABC to protest about this he says that it was not at all helpful to him in registering his complaint. In fact, it was not only rude but it refused to acknowledge it had done anything wrong. I find the behaviour and attitude of the ABC in this whole matter quite extraordinary. What has been done is clearly wrong. The behaviour of the ABC staff is unethical, unprofessional and certainly appears to have breached the law. I have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking him to consider this matter and have also forwarded a copy of Ian Cole's letter to the Attorney-General. I hope these complaints will be fully investigated and, where appropriate, acted upon. The privacy considerations of our citizens deserve more than the way in which the ABC has treated them in Bourke. Mr KERR(Denison)(6.00) —I rise tonight to make some remarks about the importance of our effort in the Antarctic. I do so with a background of having been privileged earlier this year to have been one of two members of parliament who sailed to two Australian bases, Mawson and Davis. My parliamentary colleague travelling with me was the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson). I think it would be appropriate for me to say that each of us was enormously impressed both by the work that was being conducted at the bases and by the morale of both those who were serving as summer expeditioners and those who were planning to stay on as winter expeditioners over the long Antarctic winter. Mr Tim Fischer —The Icebird is a good ship. Mr KERR —The Icebird is certainly a good ship. I am sure that all those who have had the experience of going with that vessel to Antarctica will agree with remarks I am making. I wish to make a couple of points arising out of that visit. For the interest of Parliament I want to flag two issues of principal concern that will need to be addressed in the near future. The first is the question of mining. On the not so distant horizon is the adoption of the mining convention whose formulation many nations have been working towards. It would be reasonable to expect that within a year or less Australia will be put in the position of either ratifying or rejecting proposals that are being developed towards a minerals convention. It is important in terms of the development of a minerals convention to ensure that the minimum possible disruption to the very fragile Antarctic environment is countenanced. I am sure that that is the view of the Australian Government delegations that attend the Antarctic Treaty convention meetings. Those of us who are concerned with the future of Antarctica should bear this in mind over the months to come. It is an issue which will press in upon us very quickly and we must be prepared to respond quickly in this Parliament to ensure that the concern which I am sure we all share is made clear internationally and that that very important and paramount consideration is borne in mind. The second area of concern, an area which has not yet been the subject of even draft or proposed international regulatory measures, is the prospect of international tourism. The Antarctic continent is one of great beauty. It is staggeringly beautiful. When one sets foot on it one is surprised simply by the scale and the magnitude of the place and then dazzled by the way in which Antarctica dominates one's thinking for the time one is there. It is an experience that I would be the last to deny my fellow Australians, but any thinking about the possibility of tourism needs to be approached with the greatest of caution. The ice-free regions of Antarctica, which would be most subject to the pressure of tourism, are a very small part of the total Antarctic land mass. They contain a very fragile biological environment. Part of that environment is the mosses and lichens, which can be destroyed simply by a footfall. There are also large colonies of penguins, seals and other marine life on that small stretch of coastline. In that environment man is a new and potentially destructive element. For that reason I think it is appropriate, if we are looking at the possible development of tourism, to ensure that tourism is not impactive, that we restrict tourism as far as possible to ship-based tourism and do not permit ourselves to move down the path of building onshore facilities to look after tourist arrivals in Antarctica. It may seem a little premature to be raising this issue, but in the course of my discussions aboard the Icebird and subsequently it has been made very plain to me that there are real commercial pressures already in existence leading towards the development and exploitation of Antarctica as a tourist destination. Very significant financial figures within Australia and overseas have commissioned feasibility studies into both ship-based tourism and also tourism based on air services and the possible construction of international hotel facilities in the Antarctic area. Given that that interest has already been expressed, and given that significant commercial operators have flagged their real interest in that possibility, it is important that we think now about an appropriate response to ensure that that very fragile environment is not destroyed or hurt by unregulated or uncontrolled tourist activities. In making these remarks, I must also draw attention to the fact that Tasmania has a particular interest in Antarctic-related activity and development. The location of the Antarctic Division in Hobart is very important economically for the State and, through various spin-offs, including the provisioning of the ships that sail to the Antarctic regions, both from Australia and from other nations such as France, it causes us to have a very significant economic interest in the future of Antarctic development. I have been very much at the forefront in trying to make sure that we maximise the possible benefits to our State from these developments. For example, I am delighted to be able to praise the Australian Government on its decision to build in Australia a replacement vessel for the Nella Dan, which sank so unfortunately during the last Antarctic season. In my opinion, there are opportunities which we need to seize and we need to be vigorous in taking advantage of them. One proposal which is now under review by the Australian Government is a proposal for an Antech centre whereby spin-off industries taking advantage of a potential market in the Antarctic might be developed in Tasmania. About two years ago the Australian Government commissioned a report on this matter. It was commissioned and completed by consultants working on a committee under the chairmanship of Mr Neil Batt, the present Leader of the Tasmanian Opposition and Labor leader in Tasmania. The report was announced by me on behalf of the Federal Government in mid-1987 and since then I have been seeking to have the report implemented. I have done so in a number of ways. I understand from the public announcements that have been made on this issue that the matter has already been before Cabinet and further investigations are proceeding to see whether or not the consultant's report is economically viable. It is against that background that I raise one particular concern I have relating to what I see as rather crude opportunist politicking by a colleague senator from Tasmania, Senator Paul Calvert. Late last week in the Senate, Senator Calvert asked a question of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) relating to the Antech proposal and then seriously distorted the answer Senator Button gave. That was very unfortunate. He had asked Senator Button what had been the course of the representations he had had and what action was being taken in relation to the Antech report. Senator Button quite naturally said that he was not completely aware of the details and that he would give a detailed answer in due course. Immediately following that, Senator Calvert saw fit to put out a Press release, which stated: Senator Button advised that he was unaware of the report or its progress and in response to further questioning from Senator Calvert, said he was unaware also of any representations from Denison Labor MHR Duncan Kerr, about the matter. Some cynical people might jump to the conclusion that Senator Calvert had told a deliberate lie in regard to the matter, but I think the simpler conclusion is that he was unable to recall, when he put out the Press release an hour or so after he asked the question in the Senate, whether he had asked one or two questions. In fact, he had asked only one question; there was no supplementary question. He entirely distorted the answer given by the Minister. Subsequently, the Minister cleared the matter up. He said: . . . I have received representations from the honourable member for Denison, Mr Duncan Kerr, in this matter and he certainly has played a key role in the Government's consideration of Antech. The matter has received a continuing consideration by the Government, including at Cabinet level, where preliminary decisions were made about this issue in February. I am delighted that the Opposition has now taken a very belated interest in this matter. I would welcome a constructive input on this matter by Senator Calvert and by the Liberal Party's science spokesman, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith). Unfortunately, so far we have seen only cheap political point scoring, which does no credit to those involved. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(6.12) —I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on Supply Bill (No. 1) 1988-89, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89. I will try to be briefer in these comments than I was in my question at Question Time today. It seems to me, however, that if the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other Ministers can take 20 minutes to answer a question we should be able to take 20 minutes to ask one. I comment on these Supply Bills in the context of the present very difficult economic circumstances in Australia. As the Treasurer has conceded, quite openly, particularly in response to the release of the March balance of payments figures, the Australian economy is overheating quite dramatically. This is confirmed not only by our import data but also by recent national accounts data. It is overheating at a time when our balance of payments a couple of more reasonable months in the early part of the year-is still deteriorating quite significantly. If we look at the national accounts for the December quarter, we can see that the balance of payments, excluding the very advantageous movement in commodity prices, actually deteriorated in real terms. In recent months we have seen some of that deterioration show up in the monthly nominal balance of payments figures as well. Traditionally in Australia we have run into very much of a crunch situation in precisely these sorts of circumstances, where the economy overheats and pulls up imports, and those higher imports are then sustained as world activity flattens and as commodity prices decline. Essentially, that is the situation we are moving into at present. World activity is flattening out, commodity prices will fall in the latter half of this year and into early next year and, the way our economy is bubbling along, we will sustain our import demand. A crunch is now almost inevitable. The Treasurer, amazingly, seems quite complacent about this prospect. If I were in his shoes I do not think I would sleep at night, because his track record in this regard is not a very good one. On each occasion where this has happened we have had the traditional Australian crunch. We have had an exchange rate crisis, and we are heading for another one unless the Treasurer makes some very significant adjustments to policy in the near term. But if we look at what he has said on policy in recent days we realise that it is a cause for great concern. It should be, at least to every member of this House. He has told us that he will not tighten monetary policy. Apparently, he does not follow too closely what the Reserve Bank of Australia has done. The Reserve Bank has actually tightened it a little in the past week or so. But the Treasurer says he is not interested in tightening monetary policy and putting up interest rates. He has also made some statements in recent days about how he is intent on holding down our currency. He put it in terms of supporting the Reserve Bank in its intervention in the foreign exchange market. It is interesting that a man who claims to have floated the currency and to willingly accept the judgment of international currency markets is heavily intervening, through the Reserve Bank, to hold our currency down. The Reserve Bank probably has spent something over $1 billion so far in April in the spot market alone. It has done some very heavy forward market intervention as well. But that is not enough for the Treasurer. He is also running around the country promising to raise living standards. He is supporting wage deals that will give wage outcomes well in excess of those of our trading partners. How can he do this in the current circumstances? Is he totally irresponsible, or does he have something up his sleeve? I do not think he does. In effect, what he has done is put a lot of weight on the forthcoming Premiers Conference and the forthcoming mini-Budget. If he does not deliver in tough economic decisions on those occasions, and exercise significant expenditure restraint, both on the States and on his own account, the system, in my view, will come unstuck. We will head fast down the road to the traditional Australian crunch. He would have us believe that this record suggests that he has been very successful in restraining expenditure. But he tends to refer just to the last couple of years, those years for which the numbers show some decline in aggregate Budget outlays in real terms. He forgets of course, to mention that in his first three years in government he went on a spending spree. In fact, over his entire period in government, Budget outlays have increased by about 60 per cent, which is about a 20 per cent cumulative increase in real terms. In some of the earlier years the increases in his expenditure were 6 to 7 per cent or more in real terms. The Treasurer therefore tends to focus on the expenditure restraint he has achieved in the last couple of years. But he has exaggerated that as well. He makes his figures look better than they are. For example, he has included $1 billion worth of asset sales as expenditure restraint. He has imparted greater restraint on the States than he has on his own expenditure. While he has received State expenditure, that is, expenditure from the Commonwealth on the States, in real terms, he has not cut his own expenditure in real terms. He has also focused his cuts on capital rather than on recurrent expenditure. As a result we are probably heading for a very significant problem in this country, judging by the extent to which we have cut back capital expenditure and eroded some basic infrastructure, all in the name of protecting a significant level of recurrent expenditure. He has also skewed recurrent expenditure in favour of the big ticket items. In particular, items such as education, health, social security and welfare and public administration are all going up quite significantly in real terms this year. So he has been very misleading in trying to paint a picture of overall expenditure restraint. The fact is that he has not delivered very much expenditure restraint at all. He has now put all his eggs in one basket. He has to go into the forthcoming Premiers Conference and Loan Council meetings and the mini-Budget with a very genuine and desperate need to cut expenditure. Yet he does not seem to understand the significance of the task he has left for himself. Instead the Treasurer prefers in this House and in numerous places all over the country to spend his time bucketing us for daring to suggest that there should be fairly significant expenditure restraint in present circumstances. It is he who should be worried about that, given the fact that he is not prepared to adjust any of the other areas of policy and given that he has now put all his weight on fiscal policy. He should not in any way be bucketing us for the orders of magnitude we have talked about; he will have to deliver much more expenditure restraint or his policy stance will come unstuck. Not only has the Treasurer bucketed us but also, in a recent interview on the Channel 9 Sunday program, he conceded, in the light of the New South Wales election results in particular and also in the light of a series of electoral mishaps from his point of view-I guess he would call them unintended consequences-that he might now have to increase welfare and social security spending. If he is going to sustain those big ticket items he has no realistic understanding of the magnitude of the expenditure restraint task that is in front of him. How can he be so complacent? I guess the reason is that he has plenty of revenue. He intends to do quite a lot of spending in the next few months or years. If we look at some realistic estimates of where the Australian economy is going in the next 12 months and translate those into Budget revenue figures we see that the Treasurer can start the 1988-89 Budget process with a $3 billion to $3 1/2 billion Budget surplus on a no policy change basis. That is plenty of revenue. If his outcome for this year is, say, a $1 billion or $1 1/2 billion surplus he has $1 1/2 billion to $2 1/2 billion in his back pocket which he can spend in the forthcoming mini-Budget. But do not get me wrong; he will be very pious about this. He will go around talking about expenditure restraint. He will claim credit for the greatest restraint since Artie Fadden, or whatever example he likes to use, but he will not deliver the sort of expenditure restraint that is required to get the job done in the present circumstances. He is going to talk tough, of course. He is going to point to overall numbers that in one way or another broadly support his case, but he will not actually significantly cut expenditure. And he cannot. If one looks around this House at any time during the day one sees various groups that have already put in their claim for expenditure in particular areas. The Treasurer will have to face up to the reality that, while he might have had a reasonable political power base, due to the strength in New South Wales of the right wing of the Party, at the time of the last Budget, he no longer has that political power base in present circumstances. So he will now have to buy his way through this process. He will have to buy off the left wing, the Centre Left and others with increases in various areas of expenditure that they feel are important. So the $2 billion that he now has in his back pocket will have to be pulled out on several and various occasions in the next few weeks in order to placate his mates. In these times I guess we ought to ask honourable members to contemplate the economic consequences of having waited five or six months on Barrie Unsworth. I suggest to the House that that will prove very expensive. The Treasurer should have taken the opportunity provided by the stock market crash to initiate, in political terms, a very significant quickening of the pace of macro- and micro-policy adjustment. He should have moved decisively to a mini-Budget, but he was not prepared to put his mate Barrie at risk. So he did virtually nothing. And he has seen his political power base eroded over the last five or six months. He has also seen economic circumstances start to move against him. One can imagine that he will be Mr Sweaty Palms for the next few months when it comes to dealing with some of these issues. The magnitude of the policy adjustment that he has now set himself is significantly beyond what his political power base will allow him to achieve. I return to what I started: I urge the House to remember the sorts of economic crunch situations we have experienced in the past. As economic circumstances become more difficult internationally this year, as commodity prices taper off, as we sustain through an overheated economy a more rapid growth of imports, look for the double whammy that will come on the balance of payments and just watch Mr Sweaty Palms. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care)(6.22) —In summing up, I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. As usual with Bills of this sort, the debate has been very wide ranging and varied, covering topics such as the state of the economy-in many of the speeches-taxation, foreign debt and health. We even had a contribution on Antarctica, which was a nice interlude. I of course listened, as I am sure the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) listened, to the debate with interest, in particular to the maiden speech of the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt). I appreciate the comments he made in regard to me. I might talk to him later about them. As was indicated in the second reading speech on these Bills, they seek interim appropriations to fund ongoing services of government from 1 July to 30 November 1988, by which time it is expected that the 1988-89 Budget will have been passed. Given this, I wish to emphasise that no provision is made in these Bills that will in any way anticipate decisions to be taken in the context of that Budget. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Peacock's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Lavarch, M. H.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. J.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Duncan, P. Scholes, G. G. D.Edwards, Ronald Sciacca, C.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. Macphee, I. M.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Nehl, G. B.Braithwaite, R. A. Peacock, A. S.Brown, N. A. Pratt, M. P.Burr, M. A. Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Donald Reith, P. K.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Rocher, A. C.Carlton, J. J. Shack, P. D.Connolly, D. M. Sharp, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Smith, W. L.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fischer, Tim 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) White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.McArthur, F. S. Woods, R. L.MacKellar, M. J. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. McLeay, Leo Ruddock, P. M.Grace, E. L. Moore, J. C.Hand, G. L. Cowan, D. B.Kerin, J. C. Lloyd, B.Morris, Peter Andrew, J. N.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. Sitting suspended from 6.33 to 8 p.m. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care)(8.00) —I move: The Schedule, page 17, Division 310, omit subparagraph (b) (i) of the statement of purpose set out in the Division, substitute the following subparagraph: `(i) that the Minister for Finance is satisfied is expenditure that is urgently required and: (a) was unforeseen until after the last day on which it was practicable to include appropriation for that expenditure in the Bill for this Act before the introduction of that Bill into the House of Representatives; or (b) was erroneously omitted from, or understated in, the Bill for this Act; and'. This statement applies to amendments to this Bill, the Supply Bill (No. 2) and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. The amendments widen the criteria for the use of the Advances to the Minister for Finance (AMF) and the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. They are necessary to overcome restrictions on the use of the Advances brought to notice by a recent legal opinion on the interpretation of the urgent and unforeseen criteria which must be met before an issue can be made from the contingency Advances. The Advances are provisions authorised by the annual Appropriation and Supply Acts and are necessary for the smooth running of government because they provide flexibility, particularly for urgent and unforeseen expenditures. The current wording was introduced into Appropriation Acts on the recommendation of the 1979 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the Advance to the Minister for Finance. However, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, during the course of its most recent inquiry into the Advance to the Minister for Finance, has obtained legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department that indicates that, where due to clerical error or inadvertence only, an amount for expenditure has been omitted from an Appropriation Bill, that amount cannot be regarded as unforeseen and therefore should not be funded from the AMF. It has been assumed by successive governments that the criteria for the use of the Advances do not preclude a situation where expenditure was foreseen, but through clerical error or inadvertence no provision was made in the relevant Supply or Appropriation Act. The AMF and the subsequent Advances to the President and Speaker have been administered on this basis prior to and after the introduction of the present wording. In order to overcome the restriction on the use of the Advance it was recently brought to notice by the legal advising that it was necessary that the clauses relating to the Advances in the Supply Bills (Nos 1 and 2) 1988-89 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89be amended to reflect the intention that clerical inadvertence be regarded as unforeseen. The only alternative to this course of action would be to introduce for urgent passage additional Appropriation Bills to meet each occurrence of an admission of an amount in relevant Appropriation Bills where a government was inextricably committed to meet payments. The Parliament will be provided with details of amounts issued from the Advance to the Minister for Finance to cover errors and omissions by the addition of this category to those currently shown in the monthly tabling of issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. This document is tabled pursuant to recommendations in the previously mentioned 1979 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(8.05) —The Opposition opposes the Government's amendments to the three Supply Bills. As the Minister has indicated, the Government is seeking to amend the clauses of the Bills which deal with the application of the Advance to the Minister for Finance. This course of action, as he said, follows a legal opinion from the Attorney-General's Department which considers that the Department of Finance guidelines in applying the advance are outside the legal definitions. The Advance is a provision authorised by the annual Appropriation and Supply Acts to allow the executive arm of government to make extraordinary expenditures without the immediate need to go before Parliament. The current legislation, as I understand it, provides that the Advance is to be used for expenditure that is `urgent' and `unforeseen'. In the past the Department of Finance has interpreted this as accounting for clerical errors or inadvertence. However, again as I understand it, after questioning by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts the Attorney-General's Department now advises that these instances are not strictly `unforeseen' and, therefore, are not covered by the legislation. What is transpiring here is that the Government is extending the legislation so that expenditure can be made if it is urgently required and `was erroneously omitted from, or understated in, the Bill for this Act'. However, in our view this goes completely against the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. That Committee has been very concerned at the potential abuse of the Advance and the extent to which the executive arm of government is usurping the role of Parliament to watch over government expenditures. When the Committee became aware of the Department of Finance's erroneous application of the Advance it clearly sought tighter controls. The Committee's report No. 289 on the Advance states in paragraph 2.29: Although the Attorney-General's Department suggested amending the wording of the Advance, if it is intended that clerical inadvertence be regarded as unforeseen, the Committee is not in favour of widening the use of the Advance. The Committee therefore recommended: To ensure conformity with the law and effective scrutiny of all expenditures, the guidelines issued by the Department of Finance be revised in respect of the terms `urgent' and `unforeseen'. The Joint Committee clearly wanted the guidelines to be changed to match the law because they did not reflect the law and therefore were ultra vires or seemingly illegal. What is transpiring here is that the Government is seeking to make the law match the guidelines. Quite clearly, it is the guidelines that ought to fit within the law, rather than the other way round. The Committee considered that amendment of the guidelines and and stricter documentation requirements would reinforce that expenditure from the Advance must be for both urgent and unforeseen circumstances as specified by the Parliament. With respect to stricter documentation, the Committee made two more recommendations. They were that a standard form be used for all applications for urgent and unforeseen expenditures from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, whether or not they will remain as a final charge to the Advance. That recommendation was made in paragraph 2.13. It was also recommended that the monthly statement from the Department of Finance to the Parliament have appended applications made on the standard forms for funds from the Advance to the Minister for Finance so that the Parliament can see clearly for what purpose advances are applied. That was recommended in paragraph 2.18. I understand that the Committee has written to Senator Walsh saying that it will forgo its original recommendation and support the Government's amendment, but only if these other two recommendations are adopted. The Government has refused to adopt them. Therefore, the coalition, in agreeing with the analysis and recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, will be opposing the Government's amendments. Rather than acquiescing in an extension of the executive powers, we call for a tightening of those powers. We call on the Government to adopt the three original recommendations of the Joint Committee. They were substantial, they were important and they ought not, in our view, to be ignored. Lest it be thought that, in voting against these amendments, we are voting against Supply Bills, I add that that is not the case. It is not our intention, nor would it be our act. We are simply voting against the amendments proffered by the Minister and are not voting against the Bills. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(8.09) —In the past two days as the Supply Bills have gone through this chamber-they are now in the committee stage-I have listened with interest to comments made by members of the Opposition, both Liberal and National Party members. I have always admired the ability of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) as a professional politician and the way in which he approaches his task even though there is no policy to substantiate what he says. Mr Peacock —I am waiting for the sting in the tail. Mr CLEELAND —I admired him yesterday. I say this with all sincerity. He stood in this House and spoke for the half hour or so that he was allowed and violently attacked the Government's approach. I listened with interest, thinking I might gain something of what the Opposition's views are on consumption taxes or cuts to expenditure, but with regret I say to the honourable gentleman that I was very disappointed. I say again that I admire him. I heard today with a great deal of interest that there is a very strong rumour in the State House in Victoria that the honourable gentleman will shortly be challenging Mr Kennett for the leadership of the State party. I hope he gets the chance to deny that in this place and scotch those rumours very quickly. The Supply Bill is a fundamental arm of government and is very important in the administration of the fiscal and economic policy of this Government. I listened, as I said, with a great deal of interest to comments from the Opposition in the course of the debate and have been somewhat puzzled by comments from some spokesmen who say that they are going to cut expenditure all over the place, yet today we had the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) calling for increased funding for local government and increased expenditure on roads. I do not know how that fits with the shadow Treasurer's viewpoint on expenditure cuts. Certainly today the honourable member for Maranoa was calling for substantial increases in funding for local government and substantial increases in road funding. The new honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt), in his maiden speech, made a very impassioned plea for increased expenditure in the aged area. I listened with interest to him because he is part of a party that says it is going to slash expenditure all over the place. Here was another example of an Opposition member calling for increased expenditure, which I do not necessarily disagree with. I think it is a wonderful concept, but I wonder how within the confines of the Opposition approach we are going to cut expenditure in these areas. I suppose the gem of all speeches that I heard today was from the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), who made what I guess one could almost say was his maiden economic speech in this House. I listened with a great deal of interest and a great deal of worry because I did not hear from him any details of what the Opposition economic policy really is. I thought that from someone with such an eminent background as the honourable member's we might hear something to inform the Parliament, the media and the Australian public just what the Opposition economic policy is and what are the parameters the Opposition would place in the economic debate, so that we can get into a really serious debate about the economy of this country. Let me say that I do not agree with the propositions of the supply-side economists. I do not agree with those who run with the theory that one can simply cut taxes and somehow there is a magic incentive placed in the marketplace that then increases the gross domestic product, that then increases jobs. It seems to be a nonsense. Let us look for example, at what has happened in the United States-and I am always interested to hear those calling for cuts in company taxes. In the United States the Government reduced the rate of company tax to 28 per cent. Those who use that as an argument in this place do not inform the House and neglect to discuss the fact that it was a revenue neutral activity for the American Congress and the American President. The net effect of dropping the rate of tax to 28 per cent was to increase the tax take in the corporate sector by 23 per cent. Is the Opposition suggesting here that we cut company taxes, while on the contrary side we decrease the concessional deductions for corporations and increase the revenue take? I wish someone in the Opposition would clearly detail to me and other members of the Parliament and perhaps to the business community-who are watching this debate with interest-what the Opposition means by a reduction in company taxes. Is it the American model? Is it a very shallow position where you cut taxes, but raise revenue so that it becomes a revenue neutral exercise? If one looks at what happened in New Zealand, again one finds that, while the New Zealand Government has dropped rates of tax, it has increased the net yield from taxation. I understand that before September we are going to get an Opposition tax policy. I hope that will be the case, because I want to see whether we are going to a supply-side economic theory, whether we are going to have a revenue neutral proposal on the tax side of the policies, or whether the tax cuts will be funded by cuts on the expenditure side of $16 billion or $2.3 billion or $10 billion. The Government is quite clear on where it stands on these matters. I support the Confederation of Australian Industry in its support of the Australian Government's approach to economics. It is an economic miracle-there can be no argument about that. It stands to the credit of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the economic Ministers of this Government that, despite the fact that we suffered the worst trade turnaround since the 1920s and the early 1930s, this country has survived it very well. There has been pain in the electorate. The Government cannot cut real wages and expect the average Australian not to react to that. The Government cannot take the necessary difficult steps in monetary and fiscal policy and expect that as interest rates rise the people will not react to that. One cannot expect wages forever to stay down. But this Government took the hard decisions. It overcame the terms of trade turnaround. It stuck to its guns. It exercised, in my view, a great deal of bravery and I am very proud to be a part of that Government. In conclusion I again say to the shadow Treasurer, a man I have admired from afar for many years, that I wish him luck with his policy. I enjoin him to come into this place with clean hands, as any equity lawyer should, and produce the policy so that one can have a debate on policy, rather than to be always negative and always saying that the Government is doing the wrong thing. I come here to debate, and I look forward to the day when we get that chance. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(8.17) —I would like to address the amendment before the committee, but before doing so could I just remind the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) that the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) on one occasion appeared in his local paper saying that he was all set and ready to run for the position of Leader of the Opposition in the Queensland Parliament. If the honourable member is going to raise matters of Federal members switching back to State politics, let him be reminded of that error by the honourable member for Leichhardt, who has since withdrawn the Press comment that he made at that time. The amendment before the Committee relates to the schedule, page 17, division 310. There are two things I want to say. Firstly, as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) correctly said, this represents another step down the path to control and governance of this country by bureaucracy and less control by the Parliament and by the legislation passed by the Parliament. All of that is buried in the small print in the last phrase of the amendment where it uses words like, `(B) was erroneously omitted from, or understated in, the Bill for this Act'. What it is saying is that the bureaucrats can make mistakes, they can understate amounts, but that is now covered by this all-embracing amendment which the Minister has moved to the Supply legislation and it will not require the same exactitude in the preparation and in the passage of the Supply Bills. As such, it is a shabby trend, one that is dangerous for the direction of parliamentary democracy, that the bureaucrats will have yet again scope to manoeuvre down paths that they chose, without coming properly to the Parliament and without properly stating the intent in the legislation in the first place. I support strongly what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong, has said. The trend that this amendment is dealing with is a trend towards more bureaucratic control and to more sloppy governance of this country and as such the Opposition is opposed to it. The second point I would like to raise concerns the style of drafting. I refer the Committee to the phraseology in the first line of the amendment which states, `The schedule, page 17, division 310, omit subparagraph (b) (i) . . .' One has to read it very carefully with the parent Bill before the chamber to work out precisely which lines will come out. I would suggest that as a style of drafting it would have been more accurate to say, `Omit subparagraph occurring under (b) (i)' or, alternatively, `omit subparagraph (i) (a)', as a different style of drafting from the one which has been adopted by the Minister in moving this amendment. I do not claim to be a parliamentary draftsman in any way, but people have to be able to decipher the Government's amendments. It is not unreasonable that the best course of action be followed in drafting those amendments to make their intention very clear cut. I raise with the Committee and the Minister the question of the style and accuracy of the drafting of amendments to this Bill. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(8.21) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —The honourable member is entitled to make a second statement. Mr PEACOCK —In terms of a second statement, I simply say that this canard, this farrago, that the Australian Labor Party continues to run that I may be transferring to the Victorian Parliament to contest the leadership is just that-a farrago of lies. In case someone was listening and thought that there was some truth to the rumour, I put it down, because my friend and colleague Jeff Kennett will soon be the next Premier of Victoria. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Staples's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. J.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Courtice, B. W. Morris, AllanCrawford, M. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Cross, M. D. O'Neil, L. R. T.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Price, L. R. S.Dawkins, J. S. Saunderson, J.Dubois, S. C. Scholes, G. G. D.Duffy, M. J. Sciacca, C.Duncan, P. Scott, J. L.Edwards, Ronald Simmons, D. W.Fatin, W. F. Snow, J. H.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Snowdon, W. E.Free, R. V. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Harvey, E. R. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Jacobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Nehl, G. B.Burr, M. A. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.MacArthur, F. S. Woods, R. L. McLeay, Leo Ruddock, P. M.Grace, E. L. Moore, J. C.Hand, G. L. Cowan, D. B.Kerin, J. C. Lloyd, B.Morris, Peter Andrew, J. N.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Staples)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 April, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care)(8.31) —I move: Schedule 2, page 13, Division 868, omit subparagraph (b) (i) of the statement of purpose set out in the Division, substitute the following subparagraph: ``(i) that the Minister for Finance is satisfied is expenditure that is urgently required and: (a) was unforeseen until after the last day on which it was practicable to include appropriation for that expenditure in the Bill for this Act before the introduction of that Bill into the House of Representatives; or (b) was erroneously omitted from, or understated in, the Bill for this Act; and''. This amendment to the statement of purpose widens the criteria for the use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance. I refer honourable members to my comments on Supply Bill (No. 1), since they apply equally to this legislation. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(8.32) —For the reasons that I gave in relation to the amendment moved to Supply Bill (No. 1), the Opposition similarly opposes this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Staples) -by leave- read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 April, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care)(8.34) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 1, omit ``$41,236,000'', substitute ``$42,171,000''. (2) The Schedule, page 4, Division 102, omit paragraph (a) of the statement of purpose set out in the Division, substitute the following paragraph: ``(a) that the President of the Senate is satisfied is expenditure that is urgently required and: (i) was unforeseen until after the last day on which it was practicable to include appropriation for that expenditure in the Bill for this Act before the introduction of that Bill into the House of Representatives; or (ii) was erroneously omitted from, or understated in, the Bill for this Act; and''. (3) The Schedule, page 4, Division 104, omit paragraph (a) of the statement of purpose set out in the Division, substitute the following paragraph: ``(a) that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is satisfied is expenditure that is urgently required and: (i) was unforeseen until after the last day on which it was practicable to include appropriation for that expenditure in the Bill for this Act before the introduction of that Bill into the House of Representatives; or (ii) was erroneously omitted from, or understated in, the Bill for this Act; and''. (4) The Schedule, page 4, Division 105, omit ``$2 196 000'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``$3 131 000''. (5) The Schedule, page 5, Division 108, omit paragraph (a) of the statement of purpose set out in the Division, substitute the following paragraph: ``(a) that both the President and the Speaker are satisfied is expenditure that is urgently required and: (i) was unforeseen until after the last day on which it was practicable to include appropriation for that expenditure in the Bill for this Act before the introduction of that Bill into the House of Representatives; or (ii) was erroneously omitted from, or understated in, the Bill for this Act; and''. The purpose of the amendments is to increase the supply of funds for the Parliamentary Reporting Staff under the Supply Bill (Parliamentary Departments) 1988-89 and, as with Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2), to widen the criteria for the use of the Advances to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In addition, the amount of $935,000 was omitted from this Bill in respect of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. The omission came about through details of funding arrangements for the Parliamentary Information Systems Office not being available until late in the preparation of the Bill. There are consequent amendments to the recurrent expenditure provisions in the Bill for all the parliamentary departments. The adjustment made for the Parliamentary Reporting Staff was in error. Notwithstanding the previous amendment, the joint Advance to the President and the Speaker would be insufficient to cover the omission in respect of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(8.37) —I have only just received the amendments moved by the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples). I note both from what he says and from a cursory reading of these amendments that amendments (1) and (4) relate to specific sums of money. My opposition to the amendments moved as a whole is for a reason similar to those I gave when the amendment was moved to Supply Bill (No. 1)-that the Government is seeking to change the law to match erroneous guidelines rather than changing the guidelines to fit the law. For that reason, the Opposition opposes the amendments. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Staples)-by leave-read a third time. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations)(8.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Introduction The Industrial Relations Bill 1988 represents the most substantial revision of Australia's Federal industrial relations system undertaken since the system was established in 1904. It originates from the Hancock Committee of Review into Australia's Industrial Relations Law and Systems which the Hawke Labor Government established soon after we came to office. On receipt of the Committee's report, the Government instituted an extensive series of consultations with the major parties, each of which was broadly supportive of the report. The Industrial Relations Bill 1987, which came before the House in May last year, but which subsequently lapsed, reflected a wide measure of agreement between the parties and the Government as to the changes that should be made. There were, however, some important areas of non-agreement, and that continues to be the case. The Industrial Relations Bill 1988 is very similar to the 1987 Bill, albeit with a few major changes and a number of minor amendments. I will later spell out the important differences in this Bill together with the circumstances in which the 1987 Bill was withdrawn. The Government regards this Bill as a very important element in the process of industrial relations reform that has been instituted since the Hawke Government came to office in 1983. That reform process has placed great emphasis on consultation rather than confrontation and has resulted in spectacular improvements in industrial relations outcomes. Its principal mechanism has been the accord between the Government and the trade union movement. The cooperative spirit developed by the accord has been the genesis for a reduction in the level of time lost in industrial disputes to less than half the level that prevailed under the previous Government. The wages outcome also has been dramatically reduced, with the average annual level of increase in nominal earnings being about half the level that prevailed during the Fraser years. The ability of the wages system to adjust to the acute economic difficulties created by the terms of trade collapse in May 1984, without resort to severe recessionary policies to induce that outcome, has been a major success story of the Hawke Government's period in office. More importantly perhaps than either of these changes has been the attitudinal change of the parties. Although there are some spectacular exceptions on both sides, there is now, in general, a much more constructive, cooperative attitude by the parties than previously prevailed. By and large, unions have recognised their need to be economically responsible; they have agreed to real wage declines; they have accepted the need to develop participative, competitive enterprises, and therefore to increase productivity; they have agreed they have a positive role to play in that regard, and have accepted a wage system which, for the first time in our history, gives positive impetus to productivity improvement. These are very encouraging developments indeed and give real hope for long term improvement in our industrial and economic outcomes. They have certainly provided a basis for cooperation between the parties at the national, industry and enterprise level that would have been unimaginable a few years ago. In the near future they seem certain to result in a highly desirable process of award restructuring and enhanced skill formation processes in many industries. As a consequence, we should develop over the next few years a more skilled, flexible and productive work force thus improving competitiveness, economic growth and our capacity to improve living standards. At the national level there have been a number of major agreements by the parties which are indicative of the extraordinary attitudinal change. The joint statement by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) and the Business Council of Australia in September 1986 on restrictive work practices was a major recognition by the parties, and the unions in particular, of the need to eliminate restrictive work practices to improve productivity and competitiveness. This agreement was the forerunner of the current two-tier wages system which has, in turn, resulted in great progress in this area. Similarly, the tripartite report on labour market flexibility, which was developed by the Government, the ACTU and the CAI through the National Labour Consultative Council, demonstrated a remarkable level of consensus in an area which has proved very divisive in many countries. The report strongly supports the need for increased flexibility and emphasises that this can be achieved within a system of conciliation and arbitration. Most recently the ACTU and the CAI produced a joint statement on participative practices. This statement provides, uniquely in Australia's history, a strong expression of support for increased worker participation in decision-making at the enterprise level and an agreed set of principles to govern this development. Most encouragingly, support for this development was set strongly in the context of the need for productivity enhancement. The statement is hopefully the precursor to a major expansion of worker participation in our enterprises, which process the Government will be seeking to encourage and assist. It is therefore a very positive and encouraging industrial relations context in which the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 is being introduced. The Bill sits well with these developments. It is itself very largely agreed by the major parties, each of which recognises the need for the legislative framework which covers the system to be thoroughly overhauled and modernised. The Bill will consolidate the major achievements of the past few years and provide a firm basis on which the progress of the recent past can be continued in the years ahead. Key Elements I turn now to the Bill itself. Full details of the Bill are provided in the explanatory memorandum. Here I propose to mention its most significant features, including key areas where there have been changes from the earlier version. Although the legislation introduces sweeping changes in many of the most important areas of operation of our Federal industrial relations system, it retains the system of conciliation and arbitration as the means by which Australia's industrial relationships are regulated. Retention of the model of conciliation and arbitration is favoured not only by this Government but also by the major parties in the system. The Government does so because it recognises the immense social and industrial benefits which have stemmed from our system. Historically, these arrangements have meant that all workers, whatever their industrial bargaining power, have enjoyed minimum standards of award entitlements which are protected by law. Protection of workers through the award system is one of the real achievements of the conciliation and arbitration machinery. Indeed, by the operation of this system we have, to a far greater extent than most other comparable industrialised countries, been able to prevent exploitation of the industrially weak. Further, the existing conciliation and arbitration framework has provided the opportunity for the development and delivery of a responsible national wages policy which has been utilised so effectively by this Government over the past five years. Both the constitutional constraints imposed on the Commonwealth at Federation and the need for consistency of operation between the Federal body and the State industrial relations tribunals, which work in parallel with the Federal system, are additional reasons why continuation of our conciliation and arbitration system is vital. Since the earlier version of the Bill lapsed last year, there have been some extremely important High Court of Australia decisions which have had significant consequences for our industrial relations legislation and which have allowed modifications to the previously proposed Bill. The Government has continued to consult with the industrial parties about the contents of the Bill. In certain areas the parties have revised their earlier attitudes and have been prepared to see this version of the Bill take additional positive steps towards achieving further progress. The first of the major changes involves unfair dismissals. In the recent Ranger uranium case the High Court decided that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has the power to hear and determine disputes involving claims concerning alleged unfair dismissals. This is clearly preferable to the processes involved in taking legal action before a court. It means that such disputes can be dealt with more speedily, more informally and more cheaply. Accordingly, the proposed Industrial Relations Commission will be able to deal with such matters and the express legislative prescription which vested reinstatement powers in the proposed Labour Court has been omitted from the Bill. Secondly, it will be remembered that when this Bill was introduced last year in its earlier form it included a new and comprehensive sanctions package. The package had been developed to provide effective yet equitable measures to ensure that the Commission had complete authority to enforce adherence by the parties within the Federal industrial relations system to standards applying under that system. The proposed measures would have guaranteed a swift and workable response to deal with industrial misbehaviour. They comprised a new directions and injunction process, non-adherence to which could lead to the imposition of significantly increased monetary penalties or an array of non-monetary penalties. In view of this marked increase in the effectiveness of the compliance provisions under Federal industrial law, it was considered unnecessary and inappropriate to retain access to injunctive remedies under common law for industrial action. Accordingly, the Bill prevented access to such injunctions, whilst continuing to allow the pursuit of compensatory damages at common law. The Bill also proposed to transfer the jurisdiction to deal with contraventions by trade unions of sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to the proposed Labour Court without amending the remedies available under that Act. Access to the Trade Practices Act for injunctions or damages for contraventions of sections 45d and 45e was prevented until conciliation of the underlying dispute had been attempted. The compliance provisions of the previous Bill thus represented a balanced and rational approach. They sought to provide enhanced compliance measures within the Federal industrial legislative code and to restrict, as far as reasonably possible, resort to legal avenues outside that statutory code. Not to do so was to place unions in a situation of serious double jeopardy. They would be open to large increased penalties under the Industrial Relations Act yet, for the same industrial action could still be liable for severe penalties under the common law. Such a situation would have been, in the Government's view, grossly unfair and totally unnecessary. There was simply no need for employers to have access to common law injunctions once the enhanced compliance provisions, including injunctions, were contained in Federal industrial law. Unfortunately, the new compliance measures received a hostile reception from employer groups. Whilst they welcomed the new directions and injunctions process, they adamantly demanded the retention of common law penalties and immediate access to actions under the Trade Practices Act. The Government considered that the employers' intransigent opposition to these provisions had the capacity to undermine the parties' commitment to, and the public's confidence in, the new industrial relations system. It therefore decided to remove the proposed compliance package from the legislation and to preserve the system which currently exists. Accordingly, this Bill retains the bans clause procedures under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which have been redrafted to make them more easily understood. Monetary penalties for award breaches and non-adherence to compliance provisions remain unchanged from those which currently prevail but a number of non-monetary penalties for industrial misconduct contained in the previous Bill have been retained. The third major change embodied in this Bill is the decision not to proceed with a separate labour court. The High Court's ruling on the Commission's ability to deal with alleged unfair dismissal disputes and the Government's decision not to retain the proposed compliance package diminished the need for such a court. Therefore the industrial division of the Federal Court of Australia will continue to deal with appropriate matters. The remaining two changes of substance in this Bill involve the registration and