Thursday, 19 May 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 Speaker, 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 Australian 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 Adermann (from 1,553 citizens), Mr Donald Cameron (from 12 citizens), Mr Charles (from 28 citizens), Mr Cohen (from 22 citizens), Dr Harry Edwards (from 10 citizens) and Mr Wright (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectively 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 therefore 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 Mr Dobie (from five citizens), Mr MacKellar (from 10 citizens), Mr Leo McLeay (from six citizens) and Mr Peacock (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the 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. The Outcome Standards for 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 387 citizens), Mr Steele Hall (from 116 citizens) and Mr Porter (from 198 citizens). 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 91 citizens), Dr Harry Edwards (from five citizens) and Mrs Sullivan (from 252 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, respectfully 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 44 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 Representative 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 Free (from 27 citizens), Mr Hand (from 13 citizens) and Mr Katter (from five 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 Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the 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 goods here in Australia. by Mr Kent (from 45 citizens), Mr Milton (from 53 citizens) and Mr Scott (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: The irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray 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. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Punch (from 162 citizens) and Mr Scott (from 200 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: 1. Make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence with deterrent penalties, and 2. Close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect to X-rated videos. Because: (a) X-rated videos have been banned in all States; (b) without action by the Federal Government, there is no way the States can prevent the distribution of X-rated videos from A.C.T. (c) there is a strong link between pornography of all kinds and sex crimes; and (d) there is a need to protect the children of Australia from being victims of child molestation and pornography. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Aldred (from 266 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. We the Undersigned oppose and object to the introduction of the Australia Card Bill on the grounds that it is an infringement of personal freedom, an invasion of privacy and has the potential of being abused by this and future Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject any I.D. card proposal. by Mr N.A. Brown (from 14 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 Courtice (from 13 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. The French Government is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 2. The future generation of Australian residents are at risk due to French nuclear testing in the Pacific. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House of Representatives will take measures to revoke Australian Uranium export licences to France, until such time that the French Government becomes a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and adopts a policy of Nuclear Disarmament. by Mr Courtice (from 67 citizens). To the honourable the speaker and members of the house of representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain electors in the Division of Griffith draw to the attention of the House the increase in noise pollution and the subsequent effect on the quality of life of residents in certain southern suburbs of Brisbane, caused by the opening of the new Brisbane domestic airport. Your petitioners therefore request the House to take steps to minimise noise levels and alter aircraft flight paths to enable a return to the lifestyle previously enjoyed by the affected residents. by Mr Humphreys (from 318 citizens). To the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners, members of the Apex Club of Zone of Australia showeth: 1. We are concerned that insufficient publicity is given to promoting bicycle safety and awareness. 2. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives will further promote road safety by direct education for bicycle riders and road users. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Kerr (from 34 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 46 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: Grave concern with the insufficient level of Government grants provided for carrying out improvements to the Canberra/Batemans Bay (MR51) Road. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your House will call upon the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to allow for and provide special substantial direct funding to carry out the necessary improvements to the road, and, further, call upon the New South Wales State Government to accept greater financial responsibility for the upgrading and maintenance of the said road. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 510 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That in spite of many petitioners and other communications, we are dismayed and disgusted at the lack of will on the part of the Parliament to restore to retired Commonwealth Public Servants and Defence Force Personnel, pension benchmarks which were affected by a two per cent discount as part of the budget brought down in 1986. Having regard to assurances given by the Government that the base will be restored, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, act to ensure that this is done without further delay so as to remove the permanent and compounding effects of this discriminatory action taken under the guise of the entire community sharing the economic burden. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 119 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: The proposal by the National Capital Development Commission to change the land use policy for Section 52 Part Block 5 at McKellar from a primary school site to that to be used mainly for residential subdivision is wrong and not in the best interest of or in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the residents of the suburb of McKellar. We strenuously object to the proposal. The residents of McKellar were deprived of a meeting place when the A.C.T. Schools Authority reneged on its proposal to build a primary school on Section 52 and it is believed that McKellar is one of the only suburbs (if not the only suburb) in the A.C.T. without a meeting place for its residents. If section 52 were used for residential purposes and the land on the corner of Owen Dixon Drive and William Slim Drive were developed as proposed the suburb of McKellar would have less open space and recreation area then any other suburb in the A.C.T. The whole of Section 52 should be set aside and developed as a recreation area for the residents of McKellar and should incorporate a multi-purpose meeting place and other sporting and entertainment facilities. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to: (a) Prevent the use of Section 52 Part Block 5 McKellar for residential purposes and; (b) Ensure that Section 52 Part Block 5 McKellar is developed as a recreation area for the residents of McKellar. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from two 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 120 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Ballarat respectfully showeth that: 1. Roads form a valuable part of the Nation's infrastructure; 2. The road construction industry is an important employer; 3. Roads support the social fabric of country communities; 4. Roads are a vital part of a district's commerce; 5. Country roads are deteriorating; 6. Deteriorating roads threaten the lives of Australians; 7. Road surface maintenance affects the efficiency of road transport; 8. Insufficient funds are being spent on roads. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. The Parliament recognise the importance of roads to the economy; 2. The importance of roads to country people; 3. The Parliament increase funding to maintain the road system; and 4. Grant a greater proportion of fuel taxes to road funding; 5. The Parliament continue to grant specific federal funds for roads. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Mildren (from 771 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The Petition of certain electors of the Division of Corangamite, draws to the attention of the House that: The transfer of information on Australian taxpayers as a consequence of Australia becoming a signatory to an OECD international tax treaty, would place Australia taxpayers at risk by virtue of the fact that the Australian Government would have no control over access to, or the continued confidentiality of, information of the most private and confidential nature. Your Petitioners, therefore, request the House to urge the Government to: Refrain from signing the Draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters, thus preventing the Government from an obligation to exchange the tax files of any Australian taxpayer at the request of any co-signatory country. by Mr McArthur (from 68 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The sale of violent videos, books glorifying violence, and toys of violence encourages violence in the community, and has a deleterious effect on the more vulnerable members of the community who are easily influenced. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ban the sale of violent videos, books and toys of violence, in an effort to put an end to the increasing number of violent crimes committed in this country. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McArthur (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker, Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Electorate of Wide Bay respectively showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled together with their housebound carers and families and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom which will adversely affect the ability of the elderly, sick and disabled to effectively function in modern society. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Millar (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House that: Sales tax was reimposed on the sale of piano rolls in Australia in the 1985 budget. The Mastertouch Piano Roll Company (`Mastertouch') of Crystal Street, Petersham is the sole surviving commercial manufacturer of piano rolls in Australia. The machinery used by Mastertouch in the piano roll manufacturing process has been classified by the National Trust. Mastertouch is the sole remaining entity in Australia possessing the expertise and information required to perpetuate the art of piano roll manufacture. The imposition of the sales tax and the consequent price rise in piano rolls, has placed in jeopardy the continued commercial viability of Mastertouch and if not removed will lead to the closure of Mastertouch and the cessation of piano roll manufacture in Australia. by Mr Punch (from 5,618 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault-one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: Make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock (from 1,458 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We oppose the advertising of alcohol in any form. Alcohol is recognised as Australia's number one drug problem which is responsible for at least 50% of all road fatalities; a high percentage of serious crime and vandalism. Hospital beds are filled with sufferers of the many alcohol related diseases including: cirrhosis of the liver; heart disease; stomach ulcers; various forms of cancer and mental illness. Alcohol also causes much family unhappiness and marriage breakdown, as well as being involved in some cases of child abuse and molestation. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should ban all advertising of alcohol on television and radio because of its persuasive effect on children and young people. by Mr Ruddock (from 591 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House that we support the retention of a christian observance at the commencement of each sitting day of Parliament. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will take appropriate action to ensure that the Lord's Prayer is retained for all future sittings. by Mr Shack (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: 1. Telecom's planned introduction of timed local calls will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Timed local calls have been widely condemned throughout the community. 3. Timed local calls will severely disadvantage community groups already in the category of being disadvantaged-including the elderly, the infirm and the handicapped. 4. Telecom has produced no justification for the introduction of timed local calls. 5. Efficient, cheap communications are essential for all users in a country as vast as Australia. Your petitioners therefore request immediate intervention by the House to ensure that the Telecom plan for timed local calls is abandoned. by Mr Shack (from 127 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: There is too much crime and violence on television 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 television stations to improve the standard of shows, news and current affairs programs by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Sullivan (from 1,113 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that placing a 20% Sales Tax on the essential food item, Soya Milk, will present unnecessary financial difficulties to families. Where many people in the community show a marked intolerance to dairy products, Soya Milk supplies a much needed alternative. We, the petitioners therefore request that the new sales tax on Soya Milk be rescinded. by Mr White (from 50 citizens). Petitions received. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.03) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, I present the report of the Committee on six efficiency audits of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MARTIN —Eighteen months ago the then Expenditure Committee presented a report on five efficiency audits of the Australian Taxation Office by the Auditor-General. That report, entitled A Taxing Problem, drew attention to broad issues associated with the administration of the Australian Taxation Office. The Committee's theme in that report was that `substantial administrative changes need to be made in the Australian Taxation Office if it is effectively to implement the legislation for which it is responsible'. The Committee urged an early Government response to the report, which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tabled on 26 February 1987. In his statement, the Treasurer suggested that the House be concerned about the performance of the Taxation Office and, accordingly, this Committee has taken a special interest in the ATO. That response by the Treasurer led to A Taxing Solution, an independent review conducted by Dr Ron Cullen on the operations and performance of the Australian Taxation Office. In the course of this inquiry the Committee was able to discuss with the Commissioner of Taxation the results of the Cullen review. We were most impressed with the changes that had taken place within the Taxation Office, a situation that has been acknowledged by the Audit Office. It was certainly apparent to the members of the Committee who visited the Adelaide, Melbourne and Victoria North offices of the Australian Taxation Office. The report which I have tabled, entitled A Taxing Review, deals with six efficiency audits and completes the trilogy of reports into the Australian Taxation Office. As with A Taxing Problem, it is difficult to isolate the specifics of the six audit reports of the Auditor-General from the general administration of the Australian Taxation Office. In regard to this the Committee has suggested that the Australian Audit Office should acknowledge the environmental factors that impinge on the auditee at the time of the audit. That comment applies not only the Australian Taxation Office but indeed to any other government department, statutory authority or group which is subjected to an efficiency audit and efficiency scrutiny by the Australian Audit Office. The Committee has also suggested that the Australian Taxation Office continue to monitor progress in relation to the key outcomes set out in the Cullen review. It also suggested that the progress should be specified in the annual report of the Australian Taxation Office. This, of course, would enable proper parliamentary scrutiny of the efficient organisational structures within the Australian Public Service. Time does not permit me to go into detail on all the recommendations of the Committee's report. However, there are several recommendations which I wish to highlight, particularly in view of some recent speculation regarding tax evasion and tax avoidance. One recommendation in the earlier report, A Taxing Problem, has not been implemented at this stage. The recommendation was that the Australian Taxation Office should take the necessary steps to establish a high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance. This Committee has repeated that recommendation. In this report the Committee notes that some improvements to the current system are essential in overcoming tax evasion and avoidance. We need to be sure that honest taxpayers are not unduly burdened to raise additional taxation revenue to make up for those who are not meeting their obligation to the nation. The Committee has also recommended that it be a mandatory requirement for the quotation of valid tax file numbers on group certificates and tax instalment declaration forms. In this regard, I can do no better than quote the Taxation Institute of Australia, an organisation which represents virtually all the tax professionals in accountancy and legal practices and academics and agents. That body has noted: There is no question that billions of dollars of revenue are bypassing the Government by tax evasion from the fraudulent use of fictitious identities and bogus bank accounts. The Institute went on to suggest that the use of tax file numbers in conjunction with a withholding tax on interest, unfranked dividends, royalties and rental payments to Australian residents could thus provide the Government with a method of attacking the considerable tax evaded each year. We note in the report that it is the honest taxpayers who are being disadvantaged by the current level of tax evasion. I strongly urge all honourable members to read the recommendations contained in this document with respect to those two specific areas, as well as the other areas which make reference to improved efficiency within the Australian Taxation Office. We as a Committee would certainly commend the Taxation Office for its initiative, management structures and improvements that have obviously been put in place. However, as has clearly been demonstrated in evidence, that efficiency and effectiveness and the ability of the Australian Taxation Office to collect a fair share of tax-not more, not less-will be improved by those two basic recommendations that I just elaborated being put in place. The Committee has also recommended that the ATO formulate a broad procedural strategy plan for use as a guide when implementing future legislative changes to the taxation system. In regard to the prescribed payments system, which was the subject of one of the efficiency audits, the Committee has suggested that the ATO formulate strategic plans not only for improvements to the prescribed payments system but also for its extension to other industries. This is also a very important point, to which I direct honourable members' attention, in the body of the report. The Auditor-General by his report has contributed to the public discussion of these important issues. I intend that this Committee will continue to promote discussion of this important topic. The Taxation Office also has a role in this regard. The Committee has recommended that the ATO publicise its compliance strategy as widely as possible so that taxpayers are kept informed of developments and changes and as an additional way of deterring some potential tax avoiders. In conclusion, I express my thanks to the members of this Committee of the Parliament who have worked so effectively and efficiently on these reviews and, in particular, to the Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). His contribution was outstanding. He brought a great deal of knowledge about taxation to the Committee in a bipartisan spirit. I also thank the staff of the Committee who worked on the inquiry: Barry Telford, Michael Mclean, Kelly Edwards, Kylie Freer, Sharon Fisher, Kaye Buckley and particularly Anne Hazelton, whose magnificent contribution has ensured that the report was tabled today. All the Committee's operations, of course, were coordinated by the Committee Secretary, Mr Phil Bergin. The Committee currently has two further inquiries as a result of efficiency audits of the Australian Taxation Office. I expect reports of both these inquiries to be tabled during the Budget sittings. However, this will not end the Committee's interest in taxation matters. I believe that the Committee has established not only an interest but also an expertise in taxation matters. We will continue to monitor developments in the Australian Taxation Office. In view of the May economic statement and of Budget strategies I believe that this report is timely. Its recommendations go a great way along the track towards providing the government of the day with opportunities to recoup tax that has been lost in the system. The Australian Taxation Office has moved in that direction and is to be commended for it. I recommend that all honourable members read the report carefully and take on board its recommendations. I look forward to the continued work of our Committee in dealing with matters of this nature. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(10.17) —In 1985 and 1986 I chaired the subcommittee of the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee which reviewed five efficiency audit reports of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The Expenditure Committee's report, A Taxing Problem, was tabled in the House in September 1986. That report highlighted the need for substantial administrative changes to be made in the Australian Taxation Office in order to achieve a satisfactory level of taxpayer compliance. It was the Committee's view that it was important to achieve such a high level of taxpayer compliance in order to ensure that the tax burden is spread in accordance with the legislative intention of this Parliament. Amongst the administrative practices requiring substantial change, the Committee identified the ATO's lack of computerisation, its continuing dependence on labour intensive work methods, and the ATO's overall management practices as three areas which required major adjustment. In the course of reviewing the six efficiency audits which are the subject of the report, A Taxing Review, which has just been tabled, the Finance and Public Administration Committee has also reviewed these issues in order to gauge the extent of progress achieved by the ATO over the last 18 months. The Committee was pleased to learn that, as a result of the implementation of an information technology strategy and major expenditure on computer re-equipment, the inefficiencies arising from the lack of computerisation entwined with labour intensive work practices are being remedied. The Committee will monitor these moves with great interest. A major recommendation of the Expenditure Committee in its report A Taxing Problem was that a management review should be established to investigate the overall performance and operation of the ATO. A program management performance review was conducted in 1987 and the outcomes were reported to the Parliament in the review report A Taxing Solution. The report mirrored many of the views of the Expenditure Committee report when it noted that fundamental changes were required to the traditional approach to tax administration. The review team expressed support for the thrust of changes under way in the ATO but also noted that much more remains to be done. The review team identified a number of key outcomes to be achieved over the period to July 1989 and, because they are of crucial importance, the Committee has recommended that the ATO's progress towards achieving these outcomes should be recorded in its annual report. As was the case with the Expenditure Committee, the Committee on Finance and Public Administration has concluded that identification of taxpayers is an area requiring further attention. It is essential that the current tax file numbering system be improved if a high level of taxpayer compliance is to be achieved. The Committee reiterates a recommendation of the Expenditure Committee that a high integrity identification system should be established by the ATO. The Committee has also recommended the mandatory use of valid tax file numbers on group certificates and on tax instalment declaration forms as a means of immediately improving the ATO's ability to match group certificates to tax files and through that achieve increased taxpayer compliance. It is the Committee's view that, to further improve compliance levels, the general and other exemptions should only be available to taxpayers who provide valid tax file numbers on their taxation instalment declaration forms. The ATO now records the serial number and amount of tax instalment deductions shown on each group certificate. The inclusion of the employee's tax file number in addition to, or in place of, the serial number would facilitate matching, not only with the record of duplicates of certificates, but with taxpayers' tax files as well. Of the six efficiency audits reviewed, the Committee devoted considerable attention to the prescribed payments system (PPS). The Committee commends the initiative of the ATO by which personalised deduction forms will be provided first to PPS taxpayers who fail to correctly provide their tax file number and later to all other PPS payees. Originally, the prescribed payments system was introduced to overcome the potential for tax evasion and avoidance in industries where non-wage or cash payments are the usual method of payment. Under the PPS, payees are taxed at a rate of 15 per cent if their tax file number is shown on a completed deduction form, or a rate of 30 per cent where this information is not provided. If taxpayers can prove they have regularly met their taxation obligations, a variation of or exemption from the prescribed payments tax may be granted. One would have expected therefore that as the PPS caused more and more taxpayers to meet their taxation obligations, an increasing number of exemptions would be granted to an increasing number of compliant taxpayers, with a consequential reduction in the revenue collected under the PPS scheme. However, this has not been the case. In fact, the receipts of the PPS have steadily increased since its inception. The Committee found that this is due to the changing role of the PPS. Originally introduced to catch non-compliant taxpayers, it is now being used by those who have good compliance records as a de facto, pay as you earn, PAYE, system, under which they can more conveniently meet their taxation obligation than by payment under the provisional tax system. The Committee suggests that this additional function has implications in relation to the current PPS withholding rates, and that it should be taken into account by the ATO when it is making improvements or changes to the system. The efficiency audit into external sources of information examined the ATO's use of the information received from such sources. Although many organisations currently provide the ATO with information, the Committee received evidence that the format in which information is supplied is not standardised. Reservations were also expressed to the Committee about the use made by and the usefulness to the ATO of the information which is provided to it, and at the cost and time implications to organisations which supply it. The Committee has concluded that this situation is unsatisfactory. It has therefore recommended a review of the legislative basis for the exchange of information. In addition, the Committee has recommended to the ATO that it streamline its information requirements from reporting organisations. The Committee is enthusiastic about the steps being taken towards electronic lodgment of taxation returns. The facility is still only at the pilot stage at this time. It is envisaged, however, that when the information technology strategy has been successfully implemented, the vast bulk of returns and communications with the ATO will be made electronically. The Committee considers that this facility will be beneficial for individual taxpayers as well as tax agents and it recommends that the costs of software packages should be met as far as possible by the Australian Taxation Office. In 1986, I expressed very serious reservations about shortcomings in the administrative philosophies of the Tax Office. In the course of the review of the six efficiency audits, it became clear that substantial administrative improvements had been made by the Tax Office in both philosophy and practice. It appears that the Tax Office has turned the corner. The recommendations in this report, if adopted, will further assist that office in its efforts to increase the level of taxpayer cooperation and compliance. It is to be hoped that the Tax Office will continue to increase its efforts to assist taxpayers to discharge their obligations on a cooperative basis, not on a confrontationist basis. I put the view personally that one day the Tax Office may even be able to provide taxpayers with details of the information it has received from their employers, under the PPS scheme, and from financial institutions in respect of their wages and salaries for inclusion in their tax returns. The Tax Office should not wait for honest taxpayers inadvertently to wrong-foot themselves, but should assist them in the preparation of the information to be included in their tax returns. In conclusion, I wish to express my thanks to the Chairman of the Committee, to my fellow members of the Subcommittee and to the Committee staff who helped in the preparation of this report. I commend the report to the House. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.28) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, I present the report of the Committee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Institutional Practices in the Higher Education Sector, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr BRUMBY —The report which I have just tabled focuses on the capacity of higher education institutions to improve their performance in times of considerable economic and social change. New arrangements are proposed for allocating funds to institutions, for making the higher education structure more flexible and less regulated, and for greater institutional autonomy. Although higher education funding has increased in real terms since 1983, the funding per student has been declining for more than a decade. In this sense, higher education institutions have become more efficient. But they have not necessarily become more effective in terms of meeting community needs. For the higher education sector to become more effective as well as more efficient, the Government must present a clear picture of what is to be achieved and then allow institutions to implement strategies to achieve it-without unnecessary intervention. Government agencies have been too closely monitoring and directly influencing the management and academic decisions of higher education institutions. This had led to excessive controls on budgetary allocations, repetitive demands for statistics, and sometimes conflicting legislative obligations, while the longer term goals of the sector remained undefined. The Committee therefore sees considerable merit in the proposal outlined in the Government's Green Paper on higher education to link funding decisions to educational profiles. In the Committee's view this practice would: encourage institutions to plan better; increase their awareness of community expectations and needs; allow the higher education sector to operate more cohesively; and give institutions wider flexibility in their operations. A recurring feature of the debate about the Green Paper has been the Government's proposed minimum acceptable sizes for institutions. The Government has called for institutions to be a minimum size, based on equivalent full time student units, before they can receive funding as part of a new unified national system of higher education. The range of teaching and research activities funded would also depend largely on the institution's size. On the basis of evidence received, the Committee cannot support the determination of an institution's activities by the size of its student load; nor should the size of the student load determine the amount of funds received. The primary determinants of the size and profile of institutions should be the educational requirements of the communities they serve. The Committee does strongly endorse the need for growth in our higher education system, as identified in the Green Paper. Increased participation in higher education is crucial to the nation's ability to meet the challenges of economic, technological and social change. Moreover, growth is fundamental to increased access to higher education amongst Aborigines, people from financially disadvantaged backgrounds, and people from rural and isolated areas. More funds must be injected into the sector to create more places, replace obsolete equipment and upgrade capital facilities generally. It was the Committee's task, however, to identify scope for improving the way in which available resources are utilised. To improve the delivery of education the Committee recommends more comprehensive and coordinated access and equity programs; better links with the technical and further education sector; liberalised credit transfer arrangements between the higher education and TAFE sectors and between institutions; and greater availability of bridging courses. To improve efficiency, the Committee supports measures to increase the range of financial and staffing resource management options. In particular, there should be more extensive interaction between the higher education sector, other areas of the public sector, and the private sector, in sharing and exchanging resources and services. The Committee recommends that institutions develop equipment management plans and seek assistance from other institutions, government agencies and the private sector in purchasing major equipment items and undertaking capital works. Better use of existing buildings through centralised timetabling, extended operating hours and energy conservation measures is also desirable. The Committee would also support the introduction of more contract appointment and consultancy opportunities for academic staff; better staff assessment and development procedures; flexible salary hierarchies; and the same basic salary scales for all academic staff in universities and colleges of advanced education, but with the capacity for management to pay overaward salaries in certain circumstances to attract staff in high demand areas. Many of the practices recommended by the Committee are already being followed by institutions, but introducing new practices on a piecemeal or ad hoc basis will not lead to optimum efficiency and effectiveness. Practices employed in one institution will not necessarily work in another. Throughout the report the Committee emphasises the need to plan strategically at the institutional level as well as at the national level. Nonetheless, how successfully the recommended measures are implemented in any particular case ultimately depends upon the institution and the Government agreeing on what the institution should be aiming to achieve and the institution being allowed the means and the power to work to that end to meet those objectives. The report is the first report of the Committee on Employment, Education and Training and is unanimously supported by its members. I would like to thank the other members of the Committee, and particularly the members of the higher education Subcommittee, the secretariat staff and our consultants for the time and effort they put into the inquiry. The report I have tabled today provides a coherent and efficient framework for a substantial, broadly based expansion of higher education. Growth in the level of higher education, which is proposed in the Government's Green Paper on higher education, can be achieved in three ways: by meeting existing demand for unmet places; by providing more opportunities for underrepresented groups; and by improving graduation rates. If higher education is to provide in an efficient way a fair chance for all, the base of its participation must be considerably widened. The Committee, in its report, agrees that over the last decade the higher education system has become more accessible and more efficient, but there are certain groups in our community who are still grossly underrepresented in participation in higher education. These are primarily people from low income families and rural and remote areas. The Committee's recommendations relating to growth, to output-linked funding, to credit transfer, to closer links with TAFE, to the introduction of more bridging courses, to the establishment of equity goals and to educational profiles, I believe, will make a significant contribution to improving opportunities for traditionally underrepresented groups. Our recommendations also should make a major impact on improving graduation rates and reducing unnecessary wastage in higher education. Graduation rates in our higher education system are lamentably low. I think the level of wastage is a national disgrace. Whilst it is true that there has been some improvement in graduation rates in higher education over the last decade or so, it is equally true that our present graduation rates of around 70 to 75 per cent are still not good enough. Much of the wastage which occurs is totally unnecessary and is due to the inflexible, overregulated and overprotected system. The Committee's report develops a detailed strategy for reducing unnecessary wastage and improving graduate output. Key proposals which unquestionably will reduce wastage include, as I have said, more liberalised credit transfer, closer links with TAFE, the introduction of more bridging courses, output-related funding and more flexible staffing and timetabling arrangements. I think it is important to stress that introduction of the measures which the Committee has outlined will both improve graduation rates and maintain graduate quality. The Committee would not recommend, and has not recommended, any proposals which could lead to a fall in graduate quality. In conclusion, I say again that this is a unanimous report. If implemented, I believe, it will lead to a more efficient, flexible system of higher education, which will be better able to respond to change. In addition, it will be a system which offers new opportunities to those people in our community who traditionally have been denied the opportunities which they deserve. I commend the report. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(10.38) —All members of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training Subcommittee on higher education, I am sure, agree that education is of paramount importance not only to the individual but to the country of Australia. I am sure that we share the view that this does not apply just to the subject in question, tertiary education; it applies also to primary and secondary education. Quite clearly, the future of Australia depends upon the quality of this tertiary education. I guess that that is tied up, in particular, with access for all those who are suitably qualified to receive a tertiary education. I note in passing that the comparable figures for tertiary education achievement are that in the United States of America 23.5 per cent of those under 24 years of age go through a tertiary education program and only 11 per cent do so in Australia. That is an indictment of what has happened in the past. I believe that the recommendations of this Committee will help to improve that figure. I strongly support the recommendations which are concerned not just with access but also with the quality of the education. Obviously, improving access without improving quality is of no value whatsoever. The access recommendations particularly are aimed at underprivileged groups, including Aboriginals and those in low income families, and also at mature age students, isolated students and women. I believe very strongly that the recommendations in the report which include bridging courses will improve not only the entry of these people but also the results once they are actually accepted into the various institutes. Bridging courses in particular seem to have a very large part to play and seem to have been underutilised in the past. I was amazed at the rarity of the assessments of staff performances in most institutes. Only occasionally were staff assessed as to whether they were actually producing the goods, particularly in terms of their teaching responsibilities rather than their research responsibilities. I strongly believe, as we recommend in the report, that there are a number of situations where staff performance has to be assessed on a regular basis. I do not believe, as I think most members of the Committee do not believe, that this should be used as a punitive measure. It is not a method of sacking or disciplining people who are not up to scratch. Rather, it is a way of finding out where the deficiencies lie, improving those deficiencies, and making sure that the actual standard of teaching is improved. I might add in passing that we received several cases of evidence regarding the importance of student input into that assessment of staff performance. I strongly support that. At present it seems to me that a reassessment of staff performance only occurs when a promotion is in prospect, and that is often a fairly infrequent occurrence. I would like to make a point about research. As honourable members probably know, the Green Paper indicates that research directions should be decided largely according to national priorities. I feel very strongly that research directions cannot be decided by some government bureaucracy looking at what is going to help the national good. I do not believe that that will ever work. It would probably do away with a large proportion of the arts oriented research which goes on at present, some of which may not seem to be directly productive in terms of our economy or our society. But pure research, which will not necessarily result in the production of, for example, a better oil rig drilling machine, has always been and, I hope, will always be a vital part of any healthy society. Surely curiosity about our world and searching after knowledge for its own sake is crucial not only to the future of Australia but to the whole world. We did receive some evidence on the proposed graduate tax. Most of the evidence that we received in that regard was opposed to the concept. I believe that the proposed tax will counteract much that this Committee has tried to achieve with its report. In particular, I fear that it will deter entry especially for the underprivileged in our society. I believe that it will encourage graduates to go overseas and to seek other loopholes in the tax framework. I think it will discourage those who obtain tertiary education to improve themselves and to contribute to society both in terms of their contribution academically and in terms of creating other jobs. I fear that this discouragement will have a major impact upon the health of our economy and our society. I do not see how it can be of value to encourage people to get `hobby' degrees, which they will never use, but to discourage people from obtaining their education and using such an education to improve their standing in the work force and therefore indirectly improving the productivity and industry base of Australia. I also have difficulty in terms of why this tax is inequitably applied to tertiary education such as universities and colleges of advanced education but not to colleges of technical and further education (TAFE). I cannot see why it is appropriate to tax somebody with a tertiary degree from a university and who uses that education to get a higher income but not to tax, for example, plumbers who might do an apprenticeship course with TAFE, and similarly subsequently have a higher income. As was also mentioned yesterday, I am concerned about one other aspect, in passing, which is the increase of the database which will undoubtedly be necessary to tax those graduates. We will have to make sure that there is a database in the Australian Taxation Office of graduates' past history as well as what they have done in the last taxable year. That gives rise to considerable concern for me. We have to remember that what we are talking about here is not just the doctors, the veterinarians and the dentists, who are very highly paid in our society, but also nurses and similar groups. The Committee discussed educational profiles at some length. I support the concept of educational profiles so long as they are oriented towards the individual institution. These are a means of the institution deciding where it wants to go and the directions it wants to follow. Most of the institutions that we took evidence from did have an educational profile already, although it was sometimes called by a different name, such as a strategic plan, or whatever. I would have some reservations if that educational profile were used as a means of making funding decisions in secret. I have reservations about some suggestions in the Green Paper in that regard. Although I am happy to support the concept of educational profiles within institutions in terms of determining their directions, I have reservations about this being used by the bureaucracy of our Government at present. I certainly support the encouragement which we have given to institutional autonomy, of getting away from central government bureaucratic regulation. I believe that this can only be healthy. In those institutions which have shown initiative in terms of developing various courses and in some cases developing overseas courses, it was quite clear that those courses were run in a very efficient and in some ways a financially as well as academically productive manner. There was considerable evidence about inefficiencies in terms of overlapping between States. I strongly support the statements made by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) in that regard. The recurrent complaint was that there was a requirement to provide statistics in two different forms-the same figures but different forms-to the States and the Commonwealth. Obviously there is no justification for this. If both the Commonwealth and the States need those statistics surely it would be simple enough to allow them to be prepared in a universal form. Restriction of mobility, in terms of staff as well as students, but in particular in terms of staff, by such things as superannuation schemes not being compatible among different institutes, was a major restriction on improving standards by recruiting staff from other areas. We discussed and made recommendations about credit transfers, the importance of getting credit for courses completed at other institutes. We believe the emphasis should be changed. Whereas at present the emphasis is on the student to prove that he should get credit for a course which is done elsewhere, the emphasis should be changed so that the general rule would be that credit would be given unless good reasons to the contrary could be proven, and in cases of dispute that these be assessed by an independent body. I hope and believe that this will improve the mobility of students and therefore the standard of education. In conclusion, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee, the fellow members of the Committee and staff and consultants. I commend the report to the House. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(10.46) —I too welcome the tabling of this report entitled Setting the Course. In passing, I must commend the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training for its choice of an attractive title for a document which is both contemporary and relevant. Setting the Course is certainly more appealing than a title such as `Report of an Inquiry into the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Institutional Practices in the Higher Education Sector'. I am pleased that the Committee in this respect is continuing a practice which was begun I think by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you were Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, in getting that Committee to choose arresting titles for its reports. Whether the use of an attractive title will boost sales I am not sure but since we are being broadcast this morning I would like to remind listeners that this report will be available soon in an Australian Government Publishing Service bookshop near them. I should caution those people who might want to get hold of the report in the hope that it will deal with some of the aspects of the graduate tax discussed by the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods). Despite what the honourable member for Lowe said in his contribution, those matters were not canvassed in this report. Central to the report, however, is its endorsement of the call for an expansion of the tertiary system, a call contained in the Government's Green Paper and which, I remind the House, aims for 125,000 graduates per year by the turn of the century. At current graduation rates this implies an expansion of the system of between 180,000 and 200,000 places by the year 2001. The Chairman has noted that the Committee had some difficulties with the Green Paper notion of a minimum acceptable size for institutions-a size of 5,000 for those institutions with a broad teaching profile and some research and a minimum size of 8,000 for institutions with research across a significant portion of their profiles. The Committee found that some small institutions, nevertheless, were quite cost effective and, equally, some large institutions had a very large per student cost. The difficulty in this exercise is being able to be completely confident that one is comparing apples with apples. The Committee had some difficulty with the assumption of the Green Paper, based as it was on the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission efficiency and effectiveness review, of a minimum acceptable size. We felt that this tended to represent an idealised picture and therefore we had some difficulties with the minimum size as reflected in recommendations 12 and 13 of the report. The University of Adelaide most effectively and in very elegant language addressed this problem in its response to the Green Paper, when the university said: It seems likely that an element of precision has been introduced to the Commonwealth's document- that is, the Green Paper- beyond that which the evidence can sustain. The Committee quite correctly paid attention to graduation rates in Australia which are poor in comparison with some other countries. Currently, some 88,000 students graduate each year with a wastage rate of approximately 30 per cent. As I mentioned earlier, the target is some 125,000 by the year 2001. I make the point that that target could be achieved quite simply by raising graduation rates. In other words, the figure of 125,000 could be achieved without worrying about expansion of the system and without getting one extra student. I think that would be undesirable. As the Chairman of the Committee pointed out in his remarks, some groups in our society are under-represented and they need to be given access to the system, which should be opened up. At the same time, care needs to be taken that, in improving graduation rates, standards are preserved. Nevertheless, higher education in Australia receives a highly selected intake at present. Approximately 20,000 to 30,000 people are qualified to enter the system but are unable to do so and must wait. Frankly, the system should be doing better given the quality of intake it receives. The Committee has made a number of important recommendations concerning support services for students: the provision of bridging courses, transfer arrangements, referred to in recommendations six, seven and eight, and staff quality, referred to in recommendations 25 to 28. The Committee visited institutions and took evidence in four States. It considered matters ranging from patterns of organisation in different institutions to more mundane housekeeping concerns such as grounds, cleaning arrangements and the electricity bill. In the hearings I attended I observed that the newer institutions tended to be more innovative. I was impressed with the pattern of organisation at Griffith University in Queensland and I was also impressed with its grounds. Griffith University is located in grounds that are retained as natural Australian bushland. It is a very attractive setting which involves little maintenance, so it is a cost-effective site. I mentioned that the Committee had concerns about housekeeping matters. It was particularly interested in energy conservation, and there are a number of recommendations concerning energy conservation. It was of interest to me to learn that quite a bit of money can be saved by institutions taking care to conserve energy. I quote from the report: The University of New South Wales, for example, reported savings of $600,000 since 1986 by renegotiating its electricity tariffs and the University of Melbourne put at $1 million the actual cumulative savings against budget from 1978 to 1986 following the introduction of its `killerwatt' savings program. The Committee found evidence of an interesting innovation, the results of which have been significant and sometimes surprising. I refer to the installation of computer controlled energy management systems to turn off lighting and air-conditioning in unoccupied areas when not needed. These systems respond to movement. I shall quote some of the evidence on that: The problem is that, if the lecturer is not moving about much and the students are sitting still, the lights go off in the middle, and the attendant has told me that you can get into a panic situation then. That confirms my recollections of some lectures I attended during my student days. The report also draws attention in recommendations 16 and 17 to the need for increased capital funding. However, at the same time, in recommendations 18 to 22 the Committee has called for a more efficient use of existing and future capital. The fact is that many Australian tertiary institutions are student-free zones for significant parts of the year. Therefore, the Committee has recommended more effective use of buildings by more efficient timetabling, the provision of summer courses and other measures. Before closing, I also mention that although the Commonwealth Government provides the bulk of funding for the tertiary sector, those institutions located in the States are set up under State legislation. It is a matter of regret that the councils of those organisations are appointed by State governments and that the major funding level of government has no representation on the councils. I commend the report. I believe it is a significant contribution to the Green Paper-White Paper process. I support the Chairman's commendation of the efforts of the Committee staff during the conduct of the inquiry which, along with the presentation of this report, provides ample evidence of the wisdom of the Government's decision last year to establish a comprehensive system of standing committees in this House. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.55) —I endorse the remarks made by previous speakers in relation to this report and I shall comment on a few matters of interest to me. I take up the point made by the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) about the absurd situation of the bulk of the money coming from the Commonwealth Government both for capital and recurrent funding of these institutions but the Commonwealth having little say because of the anachronistic situation of colleges of advanced education and universities being established under State legislation. The House should be concerned about the equity issues raised in the report and the real need, which was alluded to by the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods), to be able to fund the extra places required to ensure that all groups within the community and all regions within Australia have equal access to higher education and that it is not simply a matter of where one lives, how much money one's parents earn or what professions they belong to. That is nowhere more important than in the western suburbs of Sydney and, in particular, the new institution being created in that area. I refer to the Chifley University College established in the electorate of the honourable member for Lindsay. One of the features of the western suburbs area of Sydney is that it has a strong technical and further education (TAFE) sector. For students attending TAFE colleges, the new arrangements of recognising or liberalising credit transfer between TAFE, universities and colleges of advanced education will, if the recommendations are adopted, make a significant difference to students in that area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Motion (by Mr Brumby) proposed: That the house take note of the report. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with sessional order 102b, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.58) —I move: That this House condemns the decision by the ANZ Bank to introduce a fee for withdrawals from savings accounts, believing that- (1) such a fee is unwarranted, unjust and unfair, particularly to pensioners, low income families and others who depend on savings accounts for the protection and management of their finances; and (2) it is commercially immoral for a bank to charge a depositor for the right to withdraw his or her own money. Honourable members will be aware that I gave notice of this motion on 15 September last year-eight months ago. The thrust of the motion at that time was to highlight the decision by the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (ANZ) to introduce a fee for withdrawal from savings accounts. I said then and I reiterate now that fees such as this are unwarranted, unjust and unfair, particularly to low income families, pensioners and others who depend on savings accounts for the protection and management of their finances. I believe it is commercially immoral for a bank to charge a depositor for the right to withdraw his or her money. Australian banks hold billions of dollars in savings accounts. I noted a report that came out only a few days ago from the Australian Bankers Association which said that, as at 11 March, savings accounts across the nation amounted to $55.6 billion. Banks certainly take advantage of those deposits. Approximately 18 months ago I saw a report in the Courier-Mail that showed that the average interest paid on 15 per cent or 16 per cent of that money was only 3.75 per cent. So the banks certainly take advantage of it, and they are high profit earning deposits for the banks. Regrettably, little can be done to stop banks introducing these charges, but it is time honourable members took a hard look at the banking operations in this country. I say that noting at the same time-and giving credit-that a number of banks are starting to operate what is called a disclosure policy, a policy whereby there is a clear outline of the terms of any loan. There is a setting down of the effective interest rate that people shall pay. People will be able to see what the individual fees are. The banks will even allow for a cooling off period for those who enter into loans. The ANZ Bank, fortunately, is part of this move that involves the other three major banks. As I said, there is a time to look at the banking operations. There is a need to highlight the interest policies and lending practices of not only the banks but also the building societies. I have found out, as I have carried out inquiries in recent times, that many depositors are being duped into thinking that they are earning a lot more interest on their money than they actually are. This goes for not only banks but also building societies. Building societies and banks throughout this nation are guilty of misinformation and guilty of subtly misleading the community in their advertising as to the interest rates they are offering. As I said, a survey was carried out in April. At that time, six banks and three building societies were considered and, in May, another bank was added. Therefore, seven banks and three building societies were considered. The survey covered the fees charged and the interest paid. There is a clear message here to every consumer across this nation that the time has come to shop around and to look before he buys when it comes to the services offered by the banks and the building societies. I note that, although not all the banks are introducing this withdrawal charge, unfortunately, many have followed the approach of the ANZ Bank. They are hitting small accounts; they are hitting those small depositors. The Advance Bank, for instance, has an account keeping fee if one has less than $300 in the bank. It also charges a 25c withdrawal fee on accounts below $1,000. Admittedly, it gives people five free withdrawals, but that does not help very much. The Challenge Bank has a charge of $1 per month on balances under $200. It does not sound much, but it is wrong in principle. The National Mutual Royal Bank is charging 30c per withdrawal for each transaction in an account under $500. The Westpac Banking Corporation gives three free withdrawals and then charges 30c per item up to a balance of $500. I received a letter the other day from the ANZ Bank in defending itself, because it knew the motion was coming forward, saying that many other banks are doing this. However, most of the other banks charge this withdrawal fee on those accounts up to about $500. Therefore, it does not catch a lot of people. However, what is wrong with the ANZ Bank is that it has a 25c withdrawal charge. It gives people 20 free withdrawals, but the bank's measure, its threshold, is $5,000. Every account under $5,000 faces a withdrawal fee of 25c per withdrawal once the person has used his 20 free ones. Fortunately, some banks are not doing it. The Bank of Queensland is not doing it and the National Australia Bank is not doing it. They are not charging a withdrawal fee. Unfortunately, some building societies are. The Metropolitan Building Society in Queensland has a charge of $2.50 per quarter if a balance is less than $100. But there is a chance for competition here because Suncorp is not doing this, the Rock Building Society in Rockhampton is not, and other building societies are not. Therefore, the message is again to shop around, because there are differences in the charges that are being levied by the banks. There are also differences not only in the withdrawal charges but as to how the interest rates are calculated. In the survey, I examined Westpac, which charges on a minimum monthly balance, and the ANZ and Advance banks are the same. However, a number of them are charging on daily balances: the National Mutual Royal Bank, the Metropolitan Building Society, Suncorp, the Bank of Queensland, and the Rock. Again, the message to consumers is to shop around. It is also important not only to see what the interest rates are that they will pay to people for their deposits and whether there is a withdrawal fee, but also it is worth checking to see what their charges are. So often, they are hidden, and people do not know the actual interest they are paying on the money that they borrow; nor do they actually know what they are getting on these accounts. As I said before, people think they are getting 7 per cent or 8 per cent, but in actual fact, that is not true. Westpac, for instance, is paying only 3.75 per cent on its passbook accounts. This increases to 8 per cent if the account contains over $500. The Metropolitan Building Society advertises that it is giving people 9 per cent and 10 per cent; in actual fact, if a person has only $900 in that account, he gets 4 per cent. If he has $4,999 or less, he gets only 5 per cent. Other building societies are doing it too. The Rock Building Society in Queensland offers a top rate only if one has $25,000. If one has $999 or less in one's account, one gets a miserable 4 per cent. People do not know that, because the advertising talks about 10 per cent, 10.5 per cent and 11.5 per cent. If one has $4,999 or less in the Rock, one gets only 7 per cent. Another building society, Suncorp, advertises 10 per cent, but one gets the 10 per cent only if one has $10,000 deposited. If one has less than $10,000-for example, $9,999 or less-one gets a miserable 5 per cent. The Bank of Queensland talks about a top rate of 8 per cent, but if one has $999 or less, one gets 3.75 per cent. The ANZ Bank is a beauty; it keeps talking about its 8.75 per cent rate, yet if one has less than $500 in the bank, one gets only 3.75 per cent. I suggest that people do shop around, because there is at least one bank-and it is not my job to promote banks-that is, the National Australia Bank, which is paying top dollar. It is paying 7.5 per cent up to $999 and 7.75 per cent on $1,000 or more. People think they are getting 10 per cent on their money but in some cases they are getting 5 per cent, 4 per cent or even 3.75 per cent. The advertisements promote top interest rates, but rarely are the lower rates divulged. Honourable members need to have a close examination of this. There is also a need to compare the charges that are being levied by the banks themselves, because there is a variety there. There are differences and contrasts. I have examined three banks in regard to overdrafts-the National Australia Bank, the ANZ Bank and Westpac. If one takes out an overdraft of $10,000, the base interest rate for the National Australia Bank is 14 per cent. If one borrows from the ANZ Bank, it is 16.75 per cent. If one borrows from Westpac, it is 14.5 per cent. There are variations, because it is not only the interest that one pays, but also the hidden fees. The National Australia Bank charges a flat application fee of 1 per cent. However, the ANZ Bank charges a different type of application fee that varies from $185 to $240 to set it up. It is charging people an extra 2.4 per cent on top of their 16.75 per cent and, as well as that, the ANZ Bank charges another $88 a year just to service the account. Therefore, if one starts to look into this, one notes that people are paying 16.75 per cent as their base interest rate; they are paying up to another 2.4 per cent as their application fee and 0.88 per cent as their service fee. It all adds up to a lot of money, which people do not know they are paying. I refer now to Bankcard. How many people know that, if they use Bankcard for a cash transaction, they do not get free interest on that transaction? People are told that they get 25 interest-free days. In fact, the ANZ Bank keeps telling everybody that they get 25 to 55 interest-free days if they handle their accounts properly. However, the bank does not bother to tell them that interest is immediately charged on cash withdrawals. It does not bother to tell them that if they make a purchase and, as we know that when people go shopping, the shop asks whether they wish to charge up only that amount, which may be $89, and most people round it off to $100, the moment they do that, there is a cash withdrawal fee component and, at that moment, they start paying interest on the full amount. There is a need also to have a look at the different interest rates being charged on Bankcard. For instance, the National Australia Bank charges 23 per cent. The Westpac Banking Corporation charges 22 per cent; and here is a mark in favour of the ANZ Bank, because it is charging only 21 per cent. Mr Chynoweth —They must have made a mistake. Mr WRIGHT —I do not think the bank made a mistake. The point is that people can shop around. There is a variation from 21 per cent to 23 per cent. The same is true for personal loans. If one takes out a personal loan of $10,000, the National Australia Bank is charging 17.5 per cent to 18 per cent, the ANZ Bank charges 17.28 per cent and Westpac charges 17 per cent to 19 per cent. There is good reason for people to take a hard look at what they are paying and what their banks are charging for the services that are rendered to them. As I said, I believe that the time has come to educate the community and for the banks to think through their responsibilities as well. There is a responsibility on the banks to follow through the disclosure policy which the ANZ Bank has told me about and which I know Westpac and the National Australia Bank are involved in and make sure people know what they are paying. It is totally wrong and commercially immoral for a bank to say that it will give people 10 per cent when, if they have less than $999 in the account, they get 4 per cent. The same is true for the building societies. This motion may be eight months old but it is still applicable today. It is time the banks had a hard look at themselves and realised that they have a community and social responsibility to the Australians who bank with them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Chynoweth —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(11.11) —I have much pleasure in entering the debate on this motion and in totally rejecting it. Before I start, it is appropriate in terms of normal parliamentary procedures relating to members' interests to declare the fact that I used to be a director of a trading bank, the Macquarie Bank Ltd, in which I maintain some shares. However, I have no brief for the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, so I feel quite at home in going to its defence. This motion is an exaggeration. It is part of a continuing vendetta, almost, by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) against banks. It is cheap sensationalism. It goes for cheap headlines. It is devoid of any significant foundation in fact or logic. The extent to which the matter has been exaggerated in this House today is totally unjustified. Let me take the particular element of this motion, that is, the ANZ Bank's decision to charge for the use of its access accounts. I should put a number of points on the record in respect of the ANZ Bank. Mr Wright —Who wrote your brief? Was it the ANZ? Dr HEWSON —I have made a number of inquiries in this regard. The ANZ Bank's access account is one of those accounts that offer access through an automatic teller machine. Therefore, it is an expensive additional service for a savings institution to provide. It is the only ANZ savings bank deposit account which I believe is subject to fees. The fees apply only to withdrawals or transfers from a relatively small number of accounts. One has to hold less than $5,000 on an average daily balance over a quarter and one has to use the account more than 20 times in a month. I do not think it is an unreasonable proposition for the bank to put. It sent a letter to its customers in terms that the cost of providing this service is a considerable one and it is only fair that those who benefit most should actually pay. The ANZ was not totally insensitive to the elements described in this motion. Apparently, there was concern in the bank that there may have been some disadvantage to particular groups-pensioners, low income earners and recipients of social security benefits. So the bank did a number of surveys to determine to its own satisfaction the likely impact of this charging procedure. One of the surveys done on pensioners by Reark Research Pty Ltd identified what it thought were older and lower income groups who used the access account. It had three criteria. About 18,000 people were identified as having an access account, being aged over 55 years and not working and having an individual joint pre-tax income per annum of about $22,000. The survey found that, of these people, the maximum proportion likely to visit their branch for any purpose more than 20 times per quarter was only 5.1 per cent. The maximum proportion likely to use the automatic teller machine (ATM) more than 20 times per quarter was estimated to be as low as 1.3 per cent. Many customers of those branches hold traditional passbook accounts and their branch visits will not always have something to do with their access accounts. Consequently, on the basis of the survey, the bank estimated that only about 450 to 900 people would be affected. The figure equates to between 0.01 per cent and 0.03 per cent of approximately 350,000 people aged 55 years and over who currently bank with the ANZ. I suggest to the House that it is not surprising that is the case because the use of that sort of account, plastic cards and automatic teller machines is not a natural feature yet of the group we identify as the `older age group'. They have little use for out-of-hours banking or for high frequency transactions. Much of what the honourable member for Capricornia said today on pensioners has been little more than a beat-up. The bank also did a survey of social security recipients operating access accounts at 30 of its branches. It identified groups that received unemployment benefits and family allowances, veterans and pensioners. Interestingly, the relevant comparable percentages were for those who would be affected in each group: 12 per cent for unemployment benefit recipients, 6 per cent for recipients of family allowances, 8 per cent for veterans and about 9 per cent for pensioners. It is not surprising that the unemployed group, with a more significant younger element, would make greater use of plastic cards and ATMs. It was a massive exaggeration of the situation to have made some of the points the honourable member for Capricornia made today. However, let us not just look at the surveys which were done in anticipation of usage. Let us look at the actual usage. In the December quarter of 1987 only 7 per cent, approximately, of ANZ access account customers made transactions in excess of the 20 free withdrawals threshold. In the March 1988 quarter the statistics were pretty much the same. However, this small percentage of customers accounted for more than 45 per cent of the total debit transactions to access accounts. So 7 per cent of the accounts are generating 45 per cent of the debit transactions. Clearly, that level of cross-subsidisation is both unfair and unreasonable. To conclude, I suggest to the honourable member for Capricornia that he ought to take a hard look at some of his own advertising policies. It is a bit much for me to hear him lecture this House about truth in advertising when I have just been through an election campaign where truth was not really an element that en- tered into most of the Australian Labor Party advertising throughout most of that period. I also suggest to him that he take a basic course in the financial system and look at the benefits that are derivable from our deregulated financial system. People get higher effective interest rates out of our deregulated financial system. Of course they should shop around. An essential feature of a deregulated financial system is the possibility for greater choice. We now have a whole range of alternative savings facilities. Anybody who has an access account at the ANZ Bank, for example, has every choice to take out another account, a normal passbook savings account, on which there are no charges and on which they will not be subject to any of the charges claimed by the honourable member for Capricornia. Most of what the honourable member said has been an exaggeration of the situation, not only in respect of the ANZ Bank but also, more broadly, in terms of the sorts of benefits that are available to individuals under our deregulated financial system. If the honourable member is concerned about helping pensioners and others I suggest that he do so through the Budget, not by trying to reregulate the financial system. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member for Went- worth will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(11.18) —I move: That this House- (1) deplores the delays in the processing of applications for immigration and change of status; (2) criticises the uncertainty of business, independent and refugee immigration programs; and (3) calls on the Government to upgrade and streamline the administration of immigration policy. This is another motion that went on the Notice Paper quite some time ago. It is sheer coincidence that it has arisen in a week when the immigration debate has stirred some passions. Nevertheless, it is highly relevant to the subjects which are under debate at the moment. The motion refers to the inadequacies of the present administration of and the uncertainties surrounding the Government's immigration program. It should be possible for us to debate here and in the community Australia's immigration program in an objective and rational way. The events of the last few days have not encouraged that hope. A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) issued a totally unexceptional Press release in which he expressed, in particular, concern about the Government's actions in relation to the report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies-not to be confused with the Queensland Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Conduct, which is looking at quite different subjects. I refer to the Stephen FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. The inquiry was commissioned in the hope that we would have a report which would give us a framework for considering future immigration policy for this country. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) said here on Tuesday that it was public knowledge that the Government created the FitzGerald inquiry in order that Parliament could have before it an objective report based upon an examination of all the issues, and the canvassing of opinions from the widest possible spectrum of society. That report is highly relevant to the motion before us today because I have no doubt that the FitzGerald inquiry would have received a very large number of criticisms about and comments on the administration of the present immigration policy. It is natural that that would happen when one is considering what should happen in future with our immigration policy. The Leader of the Opposition last weekend voiced his criticism, as he has in the past, of the fact that it is public knowledge that, when the inquiry's draft report went to the Government, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) insisted that certain sections of it be rewritten because they were critical of certain aspects of present policy. The Prime Minister was not prepared to wear those criticisms publicly. The Leader of the Opposition made his criticisms of the Government in this regard and the most extraordinary debate followed. It seems that one cannot raise a criticism of immigration policies in this country without people screaming `racism' at one. I was one of many who had to depend on newspaper reports about the statement of the Leader of the Opposition for information on what he had said. I could not believe that the substance of what the Leader of the Opposition had said was as reported and as commented on very raucously by certain Government members. In fact, after I arrived in Canberra this week and had the opportunity to look at the statement, I found that the distortions of reporting of it, and the distortions intended to be created in the public mind about what the Leader of the Opposition had actually said, were so extreme as to be grotesque. Today's debate is very relevant to this entire issue. The Opposition is criticising delays in processing of applications for immigration or change of status and the uncertainty of business, independent and refugee immigration programs and is calling on the Government to upgrade and streamline the administration and immigration policy. Every member of parliament who has an immigration constituency will be aware of very serious inconsistencies in the application of immigration rules in individual cases. I am not saying that that is so across the board; the great bulk of immigration applications that are made and approved we never know about because they are routine and they are dealt with routinely. Members of parliament tend to know about the ones which are a bit tricky-the ones that may be marginal or different in some way-and which do not fit neatly into the guidelines. It is the inconsistencies in those cases that concern me and many other members. In some cases we see decisions that bear virtually no relationship to decisions that have been given in very similar cases. The actual direction and objectives therefore lack clarity. For example, it is very difficult to advise people on whether they should appeal against a decision, or whether they ought to be encouraged to apply to migrate, when one is faced all the time with these inconsistencies. We can only say to those people, `I know of cases like yours which have been approved. On the other hand, I know of cases like yours which have not been approved'. The Government must address this problem. The delays are causing enormous problems and distress. The immigration program now is considerably lower than it was several years ago. But several years ago we did not get the complaints that now flow constantly about the length of time that it takes to approve applications. I have to say that in certain cases I think the delays are deliberate bloody-mindedness on the part of the Government. I am sure we are all aware of applications from people trying to immigrate from South Africa. Such people are being told that they can wait a minimum of 18 months, possibly up to 2 1/2 years. The Government has particular views on South Africa-most of which the Opposition agrees with in foreign policy terms. However, to apply, or to appear to apply, an extremely negative attitude to immigration to one group of people is quite unreasonable. I would like to give an example of what can happen. A major hospital in my electorate, the Southport General Hospital, serves the entire Gold Coast, with a population of a quarter of a million. For a period that hospital found itself without any trained radiologists. It had advertised throughout Australia and had received no applications. It advertised throughout the world and the most suitable applicant was a doctor from South Africa. I might say that at that point the hospital had one radiologist. It decided to recommend the South African doctor under the employer nomination scheme, there being nobody in Australia able to take the position and nobody as well qualified anywhere in the world who had applied for this position. The nomination went in and this man was prepared to leave as soon as he was able to sell his house and get flight booking to come here. Several months later the radiologist at the hospital also resigned and it was another 12 months before that hospital had any radiologist. It could have had one instantly. There was no doubt about this man's qualifications. There was no doubt about the bona fides of the hospital's attempts to employ an Australian radiologist. The application was clean in every respect. But the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs left that man waiting, not knowing whether he should put his house on the market, because he did not know when he would be able to move himself and his family. In that situation the population of the Gold Coast was left without an essential medical service because of a deliberate policy of going slow on applications from South Africa. The delays in certain areas are extreme and they are without any consideration for the needs of this country. It has been said many times in debate on immigration here-it was said again this week-that there is only one proper basis for an immigration policy, and that is the interests of this country. In the instance I have given, the interests of a very large number of citizens of this country were at stake but other considerations intervened so that those citizens' interests were totally disregarded. I also have to take issue with another statement which the Minister has made several times in the last few days. He has made it in media interviews; he made it in his speech in this House on Tuesday. It relates to attitudes towards skilled migrants. If what he has been saying is any indication of his mastery of his portfolio, it is no wonder that we have the problems referred to in the motion. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two tables relating to immigration. They were included in documents tabled by the Minister this week. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- SETTLER ARRIVALS (NUMBERS) 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 Family Migration 1A spouses, minors, fiance(e)s ... 14,316 12,836 13,299 14,284 15,612 16,936 1B parents etc ... 6,758 7,468 8,293 8,412 8,599 11,614 1C brothers, sisters, non-dependent children, and nephews and nieces ... 23,898 6,648 12,365 18,420 25,563 31,735 Skilled &Business Occupational Shares System ... 18,255 24,037 6,332 3,361 4,569 9,037 Employer Nomination Scheme ... 7,209 6,715 3,531 3,658 6,250 8,353 Business Migration Program ... 896 1,079 1,472 1,561 1,649 3,535 Independent ... 8,863 6,494 283 213 138 1,639 Refugees &Special Humanitarian Programs ... 21,917 17,054 14,769 14,850 11,840 11,102 Special Eligibility - Visaed ... 631 567 397 445 590 1,398 - Non-visaed Trans Tasman Travel Arrangement ... 12,923 7,660 6,562 10,584 15,044 15,731 Other ... 3,034 2,619 2,505 2,299 2,556 2,229 TOTAL ... 118,700 93,177 69,808 78,087 92,410 113,309 Footnotes: 1. Policy categories have changed during the period. Comparison between years is indicative only. In 1981-82, brothers, sisters, non-dependent children and more distant relatives were included under General Eligibility. In 1982-83, brothers and sisters and non-dependent children were included in a separate sub-category (1C) under Family Migration. In 1985-86 they were regarded as extended family but subjected to a revised points test including economic factors. In 1986-87 the concept of extended family was broadened to include nephews and nieces and was called Concessional Migration. 2. Allocation of settlers to categories is based on assumptions to align as closely as possible past policies with current policy. 3. For comparative purposes, concessional migration is included under family migration. Sources: Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs unpublished Settler Arrival Tables, numbers 1, 3 and 14. SETTLER ARRIVALS (PERCENTAGE) 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 Family Migration 1A spouses, minors, fiance(e)s ... 12.06 13.78 19.05 18.29 16.89 14.95 1B parents etc ... 5.69 8.01 11.88 10.77 9.31 10.25 1C brothers, sisters, non-dependent children, and nephews and nieces ... 20.13 7.13 17.71 23.59 27.66 28.01 Skilled &Business Occupational Shares System ... 15.38 25.80 9.07 4.30 4.94 7.98 Employer Nomination Scheme ... 6.07 7.21 5.06 4.68 6.76 7.37 Business Migration Program ... 0.75 1.16 2.11 2.00 1.78 3.12 Independent ... 7.47 6.97 0.41 0.27 0.15 1.45 Refugees &Special Humanitarian Programs ... 18.47 18.30 21.16 19.02 12.81 9.80 Special Eligibility - Visaed ... 0.53 0.61 0.57 0.57 0.64 1.23 - Non-visaed Trans Tasman Travel Arrangement ... 10.89 8.22 9.40 13.55 16.28 13.88 Other ... 2.56 2.81 3.59 2.94 2.77 1.97 TOTAL ... 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Footnotes: 1. Policy categories have changed during the period. Comparison between years is indicative only. In 1981-82, brothers, sisters, non-dependent children and more distant relatives were included under General Eligibility. In 1982-83, brothers and sisters and non-dependent children were included in a separate sub-category (1C) under Family Migration. In 1985-86 they were regarded as extended family but subjected to a revised points test including economic factors. In 1986-87 the concept of extended family was broadened to include nephews and nieces and was called Concessional Migration. 2. Allocation of settlers to categories is based on assumptions to align as closely as possible past policies with current policy. 3. For comparative purposes, concessional migration is included under family migration. Sources: Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs unpublished Settler Arrival Tables, numbers 1, 3 and 14. Mrs SULLIVAN —Although I am entitled to speak for several minutes yet I know there are others who wish to speak in this debate so I shall refer briefly to only some of the statistics in the tables. However, the tables have been incorporated in my speech so everyone can see all of the figures, and they can see that I am not being selective in a way that is unfairly favourable to what I am saying, or unfair to the Government. The Minister has been saying that the number of skilled migrants has increased. In fact, on Tuesday he said: The fact is that the tables that I have made available to the Opposition indicate a general level of increase in the skills of people coming into Australia over the past four or five years. That is the reality. This is the category I wish to refer to now. These tables show that in 1982-83-the last year of a Liberal-National program-the skilled category accounted for 34.17 per cent of the total immigration program. The tables show that that category now accounts for 18.47 per cent of the program. In 1984-85, the first full year of a Hawke government program, the figure decreased to 10.98 per cent. So if the Minister wants to talk about increases during this Government's time in office, that is fair enough, but he ought to admit that there was an enormous decline in that category after this Government took office. The numbers in the total immigration program have also varied, and one of the tables I have incorporated gives the numbers. In 1982-83 the number of skilled people who came to this country under our immigration program was 31,831. In 1986-87 the number was 20,925-a fair decline. But the story is even worse than that, because in 1984-85, the first full year of operation of the Hawke Government's immigration policies, the number went down to 8,580. Again, if the Minister wants to talk about an increase from 8,580 to 20,925, he ought to say that he is comparing like with like-his own Government's policies over a period. Further, he should and admit that, the number of skilled people coming to this country and the proportion of our total immigration intake in this category have very dramatically declined since the time of the last Liberal-National Party government. As I have said, I defer to the wish of some other people to speak in this debate, although under the Standing Orders I could speak for several minutes more. I conclude on this note: nobody wants a bipartisan debate on immigration more than I do, both here and in the community. I have certainly always been scrupulously careful about that. But bipartisanship does not mean that either the Opposition or any critic of some aspect of a government's immigration policy is gagged. When the Fraser Government was in power the then shadow Minister for immigration, Mr Mick Young, felt quite free to criticise certain aspects of the Fraser Government's immigration policy. The Fraser Government never indicated that he was doing something mischievous by criticising the policy. His criticisms were debated by the Government on their merit. Criticisms of policy should be debated on their merit. It is highly desirable that we have a bipartisan approach to immigration because it is one fundamental area to the welfare of this nation. However, we will not have a reasonable debate if, every time there is a criticism, people start to squawk like chooks about to get their heads cut off about matters that are irrelevant to the issues that have been raised. Unfortunately, that has been the case in the debate this week. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Cadman —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(11.35) —The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) made a wide-ranging speech and referred to a number of matters that I feel obliged to reply to. She spoke at some length about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and his actions this week. She kept emphasising that there was an overreaction, that some people were accusing him of making racist comments, and so on. Neither the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) nor I have accused the Leader of the Opposition of making racist comments. Mr Cadman —Oh yes-just hinted at. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Just a moment. We said that his figures were wrong. Not only were they demonstrably proved wrong, but on Tuesday he showed that he did not even understand the nature of the immigration program. At one stage in the debate-this is recorded in Tuesday's Hansard-he said, `Brothers and sisters don't have to pass a test'. After he received some further information from the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and other advisers he came back to the table and said, `What I really meant to say was yes, they do have to pass a test but it is a different test from the test they had to pass in 1981'. The fact is that he tried to compare the 1981 figures with the 1986 figures. In the 1981 figures he had not included brothers and sisters whilst in the 1986 figures he had. He then tried to say that we were comparing like with like. On the basis of that he drew some ridiculous conclusions about the family reunion program. On Tuesday the honourable member for Mitchell and others, including the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), denied what the Leader of the Opposition had said. Now the honourable member for Moncrieff says, `Why has there been such an uproar?'. Why has there been such an uproar? In the original Press statement by the Leader of the Opposition he clearly stated: . . . there is too high a proportion of migrants under the family reunion category and too small a proportion of those within the skilled and business migrant category. He stated that the Opposition would change those proportions. Obviously, there is concern in the community as a result of that. It has nothing to do with any racist type comments. The racist type comments that the Minister referred to were in regard to comments made by other members of the Opposition. I now address a couple of other matters raised by the honourable member for Moncrieff. She spoke in terms of facts and figures and tried again to support the unsupportable, namely, that the Leader of the Opposition got it wrong. He has not been able to reply to that point. In fact, the more personal explanations he made on Tuesday, the more foolish he looked. It is time that somebody in this House pointed out to him that when one makes a mistake one gets up and says honestly, `I made a mistake', and that is the end of the matter. If he wants to argue on the basis of some claim about increasing skills or reducing family reunions, let him do so, but not on the basis of fallacious facts. Let me turn to the issue raised by the honourable member for Moncrieff in her motion, which, by the way, the Government rejects. We reject it because it is based on a totally unsympathetic approach to the problems we face as a government in relation to the immigration program. Why is that? I will tell honourable members why: it is because of the enormous success of this Government in achieving a 50 per cent increase in applications from people wanting to come to Australia. Nearly 1 1/2 million people applied last year to come to Australia. That is an amazing figure. Obviously, the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has to deal with all those applications. It is a phenomenal job and the honourable member for Mitchell knows that. The Department has been stretched to try to come to grips with it in difficult times and in times of limited resources. That is the situation with which the Department has been faced because of 1 1/2 million applicants. We have a problem because as the number of applicants increases, obviously, more and more people will pass the points system-a points system which the Leader of the Opposition did not even know existed for brothers and sisters, judging by his comments on Tuesday. If they do pass it, we still have a problem. Every year the Government has increased the immigration program. This year 132,000 migrants have been accepted and the Government is considering increasing the number next year. Notwithstanding that situation, approximately nine out of 10 applicants are rejected; only one in 10 can be accepted. In that situation one must sympathise with the situation faced by the Department. Mr Cadman —Oh, come on! You try to explain it away. You do not take any action. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member for Mitchell interjects that the Government does not take any action. The Government has done many things trying to cope with what has become a massive problem as a result of its success-namely, that more and more people are trying to come to Australia. The alternative is to say that no-one will be processed. This issue must be dealt with humanely and sympathetically given the resources that one has. If the honourable member for Mitchell were in government, he would understand the massive problems with which the Department must deal. What evidence did the honourable member for Moncrieff offer to support her motion? Of the 1.5 million applications for migration to Australia, the honourable member referred to only one case in South Africa, a case obviously chosen by her to make her point. On the basis of that case the honourable member said that conclusions of the kind contained in her motion could be drawn, such as deploring delays, criticisms of the uncertainty, and so on. That is not good enough. Even if everything about the case is factually correct, we must ask what department that deals with 1.5 million people would not make some mistakes. Tell me that! No conclusions can be drawn from one particular case. The honourable member produced no statistics or facts to support the claims in her motion. The Government admits that there is a difficulty because of the huge increase in the number of applications, but because of that one should not assume that somehow a crisis point has been reached at which there is no processing of applications or that there is total uncertainty. Mr Cadman —Nine months for an interview in Lebanon. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The Opposition talks about cutting government services; it talks about that all the time. The Department of Immigration has had to bear its brunt of cutbacks like all other departments. If the Opposition were in government and it had to face cutbacks, how would it deal with a big increase in immigration applications? Let us show some sensitivity to the matter instead of talking nonsense. Of course there will be delays. One cannot help delays when one is cutting resources. The Department is doing the best it can with its resources. If the Opposition has practical suggestions, the Government is prepared to listen to them. What are they? The honourable member for Moncrieff had none. As I said, she referred to only one case from which she drew general conclusions. Has the Opposition any practical suggestions for improving the current difficult situation? Mr Cadman —Change your policy on South African migrants. Easy! Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member for Mitchell wants the Government to change its policy on South African migrants. The Government does not have a policy on South African migrants that is different. Mr Cadman —You do-one of delay and frustration. You know that. Dr THEOPHANOUS —What evidence does the honourable member have for that statement? Mr Cadman —The Minister's statement in the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! I call the honourable member for Mitchell to order. The honourable member for Calwell will address his remarks through the Chair. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The one case used by the honourable member for Moncrieff was supposed to prove that delays in South Africa were deliberate. What rubbish! Of course the Government is careful about what it does in regard to South Africa; it is careful about what it does with migrants from all over the world. But that is not to say that the Government has a deliberate or substantial policy to delay people in South Africa, or in any other place. There are problems everywhere in the world because of the matter that I mentioned earlier. With 1.5 million people applying for immigration, one cannot expect, when one made one's application only yesterday to be dealt with today. Too many people have been applying for migration to Australia because everyone thinks Australia is a great country. That is because the Labor Government has made it a great country in its past five years in government. The longer it is in government the more bloody applications it will get! I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I have been interrupted too much by the honourable member for Mitchell. The Government totally rejects this empty motion. The Opposition should make some concrete suggestions about how the current situation can be improved, given the number of people applying for migration and the resources available to the Department. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(11.46) —In the few minutes left to me, I shall seriously address the fears that some people in the community have, as well as some of the misunderstandings. Without repeating some of the criticisms made by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) of the administration of the policy, I want to explain in essence what the principal difficulties are and are perceived to be. The labour movement of Australia has a fear that immigration destroys jobs. It demonstrably does not. We are restructuring our economy, and a combination of sensible rates of change in various areas of policy-micro-economics, macro-economics and technological advances, immigration and education policies-can help us cope with the change. We harmonise the change. The Labor Government came into power beholden to a constituency that wanted less migration; but it was also beholden to a constituency that wanted family reunion migration-and properly so, because family reunion often means skilled people and often means reduced social security output, especially as the people with the greatest demands for family reunions are usually refugees whose immediate family has been exterminated in war or concentration camps. The comfort of having someone in the family enabled them to settle more easily in otherwise traumatic circumstances. The refugee program and the humanitarian programs were kept up-commendably and properly so-but by reducing skilled migration, independent migration and business migration, the Government distorted the composition. The composition of our migration program ethnically varies according to world circumstances. When the Greek, Italian and Maltese migration began in Australia, many traditional Anglo-Celtic Australians did not like it. They said that they were not traditional sources. They had not read the nineteenth century of Australia-but never mind; they said that. But, of course, the term `traditional sources' now extends to the Mediterranean, and properly. Now even some people from the Mediterranean are saying that they want migrants only from traditional sources-that is, the whole of Europe; eastern, western and southern Europe. Their economic structures are similar to Australia's, their birthrates are similar to Australia's and their economies are better than Australia's, for the most part, and it is not very attractive to most of them to migrate to Australia, especially in large numbers, and certainly not those who are employed and those who are skilled. Australia wants people who are employed. We do not want the unemployed. The unemployed of Europe will be unemployed in Australia because of similar structural problems. So, by their phobia about skilled, business and independent migration, they have produced a situation in which the principal intake has been from Asia. Having said that, I believe that all Australians should recognise that our principal intake for years to come is going to be from Asia anyway, especially if glasnost is successful. If glasnost is successful, we will not have people wanting to leave Germany and other countries, as they did when we were in power, because of fears of Soviet invasions of Poland and elsewhere. Once there is stability in Europe, politically as well as economically, the people who will want to come here, who will have the skills we need and who will be able to make the contribution we need are going to be people such as Indians from Fiji and Malaysia, Chinese from Malaysia and Hong Kong, and Anglo-Burmese and other minorities from Burma. Why? Because they have skills and high levels of education and they suffer prejudice and discrimination in their country of origin. Australians are going to have to adjust to the fact that this is different from Britain or France settling some moral obligation of their former colonial years, where they took in anyone, regardless of education, skill or capacity to assimilate or integrate. So, we have a situation where the Opposition in government pursued, and the present Government says that it pursues, a highly selective immigration program based on what people can offer Australia but, of course, a non-discriminatory one in terms of country of origin, and that is the vital thing. It is wrong to say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) or the shadow Minister has departed from that commitment. They have not done so, and that is the essence of the bipartisan commitment. We are not bound by every detail or by the handling or the sensitivity of what a government does or does not do. But the essence of the bipartisan policy which we formulated in government is still adhered to. If we look at the foot of page 2 of the Press release of the Leader of the Opposition we see five principles. Those five principles were enshrined in the first major statement on immigration by the Fraser Government. They were repeated throughout the history of the Fraser Government and in opposition under the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). Those five principles always look at Australia's national interests. It does mean: what do the migrants contribute to Australia in terms of skill and in terms of cultural, economic and social contribution? We are concerned, then, about the capacity of the Australian society to accept and absorb change. That rests on, amongst other things, our capacity as leaders of this country on both sides of this House to educate the population to understand the reality of life. Britain is an integral part of Europe. Supranational institutions, such as the European Parliament, hold the future for Britain. It is part of the North Atlantic community. Australia is an Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean nation, and as such our involvement inexorably, increasingly and properly, not just in trade but also in cultural and other matters, is going to be with various parts of Asia and Africa. The result of that is that, whether some people understand it or not or care for it or not, not only the flow of tourism as well as the flow of trade but also the flow of migrants will come from our part of the world, if only because of our involvement here and our future lying here as well as the declining birth rates in what are now deemed to be our traditional sources. No-one should fear the way Richmond has settled, as we read in today's Age newspaper. If we really understand the settlement program in Australia, we will understand the enriching qualities that are coming to this country. The children of tomorrow are going to find a harmonious society because we relate to each other as people, not because of colour or background but because of the qualities which our migrants bring by a highly selective program which asks only: What is it that they can give to us; what is their level of education; what is the skill that they can offer? Of course, even when it comes to the special humanitarian programs and to the refugee intake, we apply selective criteria. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —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 for Goldstein will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(11.55) —I move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on its commitment to a health insurance system based on the principles of fairness, simplicity and efficiency; (2) calls upon the Government to maintain a universal system of health insurance funded by a fairly applied levy arrangement; and (3) condemns attacks on the universal health insurance system. Notice of this motion was given by me in September, following the election in the middle of last year when our opponents came forward with the unbelievable and incredible health policy with which we saw them enter that election campaign. One was to continue to pay the levy, and to pay the first $250 for services. There was much confusion in the community, and very rightly the electorate chose not to go down that path. Since then a number of amended health policies have been introduced, in November last year and March this year. On each occasion the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has found it necessary to shoot down the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who put forward those proposals which would have seen the abolition of Medicare. It seems that a year after that election last year the Opposition is still in a quandary as to which direction it should take. I remember very well the vision and the will that this Government showed in 1983 in introducing its Medicare policy, and the very long nights that many of us spent in this place passing that legislation. Mr Gear —It was worth it. Dr CHARLESWORTH —As the honourable member has suggested, it was well worth it. On every occasion on which I have spoken about health policy since I have been in this place, I have made the point very clearly-and it remains true today-that unfortunately the direction of health policy in this country is much more towards treatment and delivery systems than, as it should be, towards prevention and promotion of good health. It is a great pity that the Opposition still does not realise that our health policy and the emphasis of the health debate should be going in that direction. At the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Centenary Conference earlier this week Senator Peter Baume-of course he is one of the more erudite and lucid Opposition spokesmen in the area of health policy-made the point very clearly that we need to remember that health care delivery has only a marginal effect on health outcomes, and indeed the inequalities that exist in our health care system are basically related to many social factors about which governments can do a great deal if they have the will. Poverty, diet, education opportunities, employment, child care, housing and welfare services are all very important determinants of the health of the population in general. In the time that I have available to me today I hope to focus on the success that has been Medicare and to congratulate the Government on that and on its commitment to continuing that program, but also to sound a warning to many health providers who believe that a free market, entrepreneurial system will perhaps offer them better opportunities. The warning is one that has been sounded overseas, where similar health programs have been instituted and are failing, and it is a warning of which medical professionals in this country are aware. Let us first talk about Medicare. The basic tenet of the Medicare structure is that of universal cover and payment for universal cover on the basis of a fair community rating principle. From each person the levy extracts an amount according to his means, and each person receives health care according to his needs. Indeed, it can be seen that before the introduction of our scheme in 1983, the cost of health care for low income earners was so prohibitive that large numbers of them were unable to take out private health insurance. Mr Gear —Two million. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Indeed, there were two million people in this country without health insurance. When we consider the economic development of Australia and our standard of living, that was a horrendous situation. The introduction of the Medicare scheme has turned that about. As was mentioned by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) in this House yesterday, the Economic Planning Advisory Council said that the principal benefit of the introduction of Medicare was for wage earners and families, especially the less well off. The redistributive effect of Medicare and the social wage aspect of this program have been very important in government policy in a macro sense as well as in the delivery of health services. We now have a situation where all Australians are covered and they pay according to their means. I think that very few people on either side of the House could find fault with this system. I know that there are those who scream for a return to the previous system, but when we look at overseas evidence it is rather frightening to see what has happened in the United States where a free market philosophy is operating because in health there is not a perfect market at all. There have been many criticisms. One of the things that the Opposition threw at us back in 1983 was that this would bring about an increase in over-servicing. Yet the average per capita increase in medical services over the last 12 years is 3.4 per cent. In the four years in which Medicare has been operating the average per capita increase in services has been 4 per cent, 4 per cent, 3.1 per cent and 2.9 per cent. So Medicare is not contributing to an increase in over-servicing. Whenever our opponents debate health in this House they blame Medicare for the increase in hospital queues that is occurring in some States, particularly in New South Wales. There have always been queues for elective surgery; indeed, to run an efficient hospital it is necessary to have such a system. In many cases this situation is brought about by State policy, but over the last few years, and particularly in New South Wales, it has been manipulated by provider interest groups. That manipulation has produced the problem. The Sydney Morning Herald earlier this week reported a statement from the new New South Wales Minister for Health. It stated: The largest single cause of the waiting lists was the continued stalemate with orthopaedic and ophthalmic surgeons, Mr Collins said. They could cut the lists by a third when they returned to the State's public hospital. We have the new New South Wales Liberal Minister for Health saying that the recalcitrant surgeons are the cause of one-third of the waiting list problem that exists in New South Wales at the moment. The outstanding result of Medicare has been in a macro sense. We find that two million people have been able to receive health insurance cover with no additional cost in terms of the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on health care. The result has been very consistent for Australia over the last few years. We spend about 7.6 per cent of our gross domestic product on health. The United States, where 37 million people are not adequately covered by health insurance-an horrendous statistic-spends approximately 12 per cent of its gross domestic product on health care. It is a shameful result and one that frightens all who consider the prospect of the latest Tuckey health plan for Australia. In the United States for many people severe or chronic illness means not only dealing with the medical problem but also financial hardship and for many bankruptcy. Honourable members do not have to take my word for it. I would like to quote Professor Stuart Altman who is a federal health economist and an adviser to the Congress and to the Reagan Government. In a speech delivered in Australia just a few weeks ago he stated: We as a country have been unwilling and unable politically to really make the kinds of choices that people say we have to make. I think that the United States is going to continue to see rapid increases (in health costs), at least through the end of the century and it could approach 15% of GNP. You have to believe that at some point the payers are going to become so furious that they finally will muster the political will to do something about it, but quite frankly, I don't see it in the cards, regardless of who wins the next presidential election. Professor Altman, I mention again, is an adviser in health care for the United States Congress. He finishes his quotation by saying: So I leave you with the feeling that, if you want an exciting, well-functioning health care system-stay in Australia. That is a glowing endorsement of our program in Australia and a condemnation of the free market policy being pursued in the United States. Mr Cobb —You don't believe all this, do you? Dr CHARLESWORTH —I believe Professor Altman who is a very distinguished health economist. Finally, I express a warning to members of the medical profession. Members of the medical profession are very fortunate to have their income underwritten by the Government. That has always been the case. It is not a perfect scheme, I am sure. There are criticisms that are fair, but I think that members of the medical profession should heed the experience overseas. This Government wants a good health care system and a healthy population. That makes economic, social and political sense. Doctors want fair remuneration and they want clinical freedom. That is where the irony lies for them. I would like to quote another prominent United States spokesman, Dr Mitchell Rabkin, the Professor of the Harvard Medical School. Recently in Australia he stated: The less tightly society controls the overall capacity of its health system and the economic freedom of providers to practice as they see fit, and to price their services as they see fit, then the more direct appears to be the private or public payers intrusion directly into the doctor/patient relationship and the less clinical freedom at the level of treatment will payers grant the providers. In fighting as tenaciously as they have for the principle of free enterprise in medicine, for example, American physicians seem unwittingly to have surrendered their clinical freedom, a freedom still enjoyed to a much greater degree by their colleagues abroad. I will add to that a quotation from the Western Australian President of the Australian Medical Association, which is hardly a purveyor of socialist philosophy. Talking about the Tuckey plan he says: . . . will we fare any better if the private health funds take over? The answer could well be no. Take for example the American health care scene, where powerful health funds have reigned supreme, so that the medical profession has found itself squeezed and propelled into all sorts of fancy named cost cutting health care schemes. I say to the profession that it is important that it understand the direction that the Opposition may take if its health policy ever-God forbid-gets under way. This Government has introduced a universal policy based on community rating. It has maintained a hospital system which admits a higher proportion of the population than the United States or Canada within the same percentage of gross domestic product. Increasingly other countries are looking to Australia for an example. I say to honourable members that for politically expedient reasons it is stupid to introduce an unfair, more costly system that endangers professional integrity. It would be sheer lunacy to do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Gear —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Canning will have the right to speak later in the debate. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(12.08) —The honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) has been trying to support the success of the health system today. All I can say is that the only point I support is his view on the health prevention approach by the Better Health Commission of which he was a member. The rest of his arguments did not stand up. He was suggesting that the hospital queues were a fact of life before 1982. He conceded that the number of people in the hospital queue in New South Wales is now 40,000 and that the new Greiner Administration has now got to cope with this accumulating problem that has increased since 1982 under the Medicare arrangements. The proposition suggests that Medicare is fairer, simpler and more efficient. All the evidence suggests that that is completely incorrect. For instance, in Victoria there were 24,000 people on the waiting list at 30 March 1987. Victoria has had difficulty in working out the exact numbers and consequently it has changed the way in which it counts the numbers so that it can have a few less. That waiting list is growing every month and a great number of people, especially those who want to get into the public hospitals, are unable to get into a hospital of any kind. The real problem is identified by Dr Mark Ragg who wrote in the Weekend Australian in December last year that there is a very widespread belief amongst the medical profession that patients are actually dying in the queues because of inadequate hospital care caused by critical bed and nurse shortages. There are numerous examples to support that statement. I would like to quote Dr Peter Lawrence, Director of the Intensive Care Unit at Sydney's Concord Repatriation General Hospital. He stated: We have to make choices-it is not hard to decide between a 70 year old heavy smoker with a bad chest and possibly only one or two more useful years to live and a 45 year-old with an acute problem who, if he survives, will live a long time. At times the choice is harder. As I mentioned, the Victorian Government has made changes to its list classification and it is having difficulty making the hard decisions. The numbers on the waiting lists in South Australia are growing. Around Australia up to 100,000 people are on the Medicare lists, waiting for up to four years for elective surgery. The definition of `elective surgery' is that surgery which is not life threatening. To get into a hospital in Australia under the Medicare system, one must be facing death or have suffered a major motor accident or a traumatic problem such as that. New Zealand and England are examples of countries which nationalised health systems. New Zealand is a close example of what happens under a nationalised health system. In the Gibb report, Dame Dorothy Fraser indicated the experience of that national health scheme, where 50,000 people are on the lists awaiting hospitalisation. Last year, the average waiting time for operations for hip replacements, kidney stones, cataracts, heart by-passes and osteoarthritis was at least two years. Almost as many people are waiting for outpatient appointments to determine whether they needed hospitalisation. That is the position in New Zealand, which has had a nationalised health scheme for many years. Dame Dorothy Fraser went on to say-and I suggest this problem will happen in Australia: The New Zealand public hospital system uses waiting lists to ration its services and encounters great difficulty in determining patients' priorities. It tends to respond to pressure from patients, family doctors, politicians or the media rather than develop criteria for priority. Uncomplaining, less articulate and poorer members of society tend to gravitate to the end of queues. That situation is now rapidly developing in Australia as the queues grow longer and people are unable to get into hospitals. Medicare costs are horrific; its cost to the Australian taxpayer in 1982-83 was $3.4 billion, or 6.9 per cent of Federal Government outlays. In 1987-88 it was $8.2 billion, or 10.5 per cent of Federal outlays. Is such an escalation of the Government's contribution to medical health fair, simple and efficient? In February 1984 the Government introduced a one per cent levy on taxable income. Despite the public cynicism that the levy would be increased to meet escalating health costs, the Government gave assurances in 1984, 1985 and again in 1986 that the Medicare levy would not be raised. As we all know, the Medicare levy was raised last year from one per cent to 1.25 per cent. So much for the integrity and the trust- worthiness of this Hawke Government. Of course, it is not beyond possibility that the levy will be raised again in the Treasurer's mini-budget to be presented next week. The real cost of Medicare, to which the honourable member for Perth did not allude, is a 4.3 per cent levy on taxable income, if the true figures are taken into consideration. At 1.25 per cent, the Medicare levy raises $2 billion in round figures. Medical and hospital services expenditure in round figures is $5.2 billion and identified health grants to the States amount to $1.7 billion. That is a total of $6.9 billion, near enough to $7 billion, of Commonwealth Government expenditure, or a 4.3 per cent levy if it were to be raised in actual terms from individual taxpayers. That is the real cost of the so-called free Medicare system. One of the other difficulties facing Medicare throughout Australia is that patients are impressed by science and new technology and are demanding ever increasing services using the new technology. With pressures from patients and financial incentives in the system to provide more and more services, it is not surprising that benefits paid for pathology rose by 8.1 per cent between 1984-85 and 1985-86 and by 11 per cent in the first six months of 1986-87. The increase in the use of CAT scanning services totalled 34 per cent. I shall give an example of what happens to a patient complaining of a headache when he visits his doctor. The doctor could opt for a long consultation in which he looks for a history of migraine or any other problems. That could cost $30. Alternatively, under Medicare, the doctor could send the patient to have x-rays and blood tests. The patient might be a hypochondriac and fear tumours or a stroke. The cost of that service would be an additional $50. Another possibility is that the doctor could order a CAT scan to check for a tumour, which could run into hundreds of dollars. If the patient has been to his local entrepreneurial practice, under Medicare he will pay nothing because of bulk billing. Because of the perception that such a service is free, patients consider such treatment as their right. I now turn to private hospitals. In the 1987 mini-Budget, the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) reduced the rebate for medical treatment from 85 per cent to 75 per cent for private hospitals but maintained it as 85 per cent for public hospitals. That was supposed to force doctors into bulk billing and put pressure on the viability of private hospitals in an attempt to create savings for the so-called fair Medicare system. The effect of the structure of Medicare has been to shift the general revenue demand from government to health funds. The Minister has, in effect, used the health funds as an extended arm of taxation. The Minister's restructuring of Medicare has seen operating costs in private hospitals in Victoria rise by 30 per cent. Hospitals are heavily labour intensive, with some 70 per cent of their costs taken up by labour and 30 per cent by incidentals. Labour costs demands and increases are expected to add another 10 per cent to operating costs during the next six months. So in less than 2 1/2 years operating costs in Victorian private hospitals will have increased by a massive 40 per cent. Although health funds have been forced to increase their premiums, they have been unable to cover the incredible increases in private hospital charges. This means that the level of benefits is not enough to cover hospital charges and the out of pocket contributions of the patients are getting bigger and bigger. The Minister claims that he is not responsible for the lengthening hospital queues, yet it is quite clear that the Medicare system of which he is so proud is forcing more and more people into public hospitals because they cannot meet the enormous personal contributions that private hospitals are forced to charge. The Government is responsible for the demand for public hospital beds through the Minister's strategy on Medicare, through union pressure on wages, and through the centralised wage fixing system, which forces the costs to go up and up. I now turn to the subject of doctors' salaries, about which the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) has had quite a bit to say in this House. In my view, he has totally misrepresented the position. Doctors' salaries have been quoted in gross figures that take no account of the equipment used in the case of radiologists and pathologists and the skills that surgeons apply to their tasks. The overhead costs involved in the figures so glibly quoted by the honourable member for Canning are never taken into account. A rule of thumb is that, of the figures quoted, 50 per cent are generally taken up in overhead costs. The honourable member for Canning is keen to display publicly confidential information he has gained from Health Insurance Commission documented files, and that makes one wonder whether confidential information can be retained under this Government. The salary arrangements for doctors take no account of the skills, responsibilities, life-saving decisions and the long years of training, as well as the short time doctors have at the peak of their profession. The coalition supports doctors in their professional position and totally rejects the attack of the honourable member for Canning on doctors' salaries and their position in the Australian medical community. From the point of view of the honourable member for Canning and the Minister for Community Services and Health, doctors' salaries are computer driven: the doctors' salaries should be set at whatever comes out of the computer. Through the Medicare system, the Government wants a salaried medical profession and it wants to remove the doctor-patient relationship. It does not want to provide incentive for doctors to improve their skills. The Minister and the honourable member for Canning want a nationalised system. They want an arbitrated arrangement to sort out what doctors' fees should be. They want to make doctors public servants. Finally, Medicare is in chaos. Nationalised Medicare-type schemes worldwide have been a total failure. The poor are exposed in the queues. The doctors are unhappy. The costs are escalating through the roof. Fifty per cent of the population are paying twice, as they pay their levy and private insurance; and, of course, 50 per cent of the population are taking out private cover to make sure they get the doctor of their choice and the hospital of their choice and, in the final analysis, in the hope that they will get some treatment under Medicare. Mr GEAR(Canning)(12.20) —If the Liberal Party of Australia supports the doctors, the Australian Labor Party will always support the patients, because that is what the whole focus of medical insurance is for-to support the patients. In this debate today, honourable members should consider what Medicare does not do. What Medicare does not do or what it has not meant is the loss of professional autonomy to the doctors. Of all the decisions that are made on medical grounds in Australia, they are still made by doctors, not by politicians. If one goes to the doctor, he makes the decisions, just as he always has. Therefore, there has not been a loss of autonomy with the introduction of Medicare. Dr Charlesworth —As in the United States. Mr GEAR —Yes, like in the United States. Medicare has not meant that there has been a drop in medical standards. Nobody in this country would suggest that since 1984 medical standards have dropped, for the very good reason that it is not true. Another thing that Medicare has not done is to lengthen the hospital queues. The accusations fly that that is the case, but I refer to a Press release put out after a meeting of all health Ministers-that is, State and Federal, Liberal Party, National Party and Labor Party health Ministers-in Fremantle last year. The Press release said this: At their annual meeting held in Fremantle, the Ministers pointed to the following factors affecting waiting times: nurse shortages resulting in bed closures; supply of some specialist medical services, such as orthopaedic surgeons- as referred to by the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth)- advances in technology allowing a greater variety of procedures, such as coronary bypass surgery, lens implant for eyes, or hip and other joint replacements, to be more readily performed- therefore, it is a change in technology- greater public awareness of new improved technology leading to greater demand. Therefore, when one considers the hospital queues, those are the reasons for them, not Medicare. One could also add to that the fact that Medicare, as has been pointed out, insured over two million people who did not have access to medical insurance before. Those people are now going to hospitals to have operations. We also picked up 300,000 repatriation patients under Medicare who were not there before. Workers compensation and motor car accident insurance, and a lot of those types of claims that never went to the general hospital or were not admitted under the general hospital procedure before are being included under Medicare. Therefore, it is a spurious argument to say that hospital queues are the result of Medicare. All the evidence suggests otherwise. Let us consider the alternatives that will be put up by the Opposition. Of course, one has only to refer to the spokesman who disgraced himself in this House yesterday and was thrown out. In a speech to the surgeons, he said: The first thing I want to walk away from is community rating, where everyone in the community is charged the same premium. I believe it's destroying the system, because it's a major distortion- listen to this- of normal business practice. Therefore, what the health spokesman for the Opposition is saying is that health insurance is a normal business practice. The fact is that it is not. What the Government is doing is insuring people's lives. One cannot compare people's lives with motor car insurance, because they are not the same. It has been recognised, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Perth, by Senator Peter Baume in his speech in Sydney the day before yesterday. He was quite right: medical insurance is different from other business practices, but not according to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The policy that he flew up the flagpole in Townsville got shot full of holes by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I refer now to a Press report headed `Howard ticks off Tuckey for health policy comments'. The Leader of the Opposition is no mug when it comes to public perception about health policy. He could see where it was going. Given his normal rein, the Opposition spokesman on health would have a so-called free-enterprise system of health insurance in Australia, but the Leader of the Opposition knows that is political suicide. He knows that out in the community people do not cop that one, and that the community rating principle is accepted out in the wider community; so he had to tick off the spokesman on health. That is the Opposition's alternative. Just to reinforce that, after the Opposition got thrashed at the last election, as it should have been, a review was put under way by the Opposition to find out what went wrong. I should like to quote from it. It states: Our promise to tear up Medicare disturbed the most dangerous of all political sleeping dogs. No subject is more important and we promised to alter it yet again. A significant number of people still care about social values as well as balance sheets. That is what the Opposition's review said about its performance in the last election, but it has not learnt the lesson because the Opposition's health spokesman got up in Townsville in front of all those surgeons and, with the big hairy chest, he said, `I will give you what you want'. Free enterprise in medicine never works. As the honourable member for Perth pointed out, in America, there are 37 million people with no health insurance at all. The Opposition talks about waiting lists and all the inadequacies. I point out there is a better health insurance system in this country than one will ever get under anything the Opposition has ever proposed. The Opposition has run the whole gamut. It had five proposals in seven years when it was in government, and it has made three or four proposals since. There have not been many that the Opposition has not had a stab at. It has had a go at all of them, and it is still back to square one. It still has the hairy-chested one up in Townsville saying, `We will have free enterprise back into it'. The Opposition cannot have it; it just does not work. People will not cop it. Opposition members can talk about whether Medicare is accepted out in the community. I shall quote from the latest survey done to ascertain whether people support Medicare. I can tell the House it is up by 3 per cent, to 64 per cent. That is the approval rating of Medicare. Only 15 per cent say it should be abolished. Therefore, if the Opposition wants to go into the next election with a silly tax policy as well as a silly health policy, the Labor Party will take it on, because the Labor Party will give it a thrashing once again. The Opposition will not learn; it had a review that told it what was wrong-but, no, Opposition members are not even like the primates, because even the primates know that if one does something once and it hurts, one does not do it again. The Opposition has not learnt. Its members bob up and suggest free enterprise medicine again. I despair at the Opposition; it is so talentless that it cannot even recognise-- Mr Scholes —Thick. Mr GEAR —The honourable member for Corio says it is thick. Mr Hand —As a brick. Mr GEAR —I would not have said `thick as a brick', but others have said it. I return to the survey. When one fronts up for one's Medicare claims, the approval rating there is 94 per cent. There is a 64 per cent approval for Medicare and it is increasing all the time, and 94 per cent approve of the system itself when it comes to people getting their cheques. I am quite happy to defend that. It is being accepted out in the community. It is a rational policy that has stood the test of time and it is getting better, despite the fact that there are some surgeons-the old doctor-dollar relationship-who want to go back to that private health insurance because they know that under any private health insurance that doctor-dollar relationship will improve to their advantage. The fact is that Medicare is a patient-based system, not a doctor-based system. If the Opposition wants to go out supporting doctors, good luck to it. I should like to conclude by quoting once again the quote that was used by the honourable member for Perth-that from Professor Altman. I remind the House that he was and still is the Federal Health Economic Adviser to Congress in the United States of America. He has had a look at the sort of system that the Opposition wants to bring in. He lives under such a system. He came to Australia to examine its health insurance system. I remind the House of his final words: So I leave you with the feeling that, if you want an exciting, well-functioning healthcare system-stay in Australia. All I can say to that is, `Amen!'. Mr COBB(Parkes)(12.29) —In the 50 seconds that are left for me to say something here, I am amazed that the Government brings in this ridiculous motion. Prior to 1972 when Gough Whitlam came to power in this country, Australia had the best health system in the world. For the sake of 6 per cent or 8 per cent of the people who were not insured, that Government smashed the system and gave Australians this socialised medicine, which has been tried all around the world and failed. Government members wallowed in an orgy of ideology to socialise medicine, which has done absolutely nothing for anyone, yet they have the hide to tell us it is free. It was costing $786m when the Government came to power and today it costs $8,132m-and Australians are paying for that. They could be paying 10 per cent or 15 per cent less tax if this system had not been brought in. The honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) is attempting to interject in a ridiculous manner. He says in his motion that he wants to fund this system by a levy. We would have to increase the levy from 1.25 per cent to 4.25 per cent. That is what he wants to do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —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 Parkes will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(12.31) —Just after noon on Friday, 2 May 1986, a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Mirage jet, A3-40, piloted by Pilot Officer Craig Douglas Mackelmann, crashed into the sea off Williamtown, New South Wales. Subsequent to that unfortunate fatal accident, the Royal Australian Air Force conducted a board of inquiry called by Air Vice-Marshal Radford, Operational Command. Whilst the result of that inquiry was an open finding, the board leaned heavily on evidence provided by the Air Force's own doctor, the then Squadron Leader Dr Jeffrey John Pinkstone, that Pilot Officer Craig Mackelmann was still under the influence of liquor as a result of an official and compulsory dining-in night at the RAAF base, Williamtown, held on the night prior to the accident. The board of inquiry recorded breaches of Air Force regulations against the late Pilot Officer Mackelmann. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall the publicity given to this case in January 1987, and subsequent to that. It made great copy. People everywhere, in and out of uniform, from the highest to the lowest, then accepted that my former constituent, though a proficient and efficient RAAF pilot, had brought his death upon himself. I speak with considerable feeling on this issue because, in a period of less than 15 months, three young men who had chosen the Air Force as their career and who called my Moreton electorate home, went to their deaths as a result of RAAF crashes. I am not casting aspersions on the findings of the other two incidents, involving Flight Lieutenant Stephen Erskine and Flight Lieutenant Mark Fallon, but I am expressing grave concerns as to the atmospherics, the innuendo and the misinformation associated with the RAAF Mackelmann board of inquiry. Captain Graham Mackelmann, Craig's father, came to me in early October 1986, after being frustrated by the Air Force in his bid to obtain a copy of the report of the board of inquiry. It was only after my intervention and approach to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) that the board of inquiry document was eventually made available to him. Though the document, comprising hundreds of pages, was handed over about a fortnight prior to the commencement of the New South Wales Government-run coronial inquest, the Minister's direction to release remains appreciated. The late Craig Mackelmann's entire immediate family has an aviation background, and his father is a senior captain with Australian Airlines. His father was alarmed by the Air Force doctor's evidence. He was deeply concerned that the marker over his son's ocean grave carried the word `alcohol'. When the coroner's inquest commenced late in December 1986, headlines such as `Coroner concerned at alcohol intake by RAAF pilots' began to appear. The headline `Boozy night before fatal flight' reinforced to the world the impression that Craig was not in control of his aircraft. With the RAAF board of inquiry having placed such emphasis on the effects of alcohol and the dining-in night, Craig Mackelmann's father sought outside expert advice. That expert opinion, using the same witness statements, established that, while Craig had consumed liquor at the dining-in night, Craig would have had no alcohol in his system after 4 a.m. the next morning-a period in excess of eight hours prior to the fatal flight. Can honourable members imagine how any father would have reacted with that knowledge? He had an obligation to his deceased son to appear before the coronial inquest and fight to clear his besmirched name. That he did. Captain Mackelmann subsequently sought legal aid to present the evidence he had gathered as a result of his own efforts. Correspondence passed between myself and the Defence Minister in a bid to obtain legal aid. The Defence Minister advised that he was not in a position to assist with legal aid. I then commenced representations to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Attached to his reply to me was a copy of a letter written to Captain Mackelmann by the Office of Legal Aid Administration. That letter says, in part, `The Attorney-General has indicated that assistance may be authorised', if a person acting on behalf of the Government in the exercise of duty gives incorrect advice which causes the claimant to take a course which is to his financial detriment. Further, the letter mentions `special circumstances which lead to' conclusions of moral obligations on the Commonwealth's part as representing legal aid criteria. If there were ever a case of incorrect advice and moral obligation it is this case. Had the then Squadron Leader Dr Pinkstone been more careful and competent in terms of the evidence he gave to the RAAF board of inquiry, this matter would never have reached the point it has today. Not only has Craig's family lived in a state of agony since 2 May 1986, but also they have had to dig deep into their pockets to ensure the emergence of the truth about Craig's state of sobriety. It has cost them thousands of dollars to prove their son had not a skerrick of alcohol in his veins when his Mirage crashed into the sea the following afternoon. The New South Wales coronial inquiry was a lengthy affair requiring far more time than the Air Force would have anticipated or, for that matter, hoped for. The attitude of the New South Wales police-their being aware of the RAAF board of inquiry-was to save the Mackelmann family from embarrassment, and to make the New South Wales coronial inquiry as quick and as short as possible. No doubt, with good intentions, they offered to conduct the case as a `hand up', which means that a document stating that the late Pilot Officer Craig Mackelmann had been indiscreet would be handed to the coroner. It would then be signed and, in all probability, it would pass unnoticed by the media. Craig's father well understood that to go down the long road would mean discomfort. However, for the sake of clearing his son's name, particularly in the eyes of Craig's colleagues, Captain Mackelmann felt duty bound to reject the easy option. During cross-examination at the coronial inquest, the now Dr Pinkstone admitted that his evidence to the RAAF inquiry about the blood alcohol level of Pilot Officer Craig Mackelmann at the time of the accident was wrong. Three other doctors gave evidence to this inquest that Craig's blood alcohol level would have been zero. Unfortunately, the time available to me today prevents my going into detail about other factors surrounding this extraordinary case. However, cutting a long story short, there was also expert evidence introduced to prove that there were many severe engineering defects present in A3-40 when it took off on the fatal flight. Justifiably, the coronial inquiry found on 3 February 1988 that, for hours prior to take-off, Craig Mackelmann's blood was free of alcohol. Had Craig's father not had Air Force experience himself, had he not had the determination to fight for the truth, had he not had access to the money to fight the case, the memory of Pilot Officer Craig Mackelmann would have been one of a pilot who had been killed because of the liquor he consumed at a dining-in night. The findings were an about turn by the New South Wales coroner whose public comment, at the very beginning of the inquest he conducted, had obviously been heavily influenced by the preceding RAAF board of inquiry. Such was the impact of the RAAF board of inquiry. One is left to wonder how many findings of other inquiries into accidental deaths inaccurately reflect the true situation. Without the tenacity and perseverance of Captain Mackelmann, this case would have definitely fallen into that category. Following the findings of the New South Wales coronial inquest, which I have said served to clear Craig's name, Captain Mackelmann made a request of the Air Force. He asked that it reconvene its board of inquiry and take into consideration the expert evidence given to and accepted by the coronial inquiry and reconsider the evidence given to its board of inquiry by the now Dr Pinkstone, whose evidence to that inquiry had been shredded of credibility at the New South Wales coronial inquest. On 19 April 1988 Air Vice-Marshal Radford replied to Captain Mackelmann's reopening request to the effect that `no further investigation is justified'. I have already expressed appreciation of the actions of the Defence Minister in making the RAAF report available to Captain Mackelmann in December 1986. The following is not so pleasant. To the Defence Minister I now say: you have a responsibility to your late loyal servant to ensure that justice is done and that your Department reconvenes its board of inquiry. For too long Captain Mackelmann has been subjected to rolls of shameful red tape, untruths and obstructions. The Mackelmann family has suffered long enough already and I believe that regardless of the problems for the Air Force justice and decency demand that the Air Force at least add an additional chapter to its report. The second matter raised by Captain Mackelmann since the clearance of his son was a request for the reimbursement of the costs he incurred in searching for the truth before the coroner. Honourable members will recall my making mention earlier of part of the criteria to be applied if reimbursement of his costs were to be considered. The Attorney-General's Department is now indulging in classical bureaucratic red tape that does it no credit. Out of compassion and a sense of justice for the case, Captain Mackelmann's legal fees were drastically reduced by his firm of solicitors. The cost still amounted to several thousand dollars, sufficient to drive the average citizen from the pursuit of truth. Yet Attorneys-General talk about `the relatively small cost to you of legal representation'. How out of touch they are. It has been proven beyond doubt that Dr Pinkstone gave incorrect advice to the RAAF inquiry and, also beyond doubt, there is a moral obligation on the Commonwealth to reimburse. (Extension of time granted) It would not matter whether Captain Mackelmann was an Airbus captain or a bus driver: in this instance income levels count for nought; it is the principle involved. As far as I can see, the entire nation owes a debt of gratitude to Craig's father for being prepared to fight to the very end to ensure that the Australian bureaucracy, in and out of uniform, had before it another example to show that cover-ups, deliberate or accidental, are simply not acceptable. There is also a second debt. Craig by his death and his father by his expertise and perseverance have caused most serious questions to be raised regarding the engineering integrity of the Mirage airframe. It could well be that this matter explains the reluctance of the Air Force to reconvene its board of inquiry. Mr SCHOLES(Corio)(12.43) —This is the second last week in which the House of Representatives will meet in this chamber. Whilst I do not want to indulge in valedictories, I think it is an appropriate time for the House to examine whether the developed processes of this House are adequate to the 1980s and beyond and whether the manner in which we conduct our business is the most appropriate one in which to perform our duties; that is, to represent the people of Australia in the House of Representatives and to make the decisions which must be made on their behalf in the Commonwealth Parliament. The manner in which the business of this House has been conducted has to some degree been tailored by the physical limitations which exist within this building and also by the growing needs of governments to deal with legislation almost to the exclusion of all other matters. There was a time, and I do not reminisce, when in most sessions of the Parliament one could expect that there would be a major economic debate, a major defence debate, a major debate on foreign affairs and other substantive debates on issues of the day. That no longer occurs and has not occurred for at least 15 years. Time is no longer available for the Parliament to debate matters of substance, as opposed to the legislative requirements of the Government. We have degenerated to the stage where a matter of public importance debate gives 50 minutes to the Opposition to raise a matter. There was a time when debates on matters of public importance came on in this chamber very rarely and they were, in fact, on matters of public importance. They now represent the only non-committed debating time available on most sitting days. It is my belief that we cannot, within our present procedures, conduct the business of this House in a way which reflects our responsibilities and reflects well on the chamber itself. I make not a new suggestion, because I have made it for at least the last 15 years, that this chamber should adopt processes whereby we can conduct our business in plenary and committee sessions. We conduct our business where the major debates which face the nation today and the actual passage of legislation, not necessarily the debating of legislation, take place in the House as a body, but we could utilise the powers that we have to delegate the responsibility to examine the many hundreds of Bills that go through this Parliament which have little more interest to the members of this Parliament and the public than normal machinery regulatory matters, rather than significant policy. It would be possible, for instance, within the framework of sittings that we have now to conduct both in the chamber and in committees, debates on second readings, Bills, papers and other matters which the House itself determines are of lesser significance than those requiring the whole House; in committees of, say, 30 or 40 members reflecting the membership of the House. Using the three-day sitting pattern, if Wednesdays after Question Time were devoted exclusively to dealing with business in smaller committees, no-one would be able to say that they were not on the air and they were disadvantaged. If a committee of 30 were used to deal with the Bills on the Notice Paper today, other than those that were of such significance that they justified the full House, there would be no fewer people in the chamber if the quorum was 10. But we could do three times as much business and therefore clear the decks for other days of sitting and clear the decks of most of the time-consuming debate that takes place in this chamber and does not altogether do the House of Representatives any good out in the community. By moving to that type of system and adopting a process that the committees' reports to the House would be passed without debate unless a resolution to refer them to a committee of the whole for further consideration or some such resolution were passed, we would also be able to list the majority of divisions in this House to take place at a predetermined time because it would be possible, under those circumstances, to list the reports of committees on Bills, one after the other, for vote only in this House. It would free up the chamber then to debate in depth those matters which are of concern in our community, those matters which because of time we rarely debate in this place. When was the last time we had a major debate on a significant issue that went past four or five speakers? A practice has been adopted for nearly 20 years now in this Parliament when a no-confidence motion is moved, and by that I mean a genuine no confidence motion in the Government-not one that is a debating device which most of them now are, but a genuine no-confidence motion in the Government, such as we saw against Gorton on a rather traumatic Friday back in about 1970. Every member of this chamber should have the opportunity if necessary to participate in such a debate; but certainly the opportunity should exist for a significant number of members of this chamber to participate. But the pressure of business requires that after the third speaker on each side, or the second speaker, the gag will be applied-it is done by agreement in advance-and it may well be that some member on the back bench of either side has a significant point he would like to add to that debate, but the Leader, Deputy Leader and two other front bench spokesmen speak and the day is over. We do not, as a House of Representatives, provide ourselves with the time and the opportunities. Additional sitting times will not provide those opportunities; only changed practices will. I am suggesting that we are now about to move to a new Parliament House which is built to take us forward into the twenty-first century. The practices which we currently use are no longer capable of coping with the business this House of Representatives has to deal with. It certainly does not reflect the needs of a chamber of 148 members. If we adopt a procedure whereby the major debates take place in the full House and those others matters, which must be dealt with by the Parliament because of the legal requirements for law making, are dealt with in subsidiary committees which report back and are passed ultimately, or rejected by the Parliament, then we give the Parliament an opportunity to perform the functions which are its responsibility and, at the same time, to deal with its legislative and other responsibilities. I raise this now; I have raised it on many occasions, not always in this chamber. But we are extremely loath, as a group of persons on both sides of the chamber, to attempt any form of change which moves us away from the traditions that lie in the system from which we evolved. All modern parliaments re-examine regularly the way in which they carry out their business, as do other institutions which survive. The opportunity exists because the facilities are built into the new Parliament House for the type of system I advocate. If we continue to do our business with four of us sitting here listening to recurrent debates on second readings of Bills, those facilities may as well be let out for public housing or something else for all the use they are going to be to this House. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(12.52) —The House will recall that, on 17 March last in the grievance debate, I raised the matter of the relocation of the Soviet Union's Canberra Embassy to a site behind the British, New Zealand and Canadian high commissions. It appears that since I raised this issue the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC) has remained steadfastly committed to ensuring that the Soviets acquire this prime intelligence gathering site. However, of some comfort is the fact that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has now involved itself more seriously in the site selection process. Let us all hope that in the face of such idiocy from the NCDC the Prime Minister's Department is able to introduce some basic commonsense into the resisting process. However, as long as the NCDC maintains its irresponsible position on this matter and until a firm decision is reached, this issue will remain one of very great concern. I turn now to another issue involving the Soviet Union and Australian national security. I speak of the proposal from the Soviet Union requesting fishing rights, port services and access for Aeroflot charter flights for crew changes. Yesterday, in answer to a question, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) referred to the fact that the Soviet fishing vessels have port access in the United States and Canada. He indicated that these countries had the resources to contain any threat and indicated that Australia, too, had the resources to do so. This is an absolute nonsense. The concerted campaign by Labor to weaken our security and intelligence services has been such a resounding success that we do not have the resources to properly monitor the established Soviet presence already in Australia. Each of the Soviet naval fleets maintains an intelligence directorate known as an RU. These are responsible for coordinating collection operations by, among other things, fishing vessels. The most innocuous Soviet trawlers are the Okean class, officially designated by the Soviets as survey ships, such as could be used in the proposed surveys off Western Australia and Heard and McDonald Islands, but their true role is intelligence gathering. Other trawlers that perform intelligence tasks are the Mayak class, the Mirnyy class and the new Al'Pinist class. In all these trawlers the former fish hold has been converted to take electronics and the fact that these vessels are converted trawlers means that at first glance, especially when working in conjunction with a fleet of true Soviet trawlers, they seem to be legitimate fishing vessels. However, intelligence gathering is not just the domain of the specially converted trawlers. Even Soviet trawlers engaged in actual fishing work have an electronics fit that is far beyond their requirements, thus enabling them to play an intelligence role as and when required. For this reason it is impossible to establish a ratio or percentage of Soviet trawlers which are engaged in intelligence operations at any one time. Furthermore, the answer given by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) on 10 May last concerning Soviet trawlers was either ill-informed or designed intentionally to cloud the issue. He would obviously be aware or at least, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would hope he is aware, of how the Soviets employ their trawlers. On a regular basis a significant amount of logistic support required by the Soviet Navy in peacetime, especially in distant areas, is provided by merchantmen. This flexibility allows Soviet merchant ships to obtain supplies for naval use in ports where warship visits might be denied. In other words, Soviet warships operating in our region could be resupplied by Soviet trawlers and other Soviet ships which have access to Australian ports, thus increasing the endurance and on-station times for the Soviet Navy. It must be remembered in this context that Soviet trawlers are much larger than most trawlers we see, their smallest measuring 90 metres in length, compared with Australia's largest at 56 metres. Soviet merchant vessels have often been reported doing very strange things; supposed non-military fishing vessels have been logged sending messages in highly complex codes, far more complex than warranted by a report on fish tonnage caught. In fact, Soviet merchant vessels have been suspected of and even observed transferring espionage agents, military equipment and strategic technology items. It is important to note that in their proposals the Soviets also requested port access and it is interesting to hear that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), being from the Socialist Left, probably agrees with the Soviet proposal. I do not think most Australians do. If this is approved, it presents a far bigger problem than just allowing the entry of trawlers into Australian waters. Port access means Soviet personnel on the ground in Australia. In the Age of 30 April this year the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) is reported as denying that a fishing deal would enable Soviet spies to enter Australia. He said, `It is a fairly inefficient way of putting spies into operation'. Clearly the Minister's grasp of Soviet intelligence operations and trade craft is extremely poor. Not only would the Soviets use port access to insert and extract agents; they would use their access for other tasks just as important, tasks such as the servicing of agents already operating in Australia by communicating with them through, for instance, dead letter boxes. Port access would provide an ideal opportunity for passing on equipment and to facilitate most importantly the onward passage of computer tapes on which the trawlers would have stored signals intelligence and electronic intelligence. These tapes could easily be handed over to Soviet diplomatic and consular staff for immediate return to Moscow through the diplomatic bag or, alternatively, a crew member could carry them out on one of the Aeroflot flights. If port access also involved the Soviets obtaining a building for offices, et cetera, this would offer the opportunity to instal heavy communications and intelligence gathering equipment that is not able to be used on the trawlers; this is particularly applicable to microwave intercept equipment. Of all the Soviet proposals the one of the deepest concern has to be the one regarding landing rights for Aeroflot. The Soviets have, and will continue to utilise, the Aeroflot assets for the following direct military and non-military associated purposes: troop lift adjunct to the Soviet air transport command, the VTA; intelligence gathering; communications monitoring; aerial surveying and route development activities useful for future military operations; and finally, transporting clandestine agents for surreptitious operations. Let there be no doubt, Aeroflot is an adjunct of the Soviet Air Force, and since the 1950s it has been headed by the Soviet Air Force Marshal of Aviation reporting directly to the Soviet leadership. A report I have been apprised of by a Western intelligence service showed that a huge percentage of Aeroflot officials stationed abroad were clearly identifiable as spies, particularly from the GRU, Soviet Military Intelligence. Officials of the United States Defense Department are in no doubt that the Soviet Government uses the assets and designated routes of Aeroflot for general information and specific intelligence gathering. Periodically, members of Aeroflot foreign ticket agencies and maintenance staff have been arrested for illegal activities, including espionage and attempts to gain access to security information through the use of local nationals. It is not unusual for Aeroflot aircraft to veer `accidentally' off their prescribed flight path to overfly troop movements, naval exercises and other events of interest. Such an accident was reported in the Washington Post of 1 December 1980. United States officials are adamant that Aeroflot routinely engages in sigint activities at certain locales along their flight paths and in 1977 an Aeroflot flight over the United States was actually observed to have signal intelligence intercept equipment on the aircraft. Western intelligence agencies believe that as well as sigint operations, the use of legitimate Aeroflot operations for the insertion of undercover agents and clandestine forces into the designated target is a tactic repeatedly employed by the Soviets. If Aeroflot is given landing rights in Australia the Soviets will be presented with a golden opportunity to service established agents and to insert new agents brought in with the relief trawler crews. Yesterday, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Prime Minister sought to allay the security fears posed by the Soviet proposals by equating our ability to deal with them with that of the United States. He indicated that our ability to deal with the problem was much better than the South Pacific nations who recently flirted with the Soviets over the same sort of deal and were castigated by the Hawke Government for so doing. Surely the fact that the Prime Minister felt it necessary to reassure the Parliament indicates that there is a problem. It is a problem we are better off without. Our region has already been substantially destabilised by a growing Soviet and Libyan presence, with Libyan activity significantly behind the most recent unrest in Vanuatu. The Hawke Government will at least, for once, have truly served the national interest if it says, no, no, no to Soviet fishing rights, port access and to Aeroflot. Mr Cadman —And to the referendums. Mr ALDRED —That is right. Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard three diagrams from defence publications, illustrating what I have said about the structure of Soviet intelligence as it relates the use of their trawlers and Aeroflot. Leave granted. The diagrams read as follows- Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(1.02) —Third World debt is a major factor depressing global economic growth. At present developing countries have to pay an average of 25 per cent of their earnings from exports of goods and services in interest payments. This undermines their capacity to import, severely retarding both international trade and, of course, their development. It means that there is a massive leakage of funds from developing debtor countries to the industrialised world and in the last three or four years there has been a net flow of finance from developing countries to the industrialised countries totalling about $30 billion dollars a year, exactly the reverse of what one would want because we ought to be looking for ways of increasing financial resources flowing towards developing countries so that they can invest and grow. Yet the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) warned in the December 1987 Economic Outlook that the root problems of Third World debt have become less tractable since 1982. That comment is from a very cautious organisation. In mid-January the World Bank's annual report on Third World debt concluded that, after five years of largely fruitless attempts to defuse the crises, the problem has grown acute and urgent solutions are needed to prevent a breakdown of industrialised developing country relations. At the end of last year the Third World owed $US1,190 billion to external creditors, an increase of over 6 per cent on a year earlier. Such figures are unimaginable, but one way of thinking of it is that it is about four times the total annual national income of Australia. The strain of servicing that debt will increase in 1988, particularly if the slow-down in industrialised countries' economic growth occurs as is predicted. The World Bank report states: Future progress requires a franker recognition by leaders in the industrialised world of the likely conditions under which solutions will now have to be pursued. The World Bank goes on to ask rhetorically: If sound growth cannot resume in the debtor countries while the industrialised countries themselves are growing, what will be the chances for a solution during a recession, particularly one that comes on top of years of weak growth, stubborn unemployment and persistent budget deficits? The most recent figures that came out of the OECD this week suggested some slight strengthening in the estimated growth rate for the rest of this year. But there is still great uncertainty about what will happen to industrialised countries' growth in 1989 if the incoming United States President seriously addresses the twin problems of the high budget deficit and the high current account deficit. If creditors do not cooperate in reducing debts this year, more debtors will be forced to suspend interest and capital repayments. Henry Kissinger, who is certainly a moderate in these things, said at the meeting of Nobel Laureates in Paris in January that, if the Latin American debt burden is not relieved `within one year, several democracies will be in insoluble difficulties'. The problem is not confined to Latin America and Africa, which to some people seem remote from Australia. The Philippines and Indonesia are amongst the large debtors. Nor is the confining and destabilising impact limited to debtor and creditor countries. Australia is both directly and indirectly affected, too. Australian banks have relatively small holdings of developing country debt. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd has most because it acquired $1.7 billion of Third World debt when it purchased the British bank, Grindlays. Westpac has $730m of developing country loans, subject to rescheduling; the National Australia Bank, $270m; and the Commonwealth Bank, $30m. This has required the ANZ and Westpac to increase dramatically their provision for doubtful debts. There was negligible growth in Westpac's profit in 1986-87, for example, after an abnormal transfer of $75m to provision for doubtful debts to help cover the bank's exposure to countries rescheduling their external debt. The indirect consequences are more serious. The prices Australia receives for commodity exports depend in part on the volume of output in other exporting countries. The current low world prices for many commodities are further caused by expanded output by developing debtor countries such as Brazil and Argentina, which are attempting to increase foreign exchange earnings to service their foreign debts. Australia also shares with the rest of the world both the risk of financial crisis caused by widespread default and the consequences of slower growth of world trade caused by reduced imports of debtor countries. So we have a close interest in reforms to cope with Third World debt and its causes, yet the problem has had very little attention in Australia. I would like to outline some of the proposals that are around for reform, because they are important to us, as for most of the rest of the world. The Australian Council for Overseas Aid has recently published a book on Australia and the global debt crisis, entitled Life After Debt, of which I was one of the authors. The bank discusses both Third World and Australian debt and the policies Australia might advocate to resolve the crisis. The hesitant efforts at reform since the crisis began in 1982 have not even stopped further deterioration. Policies so far have concentrated on, first, new lending, of which there has been very little; secondly, rescheduling debt servicing by delaying repayments or lowering interest payments-and that is important, but it is simply a coping mechanism and does not really resolve the crisis; and, thirdly, debt conversion, involving exchanging foreign debt for domestic assets such as equities, securities or even conservation measures. That approach does have something to offer and could be more usefully and extensively used. The Baker plan announced by the United States Secretary of the Treasury in September 1985 was hailed at that time as the most significant initiative since the crisis began. It involved US$30 billion of new commercial bank lending and US$3 billion of multilateral bank lending and the possibility of additional United States funding for the World Bank. So far, only Mexico has benefited from this plan, and then only after heavy pressure from the then head of the United States Federal Reserve Board, Mr Volker, and Mr Baker on the United States commercial banks. Mexico is always a special case for the United States because the poor can walk across the border. New loans, rescheduling and debt conversion have not solved the crisis. Some debtors have coped by declaring unilateral moratoria on debt service payments, but this will become more general unless new ways are found of reducing the debt burden and reversing the decline in global economic growth. The most promising proposal is for the establishment of an international debt management authority. Senator Sarbanes, Chairman of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, has proposed such an authority and the idea was approved by the House Banking Committee and has been included in the omnibus Trade Bill. The principle behind the debt management authority is to use the financial markets. At present, Third World debt can be purchased at a discount on its nominal value. Discounts vary, depending on the economic position of each country; some discounts involve selling debt at about 50 to 70 per cent of face value, and that covers countries like Argentina and Brazil. Others sell at up to 90 per cent discounts, for example, Bolivia. The multilateral debt management authority could borrow funds from surplus countries to buy debt at a discount. Already billions of dollars of Third World debt are being traded in Wall Street at a discount on its nominal value. Such a debt management authority could be established under the International Monetary Fund. Substantial funding would be required. A paid-in capital subscription of, say, $US3 billion, plus guarantees totalling $US27 billion, could provide total capital of $30 billion. With a gearing ration of 10 : 1 this would allow the authority to raise $US300 billion from the international financial markets, plus selling bonds, mainly no doubt to current account surplus countries. If debts were purchased at an average discount on their nominal value of 30 per cent, then $400 billion or $500 billion of Third World debt could be restructured over a number of years. Australia could have an important role in resolving the debt crisis. We have the financial expertise and representatives at the international banks. Our leadership of the Cairns Group shows the role that we can take, yet so far we have not played a significant part. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(1.12) —Mr Deputy Speaker, yesterday morning I picked up the Sydney Morning Herald and saw a heading `Roads Funding Slashed by 10 per cent'. When I saw that I thought that there must be something wrong, that cannot possibly be right, someone has made a mistake. On reading further publications I have found that the Cabinet Expenditure Review Committee of the present Government has decided that it is going to cut another $50m or 10 per cent off road funding. It is hardly believable. Could honourable members believe that? Over the last four years this Government has cut somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent off road expenditure. When I saw the first article I was dumbfounded, I thought it could not be right, but when I saw the other articles my disbelief turned to anger, and my anger since has turned to dismay because now I am convinced that that is what the Government is about, to cut another $50m off road funding. Everyone in this House surely knows the importance of infrastructure in this nation. I, because I am the member for Riverina-Darling, will talk mainly about my electorate, but I can imagine what my city cousins will be thinking because they have similar problems. We know what the last New South Wales Labor Government did when it cut the expenditure on expressways and freeways, what turmoil it caused in Sydney, what it did to the Department of Main Roads (DMR), that great organisation that had such a high morale because it was doing something for the State. The last New South Wales Labor Government, of course, decimated that great organisation. But I am going to concern myself mainly with what is happening in my electorate. We all know, of course, that the rural and mining sectors produce at least 60 per cent of Australia's overseas earnings. In the last few months, with the increased price of wool, that has gone up to nearly 80 per cent and here we have a government that is cutting expenditure on roads. I still cannot believe it. We have to get wool to the markets and we know that the price of wool today has really saved this nation. Once again we are riding on the sheep's back. I have seen wool bales scattered across the road because the trucks cannot get around the curves due to the gravel, the dust or the mud. The price of beef, of course, is very important and it is rising. It has had some ups and downs. Recently south of Ivanhoe on the Ivanhoe road a road train was bogged along with a tourist bus. They could not go anywhere because of a few points of rain and this of course is all adding to the cost of getting our exports to the market. Mr Andrew —They won't use their cars because of the state of the roads. Mr HICKS —That is right. The whole thing seems to me to be a nonsense. We have got cotton in the Hillston area. We are trying to develop a cotton industry there. The road from Hillston to Cobar which the harvesters would have to use in order to harvest that cotton is an absolute disgrace, and then to get the cotton back to the cotton gin there are those added costs. As to wheat, the New South Wales Government is closing down some of the railway spur lines. If the Commonwealth Government continues to cut this expenditure on roads, there is no way those lines can be closed because the roads are going to become even worse than they are today. So our markets are affected by the cut of expenditure on roads. But what about the safety aspect? People in Australia worry about their loved ones and their close ones and their friends when they go out onto the Australian road system. Certainly we must say that the road system, despite cutbacks by the Government, has improved slightly over the years because of works. I am talking about New South Wales works by the DMR. I know about it from personal experience; my son has to travel 55 kilometres every day between Griffith and Leeton on a road whose edges are broken down; it is bumpy and it has potholes. It is not the fault of the councils concerned, but the fault of the governments who will not realise the importance of roads. My wife yesterday was driving from Canberra to Broken Hill. I was concerned about her because it was raining. She was travelling on a bitumen road but I know that the Kelly Creek bridge, just a few kilometres south of Broken Hill, when the rain comes can be washed away. Anyone who gets into that creek is going to find himself in great difficulty. The same thing happens right throughout Australia. Travelling on the Mossgiel Road, for example, it takes only a few points of rain and one is bogged. As to the Rankin Springs to Lake Cargellico road, even the ambulance has to take a different route because it cannot get down that road. For school buses in the summer the dust is a tremendous hazard. So we need expenditure on roads, not only because of our markets, but also because of the safety aspect and because of the communication needs of our people in outback areas. Okay, so the Government says that we have to cut back on expenditure. Where is all this money going? I know the Government has problems because it will not take the hard decisions in economics, but what about the money it is expending? Let us have a look at our Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) who recently came back from the African continent. What has he done? He promised $6m to the Marxist Government of Mozambique on top of the amount already promised which is $9.5m and then $100m over three years to the front line states of Africa. I do not think these Marxist states have a reputation for saving lives. If this money were expended on road systems in Australia it would certainly save many lives and of course would help our economy. I do not mind if the Foreign Minister sends off a donation to these groups in Africa. Like most socialist governments, of course, it is good at spending other people's money, but the money would be better spent here in Australia, if not on the road system. I saw earlier the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) sitting at the table. He and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) are very concerned about the Aboriginal population. I would rather see that money spent here, provided it was administered properly and spent in the correct manner. But we are talking about road systems now. Why should we be expending money in those parts of the world on Marxist regimes for who-knows-what purpose when that money could be better spent here? I am not one who is against overseas aid for developing countries, particularly in our own region, in the Pacific region. I think it is money well spent, but I do draw the line at expenditure that Minister Hayden promoted instead of spending it here in our own nation. Over recent months, I should imagine most members of this House would have had their local councils call them in to speak to them about the cutbacks in road expenditure and they are very concerned about them. About two weeks ago I was called by the Leeton Shire Council to be told how it was finding it extremely difficult. There was no way, it believed, that it could carry on the present works unless the Federal Government did something about road expenditure. Then along come the referendum proposals and we are told that this Government is concerned for local government. One of the questions is: `Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government?'. Proposed section 119a in the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill states: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. Now, what is new about that? It is a farce that it takes $6m to put that into a referendum and another $30m for the referendum. The road between Ivanhoe and Hay, with the expenditure first promised, would have taken 30 years to seal. With this going on, with expenditure on things like this and the money the Government is talking about cutting back, it will take 60 years. There is no-one in this House of parliament who will see that road sealed, and I would say there is no-one in Ivanhoe who will see it sealed either. So this referendum nonsense, which promises nothing to local government, is a farce and we can see now what this Government really thinks of local government. The way it is treating local government and the people of Australia is absolutely disgraceful-particularly outback Australia. I know that this Government does have problems. There are areas that it finds a bit difficult to touch. It believes that rather than taking the hard options it will take the soft options. Once again it will get stuck into the people in the bush and no doubt, of course, some people in the major areas will be affected. I am saying to the Federal Government today that we are going to have major problems in the future, particularly as our oil supplies run out. The taxation that is coming from there will not be available, and also the Government will have to find the money to get this oil from other sources unless it does something and takes some hard decisions now in promoting the search for oil. Unless we get our infrastructure into place now, the way that we should get it, instead of spending this money on ideological mysteries overseas, we are in for real trouble. I say to the Government: for heaven's sake, think about our own economy but, most importantly, please think about the safety of our loved ones as they take to the roads which are fast falling apart and becoming a real disgrace to this nation. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(1.22) —Mr Deputy Speaker, in the weeks leading up to the Premiers Conference I, along with my Senate colleague Bob Collins, made representations to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about funding for the Northern Territory. We did that in conjunction with the Northern Territory Government, a conservative government, and the Northern Territory Labor Opposition. We did that because we believed that the arguments put up by the Northern Territory Government about recommendations made by the Grants Commission were appropriate and, indeed, correct. I am happy to say that the Treasurer was able to accept the arguments that were put forward and they demonstrated a concern on my behalf-and that of my Senate colleague Senator Collins-to adopt a bipartisan approach to the question of funding for the Northern Territory Government. However, I am somewhat concerned at the way in which the Northern Territory Government administers its internal affairs and the way in which it administers the public purse which is so graciously given to it by the Federal Government and made available to it by courtesy of the Commonwealth taxpayers. I refer to some decisions made in the education area by the Northern Territory Government in which it has essentially diverted money from the public purse, and consequently undermined public sector education, and delivered that money into the hands of private enterprise. That is not new. These sorts of decisions are not new to the Northern Territory Government. It has had a history of making those sorts of decisions since self-government in 1978, and it wonders why the Northern Territory population-the Northern Territory electorate-is becoming increasingly disenchanted with it and the way in which it administers the Territory's affairs. Last year, as an example, the Northern Territory Government chose to spend $6.5m on the Northern Territory University College, money which was needlessly spent because the Commonwealth had suggested to the Northern Territory Government that, should it accept a proposal that the Commonwealth was prepared to discuss with it, that money would not need to be spent by the Northern Territory Government; that it would be able to get a tertiary institution established on the campus of the Darwin Institute of Technology. However, the Northern Territory Government, in its own wisdom, decided to go the other way, and as a result spent $6.5m of taxpayers' money, given to the Northern Territory by the Commonwealth in its general revenue grants. It spent that money on this university. At the same time, it slashed expenditure on general education by $6.5m. So the balance it achieved was to prop up an idiot idea at the expense of the public sector education. Let me just give a few examples of what those cuts in public sector education meant: firstly, the community education centres program was shelved, at a saving of some $800,000. This community centres education program is very important because it is designed-and it is a very well thought-out program, I believe-to provide post-primary education to Aboriginal students in Aboriginal communities. We ought to understand that in a lot of areas in the Northern Territory, in remote communities, there are no secondary education provisions. In fact, in the area of Urapunga, to the north-east of Alice Springs, there are some 900 people who live in a widely dispersed area, none of whom has access to post-primary education facilities in the region. That is not the only area where the Government has cut funds; not only has it not expended money on the provision of post-primary facilities in remote communities, but it has undermined the existing infrastructure of the education system. For example, it refused to provide housing for local recruits. Aboriginal teachers are not provided with housing in their own communities; some live in car bodies and some in humpies. There are teachers who successfully complete courses offered by the very well-credentialled Batchelor College and who return to their home communities to find that there is no provision for housing for them. There has been a failure to expand the bilingual education program. Cuts last year were made to equipment and to the provision of literacy supervisors and their positions. In one community I visited with a bilingual program, with a very committed school and a very committed teacher in charge of that program, there was not even a photocopier to reproduce the bilingual education material that is so essential for the delivery of that program. The numbers of school counsellors were cut in high schools. The Northern Territory Government introduced new staffing level formulas which incorporated librarians and counsellors into the staffing ratio and which has meant, consequently, fewer teachers in the school rooms. Curriculum services to schools were reduced. All this was done so that the Northern Territory Government could go ahead with its highfalutin scheme for the provision of a university college which, incidentally, will almost inevitably be amalgamated with the Darwin Institute of Technology, to which I referred previously. This coming year we have something even more horrendous. The Northern Territory Government has, in its wisdom, decided to provide $8.7m over six years for funds for a Darwin international grammar school. It has been set up by a private business consortium, including overseas business interests, under the company name of Education Holdings. Local students will pay fees believed to be in the range of $5,000 to $6,000 with overseas students, mainly from South East Asia, to pay more. The school will offer the international baccalaureate diploma which, it is claimed, will give successful graduates entrance to more than 200 universities around the world. That is all very well and good, but why should the taxpayers of the Northern Territory have their money used to subsidise this operation when the Northern Territory Government has failed to live up to its obligations in the provision of public sector education elsewhere in the Territory, and particularly to those people living in remote communities? I might say that, true to form, the Northern Territory Government, whenever critics raise their heads and have the temerity to object to the way in which it administers its affairs and spends the public purse, makes puerile, senseless and baseless attacks on the integrity of those people. It uses the forum of the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory, inevitably during Question Time, to attack those people. In particular, it has made these attacks on teachers and principally the executive members of the Northern Territory Teachers Federation. Far be it for me to waste my time and to waste the time of the House to state things honourable members must inevitably already know; that is that the Northern Territory Government lacks a sense of responsibility, is not prepared to accept open criticism or creative suggestions about the way in which it might administer the social justice programs which it has a responsibility for administering, including education. It would rather spend its money supporting these programs which, incidentally, will cost $8.7m, or $1.5m per year from next year onwards for six years. It has been estimated by the shadow Minister for Education in the Northern Territory, Brian Ede, that the Government will pay the international grammar school $22,000 for each Territory student it enrols in the first year. Mr Ede says that the payment is over and above the standard subsidy of $1,100 and whatever fees the school charges. I want to make it very clear that I have no objection to these private schools, provided they meet the criteria for funding by government but we have here a situation where these people have been given an extraordinary impetus, extraordinary support by the Northern Territory Government on the false assumption that it is saving the Northern Territory taxpayers' money and increasing the standard of educational services delivered in the Northern Territory. As I have said, that is simply not the case. What it has set about doing is undermining the Northern Territory public sector education system. It has attacked those teachers who have had the temerity to object to the way in which it is administered. It has attacked the parents who have dared, in the past, to criticise the Northern Territory Government and inevitably it goes to its friends in the private sector for support. As I have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, since 1978 when the Northern Territory Government achieved self-government, its administration has been typified by these rortish attempts at diverting money from the public purse to the private sector. It is well known in the forums of this Government. The previous member for the Northern Territory was a past master at it in his position of Chief Minister. The present Chief Minister does not seem to have changed his cloak. Unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, while my colleague Senator Collins and I are more than happy to represent the appropriate interest of the Northern Territory Government when it comes to making representations to Canberra, it makes it incredibly difficult to substantiate those requests when we see the scandalous ways in which the Northern Territory Treasury is administered and the way in which it undermines the social services it ought to be providing to the whole of the Northern Territory community and not just propping up its friends in private enterprise. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(1.32) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is good to see in the House my two colleagues from Tasmania, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) and the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), and it will be of no surprise to them that I grieve again today on petrol prices in Australia. I will go back in history a bit. In my second speech in this House, the one after my maiden speech, in 1976 I spoke on the petroleum industry and the Royal Commission on Petroleum by Mr Justice Collins. Some of its recommendations were never brought into being. It said that the industry cried out for reform; that it was an industry that was prostituted; that there were unfair practices; that the people who worked in the industry, specifically the dealers, were sometimes treated unfairly; that we should look for alternatives; and that we should look more at converting to liquefied petroleum gas. It is an industry that is ever changing, so of course some of those points in 1976 are not relevant today. But if one hops into a motor car in Canberra and drives down to Melbourne, when one gets to the border at Albury-Wodonga one will find invariably that the price of petrol will increase by 10c per litre. I can understand the motorists of Australia looking at the price of petrol and wondering why. I have been critical of the Prices Surveillance Authority, because I thought that it was not able to fix a maximum wholesale price that was justified in the true sense of the word, making it fair for all Australians. I will keep my remarks brief to give the next honourable member a go. I know that he is keen to get on his feet; he is smiling now, of course. The previous Government, the Fraser Government, went to import parity pricing and the price of petrol increased quite dramatically in Australia. That caused great pressure on people who use petrol for their mode of business. It increased transportation costs and the consumers of Australia had to bear that penalty, the reason being that there were world shortages and if we did not have petroleum we had to depend on other countries for our petrol. In the long term, that was a sensible move even though people like me rejected it at the time because I thought it was too severe, all of a sudden to go from a cheap price to a very high price. But we saw that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), when he was in Opposition, continually said that it was taxation by stealth at the petrol pump, that the people of Australia were in virtual fact being conned as a result. He said that they were paying the penalty for government decisions and that it was taxation by stealth at the petrol pump. We heard it consistently during those election campaigns. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), with his now famous remark, said that if he were elected he would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. And of course the consumers of Australia thought, `Well, great, it is going to be cheaper, it is going to be better for us and we will take it'. Mr Burr —Did it happen? Mr GOODLUCK —No, it did not, and when the Labor Government came to power, like many other governments, it found that it is a very good way to get revenue. It is a very simple way, it is a very painless process in getting money from the pockets of the consumers of Australia in a very simple way; once the hue and cry die down it is forgotten. The Prices Surveillance Authority stated in its annual report for 1986-87, `With the exception of petroleum products, which reflect particularly complex pricing arrangements, price increases were not generally sought by declared persons more than three times in the year'. Let me say that for petroleum products the Authority received 218 notices of proposed price changes, so in fact I agree that it is a very complex industry. But if the Prices Surveillance Authority-and this is what the consumers of Australia keep looking at-fixes a maximum wholesale price in every capital city, it does not vary very much. Then all of a sudden, with the whim and fancy of what the oil companies want to do, we find that petrol in some particular parts of Australia-mainly in the heavy volume areas-is sold below that wholesale price. So the consumer starts saying, `What gives? We are paying taxes to have an authority to fix a maximum wholesale price, then all of a sudden we see it being sold at a far cheaper price'. I can understand their concern and I can understand that they would feel that governments have failed as a result of it, not being able to contain this complex industry, not being able to harness it for the best interests of all Australians. All right, I have talked about it ad infinitum. The trouble is that the more we talk about a subject, the more helpless we are to change an industry, because we all know that the power is given only to a very few who can really make those changes. I would like to make a few suggestions, in my last speech, most probably, in this House. My first one was on the petroleum industry. It cried out for reform then, it needed changes to it; governments have failed to change it, to make it more equitable for all the people involved in the industry, the consumers and everybody else involved. But we find we are no better off, that we go from State to State. It varies from State to State, for reasons. It could be argued that my own State has the highest price for petrol in Australia. It could be argued that Mr Robin Gray, the Premier, said that he had to impose an additional 3.7c to offset a shortage of funds by this Federal Government. Frankly, the consumers of Australia are sick of these arguments and one can ask the question: How long is that 3.7c going to stay-ad infinitum? We heard somebody talking about the roads of Australia. We have the 2c a litre levy that is supposed to have been directed to the roads. We have the royal automobile clubs of Australia saying, `Look, not enough money is being spent on the roads and the motorists are being ripped off'. The whole thing needs a good clean up. The Prices Surveillance Authority cannot do it; royal commissions cannot do it. This is one recommendation that I would like to make. A lot of us come up here with all the best intentions in the world to try to reform, to try to do the best we can for the consumers. We will differ, but surely to God we can harness a few from this Parliament to go out and do a good inquiry into this industry, if we are serious, and come back with decent respectable recommendations, to make this a better industry, not only for the people who work in it, but also for the consumers of Australia, and make it fairer and more equitable. Surely we could do that. Surely we could start talking about alternatives. We could start saying that we should be using more liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in this country, not exporting it to Japan so that they can do their cooking with it. We could use it in Australia. We could start talking about the manufacture of motor cars, with not just a single system of petrol but also the dual system of LPG. We could also start saying that if a person wanted to convert to LPG he could get a tax reduction. We could start talking about these sorts of things and, hopefully, we could make it a better industry for everybody. We could get away from the ludicrous situation that in Melbourne up to yesterday there had been seven increases. We can also get away from the ludicrous situation that in Sydney the price went down to 43c a litre but overnight went back to 59c a litre. We could stop those sorts of things, make it fairer for the people in the country and the people who live in Hobart, Sydney, Melbourne or wherever, and also the people who work within the industry. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(1.41) —I find that I am in agreement with the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) when he expresses his concern about the price of fuel. But I would also remind the honourable member that when the Fraser Government came into power the wholesale price of fuel was 13c or thereabouts; when the Fraser Government left government it was 38c wholesale, and now we see an increase of about 12c. Twice the increase took place under the Fraser Government. But he is right in his concern and my areas have the same gripe. In the four minutes that I have left, I should like to raise a matter that relates to road funding. I join with other colleagues who have spoken in this House in recent times because I express grave concern at any reduction that might take place in the Commonwealth funding for roads across this nation. It needs to be pointed out that a reduction of just $1m in road expenditure can lead to a loss of 55 jobs. That is 23 in the construction industry, nine in the supply industry, and 23 as a result of consumer spending; that is the multiplier effect. There is not a great saving for Government to cut down on that $1m, because the actual Budget saving is only about $380,000, when you take into consideration the income tax forgone and the additional unemployment benefits the Government will have to pay. There is a need for government to maintain its responsibility and commitment to road funding right across this nation. I talk about local government, State government and Federal government because too often we have the States blaming the Commonwealth when there is a cutback. They say, `We cannot give you the money because the Commonwealth did not give it to us'. That has happened in Labor as well as non-Labor States. Seventy-five per cent of Federal road funding is spent in rural Australia, and I represent a provincial and rural electorate. This money provides a significant economic boost to local, residential and regional economies. I talk about the local aspect here. A cut of $100m will mean a loss of some 2,400 road jobs in the rural sector. You can add to that 1,725 likely to be eliminated in the longer term as the decrease in consumption spending works its way through the local economy. We are talking about economics. I am concerned about a report that I am told has been put out by the Department of Finance which recommends a major cut in road funding. I can understand people saying that the national highways are almost completed; we do not need the capital up-front outlays. But that is not an excuse to cut back on local and arterial roads. There is a real argument for maintaining funding to local authorities and the States in real terms. There is a real argument for increasing that percentage of the excise on fuel-about 21c per litre-from the 5.4 or 6c per litre to at least 7c. Every 1c per litre means an extra $200m that can be spent on roads. It means jobs, an injection of funds into local economies. There is a need to understand also that road fatalities are costing this nation $3 billion a year. If the rumour is correct that we are going to have a major cutback, not only the major metropolitan areas will suffer, but also provincial cities, local towns right across the nation. I see this as an apolitical issue, one that is non-factional. It cuts across all parties because it is an Australian issue. I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that road funding increases and not just as it did last year at $1,245m, but increases in real terms so that we can get on with our upgrading works. We have provided millions and millions of dollars for road construction work over many years. The Hawke Labor Government can be commended for the massive injection of funds that it put into road funding during the 1983-84 period. Regrettably, there is a decline since that time. It is an issue that crosses all the factional areas. It is an issue that crosses all the party areas. I would urge that in this May statement full consideration is given to the needs for roads across this nation-for local roads, for arterial roads, for those in the metropolitan areas. If we do not do this, there will be economic consequences, social consequences and, I would suggest, political consequences. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! It being 1.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The question is: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —Some 12 months ago I helped form the southern prices action group which has been working most effectively in seeking to curtail rising supermarket prices. The success of our group is due to the commitment and dedication of a small band of volunteer shoppers who once a month conduct a regular prices survey. Supermarkets in our area are becoming more competitive. The overall price of a standard basket of groceries remained stable during the months of February and March and the April results indicate an actual price drop. What is also happening is that more and more people are phoning our office with consumer complaints. For example, a woman recently phoned to tell us that for some time now she had been buying a particular brand of oat bran from the local health food store. A 500-gram packet used to cost her 89c. Then a couple of weeks ago the price jumped from 89c to $3.12. The irate customer phoned the supplier, Selective Foods Pty Ltd of Waterloo, Sydney, who informed her that this was in fact the new price. The customer says that the brand she buys is being publicised by a visiting American as part of a low cholesterol diet and that this is the reason the stores and suppliers are cashing in. I think this is outrageous and the southern action prices group will fight to make sure that such unjustifiable price increases do not continue. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee) —Mr Deputy Speaker, during the last few days a large number of employers in the dried fruit and citrus growing industries in my electorate have received a letter from the Australian Workers Union (AWU) under the General Secretary's signature of G. A. Barr. In this letter the Australian Workers Union has provided an ambit claim and has asked all employers to send a reply to the union within seven days from the receipt of the letter. This, as one can imagine, has caused some concern with growers. In the letter the AWU has not only destroyed its own credibility, it is probably going to destroy many jobs of its own members. The ambit claims that have been made, of course, are totally ludicrous and quite bizarre. Growers should ignore the letter and put it in the hands of their grower organisation. We know that these claims are made only as a product of our ridiculous industrial relations and wage fixing system. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would just like to read to the House, from the 45 points under the log of claims, some of the more ridiculous of them: A minimum of $1,000 per week for all adults, which shall be increased on a three-monthly basis. A maximum of 30 hours work per week, to be worked only on Monday to Friday. Eight weeks annual leave for each twelve months service. I am sure the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will like this one: wages including overtime and other payments shall be paid in cash each week in the employer's time and an employer shall not keep more than one day's pay in hand. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —After next week members of the House of Representatives will no longer meet in this chamber. When they next meet it will be in the House of Representatives chamber of the new Parliament House. Since 9 May 1901 the electoral division of Herbert has been represented in the Commonwealth Parliament, one of only 35 original seats with a continual history. In this chamber, through their representatives, the people of Herbert have pursued their aspirations for the advancement of Australia and in particular the development of north Queensland. The people of Herbert have always aspired that Australia be a land of liberty in which human dignity, democracy and justice would be the right of every citizen. Now that our meetings in this chamber will soon cease and we will next meet in the new Parliament House, it is appropriate that on behalf of the people of Herbert I affirm in this chamber their loyalty and their trust that in the words of General George Washington, `God would have you in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to entertain a brotherly love and affection one for another'. And finally, `He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, without a humble imitation of whose example we can never hope to be a happy nation. A guiding principle and prayer of this nation has been, is now, and shall ever be: ``In God we trust'' '. Mr ALDRED(Bruce) —Lately we have seen a jittery Minister, the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch), clumsily trying to force the coalition to join his ill-fated casino for Canberra push. On this matter the House may recall the 1982 report into former Deputy Commissioner Bill Allen of the New South Wales Police, which clearly demonstrated that Mr Allen had improperly accepted free overseas air travel offered through Mr L. J. McIntyre, Chairman of Directors of the Queanbeyan Leagues Club. This very same report also states that in late 1981 Mr McIntyre made a public announcement that the Queanbeyan Leagues Club was ready to start a casino, if such were ever legalised in New South Wales. The report further says that it is reasonable to assume that he made this interest known to Mr Allen. New South Wales Corporate Affairs records show that one of Mr McIntyre's fellow directors of the Queanbeyan Leagues Club, at the time of its push for a casino and since, was Dr Geoffrey Thomas Caldwell. Dr Caldwell now heads the social impact study for the proposed Canberra casino. In all seriousness, how can Dr Caldwell be regarded as possessing the requisite impartial credentials to fairly conduct the social impact study? I seek leave to table the relevant pages from the Allen report and New South Wales Corporate Affairs records. Leave granted. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to a very important happening which occurred last weekend in Queensland. It was the formation of the Vietnamese Women's Association of Queensland, which marks a milestone for that group, particularly within our community. Not only will this group provide support for Vietnamese women in their own community but it will also provide a group which can liaise with other women's groups within the Australian community, and I think that is particularly important. The group offers to those women, who have come to Australia from Vietnam, English classes, child-minding classes, health classes and other things which have not been currently available to them because of language difficulties, transport difficulties and simply a lack of information. The group has been formed at the inspiration of Mrs Huong Mai, who is now the president of that group, and the secretary, Mrs Thanh Huong. They have also seen it as important to include the youth in their group, because they particularly prize education, and to this end Miss Do Thi Thuy Lan has been appointed to the management committee which will operate to include not only the older women in the community but of course the young student children. As honourable members will understand, there are very many tensions in the way in which families operate now within Australia, and for those young migrant women particularly trying to assimilate into Australia and also be faithful to some of their older cultural ties. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —I would like to ask the Government to consider framing a code of conduct with Chile on behalf of Australian business. A complicated but meritorious code of conduct was negotiated by the Government with Australian industry in respect of South Africa, and that followed some models that were originating in Europe. Europe has a strong view about investment in Chile, so does the United Nations. Amnesty International and the Catholic organisations have all shown what an outrageous regime it is in Chile, every way as bad as that in South Africa. Mr Alan Bond, a famous Australian who does not like a gold tax and who pays defamation settlements against legal advice, happens to have bought a 45 per cent share of Chile's Telecom, which is part of the surveillance mechanism of the notorious regime there, and which kills people, tortures people and enables people to disappear at great rates. He is giving them equity. He is getting cash flow, and he is going to add value to the Telecom network there which will enhance the surveillance system of the Pinochet regime. It is outrageous that any Australian government should sanction that without some code of conduct being asked so that it can move towards democracy in Chile. Australia now represents over a quarter of the foreign investment of the last three years in Chile. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEE(Dobell) —On Friday 6 May the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) was able to visit my electorate and present a number of bicentennial medallions to students at Berkeley Vale Community High School in my electorate. This afternoon I wish to bring to the attention of the House the fact that these students were very proud indeed to be one of the first children in Australia to receive these commemorative bicentennial medallions, having received them on 6 May, and in particular they were quite honoured that the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia visited their school. Last Thursday I had the privilege of also visting Yarramalong Public School in my electorate. It is a great school. Yarramalong Public School is a two-teacher school and therefore has only a small number of pupils but they were very proud to receive their bicentennial medallions. Later that day I was able to visit Ourimbah Public School and also Hopetown Special School which is located in Wyong. Hopetown Special School is a private school which has been generously funded by Mr John Saunders of Westfield Pty Ltd and was opened by the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Hawke) in 1987. All those students were very honoured that they were able to receive a medallion to commemorate the fact that they were at school in 1988. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BURR(Lyons) —Today I wish to raise in the House the case of Dr Germeet Anand who for three years has been trying to emigrate to Australia to join other members of his family in this country. This matter has been under consideration for three years by the Australian immigration officials and has not been settled in any way at all, despite the fact that Dr Anand to all intents and purposes satisfies all the criteria that are necessary to be able to emigrate to this country. The written responses that I have had from the present Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) are almost identical to responses that I have had from previous Ministers and it is quite clear that they are nothing more than departmental responses. Since February of this year I have three times requested a meeting with the Minister to discuss this matter and to date I have not been given any appointment. I am hoping that, by making this matter public here today, at least it will lead to my being given an appointment with the Minister so that I can take it up with him at greater length. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I would like to use this opportunity to express my concern about some recent statements coming from Mr Rick Farley of the National Farmers Federation in his attempts to encourage the exploitation of farm workers. I was at the Beef 88 conference for a couple of days in Rockhampton last week and a speech by Mr Farley at that conference demonstrated the National Farmers Federation's contempt for farm workers and trade unions. Mr Farley in one sentence admitted that many farmers and their employees already have agreements outside industrial awards. In the very next sentence, though, he said that farmers had the responsibilities to take on unions which break the law. Mr Farley, it seems, thinks it is okay for farmers to break the law but it is not all right for unions to do so. My view is that if the National Farmers Federation had any respect for the law it would act immediately to stop the practice of outside award agreements between farmers and farm workers. I was pleased, though, in the context of his remarks to hear of some of the encouraging comments he made about the Hawke Government's economic achievements; nonetheless, that did not take away from some of the rather unfortunate comments he made with respect to farmers breaking some of the industrial awards. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I have a question to ask: Why does the Australian Labor Party hate Tasmania? Why? Why? You have cut us back $52.5m. Where is that shadow over there, the shadow in Hobart? He has not said a squeak about that $52.5m cut to Tasmania. Where is he? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)? I mean that other shadow, too; there are two of them together. They have not said a word about Tasmania, not one word. You have cut us back to the bone and made it very difficult for the ordinary people of Tasmania. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —Under the heading `Opening of New Parliament House Upstaged', the Canberra Chronicle reported last week that a major Christian event, the national gathering, held here in Canberra on the Saturday preceding the opening of the new Parliament House, attracted more people than the opening itself. Published estimates of the number of people from all Christian denominations and groups that gathered here on that day were from 35,000 to 50,000. Estimates of the crowd at the opening were 20,000 to 25,000. All that aside, the national gathering was a great expression of Christian unity and concern for the nation. Many thousands marched to the new Parliament House from three assembly points and then encircled the building as the crowd lined up around State Circle and filled one side of the roadway with people. There followed an afternoon of worship, music and pageantry and in the evening a torchlight procession followed by a night of prayer. The service on the lawns was attended by 15,000 people at 7 a.m. in the cool of the early Canberra Sunday morning and concluded the gathering. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a, I call questions without notice. Mr REITH —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that the Government is putting forward the first referendum proposal on the basis that it will have no impact on the term of office of the current Government? If so, is it not a fact that under the existing Constitution the last practical date on which the next half-Senate and the current House of Representatives elections can be held is 2 June 1990? Is it not also a fact that if the first referendum is carried the last practicable date for the next Senate and House of Representatives elections will be extended to 17 November 1990? Does the Prime Minister therefore deny that a practical consequence of this would be to enable his Government to stay in office almost six months longer than is now provided for under current constitutional arrangements? Mr HAWKE —I point out to the honourable gentleman that the legislation involves an extension of the term of the Senate so that if the people-as I hope and expect they will-vote to extend parliamentary terms to four years we would avoid the necessity of a half-Senate election and we would subsequently get contemporaneity of elections for the two Houses. The dates the honourable gentleman mentioned are accurate. To the extent that the issue has any significance, I assume it will be taken into account by the electorate when it has to make its decision. I am confident that the decision as to which party it wants to govern it will be, on the fourth occasion since 5 March 1983, the same as it has been on the last three occasions. Ms CRAWFORD —Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware of an editorial in the Melbourne Herald which claimed that child-care was one of the neglected issues of Australian politics in the 1980s? Can the Minister inform the House of the Government's record on child-care? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of what is a sadly ill informed and incorrect editorial in yesterday's Herald which was headlined `Toying with child-care'. One can only believe that the writer of the editorial had been a Rip van Winkle since 1983. There is one small glimmer of accuracy in this otherwise quite ignorant article. It does state: It was buried as a policy priority under the weight of economic crisis and ideological opposition during the Fraser years. That is a pretty accurate statement. This single glimmer of accuracy is immediately snuffed out by the editorial's next statement: The issue has continued to languish since then, a low priority in a time of . . . uncertainty. I want to look at the facts which sustain an argument that under this Government child-care has languished. Let us look at each of the facts in turn. Firstly, since 1973-74 about $1 billion has been spent in this country on child-care and 85 per cent of that-$853m-has been spent by the Hawke Labor Government. So in the last 15 years, $1 billion has been spent on child-care, 85 per cent of it by this Government. Is that any evidence of languishing? Since 1983 we have increased spending on child-care from $62m a year to $222m this year. That increase in five years, again, provides no evidence that child-care has languished. The number of child-care places was 46,000 when we came to power. By the end of this year the number will be close to 110,000. Indeed, more has been done for child-care by this Government than by all of the other governments in Australia put together. The editorial goes on to claim that the Government has shown a lack of understanding of families where both parents have to work to survive. That claim that we lack understanding is absolute nonsense. In July 1984 we introduced the fee relief subsidy to ensure that services were affordable to low and middle income families. Extra deductions were provided under that subsidy for people with more than one child in care. We are very well aware-contrary to what is said in the Herald editorial-of the economics of child-care. Some 80 per cent of sole parents working or seeking work in this country have their children in government funded child-care centres. The preliminary results of a study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University shows that the fiscal benefits from the provision of work-related child-care are significant. Opposition members interjecting- Dr BLEWETT —They do not like this, of course. As that survey points out, the expenditure saved could outdo the cost of child-care-that is, the economic advantages deriving may offset all that we spend on child-care. There are two equally significant benefits for the labour market: the participation of women in the labour force has increased from 45 per cent in 1983 to 50 per cent in 1988; and over 478,000 new jobs were filled by women and girls between April 1983 and August 1987-nearly 58 per cent of all the new jobs created to this point. Again, child-care has gone a long way to make that expansion possible. The editorial in the Herald did get a few points right. It pointed out that it is cheaper for the community to subsidies comprehensive child-care than to bear the cost of welfare payments to families on single incomes. Opposition members interjecting- Dr BLEWETT —I repeat the point for the benefit of honourable members opposite: it is cheaper for the community to subsidise comprehensive child-care than to bear the cost of welfare payments to families on single incomes. It is also economically unsound to tie talented women to the home due to a lack of child-care. The editorial also recognises that child-care is more than a welfare issue. Opposition members interjecting- Dr BLEWETT —These people have no notion that child-care is more than a welfare issue. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should draw his answer to a close. Dr BLEWETT —I am drawing my answer to a conclusion. It is obvious that the Opposition does not understand the point that child-care is more than just a welfare issue. It is a matter of equity and social justice and has made this Government the child-care government in Australian history. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Now that the Prime Minister has confirmed that one consequence of the carriage of the first referendum proposal would be potentially to prolong the life of the Hawke Government by almost six months, I ask: Was this an unintended consequence? Why has the referendum proposal been presented on the basis that it would be politically neutral in its impact? How does the Minister justify not disclosing to the Australian public the potential conferment of a clear political advantage, and why has he not come clean about a conspiracy to keep the Government in office for another six months? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The question from the Leader of the Opposition is extraordinary because he would have at least studied the matter. The only issue that really related to the fact was that the half-Senate term may expire before the House of Representatives. Mr Howard —Another six months. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Will the Leader of the Opposition listen to the answer? The Bill the House is now talking about is to extend the term of the Senate until the expiry of the House of Representatives; it is very simple. The House of Representatives is limited by the Constitution in its power to continue its term, which is three years after the date of the first sitting. The Government is not extending it. Mr Howard —You are extending it for another six months. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Why does the Leader of the Opposition not understand the law? It is an incredible situation. Mr JOHNS —I ask the distinguished and effervescent Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business: What is the significance of work carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the University of Adelaide to reduce the severity of disease and accident trauma for patients? What community benefit will arise from the research and what are its commercial prospects? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Petrie for his question. Mr Sinclair —What about a short answer? Mr BARRY JONES —As it happens, the answer is very important. A team led by Dr John Ballard of the Division of Human Nutrition of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, in collaboration with the University of Adelaide, has discovered a high potency muscle growth protein with great potential in the treatment of burns, cancer and trauma victims and diseases involving muscle wasting such as acquired immune deficiency syndrome-AIDS. These illnesses currently cost some $2 billion in health care in Australia and 50 times that amount worldwide. Loss of muscle is a major contributing factor towards death and incapacitation, and it involves cancer and physical trauma particularly with road accident victims. Muscle loss also plays a central part in the long term wasting of certain inherited diseases, including muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis. Escalating health costs are a serious problem for the community. Finding hospital beds for patients undergoing courses of treatment and subsequent recovery periods is placing enormous pressure on our already overworked hospital system. The researchers have isolated the growth protein from cows' colostrum-a fluid that is produced at the beginning of lactation. It has an identical component in humans. The insulin-like growth factors also play a significant role in animal production, increasing growth rates and probably the efficiency at which food is converted to meat. Growth proteins, produced by a range of cells, act on other cell types to stimulate their growth. The research team has discovered a growth protein that is super potent, being active at one tenth of the level required for other growth proteins. This protein, known as `insulin-like growth factor one', would not be a cure for illnesses, but it has potential to prevent muscle loss and wastage, thereby making the body stronger. The patient would then be better able to withstand infection. Recovery following curative treatment programs, or accidents, especially of elderly people, might also be speeded up. The research team has taken out the first international patent in this important developing area and presently are negotiating for its commercialisation internationally and I hope to be in a position to announce something further shortly. Mr SHACK —Has the attention of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training been drawn to an article on the front page of this afternoon's Melbourne Herald newspaper entitled `Politics Decides Where Cuts Hit'? Is the Minister aware that the article refers to internal working papers obtained from his Department that show officers of his Department have assessed the political allegiance of electorates as a major factor in deciding the future funding in Victoria of community youth support schemes (CYSS)? Is the Minister further aware that the article states that, of the 17 CYSS projects to be eliminated, 12 are in rural Liberal and National Party seats and that schemes in mainly urban marginal Labor electorates are largely exempt from the cuts? Is this newspaper report correct? Mr DAWKINS —This is a fascinating question, coming from the Party that tried to abolish this scheme a few years ago. It is especially intriguing bearing in mind that, when the Australian Labor Party came to office under the distinguished ministry of my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Government expanded the community youth support scheme by approximately 50 per cent because it recognised the important role that the scheme plays in providing support for young unemployed people. Therefore, the Government continues its commitment to the scheme. As a result of making some inquiries after this article appeared, I understand that the paper referred to is a handwritten set of notes and that it has no official status, makes no recommendations and has not been submitted for consideration by departmental management let alone the Minister for Employment and Education Services. The Department is not under any direction to consider political issues in relation to these matters. No decisions on budgetary matters have been made about the continuation or otherwise of projects under the new program. Last September the Government decided that the community youth support scheme, the community training program and the community volunteer program should be integrated into a single program under new guidelines. The existing three programs will continue until the end of December, and the new program will commence on 1 January 1989. Without prejudice, all existing project sponsors, as well as others, will be invited to submit applications for funding under the program's new guidelines. Mr SAWFORD —The question I direct to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel concerns the commercialisation of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO). The Minister has said that she wants every reasonable opportunity taken to translate the research of the Organisation into marketable products for Australian industry. What programs has the Minister implemented to achieve her goal of commercialising DSTO products and what success are her programs having? Mrs KELLY —I thank the honourable member for Port Adelaide for his question. It is probably the first question that has ever been directed on the Defence Science and Technology Organisation in this Parliament. That says a great deal about the history of the organisation, which has done an enormous amount of good for the Defence Force of this country but has made very little contribution to Australian industry; it is time that that changed. One of the first things I have done is to change the charter of the DSTO so that it can now work with any sector of Australian industry where that is in the broader national interest. As part of this interface, we need to ensure that industry is aware of commercially promising DSTO research at a very early stage. I have had to throw open the doors of the organisation. Recently I issued a corporate statement, which I forwarded to the Opposition spokesman, and the Government is also releasing specific booklets that explain what the organisation does. I bet if honourable members in this place were now asked what role the organisation had actually played, very few would have any idea of what it does, nor of its cost, which is approximately $170m a year. The DSTO is a world leader in many technologies but unfortunately it has done very little to take up that opportunity and to commercialise it. Currently the organisation is working on a number of projects, in which my colleague the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business would be interested, and in future I may adopt his practice of bringing in here with me things to demonstrate to the Parliament. But I will not do that today. Suffice it to say that at the moment it is developing an energy efficient laser which could be used in hospitals, an anti-corrosion process-that could do very well in this House-and a diamond hard coating for use in optical devices. Also I am organising in Melbourne next month an industry seminar which I hope will inform industry further about the role the DSTO is taking. Already there are signs that commercialisation is working. An agreement has been signed to allow the company, Australian Commercial Research and Development, to fund selected research projects with commercial potential within DSTO. Further agreements have also been signed, or are being negotiated, with State innovation centres and Sirotech Pty Ltd. In addition, I recently announced that the DSTO will participate with industry in a joint venture company, and that company is being established to commercialise the infra-red detector technology developed at DSTO, Salisbury. This venture will allow us to tap into the billion dollar international infra-red detector market. I summarise by saying to the House that the commercialisation of the DSTO is under way. We still have a long way to go, but I think we can look forward to much greater cooperation between the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and industry. Mr LLOYD —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The Minister will be aware that a senior Japanese Government member of parliament and former Defence Minister, Mr Kato, has publicly admitted in the United States of America that his Government does discriminate against Australian beef in favour of United States beef, that `administrative guidance is given to treat United States beef imports favourably', that the Japanese Government body, the LIPC, pockets $400m to $500m a year from levies on imported beef, and that Japan and the United States are moving towards a bilateral deal to increase United States beef imports. In the light of this revelation, does the Minister agree that he and other Ministers have been duped by the Japanese and United States governments into believing that there is no discrimination against Australia at the moment; nor will there be any? What action will he now take to ensure, even at this late stage, that Australian beef producers and exporters receive a fair deal? Mr KERIN —First of all, we have not been duped. If the honourable gentleman had been in contact with the industry he would have realised that, at every step in the current negotiations, in the intervening period and the last time quotas were established, we have been pointing out exactly what has now been confessed by Japan, and that is that the arrangements that have been in place for some time discriminate against Australia vis-a-vis the United States. A study by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics in great detail last year-I hope that the honourable gentleman has read it-set out very clearly where the discrimination was, how much the LIPC was creaming off from the trade, which was billions and billions of yen, and just exactly where the problems lay. It gave an effective rate of tariff against Australia considerably higher than that pertaining to the United States. There is not much sense in going into detail; but, when beef that is diaphragm beef and is said by the Japanese not to be beef somehow gets sold as beef, that has always been pretty open to anyone who really wants to use his or her eyes. There is a system called single buyer to seller, which is somewhat self-explanatory. That system has an inbuilt incentive for people to buy higher valued grades of meat. The whole administration by the LIPC of the present quota arrangements discriminates against Australia in terms of tonnages. In other words, the quotas are not truly global; there is administrative guidance. We welcome this statement by Mr Koichi Kato, because it simply confirms what we have been saying for a very long time. The assurances that the Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade Negotiations and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and I have gained in recent times are prospective. We believe that the people with whom we are dealing in both the United States and Japan are people of honour and that prospectively we will not be discriminated against, and this confession helps us immensely. Mr FITZGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware of statements by representatives of the National Farmers Federation that they have been trying to create an industrial dispute on the waterfront, but have been unable to do so? Can the Minister advise the House why the National Farmers Federation is having this problem, and what action the Government is taking to improve industrial relations and productivity on the waterfront? Mr WILLIS —Madam Speaker-- Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order relates to the second part of the question asked by the honourable member for Hunter, which related to the conduct, alleged or otherwise, of the National Farmers Federation and as such is outside the jurisdiction of the portfolio of the Minister. Therefore, that second part of the question should be ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —I accept the point of order raised by the honourable member for Farrer. The Minister will answer the other parts of the question. Mr WILLIS —The first part of the question asked whether I was aware of reports that the National Farmers Federation had been trying to establish an industrial dispute on the waterfront. Mr Beale —You were just ruled out of order on that. Madam SPEAKER —I am listening. Mr WILLIS —I am aware of such reports. Those reports have been in the newspapers in recent days and also a few months ago. The West Australian in early March contained a report saying: The National Farmers Federation is gearing up for a full-scale fight on the Australian waterfront. Retiring NFF president Ian McLachlan said yesterday that the federation would go out looking for trouble. Apparently he has been looking for trouble for the last two months but cannot find it. He was quoted in the Australian today as saying yesterday: We've been trying to get a decent barney going but we can't. Perhaps if we go to the wharves we might have a different result. Today in the Sydney Morning Herald the Industrial Director of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Paul Houlihan, is quoted as saying that: . . . the farmer lobby was trying to provoke disputes on the waterfront so that it could use its multi-million `fighting fund' to take court action against unions. What we see here is that the National Farmers Federation quite clearly, through its own spokesmen, has been trying in the last few months to promote industrial disputation in this country. That is an extraordinary situation. We have a leading industrial employer organisation in this country trying to provoke industrial disputation rather than prevent it-a role reversal for an employer organisation in this country and quite extraordinary behaviour. The National Farmers Federation President, a well known member of the Liberal Party of Australia, is perhaps indicating to us the kinds of views which are advised to the Opposition. That perhaps helps to explain the kinds of policies which come from it. The reason the Federation is having so much trouble in developing that industrial dispute is that there has been a dramatic improvement in industrial disputation on the waterfront. In the last five years, since the Government has been in office, there has been a 70 per cent reduction in the level of time lost in industrial disputes in the stevedoring industry, compared with the previous five years under the Fraser Government-a 70 per cent reduction, a massive reduction in in the level of industrial disputation in this area. That alone indicates an improvement in efficiency on the waterfront and indicates why, with much improved industrial relations on the waterfront, it is difficult for outside bodies, such as the National Farmers Federation, to provoke the parties into industrial disputation, despite the fact that it has a multi-million dollar fund and is just itching to spend it on some such disputation. This kind of statement and the intention on the part of the National Farmers Federation are made even more irresponsible by the fact that there has been on the part of this Government a very determined attempt to improve productivity and efficiency on the waterfront. A number of steps have been taken, and I will briefly mention them. We have established the Stevedoring Industry Review Committee, which is headed by Sir John Moore, the previous President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That body, which comprises union and employer representatives, has gone around all of the Australian ports and has looked at ways to improve efficiency in every port in Australia. Those efficiency improvements have been implemented and there are ongoing efforts to obtain further efficiency improvements through the operations of that Committee. We have also asked the Inter-State Commission to establish a review of the shore-based shipping industry in this country, to establish a long term integrated structure for an efficient industry in this area. The first report from that body should be available to us in a month or two. Alongside that, there have been initiatives such as the move to productivity based container operations in Melbourne and Sydney. The Waterside Workers Federation of Australia has itself gone into business in joint ventures with employers in small ports in Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania, and these operations have been cutting stevedoring costs in half. So we can see that a variety of steps has been taken by the industry and the Government to try to improve productivity and efficiency. In the midst of all of this rises this Rambo-like figure with his multimillion dollar fund saying, `We want to create a big industrial dispute to try to improve things on the waterfront'. What an absurd situation. It is a ridiculous situation for a supposedly responsible organisation in this country. I can only say that I hope that the new President of the National Farmers Federation, who takes office today, I understand, has a different attitude from that of his predecessor. I understand that he said today that he would be looking to adopt a less confrontationist approach. I hope that that is the case and that we see an end to this kind of stupidity from the National Farmers Federation. I hope that we see from it the kind of action that we greatly desire; that is, I hope we see it get into the mainstream of industrial relations in this country, abandon the confrontationist approach which has been so disastrous under the previous governments, and adopt a much more conformist industrial relations system, producing vastly better results in the process. Mr MACPHEE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications to information contained in a paper prepared for the Minister by Mr Roger Smith, the First Assistant Secretary of the broadcasting policy division of the Department of Transport and Communications. Is it a fact that the paper reveals that the News Ltd corporation's interests in the Channel 10 television network amounted to 17.16 per cent at the end of last year? Is it a fact that the prescribed interest limit for newspaper proprietors having television interests is 5 per cent? Does such a holding breach the cross-media and foreign ownership laws of Australia? Why has the Government not taken action to enforce the law when it has known of this apparent breach for over six months. Mr PETER MORRIS —I note the honourable member's interest in the issue he has raised. I will make inquires and provide him with an answer at the first opportunity. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services. Is the Commonwealth now transferring surplus defence land at Point Nepean to the Victorian Government for a national park? Mr WEST —I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question. He has long exhibited a very close interest in this very important area. I can answer that, yes, the plans to transfer the area to the Victorian Government are well advanced. This matter has been the subject of negotiations between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain. I also pay tribute to the effort put into these negotiations by my predecessor, the former Minister for Administrative Services, the honourable member for Reid. This is a very important and historic area. It is on the eastern headland of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. It includes a number of very important natural, historical and heritage features. For instance, it contains Cheviot Beach which, of course, has some tragic connotations for this country. It also includes a number of Aboriginal sites, famous shipwreck sites, and nineteenth century fortifications. The Victorian Government has long been interested in the area, and we propose to transfer some 215 hectares for a national park. We will retain in the ownership of the Commonwealth some 110 hectares, which is the current site for the Army school of health. The finances involve a price of $5m for the Victorian Government to meet; and in return we will pay it $4m for an area of land that this Government is interested in at Fishermans Bend. So the Victorian Government will owe the Government $1m, which we hope to pick up within the next 12 months. I have signed the disposal order and I have signed the acquisition order. Much of the area, of course, will be open to public access, and I expect that we will sign the contracts of sale in the near future. I think our actions in these areas illustrate two things: firstly, the commitment of the Hawke Labor Government to protecting the finances of the Commonwealth and, secondly, our abiding interest in the protection of significant areas of this country for national parks in the interests of the people. Mr LLOYD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Why has the Government allowed a 40 per cent duty to be applied to imported high quality lightweight woollen fabrics made from Australian wool, even though Australia's manufacturing industry does not have the capacity to produce this fabric in any quantity? Why was wool the only lightweight fabric excluded from by-law entry, its duty thus being increased from 2 per cent to 40 per cent under the guise of harmonisation? What is the sense of the wool industry developing new products like these and spending millions of dollars of woolgrower and government money on promoting them when the Australian Government prices them beyond the reach of the consumer? Mr KERIN —This is really a question for my colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, and it is a matter that I have brought to his attention. Mr COHEN —I ask a question of the Minister for the Arts and Territories. Now that the new Parliament House is completed, what action has been taken to proceed with the development of the National Museum of Australia? Mr PUNCH —I thank the honourable member for Robertson for his question. The National Museum of Australia is one of the subjects of the museums review that the Government has been undertaking. It is a matter that will go before the Cabinet, I hope reasonably soon-in fact, shortly-and we will have a result on the matter then. Mr REITH —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer to recent media reports to the effect that the World Jewish Congress has provided to the Australian Government evidence relating to the deaths of two Australian servicemen during World War II. I also refer him to legislation which he introduced, and which is currently still before the Parliament, to prosecute World War II war criminals in Australia. I remind the Attorney-General that much of the evidence on which the Government made its decision to introduce the war crimes legislation originated from the international Jewish community. I ask the Attorney-General: What action is the Government taking to investigate thoroughly the allegations relating to the deaths of the two Australian servicemen? I also ask: Does the Government plan any action to bring to justice the person or persons responsible for their deaths? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am aware of the reports to which the honourable gentleman referred. I think the allegations related to a well known person now occupying a position in Europe being perhaps directly or indirectly responsible. Of course, the honourable gentleman will recognise that the war crimes legislation that we now have before the Senate relates to war criminals in Australia. So there is a big difference between this situation and the matter the honourable gentleman asked about. If there is some validity in the allegations, it would appear from the reports that the person or persons who may be responsible for the wartime atrocity that resulted in the deaths of Australians are overseas. The only evidence we would need then, of course, would be to establish whether we should seek extradition. We have never sought extradition to this country for a war criminal trial. The matter is interesting. It in no way affects our legislation which deals with war criminals in Australia. I do not know whether the honourable gentleman is suggesting that some unknown person in Australia was guilty of those atrocities. Mr Cadman —They are war crimes against Australians. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They are war crimes against Australians overseas and the question arises as to who committed the war crimes. I am posing the question that the law now before the Parliament deals with war criminals in Australia, not war criminals outside Australia. If one were to talk about trying to deal with war criminals outside Australia, one would be dealing with the question of extradition, which is a slightly different procedure. That is the point that the honourable member and I do not know at this stage. I welcome any advice the honourable member wants to give me as to where he thinks we may be able to pursue further inquiries to identify the unknown people who may be guilty of these alleged crimes. Mr SIMMONS —I ask the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy: Can the Minister inform the House what is the role of the Government's rural counselling program and how does it differ from other counselling services available in rural areas? Mr KERIN —The rural counselling program was announced in the Government's economic rural policy statement of April 1986 and came into operation later that year. The Government introduced it because there was clearly a gap in the provision of confidential advice to farm families experiencing financial and, consequently, family and personal pressures. It is important for honourable members to note that it is not a centralised or bureaucratic service. The Federal Government puts up one half of the total costs of operating the scheme and the other half must be found, in cash or in kind, by a local group. The local action group in receipt of the grant must be broadly representative of relevant local interests. These would normally include farmers' organisations, church and welfare groups, local councils, State government organisations and local businesses. It is this group that runs the program, selects and employs the counsellor, and determines the area of operation. This ensures that the service can be targeted to those in greatest need and that the confidential advice provided takes account of local characteristics. Counsellors working within the program provide free advice and help to farm families to assist them to identify their financial and adjustment options and refer them to agencies that can provide other assistance. Recently in Canberra I met with counsellors from the program, and it has been a great success. We have probably got more information out of this program than from any other for the small amount of money that has been committed to it. It is very much a quiet achiever. Currently, 17 counsellors are working throughout Australia and more than 1,500 families have already received financial, personal and management advice from the rural counsellors. That compares with about 400 farmers assisted by the debt mediator program. I would like to acknowledge the work of the rural counsellors, whose skills, devotion, long hours and frequent long journeys are the basis of this successful service. The rural counselling program has the verbal support of the National Farmers Federation and the new President, Mr John Allwright, has indicated that he is very concerned about downstream effects of farm income problems, such as the human and community problems to which I have referred. I would like to commend the service to rural organisations and businesses in the hope that they will be able to provide cash or in kind support in the future for this most useful activity. I particularly thank the honourable member for Calare for his interest in this program in his capacity as a member of the Prime Minister's task force. Mr PETER FISHER —I ask the Minister for Employment, Education and Training whether there is any truth in media reports that the Government intends to introduce an assets test for Austudy applicants. If so, how would such a test affect the eligibility of students from small business or farming families where a substantial capital asset is essential for productivity? Mr DAWKINS —I think the honourable member might be referring to a recommendation in the report of the Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding that the Government should give consideration to the introduction to an assets test on Austudy. The Government has given no consideration to that recommendation and has, therefore, made no decision on it. Mr Chynoweth having addressed a question to the Treasurer-- Mr Donald Cameron-Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. A question asking for comment is out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's question is out of order. He cannot ask for comments. 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- State of the Automotive Industry 1987-Automotive Industry Authority Report-section 8 of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984. New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-section 13 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986. Mr BEAZLEY —I present papers on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accord with the Standing and Sessional Orders of the House: Casino in Canberra-from the member for Fraser-208 petitioners Citizens' initiative and referendum-from the member for Menzies-1 petitioner First international earth repair year-from the member for Phillip-2,016 petitioners Food irradiation-from the member for La Trobe-5,589 petitioners-from the member for Hindmarsh-7,100 petitioners-from the member for Cowan-76 petitioners-from the member for Hotham-5,808 petitioners Fringe benefits tax-from the member for Berowra-384 petitioners Funding for the ABC-from the member for Petrie-766 petitioners-from the member for Moncrieff-58 petitioners Human embryo experimentation-from the member for Denison-767 petitioners Imperial measurement system-from the member for Denison-21 petitioners Income tax pensioner rebate-from the member for Dobell-31 petitioners Midway migrant hostel, Victoria-from the member for La Trobe-95 petitioners Mining and sale of uranium-from the member for Gippsland-396 petitioners North West Cape Naval Communications Base-from the member for La Trobe-286 petitioners Nursing homes-from the member for Kooyong-675 petitioners-from the member for Wakefield-329 petitioners-from the member for Menzies-9 petitioners-from the member for Higgins-1,020 petitioners-from the member for La Trobe-308 petitioners-from the member for Lalor-75 petitioners-from the member for Flinders-293 petitioners-from the member for Bruce-179 petitioners-from the member for Deakin-101 petitioners Release of Mordechi Vanunu-from the member for La Trobe-195 petitioners Superannuation schemes-from the member for Bennelong-526 petitioners Telecom privatisation and time charging-from the member for La Trobe-284 petitioners Telecom time charging-from the member for Flinders-17 petitioners-from the member for Forrest-2,386 petitioners-from the member for Rankin-299 petitioners-from the member for Moreton-9,338 petitioners I inform honourable members that I will do this once more, and after that I ask them to get their petitions in order. Mr SCHOLES(Corio) —So that there can be no doubt, I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask Madam Speaker to ascertain and inform the House of the last date on which this House can sit under the present Constitution. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I shall ensure that a report is brought back at a later hour this day. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I invite the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) to remain in the chamber. The matter concerns a question that the honourable member asked me in the Parliament on 17 May relating to the Bond Corporation and the purchase of shares in the Bell Group. He will recall the thrust of his question asking whether there was concern about that matter on the basis that there had been an infringement of the Companies Code. I am reported in the Press as saying: The Attorney-General yesterday told Parliament there was some validity in the allegations that the Companies Code had been breached in the recent sale of Bell Group shares. That is not exactly what I said. There was some validity in the honourable member's question, and that was what I was saying. The Bond Corporation is concerned at that report and has asked that I should clarify the situation, in fairness and justice to the company, and tell the Parliament that I have no evidence of a breach of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Code involved in the transaction. I do not have any evidence of a breach. The company goes on to say this, which is probably of some public interest: On 29 May we purchased only 19.9% of BGL. We did not, nor have we now, any agreements, arrangements or understandings whatsoever with either the State Government of Western Australia or its instrumentality, the State Government Insurance Commission (``SGIC'') which purchased the balance of the shares sold by Mr Holmes a'Court. Nor, for that matter, were there any arrangements with Mr Holmes a'Court, or members of the Boards of Directors of BGL or Bell Resources Ltd (``BRL''). I thought the letter ought to be put on record. Mr Moore —Will you table it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am happy to table the letter, so it is a matter of record. But in no way do I have any evidence that there has been any breach. Mr Howard —You do not retract what you said? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —What I am reported to have said is not the position. I was saying there was some validity in the allegations made, but the allegations made also related to the question of public concern, and that is one of the issues. Of course, I still have no further information from the National Companies and Securities Commission. Mr Moore —Haven't you rung them up? Mr Howard —Have you spoken to the Treasurer? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I believe the Attorney-General has completed his explanation. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-On 22 August 1985, my predecessor tabled the nine-volume report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam, conducted by Mr Justice Phillip Evatt, DSC-the Evatt Royal Commission. At that time, Senator Gietzelt announced that, on the basis of the scientific, medical, statistical, and other evidence relied upon by the Commission, the Government accepted that the case for a link between agent orange and health problems among Vietnam veterans had not been established. The Government announced its intention to give further close consideration to other specific findings and recommendations of the Commission. In that, it has been ably assisted by a report from Mr R. D. Hogg. The document tabled in November 1987 by Senator McLean and purporting to be the report of Mr Hogg was not the full report. I therefore table Mr Hogg's report as submitted to the Government. I now wish to announce the result of the Government's consideration of these reports. In doing so, I table a schedule outlining the Government's response to each recommendation of the Evatt Royal Commission presented in volume 8 of the Commission's final report. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Evatt report was the statement `Agent Orange Not Guilty', with which the Royal Commission headed the chapter on conclusions in its final report. Wide publicity was given to Mr Hogg's dissatisfaction with that statement. In support of his view, Mr Hogg pointed out that it was too early yet to speak with such absolute certainty. He went on to say however that, leaving aside that heading, there was no convincing argument, no new material presented by the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia (VVAA) or others, to change the underlying conclusions and comments of the Commission. This, and Mr Hogg's judgment that the Commission's conclusions were, in the main, sustainable, did not receive wide publicity. Much of the media and parliamentary attention given to the Evatt Royal Commission and its conclusions has centred on the criticisms made by and through the VVAA. In particular, the VVAA criticised what it saw as bias and plagiarism on the part of the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Evatt. The Government has considered these allegations. The Government's view is that no impropriety arises simply by reason of the fact that the Royal Commissioner adopted, by acknowledged quotation or otherwise, parts of submissions made to him. Further, the Government considers that other general allegations could not be sustained on the material provided by the VVAA. The Government confirms that it does not doubt Mr Justice Evatt's integrity, and notes that his integrity was not questioned by any party at the time of his selection as Royal Commissioner. In addition to its own allegations, the VVAA submitted criticisms by some scientists dissatisfied with the Royal Commissioner's findings or with his treatment of them as witnesses. The Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) examined the VVAA's submissions and made detailed comments on them, including comments on the complaints by Swedish scientists, Drs Hardell and Axelson. In commending the thoroughness and objectivity of the Department's analyses, Mr Hogg expressed the view that the analyses should conclude the Government's responses to matters relating to the conduct of the Evatt inquiry and should be made available to the VVAA. The Government endorses this view, and that material will now be made available. It also endorses the view that the Government should not proceed with any further inquiry into the Evatt Royal Commission's work, as-in Mr Hogg's words-no benefit would accrue to the health of Vietnam veterans from such an inquiry. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government has no option but to endorse the Commission's conclusions on chemicals and health as consistent with the evidence put before the Royal Commissioner. In short, the Commissioner concluded that the exposure of Australian service personnel in Vietnam to chemical agents did not produce dosage levels which would be likely to cause any long term health effects. He also concluded that exposure of fathers to chemicals in Vietnam had not caused, and would not cause, birth defects. As a general statement, veterans and their families can be reassured by the Commissioner's report and his conclusions. The evidence provided by the weight of scientific research and by the available data on cancer incidence among Australian veterans gives a solid basis for the Commission's summary conclusions on cancer. Nevertheless, reservations have been expressed about the Commission's final statement that `service in Vietnam has not and will not cause cancer amongst veterans'. The Government does not intend to leave this potential source of concern unexamined, as I shall explain in more detail when discussing Mr Hogg's recommendations. As to the Commission's recommendations, they are a mixed bag. Some ask the Government to do what it is already doing. Some raise what are, at most, very minor matters. Other recommendations nevertheless propose significant changes in the repatriation system. The Government's response to the Commissioner's recommendations, including those which fall within the portfolio of the Minister for Defence, is contained in the material I have tabled. I propose to speak only to those recommendations which cover matters of some substance. The Commissioner recommended: `that as a matter of policy claims by Vietnam veterans, their widows or dependants based on diseases of the circulatory systems be allowed'. In the same terms he recommended that claims based on alcohol-induced diseases or alcoholism itself be allowed. In volume 5 of his report, though not in his summary of recommendations, he recommended that any mental health disorder should also be accepted as a matter of policy. The basis for these recommendations apparently was that Vietnam service involved stress. Further, alcohol and cigarettes were available in Vietnam and an increase in smoking and drinking could be connected with Vietnam service. These are observations which may be correct. There is, however, a very considerable jump in translating these observations into a recommendation for automatic acceptance of particular conditions for repatriation benefits. To take an extreme example, in relation to circulatory diseases, a veteran who never smoked and never drank but who spent one day in Vietnam could develop a heart condition 50 years after that day in Vietnam. If accepted, the Commissioner's proposal would mean that any claim for the heart condition would be automatically allowed under the repatriation system. Australia's repatriation system is already among the most generous in the world, and the Government is unable to agree to the proposed automatic acceptance of pension claims for the stated health conditions. Under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the Repatriation Commission is required to determine that an incapacity or death-claimed as related to the veteran's operational service-is war-caused unless the Commission is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination. The Act provides that the Commission shall be so satisfied if it is of the opinion that the material before it does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the incapacity or death with the veteran's operational service. Cases are considered on their merits, taking account of known medical and other evidence. This approach will continue to be adopted. The Commissioner sought an expanded role for the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service (VVCS). The VVCS, he recommended, should become a short term statutory authority, function as a mediator between veterans and government agencies, provide an advisory service on repatriation entitlements, issue travel warrants to veterans, and educate the community regarding the Commissioner's findings on agent orange. The National Advisory Committee on the VVCS has pointed out that development of the service would be delayed if a separate organisation with its own administrative structure had to be established, that the VVCS should not attempt to provide services and information to veterans which could be provided better by other organisations or by officers of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and that it was inappropriate for senior counsellors to perform the administrative function of issuing travel warrants. The Government shares these views. As to an educative role for the VVCS outside its own services and clients, the Government considers that a general community educational role could be counterproductive to good relations between the VVCS and its clients. The role of the VVCS is to provide counselling for Vietnam veterans in need. The additional roles which the Commissioner seeks would inhibit the ability of the VVCS to carry out its primary task. In responding to the Commission's concern about veterans in remote areas, however, the Government has decided to increase VVCS funding to ensure a better service for country veterans and their families. This decision is consistent with the Government's concern that people living in country areas have an equitable access to government services. The VVCS will be able to begin recruitment action designed to add six full time positions to its staff. The aim will be for the extra staff to organise networks in country areas, employing local personnel on a part time basis and providing up to 1,000 hours of fee-for-service counselling. To ensure that these additional resources are employed to the best advantage of veterans and their families, and to provide a basis for government decisions on the level of assistance in future years, the use made of VVCS services will be closely monitored. I should make it clear that this announcement does not pre-empt the work presently being carried out by the House Standing Committee on Community Affairs. The Committee will be reporting on matters of detail which will assist in determining the future scope and extent of work by the counselling service. I expect to be considering the Committee's report later this year. In the body of his report the Commissioner referred to the provision of half-way homes or hostels for veterans. The Government has already provided support to assist in setting up an emergency accommodation centre for veterans in Queensland. Where the need for short term emergency accommodation is demonstrated and the Government is satisfied that an applicant group has the necessary management expertise and community support, the Government is prepared to contribute, in the form of a seeding grant, towards establishing further community-based facilities. It is proposed to earmark up to $400,000 for this purpose over the next two years. Submissions developed by the ex-service community will be considered on their merits. The Commission recommended that the Government erect a Vietnam veterans monument. The Australian War Memorial has been established as the national monument to the veterans of all the wars in which Australia has been engaged. An important aspect of this monument is the commemoration of veterans fallen in all wars, including the Vietnam conflict, by inscription of their names on the cloistral walls of the memorial. Some veterans associations have seen fit to erect their own monuments in the national capital. A committee representing a broad spectrum of Vietnam ex-service groups has sought approval to erect a memorial in Canberra. In processing the application, the Canberra National Memorials Committee will consider the range of sites which might be suitable. The next step would then be for the ex-service committee to make a detailed submission, including design and costing, for a specific form of memorial. Subject to the result of the National Memorials Committee's examination of any such proposal, the Government would be prepared to offer some financial assistance to the ex-service committee. Mr Hogg made a number of recommendations in his report. Some of these, including matters already alluded to in the Evatt recommendations, are covered elsewhere in this statement or in the schedule to it. The most significant Hogg report recommendations I have not so far referred to are a series of proposals for further scientific studies. I do not propose to comment on two of Mr Hogg's proposals-for studies of agricultural workers and of women exposed to phenoxy herbicides-because of their lack of relevance to the specific issue of veterans' exposure to chemicals in Vietnam. Other studies he suggested were a regular update of the earlier Australian mortality study, reactivation of the morbidity study referred to in the Evatt Royal Commission and investigation of possible health effects arising from the use of dapsone. It should be noted that Mr Hogg himself said, `. . . it is conclusive that there is no marked difference in the level and nature of illnesses between Vietnam veterans and Army personnel who did not serve'. As to mortality, the additional number of deaths available for analysis since the previous study would probably be too few at present to confirm or refute the findings of that study. As to morbidity, the Government had concluded earlier that such a study could not answer questions as to chemical causation, a conclusion which the United States Government also appears to have reached after expenditure of many millions of dollars. The Australian pilot study had given cause for concern about the likelihood of reaching the necessary high contact and response rates and had indicated that, with veterans more motivated to participate than non-veterans, the difference in response rates could be marked and introduce distortions to a study. Clearly, in addition to overall mortality, Mr Hogg saw the incidence of cancer as a continuing issue of concern. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has already established a Vietnam veterans data base which contains, inter alia, details of causes of deaths. The Government is of the view that a more cost-effective approach to monitoring mortality or cancer incidence is to use the DVA's records, supplemented by information from State death and cancer registries. The Department will use its own staff to maintain, update and improve the date base and extract material for analysis as required. The Department will also continue to monitor relevant overseas research. Mr Hogg's final research proposal was that the Government immediately establish an epidemiological study into the possible health effects of the anti-malarial drug dapsone. The Government agrees with Mr Hogg-and with Mr Justice Evatt-that research into the cancer-causing potential of dapsone is desirable. It does not, however, support a wider investigation into all possible effects of the drug, given that dapsone's use for various medical purposes has resulted in an extensive knowledge of reactions it can cause. The National Health and Medical Research Council will be asked to advise on the feasibility of a study into whether dapsone is carcinogenic in man. We have come a long way since fears about agent orange first emerged among Australian veterans. Milestones along that road in Australia have included the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment in 1982, the Government sponsored birth defects and mortality studies, and in America the Ranch Hand and Centres for Disease Control studies. Soon after this Government came into office, it set up a wide-ranging royal commission which brought many leading international scientists here and visited others overseas in its search for the facts. Since becoming Minister I have ensured that the Royal Commission report, subsequent VVAA submissions and the Hogg report received thorough examination before Cabinet considered the whole issue. The Government believes that too many Vietnam veterans' lives have been disrupted by fears about agent orange and other chemicals. In endorsing the view that any exposure of Australians to chemical agents in Vietnam would be unlikely to cause long term adverse health effects, the Government in no way steps aside from its commitment to help veterans. Its latest decisions reinforce the measures in place to provide continuing assistance to veterans and their families. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer) —by leave-At the outset I would like to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) for the courtesies he has extended with regard to this very important ministerial statement on agent orange. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the National President of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia (VVAA), Mr Tim McCombe, and the role played by his association in particular, along with many other veterans organisations, including the Returned Services League of Australia (RSL) in respect of Vietnam veterans. It is now 2 years and 9 months since the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam report, the agent orange report, was tabled in Parliament. Furthermore, it is now six months since the Hogg report, less one page, on that Royal Commission was tabled in the Senate. It has now been retabled today. It has to be said that the ministerial statement made today is long overdue. Indeed, for too many it is too little too late. The delays have exacerbated the concerns of many Vietnam veterans. As the Minister said in his statement, for too long there has been concern over agent orange and its impact on the health of veterans and generally. The delays have contributed to problems associated with the collective image of Vietnam veterans. In many ways this whole area was addressed in a very proper way with the very successful National Welcome Home Parade held in Sydney last October. It made an outstanding contribution to helping many Vietnam veterans individually and contributed in giving a positive boost to the overall image of Vietnam veterans in the community at large. It is time this nation and this Parliament fully recognised the highly disciplined and entirely professional contribution made by Australian soldiers in Vietnam, often in the most difficult conditions and circumstances. I was pleased to support a resolution that was adopted by this House and the Senate last year with regard to the contribution made by Australian soldiers in Vietnam. The service given by Vietnam veterans was of the same high standard as established by the Australian Anzacs and as maintained in other theatres of war in which Australian soldiers participated. For the record, I should point out to the House that 49,211 Australians served in Vietnam in the period 1962 to 1973. The total battle deaths were 427. The total non-battle deaths were 74, giving an overall total of 501. The total number of casualties, injuries and illnesses was 3,131. In the month of May 1988 it is particularly relevant that we are considering this statement because it commemorates the twentieth anniversary of Fire Support Base Coral in which many of us were involved. Mr Lex McAulay has written a book on Fire Support Base Coral. He is well qualified to do so because he is a rare Australian, having served no fewer than three times in Vietnam. In launching that book in Canberra last Monday night Mr McAulay said that he had at no stage witnessed any specific war crimes or any war criminal activity being committed by Australian soldiers in Vietnam. It is relevant to highlight that because we often see today, especially coming out of Hollywood, a series of films which would give one a false picture of the activity in Vietnam. It is important that we place on the record of the House a true and balanced picture with regard to service in Vietnam. It must also be said that the alienation of many Vietnam veterans was not unique to this particular group of returned soldiers: World War II veterans in many cases felt alienated from the previous generation of World War I veterans. For a period there were difficulties in veterans organisations. When World War II veterans returned they were told by World War I veterans that they had not fought in a real war. Although this experience was probably very limited, it nevertheless did exist-in the same way that Vietnam veterans in some but not all RSL clubs and other veterans organisations felt intense alienation. On the plus side, I should say that there were RSL clubs such as the Granville RSL club which went out of their way in the opposite direction to extend a welcome to Vietnam veterans. I was there along with the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) last Friday as members of the Standing Committee on Community Affairs and, once again, we were assisted by the facilities provided by that club. There was another group which had a legitimate reason to feel alienation. I refer to the prisoners of war who came back from World War II. The honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) and I had the privilege of visiting part of the Burma death railway some two years ago and then of meeting with a number of the prisoners of war from it. Undeniably, they must have felt absolute anxiety as they came alongside the wharves in Australia. Having come back as prisoners of war, quite often they received a very indifferent reception from the people at the wharves and from the system in place at the time. These things are overcome only after a long period of healing and, to some extent, that is happening. It is tremendous that it is happening: full credit to those involved who helped bring about real progress in this regard, especially with the National Welcome Home Parade. I turn to the statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In complaining that it is long overdue I must be fair and point out that the Minister has occupied this job for less than a year, since the last election. So the delays relate as much to the Government as they do to the Minister. Let me tell the House of the chronological record. August 1980 saw comparative studies of pesticides used in Vietnam and in Australian agriculture. On 19 January 1982 the then coalition Government opened the first Vietnam veterans counselling service in Adelaide. The Federal Labor Government, on 13 May 1983, shortly after it gained office, in accordance with its election promise, established the agent orange Royal Commission under Commissioner Evatt. In July 1985 that Royal Commission reported to the Government and the report was tabled on 22 August 1985. That was a very moving day. It was particularly moving to see the late Phil Thompson conduct a Press conference in the Senate committee room under King's Hall. He was suffering very real hardship and personal health problems at the time. Nevertheless, he carried the battle forward for the Vietnam Veterans Association on an extremely difficult day for him with what is now deemed a flawed report. In passing, once again I pay tribute to the work and role of Mr Phil Thompson with regard to the welfare of Vietnam veterans. In November 1985 we saw a comprehensive critique issued by the Vietnam Veterans Association. Eventually, that led to the decision in March 1987 to appoint Mr Bob Hogg to report on the Royal Commission's report on agent orange. But what happened during the period of his activity in reporting on the Royal Commission report? Mr Hogg was given leave-to do what? He was given leave to act as an Australian Labor Party campaign worker in the Federal election of July 1987. A further delay ensued but I do not want to dwell on that aspect; I will pursue it on a more appropriate occasion. In October 1987 the Hogg report on the Royal Commission report was issued and a further six months delay occurred before, finally, today the Minister for Veterans' Affairs brought down his ministerial statement. Those delays, which have been far too long, have added to the problem. I sheet home the blame for those delays to this Government, as it has been in office for the entire time since the report of the agent orange royal commission was handed down. I believe that the Government has directly added to the problem. Hopefully, there will be no further delays in implementing those recommendations that have been adopted. The Minister's response in many ways is a limited response because some of the recommendations of the Evatt Royal Commission report have been rejected. I commend to honourable members the schedule-I am not sure whether the Minister has tabled it yet; presumably he will table it shortly-because the ministerial statement should be read in conjunction with the schedule table, which gives the exact response to each of the recommendations of the report of the agent orange royal commission. Clearly, the major thrust of that report was the controversial finding regarding agent orange. I note the careful wording chosen by the Minister with regard to that part of the report. I acknowledge what the Government has determined with regard to the causal linkage which may exist between chemicals and the level of dosage which was encountered by Australian soldiers serving in Vietnam. I accept that there is a need to circulate information with regard to that key finding of both the Royal Commission and Mr Hogg that there is no direct linkage which might impact on the long term health of Vietnam veterans. I accept that we must encourage Vietnam veterans to receive that information, act on it and get on with their lives. Equally, I am sure that the Minister would agree that, given the nature of medical science today and given the nature of the developments which occur, which were not previously anticipated, in regard to chemical development and diseases related to chemicals, it would be unwise completely to close the door to look at what might come up in light of additional scientific work in the future. Certainly, for my part, I will continue to monitor that additional scientific work to see whether further light may be thrown on the application and impact of agent orange and its usage in Vietnam and elsewhere. In his statement the Minister also proposed an increase of six staff in the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service (VVCS). That is also welcome. It is a step in the right direction. It is a limited step. There are 3,500 staff under the Minister, excluding repatriation and general hospitals and other institutions. I was pleased to highlight that fact in recent committee proceedings. I am delighted, if not as a consequence of that particular effort then as a consequence of all the representations that have been made by many bodies, that at last the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service is to receive the increase in staff of six which was recommended some time ago. That will help the VVCS. I do not know what else will be left for the standing committee to do with regard to its report, but there are other important aspects relating to the Service which no doubt that committee will report on in the not too distant future. Hopefully, that too, will be acted on quickly by the Minister and the Government. We welcome the fact that other recommendations were picked up in the Minister's statement. We believe that they will be acted on quickly. Equally, there are other recommendations which have already been adopted and are part of normal practice. I acknowledge that; it is as it should be. On the fundamental question of an epidemiological study, the Minister has failed to persuade Cabinet-if he set out to do so; I am not sure of that, and he might like to tell the House of that on another occasion-regarding that important overall study. It has been rejected by the Government even though it was recommended by both the Evatt Royal Commission and the Hogg report. As the National President of the VVAA has said in his media release, it is an area of disappointment for Vietnam veterans. As we look to the future with regard to the Vietnam chapter, we should put in context not only the highly disciplined and capable service given by Vietnam veterans but also, equally, the fact that the majority of them have had the good luck to be able to return to this country, to take up citizenship, to fulfil that citizenship in a meaningful way to get on with their lives as hard workers contributing to the community. Unfortunately other Vietnam veterans have been bedevilled by a massive degree of sickness since returning from Vietnam, including massive psychological disorders and the like. They must be helped. It is a continuing obligation on the part of this Parliament and this Government to see that they are helped. We must focus more attention on the condition of post-traumatic stress disorder to learn more about those problems and the way we can help those Vietnam veterans overcome their problems and resume as normal lives as possible. We cannot take away from them the fact that they have legitimate hardships and legitimate conditions. They have recognised conditions, particularly in regard to post-traumatic stress disorder. It is a continuing obligation on this Parliament and this Government to those who serve their country in time of war to look after those Vietnam veterans in a meaningful way. The Opposition is delighted that finally the Government has produced a ministerial statement detailing its response to the agent orange royal commission report which was tabled 2 years and 9 months ago. It serves notice that it will continue to monitor closely the Government's implementation of the comments and contents of the ministerial statement in the interests of Vietnam veterans, who have a right to be very proud of the service that they gave for their country in a very difficult conflict. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The increasing inappropriateness of Labor's `three mine policy' on uranium mining and export. 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 SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.28) —Yesterday's balance of payments figure brought home, if nothing else, the significance of the elements that add to our export returns and those that prejudice them. Perhaps the most significant aspect of yesterday's figures was the content on the improvement in exports. Without spending a great deal of time talking about this, I make the point that everybody looking at the analysis would have been impressed by the fact that the rise recorded in all commodity groups was a significant element that added to the dimension of what appeared to be a far better than expected result for the month, which was certainly in marked contrast to that of the month before. The important aspect of those commodity price rises is that, as the Australian Bureau of Statistics commented on yesterday's figures, not only were rises recorded in all commodity groups, but the main increases were in metal ores and minerals, with about two-thirds of the increase due to uranium. Uranium exports in this month's figures contributed an additional $78m to the export earnings of this country. I think it is particularly appropriate, at a time when within the Australian Labor Party there seem to be a few elements still violently opposed to the commonsense approach about uranium exports, that we in this House look at the consequences for Australia. That is not what the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and others of his ilk seem to be looking at when they pursue a narrow, self-centred, ideologically prejudiced cause. I have little doubt that at the forthcoming biennial conference of the Labor Party, the left wing will ensure that all the shackles are placed on the few in the Labor Party who are prepared to consider uranium exports rationally and the left wing will extract its pound of flesh. For Australia it is not only the monetary return that is of concern. Commonsense should prevail in the Labor Party Caucus, which should consider the traditional landowners in the areas of significant uranium deposits, proper and environmentally sympathetic development of those regions, the contribution they will make to both population growth and the development of urban communities and provision of employment in those regions, and ensuring that extraordinarily tight uranium safeguards are imposed. There is not too much commonsense in the Labor Caucus. One of the most disappointing features is that a few of the lesser known and not particularly significant members of the back bench of the Labor Party have been left with the job of reasonably advocating the cause. I am disappointed that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), who should be at the forefront of trying to change the minds and views of Labor Caucus, has not taken a more notable stance in trying to move away from the three-mine policy. That is what the uranium issue is all about. All honourable members know Nabarlek is progressively running down and shortly we will have only two mines. Honourable members should bear in mind the first statistics-that $78m of the improved balance of payments returns yesterday were directly attributed to uranium receipts-and that it would be absolute stupidity for the Labor Party not to accept that the three-mine policy has to go and that the three-mine policy, which is about to be the two-mine policy, should be expanded into a rational assessment of exports or uranium subject to safeguards. Exports should be allowed. The real problem in the Labor Party is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is not prepared to stand up for what he believes is right. Honourable members have seen that on successive occasions. The consequence of that will be that, instead of a rational debate proceeding, the Prime Minister will try to duck and weave on the two issues of the most importance to the Australian community: firstly, to adopt a reasonable policy for uranium; and, secondly, to do something reasonable about privatisation. Neither issue will be allowed to surface because the Labor Party is no longer in control of what it believes should be right for Australia because its policies will be entirely directed and manipulated by the left wing. I wish the few members like the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon), the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) well in their cause, because there is a rational basis on which uranium exports should be permitted and uranium mines should be opened and extended, subject not only to our uranium safeguards but also to appropriate environmental safeguards in this country. Both conditions are practical. On that basis the coalition would move in permitting uranium exports. It is important to understand that not only does an immediate opportunity exist but also that by post-1992 world demands for uranium for the generation of nuclear power will increase and the prospects are bright for many contracts being made available in the various countries around the world that permit nuclear power generation. Beyond that, the prospects for quantity and price returns are also good. Many honourable members would know that currently world uranium prices-certainly those that affect Australia's exports-are determined largely by the Canadians. With the announcement on 3 March last that the two state owned agencies in Canada-Eldorado Nuclear and Saskatchewan Mining and Development Corporation-are to be merged to create the world's largest integrated uranium company, the competition among those two giant companies will no longer exist and uranium prices will probably be increased. With the prospect of their privatisation by 1995, in the mid period when the next term contracts will be available, Australia will have the opportunity not only of selling uranium but also of negotiating a far better price. Even in Energy 2000, the national energy policy paper, an assessment was made that if exports were permitted, Australia has a reasonable basis on which it might obtain one-third of totally uncommitted Western world demand for uranium for the generation of nuclear energy. Mr Bilney —At least. Mr SINCLAIR —At least. I was about to say that to my mind, those figures underestimate the situation significantly. Australia has a real and probable opportunity of filling that gap and, unless it starts selling uranium now and negotiating now, the Canadians in particular will take advantage of Australia. Anyone who has any doubts, like the honourable member for La Trobe, should read the national energy policy paper. The paper is not anywhere near as generous in its assessment of the prospects of uranium exports but little doubt exists, considering Australia's prospects for a market share, Australia will not be selling uranium if its ban remains but countries like South Africa will, and then the fears the honourable member pretends to have will be realised. The world will not have uranium sourced in countries that impose safeguards like those we impose on our uranium; it will be sourced in other countries such as some in South America and South Africa, where probably far less of a safeguard will be applied to that uranium in the future climate of nuclear power generation. In a few minutes, my colleague the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) will deal in more detail with the contract gap. I want to consider the circumstances of who will benefit if a development of more than three mines is allowed and the opportunities in Australia. All honourable members would remember that, when the Labor Party took office, nine or 10 mines had reached the point of having identified the uranium resource and were in a position, had they been allowed to export uranium, to bring significant benefits to the Aborigines who lived in the areas and to foster Australia's exports. For example, we have Jabiluka and Koongarra in the Northern Territory; in Western Australia, Yeelirrie, Kintyre and Ben Lomond; in South Australia, we have Beverley and Honeymoon. At present all those mining prospects are virtually shut down and are not able to proceed in a rational, orderly way simply because the Labor Party is not permitting them to do so, despite the fact that Nabarlek is not being permitted to export uranium. One of the interesting aspects of the community debate is that a number of Labor members have been prepared openly and honestly to lay down their views on the situation. I pay credit to the honourable member for Northern Territory. If only he were able to persuade a few of his colleagues to support the views that are included in the paper that he produced on uranium mining. These views have been necessary because of the blatant prejudice demonstrated by the honourable member for La Trobe in his assessment of the consequences of uranium exports on Australia. Members on the Opposition side of the House are not trying to intervene in the interfaction fights in the Labor Party-we know they happen all the time. But we are concerned that the product of the prejudiced approach to uranium exports in the so-called Milton paper is such that people will not be able to understand that, if development and expansion from the three-mine policy is not allowed, the Aborigines will suffer. One only has to consider the enormous returns. On earlier occasions I have read out correspondence from various representatives of the Aboriginal people who believe strongly that the mines in the north could have brought them significant rewards. At Koongarra at the moment there is a window. The Denison operators not only have said that they are prepared to provide fair returns to the Aboriginal people but also have identified a very real equity for those Aboriginal landholders. They have given them something like a 25 per cent share in the project and have told them that, if this Government is not prepared to change its three-mine policy, instead of very considerable economic benefits being brought to the people of Koongarra, that contract will go to Canada. With the prospect of its big State-owned mines being amalgamated and then privatised, there is little doubt that Canada will be able to provide those contracts without any difficulty at all. Let me give honourable members some idea of the prospects. The Koongarra mine in the Northern Territory could go into production immediately. It has something like 32 million pounds of yellowcake, and that has already been sold at prices in excess of the Australian floor price. This represents a potential export revenue to Australia of $2 billion from 1991 to 2001, at 1984 prices. The real point about this is that now is the time to permit these mines to start negotiating their contracts, because Koongarra has that contract at the point where there is a window in the availability of opportunities to sell uranium for energy generation around the world. From 1992 onwards there will be a particularly significant shortage of uranium in the United States of America, but there are shortages in other countries too. Now is the golden opportunity for the Australian Labor Party to throw aside the prejudices of its Left and to say that the three-mine policy is not the way to go and that there is no basis on which one can say that there is good uranium and bad uranium. The Labor Party has to forgo its political prejudices and accept that, subject to proper uranium safeguards and subject to the proper interests of the indigenous land-holders and the environmental concerns being protected, uranium should be allowed to be exported from mines around Australia. Indeed, we know that the Gagadju people, who own the land at Koongarra, have signed an agreement with Denison. As I mentioned, it gives them a 25 per cent equity in the mine as joint venturers. It will bring them a return of more than a quarter of a billion dollars over 10 years. Yet it is the prejudices of the left wing of the Labor Party, which pretends to be interested in Aborigines, which are going to stop them taking advantage of that opportunity. There are very real reasons for Australia's sake, on an economic basis and on the basis of a concern for the people of the region and a concern for Aborigines, why the present three-mine policy of the Labor Party has to be scrapped. It should never have been introduced in the first place. It is there only on the basis of a compromise among Labor's factions. Australia's need for export returns has never been greater. As I remarked, this month the balance of payments figures show $78m from uranium. The opportunities are there economically. For goodness sake, members of the Australian Labor Party must get their heads out of the sand and put Australia's interests first. It is too late in the day for them to continue to live in yesteryear. We have to get that three-mine policy lifted. It is up to the members of the right wing of the Labor Party to put those left wing members where they jolly well should be-out of the Parliament altogether. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(3.44) —Here again we have an example of the tired, lazy old Opposition jumping on any band wagon. On this issue it really did not have a policy when it was in government, and we do not know what its policy is now. As a matter of fact, it had a two-mine policy, and that was the result of very extensive inquiries and the problems that it faced in government with this industry. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) started off his address here today by talking about the balance of payments effect. Of course, he exhibits here the danger of grasping one month's figures. Because uranium goes out in large shipments, of course it will be recorded in the figures for any one particular month. More importantly, what I think he should have been pointing to is that the level of exports of uranium from this country are increasing and the value is going up. But this Government does have a policy about the mineral. All this bleating about Aboriginal rights must be a new twist. For the National Party of Australia to be supporting Aborigines in the mining industry, I would suggest, is a very new twist indeed. To be bleating about this and also to be talking about the environment, with the history that the National Party has on those sorts of issues, associated with the mining industry, is massive hypocrisy. The Leader of the National Party also says-and this is an example of his logic-that two Canadian companies are going to get together and prices will increase. Let us look at that logic. If that logic is accepted, prices will fall when new Australian companies are introduced into the mining scene here. That is rather a nonsense argument. He says that Koongarra can open immediately; later on he says that it cannot open until 1991, and 1991 is probably the date if the go-ahead were given now. But this is the Opposition just jumping onto any old band wagon. A few months ago the Opposition was prompted by the Esso Australia Ltd advertising campaign on petroleum and when it jumped onto that band wagon it again exhibited the fact that it did not really understand the far more sensible taxation and exploration policies that we have put in place, compared with those when it was in government. Today it is uranium, mainly of course because of the coming Australian Labor Party biennial conference. There is going to be a very healthy debate in the Australian Labor Party on this issue and, of course, would-be miners of uranium are being assiduous in their lobbying. Yesterday a paper was released by CRA Ltd, using an Orani model. I simply point out that, although a case is made there, I think Orani has very little applicability and we should not take its end point estimates as having any significance in fact. I have three mining industries that are tinged with controversy and emotion. If I may indulge myself, they are gold, coal and uranium. We are told that the gold industry can survive only if it is not taxed, and the multinational companies that take half of the profits of the industry threaten to bring down any government that touches the taxation regime or the lack of it. Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal, yet sellers cannot get a high enough price to stop mines shutting down. The workers want a bureaucracy to plan the industry's development and set prices. The coal industry and its structure, of course, are of some significance to the uranium industry, because we have oversupply. Then there is uranium. Some in the community want to shut the industry down. The Senate bears testimony to this. Others, mainly the Opposition, want open slather, regardless of any notion of an industry policy and mainly for ideological reasons. The Opposition's case today was all on the basis that uranium is not different from any other mineral. My view is that for existing mines we do have to exercise judgment as to what are the interests of the country, the industry and its well-being. I also believe that uranium cannot be simply regarded as the same as any other mineral. The discussion and debate in Australia and worldwide for a long period confirms this statement. Uranium is dangerous to mine in some circumstances. Uranium's derivative, plutonium, is used to make atomic weapons. I suggest that peace is the world's biggest issue. Nuclear proliferation has to be prevented, so we have in place a comprehensive system of elaborate safeguards. Uranium waste and nuclear by-products are extremely dangerous to handle and extremely dangerous to life. The human health risks from any nuclear accident are large, and we have only to take into account the Chernobyl accident. It is for some of these reasons, as well as political opportunism and a denigration of science, that uranium is of such concern in the political process and the politics of this country and other countries. Opponents of uranium and anything associated with it misrepresent facts, truth and logic. Other use facts, truth and logic to fortify their arguments. It is really a question of value judgments, and the fact that value judgments are exercised again indicates the nature of this debate. I recently had a discussion with Senator Sanders. While sitting in his office in Australia, he can tell me what happens in France because it is in his book. When I ask for the source of what is in his book, he tells me that it is in his book. So perhaps someone should write two books. The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), I am told, is the Euratom Safeguards Directorate because the word `Euratom' appears in the name of both organisations. I think that is a rather peculiar connection to make. People do not accept the theory of equivalence in the safeguards regime. Flag swaps, which can also be described as safeguards obligations, are misrepresented and are often represented as international flag swaps, which are something entirely different. I made a statement that we cannot track every atom of Australian uranium through the process of converting uranium into fuel rods, and that was misrepresented to say that ipso facto Australian uranium goes into French atomic bombs. It is just a nonsense statement to make. We have in place a comprehensive system of safeguards. I think anyone would admit that uranium is a different mineral on the basis of that fact alone. Of course, members of the Opposition when in government treated this mineral very differently-in keeping with their perceptions of the different nature of it. Of course, in those days the then Leader of the National Party was one of the high regulators of mineral exports. So I am saying that uranium cannot be viewed solely in terms of gross revenue to be gained. There are costs and benefits to be taken into account when looking at the industry in purely industry terms. Looking at the industry in economic terms-accepting what I have said about the very different nature of the mineral-I am also saying that at this time there is no overwhelming economic imperative for expansion of the industry. We are talking about estimates of world supply and demand. Of course, members of the Opposition here today are the same people who talked up the so-called resources boom. It is hypocrisy for the coalition to talk about the inappropriateness of Government policy when it has never had a policy itself. There is not much sense in its attacking us for having a three named mines policy when it had a two mines policy and when it had set a minimum price. To some extent we are carrying on exactly what honourable members opposite did. So I do not know why the heck they are attacking us because we have one more mine than they did. What has really happened is that the coalition has simply taken ad hoc decisions in response to whatever figures happen to be floating around at the time, and it has left the uranium companies, quite naturally, in a state of confusion. When the party of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was in power it did not move to open up the uranium industry. That Government ineffectively fiddled around the edges. The then Government, in its response to the report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, said that it would consider proposals for other projects once environmental and Aboriginal welfare criteria had been met. But, to use the then Prime Minister's words-honourable members will all remember Mr Fraser-that consideration would be `without commitment to order or timing of development'. That was that Government's policy-without commitment to order or timing of development. There was, to quote one commentator: `a widely held view outside Canberra, that Liberal meddling and lack of nerve had damaged Australian uranium'. That is how inappropriate that Government's approach was. It was Doug Anthony who introduced quite sharp export controls on price back in the late 1970s. The Government got into export controls trying to hold prices for existing mines. At the same time Mr Anthony was citing the economic benefits of a uranium enrichment plant. The Government was reported to be having so much difficulty in selling its share of Ranger uranium that the Ranger holding was disposed of late that year. This Government and this Party have a clearly stated policy on the mines which are to be allowed to mine and export uranium. It is determined by the Party's conference; it is publicly available; and those with uranium interests should be more than aware of what it says. No amount of steamroller tactics on the part of the Opposition will force the Government to adopt the conservatives' make it up on the run approach-or open slather for ideological reasons. Party policy will be determined at the Party's National Conference, with due regard to various points of view, and then, as always, it will be clearly set out for all who are interested. As I said earlier, we will have a very healthy debate. Let us look at uranium supply and demand, which is the basis of what I am saying about this industry in purely economic terms. Estimates from international agencies of demand for uranium in non-communist countries in 1990 vary from 44,500 tonnes to 49,000 tonnes. Similarly, demand for 1995 is variously estimated at 50,000 to 52,000 tonnes. Data on demand and supply for centrally planned economies is relatively difficult to obtain. But the Nuclear Energy Agency estimates production from existing and committed production centres at around 48,000 tonnes of uranium in 1990 and 47,500 tonnes in 1995. Given that current non-communist uranium stockpiles are reliably estimated at around 145,000 tonnes-or three to four years forward reactor requirements, when the normal level would be two to 2 1/2 years requirement-non-communist production capacity, combined with inventory drawdown, could be seen to be meeting requirements until 1995. The reason why prices are hard to hold at present is that this inventory is holding down prices-there is a stock overhang. Perhaps the best guide to the actual demand for Australian uranium in the 1990s can be seen in relation to anticipated uncommitted uranium demand; that is, demand not already under contract. Estimates suggest that in the early 1990s uncommitted demand will be around 15,000 tonnes per year. Realistically, I believe that Australia could not expect to gain more than one-third of this quantity-and that is around 5,000 tonnes of uranium, which is about equivalent to 6,000 tonnes of U308. Given that the Ranger mine has the capacity to expand production to around 6,000 tonnes per annum, and that the Olympic Dam has an anticipated total capacity of around 4,000 tonnes, existing operations could be expected to be able to meet uranium demand well into the early 1990s. I will be very honest. Admittedly this assessment is something of a simplification of the world market. Various companies have claimed that, through special relationships with uranium buyers, they have access to market windows not available to existing Australian suppliers. The argument from each individual company is that it could gain substantial sales without displacing the market share of existing mines. But this, of course, would get us into the whole regime of what is a special contract and what would be the sequence. The simple fact is that all the would-be miners would say that they have contracts. If we had open slather and all these would-be miners' would-be contracts were exercised, enormous pressures would be placed on the economic well-being of the existing mines. I believe that what I have said is an accurate description of the uranium industry in Australia, taking into account what I have said about the mineral being not just like any other mineral and taking into account the industry that we have. At this time there is no overwhelming economic reason why we should change the policy which we have. Mr SMITH(Bass)(3.57) —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), in his speech just a moment ago, made this observation: `Here we go, the Opposition just wants to make political capital out of this particular issue'. Far from it. This is the second matter of public importance on this subject we have had this year. We had the first in February and we want to keep raising this issue until the Government comes to its senses and takes policy directions which will be to the benefit of the majority of Australians. The reason we are having a matter of public importance debate today is the inappropriateness of this Government's particular policies; but more particularly it is that we have this amazing situation. One of the honourable members who caused this situation is sitting in this House, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney). I mention also Senator Collins, the Australian Labor Party senator for the Northern Territory. These people have issued papers which indicate quite clearly that the Government is floundering and they are getting no leadership from the Cabinet as to the direction in which they ought to be going. It is all right for the Minister to dive down that burrow and say that the Party will talk about the matter in Hobart. The rest of Australia wants to know what is going to happen now. The Minister said that in February. While we are rubbing our hands and watching the Canadians take all the benefits of the international uranium markets, Australia is missing out. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) detailed the extent of that loss. Indeed, the trade figures that came out yesterday showed that a figure in the vicinity of $75m from uranium sales meant the difference between a good balance of trade figure and a bad balance of trade figure. It is interesting to look at what the Minister said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio in February of this year. He said: It was made very clear at the time of the Treasurer's Budget statement and those of the then Minister (Mr Dawkins) that we had decided that the party's policy, given the trade situation at the time, was a hollow gesture and that all we were doing was hurting our own country. The Minister admitted it then, in February; yet he will not do anything about it now. The Minister says that we have to wait until the factions have sorted themselves out. It is simply not good enough. What did the Australian Financial Review say in its editorial as long ago as January? It said: . . . the Labor Party, elected to govern Australia for the benefit of the people as a whole, still allows itself to be intimidated by this pathetic rump of Neanderthal pretenders to a power base that no longer exists. Just a moment ago the Minister, bless him, adopted the arguments of Mr Milton. What happened last night on The World Tonight? Mr Milton put those very economic arguments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Bass to refer to the honourable member for La Trobe by his electorate. Mr SMITH —The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) said that he was concerned that the economic arguments did not demand that Australia export its uranium. Mr Milton —Using the same words as the Minister. Mr SMITH —Exactly, that is my point. All of a sudden the Left is joining with the Minister. I do not know whether the Minister feels comfortable about that. Let me refer to what Mr Bilney said in his paper. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Again I ask the honourable member for Bass to refer to honourable members by their electorates. Mr SMITH —He calls it the Bilney report; why does he not call it the Kingston report? The honourable member for Kingston commissioned a study by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. He touted it as the first time that a study of that sort had been done to gauge the damage that would be done to Australia and is being done unless we get rid of the three-mine policy. The report shows that in 1992 an extra 240,000 jobs and an extra $5 billion would be the benefit to Australia if it proceeded. Why did the Minister not refer to that report? Why were those figures ignored? I now refer to yesterday's Australian. In an interesting report, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that Dr Reynolds, a visiting American, should not be listened to. Dr Reynolds's advice to Australia and his observations about Australia can be encapsulated in what he said: `It looks like it's a big country that thinks small'. The editorial in the Australian states: Dr Reynolds brings the freshness of an outsider to the analysis of problems with which we are too depressingly familiar. It remains fundamentally a question of will, the will to change. That is what the debate is about-whether the Labor Party has the will to change and take a policy direction that will be to the benefit of this country with regard to the three-mine uranium policy. The paper of the honourable member for Kingston, which is referred to as the Bilney report, says that Australia should be proceeding down that path. Senator Collins from the Northern Territory also issued a report in which he said that we ought to be proceeding. Those two reports answer the fundamental questions the Minister raised about whether there is demand. I want to put to bed the myth that the demand is not there. Just a moment ago when talking about this issue-it took him about 10 minutes to get to the nub of the problem-the Minister said that the estimates of the world uranium demand were perhaps being simplified by himself and it was difficult to ascertain some exactitude about them. There are figures, of course, and the Minister quoted some. I have some figures and Senator Collins's paper also refers to figures. Senator Collins said at the beginning of his paper with regard to supply: Initial projections for uranium demand were over-optimistic. To portray current demand as a dramatic downturn, however- as Milton does- is to obscure both the extent and the vital importance of the steadily growing use and acceptance of nuclear generation around the world. Mr Milton —Seventy-eight and a half per cent over optimistic. Mr SMITH —The honourable member for La Trobe can have his opportunity to dispute that. I have not heard from him yet. Mr Milton —I have not had the chance. Mr SMITH —I am not surprised that they will not let the honourable member speak. Senator Collins concludes: However, the existing policy places an artificial constraint on the industry which, while allowing Australia to remain a substantial producer of uranium, provides our competitors with a ridiculous commercial advantage. This extremely detrimental position does not appear to be offset by any conceivable advantage to Australia from either an economic or ideological point of view. It is essential that the Party take the next logical step, and allow Australia to develop its extensive and low-cost uranium resources in a manner consistent with both the market opportunities that do exist, and Australia's national interests. That was not said by the Liberal Party of Australia; it was said by someone in the Labor Party. That is someone the Labor Party should be listening to. Mr Scott —That is the mining body. Mr SMITH —It is all right for the honourable member for Hindmarsh to try to interrupt the flow of this speech with inane interjections that mean nothing. Two members of the Labor Party say those things and the Minister does not provide any direction whatever, and the honourable member is simply going to ignore it. Some of those opposite are members of the neanderthal Left. The myth about there being no demand for uranium is an absolute furphy. Mr Milton —I wish to take a point of order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the word `neanderthal'. Mr SMITH —I withdraw. The Government has been mugged by economic reality. That is what it amounts to. That is why it had to change the contracts with regard to France and let them proceed. That is why at the National Conference the Labor Party will have to change its policy. The honourable member for La Trobe would be better advised to read carefully the reports by the honourable member for Kingston and Senator Collins because they say the very things the Liberal Party has been saying and which I said in this House in February. There is demand, and we ought to be addressing that point. It is reasonable to expect that the additional uranium production will be needed from the early 1990s. The market is now in an historic transition phase, with supply and demand returning to balance and inventories declining to manageable levels. That is the crux of the issue. Key utilities in the Western world and Japan are now starting to consider their purchasing policies for the early 1990s and onwards as they see the market beginning to tighten. The Minister quoted some figures. If one looks at the figures from the Nukem data system, one sees that they show an increasing demand. I know that the Nukem data system might not be acceptable to the honourable member for La Trobe but he must prove that the figures it has put together are not accurate. They are the most accurate that can be found and are available from reputable sources in this building. I will ask the Minister for leave to incorporate the figures in Hansard so that members on the other side can show the people of Australia that there is no demand. It is only the honourable member for La Trobe and the Minister who say that there is no demand. Everyone else says that there is demand into the 1990s. Until such time as we take a decision to put ourselves in a position where we can take advantage of that increasing demand, we will suffer the things outlined in the report of the honourable member for Kingston-lack of jobs and lost export opportunities, as the Leader of the National Party pointed out. Australia will be the loser. The question is: Have we the will to change? More particularly, have members of the Left the will to change? Members of the Labor Party have, as have members on this side of the House, the rest of Australia and the Aboriginal community. It is only the members of the neanderthal Left who will not change their minds. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- NATURAL URANIUM-SUPPLY, DEMAND AND INVENTORIES, 1987-2000 (Tonnes U) Year/Region 1987 2000 Western World Total Demand ... 43 140 55 851 Total Supplier Countries ... 37 162 14 890 Inventory Development ... 131 987 47 260 Far East Total Demand ... 7 197 13 125 Total Supplier Countries ... 8 656 1 182 Inventory Development ... 34 067 4 988 Others Total Demand ... 2 614 4 561 Total Supplier Countries ... 2 325 3 725 Inventory Development ... 