amalgamation of organisations. It is widely accepted that Australia has too many trade unions. Small, craft-based unions cannot effectively represent the interests of their members due to their limited human and financial resources. Further, as employers and employees work together to pursue the mandatory changes which are necessary to make their industry or enterprise as productive as possible, small unions can often be seen as an inhibiting factor to change. Accordingly, to address these problems this Bill provides for speedier amalgamations. In addition to the less onerous voting requirements proposed in the previous Bill, this legislation now reduces the opportunities for objections to amalgamations. Where the Commission determines that an amalgamation will not involve any extension in the overall coverage of participating unions, the current objection procedures will not apply. Whilst there has been considerable activity amongst the larger unions to achieve union restructuring through amalgamations, the smaller unions have lagged behind in their endeavours to seek suitable partners for amalgamation purposes. Accordingly, the Government has decided to increase the minimum number of members required for registration purposes to ensure sufficient encouragement for smaller unions to actively pursue amalgamation. Unions will now be required, except in special cases, to have 3,000 members before they can be registered. At present the threshold is 100 members, whilst the previous Bill provided for 1,000 members. Currently there are almost half of the 148 federally registered unions with memberships of less than 3,000. Yet the membership of these unions constitutes only 2.9 per cent of the total membership of all federally registered unions. To maintain the appropriate encouragement for amalgamations, the continued registration of a union with less than the minimum number will be reviewed after a period of three years, not five years as previously proposed. The designated presidential member will then decide if the union's registration should be cancelled. There are also a number of other more minor changes which have been made to the legislation to improve the drafting or to reflect further consideration by the Government and the parties themselves of certain provisions in the Bill. Other Key Features I turn now to deal with the key initiatives which were contained in the previous Bill and which are retained in this legislation. Institutional Framework and Jurisdiction The Bill provides for the establishment of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It will replace the existing Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The change in title, which was recommended by the Hancock Committee of Review into the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, reflects the expanded activities of the new Commission and places less emphasis on a pro-active determinative role. The Office of the Industrial Registrar is to be established as a statutory authority. However, the power to register organisations or amend eligibility rules will now be decided by a deputy president of the Commission. The Bill also affords a general rationalisation of existing specialist Federal industrial tribunals and the special jurisdictions under the existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act, all of which it incorporates into the mainstream jurisdiction. The Academic Salaries Tribunal, the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal and the present arrangements concerning the Australian Federal Police will therefore be abolished. There will no longer be a separate division of the Act to cover Commonwealth and Territory employees. They will be dealt with within the general powers and functions of the division. In relation to the Coal Industry Tribunal, since its powers and functions are governed by both Federal and New South Wales State legislation, under an agreement between the two governments, all changes require the concurrence of the New South Wales Government. In view of the poor industrial relations performance of the coal industry, the Government believes that there is a strong case for change in, if not the complete abolition of, the Coal Industry Tribunal. The previous New South Wales Government did not favour any major changes to the Coal Industry Tribunal's operations. However, with the change in government in New South Wales, I have written to my New South Wales counterpart seeking his government's view on the future of the Coal Industry Tribunal and to what changes the State Government would be prepared to agree. For its part, the Government believes that the rationalisation of tribunals should indeed extend to the State tribunals so that we would have a national integrated system of industrial relations. This we believe would be in the best interests of industrial regulation in Australia. Unfortunately, little progress towards this end was made in discussions with the States. Without the States' agreement or an amendment to the Constitution, the Government is unable to achieve the establishment of a unitary industrial relations system on a national basis. Nevertheless, the Bill contains specific proposals which are designed to facilitate greater cooperation between the Federal and State industrial tribunals and to promote greater uniformity of treatment of the parties between the systems. The Bill provides that members of State and Federal tribunals will be able to hold, concurrently, dual commissions which will enable them to exercise both State and Federal powers, once the States have enacted complementary legislation. Further, meetings of the heads of tribunals will be placed on a statutory footing. The jurisdiction of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission will be framed as broadly as possible within the limits of the conciliation and arbitration power, subject only to the requirement that disputes relate to matters concerning employers and employees. It is intended that disputes involving all such matters will be able to come before the Commission, thus removing existing constraints on Commission involvement. This does not mean, however, that the Commission will be arbitrating or interfering in matters which may be properly regarded as coming within managerial prerogative. Certainly, in its own area of employment, the Commonwealth will vigorously assert its right to exercise appropriate managerial prerogative without Commission interference. The Commission will have a range of additional powers to strengthen its hand in dealing with disputes. Whilst the Commission will still be precluded from dealing with claims for payment covering periods of industrial action, the Commission will be empowered to consider claims for lost time which are justified on the grounds that the employees had a reasonable concern about their health and safety. The Commission will also have additional obligations. In particular, the Commission will be required to take account of the economic consequences of its decisions in all proceedings, not just full bench matters. There are specific new powers to enable permanent solutions to be found to resolve demarcation disputes. The Bill gives the Commission the discretion to allow the ACTU to attempt to settle a dispute before it exercises its own powers. Where the trade union movement cannot effect a timely resolution of the dispute the Commission will be able to address both the immediate and the long term issues relating to the demarcation of specific work. It will be able to make orders as to coverage and to change union rules to give effect to its decisions, thereby ensuring lasting relief. There is a greater emphasis on the resolution of disputes on the shop floor. The conciliation and arbitration power does not allow the Government to require the Commission to insert grievance procedures in all awards. But where such procedures exist in the workplace for resolving differences between parties, it is imperative that they be followed. To this end, the Commission is required to take into account the extent to which grievance procedures have been followed by the parties when deciding whether it will deal with a dispute. This will encourage employers and employees to seek the insertion of grievance procedures in their awards and to use those procedures. Model grievance procedures will be further developed through the National Labour Consultative Council to enable national union and employer organisations to encourage their members to adopt a uniform standard for inclusion in all awards. Many awards have already been varied to incorporate grievance procedures arising from negotiations under the second tier arrangements. Certified Agreements In order to allow the greatest possible flexibility, yet avoid the undesirable outcomes of a totally decentralised system, the Bill provides for both the currently available consent awards and for fixed term, non-variable binding agreements which will be certified by the Commission. Such agreements differ from the current consent award provisions in that they will have a specified life, after which they will lapse, and will not be able to be varied during that period, except in special and compelling circumstances. Most importantly, the settlements embodied in such agreements may provide for outcomes which differ somewhat from those generally prevailing under the wages system, provided a Full Bench of the Commission is satisfied that to certify such terms in the agreement would not be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, where a full bench of the Commission considers that an agreement is in the mutual best interests of the parties themselves and that its certification would not undermine the prevailing wage fixation principles or threaten the orderly operation of the wages system or other aspects of the industrial relations system, it is required to certify the agreement. Through such agreements, there is considerable scope for the development of arrangements designed to reflect the particular requirements of an individual employer or enterprise. The agreements will provide individual employers guaranteed certainty in relation to the labour costs which will apply during the period of the agreement and will enable them to take appropriate management decisions in the knowledge of such predetermined stable costs. Clearly such arrangements have considerable potential for enhancing workplace productivity. In the event that a party takes industrial action in relation to a matter embodied in the agreement, the other party will be permitted, upon the Commission's approval, to treat the agreement as terminated. Action to secure compliance, short of terminating the agreement, will also be available through access to a bans clause. Similarly, an employer will be able to apply for the insertion of a stand-down clause covering employees who cannot perform their work due to external circumstances. The Bill also recognises the capacity of the parties to provide their own measures for securing compliance in certified agreements, for example, by providing for the suspension of termination of rights or obligations in specified circumstances. Where such measures are contained in an agreement, it will be possible to provide expressly for the exclusion or limiting of the Commission's powers to include a bans clause or a stand down provision in the agreement. Where all parties consent and the Commission declares that it is in the public interest, it will be possible for the agreement to be terminated. There is provision in the legislation for the Minister to intervene in the public interest to seek to have the Commission review the operation of a certified agreement if the Minister considers such a review is warranted. Further, the Bill prevents any flow on to other awards of the terms contained in a certified agreement. As all such agreements will require Commission certification before they take effect, the Commission will be able to ensure that they do not prejudice its wages system. Nevertheless, certified agreements will still provide a substantial measure of flexibility currently lacking under present legislative provisions. Organisations In addition to the initiatives which I have already outlined in relation to the registration and amalgamation of unions, the Bill also incorporates the same voting requirements for amalgamation purposes which were introduced in the previous version. Thus, where unions satisfy the `community of interest' test, a simple majority of votes cast in favour will approve the amalgamation. Where no `community of interest' criterion applies, at least a quarter of eligible members of the organisations will be required to vote with a simple majority of these votes being necessary to approve the amalgamation. Special transitional arrangements will also be provided for existing office-holders in the amalgamating organisations. The Government recognises that legislative changes by themselves will not necessarily overcome all impediments to restructuring unions. I am, therefore, exploring possible arrangements for financial assistance on a needs basis to be made available to assist amalgamating organisations. The future registration of unions will again, in this Bill, be restricted to associations which are industry based, thus precluding the future registration of craft or occupationally based associations, except in special circumstances. These measures relating to registration requirements and amalgamations will lead to a reduction in the number of small unions and a number of important consequences: a fall in the incidence of demarcation disputes; a reduction in the number of unions with which employers are required to negotiate; a stronger union affinity with the welfare of the industry in which its members work; more efficient use of trade union resources; and less resistance to changes which might otherwise have meant workers moving from one union's area of coverage to that of another union. A reduction in the number of unions will also complement the Government's industrial strategy by facilitating workplace consultation and greater employee participation in decision making. The Government recognises that for some enterprises and projects the continued or potential presence of a multiplicity of unions represents a major impediment to higher efficiency and a discouragement to future investment. Accordingly, in addition to promoting union amalgamations, the government fully supports moves to rationalise arrangements for union coverage of workers on individual projects and work sites where necessary. The Government believes such rationalisation can be achieved under the provisions of this Industrial Relations Bill, but should any legislative obstacle to this process be identified, the Government will consider appropriate amendments. Registered trade unions are required to observe a wide range of provisions regulating their affairs. They must meet proper standards of internal administration and satisfy requirements for democratic control. The legislation contains many initiatives which will enhance the accountability and efficient operations of trade unions. There is a requirement that all elections for offices in organisations are to be officially conducted unless an exemption is granted by the Registrar. All elections by a direct voting system for offices, other than for administrative offices, are to be by secret postal ballot except where an exemption is obtained. The individual rights that are presently contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are preserved by the Bill and in some instances have been enhanced. Thus the legislation includes more comprehensive procedures dealing with records that are to be kept by organisations and provides new measures to give further access to such records by their members. Provisions are included requiring organisations to issue a statement to a member about that person's membership and financial status. In addition, the rights of a member to resign from an organisation are clarified in the legislation. The protection of non-members' rights is also strengthened. The tests to be applied for purposes of seeking a conscientious objection certificate have been eased and clarified. In addition, the provision will now apply for purposes of individuals' membership of employer organisations as well as for employee organisations. The court's powers in relation to offences connected with conscientious objectors are to be extended to include the power to reinstate. Members' rights to participate actively in the affairs of their organisation are protected. They are entitled to challenge rules, to seek their enforcement, to initiate election inquiries and to seek a secret ballot on strike action. The scope of the current provisions protecting persons from discriminatory or industrial action has been broadened, in particular, to cover prospective employees. Likewise, the provisions designed to protect independent contractors have been extended to apply to actions by an organisation to coerce an independent contractor to join that or any other organisation. Sanctions As I have already advised the House, the Government has decided not to proceed with its previous sanctions package but instead is retaining the existing system of compliance. The Commission will still be able to conciliate in relation to secondary boycott disputes. It is also made clear that State legislation which is inconsistent with Federal law is overridden to the extent of the inconsistency. Hence, certain Federal remedies in relation to conduct by unions are, in specified circumstances, exclusive of remedies under State or Territory legislation. The Trade Practices Act remedies for breaches of sections 45d and 45e will be exclusive of inconsistent State or Territory legislation in respect of both Federal and State registered organisations and no State or Territory legislation will apply to Federal unions in breach of bans clause or orders relating to industrial action in the Federal public sector. However, these exemptions do not apply to breaches of criminal law or where a union is breaching an award or order of a State industrial tribunal. Penalty levels provided for offences against provisions of the new Bill have been rationalised, as the levels under the previous Act were set in an ad hoc manner over many years and lacked internal consistency. In most cases under the Bill the penalty for an individual is set at $500 while a body corporate or an organisation committing the same offence will incur a penalty of $1,000. Daily or weekly penalties are provided for offences of a continuing nature. Finally, I wish to advise the House that the Government proposes to address a genuine area of concern regarding allegations of corrupt practices by or involving officers of federally registered unions. Whilst there are only rare incidences of such allegations, they have been mentioned in the reports of the Sweeney Royal Commission into Alleged Payments to Maritime Unions, the Winneke Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation and the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Criminal behaviour by union officials and employers is totally unacceptable and in complete breach of the spirit of the orderly operation of the Federal industrial relations system. Accordingly, the Government intends later this year to amend the Crimes Act 1914 to provide for an anti-corruption provision which makes it an offence for an officer or employee of a union to corruptly misuse his position within the union to seek or to obtain a benefit for himself or someone else on the understanding that such benefit will influence him. Similarly, an employer who dishonestly offers or gives such an official any benefit in order to influence that union official will also be guilty of an offence. Conclusion This Bill will consolidate the Government's achievements in the industrial relations arena and positively contribute towards the creation of a more productive Australian society. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations)(9.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988 has three main purposes. The first is to repeal the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, which will be superseded by the Industrial Relations Bill 1988. As a result of the repeal of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, a number of other Acts will require amendment. The second purpose of the Consequential Provisions Bill is therefore to amend these Acts. The consequential amendments made to other Acts are generally of a technical nature and deal primarily with the substitution of references to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act with references to the Industrial Relations Bill. Other consequential amendments deal with the repeal of provisions of Acts which will become redundant on the enactment of the Industrial Relations Bill. The third purpose of the Consequential Provisions Bill is to ensure that the transition from the system established under the previous Act to the system established by the Industrial Relations Bill is as smooth as possible. Most of the provisions contained in this Bill are designed to bring that about. For example, provision is made for the transfer of part-heard proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to the new Industrial Relations Commission on the commencement of the new Act. Registration obtained by organisations under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will be maintained for purposes of the new Bill as will current awards and orders of the present Commission. The repeal of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will not result in any disadvantage to parties in the Federal system. Two general provisions are included in this Bill to deal with any difficulties which might arise as a result of the transition from the previous system to the new regime. The President of the Industrial Relations Commission is to have the power to give directions and the Federal Court of Australia is to be able to make orders to resolve any problems which might occur as a result of the transition. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Honey Marketing Bill 1988 Honey Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988 Honey Levy (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1988 Honey Export Charge Amendment Bill 1988 Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.13) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of new Commonwealth offices, Melbourne. The Government intends to construct a 60,000 square metre Commonwealth office accommodation building on the existing Commonwealth Centre site in Melbourne. This is in accordance with the Government's policy of increasing ownership of its office accommodation requirements. The proposal is the first of a two-stage development and will utilise some 6,000 squares metres of the south-east corner of the property. The site is well situated within the Melbourne central business district (CBD) and is well serviced by public transport. There are no site constraints affecting construction of the building, although it has been agreed with relevant State and local government authorities that a number of buildings of heritage interest will be retained. The design solution adopted for this stage of the development allows for a building of 42 storeys above ground and three basement levels below ground. The above ground design consists of a nine-floor podium with a tower section of a further 33 floors, all set back from the site boundary. The tower section provides 31 floors of office space and the remaining two floors will house plant and equipment. Office areas will accommodate about 4,000 public servants, while the basement will provide parking, storage space, plant rooms and other service areas. The design is based on guidelines established for the development of Commonwealth office buildings and relevant Commonwealth construction standards and codes of practice apply. The anticipated construction period is 48 months. In keeping with commercial practice, staged occupancy of lower areas will be arranged. In this way, the podium areas will be available for fit-out about six to eight months earlier than the highest floor. As a consequence of the importance of time in this proposal, contractual arrangements will be adopted which minimise the risk of delay and associated costs. These arrangements will protect the Commonwealth and provide a building of the standard and quality required and maximise the expertise of the contractor in the documentation process. Documentation to allow the proposal to go to tender is now nearing completion. Given the approval of the Standing Committee on Public Works, the Department of Administrative Services Construction Group is now in a position to tender in May, only nine months since the initial development was approved in the 1987-88 Budget. That is a great record. I think the Construction Group of my Department deserves congratulations, as does the Public Works Committee. The estimated cost of the proposal in the 1987-88 works program was $143m based on April 1987 prices. The proposal was referred to the Public Works Committee at this price. The current estimate, updated to April 1988 prices, is $154m. This estimate excludes costs for internal fit-out, which was referred to the Public Works Committee at $20m at April 1987 prices. This estimate, updated to April 1988 prices, is now $22m. I understand the changes are solely as a result of inflation. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) said on Tuesday in this House that he believes this proposal is not consistent with Government policy. I do not know how the honourable member for Barker claims to be an authority on Government policy, but I can assure the House that this proposal is consistent with Government policy, including that of rationalisation of its property holdings to achieve a more efficient utilisation of its assets. As part of this rationalisation the Government has sold the Melbourne Commonwealth Centre, releasing to the private sector a prime development site. If this building had been retained by the Government, a very costly refurbishment would have had to be completed to restore the building to an acceptable standard. While disposal of the Melbourne Commonwealth Centre also reduces the level of owned accommodation by about 29,000 square metres of occupiable space, this proposal provides for a development of about 60,000 square metres of office space. The net result will be a substantial increase in the Federal Government's stock of owned accommodation in Melbourne. It will also enable departments currently accommodated in high-priced leases in private sector accommodation and who continue to require a fringe CBD location to be relocated into modern office accommodation with considerable saving in rent. A financial analysis of the proposal, which has been made available to the Parliamentary Public Works Committee on a confidential basis, clearly demonstrates the advantages of the proposal over private sector pre-commitment leasing. It indicated that on a discounted net present value basis the proposal will conservatively result in a saving of many millions of dollars, even over a relatively short period of 15 years. I would like to thank the Committee for its prompt consideration of this important proposal, and I commend the motion to the House. Mr BURR(Lyons)(9.19) —The Opposition does not oppose this proposal but, as the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) pointed out when the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Works was tabled in this House, we do have some concern that the Government appears to be going about the process of planning future office accommodation requirements, in the major capital cities, and in particular in Melbourne and Sydney, in a very ad hoc way. The homework that is required to determine the future requirements in both of those major cities for the departments concerned does not appear to have been done. It may be more efficient, and more convenient to the public, if Public Service operations were located in the suburbs, but we have not been able to establish whether a review to determine where the most efficient operations could be based has been undertaken by the Government. We note that further building programs are coming forward, particularly in the Melbourne area, at Oakleigh and also at Frankston. But we are not certain how those projects might dovetail with an overall program of planned redevelopment and reaccommodation of some Public Service functions. Whilst we do not oppose this project, we urge the Government to plan its future operations far better than it has in the past, rather than simply pulling out ad hoc programs to suit its own convenience. We note that the major form of building in Melbourne was part of the Government's sell-off program which did nothing to help the Government balance its budget in this financial year. Now we are seeing a further building program to reaccommodate Public Service departments. This all seems to be part of an ad hoc program by the Government. It is not part of any planned, long term visionary program by the Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.22) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of new Commonwealth offices, Haymarket New South Wales. The proposal before the House if for the construction of about 50,000 square metres of office accommodation at Haymarket in Sydney on Commonwealth land known as the Australian Gas Light Co. site. The proposal is in accordance with the Government's policy of increasing ownership of its office accommodation requirements, therefore reducing the overall rental outlays in Sydney. The site is a complete city block at the southern end of the central business district (CBD) bounded by Pitt, Barlow, Barker and Hay Streets. It is well positioned in relation to public transport. It is only five minutes walk from Central Railway Station and the bus interchange at Railway Square. The site contains a number of historic buildings. The proposal will provide for the restoration of the significant buildings and their incorporation into the overall development. The site also contains a number of retail facilities. To take advantage of the full development potential of the site, the project will include some 1,600 square metres of retail and commercial facilities which will be leased on the open market. The proposed office development will comprise a main tower of 31 levels at the southern end of the site linked to a medium rise building of nine floors along the western boundary. A two-storey podium to the north-east will incorporate the three historic buildings. The development will accommodate some 3,000 public servants. On-site parking will be provided for about 130 vehicles. Access and facilities for the disabled will be provided. The estimated cost of this proposal in the 1987-88 public works program was $180m at April 1987 prices. The proposal was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works at this price. The current estimate, updated to April 1988 prices, is $231m. This estimate excludes costs for internal fitout which was referred to the Public Works Committee at $18m at April 1987 prices. This estimate for fitout updated to 1988 prices is now $20m. Contrary to the assertions made in this House recently by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), this proposal is, like the Melbourne proposal, consistent with government policy. It rationalises the Government's property holdings to achieve a more efficient utilisation of assets. The proposal provides for some 50,000 square metres of office space. Even allowing for the reduction of space resulting from the sale of 20,000 square metres of office space in the Commonwealth Centre at Chifley Square, the net result is a substantial increase in the Government's stock of owned accommodation in Sydney. This sale has raised $306m, compared to $118m which this building will cost. So we move up from 20,000 to 50,000 square metres and we make hundreds millions of dollars in the process. The opposition says that that is not effective rationalisation of office space. If it is not, I do not know what is. As I have just said, substantial revenue gains have been made. The revenue that has been obtained from the sale of Chifley Square certainly more than offsets the cost of this magnificent Haymarket proposal. Its development will also help to revitalise this part of Sydney, consistent with urban planning objectives of State and local authorities. I certainly believe that even the new State Government in New South Wales will stand back and applaud the Federal Labor Government's initiative in helping to revitalise this run-down area of downtown Sydney. The proposal as developed also offers major savings over the alternative of leasing equivalent accommodation. I understand that the honourable member for Lyons asserted that the rental savings are insufficient to justify the cost. What must be remembered, however, is that the rental savings which are achieved on initial occupation of the building will increase over time as rental costs escalate elsewhere in the Sydney region. Rental costs for leased accommodation over a long period, of, say, 15 or 20 years, in the end are dead payments, whereas if one builds and consequently owns a building, the building generally appreciates in value over time and at the end of the 15 or 20 years one still has an asset which has long since been paid for and which has escalated in value in line with inflation. Members of the Public Works Committee, including the honourable member for Lyons, were provided with a confidential financial analysis of this proposal. The analysis clearly showed its superiority over a leasing alternative. So I do not know what the honourable member was talking about the other day. Even over a relatively short period of 15 years, the analysis showed that, in discounted net present value terms, the proposal will conservatively result in a saving of many millions of dollars when compared with a leasing alternative. The office development proposed will meet a significant proportion of the justified office accommodation requirements of the Sydney region. Specifically it will meet the needs of a number of potential occupant departments currently accommodated in high-priced CBD leases. It will also meet the needs of the Australian Taxation Office, but I stress that the accommodation is not dependent on the Taxation Office for its successful and complete occupation. Any suggestion of delaying its implementation while the Taxation Office completes some further planning of its future needs would, therefore be counterproductive, cannot be justified and would lead to increased costs. Documentation to allow the proposal to go to tender is proceeding. Tenders will be called to enable construction to commence on completion of site preparation, expected in November of this year. I would like to thank the Committee for its prompt consideration of the proposal, and I commend the motion to the House. Mr BURR(Lyons)(9.30) —The Opposition does not oppose the construction of this particular government project at Haymarket, but the comments that I made earlier about the Melbourne project are doubly appropriate to this project at Haymarket. The project for the construction of a building at Haymarket proposes a building of 50,000 square metres, and it is proposed that 30,000 square metres of that building will be occupied by the Australian Taxation Office. Yet in evidence to the Public Works Committee it was pointed out by the Taxation Office that it was uncertain whether it wished to occupy that building. The Taxation Office is currently doing a review of its office accommodation requirements in the Sydney area and it pointed out to the Committee in evidence that it might be more efficient for it to be located in various suburbs rather than to be centrally located in the central business district. The Opposition feels that it is premature for the Government to go ahead with this project while that review by the Taxation Office, which is intended to be the major tenant of the building, is still under way. While I pointed out earlier with regard to the Melbourne project that this Government is going about its office accommodation requirements in an ad hoc way, we claim that in relation to the Sydney building it is even more ad hoc than is the case in Melbourne. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) pointed out that the Chifley Square building, which was the major government-owned building in the central business district of Sydney, was sold earlier this year as part of the Government's program to balance its budget this year. We maintain that if the Government wants to sell off its assets simply to be able to boast of balancing its budget in one year, it is no justification for extending the spending program over a number of years. I pointed out earlier in the House something that the Minister is rather testy about, that in evidence to the Public Works Committee it was pointed out by the Department of Administrative Services that the cost of leasing 50,000 square metres of rental accommodation in the Sydney area at present is $13m. Yet the construction cost plus fit-out cost of $135m for this building will cost more to service than what it would cost to lease property in the central business district. We do not oppose this particular project, but we accuse the Government of going about its office accommodation requirements in the major capital cities in a most ad hoc way. What we ask the Government to do is nothing more than review its program, plan where it is going to accommodate public service departments and public service functions, look at where the Government can offer the best service to the public, and come back to this Parliament with a planned and cohesive program for the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.33) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of radio and orchestra facilities for the ABC and SBS at Ultimo, New South Wales. Currently the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) operate their radio and orchestra services from 24 separate premises around the central business district of Sydney, all but two of which are leased. The ABC has costed the savings likely to be achieved by collocation within a single-purpose designed facility at approximately $10.2m a year. This takes into account projected rent and staff savings and other operational efficiencies. These savings will be sufficient to meet the cost of annual repayments required under the instalment purchase arrangements intended to finance construction of the building. Sale of the two remaining ABC-owned properties will meet the $14.8m cost of purchasing the Ultimo site. The Committee supports collocation on the Ultimo site and expresses the view that, notwithstanding the current review of national broadcasting policy, the solution offers sufficient flexibility to cope with possible future changes. As recommended by the Committee, the proposal provides for construction of a 39,800 square metre building over nine levels, comprising offices, studio-production suites and a 700-seat rehearsal and recording hall, plus other public and support facilities. A feature of the building will be the central spine, designated as `studio capable' floor area, which will incorporate special provisions to ensure full acoustic isolation of studios. The `On Air' studios will also have views over the city and Darling Harbour. The building includes all normal engineering services, plus comprehensive provisions to ensure an appropriate acoustic environment and to maintain essential power supplies in the event of mains failure. Special attention will be paid to building security. Design has been undertaken by private sector consultants and further design documentation and construction will be undertaken on a project management basis with construction packages to be publicly tendered. The proposal also includes construction of a 520 space car park on the balance of the site. One hundred of these spaces will be permanently required for use by the ABC and SBS. The additional car parking spaces, when not required for ABC or SBS purposes, will be available for commercial hire and, together with occasional hire of other facilities, are expected to produce an annual income of approximately $1.28m. The Committee supports this inclusion in the project, given the scarcity of parking in the Ultimo area, but recommends that the ABC investigate the possibility of operating the car park itself. Subject to endorsement by Parliament, it is planned that site works commence immediately. The main building construction is scheduled to start in mid-July 1988, with an estimated total building construction period of 30 months. This is the most significant public work to be undertaken by the ABC in recent times and one which should materially improve both operational efficiency and staff amenity. Accordingly, I am confident that the ABC will heed the advice of the Committee by ensuring closer consultation with the ABC staff union on those operational issues which still require resolution. Given that these do not affect the substance of the proposal, I commend the motion to the House. Mr BURR(Lyons)(9.38) —The Opposition does not oppose the construction of this building for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) radio operations in Sydney. We agree wholeheartedly with the Government that it is vitally necessary for the ABC radio operations to be relocated and that it will be much more efficient for the ABC to have all those operations based in one building. Up until now the ABC radio operations in Sydney have been spread over, I think, six different buildings in the William Street area, which has led to inefficiencies and extreme difficulty for the ABC in maintaining the service it has to the public. I compliment the programmers and all of the other staff of the ABC for maintaining the quality of the radio services that they have in the past under extreme difficulties. I think the relocation of the radio operations to the Ultimo site will be very beneficial to the staff and hopefully will help them to provide even better quality radio services in the future. The orchestra facilities that are also to be provided in this building will be complementary to the radio operations. The Opposition notes that there has not yet been any decision made as to the long term future of the ABC orchestras, not only in Sydney but in the other centres as well. We would certainly encourage the Government to the extent possible regarding private or sponsorship funding of orchestras. We take the view that, regardless of what the future funding arrangements for the ABC orchestras might be, there will always be quality orchestras in Sydney and the other capital cities and that those orchestras will need a home. The building planned for Ultimo will certainly provide a very good base for the ABC orchestra in Sydney, and we wish it well in its future functions in that location. There is just one matter that we ask the Government to consider in the future: we note that no financial impact statement has been provided in regard to this building, and we would be very interested to know whether in the financial sense the Government will be better or worse off as a result of the relocation to this site as compared to leasing and the other financial arrangements that have been required in the past in relation to the various locations. I ask the Minister, in regard to future programs such as this, the provide the Parliament with a financial impact statement so that honourable members and the public can obtain a better appreciation of the total financial impact of these proposals. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 21 April, on motion by Mr Staples: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(9.42) —The Opposition is seriously concerned about the practical consequences of the Government's aged care proposals. Like many of the Labor Government's policies, the slick packaging that accompanied this policy announcement hid a great number of shortcomings. The Government is trumpeting about more staff care hours. The industry calculates that the Government's initiative in this area amounts to no more than 36 seconds per hour per day. The Government is talking about better quality care for nursing home residents but, as a consequence of the application of this policy, many existing nursing home residents will be forced into hostels. There is considerable doubt in the industry whether hostels, even with improved facilities, will be capable of providing the standard of care that is necessary. In addition, the industry is concerned that the resident classification instrument (RCI) is designed to allow only the standard of service that the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) is prepared to allow the industry to provide. As well, the Government is trumpeting about $130m worth of extra funding, yet on questioning by the industry it is unable to provide detail about what that $130m in funding represents. The Government also talks about a crackdown on fraud. That is nothing more than a public relations exercise and an extension of the Government's politicisation of the aged care debate. Massive powers are already provided in existing legislation, and the industry does not believe that the Government has the true resolve to address those malpractices that occur at present. Perhaps the most serious criticism by the industry of the proposal relates to the resident classification instrument. According to the industry, all sections of the industry, both private and voluntary care, will find it almost impossible to put patients into the top category of care-category 1-so that in many cases the total number of staff care hours available in many institutions will be reduced. That is contrary to the Minister's and the Government's assertion. Compounding all these criticisms is the fact that the Government is playing politics with the introduction of this measure. It knows that it will cause a reaction in many States, in particular in Victoria and South Australia, and the phasing in of the proposals is deliberately designed to avoid any political backlash for the Labor Government's colleagues in Victoria. Honourable members opposite are playing politics with members of that section of our community who can least afford to have their lives manipulated for the transparent political advances of a cynical government. I do not really want to politicise this debate tonight. I would like to put on the record the views of experienced practical care providers to ensure that the Minister and honourable members are aware of the concerns of those people who work in many instances out of a genuine concern for the well-being of their fellow human beings to provide aged cared in this country. I would like to cite a number of statements that have been made by people with acknowledged and detailed expertise in this industry. The first relevant quote is from the Age newspaper of Monday 25 April, a statement by the Executive Director of the Villa Maria Society for the Blind. The article is headed, `New system for subsidising care for the elderly is a sham'. Mr McKernan, the executive director of the organisation, said: Under the proposed new system of categorising patients, it is almost impossible to have any patients in the top scoring bracket. He further said: The categorising procedure gives no consideration to any allowance for sensory loss . . . That organisation deals with blind patients, and some patients are also deaf as well as having other geriatric problems. That is its criticism of the Government's proposal. The Baptist Union of Victoria, a non-profit organisation, has also criticised the proposal. The Union comprises people who are motivated by a genuine Christian concern for the well-being of their fellow human beings. It talks about a statement made by the Minister and it is rather disparaging of the basis of that statement. It says in part: For some reason unknown to us- that is, the Baptist Union of Victoria- the Hawke Government refuses to listen to the workers in this matter. The basic problem is not to be found in the principles expounded by the Government, but in the way it is going about its business. How can anyone have confidence in a Department which now claims it has allowed, according to Mr Staples, `a 91 per cent mismatch between resources and the nursing and personal care needs of residents' for years. That is for the five years it has been in office. The Union makes a number of detailed criticisms of the Government's proposal. As I said, a major industry concern is the RCI, and the Union stated: There is no undertaking to review the system used to classify nursing home residents into five categories, despite the demonstrated fact that in its present form, very few nursing home residents come into category 1 unless the form is misinterpreted. The second point it makes is as follows: The statement that residents in Victorian nursing homes would receive an average of 20 hours per resident per week means nothing until the level of Commonwealth payment per hour has been settled. Of course, that only serves to emphasise the incomplete nature of the statement made by the Government last week and of the overall policy for this most important phase of the Government's aged care program. The Union goes on to criticise the number of exempt beds. It also comments about the new system to crack down on fraud and sharp practices. It is very cynical about the Government's announcement in this place and about its true intentions. The Union's final point relates to the very germane question of where the $130m extra that the Government proposes to provide in this area will be spent. It states: The reform measures announced by Mr Staples totalling $130m cannot be detailed by departmental staff, except in broad terms. Of course, the Minister in summing up the debate later tonight will have the opportunity to provide a detailed statement in relation to that $130m which was not included in his original announcement last week. Of course, that was very glib and very well packaged and in relation to the Australian Labor Party we have become accustomed to recognising that, when something is well packaged and when it involves a lot of glitter, we should have a good hard look, because there is not much substance. The Union goes on to say: . . . it is not unreasonable to expect the details to be available . . . It questions whether the announcements were based on an uninformed guess by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). While it is quite reasonable for those involved in the industry to make that request, I believe that the Government has an obligation to this Parliament to detail its policy in this area. Of course, it has not done that. Many other criticisms are made by, for instance, the Voluntary Care Association of Victoria, an organisation that represents the overall grouping of voluntary, charitable and church-based organisations that provide aged care. It states in part: The full impact of the decision is still unable to be determined because the Government has yet to decide on the funding of- this is the same criticism made by the Baptist Union- allowances for tolerances in under-utilisation or over-utilisation of nursing and personal care hours, and expenditure; allowances for annual leave, sick leave and long service leave. the mix of nursing hours and the standard hourly rate . . . That criticism underlines further the fact that the Government is very short on detail. It is moving for politically motivated reasons to hose down an issue before what was building up to be a major political campaign against the Labor party, and the Cain Labor Government in Victoria, got out of hand. Regrettably for the Government, it has not been able to fool the experts in the industry. I am illustrating the reaction that the Government is getting to a very superficial statement that was not even tabled last week by the Minister. Most of the detail was saved for a Press conference, and all the Parliament received was a second reading speech which was long on rhetoric and short on detail. I have referred to comments made by the voluntary care organisations, the non-profit providers of aged care. Of course, there are people involved in providing aged care who are concerned to make a profit. One of the more respected operators in the industry is the Moran Healthcare Group, which has made a very detailed commentary on this Bill. The first item it addresses is the notorious-if it is not notorious now it will be so in a few months-resident classification instrument (RCI). The Moran Group states: The Resident Classification Instrument is basically designed so that service needs of residents fit into what the Minister is prepared to allow. Subjective assessment has replaced the objectivity of the Resident's General Practitioner. What basis is that for an aged care policy to apply on a uniform basis around Australia? The Group goes on to talk about the RCI: We have documented proof that the weightings applied to a person's skills are heavily skewed towards achieving a high number of category 4 and 5 residents who would be eligible for hostel placement. Category 4 and 5 residents represent 40 per cent of the population of nursing home patients earmarked for hostel accommodation. Very few residents will achieve category 1 status; That is the same comment made by the other groups to which I have referred tonight. The statement continues: therefore, only two categories are left. The current scheme has two categories. The Moran Healthcare Group, like many other operators in the industry, questions the bona fides of the RCI. The Group goes on to refer to some of the statements made by the Minister: The Minister's claim in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22/4/88 that an across-the-board increase of 1 hour per patient week, translates to 36 seconds per hour per day. That is what I stated in my opening remarks. The Moran Group will not get excited about that increase in the Government's generosity. That Group, like the entire industry on a national basis, is critical of the way in which the Government went about developing this program. It states: We consider that the consultations held were of little value. It goes on to make some very disparaging remarks about individual officers in the Department of Community Services and Health. It is not appropriate for me to name those officers, but those criticisms are not confined to the Moran Group. In fact, they are general criticisms that have been made to me, and I hope to the Minister, and to his senior Minister, by people in the industry. One thing that is important if the Government's aged care policy is to succeed is for it to have the goodwill of the care providers throughout Australia. There is no point in picking a fight with the people who have to do the job because if the Government gets them off side no policy will work. The Moran Group comments about the impact of this program on small nursing homes: We firmly believe that the government is intending to close these homes gradually. That statement is of great significance to people who live in country or remote areas or to those nursing homes that cater for minority or ethnic groups. The Government is being very cunning in terms of its implementation of this program. A further transitory period-an option to back off from this program-is provided, so that the Government can ensure that the political flak that will inevitably arise from these proposals will be minimised in terms of State elections and probably even the Keating May 1989 election option, when he replaces the current Prime Minister. The Moran Group comments about the Government's proposals for exempt beds, that is, beds where people who want a higher standard of care and are prepared and able to pay for it can make those payments. The Group states: Many Nursing Homes that would request Exempt Bed Status are becoming less viable daily. As an aside, I point out that the proprietors of about 950 nursing home beds in Victoria alone are currently in liquidation. As a result of some of the measures contained in this program, that number will increase significantly. According to the Moran Group, the proprietors of these nursing homes cannot wait until they become insolvent. What is likely to happen is that nursing homes will close as a result of the introduction of this program, not because of its philosophy or principles but because of the mechanics, the standards, that are part and parcel of its implementation. As I hope the Minister and his Department know, we have a major aged care problem in this country at present that is getting worse day by day because of the gradual ageing of our population. The last thing we can afford is a reduction in the number of nursing home places available because people voluntarily leave the industry when their viability is affected. The Moran Group also comments on the duplication of inspection proposed by the Commonwealth. This program represents phase four of the Government's aged care policy. There is genuine cross-party concern in this Parliament about providing quality aged care. I do not intend, on behalf of the Opposition, to oppose this Bill. However, I intend to make it abundantly clear to the Minister and to the Government that we have the gravest reservations about the way in which this policy will be implemented. We are concerned that the standards on which phase four is based will in fact prevent the implementation of the philosphy and principles that are the underlying basis of this overall program. The Opposition believes that, as far as possible, the aged in our community should be supported in their own homes and in their own communities because that gives them the greatest quality of life and, perhaps, the greatest expectation of a longer life. We further believe that aged people should be supported by residential service only where other support services are not appropriate to meet their needs and that, where services are provided, they should promote rehabilitation. The Government first announced its policy direction in this area in 1986. At that time, the Opposition supported the direction of this policy. Since then, a number of legislative and other initiatives have been taken to introduce this policy on a phased or staged basis. As each of these initiatives has come to the Parliament, the Opposition has not opposed them. We have often supported them criticising the detail, making suggestions and moving amendments. The Bill before the House causes us more concern than any other provision we have been asked to consider as part of this program. The concerns we have, and they are the concerns of the industry overall, relate to a reduction in the quality and standard of care for some aged people throughout Australia through the use of inappropriate classification standards. We are also concerned about the provisions of inadequate staff levels. The reduction in the standard of staff qualifications as a result of many of the Government's proposals has the potential for making fewer experienced nurses available. We are concerned that overall the reduction in the levels of financial support for the aged care industry could threaten the financial viability of many facilities. I have referred to that before. The last thing we can afford in this country at present-and our problem will get worse and worse on a daily and monthly basis until about 2020-is a reduction in the number of aged care places. We are also concerned at the very arbitrary 6 per cent limit on the number of exempt nursing home beds. That arbitrary 6 per cent limit shows that we have a government or a department that is trying to second guess the market. It is trying to work out in an ivory tower in Canberra, through sampling and surveys, what the market demand for exempt nursing home beds will be. I think that is a futile exercise. Of course, it is not just a question of providing an arbitrary limit of 6 per cent. There are many other restrictions, including