3 559 7 346 Source: NUKEM Data System 7 March 1988 Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(4.08) —In rising to speak to the matter of public importance, I am impressed by the fact that members of the National Party of Australia and others refer to those on this side as neanderthal, given the recent shemozzle that took place in the coalition party room about the referenda, where the executive was going to recommend two Yes votes and two No votes-two No votes because of the neanderthals in the National Party who could not come to grips with modernising the Constitution. When it went to a full coalition meeting they became even worse neanderthals because they rejected all the proposals. One wonders where the policy development in the Opposition will come from. It has been in opposition for almost six years, and it still has not come to grips with the development of rational policy. The Opposition cannot get it right. It used to be that when people wanted to influence both the Government and the Opposition, they would talk to the leaders of both parties. They would see Ministers and then see shadow Ministers. When people come to lobby the Opposition now they do not go to see the shadow people, they do not go to see Johnny Howard, because he does not make the policy. Mr Andrew —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. There has been a rightful insistence in the House that the honourable member for Kingston be referred to correctly. I would have thought it consistent that the Leader of the Opposition be referred to correctly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member has drawn the matter to the attention of the Chair. I shall ensure that that practice is pursued. Mr SAUNDERSON —People no longer go to see the Leader of the Opposition; they go to see all the dissident members sitting on the back bench and ask them what they are going to do and whether they will muster the numbers when they get to the party room. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) cannot get the policy together. Look what he did! He gave a wink and a nod to Christopher Skase and said, `Don't worry, the television policy will be right'. What happened? He got rolled by the dissident backbenchers. Talk about factionalism! There are more factions in the Opposition than one would know what to do with; Opposition members could play cards with the number of factions they have. Let us consider the question of uranium. All of a sudden Opposition members have become excited because there has been increased activity in an attempt to influence the Australian Labor Party and this Government in terms of the policy on uranium because, in three weeks from now, the Labor Party will have a National Conference and the opportunity to change policy arises. At least the Labor Party does, every two years, create a document arising from its National Conference, which canvasses all the policies of the party and lays them down clearly. It provides the opportunity for all the people in the community who want to influence a party to come forward and attempt to influence it. So there has been a development of different papers both within and outside the Party. People want to influence the Labor Party. Therefore, some people exaggerate what the potential might be in the uranium industry. I instance just one, the recent one, that suggests we could have $600m more. It is not being suggested that that much potential exists out there, that there is that much money to be made and that there are that many contracts to be made. It is suggested that there is a difference between Canada and Australia; Canada gets $600m more for its sales of uranium than does Australia. Some people are saying, `What if we had the $600m? What would we do with it?'. That is a nonsense argument, because one would have to assume that Australia's existing miners, those companies that own the mines, have not been out there attempting to get contracts. Of course they have. Our existing mines are not working and producing to full capacity. Does the Opposition think that those companies would not be out there trying to get more contracts and sell more uranium so they can lift their production? Of course they are out there competing in the market. However, so are all the other uranium producing countries. They are all bidding and under-bidding and getting prices. We know that Ranger is working at about half capacity. What is the sensible policy that the Opposition wants to adopt? What it wants to do is to simply open up the system so that everyone can open up a mine. If one has a bit of uranium, one can open up a mine; or one can bid and sell; and there is unlimited potential out there. That is just nonsense. Under that policy, one would end up with an industry that was as unstable and as unprofitable as the coal industry, because that is what has been allowed to happen in the coal industry. Everyone has been able to go out and do his own thing and to undersell and underbid someone else, and what one ends up with is an unprofitable and unstable industry. The Opposition already knows that the existing mines are selling uranium and are not working to full capacity. It knows that that potential is there. Nobody denies that there is still potential out there for contracts. However, we already have mines and we have the capacity to increase production. There is a need for proper development of the industry in a way that allows for proper consideration of all the issues. However, what the Opposition would like to do is to say, `Look, uranium is no different from coal; it is no different from iron ore; and it is no different from bauxite. We will just mine it, sell it and not worry about the consequences or about any other problems there might be. We will just treat it the same as any other mineral'. Of course, to do that is to ignore the reality of the world. Everyone knows that uranium is different from any other mineral, because its by-products are used to produce nuclear weapons. The waste material, after it has been used, creates enormous environmental problems that have yet to be resolved. But the Opposition says, `Let us not worry about that. Let us just have an open mines policy. Let everyone do what they want out there. Let us ignore the reality of the real demand'. Let us assume, as the Opposition would, that what we should do is to just look at the potential demand and the maximum use that everyone can make of it-`Let us look at what France can do. Let us look at its maximum use'. The reality is that no country uses to the maximum what it could potentially use. The demand is not there. It is of little use to Australia to produce uranium on the basis of the assumption that every country will use it to its full potential. The reality is that some people have already worked on that, and that is why there are such huge stockpiles of uranium all over the world. About 4 1/2 years worth is stockpiled waiting because people have been producing based on nonsense growth and demand figures, which everyone knows the industry has been overestimating for the entirety of its existence. Everybody who is involved in the industry, particularly the mining section, overestimates the demand in order to try to justify why his particular interest or their particular mine should be allowed to open up. The reality is that those estimates have never lived up to expectations. The real situation is the need-as the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) said-to examine the uncommitted contracts that are real, those that exist. Honourable members know that Australia would have a potential to get some of those and that that potential could be accommodated easily within the capacity of the existing mines. The Labor Party will develop a policy in three weeks time. It will rediscuss the question of uranium mining along with every other issue. Some people may believe that it will change; others, I believe, are fairly confident that nothing will change. However, the reality is that the Labor Party has a venue at which there will be open and free discussion of the issue. It allows for all areas and interested parties to contribute to that discussion. The Government accepts that industry has a right to put forward information. We also accept that opponents to the industry have a right to put forward points of view. The Labor Party considers all of those points of view at that conference. Having considered them, we will come to a decision. When the Opposition is able to come forward and say, `This is how we develop our policy'-not how the National Party develops its policy, which will be different from that of the Liberal Party of Australia and not how the back bench develops its policy, which is different from that of the executive, and so on-and when it comes up with a constructive way in which it can develop its policy in the open public arena and indicates when it will do it and that it will review it regularly, as the Labor Party does, perhaps Opposition members can come forward in this place and attempt to make some criticism of the Government's policies. There is nothing wrong with the existing policy, which has been formed over a number of years of consultation. It can be reviewed. People can put forward their contributions to it. But what we will always end up with is an industry which will be constrained, because it is a unique industry and because of the serious problems that can flow from its development. Also, we will ensure that Australia does not contribute to the oversupply that already exists around the world. There is a need for orderly development, and the Government will not necessarily listen to every carpetbagger who says that he has a contract somewhere around the world. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 26 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 Monday, 23 May 1988. The report read as follows- Report relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 26 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, 26 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 Employment, Education and Training Report on entry or return to the work force for social security pensioners. [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.] Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Report on witness protection. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made by 11 a.m.] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted Order of the day *1 FLAGS AMENDMENT BILL 1988 (Mr Howard): Second reading (from 17 March 1988). 30 mins Notices *2 MR MacKELLAR: To move-That this House determines that the present Speaker's Chair should be relocated in the House of Representatives Chamber in the new Parliament House before that House is occupied by Members of Parliament in the 1988 Budget sittings. (Notice given 18 May 1988) 20 mins *3 MR GRIFFITHS: To move-That this House acknowledges the contribution of former Members to the rich and colourful history of this Chamber. (Notice given 28 April 1988.) any remaining private Members business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day LEO McLEAY 19 May 1988...Chairman Publications Committee Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That Dr Woods be discharged from attendance on the Publications Committee and that in his place Mr Taylor be appointed a member of the Committee. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That Dr Wooldridge be discharged from attendance on the Library Committee and that in his place Mr Pratt be appointed a member of the Committee. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Australian National University Act 1946, this House elects Mr P. M. Ruddock and Dr R.E. Klugman to be members of the Council of the Australian National University for a period of three years from 18 August 1988. Publications Committee Bill presented by Madam Speaker, and read a first time. Madam SPEAKER —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Honourable members will recall that, on 19 March 1987, I introduced the Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1987 into the House following its passage through the Senate. This procedure was followed in recognition of the Bill's content and its importance to the functioning of the Parliament. It was the first occasion a Speaker had introduced legislation into the House. The Bill I have just presented marks the second such occasion. I wish honourable members to know that I do not intend that this should become a continuing practice but on this occasion I took the view that it would be inappropriate for these legislative changes, so specifically concerned with the administrative structure of the Parliament, to be initiated by a Minister. The proposals have been developed from initiatives of the Presiding Officers and our submitting them for the consideration of each House is, in our view, consistent with the independence of the Presiding Officers' positions and their administrative responsibility exercised on behalf of all members. This course of action meets with the approval of the Executive Government and the executive of the Opposition parties. The administration of the Parliament has, since Federation, operated under a number of separate administrative units. These units are currently incorporated in the Public Service Act as the Departments of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Parliamentary Library, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, and the Joint House Department. The purpose of this Bill is quite simply to reduce the number of separate departments serving the Parliament from five to three. The Bill seeks to amend the Public Service Act 1922 to replace the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint House Department with a new Department of Parliamentary Services. It also seeks to create a new office of Secretary to the Department of Parliamentary Services to administer the new Department. The other provisions of the Bill are consequential or transitional in nature. By way of background, I remind honourable members that in May 1987 the President and I outlined proposals to restructure the administration of the Parliament to all senators and members, as well as to the heads of the parliamentary departments, unions and staff associations. Detailed reports on aspects of the administration of the Parliament were commissioned by us. These reviews related specifically to information systems, parliamentary relations, public relations and certain staffing and accounting services. Some administrative adjustments have been made following these assessments. Despite these adjustments, as recognised by the Presiding Officers in 1987 and since then, effective long term rationalisation was dependent on structural change which would require a change in the legislative basis of the Parliament's administration. The main objectives of the proposed restructuring should be stated to the House. They are: a less fragmented, more effectively coordinated administration in which personnel and resource management are given greater emphasis, especially in the joint areas; the maintenance of services to senators and members, and enhancement of scope and standards where possible in a climate of severe resource restraint; the containment of additional costs arising from the provision of services in the substantially larger and more complex new Parliament House; a better balance of managerial, parliamentary, procedural and other specialist viewpoints, and more flexibility for Presiding Officers to adapt structures and staffing to meet changing circumstances, for example, experience in the new Parliament House environment, blurring of functional boundaries with developments in information technology, contracting of some services and limitation of resource allocation. Regular consultation with the party leaders and the parliamentary departments has led to a general level of acceptance that structural change, to the extent provided by the Bill, is required to meet these objectives. The President and I, as well as the Government and the executive of the Opposition parties, have concluded that a number of administrative arrangements flowing from the creation of the Department of Parliamentary Services cannot be written into the legislation. In order to assist the House in its later consideration of the Bill, I wish to outline arrangements which will be required to be put into place, initially. Mr President and I believe that in any reorganisation of the parliamentary departments we have an obligation to observe the overriding principle of preserving the integrity and constitutional positions of both the Senate and House of Representatives and the departments that directly serve them. Thus, the two independent chamber departments will remain, and, under the respective Presiding Officers, the Clerks will have independence in respect of finance, personnel and administrative services for their respective departments. The new senior position of Secretary to the Department of Parliamentary Services will be responsible for coordinating administrative policy and managing the provision of certain common services in the Parliament, so as to ensure that the Parliament gains full value for money from its common resources. The Secretary will have overall administrative responsibility for the existing functions of the Parliamentary Library, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the former Joint House Department and other selected common functions. These functions are to include: Building and property, including engineering and gardening services, the personal services to members and senators and the administrative control of accommodation, which will continue to be exercised by the Serjeant-at-Arms and Black Rod under the direction of their respective Presiding Officers, catering services, information systems, public relations, industrial relations, and finance, personnel and administrative services for the new Department. Parliamentary relations and parliamentary education will continue to be carried out by the two chamber departments. Parliamentary relat- ions will be located within the Department of the House of Representatives and parliamentary education within the Department of the Senate. These offices will report jointly to the Presiding Officers. Clause 12 of the Bill ensures that the current occupants of the positions of Parliamentary Librarian and Principal Parliamentary Reporter will continue in these positions and that their current salary status will be preserved. They will continue to have direct access to the Presiding Officers for advisory purposes in their respective areas of expertise. Clause 12 also provides for the transfer of offices from the existing departments to the new Department and for the transfer of the present incumbents to those offices. Thus the positions of all officers will be protected. The President and I will be discussing with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) the maintenance of separate, `one line' appropriations for each of the three parliamentary departments and consideration will be given to separate lines for the appropriations of the Parliamentary Library and the Parliamentary Reporting Staff so that there is a guaranteed level of funding for them. A Presiding Officers Advisory Board, consisting of the two Clerks and the Secretary to the Department of Parliamentary Services, will be provided in the new structure to facilitate the contribution of policy level advice by the Clerks to the Presiding Officers in respect of the common services areas. The role of the Advisory Board will require further consideration, including proposals concerning the chairmanship being rotated between the Clerks and for major changes in structures and operations of the Department of Parliamentary Services to be referred to it for consideration prior to submission to the Presiding Officers. The President and I propose that these amendments to the Public Service Act be regarded as an initial legislative step. We believe that a separate parliamentary service Bill warrants future consideration by the Parliament. This proposal would include such provisions as are necessary to establish a new framework, attuned to modern needs, for the employment of staff to service the Parliament. The Bill would include staffing provisions quite separate from the Public Service Act as a further demonstration of the independent powers and authority of the legislature over its own administration. I believe that what we are seeking to put in place in this Bill is the most appropriate administrative structure at present to cope with the challenges facing the administration of the Parliament following its occupation of the new Parliament House. I will be advising the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) and the Opposition parties that I will be seeking speedy passage of the Bill early in the Budget sittings. I present an explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business) —Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, before I move the adjournment of the debate, I wish to make a few remarks on behalf of the Opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), and thank the Speaker for her courtesy and for the time she has spent in discussing this matter with us. I would also like to thank her for introducing this legislation and not proceeding with it prior to the next session of Parliament. This will give members of both chambers an opportunity to consider carefully the provisions of the Bill. We are making history as we move from this Parliament House to the new Parliament House. Inevitably, some new arrangements will be necessary. The Opposition wishes to ensure, as I am sure Madam Speaker does, that the integrity of not only this chamber but also the Senate is preserved. I thank Madam Speaker for her cooperation in this regard. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill concurrently with the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 and the Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course of action. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(4.31) —Today we debate two education Bills of a customary nature, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, providing cost adjustments in educational grants to the States, together with a major Bill of fundamental significance to the future of education and training in Australia; namely the Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988. The first two Bills contain measures over and above the cost supplementation provisions, but these are either unexceptionable or of insufficient concern to merit objection. However, to highlight the failure of the Government to provide sufficient places in higher education to meet the demand by qualified students and the failure of the Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding to find a satisfactory means of adding non-taxpayer resources for the expansion of higher education, I foreshadow the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988: 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 condemns the Government for its failure to provide sufficient resources to tertiary institutions for them to meet the demand for student places, or to find a satisfactory alternative source of funds for tertiary education'. I remind honourable members that the Wran Committee proposals, vigorously supported by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), represent yet another clear breach of promises by a government with an already notorious record of broken promises. The Government entered the last election on a platform of free tertiary education. It was a promise the Government had no intention of keeping. By way of contrast, at the last election the Liberal and National parties, recognising the need for additional non-taxpayer resources for the expansion of higher education, proposed an entirely new method of funding which would have enabled the universities and colleges to attract the additional resources they need through their own efforts. Under our plan, students meeting nationally determined entry standards would receive their education under a higher education scholarship scheme. Over and above the scholarship places, the institutions would be free to attract whatever number of additional students they wished on whatever fee basis they chose. Not only would they be able to admit many of the 25,000 or so qualified students now excluded because of lack of places under the Labor Government's policy, but also they would be able to cater for the expanding market in continuing education. In an ever changing world, more and more people want to update or improve their understanding of various subjects, and many are able and willing to pay for this opportunity. As I visit today's universities and colleges I observe a potential for innovative and entrepreneurial activity in designing courses for this expanding market, an activity that is repressed under existing Government regulations. In our 1987 policy, we also undertook to promote loan arrangements for those students not gaining a scholarship and needing support to meet the fees charged by an institution. Under our policy, the qualifying students would be guaranteed a free place and no student would be denied a place. Under Australian Labor Party (ALP) policy, foreign students can buy a place while Australian students are excluded. Needless to say, the ALP attacked our 1987 higher education policy as a `fees through the back door' policy. It was nothing of the kind. It was open and honest, in clear contrast to the ALP approach of promising exactly the reverse of what it now proposes after winning the election. Intending students would have been quite thoroughly misled about Labor intentions had they read of the now Minister's comprehensive attack on the Fraser Government's proposals to introduce a modest fee system for second degrees, coupled with a student loan scheme. Let me quote the then shadow Minister for Education, now the Minister, in a speech to this Parliament on 21 October 1981: None of those serious problems which confront us in terms of the policy for tertiary education are in any way alleviated-I suggest that they are greatly exacerbated-by the imposition of tertiary tuition fees generally. It is not just that we are interested in opposing these fees for the group of students who will have to pay them. We are opposed to the re-establishment of the principle of tertiary tuition fees in general. Perfidy of this order is not yet the norm in Australian politics, but this Government seems determined to make it so. When I hear the Minister's assurances as to the future funding of higher education arising from the imposition of the Wran tax I am reminded of its promise of continuing free tertiary education, and I give his assurances the same weight. The fact is that the Wran graduate tax is a revenue measure, not an education measure. It is a new Labor tax, to be levied on those already paying more dollars in tax and higher marginal rates of tax. The Green Paper on higher education said that higher education should rely less on tax, yet Wran has proposed more tax. The Minister has said that the revenue derived from the new tax will go into a trust fund to ensure it is used for higher education, to provide places for the 25,000 students now excluded. Such an assurance would be worthless, even if one had, by virtue of his record, any confidence in the Minister's assurances. For a start, additions to the trust fund could be offset by reductions in the funds drawn from general revenue as part of each year's tussle between the Minister for Finance and the spending departments, and we all know Senator Walsh's attitude towards higher education funding. He is an unashamed high fees man, who will keep the shears clicking around the Minister's sheep. In addition, the delay in the build-up of tax revenue under the scheme, coupled with the offsets recommended by the Wran Committee, means that very few dollars can be drawn from the trust fund for some years. Students waiting at the gate to be admitted under this scheme will have grey hair and grandchildren before the Minister's promise is fulfilled. What of Labor's much vaunted concern about equity? The Wran tax plan makes no distinction between rich and poor, except to say that the rich will be able to pay the fees up front with a 40 per cent discount, while the poor are indiscriminately lumbered with the tax for up to 20 years of their working life. Contrast also the provision of a student from a poor family with no previous history of higher education with that of, say, the dependent spouse of a wealthy man. The former will not exactly be encouraged to accumulate a future inescapable tax burden, while the latter can enjoy a free education merely by not working after the course is completed: equity 1988 Labor style! Of course one could also avoid the liability by going overseas after graduation, surely the kind of incentive we want to avoid. Before turning to the main Bill, I note in passing that the Government is proposing an amendment to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill to provide for second tier wage increases. Whilst not wishing to deny academics their salary increases-and it has to be said that good academics are not well paid at present-the Government's support for second tier wage increases was predicated on the negotiation of productivity agreements designed to offset at least the additional cost. That principle seems to have been lost in this particular case. I am not aware of any such agreements having been negotiated in the tertiary education sector. I turn now to the Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988, a most significant measure which proposes a completely new advisory framework within the area of the Minister's portfolio. It is a disgrace that this important Bill is being rushed through the Parliament at the very end of this session, with only two hours allowed for debate on this and the two other Bills in the House of Representatives before the gag is applied. Not only does this procedure deny honourable members adequate time for debate on the policy implications of the measure, but it also makes it impossible for the Opposition to move amendments and have them debated and voted upon during the committee stage. I had intended that the Opposition not oppose the Bill at its second reading but seek to amend it in committee, and then if the most important amendments were not accepted by the Government to vote against the Bill on the third reading. Denied this opportunity, I advise the House that we find the Bill unacceptable in its present form and we will vote against it on the second reading. I foreshadow that we will move a number of amendments in the Senate. I shall later ask that these amendments be incorporated in Hansard, so that honourable members will at least have the opportunity to see them, if not to debate and vote on them. Mr Dawkins —What a shame. It is a pity you did not show them to me. Mr CARLTON —The Minister asks why I did not show them to him. I have shown him the first set, but they have been progressively developed over the course of this last week or so because of the very large number of representations from people who are extremely concerned about the nature of the proposal. The Minister has enormous resources at his disposal. I do not, nor do the people who are making these representations to me. Therefore, it has been something of a scramble to get all the representations from the interested bodies and to draw up these amendments. The final draft of the amendments was only completed just before this debate was brought on. With this Bill, the Government seeks to replace important advisory systems in the areas of employment, education and training with a system that is admittedly more streamlined, less messy and cheaper to run than the systems it replaces. In eliminating the untidiness that the Minister finds awkward and distasteful, it also eliminates any public avenue of dissent from the Minister's wishes. Two of the existing bodies to be abolished, the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC), although required to respond to Government guidelines, were able to initiate inquiries and report publicly and independently to the Government on school and tertiary education policy issues. Whilst not too many tears need be shed for the removal of the regulatory functions of the Schools Commission and CTEC which intruded far too much into the affairs of State governments and tertiary institutions, there is a need for informed advice, publicly offered to the Government, on educational issues. The future shape of our schools, technical and further education colleges, colleges of advanced education and our universities cannot be decided behind the closed doors of a Federal department or a Minister's office, or by boards or committees under the immediate and suffocating control of the Department or the Minister. Yet this is precisely what the new structure, headed by the proposed National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET), does. The Board is to consist of not more than 13 persons, of whom five may be full time appointments, two will be drawn from the trade unions and two from business. Although there is a provision that at least seven of the 13 shall have expertise in education or training, some of those seven could be drawn from the five full time members or from the four trade union and business representatives. Thus, although the appearance of a majority of people with relevant expertise is given, there is a large majority of union, business and full time Public Service members: two plus two plus five equals nine out of 13. Although the full time members might be drawn from education or training backgrounds, they are most likely to absorb the Canberra culture and become creatures of the Minister. Indeed, since the Minister will choose them, they might well begin as creatures of the Minister. Another deficiency of the membership criteria for the Board is the absence of any requirement for people with scientific or technological backgrounds. This is a serious deficiency, for not only do these disciplines play a major role in education and training, NBEET also has responsibility for the Australian Research Council (ARC). If NBEET is to understand what the ARC is saying, it should have the necessary expertise amongst its membership. There is such widespread concern about the make-up of NBEET within the educational and scientific communities that we propose to move substantive amendments to the Bill in the Senate to alter the composition of NBEET. We propose that trade union and business representation be reduced from two each to one each; that the maximum number of full time appointments be reduced from five to three; and that in addition to there being a requirement for a minimum of seven with expertise in education and training, there also be a requirement for a minimum of two from scientific research and technology. The Government's proposals for the structure of NBEET reflect its corporatist approach, allowing governments, trade unions and business to dominate its proceedings. Our proposal reduces the government, union and business combination from nine to five out of 13, providing a better balance of forces in a body having a profound influence on education and research in Australia. Our next concern relates to the four councils that report to NBEET. These are designed to be well and truly under the thumb of NBEET and the Minister. According to our reading of the Bill, they could have as chairpersons full time members of NBEET, appointed by the Minister and on his payroll. There are no criteria regarding the expertise of the chairpersons. The councils can only consider and report on matters referred to them by the Minister or NBEET. They have no power of initiation or publication. Their reports to NBEET and the Minister can be censored on grounds of confidentiality or summarised by NBEET before they are published. They have no separate staffing, relying entirely on the Director of NBEET, who is an officer of the Department of Employment, Education and Training, for their staff support. To add insult to incapacity, they are required to take the advice of a curious appointee of the Minister called a counsellor, to whom I shall refer again later. Grave concerns have already been expressed in the scientific community about one of these councils already set up on an interim basis, the Australian Research Council, which has the capacity, if not properly established and conducted, to do immense harm to Australia's scientific, research and technological developments for years ahead. We cannot stand by and let this happen without determined efforts to set at least certain minimal standards of powers and operations for the Council. The Minister would still have the capacity to nullify the effectiveness of the councils by administrative action, but at least he could not do so without considerable public fuss, provided our amendments are accepted. We propose the following changes: firstly, all four council chairpersons must be part time. As part time members of NBEET also, they will have a heavy public workload, but at least they could have an independence from the Minister impossible for a full time appointee. Secondly, regard would have to be had to the relevance of experience and expertise of each chairperson to the subject matter of the Council. In the case of the chairperson of the ARC, the four learned academies-science, humanities, technological science and engineering, and social sciences-would have to be consulted before the appointment was made. Thirdly, each of the councils would be able to initiate inquiries and publish reports without the approval of the Minister. Fourthly, NBEET would lose its power to censor council reports on grounds of confidentiality, or to summarise reports before publication. Fifthly, NBEET would have removed the severe limitation on its own independent action imposed by subclause 7 (2), which allows it to initiate a matter not referred to it by the Minister only if it `does not prejudice the performance of its functions' as required by the Minister. Sixthly, NBEET would be given the power to delegate any of its functions to a council. I stress that none of the above amendments relating to initiation and publication is a radical departure from Commonwealth Schools Commission or Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission practice. All we are attempting to do is restore the capacity for informed public debate on matters of vital concern to the whole Australian community. That facility was there before this Minister was appointed. It should remain during his tenure and endure after he has departed. As I said earlier, the position of counsellor needs to be examined closely. Clause 56 of the Bill provides for the appointment by the Minister of up to four counsellors to give advice to the Minister on matters relating to the functions of the Board or a council. A council is required to consider advice from a counsellor. Thus counsellors may be completely outside the NBEET and council advisory structure, but may have very considerable influence on the matters within their purview. I would not deny that the Minister may need such persons to assist with complex matters requiring special expertise. It would be better, however, for them to report directly either to the chairperson of NBEET or of a council. We will move an amendment seeking to ensure that this happens. The remaining matters I wish to refer to today relate to the work of the Schools Council. As with CTEC in the area of tertiary education, it is a matter of grave concern that the depth of expertise available in the former Schools Commission will not be available in the limited departmental support to NBEET and its councils. There is little we can do about that from the Opposition benches. All we can do is draw attention to the shortcoming and warn the Minister that he faces grave problems with his clientele in education in the future because of this deficiency. However, we can at least by amendment require the Schools Council, in the exercise of its functions, to consult with and cooperate with those who actually run our schools, in both the government and non-government sectors. In addition, we believe that we should reflect the growing concern among parents, employers and the community generally about educational standards and discipline in schools. Accordingly, we seek to add to the objectives to be borne in mind by the Schools Council these two elements-that is, educational standards and discipline-which are missing from the list of objectives carried over from the Schools Commission. The Bill, in addition to setting up the NBEET structure, also provides for the transformation of the Commonwealth Employment Service from an independent body to a component of the Department of Employment, Education and Training. The Opposition does not oppose that, but I will leave it to my colleague the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), shadow Minister for employment, training and youth affairs, to deal with that section of the Bill. As I said earlier in my speech, it is a disgrace that such an important measure as this should have to be dealt with so hurriedly, without the House of Representatives even having time to consider detailed amendments. We will need to leave that task to our colleagues in the House of review, itself under threat from this Government's referendum proposals. If ever there were a case for a Senate not tied to the House of Representatives, this must be it. The NBEET structure seeks to gather excessive powers over the future of our whole education and training system and our research and technology into the hands of the Minister. It represents Labor corporate statism at its most sinister. It must be resisted in this Parliament, and by virtue of the powers of the Senate, we are hopeful that it can be resisted. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(4.53) —I am pleased to address the three education Bills before the House because beyond doubt education, particularly higher education, can be the key to open the door to career opportunities. That was shown in a national survey undertaken by the Careers Council of Australia, which revealed that 3.6 per cent of graduates in the labour force were unemployed in 1987 compared with 9.1 per cent of the labour force as a whole. Although at times statistics can be unreliable, these were backed up by other work undertaken by the Sydney University. Every Australian who is willing and qualified should have access to this key. Higher education has many benefits which are all so difficult to evaluate in monetary terms. Not only can a university degree or a college diploma be the key to the world of more interesting jobs-although certainly not exclusively so-but also the gaining of higher education qualifications in itself brings benefits such as the added confidence necessary to break the cycle of acceptance of limited job opportunities and to enter new fields of endeavour, and no-one who desires it should be denied the opportunity of participating in higher education. The reality in Australia today is that tens of thousands of people are annually denied access to our institutions of higher learning. Not only is the concept of free education a myth, because taxpayers fund tertiary courses to the tune of approximately $10,000 to $70,000 depending upon the degree, but also access to higher education, at the price of tax payments and the higher education administration fee, is severely restricted. The assumption that since the Whitlam Government abolished up-front tertiary fees the doors of learning and career opportunity have been open to those who qualify for entry is erroneous. No statistics are available to reveal the number of young Australians who enter the work force at leaving level as a result of parents' inability to forgo their supplementation of the family budget, but empirical evidence suggests that this runs into the thousands. Up to 20,000 students are on record as being denied access to higher education every year as the tertiary entrance (TE) score is used to impose a quota on entry; nor can one assume that these students are not intellectually equipped to manage a course of higher education. But retention rates to year 12 under this Government have increased from 36.3 per cent in 1982 to a current 53.1 per cent. As a result of this growth and the limited tertiary places available, a distorted situation has evolved whereby the top achievers in TE not only absorb university places available in law, science, medicine and economics but also encroach on the humanities places and flow on to secure places in diploma courses in colleges of advanced education and technical and further education, positions that were once the domain of the applicants who are now missing out. Stable workers with creditable results are being kept out of our institutions. For this reason the Federal Government has taken a long, hard look at Australia's education system and the way it operates. For the sake of the army of young Australians who are missing out on the drive for higher education, we must turn our backs on the comfortable political option of skulking in the shadows and merely maintaining the status quo. Although the contribution of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) on the new National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) and its make-up was thoughtful, we reject the alternative of scholarships and tertiary fees suggested by the honourable member, whose comments on it were way out and hypocritical. Certainly we do not have free education, but when one is discussing access to education, the up-front fees which the honourable member for Mackellar would have us believe are modest will keep out thousands of young Australians whose parents, or themselves individually, would not be able to afford any fees up front. Scholarships do not fill the bill; they would be a reversal to the days of decades ago when thousands upon thousands of students were kept out of the education system and only the elite and more affluent were allowed in. The Government cannot accept such recommendations or policies. The system needs a shake-up. There should not be two populations-those who have access to our nation's higher education and the projected growth, and those who do not. The Bills, specifically the Employment, Education and Training Bill, which enshrines in legislation the new education board, NBEET, that is designed to oversee the necessary changes, are a part but just a small part of the overall shake-up. I shall briefly comment on the two States grants Bills. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 provides additional funds for adjustments for cost movements to existing grants for 1988 appropriated under the principal Act in line with agreed Government procedures. It provides funding to meet the additional cost to higher education institutions of the 3 per cent superannuation claim. It also enables emerging costs in the States to be met. Under section 15 of the principal Act higher education institutions are entitled to supplementary funding to meet increased superannuation costs. An increase in the provision in the legislation has become necessary because of a higher than anticipated rate of retirements in some States. Ten medical schools will each receive some $55,000 under the Commonwealth's contribution to the drug and alcohol coordination program. Nine of these have already put forward agreed proposals for participation in the program. I am very pleased to commend that Bill and particularly that program to the House. The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 amends the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act to supplement existing financial provisions to take into account an increase in price levels. It has a number of other roles. It modifies eligibility provisions of non-government schools for grants, changes the conditions of eligibility for non-government schools to receive establishment grants and restricts eligibility for grants under the general education element of the English as a second language program to persons who have permanent residency status in Australia. It also amends the definition of full fee paying private overseas secondary students to apply to part time as well as full time students, and corrects minor drafting and printing errors in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act. The Bill provides an estimated $21m increase in appropriations for the schools program in 1988, bringing the 1988 schools funding to an estimated total of $1,760m. The Government has been providing funds for additional higher education intakes since 1984. Queensland has really benefited from moves under this Government. The Federal Government has made a more than proportionate allocation to Queensland, following assessments of current levels of participation and unmet demand, likely future demand and the need for opportunities in regional areas. As a result of this policy, the number of higher education places in Queensland is estimated to have increased, between 1983 and 1988, by over 11,000 or 32 per cent, compared with a nationwide growth of 26 per cent. The House will recall that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) in December 1987 released a policy discussion paper proposing a range of measures designed to achieve further growth in higher education and to extend opportunities to those who have not traditionally participated in higher education. This move followed the drawing together of the portfolios representing education, jobs and job training under the new superministry of employment, education and training. The move was taken because of a government perception that past neglect, when allied with economic and structural changes, had denied young Australians the opportunity to realise their full potential, both personally and in terms of national economic performance. To put it bluntly, they had not been getting a fair go. As the Dawkins-Holding report Skills for Australia described it, this benign neglect on the part of past governments and administrators had created an urgent need for structural adjustment in Australia. The structural weaknesses in Australia's external position were compounded by the sharp falls since 1985-86 in the world prices of many of our traditional exports. We now need urgently to broaden our trading base by expanding our manufacturing and service sectors where appropriate, so that they can export more and compete efficiently with imports. To do this, we have to look not only at improved relative costs but also at non-price factors, and these include innovation, skills and technology. In this context education and training are to play a central role in responding to the major economic challenges which still confront us. Without disputing or belittling the achievements of the past, we must acknowledge the need for dramatic change in our attitudes to education and skills formation, and we must do so now. Our young people will be major beneficiaries of this change. In this context the Employment, Education and Training Bill, in enabling the establishment of the new National Board of Employment, Education and Training, represents a major milestone in the integration of policies and programs to improve the competitiveness and skills of the Australian work force. Previously the Government received advice on research, training, employment, higher education, schools and curriculum from a large number of uncoordinated advisory bodies in three separate portfolios. This Bill consolidates these disparate structures into a single cohesive advisory body, the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, which will provide independent advice to the Government on employment, education, training and research policies and programs. The new advisory structure complements the improved portfolio arrangements, which for the first time recognise the critical interdependence between employment, work force training and education programs and policies. Time prevents my going further into the details of the Board, but I am sure that my very able colleagues on this side will be going into further detail. I would like to complete my comments with the point that the build-up that led to the lack of places in higher education institutions that we have today took place over many decades. We do not want to return to a situation where, as the potential growth which is starting to occur becomes a reality, we do not have trained and educated people to take those places and have to follow the old trail of importing graduates from overseas. That does not make sense. Sitting back and knocking the very difficult task that is before us also does not make sense. What we need in Australia is a coordinated effort. We need support from people on both sides of the House. We need support from educators, from educational institutions, from employers, from unions, from students and from young people, and we need to look at recommendations with one purpose in mind. This is what we are now doing as we look at the Wran recommendations. We want to ensure that equity and access to education become a reality. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(5.08) —I rise in this debate to speak as the Opposition spokesman on employment, training and youth affairs. In the normal course of events, when responding to Government legislation an Opposition spokesman might be expected to speak for 30 minutes. It is not only convention; it is also laid down in our Standing Orders. But that will not be the case on this occasion because in this debate we have been led by my colleague the shadow Minister for education, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). I do not complain about the lack of my speaking time on that score, because of the excellent contribution that he made, and I am very happy to support it. I want to compound my personal problem by, in a sense, wasting some of my speaking time by talking about the way in which these Bills-the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and the Employment, Education and Training Bill-are being handled in this House. I say that I will waste some of my speaking time because I would like to have, and I hope in the future to have, more time to speak about the very substantial issues under the heading of employment and training that are raised by this legislation. By using the word `waste' I have obviously made a personal judgment that it is worth while doing, because, whilst the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) is no longer in the chamber, I hope he can hear me in his office. Perhaps on the basis of these remarks he will be encouraged to come back into the chamber so that I might through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, speak to him, in a sense, directly. We on this side of the House find the way in which these Bills are being handled to be completely unacceptable; indeed, I would think it is both wrong and unsatisfactory from the Minister's point of view and from the Government's point of view. Prior to the July 1987 election I was the shadow Minister for education, and I can say from that background that this is not the first time we have had a cognate debate on education matters, when very important Bills have been grouped together. That in itself cuts down the speaking time and the time available to this House to consider those Bills. To make matters worse, this is not the first time that we have had a guillotined debate, where members limit their own speaking time voluntarily so that they can give their colleagues a go. The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) did that, and I recognise her reason for doing that. We stand foursquare with the Government in recognising the importance of education, employment and training matters; and we put forward in a very serious and considered way the proposition that in future we should no longer compound the errors of the past. In future we should no longer, without a great deal of thought, simply conduct a cognate debate on such matters-especially in these circumstances where we are dealing with schools assistance, tertiary assistance and the very considerable changes that are being made to the whole system of education and training in this country under the Employment, Education and Training Bill. We should no longer consider that we should automatically bring legislation such as that together in a cognate debate. Certainly we should no longer blindly accept that we should operate under a guillotine. If this situation is not the fault of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, certainly he should have spent more time trying to persuade the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) of the desirability of conducting this debate in the absence of the guillotine. Why should I say that? I have said that this is not the first time we have had a cognate debate and I have said that this is not the first time that we have had a guillotine truncated debate. Let me also say that this is not the first time that the Opposition has been forced to foreshadow amendments and, hopefully, get them included in the House of Representatives Hansard but then the major debate has taken place in the Senate. When I was shadow Minister for education I had to put up with that. Indeed, I accepted it in part because the then Minister, Susan Ryan, was in the Senate. So at least I could realistically accept the major debate going on in the Senate. We had the Minister in the Senate, and the Opposition was lucky enough to have some former Ministers for education in the Senate, Senator Peter Baume being foremost amongst those. But now we have this farcical situation with a major piece of legislation-I do not refer to the annual or biannual pieces of legislation, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill or the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill-the Employment, Education and Training Bill, which basically changes so many of the fundamental ground rules for the way in which we administer education, employment and training in Australia, which basically changes just how we will operate from a government point of view. We have the farcical situation where the amendments will be moved in the Senate, the major debate will take place in the Senate, and we do not even have the Minister or the Opposition spokesman in the Senate. I think that is ludicrous. The Government is likely to pay a very heavy price for that ludicrous situation, because it is likely now that the Government will lose this Bill in the Senate. Instead of there being a very serious and detailed consideration of the thoughtful amendment put forward by the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Mackellar; instead of there being some horse trading across the table in this chamber, so that the Government might have had the chance of seeing its legislation passed, having accepted some of the Opposition's amendments, none of that will happen in this chamber. We will have a set piece debate in which people will make observations and comments, without the opportunity to debate specifically the amendments. We are now forced to vote against the second reading motion at the end of this debate. Of course, with the Government's superior numbers, the Bills will go to the Senate. Mr Free —Superior intellect, as well as the numbers. Mr SHACK —I cannot believe that the honourable member would regard my comments on this matter as humorous. I again make the point that the major debate will take place in the Senate. The honourable member's spokesman and our spokesman are not in the Senate and the Government looks like losing the legislation. I find that incredible. The point that I want to make-and I know that the Minister can hear me through the sound system in this building-is that serious thought needs to be given to this matter so that this circumstance does not happen again. We share the view that education, employment and training matters are some of the most serious policy considerations or areas of concern that any government or Opposition might contemplate for the better government of Australia. And while we fundamentally disagree with many of the changes that are being put forward in this legislation, at so many levels of rhetoric, we agree with what the Government is on about. We agree with the need to make education and training more attuned to industry needs and the like. This situation is cause for enormous regret. I cannot believe that the Government or the Minister could be happy about this farcical situation. Ten minutes or more of my time has transpired. Let me use the balance to try to make a few observations about only the Employment, Education and Training Bill and specifically those aspects of the Bill that relate to employment and training. Before doing so, I want, in passing, to point out that the Opposition's approach to education is in stark contrast to that of the Government. We very strongly believe in the need to give educational institutions a far greater degree of autonomy and independence. Against that background, I endorse all of the comments of my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar. In the Senate-because we cannot debate our amendments in the House of Representatives-we will support amendments which will alter the composition of the new board, which will give less emphasis to full time appointments and which will give the councils a greater freedom of inquiry and report. We will support amendments in the Senate which will give less emphasis to union and business representation and the full time Public Service members of the board and the councils. Our proposed amendments are central to our efforts to reduce the corporatist approach and to ensure that we devolve the emphasis away from a bureaucratically centralised structure, which is what this Government is all about. Our position is quite simple: devolution is important if the proposed National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) is to have what the Opposition believes to be an appropriate enterprise-industry emphasis. Under this legislation, as yet unamended, NBEET lacks the independence to advise the Minister adequately. Australia would be much better served by having a strong independent source of advice to government. What must be borne in mind in this debate is that industry is the ultimate employer, and any initiatives on a national training strategy must reflect the current and projected demands of industry. The key to seeing that training meets these current and projected objectives is the retention of a maximum degree of flexibility and diversity. We get that by having an industry-enterprise emphasis and not a centralised, corporatist, bureaucratic emphasis, which is reflected in this legislation. We on this side of the House recognise that members of the Australian labour force must be equipped with broadly based skills, and they must have flexibility if they are to retain their place in the work force in Australian industry and commerce which is undergoing rapid change. Australia has been hampered in the past-and is still hampered-by a narrow skills base compared with its major trading partners. There is a lot of substantive evidence to back up this pro- position. The Economic Planning Advisory Council released a report this week entitled An Overview of Microeconomic Constraints on Economic Growth. It identified barriers to growth in education and training, amongst many other things. Just two of the areas which that report identified as needing attention were improved labour mobility by means of multi-skilling and mid-career training-two enormous issues out there in the work places of Australia which need to be fully debated if we are to face up to this legislation and its consequences, unintended or otherwise. The 1987 departmental report entitled Meeting Australia's Skill Needs details evidence which identifies labour shortages in a wide range of skilled occupations. Australia has labour shortages in a wide range of skilled occupations at a time when the unemployment rate is about 8 per cent and industry and commerce are screaming out for skilled migration. The skilled migration debate is the other side of the coin of the employment and training debate, and we do not have time to face up to those issues in this debate. The Economic Planning Advisory Council produced an earlier paper in 1986 entitled Human Capital and Productivity Growth and in 1987 the Australian Science and Technology Council produced a document entitled Education and National Needs, both of which documented the fact that Australia lacks the education intensive skill base that underpins the economies of other developed nations such as Japan, West Germany and the United States. To be clear about the problem, I will make the point I made a few minutes ago. That lack of skill base is criminal at a time when almost 630,000 Australians are looking for work and unable to find it, the national unemployment rate is hovering around the 8 per cent mark, the youth unemployment rate is hovering around the 20 per cent mark and the average duration of unemployment at 45.3 weeks is 12 weeks up on the 1983 average. I foreshadow not another amendment but an attitude of the coalition when in government after the next election. We will no longer accept the argument peddled by some Government spokesmen that we must somehow accept a high level of unemployment and that in the face of technological change and the competitive world situation, Australia must put up with it, we must like it or lump it. We will not accept that when in government. We will not have a skerrick of complacency about a social, economic and community situation which sees 8 per cent of Australia's population unemployed and nearly 20 per cent of our children unemployed. I shall make a few other observations. The Opposition agrees with the Government's stated objectives on lifting school retention rates. However, if one lifts those rates, one must focus closely on whether the opportunities are available for year 12 school leavers to get a further education; whether opportunities are available in technical and further education for school leavers in years 10 and 11 and, hopefully, year 12 to enter the technical and further education (TAFE) training stream; or whether year 12 school leavers will find employment. Any objective analysis shows that if the Government lifts the year 12 retention rates, there will be enormous problems on those three fronts. We hear talk about 25,000 places of unmet demand in higher education. It was the Opposition that got that on the agenda a couple of years ago when it spoke about 14,000 potential students who could not get places because the system could not take them. The problem is getting worse and will continue to get worse. If young people can be encouraged to stay at school to the final year 12, obviously their horizons will be lifted and they will consider going on to higher education or technical and further education. If vice-chancellors and directors of institutes and colleges talk about unmet demands, honourable members should talk to TAFE directors or principals. They do not talk about 25,000 places Australia wide; they talk about 100,000 places Australia wide. The Government has to do much more on that front to provide opportunities in school to work transition. I shall make an observation about training. We have not yet seen it fully played out, but the Government is flirting with the idea of a training levy on employers, either voluntary or compulsory. I clearly and categorically state that that is not the way to go. The best way to encourage a greater training effort at the industry and enterprise level, and not at the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), big business, big government level, is by means of a lower corporate tax rate, a deregulated economic environment and a flexible wages policy that includes a training wage. In the last few minutes of my contribution, I am happy to refer to the Metal Trades Industry Association and its proposal for an agreement with the metal trades unions on training, career development and award restructuring. It is a pioneering document, and that is the way to go. One reads in the document about training wages and other major reforms where industry, at industry level with its work force, and enterprise, at enterprise level with its work force, are able to maximise training opportunities for young people and adult workers who need retraining. On the question of a training wage, if one looks at page 46 of the 1987-88 Budget Paper No. 1, the following statement in relation to improving the supply of skilled labour is made: Setting apprenticeship and trainee wage rates in line with the work productivity of trainees would help especially in the initial training period. We do not need just an Australian traineeship system whereby we eke out of the environment a few places for a few trainees in a few industries and a few enterprises. We need an across the board flexible wages system that allows for an across the board training wage, so that it is economic again for employers to put on young people and to pay them at a rate commensurate with their productivity while they are learning and getting the necessary training that will stand them in good stead for a lifetime of work. What is set out in Budget Paper No. 1 is directly in line with the Opposition's commitment, which I shall repeat around the country until I am bored with my own comments. That commitment is to implement a training wage that will compensate employers for the time and effort spent in providing workers of all ages with the skills they need in today's workplace. A training wage will do far more than any tinkering at the edges, any wage subsidy scheme or any Australian traineeship scheme to create much needed additional job opportunities. The idea of a levy will give undue Government influence over the national training effort and make it far too removed from the workplace. The levy is straight out of the document of the ACTU entitled Australia Reconstructed, which is a manifesto and a blueprint for a centrally planned and bureaucratic economy. It is not the way to go and never will be. My only regret is that we will not have the opportunity in this place, where it should occur, to debate all of the aspects of this major legislation. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(5.28) —Government members are used to hearing a certain amount of drivel from the Opposition, but the contributions from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) contained some high octane drivel indeed. One wonders whether there might be something in the water on the Opposition side of the House to have given both those honourable members a dose of amnesia this afternoon. They seem to have forgotten what went on in this House during the Opposition's period in government. During that period, cognate debates on these types of Bills were a matter of course; they happened year in and year out. The time allowed for these debates this afternoon, although not as characteristically generous as the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) would normally make available, is certainly more than the Liberal Party of Australia ever made available during its period in government. Honourable members seem also to have forgotten that major changes in Federal bodies in education-changes in the administration of the Curriculum Development Centre and the Education Research and Development Committee, changes to the Schools Commission and the Tertiary Education Commission in 1981-were not the subject of separate discussions in separate Bills. Those matters were all brought in in the report of the review of Commonwealth functions in 1981. The amendment the honourable member for Mackellar has moved attempts to condemn the Government for its alleged failure to provide sufficient resources to meet student demand or to find alternative sources of funds for tertiary education. It ignores the Australian Labor Party's record in government and the Opposition's record in government. It misrepresents the Liberal Party's policies and it misrepresents the recommendations of the Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding. I direct the attention of the House to the record of this Government in providing student places in tertiary education. In its first four years, this Government provided an additional 36,800 new places. In the last four years of Liberal government, 8,100 places were provided; 36,800 were provided under this Government a little after the time when just over 8,000 were provided under the Liberal Party. The policy on which the Opposition failed last year, in July, provided for no additional places in the tertiary sector. It provided that any extra places could be paid for by fees up front negotiated between students and institutions or by loans. Where is the equity in that proposal? Where is the access for underprivileged groups in society under that proposal? I remind the House that the report of the Wran Committee is set firmly in the context of expansion of the sector proposed in the Green Paper. The Green Paper proposes that the number of graduates per year should rise from the present 88,000 to 125,000 by the turn of the century. At the current rate of graduation, this implies that by the turn of the century, there will be between 180,000 and 200,000 additional places. Currently the Commonwealth spends around $3 billion on the tertiary sector. That is not counting almost $2 billion in student assistance. The extra places, based on current graduation rates, would cost of the order of $1.2 billion and, clearly, that money cannot come from the Budget. The excellent analysis of the Wran Committee identifies the beneficiaries of the system: society, industry and graduates themselves. It concludes that each should make a contribution. Society will continue to do so through the general taxation pool. The role of industry in making contributions is to be investigated by a tripartite committee. Finally, the recommendation of the Committee is that graduates, when they are in a position to pay, should make a contribution. Bearing in mind that tertiary graduates enjoy lower unemployment, more satisfying jobs and a higher level of salary than average, it is not unreasonable to expect that the major beneficiaries of the system should make a contribution. I find the critics of the Wran recommendations short on style and short on substance. The honourable member for Mackellar this afternoon was certainly no exception. I wish to turn now to deal specifically with the programs covered by clause 22 of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill. Clause 22 provides for $2.47m for the States for programs of adult education, including adult literacy programs. The extended adult illiteracy in Australia is not known with any accuracy, but a survey carried out in Sydney in 1974 by Dr Judith Goyen found that 3.7 per cent of native English speaking respondents were functionally illiterate. They were unable to follow simple STD telephone dialling instructions and classified housing and employment advertisements or to read a job application form. The finding for those respondents born in non-English speaking countries was a staggering illiteracy rate of 43.3 per cent. Overall, 9 per cent of the sample lacked `survival literacy' skills. An extrapolation of Dr Goyen's 1974 figures to the 1981 census suggested that at that time there was a total of 1.189 million illiterate adult Australians. Mr Hollis —The hidden problem. Mr FREE —Exactly. Bringing those figures up to date with the 1986 census, one can reason- ably conclude that there are 1.272 million illiterate adult Australians. I shall quote briefly from Dr Goyen's comments on her study. She said: What is perhaps surprising is that any of those educated in Australia or some other English speaking country should have failed this simple test. If 3.7% fail a test that demands little more than the reading of words and sentences, then one can predict that a much higher proportion would have failed a test that demanded the reading of passages of prose. That is, a substantial proportion of the adult population must be of ``marginal'' literacy when it comes to reading the many notices, forms, instructions and information leaflets that form part of our everyday life. Mr Hollis —They could not even read Hansard. Mr FREE —That is right-and what a shocking loss! There is no single cause for adult illiteracy. The Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, in its 1985 report entit- led A National Language Policy, listed the most common explanations-poverty, broken schooling, illness, change of school, emotional upset, cultural deprivation, poor teaching at school, lack of adult education and lack of adherence to the concept of education as a continuous process throughout life. These were all identified by that Senate Standing Committee as possible explanations for adult illiteracy. To that list we must add what one researcher has referred to as the `onslaught of the audio-visual age'. It is quite clear-I think we can all accept this-that the impact of television and radio and telephone have been forces leading many in the population away from reading as an activity to listening and watching. The consequences of adult illiteracy have very wide effects indeed. They affect participation in employment, in industry and in society. At the work place, deficiencies in literacy diminish skills of the work force as a whole and, therefore, indirectly affect national economic growth. At a personal level, illiteracy restricts personal advancement and flexibility in the work place. There is clearly a reduced ability to transfer to other jobs. Those in the workplace who are unable to read and understand simple safety instructions are obviously more prone to industrial accidents. Some time ago, the South Australian Literacy Board made a film called Can't You Bloody Well Read. The title came about as a result of an incident in a factory in which the foreman went berserk when he saw a worker had ignored a warning sign and was using a power tool without the safety guard. He yelled, `Look mate, can't you bloody well read?'. He could not, and hence the film. Illiterates suffer higher rates of unemployment. A survey of adult literacy students in Victoria showed that that group had four times the average rate of unemployment experienced in Victoria at that time. Those illiterate people who are in work often tend to be concentrated in unskilled and semi-skilled occupations. Of course, as those jobs tend to dry up, as those jobs requiring lower literacy skills decline, those people also suffer decreasing employability. In society as a whole, those with low levels of literacy are more likely to be dependent on welfare. They are less likely to take full advantage of leisure opportunities available to them, and simple activities such as shopping and banking become very difficult, and tasks such as voting become well nigh impossible. The remedies are quite clear. There is a need for more literacy programs. In 1986, apart from the adult migrant education program, there were only 440 adult literacy programs across Australia. The funding that this Bill provides will certainly assist this process, but adult literacy has been left to the States for far too long. There is also a second remedy-the need for use of plain English, particularly in Government publications. I shall again quote briefly from the comments of Dr Judith Goyen. She said: As the Government brochures that I look at appear to be more difficult than the test passages used in the surveys, it is possible that an even greater proportion of the population would have difficulty in reading Government publications. Shortly there will be a booklet dealing with the Yes and No cases for the referendum questions. It will be distributed to each and every household in Australia. Based on the figures that we have, more than one million Australians will be unable to read that booklet and, therefore, exercise their democratic rights. All honourable members would have encountered people in their electorate offices who have experienced great difficulty with various departmental forms. It is not a bad exercise, as a local member, to actually try to fill out one of the forms, to go into a Medicare office and try to fill out a Medicare claim form, or to examine the forms from the Department of Social Security or the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, to realise just how difficult they can be. These forms have improved in recent times. The design has become clearer, but there is still room for improvement and for more care in their preparation. Mr Webster —That is in plain English. Mr FREE —That is right. A couple of weeks ago in a local newspaper circulating in my electorate and in the electorate of the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) there was an article by Telecom Australia inviting people to apply for free access to directory assistance. Honourable members will recall that directory assistance is to be charged for shortly, but certain groups will not be subject to the charge. People who can establish that they are disabled or print handicapped can apply to Telecom and their telephones will be exempt from the charge. Telecom is using an interesting process to identify those people who qualify. The second paragraph in the article in my local newspaper says that persons who find it difficult or impossible to read may apply for an exemption. That is a great start. I went along to the local post office and picked up the form `Application for Directory Assistance Exemption for a Private Telephone'. The first few lines are not too bad. They ask for one's given names and family name. I suppose that one could battle through that. Then the `name of lessee of service if different from above' is asked for, and a few other particulars. It then says: I declare that the details given on this form are accurate, and that I am Print Handicapped in line with the definition of the term `Print Handicapped', as given over the page. Over the page there is quite a bit more. One has to read halfway down the page to find out where one fits in to the print handicapped category. Adult literacy comes in here. I know that Telecom has a difficult job, but newspaper articles and producing forms like this to identify the print handicapped is perhaps not quite the way to go about it. Given that Telecom spends quite a bit of money on television advertising, I would have thought that it would not have been beyond Telecom to have run a television campaign on this matter so that the print handicapped could apply for the exemption they are clearly entitled to. I realise that it is difficult to communicate with the print handicapped, but the challenge has to be met. I know that we cannot incorporate cartoons in Hansard, but a lovely cartoon appeared in the Bulletin in 1985 on exactly this point. It shows a perplexed gentleman looking at a brick wall on which there are two posters. The first poster says, `Illiterates meeting this Saturday night at 8.00 p.m.', and the second poster says, `If you couldn't read the last notice, please turn up anyway'. It is a serious problem. Over one million adult Australians are affected. It is a problem that demands a nationally coordinated effort. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(5.44) —I fully support the comments of my colleagues the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) on the important issues raised in these three Bills, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and the Employment, Education and Training Bill. I hope to speak at more length on these vital matters at some other time. In the limited time available to me I want to deal specifically with the case for establishing a tertiary education institution on the mid-north coast of New South Wales. I have made representations on behalf of the Coffs Harbour City Council to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his courtesy, and his personal staff for their helpfulness in arranging a meeting for me next week to meet the Chairman of the Higher Education Council. I raise this matter now because it is absolutely vital for the future education needs of the people of northern New South Wales and, in particular, the north coast that this move is included for funding in the 1989-91 triennium. The case for establishing an institute of higher education on the mid-north coast is absolutely compelling. The north coast region, from Taree to the Queensland border east of the Great Dividing Range, has the fastest growing population of any region in New South Wales. Within the north coast region the mid-north coast is the fastest growing sub-region. Coffs Harbour city is estimated to have a population of 50,000 by June 1988. It is estimated that there is a population in excess of 100,000 within commuting distance of Coffs Harbour, sufficient to generate 1,000 tertiary students locally in the region. The north coast region already has a population equivalent to that of Tasmania. The north coast region has the lowest per capita provision of higher education places of any region in New South Wales, including the western suburbs of Sydney, which have been singled out to get special treatment. On the statistics, the north coast is far more deserving than the western suburbs of Sydney. Lack of contact with a higher education institution leads to reduced awareness of educational and career opportunities stemming from advanced study. Hence, school-leavers' goals are not directed towards university or college of advanced education courses. The cost of transport and accommodation inhibits many young local people from seeking a place in a distant higher education institution. Increasing difficulty in gaining admission to a higher education institution prevents qualified young people from enhancing their future career prospects. Opportunities for part time higher education study are totally lacking on the mid-north coast. We have very high unemployment rates, especially of unskilled young people, on the north coast which point to a need for expanded education and training opportunities to enhance employability. Coffs Harbour city is very accessible. It is a transport focus, being at approximately the centre of the north coast region. It is located directly on the Pacific Highway and the main north coast railway and has a recently upgraded jet airport also heavily used by commuter airlines. It is well served by inter- and intra-State coach services, some 44 a day. Coffs Harbour has the existing infrastructure to support and service new major developments such as an institute of higher education. The allocation of a magnificent site of 80 to 120 hectares has already been made to Coffs Harbour City Council as a free gift by a major developer specifically for a higher education campus to the value of $2.3m. The land is there already. We are ready to go. Student accommodation of 400 to 600 places is immediately available in the older tourist units and flats during term time. This would complement the holiday lettings. There is strong community support within Coffs Harbour city for the establishment of a higher education institution there. The project also has the strong backing of Coffs Harbour City Council and of neighbouring, fast-growing shires. A public meeting held in Coffs Harbour on 23 March attracted 600 people. Mr McGauran —Six hundred? Mr NEHL —Given the population of Coffs Harbour, if we translated that 600 to Sydney terms we would be talking about a meeting of many thousands of people. The New South Wales Minister for Education and the Higher Education Council have given approval in principle to the development of higher education courses in Coffs Harbour. The proposed campus site is considered to be magnificent-it is-and could be shared with new technical and further education developments. The City Council has been encouraged in its negotiations with existing institutions in regard to `parenting', a move which would be approved of by this Government. In particular, the University of Newcastle and the Hunter Institute of Higher Education, formerly the Newcastle College of Advanced Education, have been most supportive. Senior staff have already had several discussions in Coffs Harbour, and the University of New England has expressed interest as well. While an extensive range of traditional courses, with support facilities, may take time to develop, existing local resources could enhance some specialist studies perceived to be particularly relevant to this area. These include business studies and new technologies, specialising in tourism management, small business, accounting, computing, and technical advances; sub-tropical horticulture and marketing, specialising in intensive practices such a hydroponics, tropical and sub-tropical fruits and nuts with export potential, tea and coffee, naturally occurring oils and some chemicals. We would also be looking, perhaps at courses in resource management, specialising in marine science; visual and performing arts courses; and social and welfare studies. The region has a high aged population. In my electorate of Cowper the population aged 65 years and over is approximately 50 per cent higher than it is in the rest of Australia. We have a lot of children. We have high unemployment and severe drug problems, as has the rest of Australia. So social and welfare studies would be most appropriate. The region contains the remnants of local tribes, sacred sites, burial grounds and middens, so Aboriginal history and archaeology courses would also be appropriate. In summary, the case for the establishment of a university or other higher education institution in Coffs Harbour in the electorate of Cowper is compelling. It would provide and extend educational opportunities in full and part time study and become a centre for research. It would develop as a focus for enhanced intellectual and cultural experience for the general population. It would provide a boost to commerce and industry. It would provide an extensive range of employment opportunities. It would provide welcome additional facilities which would be available to the whole community. It would complement tourism and, being established in the region of the fastest sustained population growth in New South Wales, it would be well located to help meet the need for additional places for potential higher education students. This will be especially necessary as the effects of the Government's policy of encouraging school students to continue studies to the end of year 12 become apparent. I appeal to the Minister to exercise vision and to make provision for funding this exciting and necessary educational development in the 1989-91 triennium. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(5.51) —In my contribution to the debate on these three Bills I intend to concentrate on the Employment, Education and Training Bill and in particular the provisions contained in it for a restructuring of higher education. The Employment, Education and Training Bill is a key part of the long overdue reform of our education system. The Bill establishes the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET), four specialist advisory councils, and the Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee to provide the details and advise upon the reforms advocated by the Government in its discussion papers on higher education and training. This Bill is thus at the centre of the greatest changes to higher education in decades. That a major shake-up in higher education is necessary should not be in doubt. Australia needs more graduates and a more appropriate mix of graduates. The Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education concluded that Australia's output of graduates in selected fields of study lagged by up to 45 per cent when compared with the leading North American countries. When all graduates, including those of two-year courses, are taken into account, Australia trails the United States of America by 33 per cent in proportional terms. The trend towards a greater proportion of graduates in technical and professional fields, which has been quite dramatic in the United States since 1970, has also been slow to occur in Australia. A significant expansion of higher education is necessary for our future economic growth and for the achievement of greater equity of access to our higher education system. Substantial inequities in access remain for some groups in the population, particularly people from financially disadvantaged backgrounds, people from rural and isolated areas and Aboriginal people. Women's involvement in certain undergraduate disciplines and postgraduate study generally remains very limited. These inequities can be most effectively addressed by planned expansion of the higher education system. The indicative figure for growth in higher education used in the Government's policy discussion paper is 125,000 graduates per year by the year 2001, which would increase the proportion of the labour force with a degree or diploma from 10 per cent in 1986 to 15 per cent in 2001. This figure would still leave us significantly behind the comparable output of graduates in Canada and the United States and other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. To achieve the ambitious growth objectives required, our higher education system will need to question many of its traditional values and overcome its infamous inertia. A rapid increase in youth participation, improvement in graduation rates and an increase in access of adult students will all be necessary. To achieve this, institutions must look at a range of issues including admission standards, course length and content, course mix, bridging arrangements, timetabling and attrition rates. I also support the Government's view that changes in the structure and organisation of higher education are desirable. The division between universities, colleges of advanced education (CAEs) and the technical and further education (TAFE) system serves no relevant purpose and indeed is detrimental in many ways to the demands of a modern higher education system. Growth in higher education will also require swift responses from State governments. They must assess their commitment to growth, particularly in two-year courses in TAFE and, together with non-government authorities, they must assess their policies on curriculum and teacher education. It is also essential that employers increase their involvement in higher education through participation in course development and assessment, and allowing access to their equipment and staff through cooperative education programs. Industry clearly has an obligation to increase its financial contribution to higher education. While the National Board of Education, Employment and Training and its subsidiary councils can focus attention on these desired changes in higher education, it is clear that the attitude of State governments, industry and the institutions themselves is crucial to the success of the Government's objectives. I am pleased to say that in South Australia the State Government is at the forefront of moves to use higher education resources more effectively to address our pressing economic and social problems, and to meet the increasing need for an educated and skilled population. The State Government issued its own discussion paper on higher education in South Australia, including options for restructuring, in December 1987. The State Government will shortly release a White Paper on its preferred restructuring proposals and the Government intends to legislate on this matter later in the year. The South Australian Government has also recently released a report on immediate post-compulsory education which investigates higher education selection criteria, the nature of studies for all students in the immediate post-compulsory education years, and how higher education requirements may be derived from such studies. It is also generally recognised that the South Australian TAFE system leads the country in many important respects, so I am confident that these necessary changes in higher education will proceed with the cooperation of the South Australian Government and its agencies. Gaining the desirable level of cooperation and financial support from industry for higher education will be a much more difficult challenge. This may present special problems for the smaller States, which do not house the head offices of major corporations. The question of industry support poses one of the threats to success of the Government's policies on higher education and training. In its response to the discussion paper on higher education, the University of Adelaide asks, `Won't the growth in graduate output, if it can be achieved, turn out to be a burden for the country economically unless there are major changes in the attitudes and managerial skills of private sector employers?'. These are matters which the Government must confront. It is the TAFE system which has a particularly vital role in this area because, of all the educational sectors, TAFE has the strongest and most direct links with industry. In South Australia TAFE is responding rapidly to the demands of industry and has introduced a number of new initiatives which I believe will be followed throughout the country. For example, through TAFE business enterprises the State Government has entered into contracts with Commonwealth Government agencies and private firms to enable the two-way transfer of technological skills. In the case of higher education institutions there is widespread agreement with the general thrust of the Government's reforms as outlined in its discussion papers. However, there are a number of specific matters on which institutions express doubts and their enthusiasm for reform inevitably recedes when the institutions are faced with the prospect of rapid change, or when existing empires are challenged. Not surprisingly, proposals for the consolidation of institutions have generated the most heat. It is worth emphasising why the restructuring of higher education is necessary. The so-called binary system of higher education arose when a second tier of institutions-colleges of advanced education-were created out of the old teachers colleges and technical colleges. This second tier expansion followed the creation of a number of new universities modelled on the existing universities. The problem with the expansion was that it produced some institutions which had insufficient enrolments to provide effective educational servicing and there was evidence of some wasteful course duplication. In addition, the CAEs were not funded for research as were universities, and their status was lower. CAE academics generally carried heavier teaching loads and were provided with fewer resources, such as library facilities, than their university counterparts. In spite of their lower status and funding the CAEs recruited many good academic staff, designed some excellent programs, and produced some fine grant funded research. However, the existence of a discriminatory binary system of higher education tends to work against the achievement of equity and appropriate growth in graduate output. It has long been recognised that there is a need for system-wide acknowledgment of the importance of students being able to progress along the educational continium and for institutions to facilitate this by adopting a more flexible approach to the granting of credit. Such a system of credit transfer is an important step in reducing wastage and improving the access of disadvantaged groups to higher education. The discussion paper on higher education makes many worthwhile suggestions as to how this objective can be implemented. However, fair credit transfer arrangements will always be difficult to achieve in a system where there is a difference in status between components of the system. Under the proposed new unitary system it will still be important for higher education institutions and the system itself to have links with State TAFE authorities. The discussion paper recognises this and recommends that TAFE offer two-year full time higher education courses as a provider in its own right, funded by the States and with a capacity to deliver courses on a contract basis through other institutions. While most institutions have welcomed the Government's proposals to scrap the binary system in favour of a new unitary system, the older institutions naturally wish to preserve their traditional strengths. I believe the Government is correct in supporting the development of a funding system that responds to institutional performance and the achievement of agreed goals so that institutions will no longer be able to continue without penalty those longstanding practices which act against the public interest. Many institutions are naturally suspicious that the proposed new funding and staffing arrangements present a challenge to institutional autonomy and cherished academic freedoms, but the simple fact is that the present system encourages a level of wasted resources and lost opportunities which can no longer be tolerated. There is too little accountability for large sums of taxpayers' money, and I support the discussion paper's assertion that academic freedom should be no protection for inadequate performance or lack of commitment. I have every confidence that higher education institutions will soon adapt to the fundamental national objectives set out in the discussion paper and discover that within this basic framework they can have the greater freedoms promised-that is, more flexibility at the institutional level to determine courses to be offered and research undertaken; greater institutional control over resources; and decreased government intervention in funding and management. There are two further areas concerning the work of NBEET and the other bodies to be established under this legislation which I wish to mention. Firstly, there is the development of reliable performance indicators for higher education. The discussion paper concedes that far more developmental work needs to be done, particularly on a comprehensive, nationally consistent statistical base. It is regrettable that in so many areas where the Hawke Government has introduced long overdue and far-reaching reforms so little statistical information was available to help with the preparation of such measures. Secondly, there is the division of responsibilities between Federal and State governments. Unfortunately, as the discussion paper points out, there are few definitive and generally accepted criteria for distinguishing between matters of national and State concern in higher education. The nation's system of higher education must clearly respond to national objectives while serving both State and regional needs. The TAFE system must also have regard to broader national considerations. Clear potential exists for conflict in priorities and procedures between the Commonwealth and the States, particularly in the case of CAEs. The discussion paper points out that the important issue is to establish a process of consultation and the essential requirement is development of an effective advisory and consultative mechanism between each State and the Commonwealth to facilitate the planning process and to advise on State priorities. In conclusion, the Employment, Education and Training Bill is a major element in the restructuring of higher education in Australia. The institutional arrangements established by this Bill, combined with the policy prescriptions of the Government's discussion papers, can provide a higher education system which makes the maximum contribution to the growth of the Australian economy and produces greater equality of opportunity for all Australians. With cooperation from the States, industry and institutes of higher education, the creation of the National Board of Education, Employment and Training and its subsidiary councils will mark the beginning of an important new phase in the history of Australia's development. I commend the three Bills to the House. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(6.05) —The three Bills before us tonight are the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, and one Bill to nationalise education advisory structures-the Employment, Education and Training Bill. They are subject, as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has indicated, to amendments by the coalition. They are considered to be primarily machinery Bills, with the exception of the third Bill, which contains some fairly bad news. The Bills reflect and serve the broader policy directions of this Government in regard to the education of young Australians. Therefore it is quite appropriate, I believe, for some comment to be made on that policy direction. Let us consider, first, clause 3 of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill. That clause tells individual non-government schools that henceforth they do not have to tell the Minister when they are going to move to the premises next door. The need for such a clause-a very small step in coming to grips with red tape-clearly highlights the realities of the ridiculously overregulated non-government schools system. This week each member of this House received the latest issue of the Australian Parents Council Review. The Council points out in that journal that the Government's determination to limit parental choice of schooling is evidenced by the latest list of enrolment-limited schools, which shows 363 affected non-government schools in Australia-an increase of 12 per cent on the 1987 list. It also points out that the Government is not only discouraging expansion of parental choice, but also is interfering in curriculum matters. It forces non-government schools to-and I quote from that journal: . . . adapt their curriculum to the Government's stated political priorities instead of allowing them to follow their own education priorities which over the years have resulted in their proud record of achievement. It is not just non-government schools which are affected by the heavy-handed bureaucracy and the political interference of government. Our public schools suffer just as much from these burdens. We have a public school system which is overbureacratised, starting with the unnecessary Federal education bureaucracy and ending with the administrative directions to account-if honourable members can believe it-for every piece of stationery in an infants department storeroom. That bureaucratic burden contributes to and is compounded by the serious level of demoralisation in our teaching profession. It is time we got off the backs of our teachers. Today a teacher bears the threefold responsibility of responding to government policy adhockery; responding to educational disadvantage from socioeconomic factors, particularly the increasing incidence of family breakdown; and responding to the fears of parents about the future employability of their children. It is time we restored the status of, and regular public praise for, the teaching profession. It is time we gave teachers a system which provides them with the flexibility, resources and public confidence to achieve the multidisciplinary objectives the public now expects. It is time we stopped mindlessly funding a rigid system which makes policy decisions and allocations, for example, as if class sizes on the North Shore of Sydney presented teachers with exactly the same problems as class sizes in western Sydney. We have been quite unfair to teachers. We expect teachers not just to maintain but to lift literacy and numeracy levels. We expect schools to teach not only the basics but also computer literacy, foreign languages, science aptitude, consumer skills, reasoning skills and personal development. We expect value education from teachers but are vague about which values. We expect teachers to do all this with less administrative support and fewer resources. We expect teachers to do this in a community which blames them for social problems and regularly questions their professional commitment. Let us be clear about this: the school is second only to the family in terms of its significance for our future. In many instances it must take up family responsibilities as well as its own. But the quality of our relationship with teachers does not correspond to the enormity of the social responsibility they are expected to bear. So long as we continue with unfair attitudes and expectations, inappropriate bureaucratic structures and backward professional management and development strategies, we will simply exacerbate education problems for our children. Our attitudes and this Government's policy approach to higher education are equally open to criticism. Consider the Employment, Education and Training Bill before the House now. The approach by the Government to the need to expand higher education is to expand the controls of the corporatist state through an education board which gives the officials of the Australian Council of Trade Unions a say on university administration and priorities. Contrary to the worldwide trends towards decentralised, small is beautiful strategies for excellence, this Government is about centralising control and the direction of tertiary institutions. Frankly, it is counterproductive for us to continue passing legislation which structures and funds the education bureaucracy that sees only a small amount of the funds trickle down to the local school and institution. Instead, we must adopt a school, institution and profession-focused policy that nurtures autonomy, pluralism and excellence. In that regard I acknowledge the policy contributions of my colleagues the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) and the honourable member for Mackellar. I declare my conflict of interest in this matter. For a great part of my career prior to entering parliament I was a teacher. I have taught infants and primary and secondary students for many years. Let me say to my colleagues that they should spend a week in a classroom in a disadvantaged area, study the lessons of the great institutions of higher education, and they will soon understand my comments today. The legislative and policy basis for schools and higher education is flawed. Just as significantly, the signals we send out to teachers and students are confused and counterproductive. I shall give two examples. The first is: what signal is the Government sending currently to prospective postgraduate students? It is this: it expects them to forgo 12 years of income; it expects their young families to suffer poverty level income in that period; it expects them to study in Australia within underequipped institutions; it wants their research to be relevant as determined by the government of the day; and it sees them as essentially free riders who should face additional taxation when they earn an income because, on the whole, it does not like unproductive, self-serving intellectuals. The second example is this: my colleague the New South Wales Minister for Education is faced with permanent teacher shortages in western Sydney. He is advised that some teachers are abusing casual teaching to avoid classroom responsibility and to get high pay rates. He announced publicly that he will end this and he described it as a rort. Now the unintended signal to all those men and women who combine casual teaching with family care is, `You are rorting the system; we doubt your professional commitment'. The key to improved basic skills, to retention rates, and to tertiary education intakes is not the expansion of bureaucratic control; it is not the expansion of the corporate state; and it is not public criticism of teachers and institutions. The way to achieve these objectives is to equip, empower and enthuse teachers to do the same for parents and students at the level of the local school, college and university. Unfortunately, today we will see passed machinery Bills that will fund and restructure educational policies and management which run counter to that approach. Mr GEAR(Canning)(6.15) —To answer one of the criticisms repeated frequently by the Opposition in the vain hope that if it keeps telling a lie it might become the truth, I pick up one of the points made by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) on the so-called corporatist state and the so-called centralising of power. The line the Opposition is pushing has no basis in fact. The Government is setting up a consultative board that in many ways is more open to scrutiny and more accessible than the system it replaces. Firstly, I turn my attention to the current situation in higher education in this country as the Bills touch on that area. The release of the Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding proposals in the past couple of weeks has shown that once again-as is stated in the document-the higher education system is still mainly the preserve of affluent people. If one were to make a comparison between 1988 and 1974, one would find that changes have been made but they were only minimal. Although I do not condemn the changes made in 1974, hindsight has shown us that if we are to stick with the current system, we will not achieve that particular aim. If the aim was to assist people from low income families to gain access to higher education, we started-I have always held this view and still hold it-at the wrong end. In many ways, the people on low incomes and from low income areas never reached the starting gates of higher education because they were dropping out on the way through the system, and the retention rates tend to support that argument. On Labor coming to government, the retention rate in secondary schools was 36 per cent, and now they are well in excess of 50 per cent. The Government will take them higher. The only areas from which those students can come is the working class areas. The Government has made a start in addressing the problem of ensuring that more and more young people from all areas are actually reaching the starting gates of higher education, and not only those who come from the more affluent areas. One of the major criticisms I have of the present system is that the size of the student body is not determined by capacity or even by demand but by the allocation of the Federal Budget. I cannot see much of a future for a higher education system in which funding is provided in that way. The Wran proposal, which I shall discuss shortly, overcomes that problem. The basic question one must ask oneself is: how will education be funded? There is no disagreement among the people participating in the higher debate that education needs to be expanded, because it is true that the education system serves the economy in which it is placed. Although Liberal-National Party governments were in power for 35 of the 40-odd years after the Second World War, they were happy to run an economy based on sending rocks, wheat and wool overseas and not many value added products. Therefore, the education system was tailored towards that. Australia had a low number of graduates in comparison with the countries it traded with and now the focus in Australia is to have value added to the raw materials in Australia and not to send them overseas for someone else to take the profits. The whole of the focus of the Government, certainly in areas of taxation, industry policy and now education, is to ensure that Australia has a system that accommodates that fundamental change in the economy, having put some decency back into the taxation system to ensure that Australia promotes investment rather than capital gains or speculation and by looking at industry policy in a more meaningful way, and ensuring that the education system is more attuned to providing Australia with the skilled people it will need in the future, rather than relying, as it did in the past, on importing the skills from overseas. It was a fact that Australia bludged when it came to training its young people. We always took the view that it was easier to send overseas for the skills and import them rather than to train our people with appropriate skills. That was an inward-looking policy and the focus of everything the Government is doing now is to ensure that our people are trained and retrained. That is the way of the future. Other countries that have followed that path are doing much better than Australia. The basic thrust of the Wran proposal is forgotten, because the basic thrust of the Government is to expand the educational system. We are going from a situation where currently about 88,000 students graduate from our higher education institutions to a position where we want over 125,000 to graduate. The basic argument, as I said before, is about where the resources will come from. There is an argument that they should come from the Budget, that is, the taxpayers should fund the whole area of education. I personally do not hold that view, and I have not done so for quite a while. I think that there is a community benefit in higher education and that the community should pay for it. Under the proposals of the Wran Committee, the community will still underwrite 80 per cent of the cost of higher education, with industry and the students themselves picking up the other 20 per cent. I think that is equitable, because industry does get a decent return on its investment from the higher education system; but in exactly the same way the participants in higher education really get a head start in life that is with them for the whole of their working lives and they certainly do very much better, in terms of remuneration and access to jobs, than people who do not go on to higher education. I honestly believe that the attitude to education has changed dramatically since the 1970s. I think people now recognise it for what it is, namely, a sound investment for their kids. For example, if we look at the long waiting lists for places in private schools we realise that parents are prepared to pay up to $5,000 a year to have their children attend private schools. The main reason they are doing that is to make sure that their kids get into higher education institutions. It seems to me to be a mad proposition that parents who are prepared to spend up to $5,000 a year on their child's education in secondary school will not make any contribution when it comes to tertiary education. I honestly believe that people nowadays will make that investment and I do not think it is asking too much of them to ask them to help fund the education of our young people, certainly in the context that we are going to expand the system to accommodate the 13,000 to 20,000 young people who currently cannot get in. For that reason I support the Wran proposal and what it stands for. I believe that the Committee has recognised in its proposal to the Government that there may be a deterrent in bringing back fees. I agree with that, because it is very hard for people on low incomes who want to go into tertiary education to be confronted with a high up-front cost. The Wran proposal does not have that. In fact, it takes the money back much later in life, when the recipient of the benefit of higher education can afford to pay it back. As I say, it is based on only 20 per cent of the cost; and, although I do not think we will get 20 per cent back from the student, he will certainly make his contribution. Taking all of that into consideration, it is amazing to look at the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). He talks about the Government's failure to provide sufficient resources to tertiary institutions for them to meet the demand for student places. I was not lucky enough to hear what the honourable member had to say, but one thing I can presume with great accuracy is that he would not have put up a solution. Anybody who reads the report of the contribution he made this evening will, I am sure, find that. The Opposition really has more front than a double decker bus. I am told that the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) had a look at the retention rates and the increase in our higher education institutions under the former Government compared with those under this Government. Without knowing those facts, I know that the former Government came a distant second when it came to performance in that area. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is talking about cutting $11 billion to $13 billion-that is, $11,000m to $13,000m-off government expenditure. When we talk in figures of that magnitude and when we start looking at areas in which resources such as those can be cut, it seems to me that education would be high on the list. Knowing members of the Opposition as we do and knowing the opportunists that they are, we know that they would not say that they would cut pensions and they would not do it immediately. There are many other areas which are just as sensitive as that but which we know the Opposition is too gutless to tackle. But, of course, education is a sitting duck because all anyone has to do is sit on his hands and do nothing, and over time the higher education sector will actually be starved of those funds. If the Opposition wants to cut $11,000m to $13,000m off government spending, I cannot see any future for an expansion of the higher education system under the coalition. The Liberal Party of Australia is the only party in Australia that is still talking about full tertiary fees. Its position is that institutions should be allowed to take on students over and above those who are publicly funded, by allowing them to pay full tertiary fees. That is a very discriminatory policy in that, as I have said, people on low incomes would not be able to attend those higher education institutions because they just do not have the money. It seems to me to be a crazy proposal to put up, but nothing from the Opposition surprises me nowadays. Just recently, I noticed newspaper reports of the honourable member for Mackellar talking about his education policy. If my memory serves me correctly, he said that he would give that area back to the States. The Opposition would say, `This is how we are going to cut off the $11 billion to $13 billion. We will stop spending money and somehow all those costs will disappear'. Of course, that is nonsense. The Commonwealth might be saving itself that money, but it would be putting the onus on the States and they would have to come up with the money. Maybe the Opposition is going to fund the huge spending proposals that it is talking about by simply getting out of the system altogether. I look forward to the Opposition's education policy because, if the other policies are anything to go by, it will be a real lulu. Mr Hand —We remember their tax policy. Mr GEAR —The Opposition has had a number of tax policies and it has had six or seven health policies. It will have three or four education policies before the next election; there is no doubt about that. The legislation before us also establishes the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET). As I said before, the whole focus of that is to make sure that we actually get more participation from the wider community, because NBEET does replace a number of bodies, such as the Schools Commission and the Tertiary Education Commission, that used to serve governments. I believe that the changes are for the better because we are now bringing all of those educational offerings under one umbrella. We are starting to get people who are out in industry talking with the educators-rather than having them set up in their ivory towers here in Canberra-and the NBEET proposals will do that. It is also important to realise that the community will have greater access to the Board and its councils than ever was the case with either the Tertiary Education Commission or the Schools Commission. For the first time all advisory bodies in these areas will reflect the Government's commitment to tripartisanship, that is, that both employers and unions should be represented directly and not indirectly as they once were. As well as having this strength, the legislation makes it clear that the operations of the Board and its four councils will be open to public scrutiny. Everything that is discussed and proposed by those councils will be tabled here by the Minister and will be available to the wider community so that it can have a direct input. That refutes everything that the Opposition is talking about-this corporatist state. What the Opposition is big on is jingoism and what it is small on is detail and policy. It thinks it can float through the system by this jingoism rather than coming up with hard policies. I could touch on many other areas; but I am watching the clock, as you are, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that the whole focus of what we are doing today is to assist Australia to become a more vigorous and more dynamic economy and that what we are doing complements every other major structural change that this Government has brought in. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(8.00) —in reply-I was not able to follow the entire debate, but obviously I want to thank those who participated in it. I would like to respond to some of the observations of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). The establishment of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training is an important change. I think the honourable member for Mackellar has recognised that it is a big change, even if he does not agree with all the provisions of the Employment, Education and Training Bill. I wanted to make the point that underlying this approach is the importance of the Government having coordinated advice across the range of employment, education and training policy areas. It is important to realise that many countries around the world are now trying to move towards a more coordinated approach to education, from initial education in the schools through to what people do in upper secondary school, the post-secondary environment, industry training, technical and further education and higher education. At a recent Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development conference, which I was delighted to be able to chair, it was interesting to see how many countries are observing what is happening in Australia, generally with great approval of the way in which we have been able to bring these policy areas together, trying to coordinate our approach across that diverse range of education and training policy areas. In that context it seems to me important that, as far as our advisory structures are concerned-bearing in mind that it is important for the Government to have the views of both the education providers and, on the other hand, the users of the education system, whether they be industry or the community in general-we ensure that we have access to advice on the important issues which the Government will have before it, not the least of which, of course, is how to expend the something like $6 billion which is available within my portfolio to ensure that we do in fact meet the objectives which the Government has and, more importantly, the objectives that the community would seek us to pursue. There is the question of how we get coordinated advice from those who are primarily involved with schools as well as from those who are primarily involved with other areas of education such as higher education, technical and further education, industry training and so on. If the Opposition believes that this advisory structure is different from those which it replaces, that is perfectly true. But this is deliberately the case because we are trying to bring some coordinated approaches to these policy areas. I note some of the points that the Opposition has raised in its amendments. In a sense I agree with the honourable member for Mackellar, it was a pity that we had so little time to give detailed consideration to his proposed amendments, because it may well have been possible for us to reach agreement on some of those issues-and I would still be happy to talk to him in the context of the further consideration that this matter will have in the Senate later on. Obviously, there are some difficulties with some of his amendments. I do not wish to traverse those here this evening. In summation, I think it is important that we establish this board. There is the question of whether or not it has to be a statutory board. The bodies which it replaces were partially statutory and partially non-statutory. The statutory ones were the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Commonwealth Schools Commission; but there were also certain non-statutory bodies such as the Australian Council for Employment and Training and, of course, the Australian Research Grants Committee, and a number of other committees which existed by way of administrative decision rather than by way of statute. But it is certainly my wish that this board be established with a statutory framework. It is also my wish that we should be able to move quickly to establish it at least on an interim basis, and then, as soon as the Bill becomes law, we can finally establish it on its proper statutory foundation. There is a great work load for this body to undertake, both in relation to the reforms we have in mind for higher education and also in other areas of the education and training system. I hope that once this House has passed this measure-and, of course, the associated Bills that we are discussing here tonight-we can move quickly to see this body firmly established. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.08) —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 condemns the Government for its failure to provide sufficient resources to tertiary institutions for them to meet the demand for student places, or to find a satisfactory alternative source of funds for tertiary education'. Madam SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Webster —I second the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel 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.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Price, L. R. S.Dubois, S. C. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W.Johns, G. T. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Smith, W. L.Fife, W. C. Sullivan, K. J.Fischer, Tim Taylor, W. L.Fisher, Peter Webster, A. P.Goodluck, B. J. Wilson, I. B. C.Halverson, R. G. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Duncan, P. Hall, SteeleFatin, W. F. Spender, J. M.Hayden, W. G. White, P. N. D.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. Messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(8.19) —by leave- I move: (1) After clause 7, page 2, insert the following new clause: ``7a. After section 15 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Division 1 of Part II: Recurrent grants may be increased to assist institutions in meeting Second Tier Wage Case decisions `15a. (1) The Minister may, on or before 30 June 1988, determine, for the purposes of this section, that expenditure of a specified kind by prescribed institutions, being expenditure incurred, or to be incurred, in giving effect to: (a) a decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission making a second tier adjustment of salaries and wages in accordance with the wage fixation principles set out by the Commission in its National Wage case decision of 10 March 1987; or (b) a decision of a State Industrial Authority making a second tier adjustment of salaries and wages in accordance with wage fixation principles laid down by that Authority that are consistent with the wage fixation principles referred to in paragraph (a); shall be relevant second tier wage expenditure. `(2) Where the Minister is satisfied that a prescribed institution has incurred, or will incur, relevant second tier wage expenditure, the Minister may, on or before 30 June 1988, determine an amount of additional financial assistance payable in relation to the prescribed institution in respect of the year 1988, and, subject to subsection (3), the amount specified in Schedule 1, 2, 5, 6 to 7 (as the case requires) in relation to the prescribed institution, shall be deemed to be increased by the amount so determined. `(3) The aggregate of the amounts determined under subsection (2) shall not exceed $46,254,000. `(4) In this section: ``prescribed institution'' means: (a) a university in a State; (b) a college of advanced education in a State; (c) an institute of tertiary education in a State at which courses of advanced education are provided; (d) a technical and further education institution in a State at which courses of advanced education are provided; or (e) a non-government teachers college; ``State Industrial Authority'' has the same meaning as in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1903.'.''. (2) After clause 14, page 4, insert the following new clause: Reports by the Minister ``14A. Section 48 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting `, 15A' after `15'.''. In introducing these amendments, the Government has recognised two things. Firstly, it acknowledges some progress in negotiations for the second tier national wage increases for both general and academic staff in the higher education sector. Secondly, it recognises the rights of workers to have negotiated salary increases paid as early as possible. The program to be funded as a result of this amendment is designed to provide interim additional funding for institutions providing higher education courses that will not be in a position to achieve immediately the productivity gains that are a condition of the second tier decision. The Government's decision that bridging funds should be made available in the short term is to ensure that institutions are in a position to pay the salary increases while the productivity gains are achieved. To benefit from that program, the parties will need to resolve any differences speedily. The industrial processes are such that the current negotiations may stall and the parties may seek arbitration. I am seeking to ensure that the parties pursue the negotiation process to finalisation, with the outcome of an agreed settlement which satisfies the Commonwealth's higher education objectives. The amendment requires me to determine the funding to be provided to the institutions in relation to the second tier increase for the 1988 calendar year by 30 June 1988. Institutions will need to seek funding in sufficient time for payments to be made by 30 June 1988. Although I consider that arrangements to provide adequate funds should be in place so that the recipients of the wage increases are not in any position of uncertainty pending amendments in later legislation, I do not believe that the parties should be in a position to delay indefinitely decisions on the final outcome or to obstruct the negotiation process. Any request for funding after 30 June will need to be considered in the Budget context. The timing of the provision of funds after 30 June will be subject to legislative provision in the Budget session of parliament and, in the normal course of events, funds would not be available to institutions until late 1988 or January 1989. The Bill is expected to pass all stages of the current session of parliament. The additional amount to be included through this program will be some $46.3m. I ask that the amendments circulated in my name be adopted. Any requests for funding after 30 June will need to be considered in the Budget context. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.21) —The Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) has kindly explained to me, in addition to his speech, what he intends by the amendments. It is an important principle that anybody who receives a second tier wage increase does so as a result of a productivity agreement. Of course, there have been negotiated through industry productivity agreements which, in a number of cases, have enabled employers to reach settlements with employees and which have allowed the costs of the second tier increase to be offset or more than offset by the agreement. This is necessarily quite a difficult thing to do in the area of tertiary education but, nonetheless, the Opposition recognises that the Minister is putting some pressure on the institutions, and possibly more so on the unions involved, to come to a speedy settlement in terms of productivity arrangements and, in that sense, the Opposition has no objection to the amendment. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 April, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put: The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel 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.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, Barry Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Fisher, Peter Taylor, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Webster, A. P.Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Duncan, P. Hall, SteeleFatin, W. F. Spender, J. M.Hayden, W. G. White, P. N. D.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 42-by leave-taken together. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.32) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 7, page 5, line 6, omit ``, but subject to subsection (2)''. (2) Clause 7, page 5, lines 18-20, omit subclause (2). (3) Clause 7, page 6, after subclause (6) add the following subclause: ``(7) The Board may delegate any of its functions to a Council.''. (4) Clause 9, page 7, lines 33 and 34, omit paragraph (6) (b). (5) Clause 9, page 8, lines 4-11, omit subclauses (10) and (11). (6) Clause 11, page 8, lines 17-25, omit subclause (1) and (2), substitute the following subclauses: ``(1) The Board shall consist of not more than 13 members of whom not more than 3 may be appointed on a full-time basis. ``(2) Of the members: (a) one shall be a person having expertise in matters relating to trade unions; (b) one shall be a person having expertise in matters relating to business or industry; (c) at least 7 shall be persons having expertise in matters relating to education or training; and (d) at least 2 shall be persons having expertise in matters relating to scientific research or technology.''. (7) Clause 24, page 13, line 4, after ``Board,'' insert ``or by resolution of the Council,''. (8) Clause 24, page 13, after paragraph (2) (e) insert the following paragraphs: ``(ea) the need to raise educational standards of schools; (eb) the need to maintain discipline in schools;''. (9) Clause 24, page 14, after subclause (2) add the following subclause: ``(3) In the exercise of its functions, the Schools Council shall consult and co-operate with persons, bodies and authorities conducting government and non-government schools.''. (10) Clause 25, page 14, line 12, after ``Board,'' insert ``or by resolution of the Council,''. (11) Clause 26, page 14, line 35, after ``Board,'' insert ``or by resolution of the Council,''. (12) Clause 27, page 15, line 26, after ``Board,'' insert ``or by resolution of the Council,''. (13) Clause 30, page 16, after paragraph (b) add the following word and paragraph: ``; and (c) may authorise the publication of any comment or submission made to it, of any document presented to it, or of any report made by it.''. (14) Clause 31, page 17, lines 17-21, omit subclause (3), substitute the following subclause: ``(3) The Governor-General shall appoint: (a) subject to section 31a, one of the members of a Council chosen from the members of the Board who is not a member of the Council appointed under subsection 2 to be the Chairperson of the Council having regard to the relevance of the experience and expertise of that member to the responsibilities of the Council; and (b) another member of the Council to be the Deputy Chairperson of the Council. (15) Page 17, after clause 31, insert the following new clause: Chairperson of Australian Research Council ``31a. An appointment of Chairperson of the Australian Research Council shall only be made after consultation with the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering, the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and the Australian Academy of the Humanities.'' (16) Clause 42, page 20, lines 10 and 11, omit paragraph (1) (a), substitute the following paragraphs: ``(a) the Chairperson of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee; (aa) the Secretary of the Department;''. I have to point out to the Committee that, in addition to these 16 amendments, I have another. To have debated these amendments properly I would have introduced them one by one, and had them dealt with one by one. That would have taken quite a long time. It is only because of the guillotine having been applied to this legislation by the Government, forcing one of the most important pieces of legislation in some time through this chamber in minimal time, that it is not possible for me to deal with these matters adequately in this chamber. As I pointed out before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, they will have to be dealt with properly in the Senate. Tonight all I can do, in effect, is formally to move 16 of my amendments together, instead of dealing with them one by one, and explain as many of them as I can get to in the short time allotted to me. I think it is a disgrace that we are handling this Bill-- Mr Brumby —You have just wasted two minutes. See whether you can waste another one. Mr CARLTON —If the honourable member for Bendigo thinks of this as a joke he had better go somewhere else. The first amendment to clause 7, on page 5 of the Bill, I will link with the second amendment. It omits the words, on line 6 `but subject to subsection (2)' and also omits subclause (2). The purpose of these two amendments, taken together, is to enable the National Board of Employment, Education and Training to have a reasonable prospect of initiating matters without having them referred to it by the Minister. It is part of the general framework of this Bill and the intention of the Government that the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) be very much under the thumb of the Minister. These provisions make it impossible for the Board to carry out any functions which it believes are of importance and which have not been referred to it by the Minister, only if the performance of that function does not prejudice the performance of its functions under paragraph 1 (a), in other words, those functions that have been put upon it by the Minister. By removing these two provisions we bring the Board back into the same kind of condition as its predecessor bodies, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) and the Commonwealth Schools Commission, which could initiate inquiries of their own without having the Minister's approval. The third amendment, to clause 7, page 6, adds a new subclause (7): The Board may delegate any of its functions to a Council. There are four councils reporting to the Board. It seems sensible, in order to be able to spread the workload amongst the various bodies in a sensible way, that the Board have the capacity to delegate any of its functions to a council. The fourth amendment, to clause 9, page 7, lines 33 and 34, omits paragraph (6) (b). Paragraph (6) (b) relates to the powers of the Board to summarise reports received from the reporting councils. If the Board receives a report from a council where the council has been asked by the Board or the Minister to report on a matter, the Board may give merely a summary of that report to the Minister, and then it is only the summary of the report that is subsequently published in the Parliament. There may well be many matters which the councils might consider to be important, where they want a full report published. The Board would have the capacity to provide a summary and include in the summary whatever it liked. If we take, for example, the Australian Research Council, which may put up a detailed matter on research or technology, the Board may not have a full appreciation of the import of that report and may summarise it in a manner which could destroy the intent of the Australian Research Council. That would be unfortunate. So we believe that the Board should not have the capacity to summarise reports from the councils. The fifth amendment relates to the capacity under this Bill for the Board to eliminate any report or part of a report for publication that it believes need not be disclosed because of confidentiality. Again, this is a means of gagging the subsidiary councils. They may bring forward for subsequent publication matters which they regard as being of importance. The Board can decide that the matter is a confidential matter and it is not included in the report which goes on to the Parliament. So, by omitting subclauses (10) and (11), we remove that power of the Board and again we bring the Board back into line with the practices of the old CTEC and the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The sixth amendment, to clause 11, page 8, is very important, relating to the membership of the Board. The Government has provided that the Board shall consist of not more than 13 members. Of those 13 members, five may be full time members, two may be people from trade unions, two from business and at least seven shall be persons having expertise in matters relating to education or training. Here we get to the heart of balance of power, as it were, on this Board. Under the Government's proposals it is possible for five full time public servants, plus two trade union representatives, plus two business representatives-a total of nine out of 13-to dominate the proceedings of the Board against the interests of those from education, training, research or technology. We therefore propose that the structure of the Board be changed so that the maximum number of full time appointees may be three and not five, and that there be one representative from trade unions and one from business. We believe that they should be represented, but not unduly. So therefore the Board may have a maximum of five full time public servants, plus union and business representatives, out of 13, leaving a greater possibility of representation by people who know something about what is happening in the educational, scientific and technological research spheres. We agree that seven shall be persons having expertise in matters relating to education and training. In proposed subclause (d) we say that at least two shall be persons having expertise in matters relating to scientific research or technology. People in the research and technological communities are very concerned indeed that they might not have people on the board, which is the powerful body reporting directly to the Minister, who have an understanding of their particular problems. Amendments 7, 10, 11 and 12 would give the councils the opportunity to decide for themselves some items of their agenda in addition to those given to them by the Minister. Under the Minister's proposals, the councils have no capacity whatsoever to initiate matters for themselves and we believe that they should have. The Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission had that power and we believe that the councils ought to be able to initiate matters and also to publish. Amendments 8 and 9 refer to the Schools Council. In amendment No. 8 we want to include in clause 24 in the objectives that have to be taken into account by the Schools Council two additional objectives over and above those that have been passed on from the old Schools Commission, which were set many years ago and which do not reflect the need to raise educational standards of schools. Nor do they reflect the need to maintain discipline in schools. These are two areas which are of great concern to parents, employers and the community generally. We believe that these two points should be reflected in the formal objectives that are laid down for the Schools Council. We also want to make sure that the Schools Council, in the exercise of its functions, will consult and cooperate with persons, bodies and authorities conducting government and non-government schools. That was a requirement in the Schools Commission Act and we believe it should also be a requirement for the Schools Council under this Bill. Amendment No. 13 refers to the power of publication of a council. After paragraph (b) of clause 30 on page 16 we want to add sub-clause (c) as follows: may authorise the publication of any comment or submission made to it, of any document presented to it, or of any report made by it. This is an important addition to the changes that we propose in amendments 1 and 2, which enable the Board to initiate matters. It is also important to add to the changes in amendments 4 and 5 which restricted the power of the Board to summarise or to delete reports from councils because of their confidentiality. In this case we want to give the councils a clear right to authorise the publication of any matter that they deem should be made public. If they do not do that, a public debate on matters of great importance in the areas covered by the Council will be precluded in a way that it has not been under the previous legislation. Amendment No. 14 deals with clause 31 and the constitution of the councils. Its effect would be to ensure that the chairperson of a council is appointed having regard to the relevance of the experience and expertise of that member to the responsibilities of the council. There is nothing in the Bill at the moment which would ensure that the Board member appointed as chairperson of the council need have any particular expertise or experience in the work conducted by that council. This amendment would ensure that that is the case. The amendment also would make sure that the person is a part-time appointee and not a full-time employee or somebody under some appointment by the Government. We believe that it is important to have independent chairpersons of these councils, thus relaxing the obviously intended grip of the Minister and of NBEET on this whole set-up which is part of the objective of the Bill as it stands. We do not agree with that. Just about everybody who has anything to do with this whole area out in the real world does not agree with that. Amendment No. 14 will ensure that the chairperson of the council is a part time and independent appointee and also a person chosen because of the relevance of his experience or expertise to the work of that council. Amendment No. 15 deals with the insertion of proposed new clause 31a which relates particularly to the appointment of the chairperson of the Australian Research Council. This is a particularly important appointment in relation to which the scientific and technological community has a worry about whether its interests will be fully understood. Also, those in the humanities and social sciences wish to be sure that the person who heads this important body is someone in whom they have confidence. The amendment makes it a very reasonable requirement, which is found in a lot of other legislation, to consult with various learned bodies before an appointment is made. Proposed new clause 31a reads: An appointment of Chairperson of the Australian Research Council shall only be made after consultation with the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering, the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and the Australian Academy of the Humanities. We regard that as being additional to the requirement that the person has expertise and experience in the area. This is another safeguard to ensure that the person who is in charge of this very important body has the widespread confidence of the learned communities. Amendment No. 16, the last in this group, refers to the deletion of paragraph (1) (a) from clause 42 and the substitution of other words. The consultative committee is designed to create a link between NBEET and the States and to be a point of reference about the objectives in employment, education and training with all the State functions that are associated with this policy area. The Chairman of NBEET naturally ought to be the Chairman of this committee and not the Secretary to the Department of Employment, Education and Training. We believe that the Secretary should certainly be a member of the consultative committee but it seems to us ridiculous to omit the Chairman of NBEET, or anybody directly from NBEET other than the seven other persons, whoever they might be, who will be the representatives of the States. NBEET representation should not be excluded from the body which is supposed to provide the consultation with the States. I say this without any disrespect for the Secretary to the Department. It is well known that I have the highest possible regard for him. I just do not think the thing will work if NBEET has to rely on the Secretary to the Department as its point of contact with the States. Therefore, we wish to add a new clause as follows: the Chairperson of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, who shall be the Chairperson of that Committee; We then include subclause (a) as (aa) to ensure that the Secretary to the Department is also included on the Board. The seven other persons would be representatives of the States and Territories, then the thing ought to work properly. Those are amendments No. 1 to No. 16 inclusive, which I would have preferred to have moved seriatim, had discussed seriatim and voted upon seriatim with the chamber having had some reasonably long consideration. Nonetheless, we have to defer any sensible consideration of these matters to the Senate. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(8.50) —I will reply briefly to the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). The point is, of course, that the Employment, Education and Training Bill has been around long enough for the shadow Minister to have taken up my offer to have discussions about his concerns regarding the provisions of the Bill. I made it perfectly clear some time ago that I was happy to discuss with him any appropriate amendments he might have. Unfortunately, he did not see fit to discuss the proposals with me, which I think is a pity, I have always said that I am not intransigent on some of these questions and I would have been happy to discuss some of them with him. In some respects his proposals are misconstrued. In some other respects they may have some merit. But I was intrigued by the ease with which the honourable member was able to move from precedents in relation to the bodies this Board will replace to ignoring precedents in relation to those pre-existing bodies. The major pre-existing bodies he has referred to-the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) and the Commonwealth Schools Commission-were established for different purposes. They were established to be executive bodies which actually administered programs and provided funds to various bodies that were to carry out functions which the Schools Commission, for example, recommended to the Government and which the Government then approved. They did have a quite clear executive function. This Board and its councils have very little in the way of executive functions. They are there to advise the Government on the way in which programs ought to be established and administered. Therefore, to rely entirely on the functions, powers and structure of the old commissions is not entirely appropriate. When the honourable member talked about powers and the right to initiate certain inquiries and publish reports, he was referring to those powers which existed in the pre-existing bodies. In regard to chairmen and full time members, he ignored the fact that both the Schools Commission and CTEC had full time chairmen. Indeed in the case of CTEC, five of its 11 members were full time. Yet he said what a terrible thing it would be if, on this Board of 13, there were up to five full time members. The honourable member really cannot have it both ways. If he wants to rely on precedents he can, but he cannot then abandon precedents when it suits him. Another point I would like to make is that we do need, as I said before, some coordinated approach to the advice we are receiving. The honourable member bemoaned the fact that councils cannot initiate their own business. They can propose and, if the Board agrees, initiate their own inquiries. Of course, the Board itself, on its own motion, can initiate inquiries and publish reports on any matters it chooses. As well, there is an authority for the Minister to refer matters to the Board which it may in turn refer to councils for advice and report. One has to realise that we are not establishing this elaborate structure so that the Board and these councils can go off on some wild frolic of their own. They are being established to provide advice to the Government. If they are not providing advice to the Government, what is the point of having them? The reason for having this advisory structure is so that the Government can be well advised by people who are knowledgeable in the various sectors of employment, education and training, so that their advice can be taken into account in the development of various Government programs and in the administration of those programs. The honourable member ought to try to appreciate that we are moving from one structure to an entirely different structure for an essentially different purpose. I want to refer to one other matter the honourable member raised-that is, that some of the learned academies are very concerned about their interests. We established the Australian Research Council (ARC) essentially on the advice of the Australian Science and Technology Council, which has amongst its members some of the most eminent scientists and other researchers in Australia. They wanted this body established broadly in this way. I think most people see the establishment of the Australian Research Council as a great advance because it brings together a coordinated approach to the support of research across the range of disciplines and fields throughout Australia. The honourable member says that the problem is that there is no-one on the Board who understands the scientific area. He ignores the fact that the Chairman of the ARC will be a member of the Board. Therefore, he will be able quite clearly to represent the interests of the Research Council on the Board and ensure that concerns about research are taken into consideration. There is an important distinction to be made in relation to the Research Council. It has two primary functions. The first is to advise on research policy in general and the second is to advise on the actual distribution of grants to researchers around Australia. We believe that the Research Council ought to advise the Board on research policy. In respect of who should receive actual grants to support their research, the Australian Research Council should, as its predecessor bodies do now, advise the Minister directly rather than go through another structure which may change its recommendations. The concerns of the research community are well protected in the structure we have proposed. As I said, we would have been happy to discuss some of these provisions with the honourable member. Regrettably, that has not been possible. While we see that there would be some capacity to give further consideration to some of them, on this occasion I am bound to say that the Government will not accept the amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Carlton's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.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, Ewen Pratt, N. P.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hewson, J. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, G. T. Wright, K. W. Hall, Steele Duncan, P.Spender, J. M. Fatin, W. I.White, P. N. D. Hayden, W. G.Howard, J. W. Hawke, R. J. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendments negatived. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being past 9 p.m., the time allotted for the committee stage of the Bill has now expired. The question now is: That clauses 1 to 42 be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Clauses agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that the remainder of the Bill and the Government's circulation amendments be agreed to and that the Bill be reported with amendments. Circulated amendments. Clause 49, page 22, line 17, insert `and the National Director of the Commonwealth employment service' after `Council'. Page 31, Schedule 2, the part of that Schedule that amends the definition of `higher education institution' in subsection 3 (1) of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986, omit all words from and including `Omit', substitute the following: `Omit ``Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977'', substitute ``Employment, Education and Training Act 1988'' '. Question resolved in the affirmative. Adoption of Report Motion by (Mr Dawkins proposed): That the report be adopted. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(9.06) —I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard amendment No. 17 circulated in my name. Leave granted. The amendment read as follows- (17) Clause 56, page 24, lines 1 and 2, omit paragraph (1) (a). Question resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 26 April, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(9.07) —Yet again I add my voice to those who have complained to the Government about its handling of the gag not only on the Bills honourable members are about to debate but also on the 13 other Bills it has guillotined to cover up its whole mismanagement of the exercise of running this House. The Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill seek to give effect to the Government's road package. Incidentally, I notice that the Minister responsible for the package, the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris), has only just arrived in the House. The Bills seek to give effect to the Government's so-called fast track package of road freight reforms. This package has been some years developing. If this is the fast track package, I should hate to see the slow track package emerging. Although the Government has made some progress in changes to its road package, it has made no real attempt to do anything on the railways or on the waterfront, especially with shipping on the waterfront; but despite 21 reports and countless committees, nothing has been done. As I listened to the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) pat himself on the back today during Question Time when he was saying what terrific progress had been made, I noticed that he forgot to mention the recently released Industries Assistance Commission report, which said that inefficiencies in coastal shipping are costing the community between $300m a year and $700m a year. The Minister forgot to mention that report, which was one that does not fall into the ambit of trade union directives to the Government; it is one that he would prefer to forget. The reforms that are encompassed in the Bill are long overdue. It is a shame that, in bringing them down and in reaching the compromise or trade-off with the industry, which agreed with the changes in reaching that trade-off, the Government has taken the easy mark by doubling interstate road freight charges while ignoring much more important problems. These more important problems are much more expensive to the taxpayer-for example, Australia's grossly inefficient railways, which are losing approximately $8m every day. I want to draw the attention of the House and the people of Australia to what the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) had to say in this House last night when he was speaking on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill. He said: We agree that there are inefficiencies in our railways, in our workshops and on our waterfront. He went on to say, when talking about the Minister's own Department of Transport and Communications, the Minister's bureaucracy: This is all the rage amongst the new breed of economists, the theorists, the ivory tower merchants in the Canberra Public Service . . . This is a member of the Minister's own Party talking about the Minister's Department. He continued: The recent Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) report on coastal shipping is a case in point and I raise it here not because of what it said-it is not worth the paper it is written on-but because it represents the treachery of the ivory tower theorists in the Canberra bureaucracy. I remind the Minister that a member of his own Party is talking about his bureaucracy. The honourable member for Grey went on: And let me warn Australians that this privileged, isolated and ignorant army is everywhere. I am informed that such people have infested the bureaucracy with their economic theories and run together with their colleagues in all the major departments. If that is what a member of the Minister's Party is saying about the Department that the Minister administers, I suggest that the Minister should have some words with the honourable member for Grey. Let them sort out who is making government policy-the people in their ivory towers in Canberra or the Government. I suspect that it will emerge that the Government is continuing in its rather sloppy management of this part of the Australian economy. The increase in the speed limit for heavy interstate vehicles to 100 kilometres an hour, the revised driving hours in the eastern mainland States, the banning of smoking on interstate buses and the introduction of uniform mass limits of 42.5 tonnes across Australia are all positive steps which have the support of the industry and the coalition parties. However, the doubling of charges for interstate vehicles is an admission that this Government is impotent in dealing with the shambles which is the Australian railway system. It is essential, if Australia is to improve its present continuing overseas trading difficulties, and it is imperative, if we are to recover from our economic malaise, that we be capable of transporting our goods and our produce to the rest of the world as cheaply and as quickly as possible. The quite impartial and `head in the sand' approach that this Government has adopted to our railways, our waterfront, our coastal shipping and privatisation is indicated by the fact that it is willing to enforce 100 per cent or more cost recovery on industries where it thinks it can get away with it, such as with the truckies or the aviation industry; but when it comes to getting its mates in the trade union movement and the lazy management administering the waterfront, coastal shipping and the railways to do more to improve the transport system, it does nothing. This Government is afraid of standing on the toes of those who are members of the cosy cartels working in a way that disadvantages Australian families and who are members of those cartels operating on the waterfront, the railways and Australian ships. The change in charges in this Bill is a sorry indictment of a cynical and increasingly out of touch Government, willing to enforce an inequitable restructuring of the Australian transport system. We need to maximise the benefits from an efficient road transport industry that is subject to national uniform standards covering all critical areas of responsibilities and operations and not only mass limits. It is difficult to identify the rationale for delaying the widespread introduction of B-doubles. I guess that the Minister will say in his response-that is, if he gets time to make a response, because the last two times he has tried time has run out on him as a result of his own Party guillotining him-`Oh, well, that is something for the next package, for the next fast track package that we will bring out in the next five years'. I have to tell the Minister that, if the speed at which this fast track package has proceeded is duplicated or triplicated in his third package, he will never get a chance to bring it to fruition. It is difficult to understand the rationale for delaying the widespread introduction of B-doubles. The National Association of Australian State Road Authorities review of road vehicle limits identified the substantial productivity gains-in some cases exceeding 20 per cent-which B-doubles can deliver. The Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport also concluded that there were significant productivity gains to be achieved from widespread use of B-doubles in the transport of grain. Other government studies have reached similar conclusions. B-double vehicles have been operating for a number of years in North America, where they are used to transport commodities that are in direct competition with Australian goods in international markets. Knowing the difficulties we have with our overseas trading situation, it seems passing strange, if not incredible, that the Government should not have done something about B-doubles in this package. Every day that we delay the introduction of B-doubles is a further day for which we are asking export industries to compete under a major handicap, and every day is a further day for which we perpetuate the rail monopolies in certain parts of this country. It simply does not make sense, and I and the Opposition urge the Minister in one way or another to ensure that B-doubles can be used on a widespread basis as soon as possible. The industry is keen to work with the Government to establish a code of conduct for the operation of such vehicles in order to facilitate their early introduction. The use of this legislation to ensure that these vehicles can operate on a national uniform basis is clearly appropriate within the timetable that I have asked the Minister to consider, that is, the introduction of B-doubles as soon as practicable. The industry, as the Minister would know, has identified a technical drafting deficiency in respect of one of the clauses of this Bill. I note that the Government is moving to correct this deficiency. I point out that, as we have seen recently not only in this legislation but also, for example, yesterday with the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill, this can be described only as sloppy management by this Government. It just does not seem to be able to get things right, and it is further evidence of how out of touch with the Australian people it is growing. The Minister's second reading speech foreshadows that the registration charges will be substantially increased from 1 July, particularly in respect of the higher mass limits established by the amendments in the second Bill that we are debating here tonight-the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill. There is concern that this legislation should provide adequate protection to prevent any attempt by the States to impose additional charges on federally registered vehicles. With the level of charges announced by the Minister, it is clearly inappropriate to permit a situation where the States attempt to double dip on this whole question of charges. Again I ask the Minister to give the House assurances, either when he replies, if he gets a chance, or in another way if he does not, that the arrangements that have been reached with industry and the States do not permit a situation where, this doubling of charges having been introduced, the States are then in a position to impose significantly higher charges themselves. In this legislation there is now to be a much higher ceiling, up to $5,000, on the level of charges which could be imposed on mass limits of 42 1/2 tonnes. This is a huge jump from the level that existed before the amendments that are now proposed. We share the industry's reservations about where these charges and the cost recovery objectives generally could be heading if the Government were to accept a number of the Inter-State Commission's recommendations contained in its latest report on land transport cost recovery. I refer particularly to the Inter-State Commission's proposal that future cost recovery reviews should be undertaken on the basis of, firstly, removing the link between improvements in road transport cost recovery and the level of rail transport cost recovery; and, secondly, determining cost recovery targets on the basis of short run marginal cost pricing. Both of these proposals would provide railways with substantial advantages over road transport, and they would have the effect of unbalancing the playing field-in as much as it is possible to talk about a level playing field. Elimination of the link between rail and road cost recovery would remove one of the few means of imposing pressure to improve the financial and operating performance of the railways around Australia. It would involve reneging on a principle espoused by the Minister's own National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. That inquiry also rejected the concept of short run marginal cost pricing, an approach which lowers the cost recovery target for railways from 100 per cent of full distributed costs to about 70 per cent, while there would be a negligible change in the road transport target. What the Interstate Commission proposes in this instance is that rail should be given, at the stroke of a pen, a comparative advantage of 30 per cent. No genuine commercial organisation can afford to follow the simplistic economic approach associated with short run marginal cost pricing. The Minister must give the House an undertaking that he will reject this approach out of hand. We also see a need for the Government to facilitate a greater industry involvement in determining the future cost recovery analysis. There is a need to look more closely at the so-called fourth power rule, which holds that road damage increases by the fourth power of increases in axle weights. Much of the research on the so-called fourth power rule is being carried out at the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB), and that happens, as the Minister knows, to be in my electorate in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Because it is in my electorate, I visit it from time to time. I am glad to say that the Minister was present at a function celebrating its tenth anniversary a couple of years ago. That was before the Minister became a non-Minister, then another non-Minister, before becoming the Minister again. The appropriateness of this arbitrary formula must be questioned, as it is questioned at the ARRB. It must be questioned particularly in respect of the use of well constructed roads, whose greater integral strength means that road wear is much less than on older types of roads. As we have seen recently, weather can play its part in the deterioration of roads. Extreme weather, to which Australia is unfortunately often subjected, can cause far more road damage in a much shorter time than any amount of heavy vehicle operations. As the funds raised by this registration charge increase are to be exclusively used for road maintenance activities, it is also appropriate to highlight this Government's disgraceful record in regard to road funding. Mr Hollis —That is rubbish. Mr BEALE —We will come to that. Honourable members opposite have kept road funding at $1,245m for the last four years. That is a drop of 40 per cent in real terms-the most disgraceful road funding performance almost in the history of the country. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) inform us ad nauseam that a major priority for this Government in its third term of office is micro-economic reform. Honourable members opposite would not know a micro-economic reform if it came up in front of their noses. The only micro-economic reform for roads that that bunch is going on with is to take us back to the standards of the 1950s. As I said a moment ago, the Government's performance on road funding has been $1,245m, held constant for the last four years; that is a drop of 40 per cent in real terms. While I am on the subject, let me tell honourable members opposite about some roads which are being caused to be turned back from bitumen to gravel because of lack of maintenance funds. Honourable members opposite should listen to this so that they can get their performance on roads into perspective. The Moora-Coomberdale road in the eastern wheat belt of Western Australia used to be a bitumen road. But because the mob opposite would not give any funds for maintenance it is now a gravel road. Are honourable members opposite proud of that? The Kalannie-East Kulja road is the same. There are roads up near Moree in New South Wales, in north-eastern Victoria and in north-western Victoria where this is happening. I commend the initiative of the Australian Automobile Association and its State motoring organisations for commencing a campaign to highlight the tax rip-off that this Government is perpetrating on every Australian road user. As that campaign progresses, more and more Australians will join the Australian Automobile Association in asking where the roads are that our taxes are paying for. Since the Minister has come out of the box and is back at the table, let me ask him what he is going to do about road funding in the May mini-Budget. Is he going to take $50m off road funding? Is he going to absorb $200m of road grants to local government into the general purpose grants to the States? The Minister shakes his head; he is not going to do that. That is very very interesting because the information we have suggests that the Government is about to deliver another body blow to road funding by taking $50m off road funding grants and by absorbing around $200m. The Government cannot seriously justify its continual cutting of road funding on the basis that it makes good economic sense. Roads are about the soundest economic investment that governments can make. They provide real returns by firstly generating greater productivity in the commercial transport industry; secondly, reducing travel times for all road users; thirdly, lowering maintenance costs for all vehicles; and, fourthly, saving lives and reducing road crashes. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support, who is at the table, not infrequently makes Press releases about road safety. Let me say to the Minister that one commentator, based on an analysis of what is happening in what are called the black spots in roads around Australia, has estimated today that the $50m that the Minister plans to take off road funding, which he will announce next week, will cost a thousand lives on Australia's roads up to the year 2000. We have roads ripped up. We have a decrease in road funding. We have a bypassing of local government. The Minister is presiding over economic disaster if he continues the road policy he has pursued to date. 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 condemns the Government for: (1) failing to provide adequate funding for roads; (2) failing to address the appalling state and low level of cost recovery of the Australian railway network; and (3) increasing taxes on the transport industry'. The railways around Australia have what are called clock-off days. They are simple: a worker arranges for a workmate to put the worker's card through the time clock while the worker goes somewhere else on full pay. At the Jolimont workshop in Melbourne, sickies are raffled, except when they are auctioned to the highest bidder. Do not tell me that there is no enterprise left in the State railway systems. Victoria has led the world in making sick leave an item of currency. Railways around Australia are losing the nation more than $3 billion a year by the most conservative estimate. That is costing the average Australian household $600 a year. The national railway network is costing the nation $3,000m a year. A combination of Federal Government and Victorian Government weakness in dealing with union power, restrictive work practices, demarcation disputes, overmanning at all levels, lazy management and blatant rackets in our railways has now become a national scandal. Governments, including this Government, are involved in that scandal because they will not take action on behalf of the public against powerful rail unions. In Victoria, the unions insist that a number of attendants and a supervisor be employed on sleeping cars when their chief task is to bring passengers one cup of morning tea. In Melbourne, 600 guards are rostered for duty on suburban trains. They have no effective function, although they earn on average more than $30,000 a year. They usually just sit and read a book or watch the stations go by. That is costing the Australian community $20m a year. Work quotas are sometimes known as dargs. I have used the word `darg' before, and a couple of people have come up to me in the corridor and asked what a darg is. The honourable member for Grey did not need to ask what a darg is because in his speech yesterday on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill he said: Now, of course, they come to talk about rorts, niche rosters, dargs, et cetera . . . The honourable member for Grey knows what a darg is. In fact, everyone who has had any association with the railways knows what a darg is. A darg is a work quota normally set so the working day lies somewhere between four and six hours and the rest of the day is spent relaxing, working on hobbies or playing cards. Strikes in the railways are unusual, but there is a new form of coercion going on, and that is called the black ban. In answer to a question today the Minister for Industrial Relations told the House what a super job was being done on the waterfront. They are doing a better job on the waterfront than on the railways. The railways are costing $3 billion a year while the waterfront is costing only $2 billion a year. The Minister said what a great job was being done on the waterfront, but in talking about strikes he did not say that, on the waterfront, as in the railways, literally thousands of black bans are applied. It is those black bans that are leading to substantially reduced efficiencies on the Australian railway system. The application of black bans in the railways has been turned into an industrial art form. It is time for this Government and this Minister to face up to the fact that something must be done about the efficiency of Australian railways. It is no good the Minister sitting there and saying, `That is not a matter for us; that is a matter for the States'. The Government is responsible for the economy of Australia, and the economy is suffering because of the inefficiencies of our railways. It is time for this Government and this Minister to get out after the States and require them to improve the condition and efficiency of their railways, to get rid of the rorts and restrictive work practices, the rip-offs and the indifferent and lazy management that is hurting every Australian family to the tune of $600 a year. Not just the railways and the waterfront but the whole transport network is costing decent, average, hard-working Australians and their families about $10 billion a year or $2,000 a family. It is time that this Government and this Minister faced up to the mess in the transport system and did something about it. The Opposition welcomes the progress that has been made as represented by this Bill, but calls on the Government to do something about the level of road funding, about the railways, about the waterfront, about the entire transport network. I commend the Opposition's amendment to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tim Fischer —I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment. I support it and I reserve my right to speak. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(9.37) —I am pleased to speak on this important legislation. Obviously, I support the legislation and reject the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). It is always interesting to hear the honourable member for Deakin speak. We must bear in mind that this is the man who, as a backbencher, before he was made a shadow Minister, advocated that there be no Federal funding for roads. Now, although he had the decency not to criticise the Government for what it has put into road funding, he is the man who, as a backbencher argued and issued Press statements saying that there should be no Federal money for roads. How the tune has changed now. The honourable member plays to the audience. It was very convenient to argue a couple of years ago with some of his mates, like the next leader of the Party, that there be no Federal money for roads, but now he comes in here and we have heard all the nonsense he has gone on with. It was interesting listening to his speech. For a while I wondered what he was talking about. We heard about the railway system, the waterfront and the shipping unions. We heard about everything but roads. As I understand it, this legislation deals with interstate road transport. When the honourable member got on to roads, what did he use as an example? He used two obscure roads in Western Australia-I must admit I have never heard of them and I have never travelled on them-which he claimed went from bitumen to gravel. Going on the sort of evidence he usually uses, I would want a little more evidence before believing it. I say to the honourable member for Deakin that I do not know of any bitumen roads that have gone to gravel. However, since the Hawke Labor Government has been in power, I know of many roads that have gone from gravel to bitumen. We have heard the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) talk about the Pacific Highway. I remember travelling on that road; I have seen it go from gravel to bitumen. Part of the national highway goes through my electorate. When I came there the people used to trundle through Marulan. There used to be a dangerous intersection at a place called Hoddles Crossing, which has taken lives. The historic town of Berrima was being ruined because heavy trucks were going through it all the time. All the towns in that area had trucks going through the main streets. What have we got now? We have the Marulan bypass and a marvellous interchange between the Illawarra Highway and the national highway at Hoddles Crossing, which I had the pleasure to open a couple of months back, much to the annoyance of the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp). What do we have? Mr Peter Morris —And done very well. Mr HOLLIS —Yes; very well opened. We also have the historic town of Berrima. The approach to that town is about to be bypassed. The bypass will go on to a place called Welby. As I understand it, work will soon start-and I hope it will-on the continuation of that bypass from Welby to Aylmerton. That is what this Government has been doing. The Government will put its record in regard to the funding that it has put into the national highways against the record of the previous Liberal Government. This Government has nothing to apologise for in its record, which is good. It is a continuing record, because it has a Minister who understands the needs of the travelling public, the motorists, and the Government has put millions of dollars into the national highway system. The amendments proposed in the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill will enable the Hawke Federal Government to implement its part in the second package of reforms in the Australian road transport industry. This Labor Government is the only government in Australia's history to have attended to the problems of the national road freight industry. There was the May National Road Freight Industry Inquiry, and the Government has worked very closely with the State and Territory governments to provide sensible and productive reforms. The package that honourable members are debating comprises increasing the national speed limit for heavy vehicles in non-urban areas to 100 kilometres per hour; revising driving hours in the eastern mainland States to reflect more realistic modern Australian conditions; and introducing revised registration charges and new registration categories providing for higher and nationally uniform load limits under the Federal interstate legislation scheme. Another aspect that we are dealing with is the banning of smoking on interstate buses. Having served on the Standing Committee on Transport Safety, I must say that I know how important these measures are. In regard to uniform speed limits, one of the things we found out when we inquired into long distance coaches was that the transport would be travelling on the roads at different speeds, which would actually cause accidents; and that if it were able to have a uniform high speed, it would be a chance to eliminate some of the accidents. I need not tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, how important it is to ban smoking on interstate buses because, in another capacity, I know of the sterling role you played in having smoking banned on domestic airlines. I am actually a smoker; I have never smoked on aircraft. I smoke a pipe and, therefore, I am banned from smoking on interstate airlines. However, I do not see why people should be permitted to smoke on coaches either, because I believe it is an infringement on people's liberties. Also, it imposes extra costs on the bus companies, and so on. It is a move that the bus companies support. It is interesting to note that, like the airlines, the bus companies would not make the move themselves-although they wanted to ban smoking on the coaches-until the Federal Government made a move. That is an interesting and progressive step. I listened to what the honourable member for Deakin said about coastal shipping and the waterfront, and I have read the Opposition's recent transport statement. I invite the honourable member for Deakin-as I have invited him many times before-to come with me to Port Kembla and repeat the garbage that he says in this House. It is very easy to come into this chamber and throw around accusations against unionists, railway unions and seagoing unions. I invite the honourable member to come with me to Port Kembla and repeat the garbage he says in this House and to justify it to the people he is accusing. That is the only decent thing to do. We can all stand up here and say anything we like. Some of the information the honourable member was giving this evening was as outdated as the attacks he has made over the past few months about the seagoing unions. He is about three or four years behind the times. For instance, what about multi-skilling? What about the reduction in the manning of ships? We hear nothing about that from the honourable member. The record of the seagoing unions is very good in what they have done in reducing not only disputes but also the man-hours on those ships. Mr Beale —What did you think of the IAC report? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! Mr Beale —Did you read the IAC report? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will restrain himself. Mr HOLLIS —The honourable member for Deakin is very good in this House in getting all uptight and screaming out. I say that if he was an honourable gentleman, he would come with me to Port Kembla and repeat to the seagoing unions and waterside workers at Port Kembla the claims that he is making and justify what he says. The only thing that the honourable member for Deakin did not talk about tonight was airline policy. It was more a speech about all forms of transport but road transport. I repeat what I said at the beginning; this Government has a good record. It has a proud record in road funding. It is a record in which we, as members, can take pride. The honourable member for Deakin was talking about his bitumen roads going to gravel. I could take him over many roads in my electorate that have gone from gravel to bitumen since this Government has occupied the Treasury benches. I support the Bills. I commend them to the House, and I reject the amendment. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.47) —Obviously, I support the amendment. None of us on this side of the House would in any way vote against the amendment stating that this Labor Government is not supplying sufficient funds for road building in this nation. In Australia's bicentenary year the real road funding category has dropped down to 1982 levels of funding, and that has to be a disgrace in any Australian's language. Australia is one of the biggest islands in the world. It depends very heavily on its arteries of transportation, be they sea, road, air or rail. It is very important to maintain adequate funding for roads. Of course, the second point in the amendment relates to the appalling state and the low level of cost recovery from the Australian railway network. Honourable members know that the buses here in Canberra are subsidised to the tune of $20m a year by the national taxpayer; most railway systems throughout Australia are heavily subsidised by State governments and run at horrific losses. If some sort of efficiency in the transportation system is to be achieved, honourable members should be examining very closely the way the railways are run. I must say that in the case of Queensland, the former transport Minister, Mr Don Lane, did an excellent job in this area, and he increased the profitability of Queensland's railway system. I only hope that other States will follow his lead and do the same. An enormous amount of money is taken out of the States' consolidated revenue and paid towards the upkeep of the States' railway systems. Of course, the Federal Government also pays. Through the consolidated revenue in this place, the sum of about $50m is paid as a subsidy each year to maintain the national railway system. That is something that we ought to consider very seriously and attempt to update and make more efficient. Of course, there are also increased taxes on the transport industry. The Bills that we are debating tonight are basically about increasing road registration charges. One may question and wonder why it is necessary to do that, considering the amount of funds and excise that all road users-in particular, the big interstate transport operators, the road train operators- must pay. As a farmer I am fortunate in that I am exempt from paying diesel excise. I do not believe that we should pay it. The Labor Government has been in office for some years now. It has moved the import parity pricing arrangements from the world price for crude oil at the wellhead across to the pump. There has been a ridiculous jump from 6c to 21c per litre, indexed to inflation. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is not here tonight. That is a pity. Every six months the tax on interstate road users and every other road user in this nation goes up. Roughly only 5c is put back. Now 21.7c is collected in excise, indexed every six months. Most of the funds go into Consolidated Revenue and are spent in other areas-probably wasted on welfare. Since honourable members opposite have been in government there has been a major increase in welfare spending in this nation. It is a disgrace. Australia is going down the drain, and they know it. We are spending $22 billion, $23 billion, $24 billion on welfare-non-productive welfare. That is why this country is going broke. A lot of the money we are spending on welfare comes from the excise taxes. Nearly $5 billion comes from petrol taxes. By the end of this year $5 billion will be collected from excise taxes which the Australian Labor Party has placed on the motorists of this nation. Yet it has the audacity tonight to present a Bill which asks the interstate and intrastate transport industry-the vital arteries of this nation-to pay even more taxes to maintain the roads. The Government ought to be spending more money from Consolidated Revenue on roads. We are already supertaxing fuel, and not only at the wellhead. The excise on crude oil is $2 billion. Esso-BHP pays 82c in the dollar on its Bass Strait oil production. Nobody else in this nation pays that sort of tax. Mr Beale —They don't like profits being made. Mr IAN CAMERON —Forget the profits! Honourable members opposite do not like profits. That is their trouble. They do not like anybody to make a profit. They hate the capitalists. For every dollar BHP makes in Bass Strait, the Government gets 82c. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! I suggest that the honourable member bring his remarks back to the substance of the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sticking to the Bill. I am right on this Bill. This Bill is to do with the Labor Party ripping the guts out of the fuel industry, charging Esso-BHP 82c in the dollar. Before the Government gets this crude oil to the bowser it charges 82c on it. Once the Government gets it to the bowser, it charges 20c per litre on it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am yet to be persuaded that the honourable member is talking to the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will persuade you before I am finished that what I am saying is correct. The Labor Government is taxing the hell out of fuel users in this country, the people who use the roads. They are the people we are concerned about. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) is here tonight. He is not a bad bloke. Ten days ago he came up to Milmerran in the great electorate of Maranoa and opened the bypass-I thank him. He made a special effort. I am pleased that he has at least considered my electorate. Obviously, the Department of Transport and Communications does not give it a lot of thought, but in this case the Department did give it some thought. This very good bypass road, that skirts the township of Pittsworth-- Mr Peter Morris —It has a good member. Mr IAN CAMERON —You are a good member and a good Minister. You came up and did the opening and we had a good day. That is part of playing politics in the electorate of Maranoa. Any Minister is welcome to come to my electorate. I assure them that I will look after them, providing they are spending some money out of Consolidated Revenue in my electorate. The only problem is that they do not spend enough. I will welcome the Minister at any time to my electorate of Maranoa. He is quite welcome to open all the bypasses he can possibly lay his hands on. I will distribute to my councillors every ribbon he cuts up. They will have smiles from one ear to the other. They might even vote against the Government's ridiculous local government referendum issue. It is absurd. It has nothing to do with local government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should be addressing himself to the Bill. I will wait for him to address himself to the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —I know I am straying a bit from the track but what I am saying has to do with road funding-local government, State government and Federal government. We are very concerned. We are voting No on all the referendum issues. They are an absolute farce. The wording is a farce. The Labor Government knows that they are a farce. Nothing in the referendum issues gives Federal recognition to local government. All it does is force the States to recognise it. There are only two States that do not-Tasmania and Queensland. I can assure the Government that by the time the referendum is held we will make sure that they recognise local government and the Government can withdraw the referendum from its voting pad. It can save the people the problem of filling out an answer to the question it is going to put to them and the $40m it is going to cost the Government to put this question on local government. I will get back to the question we are debating tonight-interstate road transport. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We would all welcome that. Mr IAN CAMERON —I commend the Government for the gross weight provision it has introduced. In Queensland our State Government has allowed wheat farmers and people carting grain in bulk to carry an extra two or three tonnes, up to 45 tonnes, gross weight. The interstate road transporters are allowed to carry 42 tonnes gross weight. Up to that gross they take the weight of the truck, trailer, the axle weight-triple axles or tri-axles and six-tonne front axles. A whole set of criteria is laid down by the Department of Main Roads as to what they can and cannot carry on the roads. Wheat farmers are able to carry an extra three tonnes up to the dump-a short haul-which helps them in their business. About 80 per cent of our national produce which is carried on some sort of transport is carried by road. So it is important to spend increasing amounts of money to rebuild and maintain our present road system and build new roads. It is important for us to have a proper weight system. There is nothing worse than over-loaded trucks rolling out on any sort of a road. They even go through cement bridges and all sorts of things. We are probably getting a better system. I would like to think that we could get a system where we did not have to pull up the interstate road transporters and weigh their vehicles every 100 or so miles, as we seem to be doing with the regulations that are imposed in that regard. At least we are getting a system which will see that not too much overloading takes place. People know the maximum load they are allowed to carry. That is important. As I have said, unfortunately this Bill forces these operators to pay more road registration fees. This is one of the major problems we face and why we have moved this amendment. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support is at the table. As I said, he has been up to Maranoa and has opened the bypass. There are some important roads in my electorate, particularly the Burke and Wills Highway which goes through New South Wales and Queensland, running from Broken Hill through the Warri Warri Gate across Coopers Creek and heading on through Bedouri, to Mount Isa. These are roads in the far outback of Queensland. I am being asked to wind up, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I definitely have to mention the Burke and Wills Highway. It is most important. The Minister has offered to come up and visit the far south-west of my electorate. I have offered to take him out to Birdsville. We will go to Nappa Merry and have a look at where the road crossing is. It is important that tonight I again mention the shire councils in western Queensland and western New South Wales that are seeking funding. We are seeking funds from the Federal Government for road upgrading and to have a national highway put in place. We look forward to this in the future. It is the sort of road project we should have in mind. I hope that the Minister is prepared to give some funding for this. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(10.01) —I rise to support the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill and to oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition. In doing so I reiterate the views of my good friend the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) when he spoke of the new-found love of roads of the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). As the honourable member for Throsby pointed out, when the honourable member for Deakin was a backbencher he was recorded as saying that the Federal Government should not fund roads. He seems to have recanted that position. I wonder what brought him-- Mr Peter Morris —Who said that? Mr SNOWDON —It was the honourable member for Deakin. He said there should be no Federal funding for roads. I wonder whether he has recanted. Has he spoken to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) about it? Has he said, `Do not fund Federal roads,'? Mr Peter Morris —No, not at all. Mr SNOWDON —There is a demonstration of the goodwill of the Opposition: it has someone representing it on the front bench who does not believe in what he is doing. He demonstrated tonight that whilst he can wax lyrical about the transport policies of this Government, if his coalition were ever in government he would not provide any Federal funding for roads. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), who spoke prior to me-- Mr Ian Cameron —A good member. Mr SNOWDON —He says that he is a good member. I am not a resident of his electorate: it is very difficult for me to say. He said that the Minister was welcome in his electorate. The honourable member for Maranoa visited me in my electorate and I must say that I enjoyed his company. It was just after that that he had some slight trouble when he returned to his electorate. I do not know whether it was because of the influence he came under when he was in my electorate, but when he left he seemed to have a good smile across his face. The speech of the honourable member for Maranoa had very little to do with these Bills. He is prolific in what he says about the social welfare system of this country. We know how archaic his views are. They are almost neanderthal when it comes to social welfare. He does not care about the poor or the impoverished and I dare say he does not care about roads. Mr Peter Fisher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The remarks of the honourable member for the Northern Territory are surely irrelevant to transport Bills. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I have listened to the debate carefully. It is obviously a robust debate. I ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory to direct his remarks to the Bill, and I know that he will. Mr SNOWDON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was going to refer to the importance of social infrastructure to our community and part of the social infrastructure is social welfare payments, as are roads. We need to look after the interests of people who live in remote communities. The honourable member for Maranoa would know that apart from road funding and providing employment it is also very important to make sure that people in remote communities have sustenance and the ability to live. What is the unemployment level in his electorate? I imagine it is 12, 15 or 20 per cent. I suggest that he take some notice of the poor in his community. If he wants those people to vote for him-I dare say he does not because he does not care about them-he should address their issues of concern. I come back to the point at issue here. The Minister pointed out in his second reading speech that these Bills continue the implementation of the recommendations of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry which was initiated by this Government in 1983 and chaired by Mr Tony May. The inquiry recognised the importance of introducing uniformity into the rules and regulations governing interstate road transport. The implementation of its recommendations aims to improve the efficiency of the road transport industry, taking into account the needs of drivers, and also aims to recover more from the industry to cover the costs of road wear. The amendments have two parts. One relates to cost recovery and the other relates to the reform of regulations. Road transport is essential to the economic and social well-being of the Northern Territory, my electorate, in particular, and to Australia as a whole. Anyone who has been there-the honourable member for Maranoa has been there, and I am quite happy to have him back there to show him more of the beautiful place-and seen the distances and isolation faced by many of the rural centres, will be aware of this. The honourable member also understands that although he has a large electorate, mine is 1.3m square kilometres, somewhat larger than his and somewhat more isolated. Of course, if we used the Opposition's principles for representation and democratic elections there would be five Australian Labor Party members for my electorate. Unfortunately, that is not the position. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I want the people of Australia to understand that the Northern Territory has no more people in it than my electorate of Maranoa does. It has 80,000 people on the rolls-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Ian Cameron —and I have 80,000. I get half the amount of road funding that the Northern Territory gets. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Ian Cameron —That is all I am concerned about. It is a disgrace. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I again direct the attention of the honourable member for the Northern Territory to the question of relevance. Mr SNOWDON —Kangaroos are a very important problem in the Northern Territory. I notice them as I drive on the roads in the Territory. As previous speakers have said, it is very important to have safe roads which are well made with wide verges. The honourable member for Maranoa should know that if one drives on bush roads with plenty of kangaroos, emus and other wildlife one tends to hit them. If Opposition members count sheep and beef cattle as voters, I want to count the roos. Mr Ian Cameron —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member should withdraw that statement. There are more kangaroos in Maranoa than there are in the Northern Territory. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa does not have a point of order. Mr Ian Cameron —There are 80,000 voters on the roll in Maranoa and 80,000 on the roll in the Northern Territory. There are about five times more kangaroos. The dingoes eat all the roos in the Territory. There are a lot more kangaroos in Maranoa than there are in the Northern Territory. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Ian Cameron —As long as you accept that fact. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sure the honourable member will not trouble us again with points of order that are not relevant to the debate. Mr Ian Cameron —I will. If he gets out of order I will get up. Mr SNOWDON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I challenge the honourable member for Maranoa to do a body count on the roads. As we all know, roads are very important to the social and economic infrastructure of Australia generally but very important in my electorate of the Northern Territory. There is a very small manufacturing base there and this means that there is a strong local demand for many items that need to be imported from interstate. Consequently, road freight is of vital importance in providing basic goods and services for Territorians. The Northern Territory Department of Transport and Works report entitled Estimates of Freight Demand by Surface Transport 1986-87 provides a concise picture of the importance of the road system to the Northern Territory economy. It estimated that in 1986-87 714,000 tonnes of freight, excluding petroleum products, moved into the Northern Territory. Fifty per cent of this incoming freight went to the railhead in Alice Springs and was then transported by road. Twenty-nine per cent of it came by road alone and 21 per cent by sea. The bulk of incoming freight, nearly 45 per cent, was foodstuffs and refrigerated goods; that is, basic commodities for daily life. Freight out of the Northern Territory is also dominated by the road-railhead in Alice Springs-67 per cent leaves by that route with 25 per cent being transported just by road. The intrinsic importance of the road system to the Northern Territory is clear when intra-Northern Territory transport is considered. These movements are significant, estimated to total 339,000 tonnes, which is almost half the total freight entering the Territory from interstate or overseas. Road freight accounts for 98 per cent of all intra-Territory freight. The road system to the smaller inland centres in the Northern Territory is of paramount importance. Towns such as Katherine and Tennant Creek, except for the minority of services that are supplied by air, are almost totally dependent on road transport. Most Aboriginal communities, as the honourable member for Maranoa ought to know, are similarly dependent. As well as providing the necessities of daily life, the road system is essential for Northern Territory industrial development. Distance has always been acknowledged as causing a prohibitive cost in the development of the Northern Territory and a good road system is essential to alleviate the burden. The road system provides the basic infrastructure for some of the Northern Territory's major industries. Take the tourist industry, for example. Despite the Country-Liberal Party's claim that the Northern Territory's economic prosperity lies towards our northern neighbours, the reality is that the bulk of the Northern Territory's tourists come from interstate. Only 17 per cent come from overseas. Nearly half of the tourists visiting the Territory enter by road. Once in the Territory, 87 per cent use the road system. Mr Deputy Speaker, I could go on at great length but I understand that time is very limited. The road system provides for more balanced development for the Northern Territory economy. It is important to remember the extent to which transport facilities provide some of the basic infrastructure for economic development, especially in this climate of antagonism to Government spending. It is a means by which the Government substantially underwrites the private sector, as the honourable member for Maranoa ought to know. Commonwealth road programs have provided vital energy for social and economic life in the Northern Territory. The Australian bicentennial road development program has been a major source of funds. I will conclude my remarks very shortly, but I want to point out the importance of road funding to the Australian community. Roads and road transport-related activities employ 500,000 people, or about one in 13 in the Australian work force. Every $1m of road construction expenditure generates about 61 person years of employment. About 77 per cent of all domestic freight is moved by road. The competitiveness of Australian exports is dependent upon a good and reliable domestic transport system. Roads provide the main form of transport for domestic tourism-82 per cent of travel-and 43 per cent of travel for international tourists. Road-based public transport carries 64 per cent of all public transport passengers in Australia. By the year 2000 total travel will grow by 60 per cent and road freight will nearly double. The total cost of road accidents to the community is approximately $3 billion per year. Australia has built over 800,000 kilometres of road, valued at almost $100 billion. For the sake of the honourable member for Maranoa and other members opposite, let me say that in real terms, in 1987-88 prices, making a comparison between what was spent in the Northern Territory in the last five Budgets of the Fraser Government and the first five Budgets of the Hawke Government, there has been an increase of 93 per cent, from $118.5m to $228.2m. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.12) —The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) established a very good argument as to why roads are important to the social and economic future of Australia. He pointed out to us that they are very important, particularly in country areas. They are the lifeblood of country Australia. The thing he failed to point out to the people of Australia was that in the last five years this country has been governed by the Australian Labor Party and that during that time the Labor Party has not raised the level of road funding in a way that is commensurate with the needs of country Australia and of our economic and social future. We have seen a reduction in road funding of 25 per cent in real terms in the last few years. Next week the people of Australia will see, so we are told, in the May mini-Budget to be brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), an additional reduction in road funding of another 10 per cent in real terms. This kind of reduction cannot be sustained by the people of this country. We see around the country bitumen surfaces on country roads being ripped up-roads that are bitumen surfaced and dirt surfaced that cannot be maintained as they should be. People are involved in needless accidents because this Government is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is and provide sufficient funding for our roads. I am reminded of the deficiencies of this Government in terms of road funding by an article by Mike Steketee that appeared in today's Sydney Morning Herald. The headline of the article reads, `Road funding cuts cost 75 deaths a year, says motorists' group'. It reads: Cuts in road funding during the past three years have resulted in an average 75 additional fatalities and 2,500-3,000 more accidents throughout Australia each year, according to the Australian Automobile Association. It says the figure will rise because of the latest drastic cut to be announced in next week's mini-Budget. More people will be killed on our roads because of this Government's penny-pinching attitude towards the funding of one of the most important facilities in this country. The article continues: Its secretary-general, Mr Bruce Lunn, said yesterday the figure for increased fatalities was based on the delays in improvements to road safety. Road safety is a key issue throughout our community. The National Roads and Motorists Association will tell us that, if the quality of a road is improved to top standard, the number of accidents on that road will be reduced by 85 per cent. The people of Australia are interested in these sorts of figures. Road accidents cost the nation $5.7 billion last year. That is a cost that we can no longer afford. It is a particularly relevant issue in my electorate of Gilmore because the busiest highway in Australia, the Hume Highway, runs through it at Goulburn. A large number of interstate transports travel on it. I believe that a statistic some years ago indicated that a semi-trailer travelled down the main street of Goulburn every 70 seconds every day of every year. That highlights the need for good roads. The Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill will increase the maximum permissible weight an interstate transport may carry on our highways. It will also increase the maximum permissible speed at which one of these vehicles can travel on our roads. Whilst these things are of great benefit to road transport operators, they also highlight the fact that when the axle weight of semi-trailers and the speed at which these trucks can travel on our highways are increased, we also increase the rate at which our highways and roads deteriorate. That is why road funding is a key issue in this debate. The electorate of Gilmore has for a long time looked forward to having better roads. In 1982 when the Australian bicentennial road development (ABRD) program was first announced, people were promised that the Goulburn bypass would commence in 1984 and be completed by 1988. There is no sign of it today. In fact, we will not see any sign of it until the 1990s. During this delay there have been unnecessary deaths on a road that should bypass Goulburn. On the Cullerin Range bypass between Goulburn and Gunning, one of the most dangerous sections of road in Australia, we see major accidents every week. Why? Because the Government is not providing sufficient funding for our roads. Why? Because the Australian bicentennial road development fund has had money taken from it that should have been spent on roads. When Labor first came to power it said, `We will try to take the money out of the ABRD and spend it on other matters'. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) highlighted how the Government had wasted money that should be spent on roads and allocated it to other areas. Hundreds of millions of dollars paid by the motorist at the petrol bowser through the ABRD scheme has not been spent on roads, as it should have been. In the process needless accidents have occurred. According to the Automobile Association of Australia there are an extra 75 deaths a year and 2,500 to 3,000 needless accidents a year because the money that the motorist pays at the petrol bowser to this Government is not being spent on roads. We are paying in excess of $5 billion at the petrol bowser each year towards improving our roads, but that money is not spent on roads. About 20 per cent of it goes towards improving the roads. This Government will be judged on that policy when it goes to the people at the next election. The people in country Australia are sick and tired of driving on roads that are not up to a satisfactory standard. They are sick and tired of having accidents that should not happen. They are sick and tired of hearing rhetoric from Government Ministers about the wonderful job they are doing to improve our roads. In the next two years this Government has an opportunity to establish its credibility with the people who use our roads-the motorists and the country people of Australia. I doubt whether it has the will or the determination to do that. I doubt whether it is prepared to allocate a greater proportion of the fuel excise that is paid at the petrol bowser towards our roads. I assure the people of Australia and the Parliament that we on this side of the House, the Liberal and National parties, are determined to do a better job for roads. We are determined to allocate a greater proportion of the fuel excise towards roads. We are determined to give a greater priority to roads throughout Australia so that we can save lives, improve the quality of life in country areas, prevent needless accidents, and ensure that the future of this country-to use the words of the honourable member for the Northern Territory, the social and economic future of this country-is preserved by the building of bigger and better roads for the benefit of this nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I call the honourable member for Herbert. Mr Beale —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I draw your attention to the fact that it is 10.20 p.m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not yet 10.20 p.m. The honourable member for Deakin will resume his seat. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.19) —Over the past five years I have been involved in virtually every debate on road transport policy in this House-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is now 10.20 p.m. I do not need the assistance of the honourable member for Deakin in reading the clock. The time allotted for the second reading stage of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Beale's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Ronald Edwards) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Kerin, J. C.Bilney, G. N. Kerr, D. J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Lamb. A. H. (Teller)Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lavarch, M. H.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. J.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Sawford, R. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Grace, E. L. Sciacca, C.Griffiths, A. G. Scott, J. L.Hand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Snowdon, W. E.Hollis, C. Staples, P. R.Howe, B. L. Theophanous, A. C.Humphreys, B. C. Tickner, R. E.Jakobsen, C. A. Uren, T.Jenkins, H. A. West, S. J.Johns, G. T. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Wright, K. W.Kelly, R. J. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Sharp, J. R. Edwards, HarryShack, P. D. Fife, W. C.Sharp. J. R. Fischer, TimShipton, R. F. Fisher, PeterSinclair, I. McC. Goodluck, B. J.Smith, W. L. Halverson, R. G.Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M.Taylor. W. L. Wilson, I. B. C.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Duncan, P. Hall, SteeleFatin, W. F. Spender, J. M.Hayden, W. G. White, P. N. D.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. The Bill. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support)(10.28) —I move: Clause 5, page 2, line 40, after ``places'' insert ``or for any purpose that is incidental to carriage of that kind''. This further amendment corrects a technical oversight in the drafting of the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill, to give effect to the inclusion of incidental powers as specified in the principal Act. It ensures consistency in interstate road transport legislation. The amendment, as part of the overall package moved by the Government, further improves the progress that has been made by the Government in the interstate road transport industry. I found it rather disappointing that in the contribution from the Opposition very little of a positive nature was said about the interstate road transport industry. Mr Beale —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The Minister is not speaking to the amendment; he is speaking to the Bill. He should be asked to sit down. The CHAIRMAN —Order! As I understand it, the Minister is trying to explain the amendment. Mr Beale —No, he is not; he is speaking to what the Opposition said on the Bill. He should be asked to sit down. Mr PETER MORRIS —The Committee is taking the Bill as a whole. The remarks I am making relate to all of the clauses of the Bill. As I was saying, it is unfortunate that there was not support from those opposite for the clauses of the Bill and the achievement and the progress we are trying to make with this Bill. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the time allotted for the committee stage of the Bill has expired. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that the Bill, as amended, be agreed to and that the Bill be reported with an amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.31) —It is a great shame that these Bills-the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill-have been guillotined. Our shadow Minister moved an amendment in relation to the legislation. These are some of the most important pieces of legislation that this Parliament could ever discuss. There is no greater domestic problem facing Australia today than the condition of our roads and transport. I could deal very succinctly with some of the arterial roads and the rural and local roads, right up to the national roads; but I do not intend to do that. I will deal very quickly and broadly with the importance of adequate road funding in this country of ours. Australia is a country of great wealth as far as our natural resources go. Mr Brumby —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I understand that under the Standing Orders the speaker is required to speak to the clauses of this Bill rather than make a general second reading debate speech. Mr COWAN —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the amendment that has been moved by the Minister refers to clause 12a, which refers to `the carriage of passengers or goods between prescribed places'; so I point out that I am in order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I simply encourage the honourable member to direct his comments to matters arising out of the amendment in the committee stage. If he is doing that, I am sure that he will be quite in order. Mr COWAN —I certainly would be pleased to do so, because I will refer basically to the safety and efficiency of the carriage of goods and passengers on our roads. Mr Peter Morris —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am reluctant to draw your attention to the contribution by my colleague and good friend the honourable member for Lyne, but last evening the Chair was quite scrupulous in its enforcement of the Standing Orders governing the third reading debate. Mr Porter —You have a guillotine and now you will not let him speak. You are mad. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will resume his seat and he will be silent. He will withdraw comments reflecting upon the Minister. Mr Porter —I withdraw the reference to the Minister being jackbooted. Mr Peter Morris —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Standing Orders require that the third reading debate be confined to the Bill as reported. It does not provide an opportunity for a regurgitation of the second reading debate. Much as I admire my colleague, I ask that you rule accordingly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —On the matter raised by the Minister, let me offer the honourable member some guidance, in precise terms, as to what he may do in the third reading debate. The scope of debate is more restricted than at the second reading stage, being limited to the contents of the Bill, that is, the matters contained in the clauses and schedules of the Bill. In order to avoid opening up or repeating debate on matters discussed on the motion for the second reading or during the committee stage, the debate on the motion for the third reading is limited to the Bill as reported from committee. Clauses may not be referred to in detail in the third reading debate, nor may matters already decided in committee be alluded to. I offer that advice to the honourable member, to assist him in framing his comments appropriately. Mr COWAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) and I have many things in common because we represent the areas of Newcastle and the north coast of New South Wales. We are in a similar situation to that of the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). We have roads that worry us immensely. The Opposition is rather disappointed and sorry that the Minister has been unable to get from his Government extra funds for these roads. The loss of 25 per cent of the money that was to be spent on roads throughout Australia over the last five years is of very grave concern, I am sure, to the Minister and certainly to me. I wish to refer to this one point: we are told by the National Roads and Motorists Association, which produces excellent reports on the roads of the State, that by the year 2000 there will be 60 per cent more heavy vehicles and passenger vehicles travelling the roads of New South Wales. Therefore, it is necessary that we have adequate funding and planning now to enable our road structure in Australia to cater adequately for the demands of industry and people over the years to come. That is why I stress the point that the legislation before the House and this debate are so important in putting emphasis on this great need that this country of ours has. I do not want to go on; but, as with all legislation concerning roads or bridges that comes before this House, I do want to stress that it is the Commonwealth that collects the petrol taxes and supplies the money to the States, both from the personal taxation fund, by way of the 2 per cent levy, and also from the taxation on every litre of petrol bought in this country. So, if the States do not receive the money from the Commonwealth they will not have the funding available to complete the national highways. I give the Minister credit for trying to complete the road through to Newcastle to join the Pacific Highway, to give us a better road; but there are other stretches of the Pacific Highway that badly need attention in the fastest growing and most important part of Australia. We wish the Minister well. The Opposition will back him. I assure him that he will have my support, and the support of every other member on the Opposition benches, in every effort that he makes with his Government to get additional funds. Some of the Government's back bench members are saying, `We agree with you'. Western Australians and Victorians also agree with me. Is this not sufficient evidence to show both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that we need extra money for roads? Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr COWAN —The whole House agrees that expenditure on roads is of the greatest importance in this country from a domestic point of view, outside of defence-I will never decry defence-and our foreign requirements, in order to cope with the demands of industry and to foster the exploitation of the great resources of Australia. I assure the Minister that he will have our support right down the road. We hope that he can retrieve that 25 per cent of road funding. He must not let the Government take that $50m off him, whatever he does, because that will not help things. He must reverse that decision and give a defined amount from every litre of fuel that is purchased in this country. For goodness sake, let him say, `This is the amount of money that will go-- Mr Peter Fisher —At least 6c. Mr COWAN —At least 6c. New South Wales takes more than 6c. Let him say, `This is the amount of money that will go back to the maintenance and the rebuilding of roads in Australia'. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 26 April, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.40) —As my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) has already said, it is difficult to imagine more serious legislation being debated in this chamber than the legislation before the House at this moment, because the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill relates to the most fundamental aspects of our economic and social infrastructure. That is undoubtedly true at least for those of us who represent country areas. To a certain extent, it is also true of members who represent urban electorates. The simple figures and facts betray, undoubtedly, the Government's attitude to road funding. The revenue from customs and excise totals some $5 billion. Of that, a measly $1.2 billion is returned for road funding. That is all-probably one-fifth in round terms. Put even more simply, so that anybody in this chamber or outside it can properly understand the dimensions of the Government's fraud, excise is about 20c a litre. That is what every motorist pays. But only a little more than 5c a litre is directed towards roads. Mr Hollis —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. As I understand it, the third reading debate is very restrictive. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill is a very narrow Bill. I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member for Gippsland, but his wide ranging speech is most inappropriate to this quite narrow debate; and, on the precedent that was given last night by the Chair on keeping all speakers closely to the Bill, I would ask you to direct the honourable member for Gippsland to observe Standing Orders and contain his comments to the rather narrow range of this Bill. Mr Griffiths —The only bloke who owns his electorate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The Chair is about to make a ruling if the honourable member for Maribyrnong will be a little quiet. In relation to this matter, I did rule in the earlier debate. I think all honourable members will understand that the third reading debate is somewhat more restricted than the second reading debate. But I note that this Bill relates to charges, and it was clear that charges to recover road wear costs of vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce is one of the subject matters addressed by the Bill and, provided the member contains his remarks to matters relevant to it, I will continue to hear him. Mr McGAURAN —All of us well understand the sensitivity of Government members, given that next Wednesday night, when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) delivers the mini-Budget, it is almost certain-unless there is some last ditch attempt by Government backbenchers-that a further $50m will be cut from the already meagre road funding budget. There is simply no fat in that budget. It simply cannot be cut back any further. Indeed, there is a very strong argument-a convincing, compelling one-that the budget ought to be added to. The members of the Government are desperately worried that the Treasurer has chosen the wrong area in which to prune Government expenditure. Quite frankly, cutting off $50m more will cost lives. It is not just an economic argument or one about social communities, transportation and communications; it is also about lives. Police can take one to black spots in my electorate and in other areas and blame the state of roads for the fatalities. Mr Hollis —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am reluctant to interrupt again, but there is nothing about road safety or $50m in this Bill. The honourable member for Gippsland should be directed to keep his comments-as the members of this House were directed last night-to the constraints of the third reading debate. There is nothing about road safety in this Bill; there is nothing about $50m. So I ask you to rule accordingly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Throsby has asked me to rule in accordance with his point of order. I must say that I did indicate earlier that the third reading debate is somewhat narrower than the second reading debate. It is not to be directed to the specific clauses or amendments, but to the content of the Bill under discussion. In this case that is the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill, which provides for charges to recover road wear costs of vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce. I think the honourable member should devote himself to discussing the matters that arise out of this particular Bill, having in mind the constraints of the Standing Orders. Mr McGAURAN —I refer the House to clause 3 (4) of the Bill which states: The amount of charge in respect of the registration of a motor vehicle shall not exceed: (a) in the case of a prime mover with 3 or more axles . . . $5,000. Truck drivers are wondering what they are getting in terms of the condition and safety of roads for these registration charges-some $5,000 for a hardworking truckie who gambles every time he goes out on the roads, not just because of the lunacy of so many motorists and fellow truck drivers but because of the conditions of the roads. There is a moral argument that surrounds the road funding allocation as much as there is an economic and social one. On whatever basis the Opposition puts forwards its concerns, whatever arguments it puts forward, the Government turns a blind eye. To those truck drivers who have their radios on at present and are listening to this debate-- Government members interjecting-- Mr McGAURAN —Members of the Government laugh and scoff but, believe me, they are accountable in many unexpected ways. There are no doubt many truck drivers, in relative terms at least, who are listening to this debate and who know from the interjections as well as the frivolous, fruitless points of order taken that the Government is sensitive, that it has something to hide. The constituents of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) should know just where he stands on these issues. What has he done to preserve the tiny, minuscule road funding budget in place, safe from the Treasurer's cutting knife next Wednesday? He has done nothing. He is not the only one. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), with his supercilious interjections through a succession of Opposition speakers tonight, has been pictured in all his grandeur in the Bendigo Advertiser as somebody who will guarantee that road funding will not be slashed. That is how he likes to present himself, if not actually using those words. Yet he comes in here and pours scorn on those of us who would defend the legitimate interests of our constituents. Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr McGAURAN —This Government has put up a referendum proposal-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr McGAURAN —that would seek the recognition of local government; yet it starves local government of the funds it needs to operate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland is being quite disorderly to continue speaking after I have called him to order. I call the honourable member for McMillan on a point of order. Mr Cunningham —My point of order is that the honourable member for Gippsland has been given a reasonable go by the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, to be within the bounds of a third reading stage speech. He has gone overboard by implying that other members are making claims in local newspapers; then he has to admit that they have not made them. I urge you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to bring him back to the Bill or else sit him down and let someone with a bit more commonsense make a speech in this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think I have heard the point of order. The honourable member will bear in mind the rulings I have made on the context of third reading stage speeches. Mr McGAURAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) is also extraordinarily sensitive. In his own electorate I could take him to places where the asphalt on the roads is being ripped up because there is not sufficient funding to reconstruct and maintain those roads. This is far cheaper. That is an experience to which so many of my National Party colleagues can also relate. So the honourable member for McMillan has again betrayed the interests of his constituents. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will resume his seat. The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill concurrently with the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.51) —Despite the lateness of the hour, the Opposition is particularly concerned that this important legislation, the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill, should be brought into the House at such a time, especially since the substantial number of Commonwealth public servants who are currently beneficiaries under the legislation, as well as all public servants across Australia, will naturally be concerned to know that the Government is proposing to make some fundamental changes to the whole basis of compensation rehabilitation in terms of the responsibilities it has as the employer for the welfare and well-being of employees who may have suffered as a result of their employment. The legislation the House is debating was best described by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in his second reading speech when he said that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a new scheme of compensation rehabilitation for persons who are injured in the course of their employment by the Commonwealth. He went on to suggest that the new proposals were aimed at establishing `a more equitable and cost-effective compensation system with particular emphasis on the rehabilitation of injured employees'. At the outset I should state that the Opposition is of the view that the whole area of Commonwealth compensation leaves much to be desired. The Opposition supports certain aspects of the legislation. On the other hand, the Opposition is gravely concerned about at least two aspects of the legislation. Those aspects are, firstly, the question of the removal of the right of common law access; and, secondly, the question of retrospectivity in relation to the payments that are made to people who are long term beneficiaries under the existing 1971 Act. I will start initially with what the Opposition regards as the good features of the legislation. It proposes to place greater priority on rehabilitation rather than pensions. It is fair to say that it has been the experience over recent years, both in Australia and elsewhere, that undue emphasis on pensions as distinct from rehabilitation has had the result that many people who may well have been able to go back into the work force, although not necessarily at the same level or doing the same job that was previously their responsibility, have been unable to do so. That is clearly an objective of much greater significance than encouraging people to leave the work force. One of the fundamental weaknesses of the 1971 Act is that unless it is possible to replace the officer in exactly the same position he previously held, virtually automatically he is regarded as being a long term retiree and compensation beneficiary. Under the existing legislation, no attempt is made to see whether it is possible in the context of the entire Public Service to place that person in some other function. Furthermore, the legislation suggests that departments and employers, that is, statutory authorities as well as departmental management, should be responsible for paying premiums based on performance. That is, of course, a concept that is well developed in the private sector in relation to workers compensation but it is a new concept in relation to the public sector and one which the Opposition totally supports. Once again, it brings home to those who are responsible for the maintenance of adequate conditions of employment, including adequate protection of employees at their place of employment, the responsibility of paying the bills when, as a result of their negligence, people may well have suffered. We are yet to see what the premium base will be but at least it is a step forward in bringing home to the management of the Public Service that the cost begins and ends with those who are responsible for maintaining adequate standards of protection at the work place. The legislation also attempts to remove double dipping and general rorting of the system. Under the 1971 legislation, there were numerous examples of people being able to claim benefits which under normal circumstances one would have to say there was considerable doubt that they were entitled to. For example, if a person left work at 4.51 p.m., which is the appropriate time in Public Service jargon, on a Friday afternoon and went skiing and subsequently broke his leg or his back, even if he were only temporarily incapacitated rather than being permanently incapacitated, he would be able to claim benefits under the Act. One of the important amendments in the proposals before the House is that the conditions relating to movement to and from work are to be the shortest available route and to the place of one's normal residence. Again, the Opposition applauds that because it is clearly a worthwhile and significant reform. There is a whole range of areas where the legislation is clearly being misused to the ultimate cost of the Commonwealth and certainly not to the ultimate advantage of the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration in this country. The legislation also reduces the ability of employees to exploit the existing provisions for deemed total incapacity. I have referred to that in relation to the provisions of the 1971 Act, which in many respects give employees little, if any, opportunity of getting back into the workforce, often under circumstances where they wished to be re-employed but where their previous employer simply did not want them back. While individual cases must be examined on their merit, it should be the responsibility of the employer, wherever possible, to replace people in the work force, although not necessarily in the same department or at the same level. In an area as broad and wide as the Commonwealth Public Service, it is not asking too much that a serious attempt be made to find people opportunities for re-employment. Finally, the other important point of the proposal is that it provides a reliable income for compensation beneficiaries. I will discuss that in relation to the bad features-namely, the question of the abolition of common law rights. One of the issues in the legislation that should be discussed is the fundamental question as to what are the benefits as distinct from the disadvantages of encouraging people to take lump sum settlements that are often dissipated. On the one hand, many people are not used to using such substantial sums of money or the lump sum settlements are simply not adequate to provide long term financial security. On the other side of that equation is the issue of whether it is preferable to pay such people adequate compensation benefits for the period of their natural lives, both in terms of the employment period they have lost as well as the ultimate period of retirement. It could equally be argued that one of the weaknesses of the proposal is that the ultimate cost saving, which is one of the key elements of the Government's argument in favour of the reforms, will come from the savings that will accrue from a reduction of access to superannuation benefits rather than a reduction of access to salaries or any other area of benefits. The major bad feature of the legislation-and regrettably it is on these two points that the Opposition must vote against the Bill in the committee stage-is that it places an unrealistic reliance on rehabilitation. As I said, time alone will determine to what extent that criticism is valid. It is a new initiative in Australia; it is based upon what can now best be described as a failed system in Victoria, in particular, and similar legislation to Workcare is on the statute book in New South Wales. However, the Opposition is not optimistic that to place significant reliance on rehabilitation will necessarily result in a fundamental or significant change in the number of persons who will be beneficiaries under the workers compensation arrangements. The two elements of the Bill which the Opposition opposes most strenuously are, firstly, the abolition of common law rights, in particular their retrospective abolition for current beneficiaries; and, secondly, the establishment of an additional Comcare bureaucracy which is yet to prove itself and, I think it is fair to say, the Government's failure to provide opportunities to the private sector to insure Commonwealth employees. However, since the decision has been taken by the Government today not to proceed with any aspect of privatisation, I suppose it follows that Comcare will therefore also not be subject to privatisation. The point needs to be made that in due course the injection of greater competition into this area, which will enable the private sector to offer competitive rates of insurance for departments and statutory authorities, could well be a method by which we will be able to make significant savings in the future. One must look at the history of this proposed legislation to get the flavour of what its intentions presumably are. In 1975, honourable members may recall, the Whitlam Government endeavoured to introduce an Australia-wide scheme based upon no-fault compensation. That scheme was based upon a New Zealand model. But it is worth noting that in April this year the New Zealand Government announced a review of the scheme because an enormous cost blowout has occurred. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, Labor governments in both New South Wales and Victoria introduced similar schemes based upon the New Zealand model, which remove the right to common law and replace it with no-fault compensation. In April 1987 the Department of Social Security outlined proposed changes to the Commonwealth employee compensation system and the reform package, including the abolition of the employee's right to institute common law negligence actions against the Commonwealth, was included in that report-and that, of course, is the basis of this proposed legislation. Over the past decade, compensation claims in the Commonwealth Public Service have increased by no less than 200 per cent. I am sure no member of this House would regard that with equanimity. In fact, it is a major cost factor which is now, in terms of long term commitment, nearly $3 billion. Over the same period, compensation payouts have increased by 485 per cent, from less than $40m in 1977-78 to more than $215m in 1986-87. It has been under the Hawke Government that the expenditure blowout has occurred. From 1976 to 1982, the compensation expenditure increased from $21m to just over $75m. However, since 1983, when the Government came into office, expenditure has risen sharply to $215m. This represents a $140m increase in a mere five years. Over that time, workers compensation claims by Commonwealth employees have more than doubled and in some departments claiming compensation appears to be more the norm than the exception. In 1985-86, 67,548 Commonwealth employees made successful compensation claims, out of a total of 546,386 employees of departments and Government authorities. That represents one in eight of the entire work force of the Commonwealth, or some 12 per cent. From the annual report of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation for 1985-86, one is able to see the stark realities of the problem facing us today. Up to 60 per cent of employees of some departments and authorities successfully claimed compensation payments. There are instances in some departments and authorities of successful claims for compensation payments for the most extraordinary reasons. I shall give the House one example. A person failed to gain promotion and was able to go through the procedures of the appeal mechanisms under the existing Act and claim that, because he failed to get promotion, he had suffered mental anguish. And-would you believe it?-for that he received compensation. In the production section of the Department of Defence, for example, 30 per cent, or 4,737 of the 15,600 employees, succeeded with claims. In that department, only 14 failed to get compensation. In the Department of Primary Industry in that period, 31 per cent, or just over 1,000 of the 3,516 employees, made claims, and only 11 failed. In the Department of Territories, 25 per cent, or 879 of the 3,500 employees, made claims, and only 11 lost. In the Department of Housing 24 per cent, or 2,262 of the 9,413 employees, made claims, and a mere 26 lost. In Australia Post, 22.3 per cent, or 8,834 employees of the 37,330, made successful claims, and only 33 failed. Even in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, some 22 per cent, or 234 employees of the 1,124, made claims, and a mere three lost. Need I emphasise more clearly than that the stark realities of the fundamental problems we are facing in the area of workers compensation in relation to the Commonwealth. The report went on to reveal that 428 more Commonwealth public servants retired from alleged invalidity in that year than the 2,599 who retired through reaching the retirement age of 60 years or more. Is it not extraordinary that even in the areas of defence production in the Department of Defence, more people claim workers compensation who are clerks and in non-military categories than actual soldiers, sailors and airmen serving the Commonwealth? In fact, under the old Act, invalidity retirement provides a higher rate of pension than early retirement. I do not think it is stretching the imagination too far to suggest that that has been a most powerful reason why people in their early and later fifties have chosen to take invalidity retirement rather than to work out their normal time-for the simple reason that they get paid more. Under the Bill, Comcare is to be the new Commonwealth Commission to administer safety, rehabilitation and compensation for Commonwealth Government employees. Comcare will replace the Office of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, as well as having additional functions. The objectives of Comcare are said to be: to reduce the incidence of work-related injury and disease by developing better occupational health and safety measures; to provide mechanisms for prompt and effective rehabilitation of incapacitated employees, thereby minimising their incapacity for work and reducing the degree of permanent disability; and to provide adequate financial assistance and treatment to incapacitated or injured employees and to decide claims and deliver payments promptly. The Bill goes on also to suggest that employers will be responsible for providing not only the mechanisms but also the opportunities by which ex-employees or employees who are on leave due to compensation problems will have the opportunity to return to work. What the Bill does not explicitly state is whether Comcare will have the judicial capacity to require departments to employ persons under these circumstances. I make that point for one very important reason: experience in New South Wales in terms of workers compensation has been, over the years, that the private sector, generally speaking, does not wish to take back employees who have been on extended leave due to workers compensation matters. I suppose in many cases they simply see these people as bad risks; and those employees having often been the beneficiaries of lump sum settlements in the common law process, private sector employers do not see that they have any further responsibility or legal requirement to take them back. Therefore, for that reason, it is important that we do not necessarily draw too close a comparison between conditions in the private sector and those in the public sector. The point I am emphasising is this: I am not convinced that the Bill as currently drafted will ensure that the maximum opportunity is taken within departments and authorities to ensure by any reasonable yardstick that employees are given the opportunity for re-employment. If that is not the case, it follows that the whole basis of this proposed legislation, which is rehabilitation rather than compensation, may well fall to the ground. As I said earlier, it is nevertheless a worthwhile step forward, one which we support. We will have to see how it works over a number of years and, if necessary, make subsequent changes. I refer to the comparison between entitlements under the new Comcare proposals and those under the present scheme. Under the new proposals, weekly benefits will represent 100 per cent of pre-injury earnings for a period of 45 weeks. Under the existing arrangements, those payments are limited to 26 weeks. So there has been a substantial growth. Some people may argue that 45 weeks is possibly too long. We have yet to see whether, for less than permanent injuries, it is necessary for people to take that length of leave. It is a cost area which must be watched very carefully. Furthermore, under the Comcare arrangements, after 45 weeks ex-employees will be entitled to compensation of up to 75 per cent of pre-injury earnings. In many respects that is a substantial improvement on the existing arrangements where there is a statutory limit of $185.70 plus $48.60 for a dependent spouse and a further $23.10 for each dependent child. The significance of that is as follows: the new arrangement of 75 per cent of pre-injury earnings is based on a salary differential, whereas the old arrangement was a statutory amount regardless of what one's income was. It goes without saying that many people with higher incomes suffered grievously as a result of the substantial drop in income which followed under the previous arrangement. Whilst I am sure that all honourable members would share the view that, wherever possible, we should try to compensate people who have suffered grievous mental or physical injury often as a result of errors, misjudgment and so forth, or just sheer mistakes in the hands of their employer, the sad fact is that physical injuries can never be totally recompensed. There is no point talking about 100 per cent compensation. If one has lost one's hand, leg, any limb or any part of any limb, or one's health, that is a major loss which cannot be compensated for absolutely merely in financial terms. Therefore, society needs to understand that important point. Whether one is talking about lump sum settlements, going through common law process, or whether one is taking a predetermined tabulation of the quantities in relation to injuries, this is a fundamental problem we must address. I will now refer to some of the other changes. The awarding of up to 90 per cent of a pre-injury salary for low income earners is a significant change because, as the Australian Public Service is currently constructed, lower wage earners tend not to have superannuation. Although legislation has recently passed this House in relation to 3 per cent productivity arrangements which will to some extent solve that problem, as a general statement lower income earners, especially part time or temporary employees of the Commonwealth, do not have and never have had superannuation benefits. Therefore, to some extent, the legislation gives them a greater level of benefits than it gives people at the higher end of the spectrum where superannuation elements are taken into account. As I said at the beginning of this debate, one can equally argue that a loss for higher income people by simply removing their superannuation rights is not necessarily the best way to overcome the question of costs in this area. The final point in terms of benefits is that payments of greater than 75 per cent of pre-injury earnings will be made if an employee returns to full or part time employment at less than pre-injury earnings. That is a simple and equitable arrangement. If an employee's earnings are greater than 75 per cent, the person should earn that money. There are various other changes in the legislation of some importance-for example, lump sums of up to $80,000 for permanent impairment of at least 10 per cent of the whole person. There is a further significant improvement in terms of the older Act in that a sum of up to $30,000 will be paid for pain or suffering. Under the old legislation there was no provision for any payment for pain and suffering. I refer to some of the other very important elements of the Act. I referred earlier to the problem of common law. As I said, I suspect that in this area we have a fundamental intellectual problem regarding the perception of the role of common law as seen by the Opposition parties and by the Government. As I said, the Bill removes an individual's right to sue the Commonwealth. However, he can still sue a third party-for example, the manufacturer of an object which may have caused the accident in the first place. The Government has argued-and I question some of its premises, but this is the basis of its case-that the common law negligence action as it currently exists has certain characteristics which do not encourage rehabilitation. It claims that it requires a once and for all assessment that may take up to five years to obtain through the courts, during which time social security benefits are paid. The Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, would be well aware that recent amendments to the Social Security Act, which he put through only a few weeks ago, emphasised that up to 50 per cent of lump sum settlements may be recouped by the Commonwealth where benefits have been paid over the period during which the court action may have been in progress. Furthermore, the Government claims that such assessments often result in a delayed return to work because the claimant must demonstrate maximum incapacity until the settlement. It claims that when an employee has determined, with legal advice, to go down the road of common law it is therefore to his advantage to emphasise his incapacity. Clearly, for psychological as well as physiological reasons, during that period it is not possible to apply the requirement for rehabilitation. There may be substance in that argument, but the evidence is not clear cut. Again, these things must be seen on an individual, case by case basis. The Government also claims that compensation amounts from common law actions are not certain-that is definitely so-thereby creating an adverse environment for rehabilitation. Of course they are not certain. The judiciary has to make the judgment as to what extent the person making the claim has suffered grievous physical or mental injury. Clearly, therefore, the quantum which we pay, if it is paid, will vary from case to case. One thing which needs to be emphasised is that the weakness of the proposed law is that people will be able to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). If any- body has looked through the records of the AAT, he would have the gravest reason for concern. One of the principles on which the AAT was established was that effectively it was not meant to be a judicial tribunal-although everybody knows that it is. Secondly, it is not held to precedents. Consequently, a determination from the AAT in New South Wales may have no relationship whatsoever to a similar judgment made by the AAT in some other State. Yet that is the basis of the appeal mechanism which is allowed for in this legislation. At the same time we are not allowed to take recourse to common law. One of the fundamental principles of British justice has always been that if an employee believes that he has suffered as a result of the negligence of his employer, he has the right to sue at common law. One can argue-and I think the Opposition would be quite happy to listen to this argument and make a contribution to it-that because of the cost factors involved there may well be a case for putting a ceiling on the level of compensation which may be achieved through common law. One could even argue that only a person with more serious physical or mental damage could have access to common law. These are open questions which need to be examined. The new New South Wales Government is looking at the issue now. It is an extremely complex area. It is often very difficult to determine compensation for what one person sees as being a serious physiological problem, as distinct from how the person who has actually suffered the damage sees his or her situation. Nevertheless, to remove the right of access is a fundamental infringement of what we see as a basic question of natural justice. The other point which the Government claims as the basis of its position is that the present system inadequately tackles the cost of rehabilitation by focusing on past injuries rather than on future re-entry into the work force. I think I have adequately covered that question. We support the concept of rehabilitation-I emphasise that-but we do not see it as being the sine qua non of all aspects of reform in this area. It is undoubtedly significant but at the same time we must be assured that the judicial rights of individual citizens are adequately protected throughout. It is for that reason that at the appropriate time in the committee stage I shall move the amendment seeking the removal of clause 44, which abolishes common law rights for Commonwealth public servants. I turn to retrospectivity of payments. It goes without saying that people who are permanently incapacitated and who have made their determination on how they are going to live for the rest of their lives should not now find themselves in a situation where over the next seven years they will lose, on average, about $1,000 a year of real income just to get them back to the 75 per cent of final wage, which was the basis of this proposal. We regard that as fundamentally inequitable and unfair. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(11.21) —Unlike the shadow Minister for Social Security, the member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), I give unqualified support to the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill. I think it is a landmark Bill and I think the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and his team ought to be congratulated for the many hours of negotiation and thrashing out that this Bill represents. I shall deal just briefly with the shadow Minister's principal objection to this Bill. It is typical of the Opposition that it always brings up industry protection measures on legislation like this. Of course it has to do with preserving the pre-emptive rights of the legal profession. The only thing that surprised me in the shadow Minister's comments was that he did not opt for a bit of incentivation, like the Americans, whereby the lawyers could perhaps go for a percentage, with their fees being based on the quantum of the damages awarded-the greater the damages, the greater the amount the lawyers get. If one establishes a scheme such as Comcare, with its increased emphasis on rehabilitation and returning people to the work force as quickly as possible, it is absolutely contradictory then to say that they also have common law rights, with all the difficulties they involve. Whether we are talking about public servants or employees in private industry, the increasing oncosts that compensation represents are recognised and governments are being forced to move because of the unsatisfactory outcomes that common law rights have delivered over the years. The honourable member mentioned Transcover and the Victorian system of Workcare. Transcover is in New South Wales. He suggested that Comcare will come up against some of the same problems. But I point out that Transcover seeks to service not a select group of departments and instrumentalities as Comcare does but a whole variety of businesses. Therefore management of individual cases, the relationship between employers and Transcover, would be much more difficult than will be the case with Comcare and its client departments. When we insist on common law rights it involves people going through the court process and being made offers in various stages of negotiations, and they are not confident about which offer should be accepted and which should not. I think the honourable member has missed the point. If we were in a perfect world the best form of workers compensation would be no injuries. We opt to aim for that objective but given that there are bound to be cases where workers are injured, I think Comcare will cover major concerns and make major improvements. I would just like to say that the costs to the Commonwealth, like the costs to private industry, have escalated quite dramatically. Over the last 10 years there has been a 200 per cent increase in costs in real terms, or a 485 per cent increase in nominal terms. What I like about Comcare is its emphasis on prevention, its emphasis on occupational health and safety. I hope that some subsequent speaker on the Opposition side will acknowledge the concerns that the trade union movement has expressed and increasingly taken up in recent days about occupational health and safety. However, it is not only an employee responsibility. Mr Porter —Have a look at the applications for compensation in the Trade Union Training Authority. Mr PRICE —I am sorry, but I do not understand the point that the honourable member is making. Mr Connolly —The Authority has a lot of compensation cases. Mr PRICE —If the honourable member opposite wants to make cheap points, that is his prerogative. The point I am trying to make-maybe the honourable member's supporters disagree with me-is that occupational health and safety remain a concern of and responsibility for employees and employers. It requires a determination on the part of both unions and management, whether in private enterprise or public enterprise, to ensure that proper health and safety objectives are met, that performance is monitored and improvements made. I refer now to rehabilitation. I think that one of the outstanding features of the Bill-something which, I think, the shadow Minister in part acknowledged-is that currently there are something like 300 cases being managed under rehabilitation in the Commonwealth Public Service. I ask honourable members to look at the dramatic increase that is proposed in Comcare-something like 7,500 people are expected to be offered some form of rehabilitation assistance. This really is a dramatic change. I am sure that it is a change that workers in the Public Service will, and should, welcome. I know that as members of parliament who have some responsibility to those workers we on this side of the House welcome that changed approach. As I said, I suppose the Bill has seven major features. One of those features is an emphasis on prevention. The second emphasis concerns facilitating the return to work of injured workers and providing practical assistance to Commonwealth employees who suffer injury through their work. This scheme will improve medical, social and financial employment service available to individual workers. I will run through some of the benefits which have changed dramatically. For example, in the area of rehabilitation, when a worker is off work for more than 28 days the agency or department employing such a person will be required to have a case management plan for that individual in order to sensitively and compassionately bring that person back, as far as possible, into the work force. Of course, this represents a streamlining of a lot of the legislation. There are certainly a lot of equity considerations in this package which I find outstanding. As I said, I will talk a little about the benefits side. I think that the objective is to minimise the number of people who may be injured at work. However, where that inevitably happens and someone suffers a work related illness, injury or death, compensation benefits have been significantly improved. Lump sum death benefits will be increased from $57,780 to $120,000. Weekly benefits for children will be increased from $23.10 to $40.00. The period of 100 per cent of pre-injury earnings will be increased from the present 26 weeks to 45 weeks. Under the present situation, if a worker is unable to return to work after 26 weeks, his weekly compensation payment is drastically reduced to a low, statutory flat rate. Under Comcare, after 45 weeks, compensation will continue to be paid at 75 per cent of pre-injury earnings. Those pre-injury earnings, incidentally, are not calculated on the worker's base income, but will take into account things such as overtime and allowances and the fluctuations in a year of the way in which a person might earn that income. In other words, profiles will be built up. For example, if a person happens to be injured while he is not working overtime or receiving an allowance which he would receive at another time, that will be taken into account. For so many lower paid workers in the Public Service who are dependent on overtime or allowances, this is an important step forward. Lump sum payments for permanent injuries will also be increased. Up to $80,000-presently it is $57,870-is provided for in this legislation. Additional amounts of up to $30,000 will be paid for pain and suffering. This payment for pain and suffering will be on a no fault basis. The existing system allows for a pain and suffering component if the fault or negligence could be proved in common law. These lump sum payments for both permanent impairment and pain and suffering will be made in addition to the compensation payments outlined earlier. This is a significant departure from the present system whereby lump sum payments instead of weekly payments are paid to totally incapacitated workers. Low income earners in receipt of compensation payments will be protected. A floor will be placed under earnings-related payments to low income earners. Where payments would have otherwise fallen below the floor-which, incidentally increases with the number of dependants-payments of up to 90 per cent of prior earnings will be payable. Household and attendant care services will be provided for under this legislation. One hundred per cent of attendant care of up to $200 per week can be paid. To maximise the benefit of the attendant care allowance and to avoid double taxation, the allowance will be paid directly to the provider. Under the present system the attendant care allowance is only $32.30 and it is paid to the worker, who must then pay the attendant. Fifty per cent of household care costs up to a maximum of $200 can also be claimed under Comcare. Medical costs will be paid by Comcare instead of by the agencies. This will ensure faster payment. Injured workers will receive rehabilitation or retraining that was not previously available, a significantly enhanced work environment, improved lump sum payments for permanent impairment and pain and suffering, and a far better level of remuneration for a far longer period while actually off work through work-related injury or illness. I briefly take up a couple of points that the honourable member made and with which I agree. I think that both sides of the House welcome this Bill. I certainly do. We will have to see how it operates and make adjustments. That is the case with every piece of legislation that is introduced. I am sure that it will be the case in this regard. In conclusion, I fully support the Bill. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.33) —This is an issue of enormous significance to the Public Service of this nation and to the nation itself, yet the Government is gagging legislation. It is intent on allowing just over one hour to debate it, at midnight on Thursday night, the last night of this week's sitting. The Government is clearly applying the jackboots in an attempt to limit debate on the fundamental flaws in this legislation. As we have already said, we support the thrust of the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill to the extent that it provides for appropriate levels of payment to employees who have suffered a work-related injury or disease and provides incentives to return to the work place following rehabilitation. But to the extent that the Bill seeks to remove an award already granted to an injured employee or to restrict a person's longstanding right of access to the courts under common law, we cannot support it. The Bill also seeks to stem the escalating costs of the Commonwealth employees compensation system. As has already been indicated in this debate by speakers on both sides of the House, there has been a rapid escalation in payouts. Since 1982-83, total annual payments made under the Commonwealth Government employees compensation scheme have doubled even though the number of employees covered under the scheme has decreased. In 1986-87, the Department of Social Security, which administers the program, paid out over $215m for 80,000 recipients who qualified for compensation payments for work-related injury or disease. Over the last few years, the rapid increase in the total Commonwealth payout for compensation cases indicates clearly that changes are needed. The compensation scheme must be fair and equitable without providing an incentive for employees to rort the system. The rapid escalation in costs is due in part to mismanagement and abuse within the system. There has been a lack of incentives for rehabilitation and there have been anomalies in the manner in which the current system has been structured. In his 1986-87 annual report, the Commissioner for Employees Compensation states that the biggest single reason for a significant reduction in the rate of growth in expenditure for claims during that year was the fact that the Commission had brought a large proportion of claims processed under the direct control of the Commission itself through its branch offices. The Commissioner's comments regarding the importance of effective claims management for cost control within the system are given more weight by the fact that agencies still processing their own claims typically have a much higher claim rate than areas whose claims are processed by the Commission. Given that fact, I strongly recommend that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) give serious consideration to claims processing capabilities before exercising the authority given to him under clause 99 of the Bill which allows him to declare a Commonwealth authority to be an administering authority for purposes of this legislation. I understand that Australia Post is one of the first in line to be considered for this administrative role. I remind the Minister that during 1986-87 Australia Post had one of the highest claim approval rates in the country and a claims disallowance rate well below the national average. So before rushing off and allowing these authorities to undertake their own claims processing, I draw the Minister's attention to the Commissioner's comments. If his comments are right, more needs to be done within those authorities to prove their capability to handle the claims. As I have said, cost blow-outs in payments have also occurred because the compensation system has been used on occasions by departments to retire employees who have been determined to be in excess of the personnel needs of the department or by employees seeking to retire with more than just their normal retirement benefits. I have raised this problem before. The 1986-87 annual report of the Commissioner for Superannuation indicates that the largest single group of pensioners under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme are those who have taken invalidity retirement-36.6 per cent on invalidity retirement versus 31.1 per cent on age retirement. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation has indicated that more than 26 per cent of permanent compensation cases are invalidity retirees who are receiving both compensation and superannuation payments and are receiving more in total Commonwealth compensation than they were while in the Commonwealth's employment. Unfortunately, a large percentage of these double dippers have been invalided out with diagnoses which at times prove difficult to substantiate one way or the other-diagnoses such as back injuries, sprains and psychiatric conditions. Undoubtedly many of those were genuine, but some we must be suspicious about. Fortunately, this Bill eliminates incentives which the anomalies of the current system provide for employees to seek this double compensation. Those anomalies were never intended. Equally, the incentives for employers to offer invalidity retirement to excess staff as a solution to the problem of excess staff has also been eliminated. The system of compensation for Commonwealth employees should be such that there always exists a greater incentive to work than to take compensation payments in lieu of work. Over the years there have been widespread reports of abuse of the compensation scheme by employees who would rather take a prolonged sickie than work. It is not difficult to imagine from where these reports come. For example, the report of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation for 1986-87 lists among the Commonwealth departments and authorities, the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. During the year on which the Commissioner reported, that statutory authority had 129 employees, and 56 workers compensation cases. I was a bit surprised to read those figures, so I endeavoured to find out what was happening in the Corporation, so I rang it up. Given the high figure of compensation cases, I was not surprised that no-one was there to answer the telephone. The Bill contains provisions which, apart from eliminating simultaneous payments from both compensation and superannuation, also limits the amount of compensation payable under the scheme. The Opposition agrees with the basic thrust of the legislation, which is to pay ongoing compensation at more appropriate levels for work-related injuries or diseases. Such levels of compensation, as previous speakers on both sides of the House have said, must be kept under review. The scheme is new and we must ensure that it is equitably applied in practice. Part III of the Bill places emphasis on rehabilitation of the injured employee and outlines the responsibilities of both the employee and the employer. One of the responsibilities of the employer is spelt out in clause 40, which requires the Commonwealth or the authority to take all reasonable steps to provide the employee who is undertaking or has completed a rehabilitation program with suitable employment or to assist the employee to find such employment. The language of this provision does not convey the urgency of finding employment for the rehabilitated employee that is conveyed to departments by the regulations which require departments to find new employment for staff who are redundant or excess to capacity. This raises a real problem because already in the Public Service today are a large number of redeployees. There are thousands of redeployees who have become excess to capacity because of the amalgamation of departments, the great restructuring undertaken by this Government which was going to reduce the size of the Public Service. Even with the strict procedures set down by agreement between the Government, the unions and associations of employees, the redeployment procedures are more honoured in the breach than the observance. I refer to the problem of unattached and redeployed employees in the Public Service because I am aware that a stigma attaches to the rehabilitated employee, just as a stigma apparently attaches to the redeployed employee in the Public Service. Without a better program to re-employ these people, I fear that despite the best intentions of the legislation it will be a dismal failure. On the basis of the Government's record to date, we will just have more unattached paid public servants without gainful employment. I want to concentrate the attention of the Minister on this problem. I have raised this problem before in the House. I have quoted the figures that have been promoted by the Public Service indicating that approximately 4,500 redeployees in the Australian Capital Territory and approximately 15,000 nationally on the Public Service payroll are looking for gainful employment. Those people are now going to be joined by the rehabilitation cases. I repeat that, unless the Government gets its act together, people may well be rehabilitated through this legislation but there is a very good chance that they will join the growing queue of Public Service employees who are sitting around in departments not gainfully employed. The Minister responsible for the Public Service has admitted that there is a problem. It is high time the Government did something about it. Certainly I have highlighted it in this House on a number of occasions. So far we have seen no action at all. One of the responsibilities of the employee is spelt out, as I have said, in the legislation. Clause 40 requires the Commonwealth or the authority to: . . . take all reasonable steps to provide the employee with suitable employment. Already we have thousands of redeployees who are looking for gainful employment. I repeat that I have grave reservations as to whether the Government will be able to find jobs for the people rehabilitated under this scheme. If the Government is not prepared to concentrate on fulfilling that goal, the whole thrust of the legislation falls to the ground. There are two other points I want to make. Firstly, clause 44 of the Bill attempts to eliminate the rights of access of employees to common law. Access to common law is a longstanding right that should not be abrogated for the sake of alleged expediency, economy and making life easier for the Commonwealth and its authorities, or on the grounds that the Commonwealth knows best in every case for the employee. We reject that submission by the Government. The right to pursue a remedy at common law where an employee suffers an injury as a result of the negligence of the employer is longstanding and should be retained, especially in the face of arguments as unconvincing as those that have been offered to date by this Government. Division 3 of part X of this Bill introduces transitional rules which make certain provisions of this Bill applicable to former employees who have already been awarded compensation under the existing Act. This is the second point I want to make, on what I believe is another of the fundamental flaws in the legislation. We oppose the retrospectivity of these provisions which reduces the awards that are already made. An award once made in accordance with existing laws and regulation should not be diminished on the grounds of cost savings. We are therefore proposing an amendment to the Bill which would allow former employees on permanent compensation awards to remain covered under the pre-existing Act. The transitional provisions of the Bill will apply to probably fewer than 3,000 recipients of permanent compensation. These recipients have been awarded compensation under existing rules. They have certain reasonable expectations regarding the continuity of these benefits and have made their life plans accordingly. Subsequently to change the rules for these beneficiaries in midstream is simply not fair. These recipients should be allowed to play out their innings and the new rules against payment of two benefits simultaneously should be applied to future cases. Mr Howe —You say that in opposition. Mr PORTER —As I have said, the Opposition agrees with the thrust of the Bill, provided the fundamental flaws are remedied, as proposed in our amendments. I conclude with a response to the Minister's interjection. He suggests that there are two rules, one for when one is in opposition and another one for when one is in government. I believe that the two fundamental flaws in this Bill which I have alluded to-the common law and the retrospective action of this legislation-are principles which, regardless of which side of the House one is on, I would have thought this Minister, who talks so much about social justice and equity, would-- Mr Howe —I concede that on common law, but on the second issue there is a question of equity, is there not? Mr PORTER —Well, we have got at least one concession tonight. The Minister has conceded in respect of common law but he is prepared to take existing-- Mr Howe —Seeing that you are talking from principle; on that I agree with you. Mr PORTER —I am glad for at least that concession. There seems to be a sudden dawning at this late hour-the Minister has seen the light. Beneficiaries who have been subject to awards have made their arrangements as a result of those awards being handed down. The Minister now wants to turn around and change their entitlements which were made by tribunals. I think that is an extraordinary application of the law. There is no doubt that the legislation has retrospective action. Those people have already made their plans. I am firmly against retrospective legislation and I have voted against it previously in this House. I have even crossed the floor and voted against my own Party in relation to that principle. The Minister says that one maintains these principles only when one is in opposition, but one will not adopt them when in government. I suggest that the Minister look at my voting record. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(11.52) —It is a great pleasure to speak at this very late hour on the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988. I have had quite a bit to do with this Bill in discussions with the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and other people in the community, and I would like to thank him for involving me in those discussions at a very early stage. Commonwealth employees compensation is something which should be important to every member of this House and the other House. A lot of people working for the Government certainly need proper protection and proper compensation. This important piece of legislation covers many Commonwealth employees. It is designed to improve long term benefits for these employees, particularly those who are unfortunate enough to have sustained an injury or incapacity during their work. It is also designed to provide an expanded range of services and better payments. The point was made by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) about the cost of the previous scheme that undoubtedly was expanding at a rate that could not be sustained by the Government. But, really, this Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill is not just a cost cutting measure, and it should not be seen in that light. It is going to provide Commonwealth employees with a much better set of circumstances should they be unfortunate enough to sustain an injury. At present people have access to common law. Both the Minister and I have had discussions with a number of the people in the unions concerned who represent employees in this place and elsewhere and they obviously are worried about the loss of common law access. But that is not to say that they do not agree with the general thrust of this legislation. Some of them obviously have problems but others realise that what the Minister is proposing in this Bill is fair for their own members and fair for those people who work for us. We definitely have a responsibility to ensure that waiting times are overcome, that people have speedy resolution to their problems and that, best of all, they have speedy resolution through rehabilitation to the injuries that they have sustained. That is one of the most important aspects of this Bill, because many of the injuries that are sustained by Commonwealth employees may in fact be worsened because they have not had a proper rehabilitation program. Injuries such as repetitive strain injury (RSI), which I am sure every member of this House is familiar with in some form or another, have been laughed at for years and not taken seriously by employers across the nation, including Commonwealth employers. I suggest to the House that the danger of repetitive strain injury can in fact be minimised by the proper use of ergonomic furniture and proper employment practices. Part of the role of Comcare will be to advise employers in the workplace how they should be treating their staff and how their staff ought to be working. Obviously, if one has an RSI injury and runs around to 15 doctors-which obviously has happened in some cases-there will be a situation where one will not get appropriate treatment quickly. There is also a fear on the part of the employees that they will not be taken seriously by their employer and so they do not always report their injury for quite some time. However, I suggest to the House that the type of legislation that is being debated tonight will overcome a lot of those problems, because Comcare itself as a professional institution will be able to assist our agencies, whether it be Australia Post, Telecom Australia or departments of the Commonwealth, to assist their employees out of their injury. That is the main basis for this legislation. It provides for extra payments for people. They get 100 per cent of their earnings for a much longer time-now 45 weeks-and after that period of time they will receive 75 per cent of their earnings. I think that most of the employees concerned will be relieved at that prospect. Also, they will receive additional assistance when they start returning to the work force-and this is an incentive for them to go back to work. As I have said, the provisions of the Bill have been extensively discussed with many representative groups, and they do appear to agree with the general thrust of the legislation. It is hoped that this Bill will be followed by another Bill in due course that will deal specifically with the occupational health and safety of Commonwealth employees. I know that the Minister would like to have had that Bill introduced at the same time. It relates to this legislation and it is definitely necessary. While redress under common law may no longer be an option, the improved benefits should make up for this loss in most circumstances. Furthermore, there will be fewer delays in payouts for people who are not able to be rehabilitated. Because rehabilitation will be the responsibility of the employing agency, early attention to workplace injuries is expected. Some unions have expressed concern about this aspect of the Bill, that is, the employing agency taking control of the rehabilitation process. That is because they do not have a great deal of confidence in the employing body to administer the rehabilitation program. However, I believe that their concerns can be overcome with careful education of employers regarding the objectives of the scheme. Comcare's supervisory and monitoring role is a valuable buffer in these situations. I am sure that where there is this lack of confidence on the part of some of the employees that will be overcome because of the advantages of the employer administering the scheme and also because of the advantages to the employer of making the scheme work in the financial sense. The current scheme holds no incentives for the employing body to assess incapacity speedily, as I mentioned earlier. Neither does the current scheme provide incentives for workers to return to work early. On the contrary, there was previously an incentive to remain off work while awaiting consideration of a court case. That is not to say that workers were malingering. I do not intend that at all, but certainly where a court case was pending an injured worker would have been advised by his legal representative to ensure that he got the best payout possible. That payout was only going to be forthcoming if the person was still sustaining an injury. So, I believe that the current system certainly has made people's injuries much worse than they might otherwise have been. The objectives of the scheme are to reduce the incidence of work related injury and disease, to provide prompt and effective rehabilitation, and to provide adequate financial assistance and treatment for incapacitated or injured employees. There is a very important minimum floor to protect workers on low incomes and an acknowledgment of the costs associated with family responsibilities in these circumstances. The case management approach to rehabilitation, which we have discussed before, ensures early intervention. It involves line management and the planning of rehabilitation and return to work of injured employees. It allows progress to be monitored in each case, it reduces the cost of rehabilitation by encouraging in-house treatment and training services wherever possible and provides that the employee is actively involved in the rehabilitation process. I emphasise at this point that the employees will always be involved in discussions of the rehabilitation process and what is expected of them. It is of concern to some people that the Commonwealth Medical Officer's role under the previous system, probably more with superannuation than compensation cases, has been questionable. But I am sure that this will not be a problem because people will be able to have access to their own medical advisers as well as, obviously, to the one who is appointed by the employer. The transitional management arrangements are fair, even though there is obviously a change in the structure of the income expected by people who have already left the Service. The fact that this is an earnings based system is also very important because people have lifestyles to sustain. People who have earned a certain amount of money have based their living on what they earn, and it is very important to attempt, as we are in this legislation, to cover the costs of those people's lifestyles and allow them to maintain them. The value of injured workers is acknowledged by the focus of rehabilitation because an employee should not be made to feel useless as is so often the case at present. Employees and employers will both benefit from improved safety and rehabilitation. This will mean less injury, shorter periods of incapacity and thus lower compensation costs. Comcare will provide improved compensation benefits for half a million Commonwealth employees and will significantly streamline financial administration of the scheme. As I indicated before, 100 per cent of pre-injury earnings will be paid for 45 weeks, compared with the current scheme which pays only 100 per cent of pre-injury earnings for 26 weeks. After 45 weeks, 75 per cent of pre-injury earnings will be paid, whereas currently benefits are fixed at a low $185 per week and there is no reference to current earnings. Increased benefits for attendant care and household services is another important aspect of this Bill which must not be overlooked, because so many people who suffer what might appear to be a minor injury are prevented from carrying out their own household duties and require assistance. I am very proud to be here to assist the Minister on this occasion and to commend the Bill to the House. 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 19-20 May 1988 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Friday, 20 May 1988 Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(12.03 a.m.) —in reply-I would like to thank members of the Opposition and of the Government for their contributions to this debate on what I think is an extremely important piece of legislation. It reforms a scheme which has required reform for I think a considerable period. While the honourable members opposite complain about our tardiness in that respect, I would have thought that it was obvious in the period when they were in government that the scheme needed to be revised. The Government has sought to do that revision in a very comprehensive way. It has taken, as I think the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) would recognise, a considerable period to develop the scheme. We have had the advantage, while we have moved towards legislation, of seeing a quite significant administrative reform occur with the establishment of the State offices, which represent an amazing advance over the system that existed before which relied so much on the delegates within the various authorities. The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), has acknowledged some of the strengths of the Bill. The honourable member for Cowan referred to the emphasis on rehabilitation and premiums being based on performance in terms of the various departments and authorities. There is the removal of double dipping and rorting and the obligation that has been placed on departments to assist people to return to work. There is also reliable and indeed much improved income replacement, with a shift to an earnings related basis, and there is the scheme for compensation beneficiaries. The Bill removes various anomalies and includes payments for pain and suffering. I acknowledge the fact that the Opposition has taken a most constructive approach to this legislation. 19 and 20 May 1988 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 19-20 May 1988 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES I am somewhat puzzled, Madam Speaker, that the Opposition, having been so constructive and having recognised that the Government has made a serious attempt to deal with the faults of the old scheme and the administrative problems that existed, has been critical of the legislation in two principal areas that really go to fundamental questions. First, the basic philosophy of the scheme is questioned. The Opposition cannot really have it two ways. If the proposal is from day one to try to have the worker returned to the work force and to his proper income and if there is a no fault compensation system and the object is rehabilitation, the last thing to encourage is an attitude of mind by the employee that the worse he feels and looks the more likely he is to somehow get more adequate compensation. We have removed the common law provision not because it will save us money-although it will in fact make the scheme less costly-but because we see it as antithetical to the fundamental orientation in this scheme towards getting the worker back into the work force at the earliest opportunity so that he can feel independent and support his family. There is another point involved, but I do not have time to develop it fully. However, I find it absolutely extraordinary that both Opposition spokespeople have, on the one hand, acknowledged that the Government wanted to deal with double dipping and rorts, but on the other hand they have insisted in their amendments that we preserve the possibility of people continuing to receive not only compensation payments at an adequate level but additional payments as well. I point out to the honourable member for Bradfield that there has never been any permanent commitment to pay people compensation forever. To suggest that is absolute nonsense. How the spokesman for the Opposition can talk about retrospectivity, as though somehow we have taken away from people something that is their inalienable, permanent right, amazes me. Indeed, the whole purpose of this compensation reform is to provide a right to compensation where it is needed and to provide income support at an earnings related and more adequate level while it is needed and no longer than it is needed. We want to provide the right transitional arrangements for people to get back into the work force. I conclude by saying that it is extraordinary that, on the one hand, the Opposition should support the Government for attempting to deal with double dipping, yet, on the other hand, suggest that we should not have the transitional arrangements that we propose but rather should write into the legislation the continuation effectively of double dipping. I fail to understand that, given that the Opposition, particularly through the honourable member for Bradfield, grasped very sympathetically the fundamental philosophy of the scheme Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 19-20 May 1988 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 43-by leave-taken together. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(12.11 a.m.) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 4, page 5, line 14, insert ``(including hours of overtime)'' after ``hours''. (2) Clause 4, page 5, line 16, insert ``or (2)'' after ``8 (1)''. (3) Clause 6, page 12, line 31, omit ``(vi)'', insert ``(vii)''. (4) Clause 23, page 28, lines 21 and 22, omit ``or 20'', insert ``, 20 or 21''. These amendments correct drafting errors in the Bill and are of a technical nature only. The first amendment amends the definition of normal weekly hours to make it clear that it refers to the total hours normally worked by an employee, including overtime. Overtime is defined in subclause 4 (1) of the Bill. The second amendment amends the definition of `normal weekly hours'. The clause as presently drafted refers to a formula in clause 8 (1) for calculating normal weekly earnings of an employee who does not work overtime. That formula is varied under clause 8 (2) where an employee works overtime on a regular basis. The amendment is necessary to include the formula applied in clause 8 (2) as well as in clause 8 (1). The third amendment corrects a drafting error in clause 6 (1) (b) (viii). As currently drafted, the provision has no meaning. The amendment entitles employees to compensation in respect of injuries sustained while undergoing medical rehabilitation treatment and training as a result of a previous injury. It also covers an employee while he is collecting wages, compensation or other monetary entitlements from his employer. The fourth amendment refers to clause 23 (3), which precludes weekly compensation payments where those payments have been redeemed by the payment of a lump sum. As currently drafted, the clause would preclude payments to persons who have retired and who are in receipt of a superannuation pension but would not apply to persons who received their superannuation as a lump sum benefit. The amendment corrects a drafting error. Amendments agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 19-20 May 1988 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Clause 44 (Action for Damages not to lie against Commonwealth etc. in certain cases). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.13 a.m.) —The Opposition wishes to oppose this proposition because, as I said in my speech on the second reading, it runs fundamentally against our belief that former employees of the Commonwealth who were discharged from employment because of injuries or disease suffered as a result of the employment for which the Commonwealth, as employer, has already accepted liability and has agreed by law-that is, the 1971 Act-to compensate accordingly, should if they so wish have the opportunity to have access to common law. It is the belief of the Opposition that employees, under those circumstances, should, under normal conditions, have a choice as to whether they wish to accept the no-fault provisions of the proposed legislation or, if they wish, to seek redress through common law. The proposal before the House does not give that option, and the Opposition believes it is a fundamental removal of natural justice. Therefore, the Opposition believes these rights should be protected. Consequently, the Opposition wishes to oppose the clause. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(12.14 a.m.) —I speak in support of the clause. Clearly, common law has, in the Government's view, been an expensive and inefficient mechanism for compensating injured employees. The necessity to prove fault in what is essentially a no-fault scheme introduces a contradiction to the whole philosophy of the reform of compensation with its orientation towards rehabilitation. I must say that in terms of my initial discussions with the trade union movement, I found that no issue was raised more frequently than that of delays. There is no doubt that in the vast majority of cases the approach that we propose will resolve the problem of delays. Although I am repeating myself, I return to the point that what we are concerned with in this legislation is an orientation towards rehabilitation. 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 19-20 May 1988 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W.Johns, G. T. Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hewson, J. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Duncan, P. Hall, SteeleFatin, W. F. Spender, J. M.Hayden, W. G. White, P. N. D.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 19-20 May 1988 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The CHAIRMAN —It being past 12.20 a.m. the time allotted for the committee stage of the Bill has expired. The question now is that the remainder of the Bill and the Government's circulated amendments Nos (5) to (7) be agreed to and that the Bill be reported with amendments. Circulated amendments. (5) Clause 98, page 69, line 28, omit ``Part'', insert ``section''. (6) Clause 129, page 87, lines 1 and 2, omit ``his or her normal weekly earnings for the time being'', insert ``those normal weekly earnings''. (7) Page 96, Schedule, proposed subsection 48a (9) of the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983, omit ``with the Commission being substituted for the Commonwealth as a party to the proceedings'', insert ``and, where those proceedings are so continued, the Commission and the Commonwealth shall be parties to those proceedings''. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported with amendments. Adoption of Report Motion (by Mr Howe) proposed: That the report be adopted. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.24 a.m.) —Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that this legislation has been subject to guillotine, I seek the agreement of the Minister to my seeking leave to incorporate in Hansard the amendments circulated in my name. Leave granted. The amendments read as follows- (1) Clause 44-Opposition to oppose. (2) Clause 121, page 80, lines 37 and 38, and page 81, lines 1-3, omit the definition of ``combined benefit''. (3) Clause 121, page 81, lines 10-14, omit the definition of ``total benefit''. (4) Clause 121, page 81, lines 15-17, omit the definition of ``1971 amount''. (5) Page 86, after clause 128, insert the following new clause: Division not applicable to former employees ``128a. This Division does not apply to former employees.''. (6) Pages 86-9, omit Division 3 of Part X (comprising the heading and clauses 129 to 135), substitute the following division: ``Division 3-1971 Act to apply to former employees 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 19-20 May 1988 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Application of 1971 Act to former employees ``129. (1) In this section: `Commissioner' has the same meaning as it had in the 1971 Act. ``(2) Subject to this section, the 1971 Act, and the regulations under that Act, continue, notwithstanding the repeals effected by section 137, to apply to former employees. ``(3) For the purpose of the continued application of the 1971 Act and the regulations under that Act to former employees: (a) any functions or powers of the Commissioner under the 1971 Act or those regulations may, on or after the commencing day, be performed or exercised by the Commission; (b) where, immediately before the commencing day, there were pending in any court or tribunal proceedings in relation to a former employee relating to a matter arising under the 1971 Act or the regulations under that Act to which the Commonwealth was a party, the proceedings may be continued after the commencing day with the Commission being substituted for the Commonwealth as a party to the proceedings; and (c) a reference in any instrument to the Commissioner shall, in relation to any act or thing done or to be done on or after the commencing day, be taken to be a reference to the Commission.''. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted. Question put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, John Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, H. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W.Johns, G. T. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hewson, J. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Duncan, P. Hall, SteeleFatin, W. J. Spender, J. M.Hayden, W. G. White, P. N. D.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 19-20 May 1988 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.30 a.m.) —I will be mercifully brief. I am informed by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) that the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1988 covers exactly two employees. It must be the only Bill in the Parliament's history that affects so few people. I thank the Minister for his cooperation in the briefing and so forth that took place on this extremely complex Bill. In particular, I would like to thank Sandra Halley, the chief executive officer of Comcare, and the members of the staff, who at all times have been extremely cooperative. This demonstrates the fact that both sides of the Parliament can work well together in dealing with legislation which is meant to be to the long term benefit of the Commonwealth, although on this occasion we have rightly pointed out two major amendments we would have liked to have seen incorporated in the Bill. The amendments which we referred to in terms of the first Bill, the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill, are equally relevant to the this Bill because it covers the same subject. I re-emphasise to the Minister that although he may not yet have been able to examine in detail the matters that we have raised here today, it would be well worth his while to do so before the legislation gets to the Senate. I understand the Government's philosophical objections to common law. But as I said during my speech on the second reading of the previous Bill, when one still allows access to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and so forth, despite the problems of that instrumentality, it seems absurd then to say that one will not allow even a limited access to common law. These are matters which are worthy of serious consideration. We cannot remove the rights of citizens, as I said in my earlier address, to protect themselves against errors created by their employers and allow employers not to accept full liability for the losses which may result. 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 19-20 May 1988 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The second matter, which we covered in the amendments to the first Bill, is the question of the right of beneficiaries who are already retired to have their rights protected. Some 9,000 people are permanently incapacitated under the 1971 Act. Of those, some 2,000 are already over the age of 65. Quite clearly, therefore, they have to all intents and purposes retired. All we are saying is that the rights of those people should be fully protected. People under the age of 65 should be subject to the rehabilitation arrangements which will be in place in this legislation. But again, their rights to a pension under the 1971 legislation in cases where they remain permanently incapacitated should be fully respected. We believe that this reform is equitable and one which the Government should support. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(12.33 a.m.) —in reply-I will not take the time of the House to rehearse the arguments that we have been through in relation to the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill. I place on record my tremendous admiration for the work that public servants have done on this very important legislation. The former head of the Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, Mr Dennis Corrigan, was in many ways the supreme example of a dedicated public servant. I recall that the first time I met him he talked to me about the need for new administration and new legislation. I am sure that he, from his retirement-without compensation-will much appreciate this legislation as it moves, hopefully, through the Parliament. This legislation, the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1988, is a rare example of the obvious and warm cooperation between the Department of Finance and the Department of Social Security. Officers of both departments have cooperated to achieve creative solutions to what I think everyone agrees are extremely difficult and complex problems. The legislation before us tonight is genuine reform legislation. The public servants who have been closely involved have proved again that, despite much of the criticism that is made of the Australian Public Service, it is able to produce creative and worthwhile reform. 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 19-20 May 1988 19-20 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(12.26 a.m.) —I move: Page 5, Schedule, omit from proposed subsection 52 (4) all the words from and including ``the Civil Commissioner'' to the end of the proposed subsection, insert the following: ``an officer of the Department of Defence authorised by the Secretary to that Department for the purposes of this subsection.''. The effect of this amendment is to correct a minor error. I think that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) remarked that very few employees are actually covered by the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill. I guess it was something of an oversight, a minor error, that the Bill refers to the Office of Civil Commissioner. I am sad to say that that Office no longer exists. The amendment substitutes for this Office an authorised officer of the Department of Defence. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe) read a third time. House adjourned at 12.38 a.m. (Friday) The following notices were given: Mr Beazley to move- That standing order 48a (adjournment of House), as amended by sessional order, be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings. Mr Beazley to move- (1) standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for this sitting; and (2) in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988; Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill 1988; Industrial Relations Bill 1988; Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988; Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill 1988; Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amendment Bill 1988; Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Audit Amendment Bill 1988; Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988; Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988; Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988; Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; and Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1988. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 May 1988. Audit Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 80. Fisheries Act- Copy of agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and East Australian Development Fishing Co. Pty Ltd, dated 4 May 1988. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 81. Public Service Act-Determinations-Nos. 54, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 225 Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: (1) Has Australia Post appointed passport officers in individual post offices; if so, how many have been appointed and in which offices have they been appointed. (2) Why were they appointed. (3) Do they receive additional remuneration for the appointment. (4) Were they specially trained for the appointment; if so, what sum did the training cost and on what was this money spent. (5) If they were not specially training, why not. (6) How many passport applications have been processed in post offices each (a) day and (b) week since 1982, and how many are expected to be processed in each year to 1992. (7) On average, how long does each passport officer spend processing passport applications each day. (8) How are passports processed by the post office. (9) What information does the passport officer require. (10) Are post offices to be connected with an integrated computer network; if so, (a) when will this occur, (b) what sum will it cost and (c) why is it required. (11) Will the computer system be compatible with STRATPLAN; if so, why. (12) If the system will not be compatible with STRATPLAN, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based on information from Australia Post: (1) Australia Post has appointed a total of 15 officers to the position of Postal Services Controller Grade 2 (Passports) in the following post offices: Australia Square Geelong Blacktown Hurstville Bondi Junction Liverpool Caringbah North Sydney Chatswood Parramatta Fairfield Penrith GPO Melbourne Wollongong GPO Sydney The positions at the GPO Sydney, GPO Melbourne and Geelong Post Office are designated as being employed exclusively on passport agency work. Staff engaged in passport agency work at the remaining post offices are required to perform other duties when they are not performing passport work. (2) The volume of passport agency work justified the creation of the positions listed in (1). (3) Staff listed in (1) are remunerated at the level of Postal Services Controller Grade 2. At other post offices, if passport work is performed for more than 30% of any one day and the officer involved is receiving a lower nominal salary than a Postal Services Controller Grade 2, an allowance is payable to make up the difference between the two salaries for the day(s) involved. (4) Prior to commencing this agency service on behalf of the then Department of Foreign Affairs, on 1 October 1983, approximately 4,600 Australia Post staff underwent a formal passport training program. Total costs amounted to approximately $90,000 and were met by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Currently, new Australia Post staff undergo training before performing passport agency work. The type of training provided varies from classroom courses of one or two days' duration to on-the-job training. (5) Not applicable. (6) As indicated in (4), the service has been provided by Australia Post since 1 October 1983. Daily and weekly figures are not available. The number of passport applications accepted at post offices on a yearly basis is as follows: 1983-84-92,000 (from 1 October 1983 only) 1984-85-380,000 1985-86-414,000 1986-87-457,000 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade projections for the next three years are as follows: 1987-88-462,000 1988-89-490,000 1989-90-519,000 In the years from 1991 onwards, the impact of the ``10 year'' passports will start to take effect and it is expected that there will be a decline in renewals of some 10 to 20 per cent per annum. (7) During 1986/87, the occupants of the three designated full-time positions listed in (1), ie the positions at GPO Sydney, GPO Melbourne and Geelong Post Office, each spent approximately 5.5 hours per day handling passport agency work. The occupants of the remaining 12 positions each spent approximately 3.3 hours per day handling passport agency work. At other post offices, the amount of time spent on passport agency work fluctuates according to the level of demand. (8) Passports are not processed at post offices. Postal staff are authorised to accept passport applications, check documentation against the application details, carry out certain basic checks of identity and forward the applications to Passport Offices, which issue passports following processing of all relevant documents by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (9) Australia Post staff interview applicants to ascertain their identity, their Australian citizenship and to ensure that the photographs provided with the application are a good likeness of the applicant. Staff must ensure that the application form is completed correctly and that all relevant documentation has been provided to enable the applicant's entitlement to an Australian passport to be determined. The following documentation is required to be provided by all passport applicants: full Australian birth certificate of applicant showing details of both parents, or Citizenship Certificate if Australian citizenship was acquired by grant of citizenship, or ordinary Australian passport issued since 1 July 1983; two photographs of prescribed size; and other means of identification (for instance, Driver's licence, credit cards, etc). other documentation may be required in particular circumstances, as applicable: Marriage Certificate(s)-if an applicant's name has changed through marriage; previous Australian passport issued prior to 1 July 1983; Court Order(s) relating to guardianship, access or custody of children under the age of 18 years; full Death Certificate of parent(s) of children under the age of 18 years; a Statutory Declaration is required when- a name is changed by Deed Poll and the Deed Poll is not available; a name is changed by reputation (except WA); no place of birth is shown on a birth certificate of a person born in Australia; or a person or persons whose consent is required for the purposes of the application form cannot be readily contacted. (10) Yes. (a) Australia Post is introducing an Electronic Counter Services network into post offices and the larger post office agencies in Victoria, Tasmania and the Gold Coast region of Queensland. This first phase will be implemented during 1988/89 and, depending upon a commercial review of its success, the network will be extended to the remainder of Australia over the next two to three years. (b) Implementation throughout Australia will cost approximately $75m. (c) To computerise post office counter financial transactions. Electronic Counter Services will provide principally for the computerised processing of money orders, agency bill payments, banking transactions handled on behalf of the Commonwealth Bank, and the streamlining of post office accounting and information services. (11) No. (12) There is no known need for the system to be compatible with STRATPLAN. (Question No. 401) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: (1) What steps has he taken or will he take to ensure that the present Australian Public Service directives regarding smoking in the work place are fully observed at all times in all areas of his Department, including the Federal Sea Safety and Surveillance Centre in Canberra. (2) What steps will be taken after 1 March 1988 to ensure that the proposed Public Service directives regarding smoking in the work place are enforced. (3) Does he propose to take any disciplinary action for those public servants who do not comply with the directives; if so, what action is proposed. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question, directed to the former Minister, is as follows: (1) and (2) To ensure that the Australian Public Service directives on smoking in the work place are fully observed within the Department of Transport and Communications, a policy on smoking in the work place, incorporating guidelines issued by the former Public Service Board, has been endorsed by the Department's Executive. The policy provides for assistance to smokers through in-house quit smoking courses or financial contribution towards attendance at other courses. (3) At present it is not envisaged that disciplinary action will be necessary. The preferred approach is to achieve a smoke-free working environment through consultation and co-operation between management, unions and staff and to encourage a spirit of support in the implementation of the Department's policy. (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 —On 28 April 1988 I provided an answer on the advice of the Parliament House Construction Authority (Hansard, 28 April 1988, p. 2367). The answer to the second paragraph of part (11) was incorrect. The paragraph should state: Public tenders were called on 31 October 1987 for the disposal of approximately 600m3 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. (Question No. 604) Mr Blanchard asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) What steps are being taken by the Government to improve the sentencing process, in view of the disparity and lack of uniformity in the sentencing of offenders. (2) Has the Government had any discussions with the State and Northern Territory Governments concerning the improvement of the sentencing process. (3) Has the Government considered the introduction of a permanent body to assume responsibility for the ongoing monitoring of sentencing decisions and the provision of information and services. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government is only responsible for the criminal law of the Commonwealth, the Australian Capital Territory and the External Territories. In relation to offences against the laws of a State or the Northern Territory, the review of the sentencing processes is a matter for the respective Governments. The Government is presently undertaking a comprehensive review of Commonwealth legislation relating to the sentencing of persons convicted of offences against Commonwealth law. In addition it is expected that the final report of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) relating to its Reference on Sentencing will be tabled in the near future. Under its terms of reference, the Commission is required to have particular regard to the need for greater uniformity in sentencing. (2) Yes. For example, the Government has entered into arrangements with all States and Territories other than Queensland, NSW and Tasmania to ensure that the widest possible range of sentencing options are available to federal offenders. In addition the Meeting of Correctional Services Ministers on 15 May 1987, endorsed a National Strategy on Prison Crowding. This strategy is published in ALRC Discussion Paper No 30 ``Sentencing: Penalties''. (Appendix `A') (3) Yes. I refer the member's attention again to the terms of reference given the ALRC. The Commission is to have particular regard to the need for greater uniformity in sentencing and the desirability of establishing a sentencing council, institution or commission for this purpose. When the ALRC made its interim Report (ALRC 15) it recommended the establishment of a sentencing council. The Commonwealth has on a number of occasions sought the agreement of the States and the Northern Territory to establishing a sentencing council. The Government is now awaiting receipt of the ALRC final report on this reference. (Question No. 834) Mr Moore asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 March 1988: (1) Has the National Health and Medical Research Council completed its investigations, at the direction of the former Minister for Consumer Affairs, into whether the chemicals contained in plastic wrapping used in supermarkets are cancer-causing; if so, what were the results of those studies. (2) Have major retailers followed the former Minister's advice which suggested that the PVC film wrapping in question should not be used for wrapping cheese and meats. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Health and Medical Research Council convened an ad hoc working group to investigate the matter. The working group has reported to the Public Health Committee and the report is expected to be released by the Council when it meets in June 1988. (2) Major retailers have advised that their use of plastic films has been reviewed. They had contacted the plastics manufacturers to ensure that correct films are being purchased for appropriate purposes. Retailers are confident that the plastic films are now being used correctly and that all films used comply with the Australian Standard for Plastics Materials for Food Contact Use. The Plastics Institute of Australia Limited is also developing an education program to ensure that commercial users of plastic films for food contact are aware of correct usage. (Question No. 845) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 March 1988: (1) What are the details of the expenditure incurred in ABC orchestras and concerts and is funding to be maintained, increased or decreased in 1988/89. (2) Where were the concerts held in 1987/88. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable members question, based, in part, on information provided by the ABC: (1) CONCERT MUSIC DIVISION- $m Gross Expenses...25.0 less Revenue...8.6 NET EXPENSES...16.4 The same level of funding, indexed for CPI is expected for 1988/89. (2) The tables below set out where ABC concerts were held in 1987/88. The tables do not include orchestral performances relating to opera or ballet seasons, nor do they include overseas tours. 1.7.87 to 30.6.88 Orchestral Recital NEW SOUTH WALES Sydney... 124 11 Newcastle... 5 1 Canberra... 10 3 Albury... - 1 Armidale... 2 2 Tamworth... 2 2 Goulburn... 2 1 Wollongong... 3 - Lismore... 3 - Bathurst... - 1 Orange... - 1 Dubbo... - 1 Penrith... 8 - Parramatta... 1 - Hurstville... 3 - Liverpool... 3 - Homebush... 3 - 169 24 VICTORIA Melbourne... 90 2 Geelong... 6 2 Sale... 3 1 Horsham... 3 2 Hamilton... 3 2 Shepparton... - 1 Wangaratta... - 1 Warrnambool... 3 - Warragul... 3 - 111 11 QUEENSLAND Brisbane... 67 8 Gold Coast... 2 - Cairns... 6 2 Townsville... 6 2 Mackay... 4 2 Rockhampton... - 2 Toowoomba... 4 2 89 18 SOUTH AUSTRALIA Adelaide... 56 3 WESTERN AUSTRALIA Perth... 47 5 Leeuwin Estate... 1 - Geraldton... 2 - 50 5 NORTHERN TERRITORY (WASO) Darwin... 2 - Alice Springs... 1 - 3 TASMANIA Hobart... 42 - Launceston... 16 - Burnie... 6 - Devonport... 5 - 69