a tender requirement for the provision of exempt nursing home beds, all of which will compound the problem for those aged Australians or their families, their children, who want to provide a higher standard of care than is provided for in the Government's policy. The industry is seriously worried about the resident classification instrument. It believes that the standards contained within that instrument have been artificially manipulated in the interests of providing a regulatory mechanism for controlling the number of people in nursing homes rather than determining the quality and standards of care required by people in nursing homes. The industry is concerned that the categorisation provided for in the RCI does not reflect the realities of the population of the aged needing care throughout Australia. There has been major criticism of this five category classification system. Category 5 is supposed to represent 20 per cent of people; category 4, 20 per cent; category 3, 30 per cent; category 2, 20 per cent; and category 1, 10 per cent. It has been said that the entire program of developing this RCI began with very poor instructions to those who were charged with the responsibility of collecting the data. A very serious accusation has been made by people in the industry that there has been manipulation of the statistics gathered to suit the objectives of the Government and the Department in this area. These objectives may be political and could be determined by financial constraints but are certainly not determined by a concern to provide the best quality care for those frail aged Australians who at that stage of their lives should be least subject to political convenience. It has been asserted that the aim is to remove categories 4 and 5 from nursing home care into hostel care. Certain problems are presented if people who are currently nursing home residents are to be moved into hostels. There are insufficient hostel places. The Government has said that it will create more places over a period. But the type of patient who will be moved into hostels will need far more intensive care-care based on more staff hours-than is currently available. There will also be a need to change and upgrade many of the facilities within hostels. The Government has not yet announced how it will cope with the funding requirements associated with that. I will give you a very simple example, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under these proposals many incontinent nursing home residents will be moved into hostels. Many hostels do not have what is colloquially known as a pan room. That will have to be provided. Many hostels have carpeting on the floor. That is totally inappropriate, if that is the nature of the resident that they will be coping with in the future. The carpet will have to be pulled up and linoleum or vinyl tiles put down. These are very superficial changes but they are indicative of the type of restructuring and alteration by the industry that will be necessary on a massive basis right across the country. They are issues about which the Minister and the Government have provided no answers and no statements. The Minister will have the opportunity to correct this tonight, because he will be able to sum up at the conclusion of this debate. The Opposition is prepared to facilitate as long a summing up as the Minister wants. The industry wants the answers, as much as we want the answers and as much as the tens of thousands of residents in nursing homes around Australia, their relatives and the staff who look after them want the answers, to these important questions. As I have said the industry has expressed major concern about the basis on which the RCI was drawn up. I will give some examples of its concern. There is one church-run nursing home that currently has 140 beds. If the RCI is applied to that nursing home, only three of the residents in those 140 beds would be in the highest dependency category. The Minister and the Government are trying to tell the industry that at present they do not know how to categorise their patients; they do not know how to provide care levels for the patients based on their need. I will translate this into a particular human example: there is a person-perhaps it is best not to go into too much detail which would identify him-who is constrained to a foetal position in bed, unable to do anything whatsoever for himself. Under the Government's classification system that person would be in category 4, not category 1. The person cannot do anything for himself. Under the Government's proposal he would be in category 4. There are other examples. There are certain problems in terms of discussing them. They are not particularly comforting issues to debate. It is important that people understand that we are talking about real Australians, not statistics and not people who can be categorised by some insensitive, cold thing known as a resident classification instrument. These are people, parents of children, who have feelings, who have made a contribution to our community over many years, and in the last few years of their lives the standard of care and the security available to them is seriously under threat by the detail-not the philosophy-of the Government's proposal. I will cite another example. Mary I is a frail, depressed lady with severe arthritis, very poor eyesight, who walks with a frame, requires full assistance with showering and dressing-and generally with transfer-and needs ongoing reassurance and encouragement with walking and sight. According to the RCI, Mary I would slot into category 5. That is the bottom category. Category 1 is the top category. Mr O'Keefe —Your people are lobbying us. Mr BLUNT —That shows how much the honourable member knows about it. He should not go back to his electorate until he has read about this because he will get a serve back there, particularly in Victoria. Mr H is a 51-year-old man with cerebral palsy and gross spasticity, who is unable to speak and do anything for himself except hold a spoon and feed himself under supervision. He has been a resident in a nursing home for the past 23 years. Under the RCI he is placed in category 4, and that classifies him for hostel placement. Mr O'Keefe —You are trying to scare them. Mr BLUNT —I can understand that the honourable member for Burke and perhaps a few other members of the Labor Party here are squirming, because I do not think they really understand the political backlash they will get as a result of this policy and as a result of the failure of the Minister and the Department to consult and listen to people with practical expertise in the industry. It comes down to the fact that the policy, the direction and the principles are fine. That is why we supported them. What the Government is doing now will put the whole policy in jeopardy. It will threaten the security of the lives of tens of thousands of Australians. It will put stress on those people who provide care for them. It will cause tension and stress for tens of thousands of families throughout Australia and there will be a political backlash as a result of it. Mr Chynoweth —You are doing that. Mr BLUNT —I am not doing anything. I am reading what the industry, the Baptist Union and the Voluntary Care Association are saying. The honourable member finds it mighty uncomfortable. But the fact is that that is what the industry is saying. Government members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable members on my right are listed to speak in the course of the debate. I suggest that they reserve their comments for their formal period for rebuttal. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your protection and I will listen to the apologists on the Labor Party side later tonight when they try to justify their position. It will be more interesting to hear what they have to say about this policy in 12 months time because that is when the political backlash will be coming. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I amend the comments I made to the honourable member for Burke because he will not have an opportunity to speak later in the evening. Mr BLUNT —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sad that the honourable member for Burke will not be speaking later in the evening. There are other problems with the Government's RCI program. It was developed in isolation because the consultative process was a joke. The Minister is smiling at his advisers. I wonder whether his advisers have shown him the comments of the industry on that. The industry feels that the sample that was the basis of this RCI determination was too small. They did not comprehensively examine the practical implementation of the appropriate level of care hours needed. The RCI cannot indicate the quantity or mix of care to be given to individual people to achieve the Government's standards and the standards of the RCI make it almost impossible for people to get into the most dependent category. It is for these reasons, and a whole host of other reasons that unfortunately I do not have time to go into tonight, that the Opposition is moving an amendment at this second reading stage expressing our grave concerns at the implication of the Government's policy and calling upon it to conduct an immediate review of these parameters which are the basis of its RCI and to engage in some genuine consultation with the industry that will be reflected in the detailed implementation of its policy. For that reason, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House: (1) is concerned that aspects of the Government's aged care policy will result in: (a) a reduction in the quality and care standards for some aged persons through the use of inappropriate standards for the classification of nursing home and hostel residents in the Resident Care Instrument (RCI); (b) the provision of inadequate staff levels to provide appropriate standards of care for many frail aged patients, particularly those with sensory loss; (c) reduction in levels of financial support for the aged care industry which could threaten the financial viability of many facilities; and (d) insufficient exempt beds through the imposition of an arbitrary 6% limit; and (2) requests the Government to not only consult closely with the industry, but conduct a review of the standards for classification incorporated in the RCI'. The Opposition believes in the philosophy that I explained earlier in this debate, but we have the most serious reservations about how this stage of the Government's aged care policy will be implemented. Let me give an assurance on behalf of the Opposition that we will not stand idly by while the security and quality of care available to aged Australians is threatened by a government that is insensitive to their needs and insensitive to the needs and expectations of the Australian community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —Yes, I second the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.12) —I do not think the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) really had his heart in his speech this evening. He was a bit concerned about the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) who are out doing the numbers and doing a bit of wining and dining of the troops. The Opposition has decided not to oppose the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill. I am staggered at this. I do not think that anything has changed in the past week. This is the same Bill on which the honourable member for Richmond said that patients would be washed less often and would be left in bed longer, that nursing homes would use more chemicals and physical restraints, that they would cut communications with the patients and their families. This is the same Bill. Mr Cunningham —Who said that? Mr CHYNOWETH —Charles Blunt is the chap's name. He said that nursing homes would use non-individual continence maintenance and, in addition, some nursing home beds may close and residents will be forced to look for alternative accommodation in our already overcrowded public hospitals, but more likely with their families. Nothing has changed. Those opposite have decided not to oppose all this. Last week all these things were there. What has happened to them all? Suddenly they are all gone. Well, he sort of changed his mind. I can appreciate members of the Opposition changing their minds. They are always doing that. They cannot make up their minds on television-name something and I-- Mr Tickner —Tax. Mr CHYNOWETH —That is another one. They just cannot do it. The honourable member for Richmond has now changed his mind; he is going to agree to the Bill. Those opposite are not going to oppose it. If all the things stated in his Press release had been correct, I would have opposed this Bill; but they are false. The Opposition is about scaring people; that is what it all boils down to. Once again we are witnessing an Opposition with no policies, nothing at all that will benefit members of the community. All they can do is scare them. They do it pretty effectively too. I have not been around since 1901 but I am afraid that I would have to say that this Opposition would have to be the worst since Federation. There is no doubt about that. At the moment members of the front bench are being dictated to by John Howard. They are gagged; they are not allowed to speak freely. What has happened to the Liberals-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The matter of relevance has raised a lot of debate in this place. Furthermore, we are talking about the fate of elderly people and the honourable member wants to run politics. It is a shame. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has made his point of order. The honourable member for Dunkley should be mindful of the requirement to be relevant. The Chair has tolerated some introductory remarks, but I think it is high time for him to become more relevant to the Bill. Mr CHYNOWETH —Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for O'Connor said that I want to play politics. He has been playing it for weeks now. What does he think the Opposition has been doing with all these Press releases it has been putting out about the nursing homes? There are scaring headlines-`Aged under threat'; `Threat to care of the elderly'; `Frail aged policy autocratic; Blunt'. We have Press releases from Mr Reith in my electorate-`Nursing home standards will drop'. Those opposite have been playing politics for weeks. That is all they do. They do not know anything else. That is their job. Fair enough; but they should get the position right; they have it wrong all the time. Mr Blunt has just gone on and on. He is saying all these things to scare the elderly people. That is what those opposite are all about. That is the only thing they can do. Mr Blunt-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has erred several times. He will address members by the electorate they represent. Mr CHYNOWETH —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Richmond said that there will be no-one in category one. Mr Peter Fisher —He did not say that. Mr CHYNOWETH —What did he not say? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honour- able members on my left are fully aware that in this place every member has the right to be heard in silence. Mr CHYNOWETH —The honourable member for Richmond said that there will be no-one in category one. That is wrong. There is a letter from the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) to the Age actually refuting that sort of allegation. The Minister was replying to a letter from Mr Maurice McKernan and said: I was concerned to read Maurice McKernan's suggestion . . . that it will be `virtually impossible' for Victorian nursing home residents to be classified as `Category 1' . . . Contrary to Mr McKernan's suggestion, some 15 per cent of Victorian nursing home residents are expected to be classified as `Category 1' residents. Some 15 per cent-that is a lot different from what the honourable member for Richmond said. The Minister continued: A further 25 per cent are expected to be `Category 2', also requiring a very high level of care. That adds up to a few. It is not zero, is it? The Minister went on: From 1 July, new `Category 2' residents will be funded for 23.5 hours of nursing and personal care per week-again, much higher than the current average for Victorian nursing home residents of 19.6 hours per week. So the honourable member's statements are wrong. He just does not know what he is talking about. The Minister continued: These estimates of likely resident numbers in the new needs-based funding categories are based on a national survey of over 17,000 residents in 1,200 nursing homes in November last year. The assessments of residents' needs were made by people in the best position to know . . . Not by people like me. I cannot evaluate whether a person requires care or not. These decisions were made by the directors of nursing in the homes. The Minister went on: The new system, which Mr McKernan dubs a `sham'- and which the honourable member for Richmond has also said is a sham- is in fact based entirely on what the Directors of Nursing believe are the factors that most influence a resident's needs for nursing and personal care services. It has been shown to accurately match residents' needs in 94 per cent of all cases- that is a lot of cases, and they are pretty right- compared with only 9 per cent under the old system it replaces. So for years and years nursing homes have been forgotten and tucked away. Some nursing home proprietors have used this as a way of abusing some of the privileges and benefits that the Commonwealth and State governments forwarded to nursing homes. The honourable member for Richmond spoke about a letter he received from the Villa Maria Society for the Blind. I received a letter in my office today and I would like to point out to the honourable member and other Opposition members what they are doing to the community with the fear, mistrust and I believe outright lies that they are disseminating throughout the community. The letter I received today states: My mother who is 97 years of age has been a resident at the . . . Centre for three years. When she entered the Centre, she was relatively independent, but, particularly in the last six months, has become totally dependent upon the care given by the dedicated staff at the Centre. I am very disturbed to learn that the Commonwealth Government is proposing to change the basis of funding of nursing homes which will result in a dramatic cut in nursing and personal care staff hours in Victorian nursing homes. Mr O'Keefe —Who told her that? Mr CHYNOWETH —This is what I am getting at. These sorts of lies and furphies-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should know that the term he used is unparliamentary. I require him to desist. Mr CHYNOWETH —Yes. These sorts of mistruths are being used to scare people such as the person who wrote this letter. She is obviously a dedicated daughter of this woman and goes to see her quite often because of her age. She has been scared into writing this letter to me. Her last sentence probably boils down to what it is all about-the political context for the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The letter states: As a lifelong Labor voter, I am extremely disturbed that a Labor Government should contemplate funding cuts of this kind- we have just increased it by $130m- affecting elderly citizens who are not in a position to themselves make an effective protest. This is what Opposition members set out to do and this is exactly what they have done. They used these scare tactics before on the assets test and they were proved wrong. This campaign will be proved wrong too. The main thrust of Opposition members is to scare people, to get them upset and to change their vote. However, it will not work because after a time, when this program gets under way, they will find that people will accept it and they will be very grateful for it. These scare tactics have caused quite a bit of trouble in my office. It has caused a lot of trouble to the residents of Dunkley. I take this opportunity to apologise to them all for the trouble that the Liberal Party and some unscrupulous nursing home owners have caused them. Someone has put a lot of work into going around and asking people to sign petitions for me to present here. However, I could not present the petition-and I apologise for this to them all-to Parliament because it was worded incorrectly. I have taken it to the office of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). He has seen it and I have brought it to his attention. I can assure them all that I will be writing to each and every one of them pointing out that the trouble that they have gone to has not been caused by the Labor Government but by the conservative side of politics. The honourable member for Richmond quoted from a letter from the Voluntary Care Association. I do not know what letter he had but I would like to quote from the Voluntary Care Association of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. The letter written by Mr Keats states: My Association is extremely concerned at rumours that are circulating in the industry that the Federal Government is contemplating a weakening of its position to introduce a national uniform policy for Nursing and Personal Care arrangements in nursing homes across Australia based on assessed needs. We are not weakening. He can be assured that what we have said we will implement. The letter goes on: I need not remind you of the extent and depth of the consultations, the number of submissions and the broad spectrum of input from across the entire community that resulted in, and subsequently stemmed from, the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review. Out of this has evolved the Care Aggregate Module. This letter is from the Voluntary Care Association and it supports what we are doing. The last paragraph of the letter states: The consumers of aged care in nursing homes must be the ones to lose out in the long term if anything less than a uniform national position is adopted. Many of us now designing policy may be residents in such facilities in the years ahead, but it would be an indictment of us as responsible Australian citizens to back away from anything less than equity in the quality of care for our elderly people. There are no cheap options when it comes to making proper provisions for the needs of our senior citizens. Mr Peter Fisher —We agree with that. Mr CHYNOWETH —I am glad that the honourable member agrees with it. That sentence encapsulates what we are about. We are trying to give equity and proper facilities to our elderly. I have another letter from the Australian Council on the Ageing dated 22 April. The letter states: ACOTA broadly supports the proposals contained in the statement as they are clearly in the best interests of older people. We are concerned, however, that some of the more controversial proposals are being used to create anxiety in the minds of nursing homes residents and their families. That is what the Opposition is all about-anxiety and fear. It is the only way the Opposition members can get anything into the papers these days. They create some sort of controversy to scare people. As I said before, it amazes me that we have such an Opposition here. Words fail me in regard to the Opposition. The Government's strategy involves a combination of funding, legislative and policy changes which will significantly affect all elements of aged care. Our philosophy is that aged people should, as far as possible, be supported in their homes and in their communities. One has to look only at the home and community care program that is in operation to know we have changed things recently. We will continue to support people to live in their own homes as long as possible. Aged people should be supported by residential services only where other support systems are not appropriate to their needs. Services should promote rehabilitation for residents. The manner in which services are provided should develop and enhance personal freedom and independent functions of all residents. Services should be based on a recognition that for many people a move to a less supported residential service or to a community based support vehicle would be possible and desirable. Our Government has done much for our aged. There is a lot more to do. They have been left in neglect for many years and we are all aware of the changing circumstances in the demographics of our society. We have a lot more work to do. We are starting these reforms. I am certain that they will assist many people in the latter stages of their lives. The major reforms that the Bill introduces in brief are: better quality of care; lower fees; improved training for the care givers; an extra $130m which is not a cut; increased hours of care of up to 27 hours per week; funding based only on need; 4,000 beds set aside for short term respite care; crackdown on fraud by a minority of nursing home operators; and legally enforceable consumer rights for all those residents. I repeat: the Opposition has based its whole case on trying to induce fear and anxiety in the community. We are out to refute this and I tell all those who are listening to this debate tonight that this Government is about providing fair and equitable services to all within our community-not just a few. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. 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. Debate resumed. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.30) —As shadow Minister for Health I rise to speak specifically about clause 30 of the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill as it relates to matters of health insurance. Before making my few remarks on that I shall refer to the remarks of the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), on a line which has now been flagged to us because of the interjections that have been made from various areas, that the nasty old Opposition is actually going out to scare people. Mr Chynoweth —That is right. Mr TUCKEY —I hope before this speech is over to be able to read the honourable member some of the Press releases the Government has been putting out recently on the health policies and proposals that I have raised. The Press releases have been specifically aimed at scaring people. The Government has been telling the elderly they will be charged more. It has been telling women of child bearing age they will be charged more when in fact I have stood in this Parliament on a personal explanation and told people that is not the case and has never been my intention. So if honourable members opposite want to criticise people for scaring-- Mr Chynoweth —Is this the Bill you are talking about? Mr TUCKEY —I am responding to the remarks that were made a few minutes ago. If you want to talk about scaring, play the game. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman might address his remarks through the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do address my remarks through you and I point out to you, on the matter of relevance, that before I rose a moment ago we were starting to get to a debate on the leadership of the National Party of Australia. I am now referring to and commenting on the remarks of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dunkley. Of course, we will get this rotated. We know the rule that exists in the Australian Labor Party: if one repeats things often enough someone eventually believes them. Of course, this principle was first expounded by Mr Goebbels. Labor has picked it up and in the first Government speech on this Bill tonight we were told time and time again, `You are trying to scare people'. Honourable members opposite can try scaring people but they should not be so hypocritical as a party as to suggest that they are not doing it now. The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) nearly every day puts out a Press release making this statement. It is totally untrue and it is contrary to the remarks I have made. Mr O'Keefe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr TUCKEY —It is starting to hurt, is it? Mr O'Keefe —Mr Deputy Speaker, time is limited. I am wondering whether the honourable member for O'Connor is going to talk about the Bill at all tonight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I construe the honourable gentleman's point of order to be on the matter of relevance. He might express it more precisely on future occasions. The honourable member for O'Connor is enjoying the indulgence extended to the honourable member for Dunkley to make a few remarks by way of preface. The honourable member for O'Connor is responding to the remarks of the honourable member for Dunkley. I am sure that he has virtually exhausted his responses and now will become more relevant to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is certainly my intention. I wish to talk about clause 30 and to point out to the House that it deals with an instrument applicable to the health insurance industry; namely, the pre-existing ailment rule. As far as I can gather, since we have had health insurance there has been a pre-existing ailment rule for people entering a health insurance arrangement for the first time. The rule says that when one joins one must wait 12 months before one can be refunded, rebated or receive a benefit for any ailment that one had at the time of joining the fund. The law is specific on this. It refers to having signs or symptoms at the time of joining. One does not necessarily have to have identified those signs or symptoms; that is established by a medical referee if there is a dispute. There is a very good reason: health is a little different from one's house burning down. It is improper for a person to think that he can wait until he has an illness before he joins a fund. Health insurance is very much about the healthy subsidising the sick, and of course it would not work under those arrangements. Nevertheless, prior to 1984 another simple principle applied that said that if one was insured but chose to change to another fund it was reasonable not to have the pre-existing ailment rule apply. One was insured and just wanted to change the company with which one was doing business. That seemed quite reasonable. Unfortunately, it did suffer a problem. Historically, the longer a fund is established and the longer the contributors stay in that fund, the more likely the contributors are to be ill. They get older and, as we know, it is primarily the elderly in our community who put demands on the health system. What occurred prior to 1984 was the establishment of a very large new fund, namely Medibank Private. There is evidence that some of the other funds suddenly discovered that the new starters in health insurance were going off to this new fund because they perceived it as offering better benefits, lower premiums or whatever. All of a sudden, some of the established funds saw their portfolios getting out of balance. They no longer had sufficient young, non-claiming contributors to balance the costs of the older, claiming contributors. They took a simple solution. It is known in the industry as dumping. They started to induce or encourage-or by just plain bad service, discourage people from renewing their membership-people to join the other fund and take their illnesses with them, since there was no pre-existing ailment rule when transferring from one fund to another. That became a problem to the extent that in 1984 this Government decided to apply the pre-existing ailment rule to transferring from one fund to another. There is evidence that to stop the process of dumping, people were being offered one year's free contribution to the new fund if they would shift. Other inducements were offered to private hospitals and other places to encourage long-time chronically ill patients to leave. What the amendments before us tonight, in clause 30, propose to do is go back to the situation pre-1984, because another new player has entered the field, a firm called Health Australia. I am not sure where Medibank Private stands presently in the debate because it is now about 12 years old and is probably halfway down the track to the problems I have explained. The older funds are claiming publicly that Health Australia is taking all their good non-claiming business and they are unable to operate and that Health Australia should be prepared to take a higher proportion of the high claimers. That is quite a simple proposition and one with which the Opposition agrees. We believe in the right of the consumer to have that choice, for whatever reason. Unfortunately, we have some difficulties with what the Government has done. We understand the situation, for instance, that the current pre-existing ailment rule requirement creates a situation where some chronically ill patients are locked into a fund which they would like to leave. A circumstance which was drawn to my attention the other day was of a husband and wife with a family membership, with one being quite healthy and one having a pre-existing ailment-yet neither can shift. Coming back to the point, the Opposition agrees with the rights of consumers to shift. The Government has attempted, nevertheless, to resolve the problem of dumping. It wishes to give people this right, whilst recognising the opportunity for one fund to dump on another. There is quite a lot of argument. It does not matter to which fund one talks, it will always say that someone is dumping or is going to dump on it. But whilst the Government has recognised the problem of dumping, it has failed to use this legislation to guarantee that dumping will not occur. Consequently, I foreshadow an amendment that I will move during the committee debate which is aimed purely and simply at tightening the legislation to ensure that dumping does not occur. I expect the Government to agree that it also does not wish to encourage this improper practice. The reason the Opposition feels it necessary for us to tighten the legislation is our almost amazement at the cavalier fashion in which the Government has approached this problem. One of the companies most likely to be dumped upon is Medibank Private. There is another problem in all of this, which I will attend to in a moment. Firstly, let me point out that the Government has two propositions in this legislation which attempts to stop dumping. The first is that if a contributor chooses voluntarily to move from one fund to another-presumably a contributor would do so because the benefits available at the second fund are better than those offered by the fund he is in-the contributor must do so with the understanding that, for the first 12 months he is a member of the new fund, that fund will be obliged to pay him benefits only at the rate applicable in the fund that he has just left. So he does not get an additional benefit for the first 12 months. In those circumstances one would wonder why someone would want to leave a fund. This brings us back to dumping. Because many people, particularly the elderly, have traditional links with their insurance companies, I do not think many people will leave voluntarily. The funds that believe that this will be their salvation will be sorely disappointed, unless they resort to dumping. So the first point is that people are to be discouraged somewhat from leaving a fund, which I think is reasonably fair. Secondly, the Government has said that funds will not dump. There are two clauses to this effect in the Bill. They are very simple. Clause 30 (lg) states: The organisation- meaning a fund- will not, and will not authorise or induce another person to: (i) offer to a contributor to a health benefits fund conducted by the organisation an inducement; or (ii) subject, or threaten to subject, such a contributor to a penalty or disadvantage; for the purpose of encouraging the contributor to cease to contribute to the fund conducted by the organisation and become a contributor to a health benefits fund conducted by another organisation. End of story. There is no apparent penalty for a fund that undertakes this disgraceful dumping procedure. The point about that is quite remarkable. The Government might be prepared to argue that that is not the case. It would refer us to section 73ba of the National Health Act, which refers to the schedule we are amending in this legislation. It states: The registration of an organization shall, whether the registration was effected before, or is effected after, the commencement of this section, be deemed to be subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule. A simple explanation of that is that if someone is a naughty boy and breaks the rule of the schedule which we are amending tonight the Government will take his registration away. That sounds like a powerful weapon, but it is a feather. The Government will never do it. To deregister one of the large health funds in Australia would be to tell all its contributors that they are out on the street, that they have to go somewhere else. The Government would not do it. So the funds, if they chose to do so, could go on dumping. The Government does not appear to be putting in place any mechanisms to identify whether funds are doing so. It has not chosen a proper mechanism to stop them. As a solution to this situation our amendment makes an offence of dumping. It inserts the necessary financial penalty. The financial penalty suggested in my amendment is a $10,000 fine for the first offence and $100,000 thereafter. The Government might be astounded to think that we would suggest figures of that size but let me put it to the Government that the getting rid of one chronically ill patient could represent a saving to the expenditures of a health fund of between $5,000 and $10,000 a week. It is big stakes. The penalty must be appropriate. For the Government to suggest that it will have policemen checking whether funds are dumping is most unlikely. A big fund would laugh at the Government because it would not have the courage to deregister the fund any more than this Opposition in government would have the courage to do so. The Government lacks this courage. We need to have a financial penalty to make it fair. I hope that the Government can see the merit in what I am proposing. I will describe the details of the amendment during the committee stage. It is quite simple. It also tightens up considerably on the dumping provisions. We propose four subclauses here, as compared with the two that I have read out to the House. This is truly an attempt by the Opposition to accommodate the Government. I think I have explained this clause in a way that can be understood, but I would defy anybody other than a highly qualified lawyer to draw the correct conclusion from reading it. It is a most complex and remarkable thing. It refers to comparable funds and is very confusing. I wish that it was not so confusing, but that is beside the point. I got a briefing from the department, and I believe that I understand it quite clearly. My immediate reaction on reading the clause was to say that it was a fraud. We know why in 1984 the Government introduced the pre-existing ailment rule for people transferring from one fund to another. It was because dumping was occurring, primarily, on Medibank Private, and I think it will again. Let me point out another consequence of dumping and the objective of those funds that so badly want this arrangement. As I say, apart from the matter of dumping I do not know why they are so frantic to get it. Clearly, it is not in the interests of their contributors. It is not very often in business one can tell one's customers to leave. But the reality is that under this proposal the contributor in year one gains nothing. As to meeting the objectives of the other funds, I have had correspondence with them, and they say that they want the rates stabilised-I am afraid to say, stabilised upwards. In Victoria-I address my remarks particularly to honourable members from Victoria-where Health Australia and Medibank Private are the big competitors, the market leaders, if the other funds can force them, by dumping, to take a huge percentage of extra claimers the premium levels of their contributors will rise, as will the premium levels of those people who have just shifted over for the cheaper premiums. So, this measure is not very smart, and it is less smart for the people who have to explain it to all those in Victoria in particular who have bought cheaper insurance for the very obvious reason why we all might do so. What we are saying is that the Government should protect its legislation. If it believes that it is necessary to go back for the purpose of giving people a better choice, to give people the right to transfer from one fund to another without application to the pre-existing ailment rule, the Opposition will support it. However, we call on the Government to support our proposal to toughen up and guarantee that there will be no dumping. I have talked to the representatives of the funds that want this. They have told me that that is quite satisfactory. They say that they have no intention of breaking the law, and consequently do not have to be frightened by the fines. That is a very satisfactory position as far as I am concerned. I do not want any of them in court; I do not want any of them dumping on the other funds. I ask the Parliament to consider that, as I think it is most important. I shall conclude my remarks by reading from a Press release put out on 20 April by the Minister for Community Services and Health. I also have some other news cuttings here, one of which states `Health proposal labelled shonky'. The news release from the Minister states: Mr Tuckey would do better to stop misleading the medical profession and instead try to explain his disastrous health proposals which would result in women in their child-bearing years, the chronically ill and the elderly paying far more for their health care. I have pointed out that that is in complete conflict with my remarks and the explanation that I have given in this Parliament, but the Minister is still making such statements. I do not want any further mention of a policy of scaring people. Honourable members opposite have made an art form of scaring people. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(10.50) —The Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill is aimed at rectifying anomalies in the funding and operation of the nursing home system in Australia. These anomalies have for many years come under criticism from the nursing home owners and managers, from residents and their families, and from staff and other groups involved in the nursing home industry. The anomalies include unfair distribution of funds, poor standards of care in many homes, inconsistent levels of staffing, inappropriateness of the amount of kind of care provided for many individual residents, and the lack of flexibility and discretion accorded nursing home management and directors of nursing. This Bill addresses these problems and its provisions are based on a careful and comprehensive two-year study into the Australian nursing home system. The passage and implementation of this Bill will mean that for the first time the aged in Australia will benefit from a system of geriatric assessment and nursing home funding which is rational, accountable, consistent and, above all, fair. Under the new system every aged person in Australia, irrespective of his or her socio-economic status or place of residence, will enjoy equal opportunity of access to the kind of care which is appropriate to his or her degree of dependence. I would like to concentrate my remarks on the situation that prevails in my own State of South Australia. The prospect of these new provisions has caused a fair amount of consternation over the last few weeks among people involved in some way with nursing homes in that State. In particular, in my own electorate of Hawker hundreds of people have approached me, in person, by phone or by mail, expressing concern at an anticipated fall in the number of hours of care provided in South Australian nursing homes. I must say that I share their concern for the future care of our aged citizens in South Australia. But study of the Bill has convinced me that the present and future residents of South Australian nursing homes will in fact be better off under these new provisions. The perceived problem in South Australia derives from the fact that that State has hitherto been receiving a disproportionately large slice of national funding for nursing homes. Per capita funding to South Australia-and also to Victoria-has been higher than in other States. This was caused largely by stricter regulations and conditions set by the State governments in those States. With new nationally standardised systems of assessment and funding, it is a fact that the average number of nursing and personal care hours for nursing home residents will fall slightly in South Australia. If the new arrangements were implemented in full on 1 July 1988, and assuming the nursing home population was the same then as in November 1987, the average nursing and personal care hours funded in the State for homes with more than 20 beds would be reduced from 19.8 to 17.8 hours a week. However, the new system of nursing and personal care hours is being phased in and this reduction will occur very gradually. But we need not be too concerned about this reduction in the average number of hours in South Australia, because under the new system the funded hours-although fewer-will be distributed more fairly and appropriately amongst the nursing home population. What are the benefits which will accrue to South Australian nursing home residents under these new provisions? First, nursing and personal care funding will for the first time match the individual needs of individual residents. This means that South Australian nursing home residents will be funded for up to 27 hours per week of nursing and personal care, based on their dependency level and individual care needs. The most dependent residents will receive funding support of either 27 or 23.5 hours of care per week in all cases. This new funding system will replace a scheme which until now has produced a 91 per cent mismatch between funding and resident needs. In other words, only 9 per cent of South Australian nursing home residents have been receiving the proper level of care. Some South Australian home proprietors have been receiving funds far in excess of their residents' care needs and of the services provided by the home. The corollary of this is, of course, that there has been a substantial underfunding and hardship for other residents in South Australian homes. This new legislation is fairer and more equitable and will ensure that all aged people will receive the number of hours of care that they need. In addition, as average South Australian residents' dependency levels increase in the future, the new funding system based on individual needs will automatically increase the average hours funded for South Australian residents. In addition, this new funding system will ensure 24-hour registered nurse care in every home. Until now many homes have not had a registered nurse on duty at night in particular. This legislation makes special provisions to enable homes to provide this essential service. From now on every nursing home director will, for each resident, be provided with at least one hour per week of time available for his or her role as manager of nursing and personal care. This will allow him or her to dedicate an appreciable amount of time to the planning of care arrangements, the guidance and direction of staff and staff training and development. In addition, a program of gerontic training will be funded with $0.3m provided for this purpose throughout the State. A management support consultancy will be commenced to assist directors of nursing and nursing home administrators to find the most appropriate management arrangements for the provision of nursing and personal care services under the new system. To assist aged people to secure the most appropriate care to meet their needs there will be a substantial expansion in geriatric assessment. The total outlay on assessment in South Australia will be increased by 475 per cent, from $0.4m in 1987-88 to $2.3m in 1990-91. To assist in funding services to meet exceptional needs, including the blind and members of ethnic and Aboriginal communities, additional funding of $0.9m will be provided over three years in South Australia. I have left until last possibly the most important benefit of these new arrangements for South Australian senior citizens, that is, by 1991 no nursing home resident in South Australia will have to pay more than 87.5 per cent of his or her pension, plus rent assistance, for nursing home accommodation. At present almost 30 per cent of South Australian nursing home residents have to pay more than this minimum, often with great difficulty, because most residents rely on the pension for financial support. Some nursing home residents of my acquaintance are paying double the aged pension for their nursing home care. The fact that from 1991 no resident will pay more than 87.5 per cent of his or her pension for this accommodation will be greatly welcomed by senior citizens in South Australia and by their families. I stress that the funding reforms in South Australian nursing homes will be phased in gradually to minimise any disruption. Initially the new funding system will apply only to new nursing home residents, that is, residents entering homes from 1 July 1988. Special transition arrangements and additional funding will apply for some nursing homes with 20 beds or less-and they provide 5 per cent of nursing home beds in South Australia-in order to protect the quality of care for residents in these homes. The effect of the new reforms will be thoroughly monitored in close consultation with the South Australian nursing home industry, including directors of nursing and consumers, and the program will be reviewed at the end of the first year of operation. We also make a commitment that in the first year of operation there will be no reduction in Commonwealth funding support for nursing and personal care for any current resident of a South Australian nursing home-even in those homes where funding under the system being replaced by these reforms has far exceeded residents' needs. As regards nursing home staff, there is expected to be a substantial increase in jobs in nursing homes and hostels over the next five years after some minor reductions between 1989 and 1991. The reforms are expected to have little, if any, immediate impact on South Australian nursing and personal care job numbers. Taking account of the steady growth in dependency levels and the expansion of total nursing home and hostel care, there is expected to be a small increase next year in total residential care employment of about 35 jobs throughout the State. In 1989-90 there will be a small decline of about 60. However, from then on there will be substantial job growth in nursing and personal care with over 90 extra jobs expected to be created in 1991-92 and 340 in 1992-93. To summarise, I am sure that these points will convince the people of South Australia that in the long run they will have nothing to worry about from these reforms. The Opposition has indicated that the current system contains anomalies and it has criticised the steps that we are taking to address them but no-one opposite has said what he would do to address these anomalies. No-one has given us one glimmer of insight into the Opposition's aged care policy. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) told us nothing and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) told us nothing. I invite the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods), who I believe will follow me in this debate, to tell us all about the Opposition's nursing home and aged care policy. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(11.01) —I would like to join my colleagues in addressing the House on the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill, which has significance for all of us. We are all victims of the ageing process and none of us, even with modern technology, can avoid it. I believe that all Australians in their old age can expect at the very least a number of basic rights. They should expect that the government of the day has the foresight and the compassion to ensure the establishment of a sufficient infrastructure to cater for their special needs. I believe that every honourable member in this House would share the view that they have a right to access to a nursing home, to quality of care, to affordable care, and to freedom of choice. In terms of access, surely no-one would doubt that people have the right to spend their last years in dignity and comfort, cared for appropriately. In fact, under this Government there is an increasing shortage of hostels and nursing homes as a result of the curtailment of licences. Obviously, that has been implemented as a cost saving exercise by this Government. The views of the industry have clearly been ignored over the past four or five years. The elderly have been pushed back up the pipeline into the community, in many cases inappropriately. Perhaps more important than access in many ways is the quality of care that the frail aged receive in a nursing home. Of concern in this regard is the outcome. According to the report of the Victorian Aged Services Peak Council Survey over the past few months, 60 per cent of patients in nursing homes could not control either their bowels or their bladder, but only 20 per cent were washed daily. The obvious interpretation is that two in five patients were lying in soiled clothes for days on end. Why is this? There is only one explanation-reduced staffing levels. Who controls staffing levels? It is the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) and his Department that control the staffing levels. Who has been vetoing new staff? This Government, this Minister and this Department have. Who is responsible? Clearly, this Government is responsible for the outcomes that have been referred to in the Victorian report. How appalling is the admission by the Minister, confirmed by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), that of all nursing home residents only 9 per cent receive appropriate care. The Government is almost proud of that. Ninety-one per cent of patients are not receiving appropriate care. How can we trust any government which has been in power for five years and which is presiding over that sort of inconsistency? The honourable member for Dunkley read a list of problems. It was very kind of him to do that. He imputed that that was from a member of the Opposition, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) in particular. I point out that that was a list of the recommendations, the fears and the anxieties of a Commonwealth-State working party on nursing home standards from an independent organisation, the Australian Affiliation of Voluntary Care Associations. Let me repeat those concerns. The working party envisaged that meals might become a production line procedure as a time saving measure and that lack of staff might lead to regular individual maintenance programs being decreased, with an increase of incontinence and the consequent bedsores. General hygiene might be allowed to lapse, with outbreaks of skin problems, mouth ulcers and eye infections. These are not my words; they are the words of an independent, highly respected association. It was concerned that contractions might result from reduced stimulation and exercise, that communication with families might become difficult and that patients might become withdrawn because of the lack of staff to organise social interaction. Why might all this happen? Why are there these concerns? It is because of staffing levels. These seem to be valid concerns raised by the people who are most familiar with these problems and who deal with the problems of the aged. The Government somehow seems to think that in drafting this Bill it can just ignore that advice. What about affordability? Surely that is a basic right. By the time Australian people reach old age they are entitled to believe that their full medical and social needs are provided for, and the expectation is that nursing home places will be paid for by 87.5 per cent of the pension together with a subsidy. However, at present, according to the Minister's own figures, 23 per cent, or 17,000 patients, have to find other sources of payment to meet the bills. In my constituency, for example, 85-year-old Martha Whateley has been at a local nursing home for seven years. Her brother, John Ollerton of Homebush, has been marvellous in looking after her. She is well cared for in the home but, because his sister's pension no longer covers her fees, he, as a pensioner himself, is obliged to make up the difference. The problem is that in the five months up to January this year the age pension increased by a measly $20 a fortnight, but because of the increasing costs of Government-scheduled fees, the rise in fees was $80 a fortnight. Where are pensioners at this stage of their lives to find an extra $60 a fortnight? Where is it to come from? Obviously the Government expects friends and family to come forward with the money to save pensioners from the spiralling costs. For people in Mr Ollerton's situation it is emotional blackmail. He cares dearly for his sister, but will not be able to care for her himself, so he will find the money from various sources. It is another example of the Government's desperate attempt to balance its Budget at the expense of people who have paid tax all their lives. I do not know how the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) can complain about costs to pensioners when it is her Government that has produced these problems. What about freedom of choice? We believe that everybody who has made provision for their old age and their retirement should be able to have freedom of choice of nursing homes. What happens? A person is not allowed to pay a little extra and go into a home with a few more comforts, such as an extra colour television or a few extra armchairs, unless that person happens to be one of the 6 per cent this Minister has designated. Six per cent is all that this Minister will allow to have extra comforts. This is the politics of envy. It is socialism gone mad. It is reduction to the lowest common denominator, bringing everybody else down to the same level. Why should somebody, because he has saved a little money, not have a bit of comfort? The Australian Labor Party does not believe in people looking for themselves. What about these particular proposals? As we have heard already, the care aggregate module, which is the basis of funding, now means that every week on every nursing home patient in Australia a form will be completed assessing the nursing requirements of patients-a so-called residential classification instrument (RCI). Each form asks for 12 questions. Thus, with 75,000 patients there will be 3.9 million forms and answers to 46.8 million questions in the first year. Those are the facts. Mr Cunningham —Ha! Dr WOODS —The honourable member may well laugh. He may well despair as to who will review those forms. It will be another army of public servants. This Government is trying to improve the unemployment problem by employing people to look after 46.8 million questions a year. What sort of efficiency is that? What about the RCI? It looks at transfers, walking, toilets, dressing, eating, continence. One adds up the points and divides people into categories-not according to needs but to a mathematical model. Under this Government people just another statistic. My grandmother died very slowly over a matter of months. Government members interjecting- Dr WOODS —I know that those opposite do not understand about caring about grandmothers. They have no concern about my grandmother or any other elderly people. Certainly the honourable member for Hawker has no compassion in this matter. My late grandmother was in a foetal position for many months while she was slowly dying. She did not need transfers because she was stuck in bed; she did not need ambulatory care. She did not need toilet assistance, she had a catheter in all the time. She needed bathing. She did not need any dressing as she never got out of bed. She needed some help with eating, she needed attention to pressure areas and a fair amount of attention in those respects. She needed no special nursing in terms of diabetic care or anything similar. She had no behavioural problems-she was ga-ga for the last three months. But by the categories this Government has devised, she would be in categories four or five. She would be shifted out to a hostel for independent people to look after themselves. Yet Labor members try to support such legislation. What about the additional hour a week therapy? What sort of therapy will a person get in an hour a week? In that time one can just about cut somebody's toenails. This is a major concern. The Government is categorising patients not in a real way, but just according to a mathematical model. What about respite care? We welcomed the principle of increased funds for respite care in regard to patients and carers, and then we saw that only two in every 1,000 aged people would benefit. We certainly welcome the principle, but we urge the Government to expand the benefits. There have been regular complaints from the Minister via the Press about inappropriate admissions. These are not a reality. In one study in Victoria, supposedly the worst affected State, there was one in 500 inappropriate admissions. Yet still the Minister puts out Press releases attacking the so-called voracious nursing home owners. In summary, we agree with the general direction of this policy. Unfortunately, we do not agree with the way it has been implemented. We strongly believe that the enacting of this legislation as it stands will lead to a number of terribly difficult problems for nursing home patients all over Australia. For those reasons I support the amendment put forward by the honourable member for Richmond. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(11.09) —About five weeks ago I had a private conversation with the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples). We spoke about the introduction of the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill, and I told him that not only is it good and important legislation for the progress of aged care in Australia, but that he should maintain his resolve against the campaign that would be waged against this Bill. He said, `It will not be that bad; it will not be any worse than what happened with the assets test or the fringe benefits tax-the sort of stuff they usually go on with.' I said, `No, you have to be prepared for a real dose this time. When we get to the aged care and nursing home legislation they will drag up the dregs of the drivel.' Are we seeing it! I told the Minister that we would hear about the old ladies in the beds, the same people that the Opposition told to put their money in tins under the beds or we would get it all. I said that Opposition members would sink to the depths of depravity in the use of scare tactics against aged people. Tonight, we are hearing every single word of that. I refer to the speech earlier tonight by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). Let us look at his Press statement of 23 March. Talk about the depths of depravity! Listen to this: He said that we would be forcing nursing homes to wash patients less often. He said that patients would be left in bed longer, that more chemical and physical retraints would be used, and that communication with patients and families would be cut. I invite the Minister to listen to this next one. The honourable member for Richmond said that there would be a need to implement production line feeing. Can honourable members believe that? Then the honourable member referred to the use, for instance, of non-individual continence maintenance. I am amazed that honourable members opposite can even spell words such as that. I describe those kinds of statements as the slimiest of slop. We knew that that sort of thing would get wheeled in in this aged care debate. We have just heard from the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods)-the apprentice at work. Even the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was embarrassed to hear that slop served up in the House because he knows-and I will talk about his contribution shortly-that it was just too far over the odds. Earlier tonight, the honourable member for Richmond said that all these nursing homes would go into liquidation. To the best of my knowledge, despite all his claims, no nursing home in Australia-not one-has been forced to close its doors. Where proprietors who have been dudding the system have gone to the wall, who has picked up the tab? Where were the private sector rip-off merchants rushing in to fix it up? The Government has picked up the tab. The Minister has had to come in and pick up the tab when these unscrupulous nursing home proprietors have gone out the back door. Tonight we are hearing the slimiest of slop. It is aimed at the people in our community who are least able to defend themselves against it, and I take great offence at these remarks. We hear talk about the devastation that will be caused to the nursing home industry. Let me take as an example the fringe benefits tax legislation. Honourable members opposite rushed into this House and told us about all those restaurants based on the tax rip-off that would close down. However, the evidence since that tax reform has been that the industry is thriving. We cannot train enough people to service the restaurant industry. New courses are being conducted at the Broadmeadows Technical and Further Education College in my electorate. Mr Chynoweth —An excellent college. Mr O'KEEFE —As the honourable member for Dunkley says, it is an excellent college. The new course there teaching and preparing people for the restaurant industry cannot keep up with the demand. This sort of scare drivel from honourable members opposite goes on time after time, and we have heard it again tonight in the nursing home debate. I ask the honourable member for Richmond, when he talks about these things: Where have you been? Where was he when the unscrupulous nursing home proprietors were ripping off families and little old ladies and all that sort of thing, requiring us to clean up the legacy of the previous coalition Government? Where was he when member of the previous Government were telling families that their relatives in nursing homes were okay when they were starving and barely alive? Where was he when people were being attracted to these homes and being told that they were being set up under a proper policy of housing and aged care? Let us take an example in my electorate. Where was the honourable member when the Daylesford Hostel was set up and left sitting there empty and without funding for nearly two years? Who had to pick up the tab? This Government did. Now, of course, the Daylesford Hostel is a model and the people there are very proud of the way in which it has been developed. Let us not have any more of these allegations; let us have rational debate. Let us understand something that neither the honourable member for Richmond nor the honourable member for Lowe seem to understand-that we on the Government benches are faced with a strange situation at the moment. Those who claim to relate closely to some of these people, such as the care providers associations and other lobby groups, are now racing to knock on our doors and tell us not to take any notice of their previous complaints. They have been saying, `Now that we understand the legislation, there is no need to take any notice of our complaints.' They are telling us to ignore their own complaints and representations. That is what has been going on. Let me set a couple of comments straight. There has been talk about a proposed decline in the number of hours. Questions have been asked as to why the Government has not responded to demands from industry groups for an average of 27 hours. It is absolute nonsense to talk about nursing and personal care in terms of averages. The point is to provide hours on the basis of need. The new arrangement will provide 27 hours a week for residents with high service needs. When honourable members opposite talk about 10 hours, they should realise that this applies to residents in a nursing home who are in the lowest category of need. There will be care provided on the basis of need. It does no-one in this Parliament any credit to come in here and talk drivel like the drivel we heard from the honourable member for Richmond who talked about washing people less and leaving them in their beds longer and so on. Mr Chynoweth —Fear tactics! Ms Crawford —Scaremongering! Mr O'KEEFE —As the honourable member for Dunkley and my other colleagues have said, this is simply another re-run of the Opposition's tactics of scaring the elderly. It is the assets test revisited. When we heard all that stuff about the assets test from Opposition members, what were they trying to do? They were trying to protect what turned out to be only 2 1/2 per cent of pensioners-people such as the late Sir William McMahon, the former Prime Minister, a millionaire who was getting the full pension. They talk about relating to a traditional base. I will tell honourable members something-they have not left theirs. The honourable member for Lowe spoke tonight of those nursing home proprietors that he knows and relates to. When they spoke of the assets test they were talking about millionaires getting pensions. They have not lost their traditional base. They are right with those who have been ripping off the system; that is the way it has gone. Let us look at this Bill in context. As I said to the Minister several weeks ago, the whole home and community care policy of which this forms part is good and is widely understood and welcomed in the community. The principal priority of the community is that the elderly, our aged family members, should be able to stay in their own homes with help such as meals on wheels, the visiting district nurses and all the rest of the services that we have in the country and city areas. That is the first priority-not sticking them in nursing homes to be victims of extortion. Let them stay home; let them stay with their relatives and let us give them supporting care. Then, when they reach the point where that no longer becomes possible, they can move into a hostel where they are still independent, still able to help themselves to a certain extent but need care on hand. Then, down the track, when they reach the stage of needing nursing home care that is when they should go to such homes. Under this Bill that will be the sort of progress. I point our that in my electorate, a local committee at Bacchus Marsh has asked the Government to change a grant. We have granted nursing home beds in Bacchus Marsh, but the committee has now asked us if we will reconsider and give them hostel beds instead. The people in Bacchus Marsh understand the stages; they understand the policy. They are asking us if they can go to that other stage because it is a better one. I must say to the Minister that I will be constantly knocking on the door until we agree to it, because I fully support it. I want to refer to another couple of points before I end my speech. I will be brief because I know that time is limited. I noticed an article on the front page of the Australian Financial Review today. As I often say, this is not some sort of Labor Party propaganda rag; It is the paper of the business people, of the Establishment. On the front page there is a big story that the Liberals are to go for new talent. After one has heard the slop that has been dished up in the House tonight, one can understand why that should be so. I quote from the article: Mr Elliott, the Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, and the Federal director of the Liberal Party . . . have been working on a strategy aimed at building up the organisational strength of the Liberal Party to match-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member is not addressing the Bill that is before the House. I ask him to return to the terms of the Bill. Mr O'KEEFE —I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to complete this point so that you may see its relevance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, I ask the honourable member to return to the terms of the Bill now. Mr O'KEEFE —I will return to the terms of the Bill. Amendments are proposed to this Bill. Points have been put forward by people who do not understand the policy, who are using a tactic of scaring aged people. They are the very people who are highlighted on the front page of the Australian Financial Review as needing to be replaced because the Liberal Party has to recruit more talent. The honourable member for O'Connor in his contribution regarding clause 30 made certainly one of the most rational and substantial contributions that I have heard him make in the House. I give him credit for that. I say to him that I am quite sure that the comments he made about clause 30 will get a very sympathetic hearing from the Minister and that there might be a lesson for him to learn-that is, that an opposition has a role to play in this House in giving constructive criticism and assistance where possible. When it does that we are prepared to listen and cooperate. I am sure that the honourable member will welcome that. That is why I say he was intensely embarrassed to hear the drivel and slop of those on the other side of the House who deprecated the contribution that he made. If there is a lesson to be learned from that by the honourable member for O'Connor, it is that he ought to do it a bit more often. Instead the irrational ravings he sometimes engages in, he should apply his mind to constructive criticism. He will then be listened to an taken seriously. I make a final point which is again relevant to the contributions being made. Claims have been made tonight by members of the Opposition that not only will the standard of care be cut but also the availability of care will be cut. Claims made have been in Press releases that the Government was cutting funding when, in fact, as the Minister has announced in many forums and as has been repeated here tonight in many contributions by members on this side, funding has been increased by $130 million. That should be related to the other side of the story: we hear no policy and no constructive suggestions of any substance. Even the contribution from the honourable member for O'Connor was concerned totally with a clause related to Medicare funding. No policy, no contribution-just a claim that the Opposition will cut Government expenditure by $11 billion. Who would be the first cab off the rank in any cut of $11 billion? It would be the aged-those least able to fend for themselves. It would certainly not be the nursing home proprietors or the millionaires on pensions that the Opposition defended last time. I reject the Opposition's amendment. I totally support the Bill and I urge the Minister to maintain his resolve in the face of any drivel and implement this very advanced and progressive new aged care policy. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga) —Minister for Housing and Aged Care) (11.25)-I appreciate that the hour is late and that this is the end of a three-week sitting period, but this has been a very important debate and I believe that I should respond to some of the comments made, mainly by the Opposition. The few honourable members on the Government side who had an opportunity to speak put their cases very well and, more importantly, put them accurately. Most of the points to which I will refer were raised by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I refute the allegation that he makes constantly both in the House and outside that nursing home residents will be forced into hostels. He has said that in Press releases and in this place on a number of occasions. That is obviously not the case. It has never been the Government's intention and it has never been expressed as such in any way, shape or form. The Government has said that, over time, well into the 1990s, it is unlikely that the type of person in a nursing home today will be in a nursing home in the 1990s. We believe, and it is shown quite clearly, that people with lower levels of dependency on nursing and personal care will be able to have as they can have at this stage, a high quality of life-in fact, a higher quality of life- and an appropriate quality of care in a hostel. The honourable member for Richmond asserted that the Government has not provided details of its $130m expenditure. I presume that he received some of the documents which he referred to a couple of times as being slick. If he had read the documents and had taken some time to find out what the issue was all about, he would have read at page 5 of a document entitled Building a better future-Government Policy on Aged Care a summary of the reform measures-the provision $65.7m over three years to provide the equivalent of almost an extra hour of care each week; $15m over three years to fund 24-hour registered general nurse coverage and funding for director of nursing administration time; $2.75m over three years to provide a nursing home training and reskilling package; $14.5m over three years for the geriatric assessment program-- Mr Blunt —Why not just table a detailed statement? Mr STAPLES —The honourable member wanted to hear it. I am saying this for the benefit of the people who are listening to this debate. They had to listen to the honourable member. I am giving them the opportunity of finding out what is in the package, because the honourable member for Richmond does not really know. As part of the package, $5.8m will be provided over three years for the special services program to help homes meet the short term extraordinary care requirements for residents with very high service needs; $2.3m over three years to support small nursing homes catering for special needs groups, particularly those in remote areas and homes which cater for ethnic and Aboriginal groups; $8m to enable other small homes to restructure and rationalise through a range of measures; $2m to enable small homes to choose whether they wish to remain in the existing arrangements until March 1989 or to transfer to the new arrangements from 1 July 1988; $12.45m over three years to provide for improved respite care and alternative accommodation arrangements; $3.07m over three years to provide for improved protection of residents and improved monitoring arrangements; and so the list continues. That responds in part to the remarks of the honourable member for Richmond. Those figures have been available for quite a long time. The honourable member for Richmond also spoke of fraud. He made many assertions on behalf of various groups in the community. He seemed to make very few assertions of his own volition. Most were preceded by the words `I understand that' or `these groups have said'. That again really points to the fact that members of the Opposition just do not have any real policy or opinions of their own. The honourable member for Richmond quoted a figure of 36 seconds per hour, per day. What a way to break down time-36 seconds per hour, per day. Why did he not break it down further than that? Why did he not break it down to seconds per year or seconds per week? That is ridiculous. In this package most programs and resources are termed as hours per resident per week. But no, not the honourable member for Richmond and some of the other people he quoted. The imagery that those opposite put up is meant to scare. This Government has increased resources. Those opposite try to belittle it by trying to paint a picture of those resources to the population. The honourable member for Richmond talked for a long time about the RCI, which he said was the resident care index or something. It is `resident classification instrument'. That just shows how little he understands of what this is really all about. He and others have said that there is no category 1, that it is very hard to find people in category 1. It has been quite common knowledge, except perhaps to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and a lot of the other people who put out scare Press releases, that the Government has clearly indicated to the industry that if the weightings are necessary or if it is necessary to adjust the cut-off points to ensure that those who need to will get into category 1, that will be the case. The RCI, the resident classification instrument, will be used to classify nursing home residents into one to five categories of need, category 1 people being assessed as the most dependent and thus eligible for up to 27 hours of nursing and personal care per week. The honourable member for Richmond has said in the past in this House that the Government is apparently moving towards a standard of 17.1 hours per patient in the most critical case. That was never intended to be the case, and he knew it. But he goes on with that again. After a very extensive period of consultations with professionals and with the industry the Government has said that 27 hours of nursing and personal care will be given to those in the most dependent category. Over the November trial of the RCI, directors of nursing identified some 10 per cent nationally of residents as being in category 1 and there were significant variations between the individual homes in the States. The honourable member for Richmond has raised a lot of these issues. None of them has any basis in fact. He and others have talked about people with sensory deficits. We do not just measure a person who is blind as being blind. A person who is blind has certain care needs and certain things have to be done for him. A visual handicap is likely to have an impact on a whole range of activities that are covered under the resident classification instrument, such as assistance with washing, eating and walking. All these things are covered under the resident classification instrument. The honourable member for Richmond and the people on the other side who have run around this community frightening people either do not understand the resident classification instrument or they are deliberately misleading people. Which is it? That is the question that the people will have to work out for themselves. I believe that in the coming weeks, as people become more aware of it, they will work out what is really going on. The honourable member alleged that the Government was phasing in this program in Victoria and South Australia to protect the Labor governments of those States. What have we got here? We have a person who is saying, `Bring in these changes overnight', which would cause a lot of disruption to people, or `Phase these things in'. It is phased in right across Australia. That is what this Government has been doing. It set about an eight-stage program from 1986. We are now at stage 4 of that program-the most important part of the whole program-which is really phasing in a whole series of changes. It is a very complex industry. It is a very important industry. A lot of people work in the industry. A lot of these institutions are being run on behalf of charitable organisations or churches. There are about 75,000 people in nursing homes. We care about those people as well. The honourable member for Richmond talked about mismatches. Of course, there have been mismatches. That is the basis of the problem we are facing. However, the system of the resident classification instrument which we are bringing in does away with that mismatch. The honour- able member for Lowe (Dr Woods) raised a point as well. He thought it was great that the Government was in a position where it was saying that it was not happy that only about one in 10 people were receiving appropriate care. I am glad he used the words `appropriate care' because what we have been saying is that about only one in 10 patients have been getting the care appropriate to their needs. The resident classification instrument system will give about 94 per cent accuracy in that regard. The honourable member for Richmond did not rest at that point but made attacks on officers of the Department of Community Services and Health-attacks which he did not back up. This is something about which he has never spoken to me. But he is prepared to come into this Parliament and, without naming any officer in the Department, make a blanket assertion about people. He is prepared to besmear the names of officers of the Department of Community Services and Health. Again, what we are left with in the case of the honourable member for Richmond is no policy. Did any honourable member hear any policy? There was no policy. Mr Blunt —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I invite the Minister, if he wants to attack my character and demean my motives, to move a motion criticising me rather than indulge in this sort of criticism. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —There is no point of order. Mr STAPLES —The honourable member went on to say that 950 beds were in liquidation. Not one nursing home bed in Victoria-I presume that is where he was talking about-has closed down because of anything that this Government has been doing. The beds that are in liquidation are mainly in the companies of two people. It is not the nursing homes that are running unprofitably. It is not the nursing homes that are in liquidation. It is the overall corporate structures of those people, as the honourable member well knows. The honourable member for Richmond made assertions against the Department and the Government on behalf of various groups. That is how he got out of most of his accusations tonight when he said that there was a manipulation of statistics. Again, there was no backup. And the honourable member talks about people not backing up their assertions! I turn now to the honourable member for Lowe. As I understand it, the honourable member is a medical practitioner by profession. When I heard his speech my reaction was, `to think that the taxpayer has invested so many tens of thousands of dollars in educating him to care but all we get from him is scare'. That is all we got from the honourable member for Lowe. I believe that he is quite a disappointment. He said that the views of the industry had been ignored. I have plenty of documentation here which I could table or read into the record at any time specifying the views of industry in its involvement and consideration. For example, the NSW Nursing Home Chronicle of Friday, 11 March, stated in a review of the consultation process: . . . we have at least had the good sense to recognise the willingness on the part of the Commonwealth bureaucracy to try to meet the need for communication as best as possible. It further stated: . . . we have been most appreciative of the manner in which the very senior officers of the Department have handled their portfolio in respect to communication with this Association. There have been many many more statements such as those. Again, the honourable member for Lowe criticised the Government for officiating over a system which had been introduced by the Opposition when in government. It had had plenty of time to do something about the situation. The Auditor-General in 1981 brought this matter to the attention of those opposite. They ignored it. It was up to this Government, the Hawke Labor Government, to do something about it. The honourable member criticised this Government for effectively having fees charged, over and above the pension, in nursing homes. I remind the honourable member for Lowe and other members of the Opposition, if they are not aware of the fact, that by 1991 no resident in a government-subsidised nursing home will have to pay more than 87.5 per cent of his or her pension, plus rent assistance. Mr Deputy Speaker, can you imagine what security, what comfort, that would give to the thousands of people out there who are now growing older, who will in those years, by 1991, be moving into nursing homes and who will not have to worry about the drain they may be on relatives or about whether they have enough savings to last out their lives in a nursing home? That is the social justice record of this Government in age care reform. People will learn to understand that in the coming weeks and the scare campaign that is going on will be put into oblivion. The honourable member for Lowe referred to shifting people out of nursing homes. Throughout this debate, throughout everything that has been going on out in the community, we have not heard one word of policy from the Opposition. Those opposite have agreed with the principles of what we are doing, but we have not heard one word in here today of the age care policy of the Opposition. Those opposite do not have a policy. They have an age scare policy, not an age care policy. If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is looking to shift people around on his front bench, I suggest that there are on the front bench people who should be put into other portfolios where they cannot hurt people. The Government's policy is very much coordinated and it is integrated with the home and community care program, the hostel program, the nursing home program and, in between those, to give it tremendous flexibility and support for people out in the community, the respite care program. I thank honourable members, particularly those members on the Government side of the House, who have contributed to this debate. Government members, both in the House and and generally in Caucus, have given tremendous support all the way for this nursing home reform program, which will go on to 1992. That support will earn them at this stage and in future stages, as it has in the past, the respect of their constituents. They know that they will have the support of their constituents, and that support will be shown in the ballot box. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.45) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 14, after clause 28, insert the following new clause: Conditions of registration ``28A. Section 73ba of the Principal Act is amended by adding the following subsection: `(2) A registered organisation shall continue to comply particularly with the conditions set out in paragraph (1g) of the Schedule. Penalty: (a) in the case of a first offence-$10 000; or (b) in the case of a second and subsequent offences-$100 000.'.''. (2) Page 14, after clause 28, insert the following new clause: Exemption to Part VIa ``28b. Section 82r of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after `condition' in paragraph (1) (b), `(including the conditions contained in paragraph (1g) of the Schedule)'.''. (3) Clause 30, page 17, omit subparagraphs (1g) (i) and (ii), substitute the following subparagraphs: ``(i) offer to a contributor to a health benefits fund conducted by the organisation an inducement or encouragement; (ii) subject, or threaten to subject, such a contributor to a penalty or disadvantage (whether financial or otherwise); (iii) refrain from offering to such a contributor a benefit; or (iv) hinder or impede the provision of a benefit to such a contributor;''. (4) Clause 30, page 18, line 2, omit ``and'', substitute ``or to''. I have spoken at some length on the need for these amendments. They deal completely with the circumstances relating to paragraph (1g) of the schedule, which I might refer to as the anti-dumping clause. As I argued during the second reading debate, the Opposition believes that this paragraph is not strong enough as it does not contribute to ensuring that the process of dumping can be stopped, particularly as the relevant clause as presently listed in the legislation refers purely to a situation where the Minister may deregister or otherwise appoint an inspector to a very large fund. As I have pointed out, that is impractical and is not in the interests of the contributors. It is not an appropriate penalty for this particular breach, it if were to occur. The Opposition is suggesting that it is much better that a financial penalty be applied, and of course we have suggested that that penalty be large because the financial advantages of being able to get rid of chronically ill patients, of being able to transfer such patients from one fund to another, is very large. I would hope that any magistrate dealing with such a matter in the future would take note of the intention of the Parliament should the Government agree with us now or if we are able to carry these amendments in another place. We want the courts to understand that the penalties have been made this large because, as I have pointed out already, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that transferring just one chronically ill patient could means a saving of up to $10,000 a week in the expenditure of a single fund. Clearly the penalty has to take account of that, otherwise the funds could go on dumping and making a profit, even while paying a fine. Our first amendment suggests that on page 14, after clause 28, we insert a new clause, as follows: 28a. Section 73ba of the Principal Act is amended by adding the following subsection: (2) A registered organisation shall continue to comply particularly with the conditions set out in paragraph (1g) of the Schedule. That is our amendment that deals with dumping. We propose this amendment because section 73ba of the principal Act, the National Health Act, states: The registration of an organization shall, whether the registration was effected before, or is effected after, the commencement of this section, be deemed to be subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule. We want to make it very clear that also there is an obligation upon licensed organisations to comply with (1g). We then make out the penalties for the breach of that section, which are, in the case of a first offence, a fine of $10,000 and, in the case of a second and subsequent offences, a fine of $100,000. They are maximum fines. Our second amendment also refers to page 14 and asks that, after clause 28, we insert the following new clause: Exemption to Part VIA '28B. Section 82r of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after ``condition'' in paragraph (1) (b), ``(including the conditions contained in paragraph (1g) of the Schedule)''.'. Again that is to ensure that 82r, which is a section of the Act which again deals with the appointment of an inspector, will be relevant to these amendments. We also choose to tighten up somewhat the conditions that the Government had already included in its amending legislation. We have moved: Clause 30, page 17, omit subparagraphs (1g) (i) and (ii), substitute the following subparagraphs: Subparagraph (i) is very similar to the Government's subparagraph, which stated: offer to a contributor to a health benefits fund conducted by the organisation an inducement . . . We have added the words `or encouragement'. At present, subparagraph (ii) reads: subject, or threaten to subject, such a contributor to a penalty or disadvantage; We have added the words `whether financial or otherwise'. We also add two additional subclauses: (iii) refrain from offering to such a contributor a benefit; or (iv) hinder or impede the provision of a benefit to such a contributor; We think the last one is very important. One of the practices that has been listed was for a fund so to delay payments and otherwise improperly deal with a contributor as to force him to seek another fund. We do not think that should apply either. We have agreed with what the Government is proposing because we think the amendment will allow people choice but we would not like to see the good work being done destroyed by funds choosing to dump. It is unreasonable to suggest that they will not. As I have said, some funds have pressed so hard to have this provision reinstated that it is impossible to believe that they will lose high-claiming contributors voluntarily. I do not think a large number of contributors will shift but we welcome their doing do voluntarily. There will be a huge temptation on funds to dump out high-claiming contributors. If they do that it will have consequences for us all here. We will be blamed by a lot of people, particularly in Victoria, because the other funds to whom those contributors are dumped will raise their premiums and that will not benefit even the contributors that have shifted. We are sure that by applying these tougher penalties, making them monetary penalties, we can have at least a reasonable guarantee that such procedures will not occur. I assume that then it will not be incumbent upon only the Government or the Minister to take action, as they would under section 73ba of the National Health Act: if another fund feels it is being dumped upon I would assume that under the normal common law arrangements in Australia it could take some action to have such a prosecution proceed. Those very interested groups will keep their competitors honest, and that is a very significant factor. I do not think it should be upon the Minister to police this provision. I would rather the Minister did not have to get himself another police force and a few more feet in doors. My view is that once we have a monetary penalty and a clear offence for dumping it could be prosecuted by the fund that feels it has been offended against. That describes the Opposition's proposals. We would welcome the support of the Government. We think the proposals are only carrying the matter to a more sensible conclusion. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython) —Minister for Community Services and Health) (11.53)-The Government welcomes very much the support of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the Opposition in supporting the principles that underlie these clauses, which relate to ensuring portability of the pre-existing ailment rule between funds against dumping. As he has so strongly supported the principle I am a little reluctant to point out that these principles directly relate to the preservation of community rating, and his advocacy a few weeks ago of risk rating, which is the opposite, is rather contradictory. It is true that increasingly any one statement coming from the honourable member for O'Connor tends in principle to be contradicted by the next one. I say that gently because the honourable member has supported on this occasion the principle behind this measure-that is, the community rating principle-which we have tried to enshrine with the portability proposal and with the anti-dumping proposals. At this stage the Government is not prepared to support the amendments, and I shall explain why. I have to say that we look at them sympathetically and, before the Bill goes to the Senate, we will follow up some of the points that have been raised. I point out some of the difficulties that we have in accepting them off the cuff, as I have seen them for only the first time tonight. First of all, in relation to the penalty provisions, the honourable member is suggesting that the deregistration process is a bit of a feather. Obviously, if the only threat we had were deregistration I would accept that. But under section 74 (5) of the National Health Act, where a condition of registration is breached-and we are making these conditions of registration-we can deem that to be a contravention. That contravention can be fined. It is true that the fine is only up to $5,000. I take the point that the honourable member has made, that perhaps the fine should be a greater amount, may be the best place to amend the provision. However, I think we need to take some care when discussing the amount itself, because those fines will, of course, be taking the funds of contributors. If a fund is fined $10,000 or $100,000, that is money taken away from the contributors. Before the Government accepted fines of that order, I would want to discuss those proposals with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) so that our fines relate to other fines across the system in a comparable way. But this is not to deny that the honourable member for O'Connor has made a significant point, in that by dumping just a few members a fund may be able to make very significant savings. When we come to the second set of amendments, which relate to defining the nature of dumping more fully or in more precise ways than the Government has, the one caution I would have is that we need to be careful that in making them more precise, we do not enable more loopholes to occur. There is an argument that a more comprehensive, if general, definition of dumping may be safer than precisely spelling it out. But again I am fully prepared to take further advice on that, and if the advice leans in the direction of developing it more precisely, we will certainly take that on board when we introduce the Bill in the Senate. I can clearly see the point the honourable member is making, and we are not opposed to it, because we want to make the anti-dumping provisions effective. But I am told, on the best legal advice I can get, that there is a debate between whether it is safer to do this in a comprehensive way or to spell it out more specifically. The final amendment is a more difficult one-and it is a pity that the hour is late-because the word `and' is almost a necessary part of the definition of dumping. If people are just driven out of a fund and do not go to any other fund, in a direct sense they are not dumped and there is no immediate effect on another fund. It may be that we want to protect people not just against dumping but against some of the other activities of the funds which may not actually lead to dumping, that is, passing on to another fund. But I think the `and' is absolutely necessary in order to relate to the notion of dumping, that is, passing people from one fund to another. But there may be a point in adding to it an additional protection, and we would certainly look at that. I indicate to the honourable member that as the proposals he makes are all aimed at strengthening what the Government is trying to do, we will certainly look at them seriously. Before the Bill goes to the Senate we will see what aspects of the amendments can be taken up, because I am not unsympathetic to the proposals he has made. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.57) —I thank the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and consequently, in accepting his assurances, I will certainly not take this matter to a division tonight. We accept the arrangement and we welcome the opportunity to discuss any alterations. Our particular concern is to ensure that this arrangement works. Nevertheless, I quickly take issue with the Minister's suggestion that in supporting the arrangement I see it as having something to do with community rating. I am well aware that many of the funds believe that this proposal will resolve their problem. Their problem is one of community rating. The Minister may find an alternative solution. I am not at all opposed to the concept, if it can be made to work, that everybody pays the same. I made the point earlier tonight that this is an interesting debate for the community, and if both the Government and the Opposition get to the point of being able to raise the issues and have them debated in the community, the community might be better off. But the reality is, as we have discovered, that community rating is an excellent principle if there is only one fund. Everybody is forced to join it. Then there will be a happy mix of young people and old people. Whilst there are competing funds and new funds-we all know that competition is enhanced by new funds-there will never be a perfect mix of young and old within an individual fund. We have discovered that historically the longer a fund is in existence the higher percentage of elderly, high-claiming people in its portfolio. Funds have great difficulty in supplying these people with a decent level of rebate. They just do not have the money. I read a letter to the Parliament once from a woman who said, `Please help me to understand. I have been insured for 10 years. I have just been to a private hospital and had to pay $1,500 extra'. That is not an isolated example, as many honourable members would know. In raising the problems of the community rating principle, I am not trying to be some sort of smart alec. I certainly have no intention of imposing a burden on our elderly. I am trying to tell the Government that we are fast approaching as situation whereby some of our oldest funds will take the option of closing their doors and reopening at the other end of the market. We have just applied a bandaid for them tonight. I see the proposal as saying that consumers have the right to change from one fund to another. In my mind that is the purpose of this exercise. Its purpose is not to try to prop up long established funds clinging to their little dream that half of their high claiming patients are going to pack up and leave them. As I said, this is the only business I know where one wants some customers to leave. However, there is a very good reason for that. We should not get paranoid about this argument. We all have a responsibility in this place to ask ourselves whether the long established principle of community rating is working. When it comes to paying benefits to the elderly, it is not working. My party's solution to this problem is yet to be decided. But it is silly to bury our head in the sand and suggest that we come up with a series of bandaid measures. The Minister is probably well aware that he will be under huge pressure in the near future when this little scheme does not achieve the desired results for certain funds. They will come and hammer him about reinsurance. Reinsurance is another thing that is quite artificial in the health insurance industry. Reinsurance in the general insurance industry is about laying off a substantial risk. Suppose a company insures a $15m building. It may have the capacity to pay out only $5m. Therefore it goes off to Lloyds of London and Lloyds picks up the $10m. But there is no such thing as an individual risk in the health insurance industry that goes beyond the resources of a company. We do not have a company that is so small. So we have this artificial arrangement which says, `We will all sit down at the end of the year and divvy up the profits. We will come up with all these artificial arguments as to why one company should give some of its profits to another'. In other words, the concept is wrong. We are trying to politicise commercial activity. When we do that we invariably get into trouble. In replying to the Minister's remarks in this area, I say again that in no way am I necessarily endorsing community rating. I support what the Government is trying to do in giving the consumer a go-giving him portability, as the Minister put it. I do not believe that people should be denied health treatment in these circumstances. The Minister has overcome that quite fairly, provided we can be guaranteed that there will be no dumping. I hope the day will come when the Minister and I can have a debate in this place on some of the realities of the private insurance industry, whether it is associated with Medicare or, as I would prefer it, not associated with Medicare. If we do not have a proper, competitive commercial situation someone is going to get hurt. It will not be us. It will not be the funds. It will be certain consumers. On present indications it will be the elderly because they are the ones who are making claims. They are the ones for whom most funds have insufficient money to provide for under the current arrangement. If the Government thinks that problems with Health Australia will never occur, it is wrong. They will. Medibank Private's concerns are probably 15 years down the track. Health Australia's concerns are 10 years down the track, at which stage some vital, new funds will be doing to it what is happening now. I believe that we should be able to have a premium structure that allows the Pensioners League of Australia to have a fund that is just for pensioners with premium levels such that it could pay out adequate rebates and guarantee medical treatment immediately it is needed. That situation immediately requires another; and that is that the Government is prepared to pick up the premium. Never at any stage would I contemplate, as has been suggested in the past, that it would disadvantage the individual elderly person, a person of pensionable age. I just make that point to the Minister. I thank him for his cooperation. He may move the Bill through to the third reading stage and we will not divide. Friday, 29 April 1988 Question resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Staples)-by leave-read a third time. House adjourned at 12.07 a.m. (Friday) The following notices were given: Mr Griffiths to move- That this House acknowledges the contribution of former Members to the rich and colourful history of this Chamber. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any Government. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 18 April 1988. Notice of acquisition of shares in Greenfields Woolscour Pty Ltd by the Australian Wool Corporation, dated 16 April 1988. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances-1988- No. 15-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 16-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 5). No. 17-Administrative Arrangements (Consequential Amendments). No. 18-Children's Services (Amendment). Regulations-1988-No. 3-(Stamp Duties and Taxes Ordinance). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 24) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) When will the new Brisbane Airport begin operating as a domestic airport. (2) What curfew hours will be in place at the new airport once operations begin. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The new airport which is now owned and operated by the Federal Airports Corporation was commissioned on 20 March 1988. The Prime Minister officiated at an opening ceremony on 19 March 1988. (2) The airport will not be curfewed. (Question No. 491) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: (1) How much granite was contracted to be purchased for the new Parliament House. (2) Who were the successful contractors and what were the sources of their material. (3) What specifications for granite were laid down in the tender specifications. (4) What was the original contract price. (5) How much granite has been delivered under each contract. (6) What payments have been made for granite which has been delivered. (7) What quantity of granite which has been delivered has been rejected. (8) Have payments been made for the granite which has been rejected. (9) Has any rejected granite been left with the Commonwealth or any Commonwealth authority. (10) Has any rejected granite which has been retained been used by the Commonwealth or any Commonwealth authority; if so, by whom and what price was paid for the rejected granite. (11) Has any rejected granite been sold by the Commonwealth or any Commonwealth authority; if so, to whom and at what price. (12) If any rejected granite has been neither sold nor used, what will be done with it. (13) Is any rejected granite still being held by the Commonwealth or any Commonwealth authority; if so, where is it stored. Mr West —The answer to the right honourable member's question, is as follows: On the basis of clarification provided by the honourable member's office the answers provided refer to grey/pink granite, not all granite used on the project. (1) 1820 cubic metres was the initial quantity cited in the contract for the curved walls. Provision was also made in the contract for its extension to provide for other external requirements such as the landscaping. Thus, the schedule of prices originally agreed on for this contract held provision for such future extensions. (2) Contractor: Messrs A. G. and A. M. Morris Source of material: Capital Hill, Eugowra, N.S.W. (3) The tender document was both lengthy and complex. The following is a summary of the specifications set out in the tender document: GRANITE DESCRIPTION General Grey/pink has been selected for the main cladding which generally shall be a rock which contains abundant phenocrysts of pink orthoclase in a moderately coarse grained grey matric composed of white plagioclase grey quartz and dark biotite and hornblende. Two (2) examples of acceptable granites of this type may be inspected on site during normal working hours by application to the Superintendent. Quality Control Criteria It is essential that the quality of any granite selected for the new Parliament House Project is controlled within very strict limits. The presence of certain `faults' or `spots' are well known in Australian granites. The visual significance of any such blemish will vary relative to size, colour, frequency and location within any particular panel and the location of the stone of the facade. It is the intent that the granite shall present an even appearance throughout the entire of the facade. In preparing the criteria for quality control due consideration has been given to all these circumstances. Criteria staged for the two (2) acceptable granites should be taken as a guide and presupposes that no other as yet undetected `blemish' will become evident. The criteria for the two (2) acceptable granites is as follows: Grey/Pink Granite Category A Granites (External vertical face sills and soffits) Maximum number of large inclusions: Maximum number of black spots or small inclusions Minimum proximity of spots or inclusions-6/1.5m2 50mm x 20mm or 35mm diameter Maximum size of large inclusions diameter-50mm Maximum size of small inclusions diameter-20mm Category B Granites (Horizontal surfaces of coping only) Maximum number of spots or inclusions Minimum proximity of spots Maximum size of spots or inclusions-6/1.5m2 150mm 60mm in diameter Discolouration, Staining and Structural Defects All granite despatched from the quarry shall be of good quality free from weathering discolouration, structural defects and the presence of deleterious minerals such as clays and sulphides. As far as practicable all material shall be selected to comply with quality criteria and to equal the samples submitted with the Tender Submission. Evaluation Samples Three (3) samples not less than 300mm x 300mm indicating anticipated range of variation in overall colour, tone and granular formation for all granites shall be submitted for evaluation in determining the final quality criteria of the selected granite. (4) The original contract was based on a schedule of rates. The estimated cost of the work based on rates tendered by the successful tenderer, and on the provisional quantities specified in the tender documents, was approximately $790,000. (5) 3330m3-This includes the granite still being used in landscaping. (6) The final contract price, which was an extension of the schedule of rates over the quantities required, taking into account rise and fall, was $1.4 million. (7) No granite has been rejected. Any granite unsuitable for use in the curved walls was directed for use in the landscape works. (8) No payments have been made for rejected granite since none has been rejected. (9) All material not yet installed on the project is currently stored in the Department of Administrative Service store at Kingston. It is intended to use all of this material on the project. (10) When the landscaping was originally deleted in 1986, some approaches were made to the project with the intention of using some of the project's granite. With the reinstatement of the landscaping early last year, it was clear that no surplus stock would be available to meet such approaches. (11) There has been no rejected granite available for disposal by the Authority. The Authority did, however, dispose of some granite offcuts which were not in a form usable to the project. Public tenders were called on 3 October 1987 for the disposal of approximately 60m3 of the residual granite holdings of the Parliament House Construction Authority. Following evaluation of tenders, the highest tender for $25,000, that of UNEENA Pty Ltd, was accepted. (12) The Authority expects a small quantity of material to be residual at the end of the project. This will be of a sufficiently small quantity to be considered for holding for maintenance purposes rather than for disposal. (13) No. See above in answer to question 9. (Question No. 629) Mr Goodluck asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) Is the Minister able to say when Ansett Airlines of Australia will take over East-West Airlines. (2) Will any flights to Tasmania be cancelled. (3) Will the same fare structure continue. (4) What will happen to the employees of East-West Airlines. (5) What effect will the takeover have on the people of Tasmania. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) East-West Airlines was acquired by News Ltd and TNT Ltd on 31 July 1987. News/TNT jointly own both East-West Airlines and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. Ansett Airlines of Australia is an operating division of Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd which is, in turn, a subsidiary of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. (2) to (5) The level of flights to Tasmania, the fare structure and employment prospects of East-West staff are commercial matters for the airline to determine. Tasmania has long been recognised as one of Australia's premier tourist destinations and the importance of air services to the Island State is well recognised by the airlines. For this reason I would expect that the airlines will continue to provide services to Tasmania to meet the needs of the travelling public and to assist in the development of tourism to that State. (Question No. 871) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 April 1988: (1) Are social security payments due on Thursdays paid to the banks on Wednesday nights. (2) Are all banks now instructed to make payments on Thursdays. (3) Why does the Commonwealth Bank make the payment on Wednesdays and is this equivalent to giving recipients a short term interest free loan. (4) Could the other banks follow a similar practice to the Commonwealth Bank. (5) Is he able to say on what legal basis the Commonwealth Bank is able to follow this practice. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) Details of social security pension payments due on Thursdays together with the funding cheques, are delivered to financial institutions during the three days immediately before the Thursday. The funding cheques are dated with the Thursday payday date and the Reserve Bank is prohibited from giving value for those cheques until that date. The Thursday payday may be advanced when it occurs immediately before or during a holiday period. (2) Under arrangements with the national associations representing financial institutions social security payments are to be available to clients as at the commencement of business on the payday. My colleague, the Treasurer, as the Minister with portfolio responsibility for the Commonwealth Bank, has provided the following information to parts (3), (4) and (5). (3) Because of the large number of pension recipients receiving payment through accounts held with the Commonwealth Bank, the Bank has found it necessary, in some circumstances, to make the funds available on the day prior to the designated payday, to ensure that customers' requirements for servicing their accounts can be met. In cases where funds are withdrawn from an account prior to the pension payday which would not have been available without the pension payment having been anticipated, the practice can be regarded as akin to providing recipients with short-term interest free loan. (4) Other banks could follow a similar practice to the Commonwealth Bank if they considered it appropriate, having regard to their individual circumstances. (5) There is no legal restriction on the Commonwealth Bank performing this service, provided it meets any costs involved from its own resources.